Fast-Track Infrastructure legislation

About 10 years over due. Good news anyway. I hope its a complete sucess. If Mc Dowell gets his end of things sorted it should be.

This is very good news for Dublin and it surronding area.
This legislation has no bearing or is of no benefit to the West of Ireland as “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INFRASTRUCTURE HERE”.
The West of Ireland still has, and uses, 1800’s roads and rail.
In the 1800’s it did have an Infrastructure, many double rail lines to all parts of the region. Now it has two single track rail lines going to the same place.
The roads here where built in the 1800’s, so suitable for them times, but are a hinderance in the 21st century.
The only roads built in this region since the 1800’s total approx 30 miles, plus these are not high quality or safe roads and badly planned.
Total spent, approx €60m, since the 19th century!
By far the majority of all National Routes cannot take modern vehicles as they where designed for non mechanical vehicles.
On these roads two Lorrys have to come to a stop just to pass by each other, and with great difficulty.
As a poor, improvrised nation the West of Ireland got more than it does now been part of a wealthy nation!
It was an objective one area and recieved billions in aid but has not recieved a penny of this money.
Look at other objective one areas in Europe and see what has been achieved with less aid than the West of Ireland got, notably Valenica City and Region in Spain as one example.
In Western Europe today there is nowhere to compare to the West of Ireland, it has been totally neglected and left behind, and this is getting worse, not better the richer we become.
Simply it is the only region in Western Europe with 3rd world infrastructure.
And to show the contempt this government and every Irish government has to this region since the foundation of the state, one of many examples is the Castlebar to Westport road.
This is the most congested section of road in Co. Mayo. it is a very dangerous road which has had many fatalities and which again was built in the 19th century.
20yrs ago they planned a new road, since then no money has been given.
Under the jokingly named NATIONAL???? DEVELOPMENT PLAN the road was to be completed in 2004.
It recieved nothing and the local Authority has to wait, (from the NRA), until “at least” 2015 MAYBE!
By then the two laned road planned will not be able to cope with the increase in traffic!
Simply the West of Ireland should be governed by the European Union for approx the next 20 years until it has 21st century infrastructure and services.
There should also be a National Enquiry to investigate where these Billions of Euros have gone, and this investigation should also involve the European Parliment and its courts.
It is simply a national scandal that a people and its governments should allow part of its own country to end up in a mess like it now is.
Foreign Aid budget from the Irish Government totals 1.5bn Euros a year, total spent in the West of Ireland well, a fraction of that, therefore people in Africa recieve more from the so called Irish Government than a region of its own country!!!!!!!!
Only intelligent people who are willing to discuss this matter in an informative and intelligent way reply please.

As we know, Sean, there is no need for infrastructure in the west or north west or midlands. After all, nobody lives there and those who do are simply SUV driving selfish shxxes who have no respect for the country they live in, the environment or their urban neighbours. In addition, they are selfish sociopaths into the bargain. They have the infrastructure they deserve – none.

This is a summary of most of the threads you will find in Archiseek. The vision you will find propagated here is a peculiarly 19th century one – lets move everybody to the cities and leave the country as some form of idyllic pastoral haven that can provide respite to the fevered brows of our city slickers. At no time will you find any understanding of the concept of balanced regional development that treats all of the provinces equally, nor you will find any understanding or attempt to undertsand the chicken and egg phenomenon. By this I mean that people do not seem to realise that by continually building Dublin up and by continually depopulating the countryside, the country becomes progressively worse in terms of its development. The converse is the case, people argue – why put infrastructure in the west, when all of the people live in th east. It seems too challenging to imagine that if there was infrasturcture in the west, there would not be so much of a need for it in the east as people could live happily along the western seaboard. These are difficult concepts which sadly receive no understanding here. The imbalance in Ireland’s infrasturcture is matched only by the imbalance of opinion within the planning and architectural community.

No one has ever said that infrastructure should not be built; however no infrastructure should be built unless the likely effects are properly scrutinised. Moving the process away from the people it will serve eliminates their right to make comment upon same truely making it an enforced centralised dictat straight from Dublin.

PDLL-
Which Archiseek are you reading? The same one as me? Presumably not, as I can’t recall anyone here ever advocating that the entire population should move to Dublin. We wouldn’t have to accommodate just you either, we’d have to find somewhere for the chip on your shoulder too. And I get the feeling it wouldn’t be happy in an apartment. Only a detached house would do. So Sligo can keep you, thanks.

If you dislike the arguments here, by all means engage with the meat of the matter, but don’t disappear for a while and then reappear with a gross misrepresentation of our positions. Yes, ‘positions’ plural. You seem to think that the ‘imbalance’ of opinion on these boards somehow reflects a certain bias in the minds of the board members. Did it ever occur to you that the opinions expressed here might be carefully considered and that they might reflect the national state of play? This might not tally with your belief that we’re constantly attacking the little man who just wants a simple house to sell on the open mar… sorry, for his ailing grandmother, but stop and think for a second. There is no bar to membership of this forum (save in exceptional circumstances), and it is not intended solely for professionals in the built environment field. There is a higher likelihood certainly of members having a professional interest in the area, but it’s not a pre-requisite. Having said that, I’d think that the opinion of someone who studied planning for anywhere between 2 and 4 years would be at least as valuable as the opinion of a landowner with a desire to develop their waterlogged field, whereas you seem to think studying planning in some way blinds a planner to the realities of life in the countryside. In fact, I’d think that a planner’s opinion is more valuable, actually, but all that the counter-argument requires is a statement of the equivalence of the positions- a ‘fair hearing’ in layman’s terms. I suspect, really, that the reason why you think we’re all such thick-skulled patronising Dubs is because we disagree with you. If so, fine, but if you’re going to engage with the debate please keep to the points we’re making instead of putting words in our mouths. And if the forum bothers you that much, may I be the first to suggest, respectfully, that you do your heart a favour and pay no attention to these ravings of a self-interested mob of misguided busybodies? I hear there’s a vacancy over on the forums at http://www.congesteddistrictsboard.com .

Lastly, balanced regional development does not mean making sure that every square inch of the country is built on, contrary to what you seem to think. It means selecting a few centres in a spatial hierarchy and developing them to achieve a critical mass of population and development that will support employment and services. That is what many on the anti-one-off side are arguing for. If you are arguing for it too, which is one interpretation of your post above, then might I remark on what a welcome transformation this is? Next thing we know you’ll be keeping your stroller off the bike paths of the capital. (Chance would be a fine thing.)

@ctesiphon wrote:

I can’t recall anyone here ever advocating that the entire population should move to Dublin … Only a detached house would do. So Sligo can keep you, thanks.

Thank you Ctesiphon for your response and your personal slurs. Very constructive. Indeed, nobody has ever explicitly said that the whole population of the state should move to Dublin. Implicitly, however, the central thrust evident in many threads is that infrastructural development in this country should be focussed primarily on the major urban centres (Dublin and the few token towns and cities on the western seaboard). It has been argued both implicitly and explicitly that infrastructural projects of any substance (rail line, motorway or dual carriageway at the every least) that would help stimulate real economic and population development along the western seaboard are largely a waste of time unless, of course, they connect these outlying satellite cities with Dublin. Hence a rail line along the western seaboard connecting nearly 2 million people has been seen as a folly that would distract valuable investment away from Dublin. Indirectly, therefore, the vision of Ireland propagated in various ways throughout Archiseek is one which has Dublin at its centre and then 5 or 6 reasonably sized cities dispersed around the state (none of which would be connected to each other by serious transport infrastructure except by way of travelling through Dublin). Sound familiar now?

@ctesiphon wrote:

If you dislike the arguments here, by all means engage with the meat of the matter, but don’t disappear for a while and then reappear with a gross misrepresentation of our positions.

I am sorry if I have not maintained a 24 hour vigil and if my occasional absence away from the computer some how weakens my point of view or my interpretation of ‘your’ positions. I will dedicate more of my personal resources to a round the clock observation of Archiseek, if of course that helps you accept some of the points I might occasionally make.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that the opinions expressed here might be carefully considered and that they might reflect the national state of play? This might not tally with your belief that we’re constantly attacking the little man who just wants a simple house to sell on the open mar… sorry, for his ailing grandmother, but stop and think for a second.

I am sure that many of the opinions expressed on Archiseek are carefully considered by those that express them. Just because they are carefully considered, doesn’t mean that they are correct or are the only version of events. I never said that ‘you’ (plural) were ‘attacking the little man who just wants to sell his house on the open mar…’. I am glad that you have chosen to speak on behalf of all Archiseek members, Ctesiphon.

@ctesiphon wrote:

I suspect, really, that the reason why you think we’re all such thick-skulled patronising Dubs is because we disagree with you. If so, fine, but if you’re going to engage with the debate please keep to the points we’re making instead of putting words in our mouths.

Or perhaps the reason you choose to be so belligerent is because someone has presented an equally valid and alternative perspective on issues which doesn’t fit in with some version of social reality churned out of a lecture hall in UCD. It is, as noted above, you Ctesiphon who is putting the words in the mouths of other Archiseek members – your use of the royal ‘we’ implies that your ego is either running amok or that you had some high-level meeting of all Archiseek members and are expressing a common position shared by all.

@PDLL wrote:

Implicitly, however, the central thrust evident in many threads is that infrastructural development in this country should be focussed primarily on the major urban centres (Dublin and the few token towns and cities on the western seaboard). It has been argued both implicitly and explicitly that infrastructural projects of any substance (rail line, motorway or dual carriageway at the every least) that would help stimulate real economic and population development along the western seaboard are largely a waste of time unless, of course, they connect these outlying satellite cities with Dublin. Hence a rail line along the western seaboard connecting nearly 2 million people has been seen as a folly that would distract valuable investment away from Dublin. Indirectly, therefore, the vision of Ireland propagated in various ways throughout Archiseek is one which has Dublin at its centre and then 5 or 6 reasonably sized cities dispersed around the state (none of which would be connected to each other by serious transport infrastructure except by way of travelling through Dublin).

Would you oppose a multi hubbed infrastructure network, where Cork Limerick and Galway became significant centres of gravity?

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Would you oppose a multi hubbed infrastructure network, where Cork Limerick and Galway became significant centres of gravity?

Frank – I remember years ago when the Goverment first released its plan for the development of a motorway network in Ireland, a map was published in the Irish Times. Perhaps it was because it was published in black and white but the effect of that map was quite stark. There were lovely big thick black lines linking Dublin with Galway, Cork, and Limerick. There were no lines above Galway and there were no lines down the left han-side of the map. That map encapsulated development in Ireland. North-west – nothingess. The other cities – extended satelite suburbs of Dublin.

I would love to see regional hubs developed – I would never argue against this. They should, however, be integrated and that means that there should be a viable transport infrastructure connecting [Derry]-Letterkenny-Sligo-Galway-Ennis-Limerick-Cork. This infrastructure should be independent of the transport connections to Dublin. This would facilitate proper balanced regional growth. Without this, the western seaboard will continue to haemorrage its population to the eastern seaboard. If people are serious about addressing developmental problems in Ireland, they will have to start thinking about stimulating serious economic growth in the west and that means infrastructure. Ie- put in the infrasturture and the population will follow, rather than the current plan of let the people populate an area around Dublin and then address it with infrastructural ‘solutions’. Chicken and egg.

I think it was a mistake to build six motorways out of Dublin and a better approach would have been to make a grid like pattern with Dublin only connected directly to Limerick, Waterford and Belfast.

It is true that you can build infrastructure before the population arrives but you gotta have a plan for how this is going to happen.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

I think it was a mistake to build six motorways out of Dublin and a better approach would have been to make a grid like pattern with Dublin only connected directly to Limerick, Waterford and Belfast.

It is true that you can build infrastructure before the population arrives but you gotta have a plan for how this is going to happen.

Again, I agree 100%. This is why there is an urgent need to reconsider what is happening in this country in terms of regional planning. You do not require 4 years of undergraduate planning courses to realise that the current way things are going is not sustainable or desireable. What I mean by that is that continually building infrastruture in a knee-jerk manner around a very limited part of the country is in nobody’s benefit. Dublin is becoming a patchwork quilt of temporray and unsustainable infrastructural solutions while the rest of the country suffers an infrastructural deficit. In case it is automatically assumed that I am anti-Dublin or anti-Dublin development, I have – in other posts- always argued for a metro for Dublin, for example. What I resent strongly is the priveleging of Dublin at the cost of fair, equitable and balanced developement across the state. Of coruse, when I say this – which is to many a fair-minded approach – I will be accused of ‘playing the old balanced development’ card (as I have been in other threads).

PDLL I hope for ur sake that you are trolling and don’t expect those views to be taken seriously outside Citywest hotel and country club or inchidoney

Paris and Northern France have a simliar radial pattern of infrastructure to Ireland with 7 motorways emanating from the capital.At least Paris is inland and a more natural hub. The Swiss have a multi-hubbed motorway network and a more balanced development and power balance. This could be mostly due to geography (having to build through the valleys).

4 motorways in Meath is crazy.

@Thomond Park wrote:

PDLL I hope for ur sake that you are trolling and don’t expect those views to be taken seriously outside Citywest hotel and country club or inchidoney

What do you mean ‘trolling’? Why wouldn’t these views be taken seriously. Why would the idea of connecting every major centre of population along the west coast with proper infrastructure not be taken seriously? Truly, I cannot understand why the balanced and sustainable development of the whole of the republic wouldn’t be taken seriously.

Withdrawn

PDLL-
Are you deliberately misrepresenting the positions of others, or do you just not understand them?

Nowhere did I say that I was speaking for the entirety of the Archiseek membership. In fact, I specifically stated that there are “positions plural“. ‘The royal “we”‘? Please. Not only would I not be so rude as to attempt it, I wouldn’t waste my time trying to summarise the complexity and diversity of the others’ opinions. As you might recall from the Cycling thread, I stated specifically there that I speak only for myself. To refresh your memory:

I do not claim to speak for road users, less still do I claim to speak for motorists. I speak for myself, a cyclist who uses bike paths, a pedestrian who uses footpaths, and a road user who uses roads for cycling and for public transport.

You seem to think that everyone who disagrees with you automatically believes the same thing, whereas nothing could be further from the truth, but it suits your broad brush strawman debating style.

For the record:
I think there is serious merit in balanced regional development, for the definition of which see my last post.
I think that regional centres should be connected by a network of quality transport corridors.
I think these corridors should be serviced by a quality network of public transport.
I think development should be concentrated within existing areas at all scales.
I think the fast-track infrastructure is flawed and politically motivated, like so many of the decisions taken in this country by politicians that you mistakenly ascribe to brainwashed planners. But I apologise for getting back on topic. What am I thinking?

Allow me to quote your statements from above, ctesiphon.

@ctesiphon wrote:

PDLL-I can’t recall anyone here ever advocating that the entire population should move to Dublin. We wouldn’t have to accommodate just you either, we’d have to find somewhere for the chip on your shoulder too

@ctesiphon wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that the opinions expressed here might be carefully considered and that they might reflect the national state of play? This might not tally with your belief that we’re constantly attacking the little man

@ctesiphon wrote:

I suspect, really, that the reason why you think we’re all such thick-skulled patronising Dubs is because we disagree with you.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Next thing we know you’ll be keeping your stroller off the bike paths of the capital. (Chance would be a fine thing.)

Now I’m no expert, but that looks very much like the royal ‘we’ to me. There are two alternatives: either you, my dear man, like to talk on behalf of others, despite thefact that you point out the ‘diversity of opinion that exists’, or you are schizophrenic and are unaware that you move repeatedly between ‘I’ and ‘we’.

@TP wrote:

PDLL I hope for ur sake that you are trolling and don’t expect those views to be taken seriously outside Citywest hotel and country club or inchidoney

This one will not be withdrawn

*sigh* Here WE go again.

No.1: ‘We’ refers to the citizens of Dublin, not the members of Archiseek. It is not a ‘royal “we”‘ in that it is a simple statememt of fact that any newly arrived citizen has to be accommodated (I don’t mean in the sense of housed, I mean in the sense of creating space) by the existing citizens.

No.2: ‘We’ here is used as a constituent of what I see as your belief, viz. ‘your belief that we’re constantly attacking the little man’. So again, not a royal one.

No.3: See No.2.

No.4: A figure of speech. Admittedly, this one is closest to the possibility of ‘the royal “we”‘, but ‘closest’ and ‘bang on the money’ are, well, not the same thing.

@PDLL wrote:

Now I’m no expert

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Finally, something we can agree on.

I find it interesting that you have not passed any comment, either positive or negative, on the five points with which I concluded my last post, lending further credence to my belief that you come here to pick fights rather than to debate. But I fear I’m treading on TP’s patch here. He’s the troll hater.

Lastly, having had close second-hand experience of real schizophrenia and thus being aware of what it actually entails, I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t use a medical condition as a convenient short-hand slur.

I have to admit, they still sound quite regal to me. I have discussed all of the points you have mentioned at the end of your last e-mail on numerous occasions in other posts – that is why I didn’t bother going through the labor of debating them again. So that is what TP meant by ‘troll’ – it must have been his invention of a new verb which threw me. As regards schizophrenia – I posed it as a possibility for the inconsistency in your use of the royal we. I consider all possibilities when analysing people’s arguments. If I see extreme examples of obvious inconsistency, then I have to examine all of the possible reasons for that.

a ‘Troll’ is someone who either knowingly argues a point to provoke a reaction as opposed to holding that opinion; it is part of the cyberspace lingo

You see this is the problem with ‘debates’ like these, and you’re as much to blame as anyone PDLL. Even if as in your view rural stereotypes are generated here (which I don’t accept), instead of being mature about it and contesting the alleged stereotyping etc, you just chuck it straight back in the form of urban stereotypes – and so the cycle continues.

It’s ridiculous and gets no one anywhere – not unlike certain infrastructural projects come to think of it…

Yes there is a Dublin bias here, but only numerically in relation to members – not a favouritism over other areas of the country. Indeed one would have to wonder about the 288 active members of the Forums section – out of all of those people, surely a sizeable chunk of who come from all areas of the country, not one apparently sees the need to speak out and defend their countryside and the planning policies being pursued by the current administration.
If anything one could quite easily get the impression that it’s mostly Dublin people on Archiseek who seem to care about the countryside…..

I fully sympathise with the lack of investment in infrastructure in the West, particularly rail, but I wouldn’t necessarily come to the conclusion that it is due to an Eastern bias. It must be considered that nowhere received much infrastructural investment up until quite recently – it is logical and to be expected that the critical routes along the east coast linking the capital with Belfast both by road and rail would be the first to be developed, as would primary routes encircling the country’s greatest centre of population.
But agreed that ‘bias’ if one could even describe it as such, ought to have worn off years ago – it hasn’t, as the capital is still choking. So whilst regional centres are crying out for critical initial funding, so too is the capital for ‘second phase ‘ funding in spite of the resources already received. It is this state of affairs that is generating understandable tensions.

In spite of what you say PDLL, as you probably well know, pretty much everyone here is reasonable. Pretty much everyone wants to see balanced regional development. Pretty much everyone wants to see the regions expanding and sustaining themselves through increased funding allocated to viable projects (as in Dublin). And pretty much everyone wants the pressure taken off the capital

It is simply the pettiness of language that is pulling things apart.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Even if as in your view rural stereotypes are generated here (which I don’t accept), instead of being mature about it and contesting the alleged stereotyping etc, you just chuck it straight back in the form of urban stereotypes – and so the cycle continues.

Graham, I respect your balanced response, but I would disagree with you with regard to the use of stereotypes of rural people. I refer you to the Ballymun thread. Some of the material the therein being little more than rampant invective. I can provide you with ample quotes if it helps focus things a little.

As regards my throwing back urban stereotypes and doing little more, allow me to make one observation. I have made systematic efforts to construct arguments that overthrow some of the unsubstantiated generalizations that are thrown around here. In the Eoghan Harris thread, I challenged anyone to give me concrete economic data that proves that the average one-off house dweller is more of a net financial burden on the state than an average city/town dweller (this being one of the primary accusations made against one-off housing dwellers). I am still waiting to see such a definitive data. Despite all of the expertise that ctesiphon claims exists, not one person has given a definitive and substantiated answer to this. In the meantime, the stereotype continues to be propagated ad nauseum.

In a similar vein, the steroetype of the one-off house dweller as an SUV driving road hog was also challenged – I rpovided evidence that in the UK at least, it is actually the urban dweller who is more likely to possess an environmentally unfriendly SUV. Given the socio-cultural similarities between here and the UK, it is a fair assumption to assume a similar pattern of vehicle ownership exists in the Republic. Did anyone acknowledge that this somewhat debunks the stereotype vitriolically thrown around in the Ballymun and Eoghan Harris threads. No.

So am I doing little more than propagating urban stereotypes or am I trying to highlight the inadequacies in some of the commentaries so frivolously bandied about here? Am I trying to set the record straight by expressing opinions that seem alien to a number of contributors but are nonetheless valid.

For some to accuse me of ‘trolling’ and of not actually believing in what I say is rich given that it is well known that some commentators have spawned multiple identities (6 in one particular instance) in archiseek in order to generate a number of opinions in a duplicitous manner. If it is petty to defend myself in that regard, then it seems I cannot win. Whether my opinion is popular or ‘politically correct’ in 21st centruy planning circles is irrelevant, it is an opinion that has sought to validly expose a number of falacious discrepancies and imbalances in a number of posts made here.

I presume you are referring to me what are the six profiles you are talking about?

Reading your more recent posts it is patently obvious that you are making no effort whatsoever to engage with anyone here but purely argue blindly with little statistical backup and plenty of generalisation. You have repeatidly ignored those who have stated that this is not a Dublin vs the ‘real Ireland’ with Dublin soaking up all the resources which it doesn’t by a long way.

The only solution to this Countries economic and planning future is to build up places such as Galway, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Sligo. For you to attempt to argue that one off housing is more efficient or cost effective is simply not realistic, one off housing suits otwo groups of people alone firstly those securing planning permissions and then selling sites off to blow ins usually from the cities you decry as junky infested hell holes and secondly families who have a son or daughter who want a free or subsidised site.

It is that simple one group wants cheap property or the ability to make money and a lot of people are seriously concerned about what this is doing economically, environmentally and to the general landscape situation.

@PDLL wrote:

I challenged anyone to give me concrete economic data that proves that the average one-off house dweller is more of a net financial burden on the state than an average city/town dweller (this being one of the primary accusations made against one-off housing dwellers). I am still waiting to see such a definitive data.

The theory is that when people live in more dispersed patterns, the average distance between their dwellings increases. If you wish to provide a service whether phone, electricity, policing or transport to people who live close together it costs less than it does to provide those services to people who live far apart.

If you have a job like forester or farmer, then fair enough you have to live in the country and few would argue that you should have to pay more for a phone connection than a city dweller even if it costs the phone company 10 times more to provide and maintain that service for you. However if you are working in a city and you choose to live in the country because you prefer the lifestyle, then you impose higher costs on society than an urban dweller. You use more cable and poles to get your electrical and phone services, the council needs to build and maintain more roads to meet your needs. It costs more to get you to hospital by ambulance if you fall sick and more to get a fire engine to your house should you need it. You cover more miles driving to work and going shopping so you are more likely to kill and injure people.

In short, you have saved money by paying less for your house and but cost more money to the state. If a few people make this choice it’s no problem but what happens when hundreds of thousands of people choose to live outside the city they work in and externalise their costs to society?

When you ask for definitive data, are you asking someone to prove that connecting a terrace of 20 houses whether in a city, town or village to a set of services costs less than connecting 20 houses to those services in a 200 acre area?

If you have a job like forester or farmer, then fair enough you have to live in the country and few would argue that you should have to pay more for a phone connection than a city dweller even if it costs the phone company 10 times more to provide and maintain that service for you

if they used a mobile would it be ok? Rural people pay more for traditional phones as there is less people in their local zone compared to urban areas and they have to call urban areas for most offical calls: long distance to them, local to Dubliners.

@asdasd wrote:

if they used a mobile would it be ok? Rural people pay more for traditional phones as there is less people in their local zone compared to urban areas and they have to call urban areas for most offical calls: long distance to them, local to Dubliners.

Huh? Most calls are lo-call regardless of origin, certainly state services like the taxman and social welfare are lo-call (with a Dublin number provided if the office is in Dublin or whatever).

Moving on, people in the West can in some cases be terribly blind to anything that is built. Shannon Airport and the Shannon Free Zone, Shannon town itself is Ireland’s only ‘new town’ in the UK style. The Limerick Southern Ring, the N18 Newmarket on Fergus Bypass, the Ennis Bypass currently under construction. There’s heaps of money spent on the west, way more per person than in Dublin city, and the Dublin city infrastructure happens to serve the nation as well as us Dubs! If you take a train to Dublin, are you not availing of the investment in Heuston Station etc.? Some people need to wake up. There was a proposal to build an Eastern Bypass of Dublin. Even though I’m a dub, I’d rather they spent the money on buses or light rail in Cork. Sometimes investment in anything isn’t a good thing.

@Thomond Park wrote:

I presume you are referring to me what are the six profiles you are talking about? .

I never mentioned your name, TP. Just pointed out that I hold one opinion with one identity. Some have the luxury of having multiple identities with which they can post multiple opinions.

@Thomond Park wrote:

Reading your more recent posts it is patently obvious that you are making no effort whatsoever to engage with anyone here but purely argue blindly with little statistical backup and plenty of generalisation.

I am working within the same parameters of argumentation that many here use – namely, lack of statistical evidence and generalisation. When I did provide some statistical evidence you either ignored it or disagreed with it – such as when you disagreed with the statistics on drug addiction in Tallaght (statistics issued by the Tallaght Drugs Force, I might add!!!).

@Thomond Park wrote:

The only solution to this Countries economic and planning future is to build up places such as Galway, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Sligo.

I agree completely with you.

@Thomond Park wrote:

For you to attempt to argue that one off housing is more efficient or cost effective is simply not realistic, one off housing suits otwo groups of people alone firstly those securing planning permissions and then selling sites off to blow ins usually from the cities you decry as junky infested hell holes and secondly families who have a son or daughter who want a free or subsidised site.

I never said that they were more cost-effective. What I have argued all along is that no body can show me complete and verifiable economic data to prove that one-off dwellers are more of a net-draw on the State’s economy than the average urban dweller. By this, I don’t mean a simple calculation based on the number of telegraph poles needed, but rather one that factors in all factors such as how much the one-off dweller contributes to the economy in taxes and services in comparison with the average urban home owner] It is that simple one group wants cheap property or the ability to make money and a lot of people are seriously concerned about what this is doing economically, environmentally and to the general landscape situation.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I mean about stereotypes. So country people are more greedy when it comes to property than urban dwellers? Ya right. So the cheap crappy houses being sold around our cities for ridiculous prices are only so expensive because of greedy farmers and nothing else? City people have not exploited the property market and milked it for all they can get out of it? This is what I mean by stereotypes and demonization. Implicit in your logic is that all country people are interested in nothing but money and city people are only interested in building environmentally and economically friendly housing. Is this what you mean TP – please. If this is the basis of the expertise available here, it is worrisome.

@Frank Taylor wrote:

The theory is that when people live in more dispersed patterns, the average distance between their dwellings increases. If you wish to provide a service whether phone, electricity, policing or transport to people who live close together it costs less than it does to provide those services to people who live far apart….However if you are working in a city and you choose to live in the country because you prefer the lifestyle, then you impose higher costs on society than an urban dweller. You use more cable and poles to get your electrical and phone services, the council needs to build and maintain more roads to meet your needs. It costs more to get you to hospital by ambulance if you fall sick and more to get a fire engine to your house should you need it. You cover more miles driving to work and going shopping so you are more likely to kill and injure people.

Regarding the economic elements of your argument, Frank, I have address the complexities of these issues in the Eoghan Harris thread where I attempted to show as calculating the price of a few telegraph poles or the infill for a few potholes. I would refer you to the many posts in this thread which I think expose some of the additional complications in working out whether the net cost of one-off houses to the state is greater than the net cost of urban houses to the state. Regarding your comments on driving – this has more to do with a lack of proper driving skills and education and an ignorance toward alcohol than it has to do with one off houses. You cannot blame the houses for the way people drink to excess because they think it is ‘cool’. Indeed, implying that country people are somehow more dangerous on the roads and generally more hazardous behind the wheel of a car is also stereotyping people negatively – indeed, demonizing them. It makes no reference to the fact that joy riding and car theft related crimes tend to be higher in urban areas (please see Garda annual reports for statistical evidence) than in rural areas. Again, this doesn’t factor in the cost of insurance prices due to such crimes (one of those additional economic complications which cloud the picture of how much things really cost). Training people to drive properly and with respect fro alcohol will improve road safety – blaming one-off houses won’t. Again, this is about taking responsibility for one’s actions and not blaming them on an inanimate object. Why not blame the car for having four wheels and an engine.

As regards the environmental impact of driving, it is known that stop-start driving in traffic jams is much more damaging to the environment than continuous free driving (such as that enjoyed on country roads). In short, traffic in cities is much more environmentally devastating than that in the countryside so this too is an argument that can be dispelled.

The picture is much more complicated than it seems. If people could get over the demonization of rural dwellers and examine the economics of the issue in a complete and all-encompassing way might actually get to the root of the problem.

@Thomond Park wrote:

I presume you are referring to me what are the six profiles you are talking about? .

I never mentioned your name, TP. Just pointed out that I hold one opinion with one identity. Some have the luxury of having multiple identities with which they can post multiple opinions.

@Thomond Park wrote:

Reading your more recent posts it is patently obvious that you are making no effort whatsoever to engage with anyone here but purely argue blindly with little statistical backup and plenty of generalisation.

I am working within the same parameters of argumentation that many here use &#8211] The only solution to this Countries economic and planning future is to build up places such as Galway, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Sligo. [/QUOTE]

I agree completely with you.

@Thomond Park wrote:

For you to attempt to argue that one off housing is more efficient or cost effective is simply not realistic, one off housing suits otwo groups of people alone firstly those securing planning permissions and then selling sites off to blow ins usually from the cities you decry as junky infested hell holes and secondly families who have a son or daughter who want a free or subsidised site.

I never said that they were more cost-effective. What I have argued all along is that no body can show me complete and verifiable economic data to prove that one-off dwellers are more of a net-draw on the State&#8217] It is that simple one group wants cheap property or the ability to make money and a lot of people are seriously concerned about what this is doing economically, environmentally and to the general landscape situation.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I mean about stereotypes. So country people are more greedy when it comes to property than urban dwellers? Ya right. So the cheap crappy houses being sold around our cities for ridiculous prices are only so expensive because of greedy farmers and nothing else? City people have not exploited the property market and milked it for all they can get out of it? This is what I mean by stereotypes and demonization. Implicit in your logic is that all country people are interested in nothing but money and city people are only interested in building environmentally and economically friendly housing. Is this what you mean TP – please. If this is the basis of the expertise available here, it is worrisome.

Huh? Most calls are lo-call regardless of origin, certainly state services like the taxman and social welfare are lo-call (with a Dublin number provided if the office is in Dublin or whatever).

It is only recently that the numbers were free for government offices, or cost the local call. Most calls for people in rural Ireland are not local as they would have family dispersed all over the place, and the nearest place of business may not be in the local area code- even a call to a mere 10 miles away could easily be outside the local zone. While the 01 area is intact, the other area codes ( 02, 05 etc) are divided up. And if you live in the 0504 area you live with seven people and a sheep, and most of your calls are non-local. People who live in area codes with a few thousand people pay more, it stands to reason, than someone who lives in an area code with 1.25 million people. There is no subsidy.

Telecom Eireann always had overflow areas from say North Cork into West Limerick and East Galway in to Roscommon etc. The engineering costs were always much higher but the users got their hinterland on a common rate beyond the county jersey politics. This was the correct stance in my opinion; why should Tuam to Claremorris be a long distance call?

However the real issues is not phone rates but instalation and repair costs on ‘the last mile of cable’ from the road to the house and it is not just telacoms but also electricitiy.

@asdasd wrote:

It is only recently that the numbers were free for government offices, or cost the local call. Most calls for people in rural Ireland are not local as they would have family dispersed all over the place, and the nearest place of business may not be in the local area code- even a call to a mere 10 miles away could easily be outside the local zone. While the 01 area is intact, the other area codes ( 02, 05 etc) are divided up. And if you live in the 0504 area you live with seven people and a sheep, and most of your calls are non-local. People who live in area codes with a few thousand people pay more, it stands to reason, than someone who lives in an area code with 1.25 million people. There is no subsidy.

This is exactly what I mean about economic complexities. The most obvious way to ‘calculate the cost’ of one-off houses is to drive around and estimate how many telegraph poles each house needs in comparison to the
.000568 telegraph poles per person in Drumcondra. It does not take into account ALL of the many miniscule little complicating factors involved in working out how much things really cost. And ultimately, if this boils down to an argument of ‘Paddy gets X in Co. Clare and we here in Ranelagh don’t get X’, then believe me, city dwellers get a lot lot more Xs provided by the State than anyone living ‘down’ (!) the country whether it be in a one-off house or an apartment building in Salthill.

@Thomond Park wrote:

However the real issues is not phone rates but instalation and repair costs on ‘the last mile of cable’ from the road to the house and it is not just telacoms but also electricitiy.

By this logic, people living in Dublin city centre should be rightly pissed off with Maynooth people for living so far out (all that extra cabling, all of that extra commuting, all of that unnecessary road infrasture, all of that unnecessary pollution, all of that unnecessary travel for service vehicles from the city centre etc etc). Why do we not here this as such a big issue???? Is it because they are not ‘down’ the country or because living in semi-ds near Dublin is acceptable even though, according to the anti-one off logic, semi-ds are also destructive as we should be living in settlements that are based solely on the calculus of minimalism (minimal amounts of cabling, minimal amounts of commuting etc). Or dare I say it, maybe its ok because they give Dublin that sense of ‘the urban’ which it so desperately seems to need and anything that bolsters Dublin’s sprawling metropolitan urban persona is not a problem or a blight on the landscape.

@PDLL wrote:

This is exactly what I mean about economic complexities. The most obvious way to ‘calculate the cost’ of one-off houses is to drive around and estimate how many telegraph poles each house needs in comparison to the
.000568 telegraph poles per person in Drumcondra.

So are you saying that analysing cost base is irrelevant?

@Thomond Park wrote:

So are you saying that analysing cost base is irrelevant?

No. Of course not. I have been arguing for this all alone. What I am saying is that this is greater than just counting metres of cable or sewage pipes. It also includes many intangible issues that are difficult to calculate by simply driving alone a country road and measuring the distrance between each house. Cable and sewage pipes are a factor – I accept that and if someone can factor in all of the myriad little variables that need to be calculated in and show me that the net cost of a one-off is, in th egreater scheme of things, gretaer than the net cost of a town house, then I will happily accept the facts. In the meantime, though, it would be great if we could at least seperate the issue from some sort of arrogant urban approach to those who chose to live in the countryside for familial, social, or employment reasons.

If one choses to live in the country for employment reasons one is to be praised as it has never been more difficult to make money from the land than it is now; if one choses to live in the country to be with ones family that is also a good thing once both groups cluster their dwellings together. What is totaly off the beam is the mass exodus from many country towns around this land to the countryside with all the negative aspects that brings such as landscape destruction, groundwater pollution, childhood obesity, social isolation etc

@Thomond Park wrote:

landscape destruction, groundwater pollution, childhood obesity, social isolation etc

Landscape destruction – I have yet to see an urban settlement that doesn’t involve ‘landscape destruction’;
Groundwater pollution – if it is a problem, it is easily solved by improving technologies – if this is expensive, then of course those who use it should pay themselves;
Childhood obesity – ???? a rural problem?? Surely the distance between a one-off house and a fast-ffod restaurant would be a helath bonus. The easy accessibaility of Mc Donalds etc in cities would surely suggest that the opposite is actually the case and urban kids are more exposed to the possibility of childhood obesity?
Social isolation – nobody forces someone to live in a one-off. They choose it themselves. If it is lonely, then that is a choice they made. Tough shit, basically. Mind you, large scale urban settlements are also infamous for social isolation so population density is not necessarily a solution for social isolation. Indeed, many would argue that social isolation is more of a phenomenon in an urban setting.

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.

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.

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.

.

i think you are missing the point. times change, styles change. that is reality. you may not like what you see now, but you could at least attempt to imagine that people in 200 years time might actually find it quaint (they will probably be living in even larger houses still!). You shouldn’t let your dislike of th epresent cloud your understanding of the past or vision of the future.

No I think you are simply trying to defend a point, your claim is basically that people have always lived in the country and that becuase of this people should be allowed to build whatever they want today.

Your analysis of tourism is equally flawed; the John Hinde generation of tourists were the Diaspora generation who wished to see how their ancesters lived; in this context pre famine architecture was an important embodyment of this as over 1m emigrated in a five year period with a further million going before 1870 to North America. How most would have traced their roots was via landing records which simply would have listed a name and a townland; to these tourists any traditional house fitted the bill.

Going forward the Diaspora generation will evaporate and the only way the countryside will attract International tourists to this highly expensive Country is through landscape protection. Which given your attitude which is fairly representative of government will not happen and tourism will die out beyond sites such as the World Heritage sites and major towns and cities.

Perhaps its because of the influence of the diaspora that our contemporary vernacular architecture is a mish-mash of some pseudo Americanesque styles (the big eagles and large surrounding gardens, the two garages etc). In that context, these houses reflect the cultural influences that have seeped into irish culture since the famine and emigration and are therefore valid as an element of the broader Irish cultural experience. To that end, they represent irish culture as it now stands – its ambitions and influences, its bold self-confidence, perhaps its conflict with its own process of self-identification. These buildings are an archictural embodiment of a culture shaping itself anew – facing the 21st century as a confident and bold nation, able to encapsulate some historic self-ironies into the fabric of its buildings. Truly wonderful. Have we have stepped beyond the Pale and the limitations of a peasant pyschology? I do hope so. More the reason we should celebrate these buildings.

I don’t go with that those the were long term emmigrants generally return at a phase of life that is too mature to take on a house building project; those that are younger are more urbanised given the changes in Diaspora destination i.e. places like London, New York, San Francisco, Brussels, Sydney, Milan places where design quality is more likely to rub off.

I think it is safe to blame the middle classes of our cities and towns for the worst excesses on Irish hillsides as they max floor areas including their ‘Chill out rooms’ and look out the windows and not at the muck that afflicts the landscape and passing motorists.

So is someone with a bungalow w/driveway directly onto the N22 with their pre-cast concrete eagles on the pillar, (picked up in the local Woodies DIY garden centre) complete with Grecian style true terracotta flower pots rreflecting the “influence of the diaspora”…?

PDLL, you’re away with the fairies if you think any of the dross currently being thrown up will become tourist attractions. It’s just so crazy I don’t know where to begin debating it.

Search for detached, min. 4 bed in co. cavan on this page and tell me they’ll be a tourist attraction! 😮 They are monstrosities in the main and completely out of sync with their surroundings. Here’s a samples;

Real rennaissace masterpieces, NOT!

All they do is blight the once beautiful landscape.

Stop being so anti rural!

Its the right of everybody in rural Ireland to have a McMansion, complete with jeep parked outside. Its what Davitt would have wanted, honest!

It has to be the ultimate irony. People spend their free time campaigning about the need for investment in the WRC ‘to encourage tourism’, .. and then go off and build all kinds of monstrosities scattered around the landscape, seemingly designed to scare tourists off and cause the maximum damage to the landscape. I was in Co Mayo recently, and it was quite an education. These houses may become tourist attractions in years to come, but only to gape in astonishment that this stuff was actually allowed!

Proper guidelines on the conservation of energy alone would rule many of these houses out.

@Thomond Park wrote:

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?

Sorry Thomond Park but that’s essentially a breach of Godwin’s law

Sorry Thomond Park but that’s essentially a breach of Godwin’s law

Not quite, for he is talking about historical manipulation and not just making an unwarrented reference to Nazzism.

I disagree that PDLL is wrong historically , though, and I agree with him that there is some Dublin bias here, and the economic arguments againsty once offs are incorrect. Nevertheless I dont like these new McMansions either.

in fact I am much more favorable to bungalows, they weren’t all the spanish type, many were just modern cottages. It all depends where they are. Is the midlands being ruined by once off housing? The landscape is pretty – in a much blander way than the west – but it needs to be broken up occasionally. We dont need once offs in the very scenic areas, of course, particularly between the sea and the road.

Would people be happier if we had once offs with proper design?

hmmm… perhaps if one-offs actually paid their way in terms of infrastructure provision, rather than having our utilities cross subsidise… mind you if a more realistic ‘cost of connection’ was in place you might see people thinking differently about building patterns

@PDLL wrote:

Regarding the economic elements of your argument, Frank, I have address the complexities of these issues in the Eoghan Harris thread where I attempted to show as calculating the price of a few telegraph poles or the infill for a few potholes. I would refer you to the many posts in this thread which I think expose some of the additional complications in working out whether the net cost of one-off houses to the state is greater than the net cost of urban houses to the state.

I’ve read through your arguments detailing why one-off housing may not be more expensive to the state than urban dwellings. When comparing urban with one-off housing I am thinking of urban as any area of a village, town or city with density of 30-40 people/acre.

I was interested to read it because I couldn’t imagine what arguments could be made. OK so here is my summary of your points. (Correct me where I have misunderstood you.)

1. Less urban-style social problems means lower costs
You compare a sink estate in Tallaght with a collection of one-off houses to show that urban housing comes with costly social problems not found in isolated rural houses.
This is not a useful comparison as you are looking at two different socio-economic groups.
2. Residents of one-off houses have money
You point out that people who build one-off houses must have some cash to spend so are likely net contributors to the state coffers. This is true but working people contribute to the state coffers wherever they live. The question is whether they cost the state more or less by living in one-off housing.
3. Tourist attraction
Some one-off houses also function as B&Bs and thus generate revenue for the state through tourism. It was reported a few years ago that one-off housing accounted for 40% of new houses built. (http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2001/0426/fro1.htm ) With 80,000 new dwellings last year, B&Bs cannot make up a significant proportion of that number. Lots of people use their homes to operate some kind of a business, whether in towns or in isolated locations.
4. Less social cost from driving
Rural car driving is less hazardous to the environment than urban driving, so smaller economic cost.
I would agree with you here. Urban driving is far more damaging to the environment than rural driving.
5. Everyone gets subsidies
You suggest that any subsidies received by people in one-off houses are more than matched by subsidies to urban dwellers. You point out that city dwellers have many things unavailable to people in solated locations.
It is true that if you live in a town then the services you get from government will be more numerous and of higher quailty than those you receive in an isolated location. This is because these services can be provided at less cost when people live close together than when they live far apart. it does not follow that higher quality services implies subsidisation.

@PDLL wrote:

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.

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.

This is all very true, and well argued. Whether we like it or not, what we are experiencing only too well represents ‘the Irish domestic aesthetic ideal’ in a way that no other average dwelling outside of urban areas has ever done in the course of our history. It’s a fact that is difficult to even consider let alone admit to, but it is very much so the case.

As for how we will view one-offs in 200 years time, I wouldn’t completely dismiss the notion that they will have no appeal – one need only look at the certain charm that 1950s ribbon development bungalows are beginning to exude already (well for me anyway :o). Saying that, much of the allure of older one-off housing stems from notions of pre/early Industrial Revolution architecture and general life in Ireland, something that modern-day development will not have in 200 years time – although there may be a renaissance of sorts in the meantime, who knows. (yeah right)

Either way, what is hugely different this time round to how things were until very recently, is that fact that nothing stays the same anymore – fashion and ‘newness’ is everything. Many of the one-offs we have today will be unrecoginsable in as little as 20 years time, let alone 200. There will be no historic fabric left for us to romanticise over even if we wanted to; from here on in one-off housing, similar to most urban housing, is going to ‘keep up with the times’, so they will always be offensive to contemporary sensibilities as eyesores on the landscape should our current standards of design remain constant. However if a ‘reconditioning phase’ takes place somewhere along the line, similar to the current upgrading of 60s and 70s office blocks in Dublin, then things might be very different in the future. But even in that case these buildings will simply be more aesthetically appealling, not heritage pieces looking old and quaint and crumbly just how we like it 🙂

Indeed it is doubful we will have any built heritage of more than 50 years vintage in the future going by current trends…

I appreciate some of the openness demonstrated by some members here in terms of considering the one-off within its broader cultural and economic context. Lest it be mistaken that I have some vested interest in one off’s – I don’t. I have lived in a terraced house for most of my life and I would hate to live in the countryside. I do feel, however, that inaccuracies and stereotypes need to be challenged or corrected and that there is a need to consider all aspects of an issue in a balanced manner before it is flatly condemned. I feel that some of that has been achieved by making people consider the issue in a more indepth manner. For my own part, I am not sure there is much more I can say on the issue (Thomand Park will either welcome that or test that).

Before we all abandon the thread, though, lets remember that it is really about something else entirely 🙂

I, for one, welcome the Fast Track legislation.

Lets just hope that the phantom Sean Carney doesn’t make a brief whirlwind visit again!

I don’t welcome it as it makes local people travel to ABP to make comment on major projects wheras before they could express their considerations at Local authority level or simply call their councillor who could make free representation on their behalf; now a €210 fee will be charged by anyone with any type of issue whether grounded or not.

I view this as an another assault on the democracy of the planning process by further dissauding people to make their opinions known; if a plan is properly conceived it can withstand the observation of those that it most affects. This truely is an assault on the little people of Ireland by a government that has delevered less than half of their National Development plan 2000-06; it is they who will be referred in 2007.

strewth…. I thought it was this type of gombeen local politics that you associated with shady deals for planning permission for one-off houses. Your faith in the local councillor and his honesty seems to have increased in recent weeks.

When local councillors make representations to planning departments on behalf of constituents they are acting reaonably and entirely within the rules.

However when a particular group of councillors Rae trading section 140 resolutions in meetings it is unacceptable as found in Childs v Wicklow Co Co [1992] and there has been a shocking lack of leadership by the DoEHLG in this regard

BTW This measure is an assault on the democracy of the planning process