Bungalow Dilemma

why all of a sudden has there been a seemingly complete abandonment of sense in relation to the rural planning debate, i have heard some of the most ridiculous arguments from the pro-bungalow blitz brigade (IFA, ICMSA, IRDA) recently, about the communist style diktat forcing the oppressed people from the countryside into clusters, and basically telling anyone who doesnt agree that allowing a free-for all to xxxx off and mind their own business.

i believe that a person who lives in an urban settlement (the majority of the Irish population) have a right to be concerned about what happens to the irish countryside. i really can’t see why anyone can have a problem with that.

i think the problem is that many people living in the countryside now are concerned about the viability of rural communities and believe that housing is the solution. but its not, building houses in a free for all, the majority of which will have no contribution to rural communities as they are merely dormitories for towns and cities, will actually further contribute to rural decline.

rural areas are a resource as well as a place that people live in, however, no-one in the debate should be claiming ‘ownership’ of the countryside, or its values, meanings, importance etc. when will there be a rational approach to rural planning? anyone?

fin,

i think the rural housing problem, as a planning issue, has become contentious because of the high level of urban generated demand for housing (dormitory housing, second homes etc), not because of an increase in the demand for housing from those with real socio-economic connections to rural areas. i do not think anyone has a difficulty with a farmer’s or someone working in rural areas’ right to build on his/her own land. it is an urban issue because it relates directly to the urban housing market and the way that affects demand for housing in the countryside.

my point on ‘ownership’ was probably ambigious. what i was trying to say was that the ‘countryside’ is a valuable resource, and that this ‘value’ is both tangible (agriculture, forestry, tourism) and intangible (amenity, visual, environmental), and that what a person does on their own patch of land can have implications on a wider scale (in terms of water, drainage, flooding, visual pollution), and that perhaps there should be more consideration of this. i was not advocating an elitist/condescending attitude of an urban clique demanding a pure and untouched countryside for their enjoyment.

Originally posted by sw101
if you cant express a rational view then perhaps you might abstain also. i’ll post where i wish

It is a highly rational view that particular political parties are making uncosted promises. You don’t need a zimmer frame to remember the broken promises before the last election. As an individual who observes the political field quite closely I have never seen Sinn Fein cost anything.

Originally posted by sw101
you’re an arse diaspora. truly

Not your first personal attack

Originally posted by sw101
and again ( )o( ) pucker up

Silky oratory do you give lessons?

Originally posted by sw101
you’ve said the “countryside is an amenity believe it or not”. its an amenity but an amenity that people live in, farm, bring their children up in, create employment in, produce goods, services and tax in. cluster development as a principle is fine. but to insist on clusters as a requirement to procure planning only promotes the activity of developers in rural areas, who can blindside locals and planners alike, and end up ramming dozens and hundreds of houses up on substandard sites, which are sold on to blow-ins and oppurtunistic outsiders who see a rental dollar to be made.

The making of the development plan is carried out by local authorities to decide the best locations to place sustainable and proper development. The only justifiable exemptions are on social grounds. It is the elimination of the Local Authorities right to zone lands Agricultural use that is the problem. If a farming family wish to erect an architect designed house on a suitable plot with all the necessary environmental safegaurds I support their right to do so as good planning once the children be it second generation are active within the area. It is the failure to tie permissions to five-ten year occupancy that frightens me.

Originally posted by sw101
an option would be to have councils able to compulsarily purchase tracts of land, suitably located for small clusters of housing. then sell off plots to people, services provided, who can then either puchase approved plans and build accordingly, or apply for planning on their own for an appropriate alternative building. architects and urbanists could be employed in the initial stages so that informed decisions could be made from day one, and if policed properly by council officials and planners, everyone involved gets what they want;
structured and sustainable development.
decent standard of architecture and construction.
shared services and minimal environmental impact.
affordable and attractive options for locals to stay in their community and become part of that same communal structure, and also people who have valid reasons for relocating to an area could become better accommodated in that transition

Thats some monologue for a person who couldn’t care less. But its just a little radical for a free market economy.

Originally posted by sw101
how is it radical? its viable and achievable with proper management.

Anything involving CPO’s is a disaster, as an architect you wouldn’t be expected to have this perspective. It would be better if no-one had it in my opinion.
But from my own background I would definitely say the IFA stance on the CPOs for the National Development plan should be bourne in mind.

Originally posted by sw101
a person who couldnt care less wouldnt suggest anything, merely point out the biased idiocy of your remarks.

Stick to the point personal attacks solve nothing. This issue is entirely political and not about the theory you have supplied as containing a number of essential elements.

Originally posted by sw101
i on the other hand have a vested interest because of geographical, familial, and future interests in the issue.

I was born in Galway and have relations scattered from Kerry to Mayo, who I should visit more. It affects directly everyone of us through higher taxation, both urban and rural alike.

Originally posted by sw101
i am more aware than most of the frivolty of martin cullens proposals, and the unenforcable nature of national planning policies. planning officials operate under their own edicts, and ultimately this is allowable in the sense than local strategies must be adhered to to avoid centralisation of what is a distinctly rural issue.

I agree that the proposals are slapdash. I also agree with the need for balanced decentralisation. Off topic a little, but if decentralisation was properly clustered a while back, JetMagic might have succeeded. The National Spatial Strategy should be implemented as written.

Originally posted by sw101
your habit of accepting wholesale the word of policy and plans which are always made to be broken, and your acceptance of them as gospel while it suits you, undermines any arguement you have regards these issues to which you seem insistent on remaining almost entirely ignorant

That attitude is precisely why this country is in a mess. Had the Buchannan report been implemented 30 years ago we wouldn’t have such a large Dublin.

Alan, My two cents:
I like its over all design and shape, it looks great. The only thing is that I personally don’t really like the use of stone on buildings like that. I would prefer it to be white. That is just my opinion though! 🙂

Alan, That was what I thought was the case. I just sometimes think that at the moment there is too much pressure put on architects to ‘contextualise’ their buildings using stone which is from the area, when the contrast between rendered white walls and the landscape can look better in the long run. What is the vernacular of the area. Are traditional houses generally whitewashed walls or are they stone?

I saw an article in an Irish Arts Review recently about a house in Cork which was half renderering and half limestone. I will try and dig out the exact reference for you so you can see what you think.

Best of luck with it

Phil

i agree alan. small windows are a shite.
i like the use of stone and render mixed in the right places of course can really set the stone out. i like the double height living space but is there a view into it from what looks like a bedroom behind. and it seems that it’s projecting out. nice touch.
i have always liked the projected wall thingy. i have always found that the roof of that is a touch problematic though. it is an amazing feature to a room even if it only comes out by 500mm or so.
have you thought of giving the terrace a canopy of some sort as probably in the future there will be a conservatory put there by some careless owner. and the car port is a nice idea. not enough of that anymore.

yeah. too much of a view to take in can work against the design as much as with it.
i don’t know about a deck though. might be nice but then again it may be rarely used espically from the bedroom. a deck from the study with an external stair to just beside iving space may be used more.
sorry i don’t mean to impose myself it’s just when i see a design i can’t help myself. u can tell me to bugger off if u want if u don’t see any point in them.

and lol. yes. u’ld love to throw miracle grow so the come up even faster to hide those horrible neighbours!!!

😀
otherwise a nice house design with plenty of southern like filtering throughout. the terrace would be a lovely place for a bbq.

i was thinking more playboy mansion job than just kylie. cos to be honest only one of us can have her whereas there is plenty of playboy girls:D

oh! and beer…naturally….lots and lots