Fast-Track Infrastructure legislation
- This topic has 78 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
- PDLL wrote:Landscape destruction – I have yet to see an urban settlement that doesn’t involve ‘landscape destruction’]
That is the whole point all construction destoys landscapes; by limiting the majority of all construction to urban areas and careful expansion landscapes are preserved. The current Bungalow Blitz is having a detrimental effect and not even SACs of areas of outstanding natural beuaty are safe.
I guess that those who despise the one-off house must be damn glad that we had a famine to get rid of many hundreds of thousands of one-offs and to reinforce the eastern bias integral to the colonial administration of the State.
For your information Armagh and Louth had amongst the highest population density on the island in 1841; also the scale and settlement patterns were totally different in 1841 than today. I was wondering when you’d raise the colonial card which is a complete joker in a discussion where wild is never spelled with an e
To say that an ‘eastern bias [was] integral to the colonial administration of the State’ is merely stating an historical fact, TP. I am not sure what you mean by saying that I was somehow pulling out a ‘colonial card’. What you thought I might have said and what I actually did say are two different things.
Indeed, you are right about settlement patterns in the 1840s being different from what they are today – then houses were built with impugnity, without any regulation whatsoever, in far greater numbers than they are today, usually in lovely coastal settings and with absolutely no sewage treatment. Mind you, it is those lovely little picturesque cottages which have the tourists going mad with their cameras. It is a good job that we are now building enough one-offs to stimulate the tourist industry in 200 years time, otherwise our economy might flop in 2200 without a vibrant tourist sector.:)
@PDLL wrote:
To say that an ‘eastern bias [was] integral to the colonial administration of the State’ is merely stating an historical fact, TP. I am not sure what you mean by saying that I was somehow pulling out a ‘colonial card’. What you thought I might have said and what I actually did say are two different things.
We’d better stop at Michael Davitt then and just declare that the land is the law and that anyone who attempts to bring a little 20th Century enlightenment to any discourse is merely a lacky of the now departed british state. Heavan forbid an actual Irish person might question the rationality of covering the country in giant mansions with plastic windows which the poor taxpayers have to fund.
@PDLL wrote:
then houses were built with impugnity, without any regulation whatsoever, in far greater numbers than they are today,
At least we know what you want:
An unregulated free for all with no protections for the taxpayer. me feinism
@Thomond Park wrote:
At least we know what you want:
An unregulated free for all with no protections for the taxpayer. me feinism
If you read my post TP, you will have noticed that I said ‘THEN [clearly referring to the 1840s] houses were built with impugnity, without any regulation whatsoever, in far greater numbers than they are today, usually in lovely coastal settings and with absolutely no sewage treatment’.
I did not say that I wanted these particular attributes to continue in either the design, construction and habitation of the one-off house. Oddly enough, this particularly form of one-off house – the nice little charm-filled history-endowed rustic cottage of the 19th century is about the only form of one-off house which seems acceptable to the urban masses. Its stinking and environmentally unfriendly past seems to have faded into the mellow Celtic mists of the pastoral ideal. Similar I suppose to the hamburger effect – we love them but don’t want to acknowledge the reality behind the pleasant sensation of the present. Fortunately, our modern one-off houses are built according to the existing regulations and do not provide simultaneous housing for man and beast.
The exisiting regulations which are completely different to those of only 5 years ago and are completely out of sync with our European peers; I don’t know how many applications you have seen but most of those I have been asked to provide an opinion on are between 2000-6000 square feet and would not conform to building regulations in most european countries as they are not connected to the sewerage network outside the development boundary and architecturally horrendous in the main.
Thomond Park wrote:The exisiting regulations which are completely different to those of only 5 years ago and are completely out of sync with our European peers]Lucky then that they don’t have to conform to European standards and only have to fulfil national standards. Otherwise, our future tourism industry would take a bad hit.
‘Architecturally horrendous in the main’ – sounds like much of what is built in Ireland, be it in the countryside or in the cities. Unless of course you think bog-standard 3 bedroom semis whose plans must have been photocopied and posted on the internet for every builder to download are the way to go in developing architectural standards in Ireland. It doesn’t have to be situated in the countryside or exist in isolation for it to be an abomination of the visual sense.
The suggestion that contemporary one off architecture will attract tourists in the future is laughable unless Gerry Springer sets up a theme park somewhere close to Athlone so as to put all these houses within a two hour drive.
In relation to three bed semi’s I agree a lot of them are very poor but the difference is that 48 houses in 3 acres has a limited inpact as opposed to 48 houses stretched over a 240 acre area and one rarely if ever sees elevated clumps of houses miles from anywhere on isolated sites relying on septic tanks
@Thomond Park wrote:
The suggestion that contemporary one off architecture will attract tourists in the future is laughable unless Gerry Springer sets up a theme park somewhere close to Athlone so as to put all these houses within a two hour drive.
I wonder would old Peig have seen it that way. Indeed, I wonder would the original owner of the legendary ‘Dolly’s cottage’ on the Strandhill Road in Sligo have seen it that way. I wonder would John Hinde agree with you. I wonder would the original owners of the many little artisan cottages around Dublin that are now hot property have known that there houses would be worth a fortune at some not so distant point in the future. Time has a way of changing our perception of all things. Personally I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility that the modern-day one-off will feature in a tourist brochure in the year 2200 with heritage Ireland boldly emblazoned across its roofline. Chances are it will happen.
Do you really believe that?
I genuinely do believe that there is a strong possibility that that will be the case. I don’t see why not. It is a well established pattern that exists in virtually every country I know of. The typical dwellings of the poor to middle classes, like those of the aristocracy, often become tourist attractions insofar as they represent in a physical form the socio-cultural aspirations and characteristics of a people at a certain moment in history. Lets face it, why are such things as the little artisan cottages in Bruges such a tourist attraction, the little peasant houses in many a mediterranean village, the chalets in the Alps. None of these were built as tourist attractions – they were functional family dwellings. They have, however, become tourist attractions in their own rights as has the Irish cottage. Do you think if you could tell old Sean Og that his little stoney 1840s moss-engrained cottage would be photographed by John Hinde and sent around the world 100 years later that he would have believed that. His little festering hole, complete with cow shite dribbling out the door – get away. Golden mist of time and all of that.
@PDLL wrote:
It is a well established pattern that exists in virtually every country I know of.
The typical dwellings of the poor to middle classes, like those of the aristocracy, often become tourist attractions insofar as they represent in a physical form the socio-cultural aspirations and characteristics of a people at a certain moment in history. Lets face it, why are such things as the little artisan cottages in Bruges
Hmmmm a Medieval City
@PDLL wrote:
the little peasant houses in many a mediterranean village,
Hmmmm inside a development boundary
@PDLL wrote:
the chalets in the Alps.
Built out of necessity to have in poor travelling conditions residential access to winter cattle indoors and accross a very small number of the lower reaches of valleys] None of these were built as tourist attractions – they were functional family dwellings. [/QUOTE]
Precisely built as family dwellings close to all necessary amenities
So why then is the Irish cottage such a toruist icon of Ireland, TP. They weren’t built inmedieval cities or within development boundaries.
Because clusters of them were the centre of Irish life as settlements grew into villages; one was just as likely to find a traditional Irish cottage in the backlanes of Dublin 8 as one was in Cavan. What is being built today bears no resemblence to any of the vernacular dwellings you listed in towns and cities above.
Thomond Park wrote:Because clusters of them were the centre of Irish life as settlements grew into villages]I like how you manipulate history with your reference to ‘clusters’. This of course neatly ignores the many cottages that were utterly standalone. As one is as likely to find a mock-Georgian mansion in the suburbs of any Irish town, including Dublin, I take it that on this logic you would agree with me that these houses will become tourist attractions. I am only following your logic as to why the traditional cottage has become a tourist icon. You can use such terms as vernacular in the present day context too – the one-offs are the vernacular – they embody the aesthetic desires of the people and are, actually closer to the true representation of what the Irish domestic aesthetic ideal is as they are often built by people with enough money to make aesthetic choices, unlike the cottage which was a minimalist structure built with only the bare essentials and thereby not reflecting the aesthetic ideals of the people. Here we have another reason to celebrate the one-off. Like in Reanaissance Italy where excess income allowed free aesthetic expression, the McMansion – the embodiment of Celtic Tiger Ireland – is the free embodiment of contemporary aesthetic desires. More the reason we should cherish them and celebrate them.
Wow, if I was Sean Carney I’d be laughing my head off right now. One driveby post and he started off a full scale flame war among other people.
@PDLL wrote:
I like how you manipulate history with your reference to ‘clusters’. .
It is your denial of architectural history that is manipulation you aren’t on trial in Vienna today by any chance for a certain lecture delived in 1989?
@PDLL wrote:
This of course neatly ignores the many cottages that were utterly standalone. As one is as likely to find a mock-Georgian mansion in the suburbs of any Irish town, including Dublin, .
A small number of stand alone cottages did exist but were a small percentage unlike the 30% of new dwellings being constructed today.
@PDLL wrote:
I take it that on this logic you would agree with me that these houses will become tourist attractions. I am only following your logic as to why the traditional cottage has become a tourist icon. .
I dispute this as pure hot air
@PDLL wrote:
You can use such terms as vernacular in the present day context too – the one-offs are the vernacular – they embody the aesthetic desires of the people and are, actually closer to the true representation of what the Irish domestic aesthetic ideal is as they are often built by people with enough money to make aesthetic choices, .
Are you for real] unlike the cottage which was a minimalist structure built with only the bare essentials and thereby not reflecting the aesthetic ideals of the people. Here we have another reason to celebrate the one-off. Like in Reanaissance Italy where excess income allowed free aesthetic expression, the McMansion – the embodiment of Celtic Tiger Ireland – is the free embodiment of contemporary aesthetic desires. More the reason we should cherish them and celebrate them.[/QUOTE]
I’ve just fallen off my chair
Of course I am for real. It makes sense and if you would admit to it, we might make progress. Peasant cottages – that is what they were – were not built with any asethetic features in mind. There was no money to include such features. Architectural aesthetic are a luxury which the average potatoe picking peasant couldn’t afford. To this end, the cottage does not represent Irish domestic aesthetic ideals in the 19th century.
However, given the surplus income that we have nowadays, we can afford to include certain aesthetic features in our buildings. We can afford to ‘decorate’ our domestic structures in a manner that does not just fulfil minimalist functional requirements. That decoration may take many forms – porches, gazebos, conservatories, PVC windows, stone eagles etc.These are artefacts of personal choice representing an aesthetci ideal held by the home owner/builder. It is a free choice and as it is replicated time and again across the country, it can understood to represent an embodiment of contemporary domestic architectural aesthetics.
In this regard, the one-offs emobodiment the vernacular style of the 21st century – even if that style is just a mish-mash of other cultural traditions. In this regard, we need to preserve these buildings insofar as they uniquely capture the aesthetic spirit of the first great phase of Irish economic independence (exact same principle as in the Renaissance).
Single storey cottages of 300- 500 square feet with small wooden windows and straw roofs that expressed a strong local identity and were carefully placed in leeward positions that reduced exposure to the elements and had hedrerows almost half their height to cover them from the elements.
For you to argue that 2 – 2 1/2 storey dwellings between 4 and 12 times the size of the largest vernacular dwellings merits comparison is pathetic
Economic independence has nothing to do with wrecking the Countryside and muting economic advantage with expensive and inefficient housing policies.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
