PDLL wrote:Ah, nothing like personal invective to further a discussion.
Are you saying that I should ignore petty me feinism where I see it and concentrate on the issues that are germane to the argument here? Interesting, when petty me feinism and avoidance of the bigger picture is the bread and butter of the pro-one-off brigade. So it appears (yet again in this tiresome debate) that there is one set of rules for one side and another set for the other.
Also, I would hardly say that cherry-picking points, truncating quotes and ignoring the awkward arguments is a way to further a discussion.
Urbanism (I presume you mean urbanisation?) causes rural depopulation? No. Urbanisation and rural depopulation are caused by the same thing- economic policy. Yes, people leave the countryside to live in cities, but many would rather not move at all. Isn't the desire for one-offs evidence of this?
Your point re the NSS is... eh... is the same as the one I made. Except for this:
PDLL wrote:I do not see decentralization as undermining the potential of the NSS, as the plan for decentralization is as theoretical and unlikely to happen as the NSS is.
Let me get this straight- you are saying:
a) 'Decentralisation' is theoretical]I was also referring to Dublin-based individuals who criticise rural dwellers for wishing to build on their own land for not designing houses that are somehow visionary architectural constructs that are designed to specifically mould themselves to the landscape in which they will be sited.[/QUOTE]
See, this is an example of a point I answered before, an answer you chose to ignore in order ot make your point again. It's not purely aesthetic, it's economic and it's environmental. Also, it's not just Dubliners (or even 'Dublin based individuals') who are against one-offs. More enlightened rural dwellers also see the rationale. But that doesn't support your argument so neatly.
PDLL wrote:Equally so, people should not be so short-sighted as to assume that all people can live near DART lines or bus-services.
Perhaps everyone can't live near the DART (or the LUAS), but everyone can live near a bus route. It's called a road. It mightn't have a bus on it at the moment, but it has the potential.
PDLL wrote:If that means they cost the state a few more euros than someone else living in an estate on the outskirts of a rural town, so be it â€“ those living in Tallaght cost the State quite a lot too in terms of providing the LUAS and so on.
'So be it', as long as they don't mind paying for the extra cost. Tallaght residents pay a LUAS fare, though the better point here is that the LUAS is available to everyone, not just residents of the areas along its length. Or are you now going to argue that rural dwellers who come to Dublin aren't going to use the LUAS to get from Heuston into town as some form of protest?
PDLL wrote:If the definition of rural re-population is to move people out of Dublin so they can be corralled once more in non-descript housing estates around our Gateway cities and towns, the we will go down the road of Britain where we have nothing but urban centres separated by green wastelands. What a model to follow. Oh, I forgot, we would also have a few thousand plush environmentally and architect-friendly homes in between.
Again, No. We have a hierarchy of settlements from cities down to modest villages. Your black-and-white way of making points undermines any validity your argument might have.
PDLL wrote:agriculture still accounts for 7% of our GDP and 10% of our employment and those people and their families do need to live somewhere
Agriculture has been in decline for some time now and will continue to go that way. Whether you like it or not, we can no longer characterise ourselves as an agricultural society, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest that all or most of the rural houses are desired by farmers who want to be on their land.
In addition, agriculture is one of the economic areas most heavily subsidised by the EU- though I presume that you are as against other EU countries subsidising our agricultural economy as you are against rural people subsidising the growth of Dublin? Or perhaps you think that the EU should subsidise Irish agriculture in the same way that city dwellers should bear the slightly higher cost of rural people wanting to live in one-offs? Y'see, PDLL, I'm confused now by your lack of consistency. Confused I am.
PDLL wrote:why should 2.9 million citizens outside of Dublin pay for the LUAS line for those selfish gits who chose to live way out in Stillorgan
We've been over this before, but in essence:
a) Levies were imposed on developers building in the vicinity of the LUAS to cover much of the cost.
b) It makes economic sense to provide public transport to areas of large population density.
c) City dwellers pay more tax per capita than rural dwellers.
d) It is more cost-effective to develop urban public transport systems than it is to build new roads to the four corners (not that they aren't needed- I'm simply making a cost-effectiveness point).
e) So if anything, urban taxpayers are subsidising their country cousins (a position you in effect endorsed above- remember?) rather than the other way around.
Most cases of 'need' in the countryside are just desire masquerading as need.
There are economic and environmental cases against one-offs as well as visual ones (while the visual one is subjective, the others are not).
The alternatives need to be made more attractive, i.e. more than just identikit three-bed semis and shoebox apartments.
Most of the tools for this exist already- the NSS, the PDA 2000 (Local Area Plans, Village Design Statements etc.)
The main problem is the unwillingness of the Government to implement a worthwhile proposal (the NSS), at root caused by our shambolic political system.
We need a wholesale re-evaluation of the way we live today in cities, in towns and in the countryside, unencumbered by notions of personal freedom.
We need to focus on responsibilities more than on rights.
We need to collaborate rather than plough our lonely personal furrows.
I think I'm spent on this one. I doubt I've changed your mind, nor have you changed mine.
- Old Master
- Posts: 1949
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:39 pm
- Location: Dublin
These guys are architects, they do not debase themselves discussing filthy lucre, it is much more artistic to run down one-off houses and talk about high-rises. Architects will charge you 11% or so of the contract sum. If there is a bit of competition in the area you might beat one down to about 9%. Buying a set of plans can be a lottery; if your builder is good you should not have a construction problem, but you probaly will have a "style" one as most of the plans I have seen are crap vis-a-vis Irish countryside. If your builder needs help when there is a glitch in the plans you are screwed. There are some architects who have a "stock" house that has been approved by the planners (so it becomes easier for you to obtain planning) and they will supervise building it for 4-6%. Some builders have something similar and will build it faster and cheaper because their workforce is used to building that particular design.
It's down to what you want - individuality or lower cost.
- Posts: 430
- Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: trilocated and often lost
KerryBog2 wrote:These guys are architects, they do not debase themselves discussing filthy lucre, it is much more artistic to run down one-off houses and talk about high-rises.
Who's an architect now? Not sure about PDLL, but I go under the broad category of planner and citizen.
The reason I didn't answer Munsterman's question is that I don't know the answer, simple as that.
Without being facetious, I'd say that you can get a pattern house for the price of a Bungalow Bliss book, which I've seen for as little as â‚¬5 second hand. The other end of the scale is up to you/your architect- the sky's the limit really, as has been covered by KB2 above.
- Old Master
- Posts: 1949
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:39 pm
- Location: Dublin