Dublin Metropolis – Artist’s Impression
- This topic has 75 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 8 months ago by
ctesiphon.
- AuthorPosts
- October 20, 2005 at 6:11 pm #741182
GregF
Participant……………..Chicago!
November 30, 2005 at 3:44 pm #741183fergalr
ParticipantVery interesting pic!!!!!
Em…certainly some of the buildings there would have looked far better being taller. Some of them would have looked far better by not being built!
December 1, 2005 at 3:21 am #741184stira
Participantglasgows poplulation is half a million and dublin is alot bigger, and growing at a far faster rate than almost all european cities regardless of size!
December 1, 2005 at 5:13 am #741185BTH
ParticipantIt’s extremely difficult to get a sense for the real size of cities when different definitions of boundaries and geographical limits are taken into consideration. However the comparison of Glasgow and Dublin is quite telling:
Dublin City, an area of 115square km has a population of 495,000 according to the 2002 census
Glasgow City, an area of 175square km has a population of 629,000 according to the 2001 census.
More interesting however is that the “Greater Glasgow Settlement Area” (as defined in the 2001 census) with an area of 368square km (or an approx radius of 11km from the centre of Glasgow) has a total population of 1,168,270 (2001 Census)
Greater Dublin, an area widely considered to include all of counties Dublin, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow has a total area of 6971square km and a total population of 1,535,446 (2002 Census) It’s a ridiculously huge expanse to be considering as being part of Dublin’s metropolitain area.
More realistically, County Dublin, including Dublin City, Fingal, South Co. Dublin And DunLaogaire Rathdown has a total area of 912square km and a population of 1,122,040 (2002 Census)Therefore Greater Glasgow would appear have a similar population to Co. Dublin accommodated in approximately 40% of the geographical area. In my book this makes Glasgow a “bigger” city in that it is more densely populated.
Also within a geographical area roughly similar to that of the 6971square km of Greater Dublin a group of districts immediately surrounding Glasgow (East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, City Of Glasgow, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire, South Lanarkshire, West Dunbartonshire) with a total area of 6715square km has a total population of 2,096,685. Therefore “Greater Dublin” would appear to have approx. 73% of the population of Greater Glasgow and immediate environs.
I got all this information through wikipedia and I have to say I’m quite surprised at the result of the calculations. I always thought that Dublin was a considerably bigger place than Glasgow but the facts tell a different story. Of course bigger doesn’t mean better by any means! Dublin at the moment seems to have a lot more going for it than Glasgow from an economic point of view plus the population is set to rise dramatically in the next 20 years or so whereas Glasgow’s growth is relatively static.
December 1, 2005 at 1:48 pm #741186ctesiphon
ParticipantMuch of the ‘Greater Glasgow settlement Area’ includes those awful 1960s towers, though, which must surely increase the density quite considerably, whereas in Dublin the suburbs start as soon as you cross the canals. Dublin City, according to those figures, is actually more dense than Glasgow, which I find surprising (c.4300/sq.km vs c.3500/sq.km), but which further illustrates just how dispersed Dublin’s suburbs are. (I’m not trying to restart the whole pro- vs anti-height debate- just making an observation.)
I’ve always found Edinburgh to be more of a city than Dublin despite its smaller size (haven’t checked areas or population- I’m talking about my perception)- more fully urbanised in the centre and with a more concentrated and defined footprint. I could walk from work in Morningside to home in the east end of the New Town in about 35 minutes- that’s about 2/3 of the whole city footprint. And the city edge really felt like the city edge- forests and mountains were just beyond the notional ‘boundary’. Any journey to the end of a bus line would show the fairly abrupt transition.
Edinburgh seems like a city in miniature, while Dublin seems like a very big town. (Don’t get me wrong – I like Dublin – like I said I’m talking about perception.)December 2, 2005 at 1:29 am #741187murphaph
ParticipantAnytime I’ve been to Glasgow I always felt it to be a bigger city than Dublin, with a higher density of population in the areas surrounding the central business district (which feels a lot bigger than Dublin’s). Particularly notable I think is the number of tenements that are fully occupied. A lot of ‘over the shop’ accomodation that would be occupied in Glasgow is still vacant in Dublin. I think the city council has some action plan to address that but I culd be mistaken.
December 2, 2005 at 1:40 am #741188ctesiphon
ParticipantThe thrice-launched Living Over The Shop (LOTS) scheme? Worthy, but owners remain to be convinced.
Tenement buildings are one of the main reasons why I love Edinburgh (and Glasgow) so much, and one of the main reasons why they feel like cities. My guess is that the reason we don’t really have them is that they were just arriving as a type around the time of the Act of Union.
And the apartments we’re building now are not the same thing at all. Entirely the other end of the spectrum. Embarrassingly so.December 2, 2005 at 1:54 am #741189GrahamH
ParticipantAre these tenement buildings you speak of ctesiphon what they call ‘mansion blocks’ over there? (in London at least).
What class of people would have lived in these in the 19th and early 20th centuries when they were built?
I suspect even then a house with front and back garden was still more desirable, even if these blocks were built to a very high standard.December 2, 2005 at 1:04 pm #741190Morlan
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
Are these tenement buildings you speak of ctesiphon what they call ‘mansion blocks’ over there? (in London at least).
What class of people would have lived in these in the 19th and early 20th centuries when they were built?
I suspect even then a house with front and back garden was still more desirable, even if these blocks were built to a very high standard.Have you not been to Edinburgh, Graham? If not you should be shot!
The majority of the tenaments in Edinburgh were built to a very high standard. Certainly the ones I was in.
Here’s a mighy tenament building in Cowgate.

Anyway, this is totally off topic.
December 2, 2005 at 6:46 pm #741191ctesiphon
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
Are these tenement buildings you speak of ctesiphon what they call ‘mansion blocks’ over there? (in London at least).
What class of people would have lived in these in the 19th and early 20th centuries when they were built?
I suspect even then a house with front and back garden was still more desirable, even if these blocks were built to a very high standard.They’re pretty much the same thing, afaik, though I get the impression that the flats in the mansions might be smaller- maybe just the ones I know. Our flat (such a term doesn’t really do it justice) had four bedrooms, two reception rooms, two bathrooms and a kitchen, and a great view of Calton Hill. It was in a four storey over basement block in which the ground floor and basement were actually more like terraced houses with back gardens. Very few of the tenements are as spectacular as the one in Morlan’s pic (which is Old Town rather than New Town).
If you really haven’t been to Edinburgh, may I suggest you drop what you’re doing right now and get on the next flight out of town? I’ll give you a week before I start oiling my gun.:) If you can’t make it, rent ‘The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie’ (or Trainspotting, for that matter, but TPOMJB is a far better film) to see what we mean.The city imposed strict controls on its feuars . Although internally the houses were built to individual tastes and requirements, externally they had to conform in a uniform manner to the general plan as to both height and site. While uniformity was the prime requisite,* variations were allowed in decoration and in the design of doors and windows.
Tempted?:)
EDIT: Broken URL removed. See message below for replacement.
December 2, 2005 at 7:07 pm #741192SeamusOG
ParticipantGreat picture of Edinburgh. It reminds me of a trip there many years ago. I’m trying to remember was it the Scottish National Gallery or National Museum where the main entrance is on the ninth floor (though I think there is another entrance on another street below the one where the main entrance is).
The pictures of Chicago are also very good. What interests me is how much sun seems to get in through all those tall buildings. In the picture on the left, most areas on the left hand side are bathed in sunshine. I wonder, with our location on the planet (about 10 degrees north of Chicago), would we be able to ensure the same thing if we built up tall buildings in the city centre. It is, for example, possible to sit in sunshine up to about 3 O’Clock on Christmas Eve on the boardwalk, even though there is shade extending at least half way across the Liffey. If taller buildings were built along, say, Burgh Quay, as the picture in the opening post illustrates, this would not be possible. I’m not against building tall, but we would also need to be very careful to make the best use of our fairly limited sunlight.
(maybe if we actually introduced that bend in the river?:) )
December 3, 2005 at 3:34 am #741193GrahamH
ParticipantIn which case we could probably move the sun too if we wanted ๐
That’s a great building in your picture Morlan, a nine storey Georgian building – imagine dropping that into conversation at an IGS dinner – the scandal! It really makes you laugh aloud when you think of the five storey IFSC Phase II in this context.
Just in Ireland for good or bad, ‘tenement’ has negative connotations, even they are of high quality – mass-built housing built to rid parts of the city of slums: Iveagh Buildings etc. By contrast ‘mansion blocks’ in London at least seem to have been built by developers for the middle classes c1900 as alternatives to the conventional house, somewhat similar to how families lived in continental cities:

ctesiphon nil do link ag obair…though yes I’ve seen Trainspotting (who hasn’t?), not the other though.
Never been to Edinburgh (oh the shame), but I’ve visited her classier collegue twice, which hopefully makes up for it ๐
December 3, 2005 at 1:09 pm #741194ctesiphon
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
ctesiphon nil do link ag obair…though yes I’ve seen Trainspotting (who hasn’t?), not the other though.
Never been to Edinburgh (oh the shame), but I’ve visited her classier collegue twice, which hopefully makes up for it ๐This should work (sorry)- http://www.abercrombyhouse.com/history1.html
I can’t think of anywhere classier than Edinburgh, at least in Scotland. (Except maybe Oban.:) ) Where do you mean?
Lastly, I think it’s only in Ireland that ‘tenement’ has such negative connotations. In Scotland, it simply means a multiple-occupancy building in which the floors are all the same height (unlike our old Georgain friends with the piano nobile and diminishing heights moving upwards).December 3, 2005 at 2:17 pm #741195SeamusOG
ParticipantBath would be my guess.
December 6, 2005 at 1:18 am #741196GrahamH
Participant
Correct and right Seamus.Gasp! ctesiphon doesn’t know a Bath streetscape when he sees one?!? And there was me thinking the Royal Crescent would be too obvious for him….
๐
Thanks for the link – which led me on to this ๐ฎ
http://www.picturesofedinburgh.com/pictures/oldtown/oldtown-viewfromscott1.jpg
Skyscapers even by today’s standards.
December 6, 2005 at 2:20 pm #741197ctesiphon
Participant๐ฎ
Though in my defence (ahem), I didn’t realise there was any connection between the ‘classier colleague’ and the picture below the words- I just thought it was another London picture, though not one I recognised.
(In hindsight, I should have just checked the image properties- Bath is in the title of your file!)There’s another great view of Edinburgh that would be the next picture to the right of the one you linked, showing the back of the Bank of Scotland and other Baronial-tinged ‘skyscrapers’ directly behind the two galleries that sit above Princes Street Gardens, but I fear we’ve gone too far off topic.
I’m off to lick my wounds…:)
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

