Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

GORGIAN MONSTERS GOBBLING UP THE GREEN

If Mr.H feels like that he should stick to a flat in Ballymun or wherever rather than clogging the roads from West Cork to Dublin in his SUV…or maybe he lives like he preaches and rides the “boreens” on a pushbike?
What a self pontificating prat.

I cant see your point kite.

For the very first time in my life I agree with Eoghan Harris. I’m scared!!!!

It is disgusting that at a time of greater conservation awareness the countryside is being plundered for short-term gain with long term negative consequences.

I have the benefit of growing up in Dublin and spending my summers in the midlands – Lucan was a village at the time (1987) and there were long stretches of road from there to Mullingar without any housing. Then they started to appear like ragworth on the roadsides. Now nearly every road is infested with these ugly, visually insensitive, and environmentally unfriendly piles of poor design. You would be hard pressed to find a quarter-mile stretch without a vile bungalow. It is truly incredible that a process that started slowly in the 1980s has completely destroyed the delicate beauty of Irelands countryside. Its not a question of stopping it anymore – it has gone past the point of no return in my opinion….

Small boreens are now riddled with bungalows. Amazing vistas as disturbed if not destroyed by poor development. And still in many cases villages remain undeveloped, whereas a few miles beyond the bungalow plague manifests itself.

Eoghan Harris has written the obituary of Ireland’s once cherished beauty. We still have well preserved beauty spots. However, spots is what they are – the general picture is defaced, bordering on the ugly. 🙁

@kite wrote:

If Mr.H feels like that he should stick to a flat in Ballymun or wherever rather than clogging the roads from West Cork to Dublin in his SUV…or maybe he lives like he preaches and rides the “boreens” on a pushbike? What a self pontificating prat.

I got to know Eoghan about 14 years ago and met him off and on for about 7 years; Whilst his views on Sinn Fein were quite a bit ahead of their time I would never accuse him of being pontificating. His style of speech is what I respect most about munster people (usually when they’ve had a few) it is direct and uncompromising. As for Eoghan’s abode you will be happy to know he lived in a house when in Dublin; drove an old (even then) car and had a keen eye for design.

I for one feel his articles are saying the same as so many others such as David McWilliams although his takes a more visual perspective. Now that the Shinners are behaving themselves I hope he devotes more of his time to this subject it will go well with the ads in Sindo property supplement. 😉

I travelled to Sligo recently for a weekend, to stay in the holiday home of a Dublin 4-based family – a clich

There’s another school of thought that says our villages have been preserved by having development taking place outside, not a very convincing problem I know. Another problem is that new developments in our towns and villages are usually mind numbing cul de sac, could be anywhere rubbish that are not necessarily aimed at locals but commuters or holiday homes.

i totally agree about his views on one off housing. Its an absolute disgrace and people shouldnt be allowed to build in the countryside. Far more apartment and town houses should be given the green light and it would make this miserable island a lot more sustanable.

I have travelled to lots of villages in ireland where most of the population is outside the actual village than inside it. What a pathetic joke that is.

I can empathise with the dismay Harris feels at the enormous damage being done to the countryside because of the awful houses lined up along country roads in all parts of the country. Having grown up on a farm, then spent 5 years in Dublin while studying, and now a practising architect in “rural Ireland” I can see the issue from the perspectives of the farmer and the architect. With that in mind I’d like to make a few points giving reasons for the mess and some suggestions for amelioration…

Middle-class people do not want to live in towns/villages. In their mind, towns are for “townies” and for council houses. Also, traditional small townhouses along streets in the average provincial town don’t have the same appeal as comparable houses like artisan dwellings in Ringsend/Stoneybatter in Dublin. The reason is lack of parking. Everyone in provincial towns must have a car because there are no bus services, and if there is any the next bus is 7 hours away. Walk? You must be joking. It is written in rural statute that if you need to go to a shop on a particular street you MUST PARK ON THAT VERY SAME STREET. AT NO TIME SHALL YOU PARK ON A DIFFERENT STREET AND WALK AROUND THE BLOCK TO THE REQUIRED SHOP. But what if there are no parking spaces on that street. YOU SHALL POSITION YOUR VEHICLE ON A DOUBLE YELLOW LINE. But what if there are cars on either side so that there is no kerb against which to park. YOU SHALL DRIVE TO A POSITION OPPOSITE THE ENTRANCE TO THE SHOP, BRING THE VEHICLE TO A HALT ON THE CARRAIGEWAY , GET OUT, LOCK THE DOOR, GO DO YOUR BUSINESS, blocking the traffic all the time, UNTIL YOU RETURN, GET IN , AND CONTINUE YOUR JOURNEY. (I swear to God that last bit about parking your car out on the road, while the traffic is stuck waiting behind happens regularly outside Paddy Powers in a certain town in the south east.) I may have briefly gone off the point, but it’s a small illustration of the absolute lack of any community/civic spirit that is the root of the ruination of the countryside. To hell with everyone I’ll park where I like. To hell with everyone I’ll build where I like!

Farmers make less and less living out of conventional farming, the Common Agricultural Policy is about to become history, so the selling of sites with outline permission is an alternative money spinner. You can’t buy half an acre in the south east for less than 100k anymore. The view is prevalent amongst farmers that where they own land, they, and only they have any moral right to decide how it’s developed. Planners occupy the same position in their mind as the Black & Tans once did.

Our clientilist politics mean that planners are often under pressure from councillors and T.D.s to get permission for applicant. I heard of one case where a planner was out in a field having a consultation with a farmer in relation to an application for outline permission for THREE SITES. A Junior Minister of the present government was present in the field to support the farmer instead of being at his desk in Dublin.

County development plans allow houses to be built on sites that are too small – half an acre, thereby leading to rows of house after house because only 50 metres or so road frontage is required for each one. It should be an absolute requirement that an applicant must have at least 10 acres of land in one holding, to build a house on it. That holding should not be reduced by selling of any part thereof.

Also, there is often a requirement in sensitive areas that the ridge height of houses not be greater than 6 metres. This means that a 2 storey house is out, so if the applicant doesn’t want a bungalow, well it’ll have to be a dormer-bungalow. The ‘dormers’ tend to look more dreadful is visually inappropriate than a 7 metre high 2 storey house could ever have been.

I agree with Graham Hickey about the emphasis on the interiors. They are paramount! In relation to the requirement for only half acre sites mentioned above, people often complain that even that’s too much to maintain. There are no gardens, just a lawn surround by post & rail fence.

I disagree with Graham about living in the countryside however. He painted a very bleak picture. I love living in the countryside. It’s not a bit lonely. Weekday evenings are for being alone sitting by the fire reading. You’ll see plenty of people during the day and at the weekend. Who cares if you run out of milk? Is there no wine in the fridge? Go out and milk a cow. Or ring the postman and ask him to bring you up a carton the next day. I don’t find the roads too dangerous. Neither do the horses. I know most of my neighbours.

Regarding design, as you all know the title ‘Architect’ is not registered and there are armies of technicians roaming the countryside offering ‘architectural services’, ‘architectural design’, calling themselves ‘architects’, ’planning consultants’, and other such subterfuge. Our education system’s lack of design education means that most people are design illiterate – it’s not their fault. Also, having spent more than several years’ wages just buying a site, they are loath to engage a properly qualified Architect to design and supervise the construction of a sustainable work of architecture. They just want a ‘set of plans’.

Meanwhile the concreting over continues…

@Breen wrote:

armies of technicians roaming the countryside

lol 🙂
So very sad, but so very true.

That’s a frighteningly good point Breen about the phasing out of CAP – what the heck sort of impact is that going to have with sites being sold off willy nilly?
Can’t remember off the top of my head, but the figures for the amount of farmers anticipated to leave agriculture over the next twenty years are simply staggering – it’s only going to be large holdings that remain. Which is even worse, as it’s the smaller farms that seem to be more damaging with regard to site speculation.

Fair enough point about rural living Breen – just not for me I suppose! My point about the roads though is that as more houses are built, the more dangerous rural roads become as there’s an increased level of traffic, and usually speeding traffic to boot. Which in a vicious circle-like way simply encourages even more people to use their cars and avoid ever-more dangerous roads.
Not to lump the problem on the shoulders of one-offers, but I can certainly see how levels of drink driving are so high in this country. How many rural dwellers are willing to walk more than half a mile to their local and back?

great post, Breen, good to hear from a “man on the ground” as it were. Some counties have made more efforts than others though. County Cork isn’t as bad as neighbouring Kerry or Limerick. Towns like Clonakilty seem like really nice towns to live in.

You’re right about the townies thing though. People that grew up on farms never like to live in the town, it’s just another manifestation of Ireland’s housing apartheid, albeit one that isn’t referred to. One thing I notice though is guys who grew up in the village are building out the country, social climbing, Irish style.

The culture of the self build is quite strong now in rural ireland, that’s what people want. It’s just a pity that this building isn’t confined in zoned areas in around existing villages/towns.

Yes – I thought it very interesting on another site that contributors were justifying their self-building by saying that they weren’t going to be subjected to ‘developer crap’ that’s going up everywhere. Now eh…..I know developers don’t have the best architectural record going, but……coming from self-builders……

It really confirms it for me that the interior is king. I was in speculatively built houses in Kerry during the summer, put up by farmers as a ‘nest-egg’ because there’s no real money in the farm anymore. Again, monstrous from the exterior, and completely unworkable exposed gardens on the side of a hill, but lavishly fitted out inside.
That’s what I personally hate so much about most one-offs – a one metre perimeter is ‘tamed’ around the house with concrete paths and gravel and drains etc etc, as if the house has fallen down from outer space, and then the rest of the ‘site’ just falls away to scrub again.

As long as the interior is high-spec, and a safety net ‘moat’ of concrete is built around the house, then you’re protected from the wilds of the countryside.

indeed great post Breen,
incidentally as an architect working in the countryside do you ever find yourself contributing to the blight simply because of the overwhelming amount of debilitating factors which affect rural development, such as road engineer guidelines, setback distances etc.? I’ve just convinced a client who’s building in Co. Sligo to rotate their house so that the gable faces the road but I’ve no idea what the planner’s going to think yet, it may be simply against the regional policy despite the fact that most vernacular farmhouses are orientated this way.

I’ve included some images I put together of how a one-off is perceived in rural Tipperary where they’ve somehow been allowed to keep the roadside ditch, a rare occurance and probably semi-illegal but it greatly reduces the impact of the development.

also, just to bug the townies (graham), I find that rural living calls for very little beyond a hi-viz vest and some water-proof boots, and my most enjoyable moment of this Christmas was probably walking down the road to a neighbours house for a drink not being able to see my hand in front of my face and not a care in the world for drink drivers, that’s what grass verges are for.

[ATTACH]1367[/ATTACH]

bugger, my attachment doesnt work, how do I insert an image into the body of the text as Devin has done above, it keeps asking me for a URL but the image is on my desktop,

advice anyone?

I’m no environmentalist buts what is happening in Ireland now has turned me into a bit of a green. The one off housing blight is quite simply horrendous. It’s becoming an increasing problem here in Northern Ireland but seems to be at a much more advanced stage in the Republic. Places such as Donegal – which people in Belfast have shamefully contributed to with their holiday ‘villas’ – has been nothing short of ruined by such development. Houses seem to stream out like the strands of a spider’s web for miles along every road leaving towns and villages. Very soon the entire county will have become a low density suburb of higgledy-piggledy one-offs plonked along every lane and over every hill-top. It’s environmental vandalism on gigantic scale. And if NI and the rest of the south are going to end up looking like the Donegal-sprawl (it even rhymes:o ) then I’ll simply emigrate.

At the current rate Ireland is going to end up as one of the most spoilt and downright ugly environments in Europe. Indeed, just compare this place to the island next door. There, towns and villages stop at clear boundaries and beautiful rolling countryside is left unspoilt in between. Indeed, I’d go as far to say that if we have to have a choice between sprawl at the edge of towns and cities and the McMansion blitz the former is vastly preferable. Yes, some countryside would be lost but not on the scale that the current low density carpet-bombing is wreaking. Indeed, if you rounded up all the one-offs to be built across the Republic over the next ten years and placed them in a dense thin circle around the various large cities most of the country would remain verdant and unscathed.

But why is it that Irish people – North and South – seem to have no sense of the common good when it comes to the environment like the Scottish, English, Dutch, Germans and almost everyone else in Europe? Why have we treated this island’s stunning natural heritage with the contempt that’s so evident in the ribbons of bungalows and valleys speckled in mock Tudor mansions? Such permanent disfigurement is not just disgusting but immoral IMO.

Not wishing to be petty but one thing I will add is that our one-offs seem to be better integrated with the landscape than yours – if that’s possible. (You know we’ve really reached the bottom of the barrel when the state of our respective sprawls becomes a pissing contest :rolleyes: ) But anyway, when recently travelling to Donegal I deliberately drove up a few house lined rural roads in Fermanagh simply for comparison’s sake. The differences while small in print had quite a substantial effect on the ground. On our side of the border, the one-offs were set further back from the roads edge, hill-side and hill-top sites had clearly been placed off-limits (indeed the planners had often steered development into much less obtrusive hollows) and there were no boundary walls with hedge and wooden fence used instead. Indeed, the original roadside shrub had often been retained. Furthermore, there was considerably greater spacing between the sites. All of this seemed to combine to soften the impact of the sprawl.

Then came Donegal.

Hill-side, hill-top and anywhere you want seemingly. For that matter it appeared that planners had deliberately steered builders away from less damaging locations. Houses are often so close together as to seem almost piled on top of each other. Almost every one has a disproportionately large boundary wall that’s often completely out of character with the property. Frequently these are placed at all sorts of different angles destroying the continuity of the road verge and furthermore they quite often lie unfinished or poorly maintained. Then there’s the thing which has been banned in NI and that’s ribbon development along major roads. This surely must add to the accident rate. Accordingly, I propose the incorporation of a new town in Donegal – N56ville. This ‘linear’ settlement begins at Donegal town (now seemingly a commuter village of the former) and continues seemingly without end. It must have the longest high-street in Europe.

The other feature which we seem to have avoided up here but one which Donegal has managed to turn into a recurring speciality is the isolated housing estate. In NI most housing estates tend to be in or attached to towns but that’s not how they do things in Donegal. Oh no, housing estates there tend to get thrown up in fields in the middle of nowhere. You turn a corner and are confronted with a little oasis of 20 or so semi-ds all on their lonesome surrounded by cow pats and the distant shimmer of the expanse of one-offs.

Letterkenny isn’t so much a town as an explosion: like something that hurtled from outer space and was splattered over the county’s northern landscape. Towns like this tend to follow you around – usually to the next village and beyond. I imagine that there’ll come a time when Letterkenny will spread its tentacles of ribbon development to every nook and cranny in the county.

If this sort of development is replicated all along the western sea-board then how unearth will the government’s proposed west coast railway line ever be feasible. The trains won’t be running from one concentrated urban core to another but simply through a sparsely populated splurge.

Ireland is being destroyed – and it’s all very depressing. In the space of a generation this island will have went from containing some of the most outstanding landscapes in Europe to some of the most disfigured. If you’re in any doubt take a trip to the mess that is the trip to Malin Head. In England or Scotland the area would’ve been preserved unspoilt as a national park. But here in Ireland the development that’s been allowed to go on there is nothing short of sickening.

Welcome to the Ireland of tomorrow: the ugly isle.

This needs to be retitled the polemic thread.
So very well articulated MT, and humourously, albeit such a depressing issue.

Perhaps the problem is not as bad in Northern Ireland because of the generally more prudent, urban-oriented mindset that permeates British administration. And yet even then they find NI appalling.
I’ll never forget the mortification felt when watching the BBC’s ‘Restoration’ series and the episode where they came to NI. First thing on the list was to convey the ‘curious’ nature of planning on this island – aptly demonstrated by Griff standing in front of a dilapidated thatched cottage, extolling its charms, and how things are changing – ‘to this’…camera swings round to reveal glaring squat bungalow at the end of a sweeping drive with full scale heritage lanterns populating the front garden.

Similarly, as mentioned before, the highly embarrassing ‘Location Location Location’ visit to Ireland. As much as the novelty of the programme wore off after the 76th series, it was nonetheless so very notable to see the difference between rural property in Ireland and Britain. It’s a series that encapsulates British residential architecture and planning so well – you just don’t get the one-off housing over there that you get here. It just doesn’t happen. Virtually every house they visited here was a one-off in a field, in contrast to tightly knitted villages, genuine farmhouses and small towns usually featured on the British version. Both on television, and from experience of travelling through Britain so many times I can certainly say which model I prefer.

The UK is for the most part made up of small villages in rural areas, many thousands by all accounts, but not sprawling one-off houses. The fact that they have come through three major economic booms since the War and still have emerged relatively unscathed is a shocking indictment of the state of affairs in this country. Housing there is grouped around villages, or in villages. You also do not get ribbon development to the extent you get here, nor isolated housing estates which are simply everywhere in this country.
Not all is perfect over there of course – yes they still build low-density housing estates, yes the standard of houses and their design is arguably even worse than here, but it is nothing like the scale we have to put up with in Ireland.

The fact that things are continuing here after ten years of explosive construction, and are worse than ever, is all the more embarrassing. It is a national pride issue as much as it is of environmental and aesthetic concern.

God that image says it all. A lot of folk associate vernacular with primitive thatched cottages and poverty so they’ll take the shiny new bungalow thanks very much!

Yeah it’s a pity that hedgerows or ditches as we call them in rural Ireland aren’t preserved. Some place like Clare compell people to build stone faced walls as if these cod traditional features look well. The bungalow builders if they do plant a hedge it’s usually of the leylandia variety which of couse look as out of place as any bungalow in the irish counrtyside. When was the last time you saw someone plant a mixed Irish hedge with whitethorn, ash, etc in the mix?

and of course section 140’s.
I agree with evrything you say becaue that is exactly how it is up here in donegal.
In fact the council are virtually impossibleto deal with if you are objecting or putting a submission in.
They will not supply files , they will say they cant find them etc etc, they will say you cant copy files.
the people, the council and most people are here are interested in one thing above all else Money.
They remind me of the buffalo hunters in america who kept killing buffalo until the buffalo hide was worth less than the bullet, they will keep building and selling until it does not pay anymore.
there is still some beautiful spots left in donega; inspite of them but they are going fast.

Devin – Your two posts are right on the nose. The original farmhouse in your attached image would make a magnificent home with some time and effort (and money of course). Why this obsession the country over with nauseous yellow bungalow shrapnel?

All – For a longer (rather too long) and even more depressing account of the rape of our green and presant land I would recommend Frank McDonald’s ‘Choas at the Cross Roads’. As with his previous books (on Dublin) this latest publication is a sad and sorry tale of our venal, philistine, clientist political class and of our collective disregard of the environment (both urban and rural) as citizens. In a hundred years times I could imagine a definition of unsustainable – see Ireland.

http://www.lovingarchitecture.com/index.php?294&tx_mjseventpro_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=158

I agree with the article wholeheartedly. The land of Ireland, as specifically stated in the Constitution, belongs to the people of Ireland.

All of us.

Obviously a thriving rural economy and thriving countryside regions are what we would all like to see in Ireland. All the money shouldn’t be staying in the Pale and other financial outposts. So I’ve always been of the opinion that new housing in and around existing urban settlements is the way to go down the country.
The one-off housing is destroying our little island. Selfish, ugly, thoughtless bungalows, being strewn across the fields of Ireland will do irreperable damage environmentally, socially and economically (tourism..).

I was hiking in Kerry this time last year. Some friends and I were climbing near Mangerton, just south of Killarney National Park.
As far as the eye could see, one-off housing proliferated. I’m not exagerrating when I say that in one direction it was one-off housing to the horizon.

It’s deeply depressing, and I don’t mean that in a hand-wringing urban liberal sort of way.

On a broader note and momentarily putting aside issues such as sustainability, economic viability and aesthetics, to deny people the right to build one-off houses on land which they legally possess in a democratic state has deeper implications for personal freedom in Ireland. It is comparable, in some respects, to other debates concerning state control vs. personal freedom (e.g. previous debates over abortion, contraception, pornography and so on). This is also a matter of how much power the state should have over the people. Should, for example, a person who has a genuine desire to live on their own land in relative seclusion and with a modest budget be denied what some would see as a basic constitutional right? Should the state be allowed to deny what many would see as a reasonable lifestyle choice. What then of the itinerant community and their personal choice to live in the manner in which they do. Should the settled community also not enjoy the right to chose where and how they live within the bounds of the law? Greater issues are at stake here – issues which I have a feeling some planners simply have not considered in a more philosophical sense.

@PDLL wrote:

On a broader note and momentarily putting aside issues such as sustainability, economic viability and aesthetics, to deny people the right to build one-off houses on land which they legally possess in a democratic state has deeper implications for personal freedom in Ireland.

How can you put aside every relevant determinate of the process and start again? Would you wish to see the entire traffic code ditched for drunk drivers or fire regs dumped for the leisure sector?

@PDLL wrote:

It is comparable, in some respects, to other debates concerning state control vs. personal freedom (e.g. previous debates over abortion, contraception, pornography and so on).

What about the right to have a tax base that doesn’t involve subsidising those who wish to build houses of 2000 – 4000 sq feet and ofetn have no link to the land in question whatsoever

@PDLL wrote:

This is also a matter of how much power the state should have over the people.

The responsibilty of the State is to govern in accordance with all the laws ans EU directives which this type of development pattern flaunts in abundance

@PDLL wrote:

Should, for example, a person who has a genuine desire to live on their own land in relative seclusion and with a modest budget be denied what some would see as a basic constitutional right?

There is nothing to stop anyone living on the land within the constraints of the existing planning designation]Should the state be allowed to deny what many would see as a reasonable lifestyle choice. [/QUOTE]

If they buy the sanctioned product they get the lifestyle; I’ve always wanted a particular house in Dublin 4 but until I have the resources it is an unattainable aspiration which I am only denying myself.

@PDLL wrote:

What then of the itinerant community and their personal choice to live in the manner in which they do. Should the settled community also not enjoy the right to chose where and how they live within the bounds of the law?

Ironically the group who scream loudest for a free for all are also the same people who tend to be most anti unsettled person and often appear to be the first to cry for the police and courts when ‘the knackers’ arrive.

@PDLL wrote:

Greater issues are at stake here – issues which I have a feeling some planners simply have not considered in a more philosophical sense.

Planners are technicians who are employed to oversee local, regional, nationaland European Law and regulations they are not agony aunts.

@Thomond Park wrote:

How can you put aside every relevant determinate of the process and start again? Would you wish to see the entire traffic code ditched for drunk drivers or fire regs dumped for the leisure sector?.

I was not suggesting that they should be permanently ruled out of consideration, merely that they should be ‘momentarily’ put aside for the sake of elaborating another possible element for consideration.

@Thomond Park wrote:

What about the right to have a tax base that doesn’t involve subsidising those who wish to build houses of 2000 – 4000 sq feet and ofetn have no link to the land in question whatsoever ?.

I still reject this simplistic view of Dubliner subsidizing one-off house country dweller argument. Lets consider other factors: take a working class high density housing estate in Tallaght or whereever and compare it to an area comprising 100 one-off houses in Co Mayo. Yes, the one-off houses cost a little more in terms of services (telephone cabling, postal deliveries etc). However, how much do you think the corpo houses in Dublin cost the irish tax payer, how much does the tax payer pay for the consequences of ghetto style housing areas in cities (higher crime rate, higher drugs rate, higher unemployment, increased cost of policing, increased cost of social workers, increased cost of maintanence due to vandalism etc. lets face it, take the whole thing as a package and the expense to the tax payer per head of capita is probably similar when comparing large urban areas to one-off housing.

@Thomond Park wrote:

The responsibilty of the State is to govern in accordance with all the laws ans EU directives which this type of development pattern flaunts in abundance

The state also has the responsibility to allow people to choose their lifestyle within the bounds of reasonable laws. Have you been to any former Soviet State lately?? Lets just stick everyone in 10 huge big tower blocks along O’Connell street and we would have the most sustainable and cost-effective city in the world. People should not have the right to live as they chose? Sounds a bit totalitarian to me. Ireland is a free state – if a person is free to buy an over-powered car, then they should be free to live in a one-off house. Lets deal with all of the problems related to the excesses of personal freedom before we start focussing on just one. That is what I meant when I said that this is not just about sustainability – it is about broader issues of personal freedom and the relationship between the person and the State.

@Thomond Park wrote:

‘Constitution’ the major function of which is to give the government power to legislate for the benefit of the common good to the exclusion of vested interests.

people could argue that living in higher densities is not for the common good of the people – it often brings increased crime, drug abuse, unemployment and so on as noted above. All of these cost the tax payer in terms of policing, accident and emergency, lost productivity, unemployment money etc. Lets see the bigger picture.

@Thomond Park wrote:

Planners are technicians who are employed to oversee local, regional, nationaland European Law and regulations they are not agony aunts.

Bureaucrats who think in a utilitarian robotic manner?

I guess, in a sense, the argument comes down to whom you believe has a more important stake in the land of Ireland. The landowners themselves, who either own it as long as they choose or as long as the lease holds out. Or the wider community, the entire population of Ireland, who deserve for their country to be treated as well as possible, given the constraints of a growing population, the rights of the occupier and the need for greater transport links throughout the country.

@PDLL wrote:

I was not suggesting that they should be permanently ruled out of consideration, merely that they should be ‘momentarily’ put aside for the sake of elaborating another possible element for consideration.

Not possible

@PDLL wrote:

I still reject this simplistic view of Dubliner subsidizing one-off house country dweller argument. Lets consider other factors: take a working class high density housing estate in Tallaght or whereever and compare it to an area comprising 100 one-off houses in Co Mayo. Yes, the one-off houses cost a little more in terms of services (telephone cabling, postal deliveries etc). However, how much do you think the corpo houses in Dublin cost the irish tax payer, how much does the tax payer pay for the consequences of ghetto style housing areas in cities (higher crime rate, higher drugs rate, higher unemployment, increased cost of policing, increased cost of social workers, increased cost of maintanence due to vandalism etc. lets face it, take the whole thing as a package and the expense to the tax payer per head of capita is probably similar when comparing large urban areas to one-off housing.

This rural snobbery is quite disgusting]The state also has the responsibility to allow people to choose their lifestyle within the bounds of reasonable laws. Have you been to any former Soviet State lately?? Lets just stick everyone in 10 huge big tower blocks along O’Connell street and we would have the most sustainable and cost-effective city in the world. People should not have the right to live as they chose? Sounds a bit totalitarian to me. Ireland is a free state – if a person is free to buy an over-powered car, then they should be free to live in a one-off house. Lets deal with all of the problems related to the excesses of personal freedom before we start focussing on just one. That is what I meant when I said that this is not just about sustainability – it is about broader issues of personal freedom and the relationship between the person and the State. [/QUOTE]

Nobody is stopping you from buying a one off house; however the Department of Transport would stop you driving a car that hadn’t undergone the relevant checks for safety and road appropriateness.

@PDLL wrote:

people could argue that living in higher densities is not for the common good of the people – it often brings increased crime, drug abuse, unemployment and so on as noted above. All of these cost the tax payer in terms of policing, accident and emergency, lost productivity, unemployment money etc. Lets see the bigger picture.

That is a highly offensive description of urban emlements and can only be described rural snobbery providing services to a dispersed area is simply more expensive

@PDLL wrote:

Bureaucrats who think in a utilitarian robotic manner?

Entirely unfair but better than a lot of the thrash who pass for local politicos in this state.

PDLL – where are these working class high density estates in tallaght anyway?? there are no high density estates in tallaght that i’m aware of.

Thank you Thomond Park.
In examining any issue or argument it is usually possible to segregate certain elements for specific focus. That does not mean that the other elements do not have influence the entire argument or that they are not important – it just means that one topic becomes ‘momentarily’ (as specified) the focus of critical analysis.

Snobbery involves making a value judgement on others based upon their socio-cultural status. I did not make a value judgement on anyone. If you read my post, I stated sociological facts. It is a fact, however distasteful it may be to some, that large working-class estates in and around Dublin (and other cities and towns) have, statistically, higher crime and drug abuse rates than most rural areas in Ireland. In addition, they also tend to have significant problems with anti-social behaviour, vandalism, unemployment, car-related crime and so on. I am not saying that these things do not happen in rural Ireland – of course they do. I am saying that it is a social fact that these phenomena tend to increase in extent and intensify in magnitude in areas of greater housing density. As a result, such urban manifestations bring with them a myriad of expenses to the tax-payer, including but not limited to the following:

– need for social workers;
– need for drug-rehabilitation workers;
– need for prison places resulting out of drug-related crime;
– need for replacement public service vehicles due to vandalism;
– joy-riding (costs to consumer – insurance, police-related costs etc);
– reduced productivity due to bus-drivers unwilling to drive in certain areas;
– costs of policing;
– costs of school-liaison officers;
– costs of CCTV systems;
– breakdown in social bonds;

The list goes on – these are the hidden costs that often underpin increased housing density. Not always, granted, but you cannot escape sociological reality either.

Who has to cough up to pay for all of these invisible costs? Ya – the Irish tax payer – rural and urban alike; housing-estate dweller and one-off house dweller alike. Indeed, it could be described as Dublin arrogance to suggest that one-off housing is subsidised by Dublin – it could also be argued that the rural tax-payer has to take up much of the bill for the social problems in many areas in Dublin. Costs of postal delivery to one-off houses begin to fade into insignificance in comparison. There are always two sides to a story. If you only present the information on one-side then off course one-off housing looks selfish and unsustainable. I would hardly describe much of suburban Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo, Athlone etc as a social utopia.

If such observations are ‘highly offensive’ then it is a good job you do not work as a sociologist in Dublin – could be a bit upsetting.

@PDLL wrote:

Thank you Thomond Park.
In examining any issue or argument it is usually possible to segregate certain elements for specific focus. That does not mean that the other elements do not have influence the entire argument or that they are not important – it just means that one topic becomes ‘momentarily’ (as specified) the focus of critical analysis.

You cannot eliminate planning practice at any stage from the decision making process and call it planning]Snobbery involves making a value judgement on others based upon their socio-cultural status. I did not make a value judgement on anyone. If you read my post, I stated sociological facts. It is a fact, however distasteful it may be to some, that large working-class estates in and around Dublin (and other cities and towns) have, statistically, higher crime and drug abuse rates than most rural areas in Ireland. [/QUOTE]

Firstly I never singled out Dublin; I referred to Urban Ireland which includes any settlement with a population in excess of 1,000 people whilst you made broad sweeping generalisations that had no statistics to back them up and even declared that Tallaght had ‘high density’ local authority housing. The only medium density housing in Tallaght has been provided by the private sector and has sold extremely well where attractions such as Luas and The Square as well as proximity to essential facilities such as the Hospital and IT are proving both attractive to purchasers but also efficient for Local Government.

@PDLL wrote:

In addition, they also tend to have significant problems with anti-social behaviour, vandalism, unemployment, car-related crime and so on. I am not saying that these things do not happen in rural Ireland – of course they do. I am saying that it is a social fact that these phenomena tend to increase in extent and intensify in magnitude in areas of greater housing density. As a result, such urban manifestations bring with them a myriad of expenses to the tax-payer, including but not limited to the following:

– need for social workers]

It is more equitable to address the causes of social problems through investment in social supports than to keep every borreen with two bungalows with a road surface in a safe condition to collect a child on the heavily subsidised school bus. To strip every town in Ireland of its leaders and significant earner will in time lead to exactly what you have described above in many if not most small towns.

@PDLL wrote:

Who has to cough up to pay for all of these invisible costs? Ya – the Irish tax payer – rural and urban alike]

http://www.adamstown.ie

@PDLL wrote:

If such observations are ‘highly offensive’ then it is a good job you do not work as a sociologist in Dublin – could be a bit upsetting.

What experience do you have of urban living?

@Thomond Park wrote:

if you want to talk about social engineering or psuedo sociology then an architecture / planning forum is hardly the place to do it.

If ‘social engineering’ or pseudo-sociology’ has nothing to do with planning, then is it any wonder things are in a mess. Oddly enough, I would have thought that the way we PLAN our society is very much related to planning – could be wrong on this of course.

@Thomond Park wrote:

no statistics to back them up and even declared that Tallaght had ‘high density’ local authority housing.

Statistics – please go to Central Statistics Office website and the annual reports of the Gardai. You will find more than ample information there to support what I have stated. Of course, much of these statistics are based on ‘generalizations’, so I hope that doesn’t put you off. Shameful, that, the way sociologiy bases itself on generalised statistics, especially when those statistics don’t support the vision of the world that you might like to project. As regards ‘high density’ in Tallaght or anywhere elese for that matter – a housing estate with anything over 10 houses is arguably high density by Irish standards.

As regards the economics of one-off houses – quite a number of one-off houses function as B&Bs and therefore play an important role in the tourist infrastructure of the country. On that basis alone, those one-off houses that are B&Bs more than contribute to the State’s economy and in their own way help subsidise such urban renewal projects as at Ballymun through the taxes they pay.

@Thomond Park wrote:

What experience do you have of urban living?

Not that it is relevant, I have lived in towns and cities both in Ireland and abroad for every single day of my life. I currently live in a city considerably bigger and better planned than Dublin. I have never lived in a rural one-off house, nor – oddly enough – would I like to. In the same way, however, that I would support the building of high-rise in Dublin, I support the retention of one-off rural houses as I believe that they have a place in Irish society and culture and have had since the very first settlers arrived here. To remove them from the countryside will leave the country looking like Britain. Urbanism is only one concept of human settlement and, in the broad span of human history, a relatively recent one. Trying to force everyone to fit the same concept of settlement sounds singularly communist to me.

@PDLL wrote:

If ‘social engineering’ or pseudo-sociology’ has nothing to do with planning, then is it any wonder things are in a mess. Oddly enough, I would have thought that the way we PLAN our society is very much related to planning – could be wrong on this of course.

I agree we should plan our society along the lines of broadly accepted sociological theory such as our Taoiseachs favourite author/guru Robert Putnam

@PDLL wrote:

Statistics – please go to Central Statistics Office website and the annual reports of the Gardai. You will find more than ample information there to support what I have stated. Of course, much of these statistics are based on ‘generalizations’, so I hope that doesn’t put you off. Shameful, that, the way sociologiy bases itself on generalised statistics, especially when those statistics don’t support the vision of the world that you might like to project. As regards ‘high density’ in Tallaght or anywhere elese for that matter – a housing estate with anything over 10 houses is arguably high density by Irish standards.

With the greatest of respect if you wish to make a point that relies on statistics you should display the specific statisitics or if you can’t supply them withdraw your remarks] As regards the economics of one-off houses – quite a number of one-off houses function as B&Bs and therefore play an important role in the tourist infrastructure of the country. On that basis alone, those one-off houses that are B&Bs more than contribute to the State’s economy and in their own way help subsidise such urban renewal projects as at Ballymun through the taxes they pay. [/QUOTE]

The problem with B& B ‘s miles from the social centres are that tourists either can’t get to the bars and restaurants to spend money or have to drink and drive wheras if the same facility were located in the town they could comfortably stroll to and from the same revenue generating establishments thus generating more revenue in a more relaxed fashion.

@PDLL wrote:

Not that it is relevant, I have lived in towns and cities both in Ireland and abroad for every single day of my life. I currently live in a city considerably bigger and better planned than Dublin. I have never lived in a rural one-off house, nor – oddly enough – would I like to. In the same way, however, that I would support the building of high-rise in Dublin, I support the retention of one-off rural houses as I believe that they have a place in Irish society and culture and have had since the very first settlers arrived here. To remove them from the countryside will leave the country looking like Britain. Urbanism is only one concept of human settlement and, in the broad span of human history, a relatively recent one. Trying to force everyone to fit the same concept of settlement sounds singularly communist to me.

No one is saying that one off houses should be demolished; simply that they should be limited to circumstances where they are required to support existing agricultrual enterprises. The free for all must end

That is the Garda Annual Report for 2004 – I should have mentioned this above.

@PDLL wrote:

That is the Garda Annual Report for 2004 – I should have mentioned this above.

There is no seperation between urban and rural in this nor does the report detail the types of offence nor the causes of the crime and certainly makes no commentary as to the societal or settlement pattern related factors behind the single statisic. That could equally be attributed to day trippers from North Wales on the HSS or stag party weekenders from Northern England.

http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics/report2004/stats2004.pdf

This will give you all the statistics you could want and then some. No – it doesn’t discuss societal patterns or settlement patterns and this is exactly my point. The consequences – good, bad or indifferent – of one-off houses can not be simply reduced to ‘it costs a lot to tarmac a boreen or to deliver post to a house – therefore its cheaper to live in an estate on a bus route’. This is a simplistic and reductive understanding of how settlement patterns affect our society and economy.

Any debate about prefered forms of settlement should consider the bigger picture (and that includes such ‘abstract’ issues of personal liberty, as I mentioned earlier). The answer will not lie in one or two statistics or neat percentages, but collectively these might actually give a broader picture of how things really function. Yes, people see a boreen being tarmaced and the anti-one-off brigade start whining because it allegedly costs those living in somewhere like Crumlin a few extra tax euros. Perhaps, though, the owner of that house on the boreen is more comfortable living in the country, feels less stressed, is more family orientated, is more content with his/her existence and is, therefore, more productive in his job (personal contentment being a recognised pyschological factor underpinning productivity). As he is more productive, he doesn’t cost the state so much in unemployment allowances, in health care, etc, rather he can make a net contribution in taxes that will help subsidise some individual hooked on alcohol in a crappy overcrowded house in a decrepid estate in Tallaght. He doesn’t feel imprisoned in a confined estate, he doesn’t feel estranged from his neighbours, he doesn’t feel like an anonymous unit because he has no relationship to the society around him. He doesn’t therefore, feel the need to try drugs, to drink to excess, to commit acts of vandalism. Yes, all of these factors are interconnected and planners need to start thinking that way. It is not about shifting little boxes on a computer screen and labelling one ‘shopping centre’, the other ‘recreational utility’ and so on. It is, however, easier to wag the aggrieved finger at a boreen being re-tarmaced and come out with the old lines of begrudgery.

Yes, you will not get the answers by looking at one or two statistics, but by considering the whole picture, there are other issues at stake. Has anyone carried out a study of the socio-economic consequences of makingthe planning laws on one-off housing so restrictive that people who wish to live in the countryside can no longer do so? Theres a PhD topic for someone.

PDLL, your “bigger picture” is just a bunch of stereotypes of an idylic countryside existance. You make no mention of 2 and half hour commutes. You make no mention that children have to be driven everywhere in cars and have extremely limited social lives outside of school as they are not in a position to independently meet friends. You do not mention the extremely high rate of suicide and depression in the parts of Ireland which have the most dispersed pattern of settlement. Or the fact that sustaining a social life almost necessitates driving while under the influence of alchohol. I always liked this piece which while perhaps overly negative, tallies with some of my own experiences growing up in a once-off.

@jimg wrote:

PDLL, your “bigger picture” is just a bunch of stereotypes of an idylic countryside existance. You make no mention of 2 and half hour commutes. You make no mention that children have to be driven everywhere in cars and have extremely limited social lives outside of school as they are not in a position to independently meet friends. You do not mention the extremely high rate of suicide and depression in the parts of Ireland which have the most dispersed pattern of settlement. Or the fact that sustaining a social life almost necessitates driving while under the influence of alchohol. I always liked this piece which while perhaps overly negative, tallies with some of my own experiences growing up in a once-off.

I’m not so sure if it is just a bunch of stereotypes. Why then is the crime rate in Dublin is more than twice that in the west per 1,000 of population as is indicated in the statistics noted above. If this is a stereotype then it is one based on fact.

Your 2.5 hour commute is based on the principle that all people who live in one-off houses have to drive for 2.5 hours to get to work. Is this a reasonable generalisation. I think not. Why also do so many people living in very built up parts of suburban Dublin also spend two hours each day in their cars – you do not have to live in a one-off to have that. I accept your points about the social difficulties facing some children, however, in real terms what is the difference between someone having to drive their child from one one-off to another a few miles away and a parent having to drive their child from one estate to another in Tallaght? Fine, if all of your schoolfriends live in the same estate (which is relatively unlikely), but usually they will be spread out over a greater area even in Dublin. Yes there is a problem with suicide and depression, especially in the North West and Border counties. Why? Could the fact that the country is so heavily biased in favour of Dublin in virtually every conceivable way imaginable have something to do with this? Could the fact that the NW and Border counties have been starved of real investment for so long that it makes life their increasingly difficult? Restricting the possibilities of people actually being able to live in such areas will not exactly stimulate economic growth in the countryside and so the cycle continues.

@PDLL wrote:

http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics/report2004/stats2004.pdf

This will give you all the statistics you could want and then some. No – it doesn’t discuss societal patterns or settlement patterns and this is exactly my point. The consequences – good, bad or indifferent – of one-off houses can not be simply reduced to ‘it costs a lot to tarmac a boreen or to deliver post to a house – therefore its cheaper to live in an estate on a bus route’. This is a simplistic and reductive understanding of how settlement patterns affect our society and economy.

At page 55 the statistics dealing with the number of Children cautioned under the garda JLO scheme is at 0.1617% of young people marginally ahead of the Southern Region at 0.1316% and the South East at 0.1320%. This indicates that the resources being diverted to An Post &#8364] Any debate about prefered forms of settlement should consider the bigger picture (and that includes such ‘abstract’ issues of personal liberty, as I mentioned earlier). [/QUOTE]

If personal liberty was genuinely being challenged why have we not witnessed an action to the Supreme Court?

@PDLL wrote:

The answer will not lie in one or two statistics or neat percentages, but collectively these might actually give a broader picture of how things really function. Yes, people see a boreen being tarmaced and the anti-one-off brigade start whining because it allegedly costs those living in somewhere like Crumlin a few extra tax euros. Perhaps, though, the owner of that house on the boreen is more comfortable living in the country, feels less stressed, is more family orientated, is more content with his/her existence and is, therefore, more productive in his job (personal contentment being a recognised pyschological factor underpinning productivity).

Dublin has the lowest per capita unemployment rate in the state and has had for a decade http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/current/lregan.pdf

@PDLL wrote:

As he is more productive, he doesn’t cost the state so much in unemployment allowances, in health care, etc, rather he can make a net contribution in taxes that will help subsidise some individual hooked on alcohol in a crappy overcrowded house in a decrepid estate in Tallaght. He doesn’t feel imprisoned in a confined estate, he doesn’t feel estranged from his neighbours, he doesn’t feel like an anonymous unit because he has no relationship to the society around him. He doesn’t therefore, feel the need to try drugs, to drink to excess, to commit acts of vandalism. Yes, all of these factors are interconnected and planners need to start thinking that way. It is not about shifting little boxes on a computer screen and labelling one ‘shopping centre’, the other ‘recreational utility’ and so on. It is, however, easier to wag the aggrieved finger at a boreen being re-tarmaced and come out with the old lines of begrudgery.

I have no problem with anyone derving contentment from their abode once it has cleared the planning process and once said person makes a fair contribution to all the costs of their property.

@PDLL wrote:

Yes, you will not get the answers by looking at one or two statistics, but by considering the whole picture, there are other issues at stake. Has anyone carried out a study of the socio-economic consequences of makingthe planning laws on one-off housing so restrictive that people who wish to live in the countryside can no longer do so? Theres a PhD topic for someone.

I know a person (an intercounty senior GAA player) who started that thesis only to change their opinion of dispersed development patterns mid-thesis and conclude that that form of development required more regulation having considered the evidence.

Is this a reasonable generalisation. I think not.

That’s my point. Your argument (besides the crime stats thing) seems to be based on a bunch of one-sided generalisations. Did you read the article I linked to and if so what did you think?

@PDLL wrote:

take a working class high density housing estate in Tallaght or wherever and compare it to an area comprising 100 one-off houses in Co Mayo. Yes, the one-off houses cost a little more in terms of services…However, how much do you think the corpo houses in Dublin cost the Irish tax payer, how much does the tax payer pay for the consequences of ghetto style housing areas in cities

Frankly PDLL some of your comments are laughable in their preposterousness. When was the last time a person in a lower socio-economic bracket built a one-off house? When was the last time a person on the dole with few prospects in life built a one-off house? When was the last time an individual brought up in an unstable environment with little education or encouragement built a one-off house? When was the last time someone who has experienced nothing but the State failing them every step along the way built a one-off house?

The social failings in urban areas stem not from the nature of their settlement patterns, but primarily because vast numbers of disadvantaged people are dumped in them, with a certain element of historical economic migration also. In fact many of Dublin’s disadvantaged areas can be traced right back to the Famine.

Rural areas do not experience the level of crime of urban areas simply because so many of their ills are dumped on cities. The notion that rural living is somehow the wholesome safe alternative for society is so offensive a notion it beggars belief – the very reason they are safer and suffer fewer problems is because middle-class people can afford to ‘escape’ to these areas, pulling all investment out of urban areas, and I include small rural towns and villages in that. Most of rural areas’ ills are simply neatly swept over in a pile on top of major urban settlements.

As a hopefully future urban dweller, I find it offensive how you describe the notion of urban living as problematic in comparison with an apparent ‘wholesomeness’ of rural environments. The problems cities experience are not urban problems, or rural problems – they are society’s problems.
You will probably find the crime levels faced in some the most densely populated areas of Dublin like Glasnevin or Drumcondra are as low as those in many rural areas, as with all of the many thousands of middle-class housing estates going up all over the country. Urban or semi-urban patterns of living are not the problem – rather it is historical failings in society at large, instigated by economic necessity and sustained by State failings.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

When was the last time a person in a lower socio-economic bracket built a one-off house? When was the last time a person on the dole with few prospects in life built a one-off house?

A very valid point, Graham. Indeed, it is often the case that people who build and own one-off houses are net tax contributors to the economy and – as an obvious result – are more likely to contribute substantially to the maintanence of the country’s public infrastructure and health, social welfare and criminal justice systems in over the course fo their tax-paying lives than many urban dwellers are. Logically then, it appears even more niggardly for someone to criticise such net-contributors because they occasionally might have to have a pot-holed filled on the approach road to their house or the post-man might have to drive a bit further to deliver a letter.

In general I agree with your points on the compexity of Ireland’s social structure. I disagree, however, with the remark that ‘social failings in urban areas stem not from the nature of their settlement patterns’. To dismiss the well-established connection between physical and spatial environment and behavioural psychology is also laughable. Next time you wander past the bread counter at your local supermarket, just remember who is pulling your purse strings – the behavioural pyschologists have you well sussed out. The layout of physical space does influence our behaviour – this is unquestionable. Of course the picture is more complicated than that – crime, unemployment, drug addiction – none of these are influenced by spatial design alone, but this is exactly my point – it is simplistic in the extreme to condemn one-off houses because someone sensationalises the issue by bitching that some guy in Co. Mayo got a new road up to his house at the cost of the tax-payer. This is what I have been arguing all along – perhaps one-off houses have positive economic and social effects, just they cannot be seen because people are focussing on the superficial. Arguments for personal liberty with regard to where and how one lives are also not laughable – I am sure the itinerant community would agree with me on this.

If the ‘problems cities experience are not urban problems, or rural problems – they are society’s problems’, why then do so many people contribute to Ireland’s alleged ‘urban sprawl’ – see other thread on Archiseek on this issue. Why then do so many people WANT to leave the cities and live in the countryside whether it is in one-off houses or suburban estates. Why then are so many willing to face a two hour commute just so they can escape places like central Dublin? I am not foolish enough to believe the countryside is paradise, but neither am I foolish enough to ignore the reality of how many people perceive and experience urban life and who are willing to cough up a lot of money to try to escape it. The problems may be ‘society’s’ problems, but people implicitly identifiy those problems with urban life and lets face it estate agents, advertising agents and architects both know and exploit that fact. Lets not come over all coy on this one. Social reality is shaped by the way it perceives itself and perpetuates itself. Again returning to my original point – things are not as simple or binary as one would wish to see them. That is why I went to the trouble of attempting to tease out some of those complicating factors as many just hear one-off houses and think ‘selfish bastards’, in the same way that many seem to have some instinctually negative reaction to buildings over 7 storeys in height. I have no vested interest in one-off houses or indeed personal experience of living in one. I recognise, however, that some people may find them a preferred form of settlement and I do not think that anyone has the right to question or limit that right provided those people do not actively interfere with the rights of others. As regards economic factors – ya its crap that the filling of a pothole in a boreen somewhere near Kenmare costs someone in Drumcondra a few tax euros – just in the same way that it is crap that a farmer in Kiltimagh has to pay a few tax euros to fund a drug addiction clinic in Sherriff Street or whereever else for that matter. Life in a unified state that operates a centralized tax system is just shit, isn’t it?

@PDLL wrote:

Life in a unfied state that operates a centralized tax system is just shit, isn’t it?

So what alternative are you proposing?

I am not proposing anything. Every state functions more or less with a centralized tax system – it is normal. My point is – perhaps it is lost somewhere – that opponents of one-off houses should accept that in a state with such a tax system there will always be apparent economic inequalities. In reality, this might mean some one living in such a house may cost the state a couple of extra euros to have a pot-hole filled now and then, but the reality is that that person will also be subsidizing other structures, services, events, and so on in parts of the country that s/he can not and will not benefit from. That is life. Opponents of one-off housing should see that and stop whining about what X is getting and what they are not. I, for example, paid taxes in Ireland for long enough – did I ever benefit from my PRSI payments – no. Did someone on social welfare benefit from a free pair of specs paid from my PRSI dues – most likely yes. Do I whine about this – I hope not. That is the way the system works in a state.

@PDLL wrote:

Ithis might mean some one living in such a house may cost the state a couple of extra euros to have a pot-hole filled now and then,

No pothole is ever filled in for a couple of euros; expenditure on pothole remediation at the whim of clientist rural councillors is costing €100s of €1,000,000s the extra 10,000s of one offs being built each year will add €100,000,000s to the national budget going forward.

I have a feeling that the message is not getting across. No drug clinic in Sherriff Street is funded by a few euros either! No statue to Phil Lynnott on Grafton Street or wherever is funded by a few euros either – but the point is we all contribute to the central pool of exchequer funds. Sometimes the expenditures benefit us directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes not at all. Consider the bigger picture and stop bashing a few individuals who manage to benefit from the tax system in a way which you cannot and do not. I am sure you benefit in other ways from their tax euros that they will never.

And if there are so many one-offs being built surely that will make them more economically viable as there will be more houses on a post-man’s route to service, one telephone cable will serve more houses….. remember that old argument about Dublin being a series of villages that gradually joined together – well there you have it. It seems that economically the more one-offs there are the better the situation might be!!!

@PDLL wrote:

I have a feeling that the message is not getting across. No drug clinic in Sherriff Street is funded by a few euros either!

The message is getting across you have no knowledge of Dublin whatsoever!!!!!!!!!!

Upper Sherriff St is a zone in transtion from industrial to new dockland mixed use featuring some of the most expensive medium density developments in the state whereas Lower Sherriff St has been regenerated to form part of the IFSC, a transport interchange rail/bus and a small number of three storey familly homes provided by Dublin City Council c 1997.

Many of those using Dublin drug clinics are those driven from small country towns and even one off houses who have no option but to migrate to large urban centres to recieve treatment.

@PDLL wrote:

No statue to Phil Lynnott on Grafton Street or wherever is funded by a few euros either

An interesting example the statue draws tourists from all over the World making a substantial contribution to the tourist economy wheras one offs are costing €100,000,000s as they destroy the landscape and pollute the watercourses. Angling used to be a significant contributor to the economy but the one offs have destroyed some of the finest angling rivers in Europe. 😡

@PDLL wrote:

– but the point is we all contribute to the central pool of exchequer funds. Sometimes the expenditures benefit us directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes not at all. Consider the bigger picture and stop bashing a few individuals who manage to benefit from the tax system in a way which you cannot and do not. I am sure you benefit in other ways from their tax euros that they will never.

Since this government came to power 70,000 individual one off houses have been built] And if there are so many one-offs being built surely that will make them more economically viable as there will be more houses on a post-man’s route to service, one telephone cable will serve more houses….. remember that old argument about Dublin being a series of villages that gradually joined together – well there you have it. It seems that economically the more one-offs there are the better the situation might be!!! [/QUOTE]

Dublins major villages developed in pulses and mostly during Victorian times, each district had its own local governemnt structure such as Clontarf, Rathmines and Pembroke; each of which invested significantly in civic facilites and encouraged medium density development. Developing at one house per hectare or less wikl never deliver the types of synergies these bodies did

great debate here people and a very complex issue. i have just a few comments ;

the arguments supporting one-off housing in rural areas often rely on the historical settlement patterns of the country – i.e. the fact that people have always lived in the countryside. however, is it not true that these patterns of settlement were intimately tied to socio-economic processes (an agriculturally based economy that operated at a relatively localised scale) which made rural settlement possible and necessary – the need for close physical and functional linkages to the countryside was the underlying factor in determining peoples’ place of residence – it wasnt a lifestyle choice – it was largely a manifestation of the workings of the rural economy.

today, that rural economy is a very different thing..it doesnt require intensive settlement to make it work – most of the demand for rural housing is urban generated one way or another – coming from individuals/families whose socio-economic ties are predominantly urban-based – i.e. non farming related work. therefore, for most people who want to live in the countryside, it is about choice not necessity – the key question here is – does anyone in the state have a right to build where they wish? – i think the answer is no – if you cannot build anywhere in a city or a town that you wish, is it not equitable that the same rules aply to rural areas? individuals have rights in a democracy but in a republic with a constitution those rights are superceded by the concept of the common good – and this is where sustainability and environmental issues arise.

in summary – a question – if the social and economic conditions which underpin the need for an intensively populated rural society do not exist what justification is there for supporting rural settlement at the scale we currently do?

@Thomond Park wrote:

The message is getting across you have no knowledge of Dublin whatsoever!!!!!!!!!!

Upper Sherriff St is a zone in transtion from industrial to new dockland mixed use featuring some of the most expensive medium density developments in the state whereas Lower Sherriff St has been regenerated to form part of the IFSC, a transport interchange rail/bus and a small number of three storey familly homes provided by Dublin City Council c 1997.

Many of those using Dublin drug clinics are those driven from small country towns and even one off houses who have no option but to migrate to large urban centres to recieve treatment.

I am talking generically. No I don’t know each and every house in the Sherrif Street area, nor do I know the location of each and every drug clinic in Dublin. The point was not about geographical specificity. In the same way, I don’t know if a pot-hole has been filled in a boreen somewhere near Kenmare in the last 100 years. I was trying to making an analogy to get a point across about the concept that tax-payers money goes in various directions, some of which may or may not directly benfit us.

@PDLL wrote:

I am talking generically. No I don’t know each and every house in the Sherrif Street area, nor do I know the location of each and every drug clinic in Dublin. The point was not about geographical specificity. In the same way, I don’t know if a pot-hole has been filled in a boreen somewhere near Kenmare in the last 100 years. I was trying to making an analogy to get a point across about the concept that tax-payers money goes in various directions, some of which may or may not directly benfit us.

Being relatively young and I hope healthy I do not benefit from either old age pension or from those with health problems but I have no objection to either group receiving state funds as such expenditure generally tends to be spread quite evenly on a per capita basis.

@PDLL wrote:

Fantastic – I am delighted for the family of Phil Lynnot. I have a feeling though that the handfull of croonies that may actually have visited the statue at its unveiling is not an indication that it will become a premier tourist attraction in its own right. We should maintain some perspective on this. Thin Lizzy was not exactly the Beetles or the Rolling Stones, so I don’t think Dublin tourism will benefit to the extent you might wish to imagine from this statue.

Lynnott is a significant popular culture icon and has made a large contribution to the development of the now internationally successful indigenous music industry whilst not on the scale of Liverpool the outlay of the statue represents the only civic investment in celebrating all the Internationally successful players such as U2, Enya etc and cost about what the average townland recieved for pot-hole filling prior to either the 2002 general or 2004 national elections. Unlike the potholes the statue will age positvely.

@PDLL wrote:

As regards angling, most river and lake pollution is caused by farming-related polution, and is not domestic in origin. By the way, where do you think the angling visitors stay – yip – one off houses serving as B&Bs – probably the mainstay of Ireland’s tourism product.

The vast majority of successful B & Bs tend to be located either within or directly at the edge of towns]And half the country didn’t benefit from the Millenium fireworks display on the Quays and I didn’t benefit from the Cork City of Culture and my friend in Monaghan has never seen the Modell Arts Centre in Sligo. I have never driven on the M1. My aunt didn’t benefit from the CAT scan machine in Galway Regional Hospital – where do you draw the line? Someone accused one-off house owners of being me feiners and selfish – Christ. [/QUOTE]

On a per capita basis all of those facilities can be justified as the pooled resources accross an entire region combine to make the contribution negligible. In the case of Cork it is evident that the organising committee delivered an excellent programme far in excess of what could be reasonably expected from their modest budget. Pireas the Greek host city for 2006 is planning half the events on a similar budget.

One offs cannot be justified except in very limited circumstances as no-one other than owners benefit in any way whatsoever

@Thomond Park wrote:

Being relatively young and I hope healthy I do not benefit from either old age pension or from those with health problems but I have no objection to either group receiving state funds as such expenditure generally tends to be spread quite evenly on a per capita basis.

The tax system doesn’t just boild down to the pension, the health service and filling potholes. Who funds the books in your local library? Who paid for the pedestrian crossing down the street from you? Who provides lights for your street at night? Who pays for the flights of some politician to Brussels last week? Who paid for the biros used by the Ombudsman in October 2004?

Is health expenditure spread quite evenly across the country? You must live in Dublin to believe that!

@Thomond Park wrote:

Lynnott is a significant popular culture icon and has made a large contribution to the development of the now internationally successful indigenous music industry whilst not on the scale of Liverpool the outlay of the statue represents the only civic investment in celebrating all the Internationally successful players such as U2, Enya etc and cost about what the average townland recieved for pot-hole filling prior to either the 2002 general or 2004 national elections. Unlike the potholes the statue will age positvely.

Lets keep it real, as the saying goes.

@Thomond Park wrote:

The vast majority of successful B & Bs tend to be located either within or directly at the edge of towns]

Why then are so many rural B&Bs of the type that appear to cause so much controversy. That is the much maligned large obtrusive modern structures that lack any relationship to the landscape (not my description). Such structures are not paid for without good custom – it seems reasonable to assume therefore that these B&Bs are doing ok. As I know you like to see supporting statistical evidence on such issues, I would be grateful if you could give me a reference to some publicly available information on the economic succes of urban B7Bs in comparison to rural B&Bs. Just a web-site link would satisfy me.

As regards your outcomes – there is a third possibility, although it may not be obvious from the Irish perspective. Some tourists leave their B7Bs in the evening, have a meal somewhere, do not drink alcohol or – as many do – drink within the allowed limits and then drive safely back to the B&B. Or, they might even have a designated driver for each night of their holiday. They might also buy food that day in a local supermarket or shop on the way to the B&B and eat it there that night. Maybe I am strange, but I love to stay at out-of-the way B&Bs in France and pensions in Germany and Austria. For people who live in Europe’s cities this is often the primary objective of their holiday – to escape urban life.

@Thomond Park wrote:

On a per capita basis all of those facilities can be justified as the pooled resources accross an entire region combine to make the contribution negligible. In the case of Cork it is evident that the organising committee delivered an excellent programme far in excess of what could be reasonably expected from their modest budget.

Yes, the pooled resources across an entire country combine to make the contribution negligible. That is why the filling of pot-holes in rural Ireland probably costs you personally about 10 cent per annum, probably about the same as it costs to buy tents for the army in 2003. Maybe you are unique and you get a detailed tax -bill break down indicating how many thousands of euros you have contributed to the boreen network of Ireland. I never got this. What the Cork organizing committee did or din’t do is also irrelevant. The point is that we all contribute to a central pool of funds, some of which we benefit from, some of which we don’t. I, for example, saw no point in the Spire in Dublin. It has hardly become a major symbol of Ireland and doesn’t really reflect anything ‘Irish’. If it is a national symbol, then it could have been put somehwere ‘down the country’. I have not benefited from it directly or indirectly. It probably cost as much as the repair bill for a thousand boreens for 4 years. Do I whine about it and complain about those me feiners in Dublin that have the joy of catching a brief glimpse of it every morning from the bus. No.

Still haven’t heard any comment on getting rid of cottages, those particularly functionless, energy wasting, blights on the landscape.

@PDLL wrote:

The tax system doesn’t just boild down to the pension, the health service and filling potholes. Who funds the books in your local library? Who paid for the pedestrian crossing down the street from you? Who provides lights for your street at night?

Local authorities who are finding it increasingly difficult to do so as so many of their resources are being eaten up in resurfacing roads and refuse collection as well as cleaning up the effects of defective septic tanks.

@PDLL wrote:

Who pays for the flights of some politician to Brussels last week? Who paid for the biros used by the Ombudsman in October 2004?

Again both justifiable on a per capita basis

@PDLL wrote:

Is health expenditure spread quite evenly across the country? You must live in Dublin to believe that! Lets keep it real, as the saying goes.

On foot of the Hanly report all health services are to be built around centres of excellence inline with international best practice] Why then are so many rural B&Bs of the type that appear to cause so much controversy. That is the much maligned large obtrusive modern structures that lack any relationship to the landscape (not my description). Such structures are not paid for without good custom – it seems reasonable to assume therefore that these B&Bs are doing ok. As I know you like to see supporting statistical evidence on such issues, I would be grateful if you could give me a reference to some publicly available information on the economic succes of urban B7Bs in comparison to rural B&Bs. Just a web-site link would satisfy me. [/QUOTE]

I would like to see all such facilites audited to see just how many of them are genuine B & Bs on a standalone basis and how many are PPRs masquerading to recieve EU and National funds not to mention writing off the costs of their 4 x 4s as ‘business vehicles.

@PDLL wrote:

As regards your outcomes – there is a third possibility, although it may not be obvious from the Irish perspective. Some tourists leave their B7Bs in the evening, have a meal somewhere, do not drink alcohol or – as many do – drink within the allowed limits and then drive safely back to the B&B. Or, they might even have a designated driver for each night of their holiday. They might also buy food that day in a local supermarket or shop on the way to the B&B and eat it there that night. Maybe I am strange, but I love to stay at out-of-the way B&Bs in France and pensions in Germany and Austria. For people who live in Europe’s cities this is often the primary objective of their holiday – to escape urban life.

This type of tourist has steadily declined over the past decade witrh recent research indicating that typical visitors are travelling more often and staying in urban locations such as Cork Belfast or Dublin. Even tho9se who have a designated driver will see diminished consumption and as a result lower income.

@PDLL wrote:

Yes, the pooled resources across an entire country combine to make the contribution negligible. That is why the filling of pot-holes in rural Ireland probably costs you personally about 10 cent per annum, probably about the same as it costs to buy tents for the army in 2003.

€1bn per annum equates to €112.50 per average taxpayer that is only non-national road expenditure.

@PDLL wrote:

Maybe you are unique and you get a detailed tax -bill break down indicating how many thousands of euros you have contributed to the boreen network of Ireland. I never got this. What the Cork organizing committee did or din’t do is also irrelevant. The point is that we all contribute to a central pool of funds, some of which we benefit from, some of which we don’t. I, for example, saw no point in the Spire in Dublin. It has hardly become a major symbol of Ireland and doesn’t really reflect anything ‘Irish’. If it is a national symbol, then it could have been put somehwere ‘down the country’. I have not benefited from it directly or indirectly. It probably cost as much as the repair bill for a thousand boreens for 4 years. Do I whine about it and complain about those me feiners in Dublin that have the joy of catching a brief glimpse of it every morning from the bus. No.

Still haven’t heard any comment on getting rid of cottages, those particularly functionless, energy wasting, blights on the landscape.

Your point is?

@Thomond Park wrote:

On foot of the Hanly report all health services are to be built around centres of excellence inline with international best practice]

Not a bad idea, Maybe then two thirds of the country wouldn’t have to drive to Dublin everytime they need treatment for anything worse than a broken arm. Obviously centres of excellence are important. However, the provision of a CAT scan machine, as one minor example, to a general hospital in one of the regions has nothing to do with excellence or research. It has to do with the provision of basic medical care which many tax payers around the country do not enjoy DESPITE PAYING FOR IT!. Again, if you do live in Dublin you would not realise that in a modern European country (and allegedly a wealthy one) it is unusal for one to have to travel to the capital city for treatments and technology that are not rare, particularly difficult, or expensive. Welcome to life outside the Pale.

@Thomond Park wrote:

I would like to see all such facilites audited to see just how many of them are genuine B & Bs on a standalone basis and how many are PPRs masquerading to recieve EU and National funds not to mention writing off the costs of their 4 x 4s as ‘business vehicles.

I presume this means that you cannot support your earlier assertion that urban B&Bs are more successful than rural ones. Which particular EU and national funds does the average rural B&B get? By the way, don’t forget, as part of the country’s tourist infrastructure (tourism being one of its biggest income earners), B&B owners also pay taxes.

@Thomond Park wrote:

This type of tourist has steadily declined over the past decade witrh recent research indicating that typical visitors are travelling more often and staying in urban locations such as Cork Belfast or Dublin. Even tho9se who have a designated driver will see diminished consumption and as a result lower income.

What ‘type of tourist’? What research? References? Please support your suggestion with regard to urban tourism. From your post, I can only take it that the best type of tourist that Ireland can attract is the alcoholic type. Great. You have this in Temple Bar – is this what we want to attract. Is this a vision of Ireland’s tourist industry that appeals to you. Get them in, get them pissed, let them puke it all up beside Phil Lynnots statue, shag a few of the local birds so we will have a few more industrial workers for the next generation, a few burgers and bobs your uncle. With that vision of urban tourism, is it any wonder people would want to live in one off houses in the country. I’d be off the Azores myself. Please don’t ever work for Bord Failte.

@Thomond Park wrote:

€1bn per annum equates to €112.50 per average taxpayer that is only non-national road expenditure.

Just for clarity – this implies that ALL non-national roads in Ireland are private driveways to one-off houses! Am I right? Do you never use non-national roads? Perhaps this is because all of the decent roads in Ireland are around Dublin. Have you never, perchance, driven to the beach, the mountains, the bog, anywhere beyond a national route? I know I do quite often and I don’t own a one-off house. To suggest therefore that the 1bn euros for non-national roads is somehow the ‘bill’ that must be paid for filling potholes for one-off house owners is disingenuous, misleading and generally in the sensationalist tone that I described above often adopted by opponents to one-off houses.

@Thomond Park wrote:

Your point is?

My point is that my tax money was used to pay for probably three square mms of the Spire. I wish it hadn’t been because I couldn’t care less about the stupid thing. That is life though. I partly funded the erection of a monstrosity in Dublin, someone in Dublin funds the filling in of a pothole now and then in Co. Kerry. Life sucks. Im just glad that there are nice B&Bs around the country where I can get away from it all.

And yes, many tourists come here to see that as that is what they understand Ireland to be – rural houses, solitude, peacefullness.

You have got to be kidding PDLL if you think tourists enjoy looking at once-off houses dotted all over the countryside. Tourists are voting with their feet and are more and more of them are sticking with visiting cities. The stats are there to prove it. Of course, the O’Cuiv type professional whingers will immediately blame Dublin-centric development as the reason and will demand that Bord Failte et al. do more for them instead of facing the fact that by building all over areas of natural beauty they are killing the golden goose themselves through short-sighted greed.

I think jimg the full quote adds a bit more to what I was saying:

FULL quote:
Even more significantly, what is the most widely known image of Ireland from the tourism point of view – I can tell you it is not a statue of Phil Lynott. It is the immortal cottage – the very epitome of the one-off house. And yes, many tourists come here to see that as that is what they understand Ireland to be – rural houses, solitude, peacefullness. Hence the need for B&Bs in the countryside.

‘That’ in the above quote refers to the reference to the cottage, not the modern one-off house. Yes, tourists still like to see traditional cottages as this is the image they have of Ireland.

Reasons why tourists may (still haven’t seen any absolute facts to support it) be turning away from rural tourism:

– fact: roads are seriously crap by European standards around the country;
– fact: an increased number people are taking weekend breaks due to cheap flights – by their nature weekend breaks focus on cities near airports;
– lack of real tourist amenities in the countryside as country is so biased towards Dublin (you can call this whining if it makes you feel better, it doesn’t take away from the fact that it is a fact).

What type of tourism is becoming more popular in the cities: the Temple Bar form of tourism?

Tourists who do come here for longer periods and want to see the countryside also want to stay in decent accomodation – hence the popularity of good quality, clean, modern, comfortable B&Bs.

@PDLL wrote:

Reasons why tourists may (still haven’t seen any absolute facts to support it) be turning away from rural tourism:
What type of tourism is becoming more popular in the cities: the Temple Bar form of tourism?

Reason: Ireland has lost the attractions that high end desinations such as Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand and Chile possess >>>>>>>>>>> intact landscape

Ireland is also much more expensive now. As regards intact landscapes and one-off houses, Switzerland has more than its fair share of one-off houses – they dot the alpine regions quite liberally. Only difference is they are normally inifinitely more attractive than just about anything ever built in Ireland – oh, and people take pride in their properties so they don’t look like shit-holes. And if you think one-off houses in Ireland are economically unsustainable, then what happens when the postman has to drive half way up a mountain to deliver a letter! It happens.

@PDLL wrote:

Ireland is also much more expensive now. .

True but Ireland is still cheap in relation to either Norway or Switzerland and certainly cheaper than long-haul flights to Santiago and connecting flights to Puerte Monte

@PDLL wrote:

As regards intact landscapes and one-off houses, Switzerland has more than its fair share of one-off houses – they dot the alpine regions quite liberally. .

In fertile areas CH has equivelnt densities to Meath c1970 no high ground or poor land is regularly developed there unlike planners being overuled by county mangers in relation to percolation test suitability.

@PDLL wrote:

Only difference is they are normally inifinitely more attractive than just about anything ever built in Ireland – oh, and people take pride in their properties so they don’t look like shit-holes. And if you think one-off houses in Ireland are economically unsustainable, then what happens when the postman has to drive half way up a mountain to deliver a letter! It happens.

I agree that the typical Swiss punter has better visual appreciation but I cannot understand what point you are trying to make in regards to driving half way up a mountain; it doesn’t typically happen in CH they protect their landscapes away from the resorts.

What I meant by driving half way up a mountain was that one-off houses are widespread in countries such as Switzerland and Austria. Despite the fact that the physical challenges are much greater in terms of say connecting and providing services (eg. the post), there is no great campaign to prohibit people from building Alpine houses. Nor is there any stigma about living in a one-off house in a scenic area. It is also worth bearing in mind, that one-off houses in Switzerland and Austria tend to be enormous in comparison to even the most extravagant one-offs in Ireland. This is still not a problem. Why then are one offs such a problem in Ireland?

An example – not small.

@PDLL wrote:

An example – not small.

CH has always been built around traditional agricultural settlements in the valley floors supported by rich alluvial deposits from its glacial landscape; the photo you have supplied gives no indication that this 1950-1960’s property is in any way isolated from the development boundary.;

One-offish enough?

You wrote as some kind of justification for one-off house in Switzerland:
‘CH has always been built around traditional agricultural settlements in the valley floors supported by rich alluvial deposits from its glacial landscape’

Allow me to re-phrase that just a little:

‘Ireland has always been built around traditional agricultural settlements in its coastal areas supported by rich coastal resources from its Atlantic landscape’

I presume therefore that this justifies the building of one-offs around our coast. Is the debate over?

@PDLL wrote:

One-offish enough?

You wrote as some kind of justification for one-off house in Switzerland:
‘CH has always been built around traditional agricultural settlements in the valley floors supported by rich alluvial deposits from its glacial landscape’

Look at the number of planning applicactions in CH for dwellings outside the development boundary in each of the cantons and the comparison with Ireland exposes how spurious arguments pervade within this juristiction.

@PDLL wrote:

Allow me to re-phrase that just a little:

‘Ireland has always been built around traditional agricultural settlements in its coastal areas supported by rich coastal resources from its Atlantic landscape’

I presume therefore that this justifies the building of one-offs around our coast. Is the debate over?

Traditional development patterns in Irelnad pre 1970 rarely touched the coast with the exception of lighthouses for climatic reasons excluding natural harbours such as Kinslae and Clifden.

Your ready jump appears not only premature but also misinformed

@Thomond Park wrote:

Traditional development patterns in Irelnad pre 1970 rarely touched the coast with the exception of lighthouses for climatic reasons excluding natural harbours such as Kinslae and Clifden.

Your ready jump appears not only premature but also misinformed

Have you forgotten Galway? I suppose that is why at a guess about 80% of the population has settled within a few miles of the sea or a major inlet (?) Irish people have since the very beginning of human settlement on the island settled near or on the coast – have a look at the landscape of the Knocknarea peninsula in Sligo. My knowledge of Irish georgraphy, archaeology and history must be profoundly worse than I ever imagined, as indeed must my eyesight.

The debate may not be over, but it has taken some serious deviations from logic.

Reasons why tourists may (still haven’t seen any absolute facts to support it) be turning away from rural tourism:

– fact: roads are seriously crap by European standards around the country;
– fact: an increased number people are taking weekend breaks due to cheap flights – by their nature weekend breaks focus on cities near airports;
– lack of real tourist amenities in the countryside as country is so biased towards Dublin (you can call this whining if it makes you feel better, it doesn’t take away from the fact that it is a fact).

I’ll grant you that the growth in weekend holidays tends to funnel visitors to the cities but your other two “facts” make no sense. The roads were much much worse 10/15 years ago and there were fewer amenities (like “interpretive” centres and other such “attractions”) yet the proportion of tourists’ time spent in the countryside was much higher. Your defence of once-off housing on the basis that it represents what tourists want to see in Ireland is ludicrous. Instead of fondly imagining what tourists want to see in the Irish countryside you should ask them. I had some foreign friends over for a few days over the christmas/new year and I brought them around Kerry and Mayo. The bits they liked were the carefully selected isolated, relatively uninhabited parts (the state of the roads didn’t seem to bother them at all actually) and they also liked some of the towns and villages we stopped in. They were vocally unimpressed with the once-off development spreading along every R road (and even many N roads) in the country and in areas of natural beauty.

@PDLL wrote:

Have you forgotten Galway?

My family originate from about 2kms from Galway city] I suppose that is why at a guess about 80% of the population has settled within a few miles of the sea or a major inlet (?) Irish people have since the very beginning of human settlement on the island settled near or on the coast – [/QUOTE]

This is as outlined above and historical OS records a very new phenomenum

@PDLL wrote:

have a look at the landscape of the Knocknarea peninsula in Sligo. My knowledge of Irish georgraphy, archaeology and history must be profoundly worse than I ever imagined, as indeed must my eyesight.

The debate may not be over, but it has taken some serious deviations from logic.

The peninsula you refer to has its most significant archaeological features on raised ground the ancient chieftans wanted immortality and were quite risk adverse when it came to climatic risk

I give you the view from Annan Bryce’s Grecian Temple on the wonderful Ilnacullin Island in West Cork.

On a typically touristy visit there, the jaws of the people I was with, with no prompting quite literally hit the ground upon seeing the ravaged view – one of Ireland’s most important and unique scenic views, framed into a vista by architectural elements in one of the country’s most significant gardens and State properties, peppered with private bungalows.

It truly beggars belief.

Now on close inspection it does seem as if some date from the late 70s and early 80s but frankly I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if permission for a mini-estate of banana-pasted semis was granted for over there even today, to ‘take advantage’ of the spectacular views of the lake. Take advantage indeed.

PDLL I think most people accept the principle of a centralised taxation system, and the implications it has for society at large. However deliberately pursuing a planning policy, which generally speaking has more lasting consequences than other areas of expenditure in the social arena, whereby comparatively well-off people with no connection to the land build where they like how they like to the detriment of society at large is simply not an equitable arrangement. Whereas yes, certain ways of life ought to be supported by the state regardless of the cost such as agriculture and those connected to or otherwise working the land, this ought not to extend to everyone by any means.

Again I come back to this notion of an urban-rural divide you seem to be propagating PDLL – you simply cannot compare like with like when saying that rural dwellers are supporting ‘the way of life’ of cities by funding social ills etc. This disadvantage does not ‘belong’ to the rest of urban dwellers. If you insist on comparing urban and rural areas in the social stakes, at least do so fairly. If, as you agree that generally only comparatively well-off middle class people live in one-offs, and that they make net contributions to the state, well it is only fair that you compare them only with comfortable middle-class urban dwellers, who incidentally also make a net contribution, but at a fraction of the ancillary costs to the state.

Far from it being the case in the 18th and 19th centuries when the wealthy lived on top of each other in towns and cities and the poorest scattered about the countryside working the land, the opposite is now the case, or at the very least a redistribution of wealth has occurred. The pattern and scale of one-off development today is not in the slightest rooted in historical precedent and should not be sustained, not on that latter basis as things ought not always stay the same, but on the destruction that is being done to the environment, landscapes and to the distribution of state funds.

@jimg wrote:

Your defence of once-off housing on the basis that it represents what tourists want to see in Ireland is ludicrous

I thought I had cleared this one up – I NEVER said that tourists come to Ireland to see one off houses. I said that they came to see cottages as that is an element of the stereotypical image of Ireland which many tourists have and wish to see. I said that they often STAY in one-off houses serving as B&Bs. Mind you, since cottages are the one-off houses of the 19th century, then maybe they do actually come to see one-off houses, but I have a feeling you won’t see it this way.

@Thomand Park wrote:

the resources that sustained the clan came from Lough Corrib]

This has to be a first – was the sea marginal to the lives of Galway people over the centuries? Doubtful. Why was it such a successful trading port in the medieval period? If Lough Corrib was so important why then did Galway develop on the sea and not further up the lake. Must have been because getting those ships from Spain down the lake would have been a bit tricky. Galway developed on the sea because it was a port first and foremost – it needed the sea – to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

@Thomand Park wrote:

This is as outlined above and historical OS records a very new phenomenum

Not sure what this means: does it mean that settlement beside the coast is a new phenomenon or that the OS records that settlement is now moving away from the coast?

Both would be wrong in my understanding of Irish demographics. The Irish population has always been focused on the coast – Athlone is about the only town of any size in the midlands and even it is based on our longest river. The population continues to move steadily towards the coast as this is where effectively all of our urban centres are located. I am a bit surprised that an Irish person would disagree with the idea that we have always been and continue to be a nation of largely coastal settlements. With arguments like this, it hardly raises confidence in me with regard to the legitimacy of your arguments against one-off houses!

@Thomand Park wrote:

The peninsula you refer to has its most significant archaeological features on raised ground the ancient chieftans wanted immortality and were quite risk adverse when it came to climatic risk

Most of the archaeological features on Knocknarea peninsula are on slightly raised ground are than lies in the middle of the peninsula – ALL of these monuments are within a 60 minute walk (5-10 minute drive) of the coast. It is a well established fact that whatever community existed in the area during the Neolithic period survived by exploiting the sea. If you walk along the beaches of that peninsula you will see a huge number of midden shell sites (some 2m deep) where the local population gathered and processed/ate shell fish. The reason that the community settled in this area is because of the sea – the gentle rise of ground that the majority of the monuments stand on proffers NO protection from the elements, other than from a high tide.

Graham – indeed, it does beggar belief that someone could construct a mock Grecian Temple is such a location. It is completely out of context – well nigh an obscenity. The two bungalows, however, DO have an historical context. I wonder would your tourist companions have been so horrified if there had been two nice little crannogs nestled on the waters-edge or two nice little thatched cottages. I’m sure that their digital cameras would have been hopping with excitement. Odd that, both crannogs and cottages were the one-off settlements of their time as indeed these two bungalows are of our time. They HAVE an historical context within Irish cultural history. They may not be as pretty as a Swiss chalet or an artisan’s house in Bruge, but they ARE rooted in a cultural context. It may take you two hundred years to see theat – I hope you live long enough to realize what I am getting at. Oddly enough, Ireland was NEVER an urban land, nor were the Celts an urban race – urbanism is a recent phenomenon in Ireland (really only since the 1970s in any really significant sense, although I know we have had cities and towns since much earlier). So if we are talking about who comes first in the historical precedent stakes, you will have to face up to the fact that it is the one-off settlement.

Your comment that:

‘The pattern and scale of one-off development today is not in the slightest rooted in historical precedent and should not be sustained’

is, in my opinion, laughable. It shows no understanding of the cultural and historical context of settlement development in Ireland and displays a lack of sensitivity to the way in which the country and its people have developed over the last 10,000 years which is singularly deficient. Contrary to what you have written, Ireland has always been a nation of one-off settlers – the minority choosing to settle in towns only when exposed to the influence of foreign invaders such as the Vikings and the Anglo-Normans.

To support this assertion, lets look at the historical precedent:

– over 60,000 ringforts are still extant in this country. How many countless thousands have been destroyed through agriculture or have simply faded into the landscape – we will never know. Regardless, the figures reflect a large number of one-off settlements even from early times.
– – lets consider one-off cottages during the immediate pre-famine period. With a population of 8,000,000, there must have been quite a number of one-offs. Lets conjecture. Of that 8m, I would guess about .5m lived in Dublin and the other cities and towns. That leaves about 7.5 million living in houses dotted around the country. Lets take an average of about 10 people per house. That gives us a guestimate of about 750,000 one-off houses. Not bad. Sounds like grounds for historical precedent to me. If there is a historian out there, maybe they could offer more accurate estimates.

The fact of the matter is that some people have a vision of Ireland that is comprised of Dublin, the great sprawling metropolis, and the other regional and token gateway cities. In between – a green swathe of weekend leisure land – a vacant nature reserve that serves no other function than to allow the urbane urbanites to don their Alpine Low hiking boots and to ‘get out there’ into the wild west so that they can bond with nature before returning to the big smoke. Of course, they are only too glad to get back into their SUVs as who would really want to live ‘out there’ in the shitty windy winter months. Oddly enough, many do want to live ‘out there’ – many do want to live in parts of the country that have been settled from the earliest times of human settlement in Ireland, many do want to continue the tradition of living near to nature. Yes, the decline and alteration of the agricultural industry has meant that many of those one-off settlers no longer ‘toil the land’ but rather fund their existences in other ways. Nothing new there. When the first settlers arrived in Ireland there was no agricultural industry either (in fact, there wasn’t even the concept of agriculture)– many lived off what the sea offered. That did not de-legitimise their living in one-off houses. In that context, living in one-offs is as traditional as bacon and cabbage, Irish dancing and the bodhran. What is alien to Irish culture is living in cities and perhaps that is why we seem to be incapable of effective town planning.

In effect, therefore, there are a number of reasons that one-offs should remain an integral element of Irish society – they are a continuation of our well-established pre-Anglo cultural settlement patterns, they offer people a valid and worthwhile alternative to urban life and the manifold social and infrastructural problems associated with it, and they demonstrate and incarnate the basic principle of a peaceful and open democracy, namely personal freedom. In that regard, given their unique contribution to sustaining the originally non-urban Celtic settlement patterns they should receive heritage funding from the Government. Their cultural value alone, aside from their practical tourist function as B&Bs, surely must warrant an increase in the amount of tax euros paid to such home owners.

Mind you, that obscene Greek temple should definitely go.

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:

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; many are owned by people connected to the agricultural industry, many also function as B&Bs and therefore make an important contribution to the local and national economy;
2. they have an historical and cultural precedent – more so, indeed, than any form of urban habitation in Ireland;
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.
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;
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;
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;
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.
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;

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; or, urban-dwellers are envious that given house prices in urban areas they will never be able to afford to construct a house that fulfils their spatial needs or lifestyle desires. If this is to do with aesthetics, well, lets face it – Irish urban houses are hardly the embodiment of all things architecturally great.

@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

@Thomond Park wrote:

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

@Thomond Park wrote:

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

So drunk driving is a rural one-off house phenomenon. This is like me saying that joy-riding is solely an urban phenomenon. Then again, this was exactly the type of simplistic country-city argument that I was criticised for earlier in this thread! Interesting.

@Thomond Park wrote:

You have not proven this whatsoever]

If I have not proven that one-off settlements in Ireland have a historical or cultural precedent then you demand a higher level of evidence than a high court judge. I will re-state it: there have been one-off settlements in Ireland since the first settlement of the island 10,000 years or so ago. For most of that time, one-off settlements were the primary form of settlement in the country. Only until about 1,000 years ago with the arrival fo the Vikings, did any form of large scale urban settlement take place in Ireland. Even then, it took a further 700 years before we had anything close to a city of some size. I repeat – one-off settlements have an infinitely longer and richer cultural and historical precedent in Ireland that any form of urban settlement. If you don’t accept this, I am lost for words.

@Thomond Park wrote:

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.

Driving without major hindrance for an hour in the country to get to a town or sitting in your car for an hour on the Naas dual carriageway – guess who does more damage to the environment? The latter.

@Thomond Park wrote:

Expenditure such as Old age pensions, unemployment benefit or policing are reasonable as most people will recieve them at some stage of their life]

This is a simplistic view of where your taxes go. Pensions and the dole only account for an element of the annual tax take and expenditure – there are a hundred other things taxes are spent on – some will benefit you, some won’t – accept that as a matter of economic and social fact.

@Thomond Park wrote:

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

I never said there shouldn’t be limits. For example, that Grecian Temple in Graham Hickey’s post above is on eof the worst abominations that could be possible inflicted on the countryside. There are planning regulations – they should be obeyed. This , however, should not mean that one section of society should be able to decide wholesale how another section of society should exist or the form of reasonable habitation inwhich they choose to exist. I do not hear one-off owners complaing about the number of anti-social 2 bedroom apartments being built in Dublin and the damaging effect that such apartments will potentially have on the fabric of our cities and the social values of our state.

@Thomond Park wrote:

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.

And the Liffey is a model of environmental perfection – ya right. And Dublin doesn’t contribute its fair share tio Ireland’s CO2 emissions. Ya right. You really need to take your head of the smog.

@Thomond Park wrote:

Pathetic.

Was that a counter-argument?

deleted due to error in posting above post twice

@PDLL wrote:

And Dublin has a much greater problem with illegal drugs than Roscommon. That is a statistical fact. Treating and policing and providing the required social rehab facilities again costs money. Again though, this was the type of simplistic argument I was criticised for earlier. Why – because it might actually mean admitting that people who live in one-off settlements partly subsidize the treatment of such problems in our cities. That doesn’t fit well with the argument against those damn one-off parasites.

Then why does Roscommon have the only public representative in the Country elected on a ‘Legalise Drugs’ platform?

@Thomond Park wrote:

Then why does Roscommon have the only public representative in the Country elected on a ‘Legalise Drugs’ platform?

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.

@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.

@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

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.

@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?

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.

@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.

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.

@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!

@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.

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 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

@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.

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

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 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.

@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 &#8364]

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 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

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, m

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&#8217]

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 &#8211]

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 &#8211]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 &#8211]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 na&#239]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 &#8216]

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&#8217]

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.

The lights are on but nodoby is home Ted

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

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!).

@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 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.

One third of State’s houses built since 1995
The Irish Times

More that one third of houses in the State were built in the last 10 years, according to the latest figures from the Department of the Environment. Last year almost 81,000 houses were built, an increase of 5.2 per cent on 2004. It was the 11th consecutive year of record housing output. This brings the total number of houses built since 1995 to 548,000, which accounts for 34 per cent of all houses in the State. The increase was “an extraordinary development over a 10-year period” the Minister of State for Housing, Noel Ahern, said.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2006/0124/3068672755HM5HOUSES.html

I often wonder about these statistics; for example, my house here in Kerry is a one-off, a re-build of an old house. We had plans drawn up to build an extension but because of ground contours, the decrepit condition of what was there, etc., it made more sense to demolish and rebuild. New house is on exact footprint of old, has a Puraflow, old house had septic tanks, original house had a hole in the ground. We have our own well, the ESB has been there since the 1960’s, we have neither rubbish collection nor local transport service. So where is the burden? I can drive to either airport or railway station in less time than it takes to drive to most of my clients in Dublin (and at my age I’m buggered if I’m going to cycle around Dublin or the Reeks!) I’m not over-using fossil resources.

Incidentally, An Taisce sent in “an observation” on our request to demolish. This inaccurately described the house and when I was able to illustrate this with photographs they withdrew. However, it ensured enough notice and attention from the planner to delay everything for months. Although I support many of An T’s aims, they could be more open on their tactics – their public statement is that they objected to only 6 proposals in Kerry last year, but never admit the hundreds of “observations” that are filed.
Finally, my Dublin house is prominently stuck in a greenbelt. Judging by many of the comments on this thread it should not be there. It is, however, a listed building and like almost all listed buildings is a one-off. Times and tastes change, Tallon’s house for Goulding at Enniskerry was decried when it was built, now it too is “historic” (and possibly listed?)
Is Eoghan Harris’ Baltimore home a one-off too?
KB2

Paul, would you be able to post the text of the article – I’m afraid I cannot access the website and would love to have a look at this.

KerryBog2 – you are a brave man. You will probably have burning crucifixes stuck in your lawn tonight.

Oddly enough, now that I think about it some of the contributors to this discussion have previously argued fiercely for the retention of Georgian houses in Dublin. Given the frequently unnecessarily high ceilings in many Georgian houses and the resulting wanton wastefulness in terms of energy/heat loss, I presume that we will soon see these people following the logic of their convictions and condemning the retention of such energy wasting buildings in Dublin on the grounds of unsustainability.

I’m sure Madam will forgive me… article in full.

More that one third of houses in the State were built in the last 10 years, according to the latest figures from the Department of the Environment.

Last year almost 81,000 houses were built, an increase of 5.2 per cent on 2004. It was the 11th consecutive year of record housing output.

This brings the total number of houses built since 1995 to 548,000, which accounts for 34 per cent of all houses in the State.

The increase was “an extraordinary development over a 10-year period” the Minister of State for Housing, Noel Ahern, said.

Based on economists’ forecasts, his department believed that 2004 would remain the record year for house completions and that 2005 would be “down a bit”, he said. However, the last quarter of 2005 saw a massive building surge, he said.

“Obviously there is still a very strong demand for housing. A lot of experts who make forecasts about a downturn have been wrong before, so they could be wrong again about forecasts for output and for prices.”

Mr Ahern said he “did not doubt” that house prices would continue to rise. However the Government was making every effort to ensure the supply of houses would meet the demand.

“The only real way to control prices is by supply. That is why we are pushing all the time and encouraging more supply.”

Dublin city and county had the largest number of houses built in 2005 at 18,019, an increase of 7.2 per cent on 2004. The neighbouring commuter counties also saw significant increases, with house completions up 12.8 per cent in Wicklow, 9.5 per cent in Meath, 4.5 per cent in Wexford and 3 per cent in Kildare.

Over the 10-year period from 1995, house building in Dublin doubled and in the greater Dublin area, encompassing Dublin, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow, it increased by 124 per cent.

Counties with far lower populations had the largest percentage increases from 2004 to 2005, but lower numbers of houses built than in Dublin.

In Monaghan 953 houses were built, an increase of 31.1 per cent on 2004; in Donegal there were 3,667 completions, up 30.4 per cent; in Cavan 2,129 houses were built, up 24.7 per cent; and in Clare 2,174 houses were built, an increase of 18.7 per cent.

This increase in rural housing could be related to tax incentives for development, or an increase in second home ownership, Mr Ahern said. However in counties such as Cavan the new houses might be occupied by people commuting to Dublin.

Mr Ahern said he would rather see a greater density of housing in the greater Dublin region. “The greater Dublin area, that is where the greatest demand is and that is where we want units.”

© The Irish Times

@KerryBog2 wrote:

I often wonder about these statistics]

How did this play out KB?

Was further information requested in relation to specific issues?

@KerryBog2 wrote:

However, it ensured enough notice and attention from the planner to delay everything for months. Although I support many of An T’s aims, they could be more open on their tactics – their public statement is that they objected to only 6 proposals in Kerry last year, but never admit the hundreds of “observations” that are filed.

There is a large difference between observing and objecting] Finally, my Dublin house is prominently stuck in a greenbelt. Judging by many of the comments on this thread it should not be there. It is, however, a listed building and like almost all listed buildings is a one-off. Times and tastes change, Tallon’s house for Goulding at Enniskerry was decried when it was built, now it too is “historic” (and possibly listed?)
Is Eoghan Harris’ Baltimore home a one-off too?
KB2

Very valid point in relation to EH; one does wonder what type of house it is and what age it is.

I’m not so sure that the majority of (listed) protected structures are detatched nevermind ‘one-off’ I would say that terraced houses in towns such as Drogheda, Kilkenny, Clonmel, Killarney, Westport, Sligo etc as well as Victorian commercial buildings such as bars and banks as well as eclesiastical buildings make up the majority of protected structures even if some of Grade one mansions attract most of the public perception of built heritage.

TP –
When we lodged for PP to demolish and rebuild An T wrote to KCC stating that the existing house was one of “charm and character” and every attempt should be made to preserve it. Cannot remember all exact words, but “Charm and Character” I clearly remember. I replied to the PO stating that we had tried to preserve the house over many years, had failed and it was an uneconomic proposition. I added that we originally hoped to build an extension (plans enclosed) and that any “charm and character” were modern features/works done by me over the years. Supported my case with a room-by-room account of the “charm and character ” and backed up the whole thing with photos taken about 20 yrs ago when we bought the place, showing it to be a total kip, ravaged by a 1960s “modernisation.” I also made a case for the replacement house (vernacular design) detailing why it had certain features. Exit An T, no word of acknowledgement or other, but the process delayed me considerably as the planner covered his ass, requested all sorts of information and I missed my slot with the builder of my preference. ( I then waited for him and it was worth it!) There were no conditions that were onerous or (from memory) different to what I planned, and the new house design was accepted in its entirety.

I personally believe that An T strategy is less than honest. It loses support from me and my like (who believe in much of its purpose) by lobbing-in “observations” knowing that as a prescribed body they have considerable weight. Their “observation” is probably on par with an “objection” from an ordinary punter who has to pay his/her 20quid. Their Kilgarvan-based spokesperson was on Radio Kerry on Sunday last and said that they made only 6 objections in the Kingdom last year.
Their web-site is a disgrace and its search facility does not work (for planning searches in Kerry)
AnT’s outlook has been battered into one of a siege mentality, deservedly so I’m sorry to say. They need to get rid of the cranks and draft some people who are positive and not whiners. They need to say what should be done, not what should not be done. They should comment positively on houses/features/materials that they consider appropriate. And refrain from the BS about too many cars on side roads causing accidents, which is typical of the drivel they highlight. Think of the good PR they would have got had they supported Dermot Desmond’s dumb-waiter.

Good point about the terraces, etc. Think of how nice it would be to have some painted the same color, not the grey/purple/white/blue/pink we all to often see!

@KerryBog2 wrote:

TP –
When we lodged for PP to demolish and rebuild An T wrote to KCC stating that the existing house was one of “charm and character” and every attempt should be made to preserve it. Cannot remember all exact words, but “Charm and Character” I clearly remember. I replied to the PO stating that we had tried to preserve the house over many years, had failed and it was an uneconomic proposition. I added that we originally hoped to build an extension (plans enclosed) and that any “charm and character” were modern features/works done by me over the years. Supported my case with a room-by-room account of the “charm and character ” and backed up the whole thing with photos taken about 20 yrs ago when we bought the place, showing it to be a total kip, ravaged by a 1960s “modernisation.” I also made a case for the replacement house (vernacular design) detailing why it had certain features.

I can imagine that you found the intervention frustrating and were suprised to be asked to submit further information] Exit An T, no word of acknowledgement or other, but the process delayed me considerably as the planner covered his ass, requested all sorts of information and I missed my slot with the builder of my preference. ( I then waited for him and it was worth it!) There were no conditions that were onerous or (from memory) different to what I planned, and the new house design was accepted in its entirety. [/QUOTE]

It is unfortunate that no acknoweledgement was sent but my guess is that when a statutory observer makes a first instance enquiry and subsequently makes no further comment that it is an ‘implied withdrawal of concern’ that suggests that their concerns no longer exist.

@KerryBog2 wrote:

I personally believe that An T strategy is less than honest. It loses support from me and my like (who believe in much of its purpose) by lobbing-in “observations” knowing that as a prescribed body they have considerable weight. Their “observation” is probably on par with an “objection” from an ordinary punter who has to pay his/her 20quid. Their Kilgarvan-based spokesperson was on Radio Kerry on Sunday last and said that they made only 6 objections in the Kingdom last year.

I don’t agree] Their web-site is a disgrace and its search facility does not work (for planning searches in Kerry) AnT’s outlook has been battered into one of a siege mentality, deservedly so I’m sorry to say. They need to get rid of the cranks and draft some people who are positive and not whiners. They need to say what should be done, not what should not be done. They should comment positively on houses/features/materials that they consider appropriate. And refrain from the BS about too many cars on side roads causing accidents, which is typical of the drivel they highlight. Think of the good PR they would have got had they supported Dermot Desmond’s dumb-waiter. [/QUOTE]

The website is dreadful and really needs a complete overhaul from concept to design to content; in relation to their style of delivery their TV work is always top notch Eanna Ni Lahmna was a fantastic recruit for them and Frank Corcoran is excellent as well.

@KerryBog2 wrote:

Good point about the terraces, etc. Think of how nice it would be to have some painted the same color, not the grey/purple/white/blue/pink we all to often see!

I know exactly what you mean

@Devin wrote:

Wrong Thomond Park. Stop bluffing – you are the biggest bluffer on Archiseek.

Very eloquent

@PDLL wrote:

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.

Well they should PDLL – they should be concerned, and they should harp on about it. Again you’re propagating an urban-rural divide. Any person, regardless of where they live have a right to hold opinions on structures being built on a commonly shared area of land, in this case the island of Ireland. I don’t live in Dublin yet I still harp on at mind-numbing length about things that happen in Dublin – the same with Dundalk, even though I don’t even live in the town. Most rural dwellers probably have opinions on their local towns or villages, or developments in their capital, and hold a similar right to scan a critical eye over them just as urban-based people have about the countryside.

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.

Indeed – domestic development across the country is getting worse rather than better. We’re without doubt sinking to the level the UK reached in the early 1990s. You can see all the mannerisms creeping in – a gradual dissolution of any form of distinctive style, the ubiquitous use of red brick with basic over-door detailing, the elimination of window reveals, the rampant spread of PVC, the reduction in size of residential units, the constant replication of the 1930s semi model, watered down in every conceivable way that it can be, the ‘build to contain’ ethos where quantity of floorspace and number of units takes precedence over everything else etc etc etc.

Yes it is rampant across all areas of residential building in Ireland. But that does not mean that one-off building must not face its responsibilities the same as developer-led construction. And the sad reality of one-off housing is that by its very nature poor design stands out all the more harshly in rural areas. In urban centres it fits in to the general ‘developed’ scheme of things, even if woefully designed.
By contrast, a rendered, painted and PVC-adorned house is to a rural landscape is the equivalent to a plastic milk bottle tossed in a ditch. It is simply incongruous by its very nature. Out of context. And ugly.

That’s not to say that all rural housing development is like that, nor has to be. And this is where, generally speaking, there is a genuine case to be had for the argument that older buildings fit in better in rural areas. They tend to be clad in natural materials, or materials sourced locally. They are rendered in dark sand render or they&#8217]Aesthetically[/b], that is to say don’t start jumping on me that I’m suggesting we should all live in shacks again. Of course there’s an element of cultural perspective to it all – there’s no doubting that most people would find a typical 19th century three-bay, two storey, whitewashed house standing proud on an untouched landscape remarkably appealing. Yes there is an allure to that as it is picturesque from a contemporary cultural outlook. But what remains from the past does not give us an automatic right to replicate it fifty times over, and with all the attendant bells and whistles that modern living brings.

Today we live in a highly developed, modernised world. A large element of the appeal that older houses have for us is that they are the first physical manifestation of Ireland modernising and developing into the country we have today, with these remnants standing as the prototypes of the buildings we currently live in, with rooms set out for individual uses and architectural norms established etc etc. This will not be the case in 100/150/200 years time with the current crop of one-offs. If anything they will stand for how primitive we really were in 2006. But more importantly, we cannot possibly equate the underdeveloped every-man-for-himself civilisation of the 18th and 19th centuries to what we have today. We know better, and pride ourselves on how ‘developed’ we are. Interpreting historical precedent down to the letter is simply na

@Devin wrote:

KerryBog2, if this is what you would like An Taisce to be, all I can say is tough shit – welcome to planning in Ireland ….
An Taisce is not an organisation that negotiates a community hall with a developer while he rapes the area for his own ends … or suggests a nice colour to paint a one-off house in a sensitive area. Planning is in a permanent state of collapse in Ireland and the submission and appeal system is its last bastion .

Devin, that is not what I’m suggesting or saying. What I said was An T is “on the ropes” and has lost the support of the people – even those who, like me, support most of its aims. Its membership of (a claimed) 5000 is indicative of this when compared to the National Trust or even the Irish branch of the RNLI. An T needs the community; instead of obtaining support it has alienated most people and thus it is debatable that it is fulfilling its role. Educating the community is part of the process of regaining that support and I believe An T should do that.

The two An T members that I do know – self-styled local representatives – are bitter people who lead sad lives and have twisted agendas. One objected (in a “personal” capacity) and drummed up support from another collection of old biddys on the local residents association to a garage being built by a friend of mine not because it was unsightly, but because “he should not be driving a gas guzzling tank” – her words. On the submission form she did not, of course, put that.

Everyone agrees that there is trickery/chicanery, etc., from developers and others. Most reasonable people acknowledge this and would support An T if it got rid of the cranks and became more user-friendly.
As for Bean Ni Lamhna, (and you brought personalities into this) I cannot agree that she was a great addition, she drives most people mad by her non-stop chatter on Sunday morning radio. Personally I doubt she could listen or shut up long enough to chair a meeting. Just shows how out-of-touch An T people are!

I would say that the text that you are quoting illustrates your point perfectly.

I think your commentary on what are essentially local members with no capacity to defend themselves is harsh and as they cannot defend themselves unjustified.

Eanna is excellent for AT as she has the capacity to both Chair meetings such as the AT agm as well as being one of the most sought after speakers on the community NGO circuit; conversely to telling people that it is tough shit she spreads a very simple message of how small changes can deliver for local communities.

Communities BEING A VERY IMPORTANT THING

@Devin wrote:

Thomond Park,
I know you are sitting at home at the moment with not much to do but hit the forum (always in invisi-mode,

Sitting at home at 10am hmmmmmmm likely story

devin honey,
your still the same after all these years…obviously time hasn’t been kind to your mood. or maybe saving the world brings it’s own special pressures and as a superhero, your people skills are as sharp as an taisce’s.

very interesting discussion apart from the ramblings of the grumpy old man. i think that the topic has gradually come upon the true aspect of the problem. the design value of the one off house. i am still and will always be in favour of letting people build on their own land. in fact i have designed a house for a friend on his parents land. it is however not a bungalow or indeed anything remotely similiar to those grotesque houses but if i may say so, a masterpiece 😀 i do suspect however their will be some the incoherent nonsense from the usual suspects as soon as i go for planning.that aside…… we do need a increase in the design awareness of not only the public ( clients and therefore eventually end users who paint their houses pink) but as the profession isn’t protected in the technicians and dare i say builders as i have recently had a case where when pricing for a client a builder has suggested changing the design…

i agree with pd that there is the historical context for one off houses but not quite the ribbon development. someone mentioned ( apologies as i read the whole thread today and there was a lot to take in that i forgot who ) the development of new villages. this however will cause more problems cos then you have to build a public sewerage system and treatment plant along with providing a post office ( even though most rural p.o. are closing down and therefore the postie has to come further from a centralised p.o.) and then if it got larger a primary school…which the state will have to pay the teachers..then a garda station also paid by the state, fire station, public street lights, mroe roads to maintain…this is a good idea but if cost to the tax payer is an issue with one-offs then instead of constantly bashing it come up with an alternative that costs less ( not likely) or the same.

there is also another precedent that hasn’t been touched on yet, it was mentioned about the sea and that populations grew up around the sea ports. these, in bygone times, were the trade routes and superhighways of the day. with the advent of the motorcar this switched to the roads.people like to live along these routes for ease of access to other areas and goods..etc. it was only natural that people will develop this to suit their requirements. this is a natural extension of the pre-established order.
the position of site by the landowners are a reflection of this as is the P.A. insistance that a 30m road frontage be established. they then require( for valid safety reasons) sight lines therefore the natural hedgerow has to be taken out. i do agree that the concrete path is an eyesore all the way around a house. and that it is nice to see the land going right up to a house..this causes it’s own particular problems but can be over come. so along a road you have a row of houses with farmland in behind it.

i am not going to get into the whole urban/culchie discussion, but what i find strange is the argument of the me feiners want their house so it should be….well is it not the me feiner on the other side saying “it doesn’t fit in with me view of ireland or what i think the quaint country folk should be doing” that are objecting to the one off’s. just a little observation. no offence meant to anyone.

@Devin wrote:

KerryBog2,
I’m sorry but your initial laughable comments that An Taisce should suggest nice materials for one-off houses shows that it is you who is out of touch.

And the further talk of biddies and twisted people shows you don’t have the vaguest inkling of what An Taisce’s professional staff are dealing with on a daily basis. There’s no “on the ropes” – there’s just work to be done …

Devin,
You are misquoting me. I suggested that An T make known what it considers to be acceptable, not “nice materials for one-off houses.” Seeing as you have set up your stall as style and environment gurus, why not put your views and ideas on the line in a positive manner? Surely there are houses out there that you like? Would it not be instructive or educational to illustrate that for the profanum vulgus – the faux Georgian, plastic window pillar and portico brigade?

Neither did I comment on “An T’s professional staff ” or their daily work, I commented on two members (not officers or spokespeople) who have set themselves up as vigilantes with – it would appear – An T’s tacit approval. If as you say “there’s just work to be done” perhaps it might be easier if you had more support and more people on the side of your organisation.

To mis-quote Marx (Groucho) I would not join an organisation that had so many cranks as members. One-off houses are here to stay. So is the motorcar. Times change, but it seems that many associated with AnT are in a timewarp. Yes, I fully support the need for heritage /environment protection but that does not mean I’m against every one-off house or new road. An T is forever speaking negatively and is therefore perceived negatively . That is why it has alienated me and thousands like me and why it is failing miserably in what it is supposed to do.
KB2

Its worth considering that if the Irish Government was truly interested in sustainability, it would be aggressively pursuing renewable forms of energy, including wind energy and that generated by waves, Both of these forms of energy generation would have a huge impact on the Irish countryside and the ideal image of that countryside propagated by ‘certain elements’ within Irish society. In short, those who advocate sustainability within an Irish context, will have to be prepared for the fact that the one-off house is quite a minor scar on the landscape in comparison to a few thousand large white windmills dotted around the coast. Given the obvious potential for large scale energy crises in the future – both related to oil and gas – it is downright irresponsible of the Government not to pursue such forms of energy immediately. One wonders where An Taisce will stand when planning permission is sought for a large number of such windmills along the coast.

As simplistic as always if its undeveloped land bury it with something;

The most logical way to develop an alternative energy policy is to develop a broad range of policies; however putting up small numbers of turbines in multiple locations is not the answer and placing them on elevated ground is completley wrong in my opinion.

A well placed observer has stated that the Bord Na Mona holdings accross the Central Plain would be ideal post extraction phase as the unretarded wind at this location could generate significant quantities of electricity as well as giving operational synergies.

Coastal development of wind turbines is not exactly coastal, it tends to be marine as evidenced by the treasury scheme close to Arklow or similar schemes in North Wales and Western Denmark.

other sources that should be considered include:

Appetite for ethanol strains Brazilian cane millers
By Elizabeth Johnson in São Paulo
Published: January 25 2006 23:43 | Last updated: January 25 2006 23:43

Brazilian sugar cane producers dream of the day when their cane-based ethanol will fuel cars from Stockholm to Tokyo. But for that to happen, they must prove they can produce enough of the biofuel for buyers to rely on year-round.

The country’s biofuels programme is among the most advanced in the world. Nearly 30 years ago, the military dictatorship launched a pro-ethanol push, offering subsidies for cane mills and price controls in an effort to reduce dependence on crude imports following the 1970s oil crisis.

The programme was a resounding success. Local carmakers designed ethanol-fuelled cars, and nearly all new automobiles ran exclusively on the clean fuel throughout the 1980s.

However, when world sugar prices spiked in 1989, Brazilian mills opted to shift production back to sugar – the other main product of cane – and the price of ethanol was capped by the government. The move left many filling stations dry, souring people on ethanol for a decade.

When Brazil’s new democratic government ended price controls and dismantled subsidies for the fuel, mills were forced to become highly efficient. Most depended on distilling operations when sugar prices sagged – although they were also helped by government mandates that all gasoline at the pump contain at least 20 to 25 per cent ethanol.

But ethanol faced additional problems. Motorists considered pure-ethanol cars sluggish dinosaurs, and by the first years of the new millennium sales had fallen to just 1 per cent of total new vehicle sales.

When oil prices soared again earlier this decade, Brazil’s motor industry decided to fight the old stereotypes, introducing “flex-fuel” cars, which boast better performance thanks to engine technology that constantly adjusts to a mix of ethanol and gasoline. Since their launch in 2004, the cars have become an enormous success, accounting for 71 per cent of all new car sales in December, up from 24 per cent a year earlier.

Waldemar Guilherme, a São Paulo taxi driver who bought his flex-fuel GM Meriva in 2004, had bad experiences with ethanol-fuelled cars in the past but has been pleased with the new models. “It runs like a gasoline car, but I’ve only used ethanol since I bought it,” Mr Guilherme said.

Meanwhile, the flex-fuel cars have raised fresh concerns about ethanol supplies. Increased demand has lifted the price per litre by 25 per cent since the cane harvest began winding down a month ago.

Industry analysts say there will be enough ethanol to supply the market – but only just enough.

The country will have about 250m litres of ethanol stocks when the seasonal cane harvest resumes in May. That is enough to supply the domestic market for about one week, according to the São Paulo Sugar Producers’ Association (Unica).

The government has tried to strong-arm the mills into containing prices, in what analysts say is a populist ploy in an election year. São Paulo’s BM&F commodities and futures exchange said recently it would suspend its ethanol futures contract if the government insisted on controlling prices.

Potential foreign buyers of Brazilian ethanol, such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, will all be watching supplies closely as they decide whether to move ahead with their own ethanol fuel additive programmes, which would rely on ethanol imports. “Markets such as Japan are very sensitive to supply issues and the current situation is quite problematic for opening new markets,” said Christoph Berg, an ethanol analyst from FO Licht.

In response to growing market demand, Brazilian millers are investing heavily to increase sugar cane production and erect new mills. Their goal is to double ethanol production to 34bn litres per year by 2013.

“If there’s a plan in place, Brazil will increase production. It has the land and the capital to meet demand, but it won’t happen overnight,” said Fabrizio Vichichi, the executive vice-president of brokerage firm Nobel Americas.

The country is actively seeking to promote ethanol programmes in Thailand, India and central America, but global clients worry that it will be impossible to guarantee supply unless more countries begin producing significant volumes of ethanol for export.

“Ethanol will become a global commodity, but it will take time,” said C. Harry Falk, the president and chief executive of the New York Board of Trade. He estimates a real global marketplace will take three to four years to emerge.

The obvious candidate to team up with Brazil would be the US, which has become the world’s number-two ethanol producer by offering subsidies to farmers in the Midwest who make corn-based fuel. It does not yet export ethanol.

“If you look at the ethanol landscape worldwide, the US and Brazil are like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia,” said Mr Vichichi. However, a partnership would entail some tough decisions for Brazil, where producers have already expressed concerns about subsidies granted to north American producers.

“US ethanol producers get roughly $1.20 per gallon in incentives. . . if they export under these conditions, it would give them a tremendously unfair advantage,” said Fernando Moreira Ribeiro, a Unica executive.http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6ce6f2e4-8dde-11da-8fda-0000779e2340.html

Or just can all of the hot air which one spouts – some Mr. Sustainabilities could power entire cities using this technique alone.

You appear scared by anything that has a number in it; the FT are fairly good at them

You don’t see much

@Thomond Park wrote:

You don’t see much

You mean the minute little element of the website address at the bottom of one of your previous missives – I guess I must have been too overwhelmed by the supporting evidence you provided to check that little detail. Do you play any form of sport?

Summer sport road cycling
winter sport sand boarding and mountain biking;

I have in the past played rugby and soccer but no more.

The Scotsman
Sat 28 Jan 2006

Low and behold
JESSICA KIDDLE
IN 1971 a book was published that sparked a craze for a new style of DIY building: the bungalow. Written by Irish architect Jack Fitzsimons, Bungalow Bliss was the first publication to give people the designs and know-how to build such a home for themselves. Soon bungalows were popping up all over the Irish countryside. It’s obvious why the bungalow caught on so quickly – it was affordable, easy to construct and could be put up without the help of an architect.

However, these initial designs were also ugly, and 35 years later architects are still wondering what could have been built in their place. Bungalows were dismissed variously as “blots on the landscape” and “stunted, architecturally uninteresting little structures” by critics, but this weekend Glasgow architecture and design centre The Lighthouse gives the public a chance to decide what they think.

Bungalow Blitz, an exhibition celebrating these 1970s designs, showcases a series of images of the bungalows built from the book and examines the impact these self-built suburban low rises have had on the landscape.

Stuart MacDonald, the director of The Lighthouse, hopes that the images of the homes in Ireland will inspire people to think about architecture and the relationship buildings have with their surroundings closer to home.

He says: “There are parallels to be made between the west coast of Ireland and Scotland. Go to the Highlands or the west coast and there are lots of these boxes which have been put up with no thought to the surrounding landscape and without much design aspiration.

“You wouldn’t get away with building houses like that today because they are so terribly ill-considered.”

However, as much as Fitzsimons can be berated for popularising these one-storey wonders, he cannot be blamed for their invention. The bungalow is actually an import from India (the word originates from the Hindi word “Bangala” meaning “of Bengal”) and these low, timber-frame kit builds were offered to the British men who served there in the 1800s.

It was a Colonel Bragg who built Britain’s first bungalow in South London when he returned from India in the 1860s. Others quickly followed his example, with the seaside bungalow becoming popular with the holidaying middle classes. Yet more bungalows were constructed after the First World War when the government encouraged people to build their own homes in the countryside and, during the Second World War, these same bungalows provided shelter for families from London’s East End looking to escape the Blitz.

As practical as they may have been, bungalows have never been considered a thing of beauty. Yet despite an often snobbish approach from architects and design experts, bungalows are more popular than ever.

A recent study by the building society Halifax says the humble bungalow makes the happiest home as it provides the perfect amount of floor space, privacy and garden area. And, despite making up only a small percentage of our housing stock, bungalows are among the most sought-after properties in the UK. Last year the Bank of Scotland reported that bungalows enjoyed the highest price growth in Scotland over the past ten years.

“Bungalows sell incredibly well,” says solicitor Gavin Bain a director at the Aberdeen Solicitors’ Property Centre. “They tend to be on extensive sites so are spacious and have sizeable gardens. Many of them tend to centre around one big living space with all the rooms coming off it, which fits in with the current trend for open-plan living. However, primarily they are popular with old people who love the fact that they are on one level.”

Scottish homemakers seem to be particularly fond of the bungalow. According to Halifax, 7 per cent of new homes north of the Border are of the one-storey variety compared with a national average of just 3 per cent.

Despite what designers say, the bungalow does appear to have won a place in the heart of the nation and, as MacDonald points out, thanks to some new developments even architects are warming to them.

“There is nothing wrong with the idea of a bungalow per se, it’s just that the design quality and the building’s relationship with the surrounding area has always been poor,” he says, “However, people are becoming more demanding and there is a growing realisation that building homes that fit in with the landscape doesn’t have to be expensive, so the stereotypical image of a bungalow is changing. There are several architects who have started designing bungalows that take the geography and the kind of materials that should be used into consideration so they are no longer such an intrusion.”

One of these firms is Dualchas, a firm of architects on the Isle of Skye which specialises in designing one-off houses for rural Scotland. Its designs often take the form of the traditional west-coast one-storey longhouse. “We have to be careful that what happened in Ireland doesn’t happen here – we have to make sure we have a more appropriate quality of housing,” says architect Neil Stephen, a partner at the firm. “We live in a beautiful country and no longer have to accept mediocrity and destroy the landscape. The houses we build are based on traditional designs but are also site specific so they always blend in. It’s not housing that ruins a landscape, but inappropriate housing, and we have a responsibility not to let that happen in our communities.”

If more architects and builders think like Neil Stephen, one day there may be an exhibition that celebrates, rather than laments, the rise of bungalow living. Until then there are always the pictures of the bungalow boxes in Ireland to remind everyone how not to do it. sm

n The Bungalow Blitz exhibition runs until 26 March at The Lighthouse, 11 Mitchell Lane, Glasgow. Tickets cost £3 for adults and £1 for children and concessions. For more information, tel: 0141-221 6362 or visit the website at http://www.thelighthouse.co.uk

This article: http://news.scotsman.com/features.cfm?id=138602006

Until then there are always the pictures of the bungalow boxes in Ireland to remind everyone how not to do it.

I think that line highlights a growing concern around the world at the state of development in Ireland. I’ve read newspaper articles and witnessed the shock of visitors to Ireland on the disfiguration that’s taken place. Given another few decades and I believe Ireland’s growing reputation of a visually destroyed landscape will have become firmly cemented [pun intended] in the minds of those who’d see us as an awful example of how not to do it.

The irony of all this is that the much longer industrialised Britain, famous for the density of its population, may well in the long run end up with the most attractive and least spoilt landscapes of the two islands. Like English tourists coming here in decades past, will future Irish generations be going on vacations to our nearest neighbour to witness unspoilt rural scenery. ‘Look kids, the lake district’s just what Ireland once resembled back in the 20th century’.

Will Irish tourists be taken on special wilderness tours of the Peak district?! 😉

Get back to nature, get in touch with the British countryside.

Brought to you by ruralescapes.com, 70,001 unit, Brian Boru business park, Dublin 200, Beara peninsula suburb.

http://www.visual-culture.com/project/bungalow/front_page

I love the picture of the farm house (gable to the road) crumbling sadly as the bungalow rises from the hill to boldly face the road.

Had a lot of discussion about this when working on the Bunaglwo Blitz: Another History of Irish Architecture proejct – the idea of road facing, and, even more specifically why you would want a hugh (and I quote Kevin Myers) plateglass airport window facing the road (and maybe the view) when what you do once its built is put the back of the couch up against it, turn your back adn watch the TV – all of this to be shared with passers by ….

I’ve attached an image form one the the BB exhibitions – it shows a life size sculpture based on Plan No.8 from the 1st edition of the book (Bungalwo Bliss) and tarpaulin photos of the builders….

Ireland too dependent on imported oil – report

April 04, 2006 16:41
A Forfas report today says that Ireland is more dependent on imported oil for our transport and energy requirements than almost every other European country. It also states that it will take up to ten years to significantly reduce this dependence.

The report – A Baseline Assessment of Ireland’s Oil Dependence: Key Policy Considerations – says that Ireland consumed nine million tonnes of oil in 2004, an amount that has doubled since 1990. The country was ranked third highest among the EU 25 countries in terms of oil consumed per capita in 2002.

Electricity generation and transportation are the two main factors for the country’s high oil dependence. The country has the sixth most dependent electricity generation system of the entire European Union. The amount of oil used for transportation in Ireland tripled between 1972 and 2002, which leaves us consuming at least 50% more per capita than the average of the EU.

Today’s Forfas report says that recent developments in the global oil industry have resulted in many countries having to evaluate their overall dependence on oil and the effect on their economies. Threats to security of supply, increasing global demand, slowing rates of new oil discoveries and rising oil prices have become major concerns.

The concept of oil peak – where oil production reaches a point where it can no longer be increased – has also become ever more important in recent years.

The findings of today’s report suggest that Ireland needs to develop a national strategy to prepare for the challenge of peak oil. It urges pro-active measures including the possibility of developing nuclear energy as a more long term solution.

The report urges the introduction of initiatives to reduce the use of oil in transportation, by bringing about the replacement over time of the existing stock of vehicles with more fuel efficient ones and the provision of alternative modes of transport than run on electricity rather than petrol related fuels. The potential use of biofuels for transportation should also be investigated.

It also says that Ireland should consider the use of renewable energy sources for electricity generation, such as wind, wave and tidal energy.

Options to address supply concerns that may arise in the context of peak oil should also be assessed. These include expanding domestic oil storage capabilities and making deals with oil producing countries that continue to have a surplus of production relative to their domestic requirements.

‘The high probability that a supply of cheap oil will peak over the next ten to 15 years poses a serious challenge for the global economy,’ commented CEO of Forfas, Martin Cronin.

‘As peaking is encountered, liquid fuel prices could increase dramatically and governments, businesses and economies could face significant economic and social change,’ he added.

‘Ireland is more dependent on imported oil for our transport and energy requirements than almost every other European country. It is essential that we now begin to prepare for such a challenge,’ he concludes.

Forfas is the national body responsible for providing policy advice to the Government on enterprise, trade, science, technology and innovation here.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0404/forfas.html

Interesting, TP, that you chose to post this article on a thread on one-off houses, despite the fact that it has as much relevance to say inner-city life in Dublin. Would it not have been equally as appropriate to post it on the thread on cylcing in Irish cities or open a new one on a topic such as ‘Public Transport in Irish Cities and Towns’ or ‘Electrifying the Dublin Bus Network’ or ‘Widescale development of 50m high power-generating windmills around the Irish coast’. No, none of those options would have been suitable as they wouldn’t have helped stigmatize by circumstantial conjecture and stereotypical association your particular view of those who choose to live in the Irish countryside. That, afterall, is surely the reason you chose to dig out the Eogahn Harris thread as the most appropriate location for this post.

Proportionatley the Chelsea Tractors that service our ever growing rural suburbs have a much greater impact as you well know

despite the fact that it has as much relevance to say inner-city life in Dublin

Nope, our spatially dispersed population base, made worse by the spread of one off housing is directly related to our dependence on cars, and thus fossil fuels, for transport. Critical masses of population facilitate more environmentally sustainable modes of transport that reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Its not viable to provide such solutions to areas with widely dispersed populations.

circumstantial conjecture

Its not circumstantial or conjecture, its fact. You might not like it, but that does not change either the economics or the physics of the subject.

stereotypical association

Actually no. The main focus on one offs on this site has primarily been the landscape effects of this phenomenon (as you might expect on an architecture forum), with a secondary emphasis on planning (mainly from non architect types). The energy policy implications of wilfully dispersing ones population across the lanscape is a relatively undiscussed facet of this problem. The article belongs as much here as it does anywhere else.

Seriously PDLL, are you just trolling for debate, or do you actually believe what you’re saying?

I used to live in a one off house in the countryside. It was a pre-exisitng bungalow which I bought in the late 1980s. Not the most lovely of structures, but I have planted native trees on the site, restored the hedgerow that was destroyed (by order of the planners) to create parking at the front of the site, and now the building cannot be seen at all from the road. All that is there is a gap in the hedge. I still live in that house but now the area has filled with new dormer bungalows. Each one is a short few metres from the road, There is no screening planting in front of the houses, and indeed many have uplights to make sure we can’t miss their palaces even in the dark of night. Almost none of these houses were built by individuals who wanted to live in the countryside (3 miles from Moycullen, 10 from Galway City.) The houses were built by the farmers that owned the land to make a fast buck. These people are now extremely rich. They continue to build rows of identical houses on 0.5 acre sites, and the roads are turning into streets. The people that live in these houses are rarely seen in their gardens, or walking the roads, or even socializing locally. They are townies that can’t afford town houses. It is all very strange. Planners should demand that individual houses are built by individuals with a demonstratable reason for country living, Such houses should be completely invisable to people trying to enjoy the countryside, No one goes driving in west Galway to look at my house therefore I should make it as unobtrusive as possible. I feel you shouldn’t tar all owners of bungalows with the same brush. Many people do have a need to live in a rural areas If planners don’t like what they live in then up the standards, don’t accept rubbish. Having said that the latest lot of houses to go up are quite attractive, and alot of the old bungalow stock is being rebuilt into attractive looking dwellings,

@Thomond Park wrote:

Proportionatley the Chelsea Tractors that service our ever growing rural suburbs have a much greater impact as you well know

If by Chelsea Tractors you mean 4x4s, then you should read this article on 4×4 ownership in London which I posted months ago in the thread on Ballymun:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4697246.stm

Shame you didn’t familiarise yourself with the fact that 4×4 ownership is largely an urban phenomenon. Oddly enough, though, I don’t hear anyone saying that they should be banned and that other city dwellers should only be allowed 1.1. Litre engine cars as that would largely satisfy the selfish transport needs of most Irish city dwellers. I wonder why no one argues for this – could it be that they would not like that level of Government control over their right to express some basic personal preferences such as the car one drives.

As pointed out before, cars standing still in slow moving traffic release significantly more amounts of Carbon Monoxide into the environment than cars moving at a modertae pace on clear roads. Hence, Aidan, it is very reasonable to argue that the cars sitting in Dublin’s rush-hour traffic jams are causing as much if not more damage to the environment than those cruising fluidly along the nation’s regional and rural roads.

To demonstrate this fact, please see attached a table from the EPA showing air quality recordings around Ireland. Oops, the rural areas seem to be winning on this one while Dublin with its oft-reported and much stressed critical population mass for widespread public transport seems to be lagging behind quite significantly.

http://www.epa.ie/OurEnvironment/Air/AirQualityBulletins/

Could it be that car-usage in the Dublin city area is more damaging to the environment than the effects of car usage in such rural one-off dominated areas as Co. Mayo and Co Louth. Now that doesn’t fit so nicely with the tehsis you present Aidan.

PDDL;

you just don’t give up; as we all know there is little relation between Urban London and Rural Ireland in that in London you have access to one of the most advanced public transport systems in the World.

In many parts of recently suburbanised rural Ireland one needs an off road vehicle because the roads are so poor and for reasons of pure comfort given the commuting distances invovled.

In respect of your EPA article no-one has ever alleged localised air-pollution in recently suburbanised rural areas; however when people commence journeys in recently suburbanised rural areas with a destination in urban areas the mode of transport is generally single occupancy cars / Chelsea Tractors so there are certain cross over externalities as well as higher fuel consumption on a national basis.

@Seosmacc wrote:

I used to live in a one off house in the countryside. It was a pre-exisitng bungalow
I still live in that house but now the area has filled with new dormer bungalows. Almost none of these houses were built by individuals who wanted to live in the countryside (3 miles from Moycullen, 10 from Galway City.) The houses were built by the farmers that owned the land to make a fast buck. Planners should demand that individual houses are built by individuals with a demonstratable reason for country living,

This is a very balanced post which in my opinion very accurately reflects the situation on the ground.

i assume people have seen this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4812836.stm

For this;

Hence, Aidan, it is very reasonable to argue that the cars sitting in Dublin’s rush-hour traffic jams are causing as much if not more damage to the environment than those cruising fluidly along the nation’s regional and rural roads.

See this …

however when people commence journeys in recently suburbanised rural areas with a destination in urban areas the mode of transport is generally single occupancy cars / Chelsea Tractors so there are certain cross over externalities as well as higher fuel consumption on a national basis.

In otherwords, those journeys starting in urban areas are much more likely to occur on public transport, if you start your journey in a one off house in South Co Kildare, or Longford, or Louth, you will spend as much time sitting in traffic at Newlands Cross (or whereever) as you will moving fluidly ‘anywhere’. Its the same cars that do both. Whether you like it or not, job creation is primarily a function of urban areas right now. Many people have to get to centres to work, very little traffic, relatively speaking, goes from point to point in rural Ireland.

Crticially, it is possible to serve people in urban areas with public transport as is happening (slowly) in Dublin and Cork. The same cannot be said if you live in a one off house. With an urban (or at least nucleated settlement pattern) such a development is possible, without it, you are effectively locked into a pattern of development premised on low fuel costs. Not such a good idea,

One of the arguments frequently used to argue against the developments of one-offs is the social isolation argument – one-offs simply lead to a break down of social interconnection, resulting in a sense of isolation and depression. Interesting then that Google Trends has found that Dublin tops the world league of loneliness – surely this undermines the social isolationist argument against one-offs and supports the position I have noted on previous occasions that holds that people who live in mass monotonous suburban estates that lack any sense of individuality or creativity are more inclined to feel socially isolated.

Please check out the results:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=lonely&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/15/ireland.lonely.reut/index.html

PDLL I cannot see how “social isolation” can be extrapolated from these figures. The article is neither well written nor properly researched. If you Google Trends for “Lonely Planet” the results will show almost the same ranking for the top five cities. Look at the time of year, exams will soon be over and lots of students will be off on their travels.
KB

I put in the word ‘fun’ and Romania came out tops. Gee, say that to the street kids.

Then by that logic, KerryBog2, Dubliners must be the most eager travellers in the world or else are very ardent Beetles fans. Equally so, by that logic, if you type in ‘planet’ you should also get a comparable result – but you don’t. (Check the comparative search function provided by Google – there is no correlation whatsoever). Given that it is extremely unlikely that one would merely type in ‘lonely’ when searching Google for ‘lonely planet’ and confident that the combined analytical resources of CNN and Reuters have probably probed this issue a little deeper prior to making their conclusion, it is not unreasonable to consider this as potentially having some validity.

Perhaps the Romanians are craving after fun and that is why they seek it on the internet. Maybe this means that Dubliners are so social that they carve after loneliness and seek it on the internet. Ya, I agree KerryBog2, on reflection the whole thing is damned dodgy. Mind you, I hold by my argument that living in a monotonuous, bland, mass produced house in an estate is a recipe for social unhappiness and isolation. Guess I will just have to continue to look to the Victorians for evidence to support my argument.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=lonely+planet&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

Interesting. It appears that Reuters are not a very reliable source of journalistic research – many will be shocked by that. The results are also interesting – it seems that Irish people and Australians are very eager to travel. I wonder what the reason behind the potential mass exodus from Dublin could be. I really wonder.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=lonely&ctab=1&geo=all&date=all

Phil,

Very interesting; Ireland with one offs all over the shop is the most lonely and Singapore one of the most planned and most inhabitabited places by density is second.

Sounds about as relevant as the observation our security guard read in a book yesterday ‘People leaving a mortury are more likely to give money to charity’ needless to say the book was binned

PDDL

Address sustainability, transport efficiency, landscape and habitat destruction and you may be taken seriously;

now back to my holiday

TP – address personal choice in a free and democratic society, a non-Dublin-centric vision of the countryside, the failure of architects and building developers to offer Joe Soap any real and affordable alternative to urban living other than life in a monotous and much-replicated plaster-board box that encapsulates the creative imagination of a brain dead chimp, the excessive use of inappropriately large engined vehicles in urban environments, the lack of proper childrens’ play areas in our towns, and it goes on. Until real and imaginative alternatives that provide some scope for human individuality are built in our cities, one-offs will remain, as they are, the preferred option by many of Ireland’s citizens.

https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=32930&postcount=34

Critique the imagination that went into the above

And please answer the above and don’t try another spin it is getting tiresome

Well, lets summarise the positions – Irish town houses are considered by some to be boring repetitive and lacking in imagination. Others consider Irish country houses to boring repetitive and lacking in imagination. Umm. What does this imply – a crisis of the imagination in Irish architectrue? Time to start making urban dwellings more interesting, more diversified and more habitable socially and physically than their rural counterparts???? In short, time to give people a genuine reason why they might actually want to live in Irish towns because it is quite obvious that at the present moment in Ireland’s architectural history, the seems to be a lack of such a reason.

PDLL, I think you make some very fair points about the quality of newly built houses in suburban areas and apartments being built in cities around Ireland. You also make good points about play facilities etc etc. I think, as you are saying, demand plays a significant role in this (it must do), so this is what needs to be questioned. Glad to see you have moved away from the Google trends issue. I really dont think it tells us anything, or adds any facts to the discussion.

@PDLL wrote:

Well, lets summarise the positions – Irish town houses are considered by some to be boring repetitive and lacking in imagination. Others consider Irish country houses to boring repetitive and lacking in imagination. Umm. What does this imply – a crisis of the imagination in Irish architectrue? Time to start making urban dwellings more interesting, more diversified and more habitable socially and physically than their rural counterparts???? In short, time to give people a genuine reason why they might actually want to live in Irish towns because it is quite obvious that at the present moment in Ireland’s architectural history, the seems to be a lack of such a reason.

I completely agree with this. One-off housing is not the answer but neither is suburban characterless tedium. We need some positive suggestions for urban living patterns rather than the emphasis always being on what’s to be discouraged.

I agree with that sentiment. It is very easy to continually make fairly ‘high-horse’ comments on one-offs. It is easy to castigate those who live in the so-called ‘McMansions’ – what is more difficult, however, is to ask why does a fair proportion of the population chose to inflict upon themselves an unnessary daily commute and the alleged disadvantages of living in remote locations. In short, they must not be able to get what they are looking for in terms of lifestyle options inIreland’s towns. Now, thats where it seems to get difficult for the conservationist and architectural community because to date all that seems to be on offer is are three bedroom plaster-board boxes that have a standard toilet under the stairs, a small utility room if you are lucky, an en suite, and a box room. You know the type – every town has at least 300 or 400 hundred of them. The facade might change now and then – a bit more dash round the door way and a little bit more red-brick under the windows, depending on the radical changes in vogue taking place at the time, but basically they are ALL the same. So, it seems that some people don’t want to live in these and would rather take the option of driving to work across the nation’s boreens and for this they are castigated as haters of the environment and aesthetic dilettantes. Lets turn the question around – who is failing who – are these people failing the nation by chosing to live in so-called McMansions or is it the architectural profession and developers that are failing the nation by not providing real alternatives at real prices for the people? Lets face it, standard urban housing in ireland is as I have described above. Thos ethat can afford a little more land or a bigger house within an urban area basically have the equivalent of a so-called McMansion in an urban setting – nothing more. Same style, same shape. Yes, there are the occasional designer pads built now and then – the occasionally flirtation with the imagination, but those flirtations are usually priced well outside of the range of the avergae irish Joe Soap. So what do we do – instead of actually criticising the quality of domestic urban design in ireland, we berate the people who choose to find the only real solution available to them – build on a bit of land given to them by their family in a standard modern rural house type. We sit in judgement of them because they didn’t hire Norma Foster to redesign the collapsing corragated iron shed on their land into a 2 bedroom country retreat with mezzanine level. Architects should take a long look into the one-off mirror and see the reality that is staring back at them.

This is mostly true, though exactly how architects have a role in this considering many developers don’t even employ them in the first place I’m not quite sure. Then again, as we are seeing, housing developments are increasingly being marketed as ‘architect designed’, as if something to be trumpeted from the rooftops, in spite of the units often being more or less the same as any other humdrum fare going up about the place – just this time round some prestige plum brick is being used with a matching a cobble-lock driveway.

Generally speaking though, housing with an architect involved immediately sees an improvement in proportions especially, and materials used – though this could be as much down to the influence of type of developer who is willing to use architects in the first place as it is the architects themselves.
Still, what a house, a dwelling place, should look like is still very much perceived though traditional glasses by the public in general – this above all hasn’t changed in the slightest. It’s still the pitched roofed, multi-chimneyed model that dominates the public mindset, and is going to continue to be built as long as there is demand for it. Considering a home is one of a person’s most basic needs, naturally they’re going to go for the most comforting, familiar, reassuring model possible, so I’m not sure how this is going to change.

It’s ridiculous the way apartment living is still held with such contempt amongst large swathes of the population in 2006. Any time you pass a development of them going up with other people you hear the usual ‘more bloody apartments’ and affected sighs. In the media in general in Ireland apartment living is equally ridiculed – referred to as apartment ‘blocks’ with all the loading the term infers, or talked about in a manner suggesting the destruction of our towns and cities, and how it’s a disgrace that such ugly modrin buildings are allowed to be built in my shopping district that I now have to look at for an hour on Saturday before driving home to my sprawling suburb, the birthplace and be all and end all of what a dwelling place should be.

Even on the train recently talking to someone as pulling into Connolly Station we were looking at the gradually rising 5/6 storey apartments going up in Spencer Dock and alongside the Northern Line, and it was suggested that ‘Dublin is going to the dogs with the density of things nowadays, people being shovelled in cheek by jowl’ etc! 😮

Also recently on the train (you’d have been in heaven PDLL) I frantically gasped for help, clawing at the windows pinned in against the wall as three people at the table started chatting about building or their newly finished one-off houses, positively glowing roigsht about the sites and their septic tanks and fitted kitchens. One man also had a friend who’s just completed a mansion of a place, a MANSION of a place in case you didn’t hear, outside Drogheda. Apparently you can see it from the second bridge on the motorway – modern Ireland personified.

Anyway, aside from the most unusual yellow and black glossy kitchen units that must have cost a fortune, he’s alas having his fair share of problems too as the neighbouring farmer, for whatever bizarre reason, decided to leave his cattle roaming freely across his land, only they all decided they didn’t want grass any more and wandered over to this new spectacle on the landscape and proceeded to strip all the leaves from his new hedging surrounding the site :D. Most of it had to be replaced 😀 😀 😀
Oneself had to suppress the sniggers with a cough or three.
These urbanites and their fancy notions – I don’t know…

The guidebook is well stocked with criticism of Irish towns and villages, with the ritually derided Irish beach resort taking its bi-annual panning.

However, Bundoran, Co Donegal, is deemed not to be as bad as some might allege. While it is criticised – “it’s hard to avoid disappointment if the town is your first sight of Donegal” – its entry glows alongside that of Tramore.

The Co Waterford resort town is “surrounded by ghastly housing developments and the strand itself is marred by adjacent amusement arcades, caravan parks and fast-food outlets.” Visit out of season, it suggests, or don’t visit at all.

The best the authors could muster by way of faint praise for Larne, Co Antrim was that “its main street bustles with shoppers”. Otherwise, they write, “it is a grim and ugly place, paint-splattered with loyalist slogans, symbols and insignia”.

Co Carlow “has almost negligible appeal”, while counties Tipperary and Waterford vie for the title of Ireland’s dullest, though both might be pushed close by Co Limerick, “undoubtedly the least attractive county on Ireland’s west coast, characterised by ugly industrial development along the Shannon and drab, undulating farmland”.

However, Ireland’s large cities are roundly praised. In a rhapsodic review, Dublin is described as “a thrusting, dynamic place, which despite its size remains utterly beguiling”.

The Giants Causeway, the Rock of Cashel, Connemara, Co Kerry and west Cork, among other destinations, are cited as exemplars of Ireland’s unique attraction.

Tourism officials in Bundoran and Tramore may take some consolation that they did not suffer the same fate as Portadown, Coleraine and Portlaoise, their attraction for the tourist so little-regarded that none was deemed to merit a mention.

Any thoughts?

Im very familiar with Tramore and I must say I never stop thinking what a golden opportunity the town is. It could be so lovely but unfortunately the tackiest elements of seaside town economics hold sway… not to mention the dump right behind the beach. A great contrast is with Dunmore East which still remains a charming coast town, although it has recently seen a huge amount of building.

Its good to see the same issues debated north of the border…even if it is in that particular Northern style :p

Protection of Northern countryside debated
Dan Keenan, Northern News Editor

Assembly members have voted to establish a working party to “develop a balanced policy” for sustainable rural development and environmental protection.

The proposal was opposed by the SDLP, which had earlier submitted a highly critical private member’s motion condemning the Northern Ireland Office for its announcement of severe restrictions on planning permission in rural areas.

Last March, Lord Rooker, the minister in charge of rural affairs, proposed a virtual ban on new single buildings to counter “bungalow blight”. He pointed out that the number of rural planning approvals in the North had soared from 1,790 in 1991 to 9,520 in 2004, with indications that the latest annual figure will be well over 12,000.

However, Assembly members on both sides criticised Planning Policy Statement 14, as it is known, warning it would further accelerate the decline in rural populations and cause the loss of 10,000 jobs.

Sinn Féin boycotted the debate arguing they would not be part to a powerless talking shop.

Opening the debate, Patsy McGlone (SDLP, Mid Ulster) said: “This document shows no knowledge of our rural communities, displays no awareness of rural society and no consciousness of the sense of place and belonging that goes with those communities.”

His motion was opposed by Jim Wells (DUP, South Down), whose amendment called for the establishment of a working party to develop a balanced policy for the sustainable development of the countryside and protection of the environment.

“I think the one thing we are all agreed on is that something has to be done to prevent the indiscriminate loss of our countryside through speculative development.” The statistics were frightening, said Mr Wells, who has backed a campaign in Co Meath against a waste incinerator.

While the population of Northern Ireland was 1.7 million, he said, they passed three times more permission for individual buildings in the countryside than in Britain with 58 million people.

Leslie Cree (Ulster Unionist, North Down) supported the amendment but criticised the “quick fix, one size fits all approach” of direct rule.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford) expressed concerns about the restrictions the new proposals put on farming communities to sell their land.

“Rural people must not be forced away from their birthplace to towns and cities,” he said.

Independent unionist Paul Berry, a former member of the DUP who left that party after press reports about his private life, made his first contribution to the Assembly.

The DUP amended motion was passed by 35 votes to 17.

© The Irish Times

Its good to see the same issues debated north of the border…even if it is in that particular Northern style

Hmm, no doubt this will turn into another phoney cultural war like everything else up here. :rolleyes:

Can we expect to see our two ‘delightful’ leading parties partition the North along architectural lines when the new super councils get going?

Very funny image 😀

The North much like ourselves have asssessed their options in relation to sustainable development and made their decision it appears to have been a good decision at government level to stop the unchecked development of the countryside prior to a regime being introduced that will both protect the environment and provide for those who wish to remain in rural communities as opposed to the free for all where urban economic migrants can take their part of the planning free for all that exists in many Southern counties.

I find the article in news section below highly encouraging following on from the Cloughjordan Eco-Village viable alternatives appear to be emerging.

Most of all, it’s good design for Tipperary town

An architectural competition for Tipperary town resulted in three winning designs. Trouble is, they’re still on paper. Emma Cullinan reports

THERE’S a housing scheme in Tipperary town which is positively utopian. The houses have a traditional appearance, with white walls and pitched roofs, but they have open-plan interiors to suit modern life. Like farm buildings of old, they are based around courtyards, allowing for privacy and protection, yet the buildings are grouped with neighbouring properties along fingers of greenery, to encourage residential relations.

These small neighbourhoods sit within a wider green area that is shared by the complete housing scheme. The housing scheme has a community centre and cr

His practice did a development plan for Tipperary town in the early 1980s and found that in the previous 25 years, only six or seven private houses had been built in the town compared with 240 local authority houses: all of the private housing was over a mile outside the town.

“We have got to give people an incentive – through good housing – to move back into towns,” he says, adding that most people would prefer to live in a community.

In his booklet, Living Over the Shop – Relief From The Long Commute, launched yesterday, he argues that in Ireland there is “an increasing social divide between the town and the surrounding area, with higher income households tending to be located in the surrounds of the towns and lower income households in the town”.

I think the bit above from the article is worth repeating – so many of Ireland’s towns are turning into minaturised versions of American doughnut cities. Those that could afford it left for their ‘rural’ idyll while the lower rungs of society were left behind. If you compare the likes of Sligo and Enniskillen you can even see a contrast in the extent of this phenomenon across the border.

The former has gone beyond urban sprawl with the surrounding countryside now filled with McMansions and villas leaving large parts of the town dead and even derelict. Development around Enniskillen has been much more tightly controlled with the slow release of land for expanding suburbs and comparatively few one-offs. This has still resulted in urban sprawl but unlike Sligo the town in much more compact and this shows in every way. There’s far more new development in the town, there’s fewer endless stretches of suburbanised road to maintain and so the public space within the town has been afforded much more attention. All in all Enniskillen is compact, well kept and thriving: Sligo seems to have been let go terribly for seemingly no other reason than enabling the socially mobile to bugger off to the nearest hilltop. 🙁

Ireland in general, but the west of the Republic in particular, seems to have become so anti town. As for villages, they’re a long lost cause in the likes of Donegal were so many are now largely derelict.

Agreed

No flight from land, says Coughlan

07 June 2006 14:06
The Minister for Agriculture has said that despite concerns about the numbers leaving farming, there is no evidence of the so-called flight from the land.

Mary Coughlan said many farmers see a good future in the business and there had been a very significant increase in investment in farm buildings.

The minister outlined her department’s annual review earlier.

Advertisement

She said 2005 saw the introduction of the single farm payment with direct payments to farmers amounting to €2.2bn – the highest level ever.

Agricultural food exports also reaped a record level, they were worth €7.5bn. Diary exports were up 8% and beef exports were up 6%. The minister again highlighted the importance of agriculture to rural development and the national economy.

Ms Coughlan said the sale of land remains at historically low levels.

So it would appear that IRDA et al have been telling us all porkies for the last few years.

I disagree that the sale of land is historically low levels but conclude that the sale of agricultural land for agricultural use is at historically low levels as farmers are obstructed from increasing their holdings by competition from urban based bidders who can bid 10 to 50 times as much pro rata.

@RTE.com wrote:

Sprawl will stretch infrastructure – report

November 24, 2006 07:17
Dublin’s infrastructure will not be able to cope if its housing sprawl continues, according to a report published today by the European Environmental Agency. It predicts that residential housing will have more than doubled in the greater Dublin area by 2025.

The agency says Dublin is an illustration of a Europe-wide problem of urban sprawl. Author Ronan U’ale says Dublin’s outward expansion is unsustainable in terms of resources, services and quality of life.

The report states that the market has been allowed to drive homebuyers further and further out of the city It adds that there are few constraints on the conversion of agricultural land to low density housing.

The report states that the ideal for Irish home buyers is a single family house in open countryside close to an urban area. It recommends instead a more compact capital and the development of a polycentric relationship with Dundalk, Newry and Drogheda. It predicts most future growth will be to the north-west of the capital, along the line of the Dublin- Belfast corridor.

In most countries irrational consumer behaviour is regulated against in Ireland it is pandered to and this will cost bigtime in the not so distant future if objective independent advice is not heeded.

“There is nothing worse than smart ass city slickers who pride themselves in taking a swipe at people from outside the Pale… City slickers often adopt a superior attitude towards those of us from outside the metropolitan 50 kilometres per hour speed limit. It is even more nauseating when the slickers meet on-line and hide behind the skirts of discussion fora to launch verbal scuds on people outside the capital. Check out the discussion board of archiseek.com Irish website relating to the Irish Rural Dwellers’ Association. The pages are graced with the repulsive scripts that belong to a colonial past, long dead but obviously, still hankered after by a few withered brains masquerading as architectural intellects.”

http://buckplanning.blogspot.com/2006/11/rural-planning-irish-rural-dwellers.html

Liamy McNally is a journalist with Mid-West Radio based in Ballyhaunis.

“Ah sure it is a great country! It could only happen here. The tail wags the dog and gets away with it!”

If only.

He is right there are a few withered brains on Archiseek; well at least today after what I hope was a really good last night.

Have a great 2007 all I hope you will all join in promoting an end to this lobby groups temporary advantage in planning policy over the next year.

Up to 200 homes still without power

01 January 2007 18:40
Up to 200 homes in Co Donegal are still without electricity following strong winds last night.

The ESB said it hoped to restore power to as many homes as possible by tonight.

More than 24,000 homes across the country were left without power for much of New Year’s Eve.

I wonder how much the costs directly attributable to One Off Houses were this weekend?

Dublin sprawl could harm health, study warns
Tuesday, 13 February 2007 11:27
Planning experts have warned that Dublin’s massive suburban sprawl could lead to health problems, pollution and increased rates of social isolation.

The Urban Forum, which is made up of five planning groups, is calling for a review of the National Spatial Strategy, and the creation of a new urban centre along the west coast.
Speaking on RTÉ Radio’s Morning Ireland, Aidan ffrench of the Irish Landscape Institute, which is on the forum, says Dublin is growing too rapidly.

The forum is also demanding increased staffing of planning bodies and a greater emphasis on high-speed rail.

It has warned that Dublin is expanding so quickly it will soon occupy the same surface area as Los Angeles, but with less than a quarter of its population.

As a consequence, the average car in Ireland travels 70% more each year than France, 50% more than Britain – and even 30% more than the USA.

The forum says there is substantial evidence to suggest this will lead obesity, cardiovascular disease, asthma and increased rates of social isolation.

The forum is made up of: Engineers Ireland; the Irish Landscape Institute; the Irish Planning Institute; the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland and the Society of Chartered Surveyors.

Interesting coalition lending weight to something that has been held here for a long time.

Ahern announces appointed Senators
Friday, 3 August 2007 13:16
The Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, has announced his list of 11 appointed Senators.

As expected four of the new Seanad seats have gone to members of the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats.

* Dan Boyle, former Green Party TD, Cork South Central

* Martin Brady, former Fianna Fáil TD, Dublin North East

* Ivor Callely, former Fianna Fáil TD and Minister of State, Dublin North Central

* Ciaran Cannon, PD Councillor, Galway

* Maria Corrigan, Fianna Fáil Councillor, Dún Laoghaire Rathdown

* Deirdre de Burca, Green Party Councillor, Wicklow

* John Ellis, former Fianna Fáil TD, Roscommon-South Leitrim

* Eoghan Harris, Sunday Independent columnist and former RTÉ producer

* Lisa McDonald, Fianna Fáil Councillor, Wexford

* Brian Ó Domhnaill, Fianna Fáil Councillor, Donegal

* Fiona O’Malley, former PD TD, Dún Laoghaire

* Senator Donie Cassidy – Leader of Seanad Éireann.

Good choice for a non political appointment and his views on bungalows are cool too!

Harris will hardly be able to take his tongue out of an Taoiseachs hole for long enough to make a difference…..

You must be talking about another Eoghan Harris the one appointed today is independent outspoken and has a unique ability not to stick to the script as the stickies found out many moons ago.

nope, im talking about that ‘FF-washed-Bertie-Yes-man’ who has reaped what he has sown….

But it’s the same Harris who went on the Late Late and praised Bertie to the high heavens one week before the election. His appointment is nothing more than a payout for that episode where he may as well have been wearing a Vote Bertie t-shirt and shaking Fianna Fail pompoms. It really brings the role of the media into disrepute. It damages Irish democracy and shows that an unstable, flip flopping ignorant arrogant blustering chameleion hack of the worst kind can rise to become a legislator.

And 10 minutes surround by FF gombeenmen like Ivor Callely in the Seanad and his views on one-off housing are liable to shift in any case.

Harris is passionate on any topic he dives into; I read his editorial piece in the Sindo before the election and he called it simply the purpose of an election is to concentrate on the issues that matter such as health, education, planning etc and not on a he said she said relating to events that happened many years ago.

Whilst in the Seannad he will have a chance to prove if he is genuinely independent such as Wilson or Fergal Quinn or if he becomes an ind ff.

Time will judge more clearly than the polemical sentiments above

yes but on the Late Late he ignored all the issues and led a cheerleading campaign for Bertie, against the media. He may be passionate but he’s a political chameleon who’s a danger to democracy, as the line between Fianna Fail and the Sindo has been thoroughly blurred by his rants. If he truly cared about the issues you mentioned he wouldn’t touch Bertie with a bargepole. His support for Bertie was nothing more than a dig at his fellow journalists who would honestly like to know why it was ok to use your elected position to enrich yourself.

He obviously doesn’t care that much about planning issues either, if he’s willing to support FF. And i disagree that the Seanad will prove or disprove his independence. He proved himself an apologist for backward governance, gombeenism and corruption on RTE that night. He’s as independent as Flynn and Healy Rae.

I fail to see how Harris’ appointment will benefit the one-off housing debate as you seem to be suggesting. He’s probably fogotten all about that issue by now, as it seems to have slipped off the “flavour of the month” chart. Perhaps if he’d championed the Greens in May i’d feel different.

He stuck to the point that the campaign is about issues and not personality.

I don’t feel that the comparison to Flynn or Healy Rae is particularly mature or contributes in anyway to this discussion.

He blindly defended Ahern against all principles of ethical governance. I just saw the clip on the news. His words were:

“for the first time, and the last time, I am voting Fianna Fail”

This shows he has no political ideology or any conviction whatsoever. Is he gonna revert to FG or SF next time? Who knows. He was doing so to support Bertie’s personality against his colleagues in the media. He failed utterly to couch this support in terms of any of the issues whatsoever other than his own rampant contrariness.

My comparison to the other “independents” is fairly apt imo. The term Indepnedent is used by the two sides to put a false, dishonest cordon sanitaire between them. If Harris can claim independence after that performance, and what’s more to get away with it, is a sad indictment on Irish political culture.

Anyway, if you wish to respond again PVC, i’ll read it, but I think we should put this to bed here on archiseek, and return to matters architecture and planning. I’m sure Sue is about to post some nonsense over on that Tara thread again!

see you there

Take it outside lads: http://www.politics.ie

😉

The point that a new senator with outspoken views on one off housing has entered seanad eireann is in no way a political point.

The fact that some posters chose to ignore his stated views on this issue and rant on about his views on a completely irrelevant topic is disapointing but far from suprising!

These individuals would be better served lobbying the man than blogging!

Ivor Callely faces FF parliamentary party expulsion
Friday, 4 June 2010 10:19
Senator Ivor Callely faces expulsion from the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party after an investigation was launched into his expense claims.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0604/callelyi.html

The party’s Chief Whip, John Curran, is to propose a motion to the next meeting of the parliamentary party that the whip be removed from Senator Callely, without prejudice, pending the completion of the investigation.

This controversy began on Sunday, with the revelation that the Dublin-based Senator had been claiming travel and subsistence expenses to Leinster House from his other residence in Co Cork.
Yesterday afternoon, after receiving a written statement from the Senator, the Committee on Members’ Interests in the Seanad confirmed there was sufficient evidence to sustain a complaint under the Ethics in Public Office Act.

The Committee is to receive legal advice, as well as more information about the expenses rules, before meeting again the week after next to get the inquiry under way.

Yesterday night, Fianna Fáil issued a statement noting the Committee’s decision and repeating that the matter is being taken seriously by the party and that Senator Callely must deal with it ‘comprehensively and transparently’.

A Fianna Fáil spokesman said ‘strenuous efforts’ had been made to contact Senator Callely to inform him of the decision but without success.

Separately, it has emerged that a second senator has claimed travel and accommodation expenses from an address outside of that listed on the Fianna Fáil website.

Senator Larry Butler, whose official address is in Foxrock, Co Dublin, said that since he was elected to the Seanad in 2007 he has lived in Graiguenamanagh in Co Kilkenny.

Another reason to ban them….

Rural need my arse…..

GORMLEY RULES OUT FLAT-RATE WATER, PROPERTY TAXES – The Irish Times reports that Green Party leader and Minister for the Environment John Gormley has ruled out a flat-rate property tax in next year’s Budget. He has also discounted a flat-rate water charge.

The paper says there has been speculation that the Department of Finance is considering a flat-rate property tax as an interim measure until a comprehensive property valuation system is in place.

But it quotes Mr Gormley as saying that, in the case of water and property tax, it should not be on a flat-rate basis. ‘I know there are people out there who think this is the way to go, but once you do that you lose the argument. All the evidence is that people are prepared to pay taxes if they are brought in on a fair basis,’ he added.

Mr Gormley added that if people were asked to pay a flat-rate water charge, they were then likely to use as much as they wanted and there would be no environmental benefit.

Whilst never being a fan of more taxes it is good to see that there will be at least some link between cost of services provided and cost of charges levied. One applauds this approach which will see the prudent less punished than those that have had for far too long an extended free lunch.

Link between cost and services provided?

I had to pay to bring ESB to my house
I had to bore my own well
I had to install a biomass unit
There is no public transport
There is no refuse collection
The IS a bottlebank 5kms away
I must go to the nearest Dump which is 30+kms away, €18 for a car boot full.
The road surface of the Southern side of the Ring of Kerry is a national disgrace, potholes everywhere, subsidence, broken walls, etc. due to the thousands of cement/block/hardcore trucks that pounded the roads during the Tiger years.Very little of the contributions paid by builders has gone back into the infrastructure.

I was over in Allihies / Kilmacallogue direction last weekend – far less spolied than South Kerry, in fairness to Cork CoCo.

@KerryBog2 wrote:

Link between cost and services provided? .

@KerryBog2 wrote:

I had to pay to bring ESB to my house .

All households have to pay to be connected; how far did the connection need to go from the nearest supply and how much did it cost?

@KerryBog2 wrote:

I had to bore my own well .

You will then no doubt not face water charges which if equitable will be based on consumption; there are however very many instances where local authorities have substantial bills to remediate water courses where septic tanks are defective.

@KerryBog2 wrote:

I had to install a biomass unit .

Good

@KerryBog2 wrote:

There is no public transport .

A good reason to ban one off houses they encourage excessive car use which degrades the road network.

@KerryBog2 wrote:

There is no refuse collection .

No bin charges then.

@KerryBog2 wrote:

The IS a bottlebank 5kms away .

Recycling facilities are patchy everywhere

@KerryBog2 wrote:

I must go to the nearest Dump which is 30+kms away, €18 for a car boot full. .

Which if you recycle suffciently and store non-compostible waste should be cheaper than urban based bin charges.
@KerryBog2 wrote:

The road surface of the Southern side of the Ring of Kerry is a national disgrace, potholes everywhere, subsidence, broken walls, etc. due to the thousands of cement/block/hardcore trucks that pounded the roads during the Tiger years.Very little of the contributions paid by builders has gone back into the infrastructure. .

It must have been all the cement trucks delivering the constructionmaterials required to build all the one off houses built over the past decade. Spending on non-national roads was running at €300m per year up to 2007 it would appear the Healy Raes got hoodwinked if the Ring of Kerry can’t have a resurface.

Spending on School buses exploded from €60m a year in 1999 to €192m in 2009; the decade of the one off house has left yet another cost.