Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PVC King » Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:36 pm

PDLL wrote:Just because it may have a public representative elected on a 'Legalise Drugs' platform does not mean that it has a greater problem with illegal drugs than Dublin has. This type of progression from one point to another without any logical relationship between the two points whatsoever suggests that your arguments may suffer from logical deficiencies. Again, this does not build confidence in terms of the arguments you proposed against one-off houses.

What you said above has about as much logicality to it as saying that just because the present pope comes from Germany means that Germany must be the most Catholic country in the world! Scary stuff indeed.


PDDL;

You are the one who introduced drugs into this; the one who introduced donkey jacketed 'yuppies' unloading coal into it. Therefore you should explain how the rural utopia you seem to claim exists can elect a public representative espousing legalisation of an evil so heinous that it gives everyone a right to escape all urban spaces and build whatever they want wherever they want whenever they want.
PVC King
 

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PDLL » Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:48 pm

[quote="Thomond Park"]PDDL]


TP I never argued that rural Ireland was a utopia. All I have argued were the following two points:

1. it cannot be automatically assumed that tax-payers in Dublin subsidize one-off houses in rural Ireland;
2. that one-off houses have a legitimate place in the countryside.

As regards the public reprsentative in Roscommon - is that Ming the Merciless you are talking about (for those of you who don't know him, I am serious)? The guy who developed his ideas on drugs a few years ago while a student at UCG? OK - I's with you now but I am afraid that your argument is in no way strengthened by this point. Oh, ya, Roscommon has a prison - does that mean it has a higher crime rate that virtually every other county in Ireland (as only about 4 others have full prisons to the best of my knowledge)?
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PVC King » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:26 pm

PDLL wrote:
1. it cannot be automatically assumed that tax-payers in Dublin subsidize one-off houses in rural Ireland]

It is a statisitical fact that Urban Ireland i.e. Cork Dublin Limerick subsidise rural areas; as I keep stating most people in these cities have no problem with common benefits such as Old Age pension; police services health care etc. What people do have a problem with are roads being resurfaced a week before an election at the behest of clienist politicians to serve two bungalows on the side of a mountain. This is deeply inequitable and the sums of subsidy run to €bns of euro a year all in.

PDLL wrote: 2. that one-off houses have a legitimate place in the countryside.


Except in very select cases where a farmer requires a house for a son or daughter actively involved in agricultural production. To prevent the widespread fraud that goes on occupancy conditions need to be enforced to prevent sites becoming the main crop.


PDLL wrote: As regards the public reprsentative in Roscommon - is that Ming the Merciless you are talking about (for those of you who don't know him, I am serious)? The guy who developed his ideas on drugs a few years ago while a student at UCG? OK - I's with you now but I am afraid that your argument is in no way strengthened by this point. Oh, ya, Roscommon has a prison - does that mean it has a higher crime rate that virtually every other county in Ireland (as only about 4 others have full prisons to the best of my knowledge)?


So you are basically saying that prisons cause higher crime and not cities; I had never thought of that angle but there could be a certain merit in it. It will be interesting to see what the situation is at the new super prison near ashbourne when completed in a rural area.


Crime and drugs were never my argument; Unlike those arguing for proper planning and sustainable development it is quite common for those arguing for unrestricted one-off houses to paint an unfair picture of urban Ireland stating that Dublin is one 'high density drug ridden slum where if the junkies don't get you the unemployed will'

I suggest you stop digging
PVC King
 

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby asdasd » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:46 pm

It is a statisitical fact that Urban Ireland i.e. Cork Dublin Limerick subsidise rural areas; as I keep stating most people in these cities have no problem with common benefits such as Old Age pension; police services health care etc


Not just untrue but the opposite of the case. The rural areas subsidise the city areas per capita. In other words - as should be obvious - someone paying the same tax in Dublin gets more back from the government in services in his area ( services that in many areas of the world are actually paid by city taxes) than someone living in Mayo. This includes subsidised transport, better hospitals, infrastructure, government services, free water, maintained parks etc.

In countries with Federal systems you pay more to live in cities as you get more back.
asdasd
Member
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2003 4:59 am

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PDLL » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:47 pm

Thomond Park wrote:It is a statisitical fact that Urban Ireland i.e. Cork Dublin Limerick subsidise rural areas]

This is the mainstay of the anti-one-off argument. Please provide me with the statistical breakdown showing exactly how much urban tax payers money DIRECTLY subsidizes one-off houses. Then calculate the net contribution the owners of those houses make to the state through net tax payments, B&B revenues and agricultural incomes and subtract it. Please show me these figures. I am very interested in seeing them as this is what your argument continually falls back on. Surprise, you cannot show me them. Then basically you have no argument - you have conjecture as vapourous as the gasses coming out the back of your car.

Thomond Park wrote: Except in very select cases where a farmer requires a house for a son or daughter actively involved in agricultural production. To prevent the widespread fraud that goes on occupancy conditions need to be enforced to prevent sites becoming the main crop. .


So by this logic, only dockers and the sons and daughters of dockers should be allowed live in Dublins docklands. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you. If a banker should be allowed live there, then surely a banker should be allowed live in a field in Co.Offaly?? Or is there one rule for towns and another for cities?

[quote="Thomond Park"] So you are basically saying that prisons cause higher crime and not cities]

I beg you to at least read what I have written. I asked 'does that mean it has a higher crime rate that virtually every other county in Ireland (as only about 4 others have full prisons to the best of my knowledge)? That is, it was a question asked so as to expose and highlight the ridiculous nature of your argument on drugs in Roscommon. It seems that you didn't get what I was saying. Again, this makes me less likely to accept the arguments you have against one-off houses as your ability ti decipher arguments appears somewhat hampered.

And the stereotypcial picture of gombeen local politics you have painted of rural Ireland is fair, is it? It just throws up all of the old anti-rurla stereotypes used to bash people living in the countryside with about as much sophistication and social depth as a sketch by the d'Unbelievables.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby asdasd » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:49 pm

Old Age pension; police services health care etc


These things are of course, common to the polity as a whole and distributed equally through the State therefore. They would be federal in a federal system. It is absurd to argue that someone from Mayo should get a lower pension because Mayo as a whole contributes less to the pot than Dublin, you have to distinguish between taxes taken as redistributive measures and taxes taken to pay for services.
asdasd
Member
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2003 4:59 am

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PVC King » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:56 pm

PDLL wrote: This is the mainstay of the anti-one-off argument. Please provide me with the statistical breakdown showing exactly how much urban tax payers money DIRECTLY subsidizes one-off houses. Then calculate the net contribution the owners of those houses make to the state through net tax payments, B&B revenues and agricultural incomes and subtract it. Please show me these figures. I am very interested in seeing them as this is what your argument continually falls back on. Surprise, you cannot show me them. Then basically you have no argument - you have conjecture as vapourous as the gasses coming out the back of your car.


An Post Loss 2003 €92m
School bus programme 100m
Non-National Road programme €900m

The list goes on and on.

PDLL wrote: So by this logic, only dockers and the sons and daughters of dockers should be allowed live in Dublins docklands. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you. If a banker should be allowed live there, then surely a banker should be allowed live in a field in Co.Offaly?? Or is there one rule for towns and another for cities?


The banker can only build in the docklands if she has secured planning permission in accordance with the development plan] I beg you to at least read what I have written. I asked 'does that mean it has a higher crime rate that virtually every other county in Ireland (as only about 4 others have full prisons to the best of my knowledge)? That is, it was a question asked so as to expose and highlight the ridiculous nature of your argument on drugs in Roscommon. It seems that you didn't get what I was saying. Again, this makes me less likely to accept the arguments you have against one-off houses as your ability ti decipher arguments appears somewhat hampered. [/QUOTE]

Drugs are not my argument along with crime they are your hysterical argument


PDLL wrote: And the stereotypcial picture of gombeen local politics you have painted of rural Ireland is fair, is it? It just throws up all of the old anti-rurla stereotypes used to bash people living in the countryside with about as much sophistication and social depth as a sketch by the d'Unbelievables.


I think that a comparison between the electoral fortunes of Jackie Healy Rae and Liam Lawlor is valid; nobody is knocking rural politicians in general but many such as the Healy Raes will be brutally honest that they can get you more than you are entitled too under the regulations or section 140.
PVC King
 

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby asdasd » Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:04 pm

An Post Loss 2003 €92m
School bus programme 100m
Non-National Road programme €900m


Add up the cost of Dublin city services, and the subsidy, and work out the exact benefit to someone living in Mayo of those services. The "Non-National Road programme €900m" arguenent is assine. You expect people down the country to pay into a tax program which benefits Dublin infrastructure only.

This is the stupidest argument ever. You seem to believe that the country's tax take - including the tax for pensions etc - belongs to areas of high population density, as the area as a whole pays more into the pot: rather than working all this out ona per-capita basis.

The argument is a valid as claiming that someone who pays 10K a year into a private pension in Mayo is due less on retirement than a similar payee in Dublin, because Mayo paid less into the pension pot as a whole.
asdasd
Member
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2003 4:59 am

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PDLL » Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:12 pm

Thomond Park wrote:An Post Loss 2003 €92m
School bus programme 100m
Non-National Road programme €900m

The list goes on and on..



Well then, if the list goes on and on, lets have it. Before you make ungrounded arguments, lets have the facts. Lets look at the figures you do provide and analyse a little what you are saying:

1. An Post lost 92m in 2003. Is this solely because of deliveries to one-off houses? Might it have to do with other factors like meeting pay-deal commitments, the impact of e-mail on postal services world-wide, increases in fuel costs world wide, increases in insurance costs, etc. Give me an exact figure for how much of this is due ONLY to deliveries to one-off houses]Drugs are not my argument along with crime they are your hysterical argument..[/QUOTE]

Hysterical? I used the issue fo drugs to illuminate a point and for no other reason. From that point of view, I could accuse you of being hysterical abnout pensions!
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PVC King » Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:13 pm

asdasd wrote:Add up the cost of Dublin city services, and the subsidy, and work out the exact benefit to someone living in Mayo of those services. The "Non-National Road programme €900m" arguenent is assine. You expect people down the country to pay into a tax program which benefits Dublin infrastructure only.

The argument is a valid as claiming that someone who pays 10K a year into a private pension in Mayo is due less on retirement than a similar payee in Dublin, because Mayo paid less into the pension pot as a whole.


I reject that this is facism; I am not saying that no money should be spent on non-national roads but what I am saying is that if more and more dispersed housing patterns continue to emerge that the costs of resurfacing roads with very low usage will continue to rise.

Arguably the person in Mayo who paid for a private pension is due more as they contributed to both public and private forms of annuity; I don't get your point.

My overall point on tax is simple; tax should be used to maintain an adequate standard of living and productive infrastructure to the country as a whole; money should not be wasted on subsidising houses in places that are least efficient in the longer terms and have the potential to cause environmental problems.
PVC King
 

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PDLL » Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:35 pm

Allow me Thomond Park to take your argument and that of the anti-one-off brigade to its logical conclusion. Its quite simple – you want society to be structured so that the average tax payer can make the maximum usage out of the minimum amount of good quality infrastructure. That is, why have 500km of poor grade road for 50 people, when you can have 1km of excellent road for 1000 people. Fair enough, ya. Ok, then lets look at this again. Technologically, we can build structures up to .5kms high. Lets say one such structure can accommodate 40,000 people – I don’t know. I am just giving an estimate. Therefore, we could have 25 such buildings in Dublin arranged around a single communication highway (metro and motorway) of about 5km long. So we could rebuild Dublin into 25 standalone buildings. Sounds good in terms of cost-benefit analysis. The motorway connecting the buildings would be of the highest standards imaginable as we would need no other wasteful roads running willy nilly here and there.

Why would we want to put everyone in 25 buildings in Dublin – why not – those selfish bastards out in suburbia want to live it up do they? Well not on my watch. Lets get those shits from Ranelagh – they have back yards don’t they – who do they think they are. Do they know how much the bus out to Ranelagh costs the city centre dweller per year? Do they know how much the water pipes are to run them out that far? Get them into the city centre – get them into one of our new sky-high blocks.


Why stop there, lets build another 75 such blocks and we have the whole country arranged around one road. Fantastic, look at all we would save in roads, national rail and bus networks, centralized hospital services and so on. Oops, we have lost a bit in terms of quality of life, but what does that matter, we have achieved the maximum possible outcome out of the average tax euro.

Why stop there – this should be applied the world over. Lets not worry about the cost to human culture – lets just milk the tax euro for every drop we can.

You think this is unreasonable – why would it be. If we waste so much money on one-off houses, then of course we also waste money on Dublin’s suburbs, especially when the technology exists to avoid such sprawling and wasteful expanses of human habitation. Pack them high and to hell with society and a little thing called quality of life.

If you think I am now being silly, the think again. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and if you really believed in what you say about one-off houses, then you could not argue against the economic benefits of 25 blocks in the middle of Dublin. TP - welcome the natural extension of your argument - pleasant world or what?
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PVC King » Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:22 pm

PDLL wrote: Allow me Thomond Park to take your argument and that of the anti-one-off brigade to its logical conclusion. Its quite simple – you want society to be structured so that the average tax payer can make the maximum usage out of the minimum amount of good quality infrastructure. That is, why have 500km of poor grade road for 50 people, when you can have 1km of excellent road for 1000 people. Fair enough,


The arguments against one-off houses generally run along the lines of:

1> Economic they cost more to service e.g. school buses waste collection, deliver post fixing power lines after a storm, proving public transport
2> Infrastructural provision] ya. Ok, then lets look at this again. Technologically, we can build structures up to .5kms high. [/QUOTE]

You can build to any height you want but it starts getting more expensive after the 9th storey and by storey 15 or so you start losing money, that is why one finds many developments with a typical height of 6-9 storeys and a signiture tower of 12-30 storeys; this is done for prestige value and not for any other reason.

PDLL wrote:Lets say one such structure can accommodate 40,000 people – I don’t know. I am just giving an estimate. Therefore, we could have 25 such buildings in Dublin arranged around a single communication highway (metro and motorway) of about 5km long. So we could rebuild Dublin into 25 standalone buildings. Sounds good in terms of cost-benefit analysis. The motorway connecting the buildings would be of the highest standards imaginable as we would need no other wasteful roads running willy nilly here and there.


See above but if your argument was based on 4-8 storey blocks on brownfield sites connected to the public transport network it would be more efficient and the Dublin hinterland would not be extending to places such as Cavan, Laois and Offaly.


PDLL wrote:Why would we want to put everyone in 25 buildings in Dublin – why not – those selfish bastards out in suburbia want to live it up do they? Well not on my watch. Lets get those shits from Ranelagh – they have back yards don’t they – who do they think they are. Do they know how much the bus out to Ranelagh costs the city centre dweller per year? Do they know how much the water pipes are to run them out that far? Get them into the city centre – get them into one of our new sky-high blocks.


Most people in Ranelagh tend to walk to the City Centre its edge is afterall only 500m from Stephens Green and the chances of being run down by a 4 by 4 are limited unless you behave like a lemming.


PDLL wrote:Why stop there, lets build another 75 such blocks and we have the whole country arranged around one road. Fantastic, look at all we would save in roads, national rail and bus networks, centralized hospital services and so on. Oops, we have lost a bit in terms of quality of life, but what does that matter, we have achieved the maximum possible outcome out of the average tax euro.

Why stop there – this should be applied the world over. Lets not worry about the cost to human culture – lets just milk the tax euro for every drop we can.


You did express a preference for an air-ambulance as opposed to a cancer hospital on this thread]You think this is unreasonable – why would it be. If we waste so much money on one-off houses, then of course we also waste money on Dublin’s suburbs, especially when the technology exists to avoid such sprawling and wasteful expanses of human habitation. Pack them high and to hell with society and a little thing called quality of life. [/QUOTE]

Most of Dublins suburbs are starting to increase in density as lower density plots are snapped up by astute developers who see the opportunity to add a significant number of homes.

PDLL wrote: If you think I am now being silly, the think again. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and if you really believed in what you say about one-off houses, then you could not argue against the economic benefits of 25 blocks in the middle of Dublin. TP - welcome the natural extension of your argument - pleasant world or what?


See response 2 then address the six headings in response 1
PVC King
 

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PDLL » Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:34 pm

Thomond Park wrote:. then address the six headings in response 1


I think I already did in Post 70. I see though that in principle you are not against stacking the entire country into high-rises in Dublin provided it saved you some taxes. If this vision becomes reality, what happens if you would like to go surfing at the weekend, or you want to collect a specimen of bog cotton, or you want to geta way from it all to a nice little inlet in West Cork. Where will you stay? How will you get there? As there will be no more private driveways spanning the country, sorry, I meant non-national roads, you will have to go out foot from Dublin with your tent. A world without non-national private driveways would indeed be labour-inducing.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PVC King » Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:48 pm

Just to recap on post 71

PDLL wrote: All that these images demonstrate is that the modern one-off human settlement does not have the same physical appearance as a crannog. There is nothing surprising in this – neither do they look like 19th century cottages. Because the morphology of habitation types changes doesn’t mean that they have any less validity in terms of the place they fill in the settlement patterns of a culture. Insofar as the houses detailed above are concerned, yes – they do represent a continuation of one-off rural settlements embodied in earlier forms of one-off habitation such as the crannog and the cottage. Not surprisingly, their form may have changed, but their function as residences designed for human habitation has not. I could add in about 100 photos of houses and buildings around Dublin which have no historical precedent or cultural context in terms of their design and location.



Running through some of the main arguments against one-off houses, we have now seen that:

PDLL wrote: 1. one-off houses are not necessarily the great drain on the urban tax payer as has been made out: they are often owned and built by net tax contributors]

PDDL as you well know school buses postal companies and accidents caused by drunk drivers who have no potential to walk to the pub cost the entire population a huge amount of money and this cannot be allowed to continue

PDLL wrote: 2. they have an historical and cultural precedent – more so, indeed, than any form of urban habitation in Ireland]

You have not proven this whatsoever; by its nature a one off house can never be part of a clachan

PDLL wrote: 3. in terms of the environmental effects of the dependence of one-off house owners on cars in comparison to that of city-dwelling drivers, it is well known that cars emit more fumes and consume more petrol when they are endlessly stopping and staring in traffic. As this form of driving is typical of urban driving and relatively free flowing driving is typical of that found on rural roads, it is fair to suggest that the damage done by one-off house cars is less than that done by urban-based vehicles.


This is ridiculous if someone drives 20-95 miles to get to work they will of course consume far more fuel than someone driving 5 miles or taking the train or bus. This is typical of your attitude to discussion.

PDLL wrote: 4. in terms of one-off houses being ‘subsidized’ by city-dwellers taxes, it has been shown that the reverse is also the case in a great range of areas – a centralized tax system doesn’t benefit all of us all of the time – that is reality for everyone]

There is a massive difference between constant benifit to the individual and what a typical citizen may possibly recieve at some stage of their life. Expenditure such as Old age pensions, unemployment benefit or policing are reasonable as most people will recieve them at some stage of their life; subsidising McMansions half way up a mountain is not equitable as the expenditure benefits only a small fraction of the population.

PDLL wrote: 5. one-off houses encapsulate the principle of democratic choice – people should, within reason and with due respect for the rights of others, have the choice of living in a rural landscape if they so choose]

So there are no limits? If the Archbishop of Dublin decided he wished to build a house in Merrion Square would this be acceptable?

PDLL wrote: 6. the question of sustainability – people have argued that one-off houses are not economically or environmentally sustainable, yet point out the huge number of such houses being built every year. Surely, in many cases, the larger the number of such houses, the more sustainable they become insofar as it will make servicing them more economical]

No it is putting more effluent into the ground water causing more wells to be contaminated as well as increasing Co2 emmissions which will lead to higher carbon tax fines when Ireland fails to meet its Kyoto protocol obligations. Not to mention higher ESB charges, school bus emmisions, medical call outs etc

PDLL wrote: 7. the question of purpose: one-off houses no longer have a function – they are no longer owned by farmers and no longer have any immediate functional relationship with the land- so the argument goes at least. Surely a similar argument can be made for the use of small artisan houses throughout Dublin, many of which were built to house workers to serve local industries and the docks. Is it legitimate then for these houses to be converted into little yuppy pads since they no longer have any connection to their original function? Is it legitimate to continue to build their modern equivalents (2 bedroom apartments) near the docks – I don’t see many yuppies putting on their donkey jackets to unload coal in Dublin port.


Pathetic

[quote="PDLL"] 8. one-off houses lead to social isolation – surely this is for the one-off owner to decide – surely this is a matter of personal social choice that should be determined by the person that makes that lifestyle choice. A city-dweller should not assume the arrogant right of determining what is a suitable form of social existence for someone who doesn’t live in a city/town]

Roscommon has the highest per capita rate of senile dementia is the EU which is a statisitical fact; treating the resultant patients again costs money.

[quote="PDLL"] So we are left with two possibilities: one-offs do not fit the utopian vision of the countryside which urban-dwellers have clung to since the industrial revolution and are, therefore, aesthetically objectionable]

The industry is producing 50,000 & group homes per year; if less of the scarce construction resources were engaged in the additional site works required on one offs and were building on freindlier sites at the edge of urban settlements 100,000 units a year could be a reality. But 4000 sq ft one off houses are preventing this and making even more of our young people without homes
PVC King
 

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PDLL » Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:57 pm

I think it might be much more beneficial, to me at least, if you recapped on POST 84. This is where I asked some tricky questions that you chose to overlook as they focussed on the central pillar that supports your anti-one-off arguments. I would be very grateful if you could maybe address some of the queries I made concerning the figures that you kindly posted - I think this is where the crucial issues lie. I don't expect pages of financial analysis - just a clarification of the primary issues I raised.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PVC King » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:30 pm

[
PDLL wrote: Well then, if the list goes on and on, lets have it. Before you make ungrounded arguments, lets have the facts. Lets look at the figures you do provide and analyse a little what you are saying:


1. An Post lost 92m in 2003. Is this solely because of deliveries to one-off houses? Might it have to do with other factors like meeting pay-deal commitments, the impact of e-mail on postal services world-wide, increases in fuel costs world wide, increases in insurance costs, etc. Give me an exact figure for how much of this is due ONLY to deliveries to one-off houses]

An Post workers have had their salaries determined within the parametres of partnership agreements; have done a number of productivity deals; shed non-core divisions and rationalised a number of their key processes. Despite all of these good moves and 2003 having a lower oil prioce regime than either 2001 or 2002 they are heamoraging cash likethere is no tomorrow. Privately An Post workers are furious that the government has not forced the issue in relation to rural post delivery costs; once the market is deregulated how many of the entrants will be offering flat rate mail?


PDLL wrote:2. School bus programme - see factors mentioned above. If and only if it really is a problem and one-off houses result in bigger costs, then it is very easy to solve. Bus Eireann can charge parents on the distance they carry their children to school. If a child has to go 5km to school and another 10km, then simply charge at a pro km basis. Not to complicated there.


Many of the parents couldn't afford to pay the true cost of sending a bus over such distances to collect so few children and those that can probably ferry them from the mountain in their 4 * 4 anyway. Taking the cost per kilomtere as being Fuel €0.50 and time (€20p/h @ 30kph) €0.66]3. Non-national roads - I went through this one before but you either didn't read it or don't want to hear what I was saying. Give me a figure for exactly how much money went on repairing/maintaining non-national roads that were used as private drive ways to one-off houses. You see, you assume that ALL non-national raods serve one-off houses and nothing else.


Most do; if an area of 800 acres in owned by 6 farmers; the chances are that 80% of the usage will feature purely agricultural use and 20% private use. If typical ribbon development patterns are applied and 80 houses arrive in addition then it is likely that the balance will reverse. When the 80 owners combine to lobby to have the road resurfaced hence expenditure on 2kms of road whilst if 80 homes were added to the edge of the town the council can hit the developer for a capital contribution to upgrade the 50-100m in front of the plot.


PDLL wrote:That is obviously bullshit. So lets get real about this - how many km of non-national roads serve only as private driveways for one-off houses? Please, give me a figure. Then, how many journeys per km are only done because people live in one-off houses. Please give me a figure. Then lets sit down and work out how much of the 900m euros went on actually repairing non-national roads serving as private driveways for one-off houses. Please remember, non-national roadways also do things like bring you to the coast, bring up to the mountains, provide a transport network for agricultural vehicles, connect smaller towns, and so on.


Loads if you live in the city you don't have to drive to buy a pint of milk or 10 cigerettes] and close to 800 'National Routes' [R] very few non-national roads are of strategic importance even to local townlands.

PDLL wrote: The problem with your logic is that it you take a few general figures and do not analyse what they actually mean or imply. It is the type of logic that breeds stereotypes insofar as you present some apparently senstaional facts that take on a life of their own and run with them.


Like the drunken drug addicted dole scroungers you portray as living in high rise squalor in Tallaght. I've yet to see you display one number let alone explain the relevance of it to your argument.


PDLL wrote: Hysterical? I used the issue fo drugs to illuminate a point and for no other reason. From that point of view, I could accuse you of being hysterical abnout pensions


I don't know how saying that people are entitled to a pension could be described as hysterical; it is simply stating the obvoious.
PVC King
 

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PDLL » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:58 pm

Thomond Park wrote:
An Post workers have had their salaries determined within the parametres of partnership agreements]


It still doesn't answer the question. How much out of the 92million lost is due to deliveries to one-off housing. You cannot throw this figure around without knowing this! Please support your argument with direct evidence, not by sensationalised and inflated figures.

Thomond Park wrote:Many of the parents couldn't afford to pay the true cost of sending a bus over such distances to collect so few children and those that can probably ferry them from the mountain in their 4 * 4 anyway. Taking the cost per kilomtere as being Fuel €]

I thought these people were meant to be the wealthy ones living in their overly sized one-offs. It seems that their level of wealth and ability to pay depends on the argument you are presenting. Its one thing owning a 4by4 in the countryside, how many city dwellers own them when there is obviously no need for one.

Thomond Park wrote:Most do]

Again, conjecture. I see no facts to support this.

Thomond Park wrote: Like the drunken drug addicted dole scroungers you portray as living in high rise squalor in Tallaght. I've yet to see you display one number let alone explain the relevance of it to your argument. .


Allow me to quote from the Tallaght Drugs Task Force's 'Review of 1997 Service Development Plan and Formulation of New Service Development Plan'.

'On the basis of information produced by the Health Research Board it is estimated that there were 6.043 drug users involved in drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes and activities in the Rep. of Ireland in 1998. Of this number, 5,655 had been connected to geographical locations . . . In relation to the figure of 5,655 it is estimated that 463 (8.l2% of the national number) live in the Tallaght area' (p.8)

The document gives the population of Tallaght as 71,000. Lets say the population of the country was about 3.6m at the tinme (conservative), that means that .02% of the State's population had 8.2% of the nation's drug addicts. A lot of taxes must have come from those impoverished rural tax payers to finance the rehabilitation activities related to that high percentage of drug addicts. Phew - its no wonder those one-off house dwellers cannot afford to pay for the school buses.






I don't know how saying that people are entitled to a pension could be described as hysterical]
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PVC King » Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:43 pm

PDLL wrote: It still doesn't answer the question. How much out of the 92million lost is due to deliveries to one-off housing. You cannot throw this figure around without knowing this! Please support your argument with direct evidence, not by sensationalised and inflated figures.


Given that An Post has introduced the latest and most efficient distribution technologies available] I thought these people were meant to be the wealthy ones living in their overly sized one-offs. It seems that their level of wealth and ability to pay depends on the argument you are presenting. Its one thing owning a 4by4 in the countryside, how many city dwellers own them when there is obviously no need for one. [/QUOTE]

My argument is not based on there being a proportionality between wealth and receipt of services; my argument is that free or reduced cost government services should not be given to any group on the basis of settlement pattern without full cost benefit analysis prior to planning permission being granted. I.E. if one form of development is completely out of step with other forms of development it should be curtailed to protect the state.


PDLL wrote: Again, conjecture. I see no facts to support this.


So I will phrase it another way the 800 acre area will have extremely few private motor vehicle movements and resultant wear and tear and will most likley not require very much maintenance and will be reletively safe to walk on. However if typical ribbon development patterns emerge and an additional 80 dwellings are constructed the wear and tear will increase to a massive extent.


PDLL wrote: Allow me to quote from the Tallaght Drugs Task Force's 'Review of 1997 Service Development Plan and Formulation of New Service Development Plan'.

'On the basis of information produced by the Health Research Board it is estimated that there were 6.043 drug users involved in drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes and activities in the Rep. of Ireland in 1998. Of this number, 5,655 had been connected to geographical locations . . . In relation to the figure of 5,655 it is estimated that 463 (8.l2% of the national number) live in the Tallaght area' (p.8)

The document gives the population of Tallaght as 71,000. Lets say the population of the country was about 3.6m at the tinme (conservative), that means that .02% of the State's population had 8.2% of the nation's drug addicts. A lot of taxes must have come from those impoverished rural tax payers to finance the rehabilitation activities related to that high percentage of drug addicts. Phew - its no wonder those one-off house dwellers cannot afford to pay for the school buses.


A figure of 6,043 sounds an extremely National conservative figure; if tallaght has 463 addicts this would represent significantly less than 00.65% of the population; hardly on the scale you suggested.

Given that Herion addiction is a multi-annual affliction a figure of 463 individuals with a self inflicted condition the cost to the exchequer is minimal and containable. Allowing €`10,000 per junkie per year the total cost is €4.63m which is a generous estimate.

Now compare this to 25000 one off houses per year which equates to 250,000 per decade and you are starting to hit some really big numbers. Not to mention

Landscape destruction
Environmental pollution
Habitat destruction
Carbon tax fines
PVC King
 

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby GrahamH » Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:00 pm

So it’s turned into another of ‘those’ threads...

First and foremost PDLL I would appreciate if you would stop that nasty oh so pure anti-bourgeois theme underlying much of you responses, subtly implying the character of other posters. There is no need to get confrontational, something I’d suggest you have a habit of doing.

Secondly, the progression of this debate is getting bogged down in nitty-gritty details and over-analysis of points being raised – it gets it nowhere.
PDLL, when I said that the scale and pattern of current one-off development is not rooted in historical precedent, I meant just that – the scale and pattern. Similarly it was also intended to be considered in a reasonable vein – i.e. within recent historical times – mid-1600s plus. Digging up Olaf and friends is nothing but patent obfuscation.

I agree with much you say – there is without doubt an element of hypocrisy in ‘treasuring’ 19th century cottages and deriding contemporary one-off housing, both the fruits of their respective times and cultures. Yes there is a certain element of Dublin dictating to the masses, though very small I think. Yes a vibrant rural element to Irish life ought to be actively promoted and sustained, even if this means the skewing of servicing resources to certain degree – it is the nature of the difference between urban and rural living.

However in nearly all of this thread it has simply been accepted that one can only either live in Dublin or in a one-off house. The term village has yet to be even mentioned. Small town has yet to be mentioned. The extension of either has yet to be mentioned, let alone the notion of creating new ones. I do not believe that every person who builds an isolated one-off house does so because they do not want to live in a town or city – but rather many do it because they’re not given the option of living in the countryside in a more sustainable, social way; that is to say in a small town or village. In Ireland you’re either told to live in a hideous ‘unit’ in a developer estate tacked onto the side of a small town or the outskirts of a village, or to Connaght with you, i.e. go feck off and build your own somewhere else then.
I cannot see that if people were given the option of living in relatively tightly-knit small rural communities in well-designed, individualised homes, that they would still plump for a mock-Palladian pile in a field, detached from society, services and sanity.

When you refer to people’s freedom of choice and democratic rights PDLL, I think you’re confusing it with individualism, mé féinism, feck everyone elseism. As concrete economic facts have yet to be provided, indeed seem difficult to provide, it stems to logical reason, however naïve, that one-off housing by its very nature is a more expensive way of living than even reasonably low density settlement patterns – not those of of Dublin, but of any urban conurbation whether it be of 20 homes or 20,000 homes.

Personally I do see a genuine ‘role’ if it can be described as such, for one-off housing, if a number of issues could be resolved. But as things stand I simply cannot accept the concept on anything remotely like the scale that is currently happening. These ‘changes’ are:

Design, design, design. Whilst I appreciate it’s very much a fickle issue, it’s broadly accepted that what we’re currently experiencing is simply unacceptable – sure even PDLL said so *gasps all round* ;)
It’s difficult to see how this can be resolved as there is only so much local authorities can do, and their input is often primarily directed towards siting and landscaping rather than the building itself. As long as people desire the neo-traditional styles that are going up, and that refers to the basic bungalow rather than so-called McMansions, then it’s difficult to see how things can change. Were a better standard of design in use, a large chunk of the one-off issue would dissipate overnight – even if the broader problem of having structures in areas of natural beauty would still prevail.

Environmental issues. In this day and age it is simply unacceptable for any septic tank to leak or to be used improperly. There seem to be myriad forms of sewage treatment about nowadays, suffice to say developed in other European countries. It is inexcusable for bog-standard septic tank technology in use probably since the 1930s to be still in use today. If it works, fine, if it doesn’t ditch it. If the soil isn’t suitable ditch it. If the soil isn’t suitable for any sewage treatment, ditch the house. There are so many superior methods out there now, that regardless of cost, should now be in use. Similarly with the large sites that these houses inevitably occupy, geo-thermal heating systems ought to be actively promoted; a great advantage rural homes could have over urban-based.

Cars. A related environmental concern. Personally I don’t buy ‘the oil’s running out so stop building one-offs’ argument, nor issues relating to carbon emissions. Either way it’s all going to be consumed, whether by cars in Ballydahob or mega-industries in Beijing. And either way it’ll still be gone in 30-40 years, or simply too expensive to use. Bio-fuels and other renewable energy sources are the future, with minimal to zero carbon emissions. However the costs of maintaining the road systems servicing one-offs, if unreasonable (as it hasn’t really been proven either way here yet) most certainly is a matter of concern and should be bourn by one-offers. Similarly the extra cost of electricity provision, again if unreasonable ought to bourn by one-offers. I simply reject the argument that a citizen’s ‘personal freedom’ in choosing to build a one-off house ought to be paid for by the tax-payer or semi-state companies. That is taking advantage of a centralised taxation system. I don’t hold that view as an ‘urban dweller’ (not that I live in a densely populated area anyway) but simply from the perspective that if I decided to build a one-off house I would [b[expect[/b] to pay extra for the services being provided to me. Not to satisfy the tongue waggers ‘up in Dublin’, but out of fairness to anybody and everybody who lives in a reasonably sustainable fashion anywhere else in the country, urban or rural. It is only fair.

As for the Grecian temple, I just knew that would be pointed out – talk about putting something on display to be mauled :D
Though how a small, weathered, natural stone structure in a densely grown environment equates to the impact of a day-glo bungalow is anyone’s guess.
GrahamH
Old Master
 
Posts: 4592
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PDLL » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:47 pm

TP - I am surprised to see that you disagree with the figures on drug addiction published by the Tallaght Drugs Task Force. Maybe you should discuss the issue with them. You still haven’t factored in the effect of e-mail and electronic forms of communication on the profits of An Post. Please consider what is probably the greatest threat facing the traditional postal service in every country in the world.

Graham Hickey wrote: So it’]

If you mean by that Graham that someone has actually attempted to expose the frequently dubious and unsupportable premises upon which the anti-one-off brigade bases its often spurious arguments, then ya it must be one of those threads.

Graham Hickey wrote: First and foremost PDLL I would appreciate if you would stop that nasty oh so pure anti-bourgeois theme underlying much of you responses, subtly implying the character of other posters.


TP accuses me of being arrogant towards the working class, you accuse me of being anti-bourgeois. Lets get back to basics - lets go back to Mr Harris's wonderful article in which he writes:

'From Cork to Galway, from Galway to Dublin, the new Irish bourgeoisie flaunts its new-found wealth by turning farm and field into a stupendous, shoddy, sprawling suburbia studded with vast villas and brutalist bungalows and what I can only call Georgian houses. Where wealth often refines, here it seems to retard. The new Celtic class has all the arrogance of the old Anglo-Irish with none of its visual taste'

Who is making critical statements on the bourgeoisie?

Graham Hickey wrote: Secondly, the progression of this debate is getting bogged down in nitty-gritty details and over-analysis of points being raised –]

There is a need to get into the nitty gritty as otherwise unsupported arguments are allowed to become 'facts' and these then become sensationalized stereotypes which could possibly go on to influence attitudes and policy decisions. When you are unable or unwilling to support a statement with real objective evidence and you make statements that create unfair or biased images of something then you are in a dangerous realm of thinking. Sometimes it is necessary to go into the facts in order to get to the bottom of the issue and dislodge the stereotypes. I feel that while the many posts above were tedious to go through, there have been results - of which I will talk later.

Graham Hickey wrote: PDLL, when I said that the scale and pattern of current one-off development is not rooted in historical precedent, I meant just that –]scale and pattern[/b]. Similarly it was also intended to be considered in a reasonable vein – i.e. within recent historical times – mid-1600s plus. Digging up Olaf and friends is nothing but patent obfuscation...


So providing facts and further evidence to prove that the one-off has a long and distinguished historical context in Ireland is obfuscation? Is that because the evidence did not support your theory? In academia, I think you will find that that is called a research bias. Why mid-1600s? - lets look at Irish culture without setting an arbitrary time-limit. I argued that the one-off was always part of Irish culture while urban settlement is only a relatively recent introduction. The fact that urbanism was never a Celtic phenomenon is central to the debate as it stresses the fact that the historical precedent of one-offs LONG predates that of urban settlement in this country. Sorry if this relevant fact upsets your thesis a little.

Graham Hickey wrote: I agree with much you say –]certain[/b] degree – it is the nature of the difference between urban and rural living....


Undoubtedly so - go back and read this thread from Post 1 with open eyes.

Graham Hickey wrote: The term village has yet to be even mentioned. Small town has yet to be mentioned. ....


Fair point.

Graham Hickey wrote:
As concrete economic facts have yet to be provided, indeed seem difficult to provide, it stems to logical reason, however naï]any[/b] urban conurbation whether it be of 20 homes or 20,000 homes.....


It has been shown that those opposed to one-offs have great difficulty giving accurate and direct figures for how much one-offs really cost the tax payer. In the absence of that, opponents of one-offs should stop using this argument and should either go and get the evidence or they should stop brandishing this allegation in a polemic way. Again, unfounded or unproven statements lead to the creation of sensationalised and simplistic stereotypes.

Graham Hickey wrote:
Personally I do see a genuine ‘]

So, now we are getting down to things - aesthetics are a major part of the issue and what is considered 'appropriate' by urban dwellers for rural life. As I pointed out, rural one-off dwellers do not endlessly harp on about the socially-destructive form of apartments being widely built in Irish cities that meet no long term purpose other than the gross accumulation of wealth for a few. If one-offs are horrendously ugly by nature and the McMansion is an eyesore, then don't blame one-offs per se, blame the aesthetics of these houses. Would it be different if all of the houses were truly one-offs in terms of their design - each carefully and uniquely modelled by an architect? I reckon it would be a different issue as then they would meet the aesthetic standards of the architectural profession. However, as they stand they represent the actuality and reality of what the Irish rural dweller desires socially, culturally, economically and aesthetically - they are the physical manifestation of the Irish rural dwellers domestic ideal. Fair enough, if that aesthetic is awful then blame the Irish psyche for a lack of good taste, don't blame the concept of the one-off house. There are as many aesthetic abominations in our cities. Believe me - most of Dublin isn't exactly pleasing to the eye.

Graham Hickey wrote: Environmental issues. In this day and age it is simply unacceptable for any septic tank to leak or to be used improperly. There seem to be myriad forms of sewage treatment about nowadays, suffice to say developed in other European countries. It is inexcusable for bog-standard septic tank technology in use probably since the 1930s to be still in use today. If it works, fine, if it doesn’]

These are problems that can largely be resolved through planning regulations and at no cost to anyone but the one-off dweller. It isn't so long ago that I can remember standing at the quay wall in the Claddagh watching a digger at low tide pushing a mountain of shite across the quay floor. Where did all that shite come from - not from the arse of one one-off house dweller I can tell you. The problem has now been solved - equally so, with proper enforcement, it can be solved with one-offs if it really is a problem (again hard evidence, facts and figures would be beneficial). It is about good management and enforcement, not about the style or form of habitation.

Graham Hickey wrote: Cars. A related environmental concern. ..

And in most countries, Ireland included, a predominantly urban problem. There is a reason that London has a congestion charge.

[quote="Graham Hickey"] Though how a small, weathered, natural stone structure in a densely grown environment equates to the impact of a day-glo bungalow is anyone’]

Because it definitely has NO historical context whatsoever. The bungalow is a modern manifestation of a traditional building style in Ireland and to that end has a claim to historical precedent. Greek Temples? It seems that aesthetics again supplant the legitimacy of historical precedents. Interesting. In short, if Ireland was covered with lovely 19th follies, a few neo-classical mansions (the real thing of course) etc, that would be alright. But when people build bungalows that echo the form and shape of the traditional cottage, then this is unacceptable. This sounds like aesthetic elitism to me.

And then we get back to the real issue - about which this is really about. Actually the whole thing is surprisingly simple really. After you have cut the wind out of many of the unsupportable arguments presented and the rather dodgy aesthetic elitism that seems to be the final arbiter of what is considered acceptable in the Irish countryside, we get to the more serious issue. What is all of this about? Is it about the countryside being a place to live for real people living real lives or is it about the long-term reshaping of the rural countryside into a weekend play park for urbanites. I think Devin’s first post and Harris’s article answer this quite nicely.

Here is Devin on that issue:

[quote="Devin"] But one aspect that generally hasn't figured much is where he says that, ideally, what we wrongly call the countryside would really be the country - a resource for renewing the physical and spiritual life of the people, while the cities, towns and villages would be thriving. This for me is the most savagely sad part of what's happening to the Irish countryside - the loss of a place for this physical and spiritual renewal of ourselves.[quote/]

Have we reached the source of the stream? The countryside should be nothing more that a ‘resource for renewing the physical and spiritual life of the people, while the cities, towns and villages would be thriving’. In short, the countryside should no longer be a place to live – it should be a theme park of pastoral bliss. I was accused of being dreamy about the countryside!!!!! Has Devin been reading a bit too much of Dickens lately? A certain amount of tolerance has been shown for those farmers that still toil the land – they must live somewhere (put them in villages, I suppose) in order to fulfil the pastoral vision of the nicely ploughed fields, but other than that, no one should live in the countryside (unless of course they can get some urban-based architect to sensitively design an abode according to the their aesthetic vision of what the countryside should look like). So yes, Graham, there is quite a lot of the old one-sided urbane urbanite thing going on – it seems that those who should decide how and where people should live in the countryside are those who might occasionally pop down for a spot of pastoral spiritual renewal on the bank holiday weekend. In the meantime, they just moralise about the demise of traditional rural Ireland and the environmental problems associated with one-offs. Come on – is it any wonder someone would get pissed off with such a level of assumed arrogance.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PVC King » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:05 pm

The lights are on but nodoby is home Ted
PVC King
 

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby Shane Clarke » Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:12 pm

PDLL / Thomond Park

Folks - A good old fashioned healthy barny there. I'm firmly on Thomand Park's - sustainable side - of the argument - so I won't rehash the points - but PDLL makes some excellent points in reply. Particularly:
- the need for these questions to be founded in impartial research);
- the often unquestioned aesthetic and metropolitan bias of architects and urbanisms;
- a need for an historical understanding of settlement patterns in the Republic (including the reason for late urbanism due to 'missing out' on the industrial revolution);
- the need to place this historical perspective within a sustainable vision of the future;
- the long standing failure of politicians - planners - local authorities etc. to provide attractive urban (village ... town ... city) environments to attract the middle classes (pejorative = bourgeois) who are the basis of all successful cities;
- the unsustainable dominance of Dublin within Ireland in population, cultural and economic terms etc.

Sustainability is something everyone and their brother is happy to sign up to - witness all political parties. FF = development that can be sustained! The devil is in the detail and there is an enormous onus on those of us who do believe in sustainability (economic - environmental - social) to set out the long term case for implementing its consequent demands to a public (and political class) that instinctively (naturally) thinks in the short term (this generation as against future generations). I was disappointed in Frank mcDonald's recent book 'Chaos at the Cross Roads' for this very reason - the balance of the book is far too much a litany of environmental and unsustainable practice as against a positive acoount of what sustainability is and how it might be played out in Ireland. An arrogant superciliousness will just entrench the view that being an urbanism is nothing more than enforced fashionable coffee drinking on glass walled apartment balconies!

For those that want a succinct account of sustainability I would recommend Richard Roger's 'Cities of Small Planet'. (And please don’t take that recommnedation as patronising!).

regards, Shane
Shane Clarke
Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2000 1:00 am
Location: London

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby Shane Clarke » Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:15 pm

PDLL / Thomond Park

Folks - A good old fashioned healthy barny there. I'm firmly on Thomand Park's - sustainable side - of the argument - so I won't rehash the points - but PDLL makes some excellent points in reply. Particularly:
- the need for these questions to be founded in impartial research (which supports the sustainable argument);
- the often unquestioned aesthetic and metropolitan bias of architects and urbanisms;
- a need for an historical understanding of settlement patterns in the Republic (including the reason for late urbanism due to 'missing out' on the industrial revolution);
- the need to place this historical perspective within a sustainable vision of the future;
- the long standing failure of politicians - planners - local authorities etc. to provide attractive urban (village ... town ... city) environments to attract the middle classes (pejorative = bourgeois) who are the basis of all successful cities;
- the unsustainable dominance of Dublin within Ireland in population, cultural and economic terms etc.

Sustainability is something everyone and their brother is happy to sign up to - witness all political parties. FF = development that can be sustained! The devil is in the detail and there is an enormous onus on those of us who do believe in sustainability (economic - environmental - social) to set out the long term case for implementing its consequent demands to a public (and political class) that instinctively (naturally) thinks in the short term (one this generation as against future generations). I was disappointed in Frank McDonald’s recent book ‘Chaos at the Cross Roads’ for this very reason. Too much the litany (though illuminating and depressing) of environmental vandalism and unsustainable practice and not enough the positive explication of sustainability and how it might play out in Ireland. An arrogant superciliousness will just entrench the view that being an urbanism is nothing more than fashionably enforced coffee drinking on glass walled apartment balconies!

For those that want a succinct account of sustainability I would recommend Richard Roger's 'Cities of Small Planet'. (And please don’t take that as patronising!).
Shane Clarke
Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2000 1:00 am
Location: London

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby bunch » Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:44 pm

PDLL wrote:
The fact that urbanism was never a Celtic phenomenon is central to the debate as it stresses the fact that the historical precedent of one-offs LONG predates that of urban settlement in this country. Sorry if this relevant fact upsets your thesis a little.



relevant fact = the celts lived in one-offs = there is no legitimate historical precedent of urban development = the celts are our only descendents = one-offs are legitimised using this warped method of historical justification

i think you have lost pdll
bunch
Member
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 12:00 am
Location: cork

Re: Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

Postby PDLL » Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:55 pm

bunch wrote:relevant fact = the celts lived in one-offs = there is no legitimate historical precedent of urban development = the celts are our only descendents = one-offs are legitimised using this warped method of historical justification

i think you have lost pdll



If you had read the full argument outlined in previous posts you would know what I meant but obviously if you wish to truncate things into such a simplified equation you will come up with a simplified mis-representation of what I said.

For the fourth time, it seems we need to go through this again:

Argument: there is no historical precedent in Ireland for one-offs.

Counter -argument: there is no historical precedent in Ireland for urban settlements until the arrival of the Vikings and then the Anglo-Normas. And even then, urban settlements were largely confined to those areas successfully colonised by the Elizabethans. In short - I argued that in pre-Celtic, Celtic, Viking, Anglo-Norman, late medieval and early modern times one-off houses were the typical form of habitation in ireland. Truncate it how you will, blur historical reality how you will, reduce to the absurd what you will, the issue is simple:

One-off houses have a longer historical precedent than ANY OTHER FORM of human settlement in Ireland. It is therefore verging on the farcicial to suggest that they have no historical precedent or that that precedent isn't relevant when it is used as an argument against one-offs. Bunch, I hope this is clear enough. If you are having further difficulties, please read some of my other posts above or read just about any book on archaeological and historical settlement patterns in Ireland. Perhaps, though, you know of some other form of settlement in Ireland that predates the one-off, but I would rather not go into the realm of science fiction.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland



cron