Any new streets?

@phil wrote:

http://www.riai.ie/gallery.html?type=regional&year=2004&item=1

I also found this whilst looking at the RIAI web-page and thought I might post it, despite being a little bit off the subject

http://www.riai.ie/gallery.html?type=regional&year=2006&item=13

Sorry for going off topic here but can I ask why there is blue and red used on certain walls in developments such as the first URL posted above. I have noticed an increasing trend of this and think it looks a little Lego like. Is it purely a “feature” thing in terms of making a colour statement or is there cost and other considerations such as materials involved. By the way I really like the second example you posted phil.

@jdivision wrote:

To my mind there was never an issue of the residents funding the public park, but I’m open to correction on this, the “park” which is a green space which already exists was to be taken in charge by the local authority. A condition of planning that people be allowed walk through an estate that has been taken in charge to use public transport is not unreasonable, I submit. .

The gate is at the end of the spine road which leads in from the Milltown Road – just about as far as possible from the LUAS station! It really is a longer bloody route.

There was never any proposal to take any of the estate in charge – on the contrary it was explicutly stated that it would not be taken in charge. To add insult the Board actually required the Management company to maintain the ‘Public Park’ at its own expense (including installation of benches and lighting) and for the hours of public parks generally, “in perpetuity”.

The residents raised absolutely no issue about the creation of a publically funded park – I’m sure many would welcome it as a relief from their Management Company charges – but the council ruled this out.

@publicrealm wrote:

There was never any proposal to take any of the estate in charge – on the contrary it was explicutly stated that it would not be taken in charge. To add insult the Board actually required the Management company to maintain the ‘Public Park’ at its own expense (including installation of benches and lighting) and for the hours of public parks generally, “in perpetuity”.

The residents raised absolutely no issue about the creation of a publically funded park – I’m sure many would welcome it as a relief from their Management Company charges – but the council ruled this out.

I stand corrected. 😮 I had done some research on this previously and from memory there had been a proposal for it to be taken in charge and turned into a park. Must have been wrong. The residents were completely right to act that way so. I’d go so far as to say that ABP had some cheek

I am enjoying reading other peoples posts on this thread. Very interesting issues being raised in that case Publicrealm.

Jimg, here is an article from Harvard Design Magazine that I think sums up the ‘academic’ issues with New Urbanism: http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/publications/hdm/back/1harvey.html

I also think it brings together some of the issues being discussed on this thread nicely.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Desirable developments achieve higher market values, so rich people tend to live there. This is just a validation of the success of New Urbanist districts.

It could also be argued that such development raises the bar as savvy developers acheive higher prices the volume builders imitate and this continues to filter down until those on the housing list will not accept lower standards. I find the entire social exclusivity argument tedious as the market regulates itself and clientist politicians do the business for those who lack the resources to do it independently.

@jimg wrote:

You’ve just described Shannon. I think they are trying to change it at the moment by building a “town centre” but that’s what was there the last time I visited the place,

I don’t know much about Shannon apar t from it being what it’s described above. The new SC is trying to change it but it seems to me it’s still shite… as it’s just replacing the mall. the Lidl store is still beside it, it’s bloody awful… I just hate the stupid idea of calling strategic malls town centres. it wrecks my head. like Liffy vally and Tallaght and the new Shannon town centre, they all consists of malls and retails sprawling ware houses.

A town centre should have a number of streets with a square with mixed developments that a town centre should have like residental,retail, commericial, industrial, recreational etc…

Wasn’t shannon a planned town to have at least 30,000 in it’s height. but it’s only around 11,000. The new shannon road is fantastic and has made the gateway into the town much more attractive.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Maybe it’s possible to have a town with no urban area at all, just a collection of housing estates, retail and office parks and industrial estates. Does this exist already in Ireland?

could this describe tallaght also??
(although i’ve heard there is a lot of development in and around ‘the square’)
sprawling estates with no main street or real centre (excluding a shopping mall)

these type of communities exist everywhere here outside the cities
suburban hell in my opinion, where car is king

Here are some pics from Traynor O’Tooles’ website showing a mixed use development near the square. The link is http://www.totarch.ie/dez_developments_tallaght_Dublin.html

You could take Luas to within 3-4 minutes walk of the development; the pedestrian environment in Tallaght will need a real makeover to stitch these types of developments in if the town is to become a pleasant environment for retail and leisure activities.

On balance it is good to see the direction Tallaght is taking and there must be a real case for the metro west alignment to be able to facilitate DARTvia a spur onto the Heuston line and CC via the interconnector (if its ever built) as at the rate this area is developing Luas will be out of capacity before too long.