Should Ireland become a city state?

FreudianSlippers · 26-02-2012 6:33pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

Do you feel the Liberty Hall proposal holds any merit in the context of regenerating the city centre?

I certainly do. That is a prime quays location which bridges the main North/South city artery that is OCS to the IFSC. The only problem is that area is disgusting and feels dangerous and seedy. There is absolutely no reason for that. IMO a project like this (done properly) coupled with the new transport bridge could be the spark that starts the renewal of that wasted prime property.

AngryLips · 26-02-2012 6:49pm

I watched the six-one news yesterday and there were two news stories on it that I thought were relevant to this discussion.

1. Was a piece on the protests against the scaling back of funding for smaller rural schools

2. A piece on the new Liberty Hall.

The first story was all about people from various remote parts of the country Dublin-bashing and generally making no effort to hide their persecution complex built around the fact they're not from Dublin and the second was Dubliners banging on about all tall buildings being ugly. Facepalm.

lucernarian · 27-02-2012 2:22am

Some of the posts are a little melodramatic. There are comparatively very few people objecting to the dominance of Dublin within Ireland yet I see stuff like chip-on-the-shoulder forums?:rolleyes:

BluntGuy, I agree with the jist of your posts but I feel some of your points here are verging on nitpicking. E.g. a poster using one example to justify Dublin's overexpansion (Shannon water need) does not mean that it's the only reason s/he has for thinking Dublin has grown too big.

The other point I wanted to make was that some aspects of the discussion deal more with "how dublin can be better" rather than "how Ireland can be better". Now, I think maximising the potential of Dublin would best serve Ireland's needs in the short-term but there will still need to be an emphasis in developing Dublin for a national good. Some aspects of rural or regional development are still needed for the good of Dublin as well as vice versa. If for nothing more than reasons of security and social stability, food supply, tourism, maximising economic potential, etc.

saywhatyousee · 27-02-2012 3:36am

I have been saying it for years the idea of Ireland being a country was a horrible mistake we should revert back to the four provinces.Just a quick fact as well there are only two counties in Ireland that turn a profit is Dublin and Sligo Tax take in Sligo was 309 million while government spending was 297 million.

Aidan1 · 27-02-2012 10:19am

In very simple terms, trying to 'keep Dublin down' by spreading development across the country (I won't give my usual Buchanan Report rant) has resulted in the greater primacy of Dublin - it's the only place with the critical mass of services, people and skills that can compete on an international basis across a wide range of industries. In some ways, this is a good thing, Dublin (and to a lesser extent, Cork) is the golden goose - it provides the cash to run the rest of country.

However, even picking a relatively small number of urban centres as 'focal points' is unlikely to work in any real sense, none of the 'towns' in the country are of sufficient scale to deliver the type of critical mass we're talking about, and of the 5 cities, only Dublin and Cork are already there, and Limerick and Galway have major infrastructural, social, spatial and cultural issues to overcome to get to that point, and Waterford is even further back.

In terms of replacing the NSS, the key should not be 'spreading development around the country', but maximising economic opportunities for all. That should mean focusing heavy infrastructural spend on those cities that can and will grow regardless - the cost benefit ratio of spend in these areas is such that it's a no brainer. The three smaller cities should get the targeted infrastructural spend they need (GCOB, a couple of CAT D-11s for Limerick etc), and proper long term land use and transport plans around which to plan the development of housing, industry and transport provision.

And yes, that'd mean the continued growth of cities, and the concentration of economic activity and jobs in those places. But at least it would mean that the jobs would be here as opposed to in London or Warsaw. It's a small country, stop whinging, burn the county jersey and move.

bk · 27-02-2012 11:30am

Aidan1 thank you, you have just saved me a lot of typing, couldn't have said it better myself and couldn't agree more.

AngryLips · 27-02-2012 2:44pm

The other problem is; what other realistic counterweight to Dublin is there?

Any previous effort at answering this question is met by the fact that nobody can agree on the answer. There is only one thing that the regions hate more than Dublin and that's each other. This is borne out by what we saw with the previous Government's National Spatial Strategy; it unashamedly adopted a "something for everyone in the audience" approach to the detriment of the entire plan.

lucernarian · 27-02-2012 2:56pm

AngryLips wrote: »

The other problem is; what other realistic counterweight to Dublin is there?

Any previous effort at answering this question is met by the fact that nobody can agree on the answer. There is only one thing that the regions hate more than Dublin and that's each other. This is borne out by what we saw with the previous Government's National Spatial Strategy; it unashamedly adopted a "something for everyone in the audience" approach to the detriment of the entire plan.

The nature of the National Spatial Strategy was always going to lead to that - goodies bestowed on some towns while other, similar towns got nothing whatsoever. I remember controversy about Dundalk being made a hub while Drogheda got nothing whatsoever. If the strategy was condensed into developing the 4 next largest towns/cities to Dublin, it wouldn't have developed into a "why did we get nothing" farce. And it was indeed too spread out to work on anything meaningful. Develop the 3 western cities and build the M20 I say.

Aidan1 · 27-02-2012 3:17pm

The nature of the National Spatial Strategy was always going to lead to that - goodies bestowed on some towns while other, similar towns got nothing whatsoever.

Basically yes, except it's worse than that. The NSS was published in 2002, with pretty much a 'one for everyone in the audience' type approach, with a rake of 'gateways' and 'hubs' scattered around the country. The aim seems to have been to ensure that everyone in the State would live relatively close to some designated place or other (and to ensure that nearly every village and hamlet gets a mention). That was bad enough, but it was never implemented in any realistic way either.

The 2003 'Decentralisation' plan, for example, parcelled out jobs to 53 locations with a couple of hubs actually losing jobs. And thats just one example. It's a point that has been made before ad nauseum - our PR-STV electoral system leads to the primacy of the local, and politicians are well aware of the need to be seen to be bringing home the pork barrel. Simple as that.

Thing is though, the NSS is quite a good document, and undoubtedly the best piece on spatial planning ever published by 'official Ireland' - the problem is that the political process finds 'picking' winners impossible to do, and so the recommendations are fudged. Its quite balanced and sensible, right up to the point that the decisions have to be made. And then the shotgun and map comes out, and the pellets start flying in all directions. If you were to draw up such a document in an ideal world, it'd closely resemble the NSS, except that the recommendations would single out the 4 cities outside of Dublin as key growth targets (with tailored regional spatial plans), and then list the remaining hubs/gateways as lower priorities for investment, but priorities nonetheless. A cynic may suggest that this was the actual intention of the authors of the report, given the way it was drafted, and the suble hints that might lie scattered throughout the text. But that's a different story.

lucernarian · 27-02-2012 3:33pm

Aidan1 wrote: »

Basically yes, except it's worse than that. The NSS was published in 2002, with pretty much a 'one for everyone in the audience' type approach, with a rake of 'gateways' and 'hubs' scattered around the country. The aim seems to have been to ensure that everyone in the State would live relatively close to some designated place or other (and to ensure that nearly every village and hamlet gets a mention). That was bad enough, but it was never implemented in any realistic way either.

The 2003 'Decentralisation' plan, for example, parcelled out jobs to 53 locations with a couple of hubs actually losing jobs. And thats just one example. It's a point that has been made before ad nauseum - our PR-STV electoral system leads to the primacy of the local, and politicians are well aware of the need to be seen to be bringing home the pork barrel. Simple as that.

Thing is though, the NSS is quite a good document, and undoubtedly the best piece on spatial planning ever published by 'official Ireland' - the problem is that the political process finds 'picking' winners impossible to do, and so the recommendations are fudged. Its quite balanced and sensible, right up to the point that the decisions have to be made. And then the shotgun and map comes out, and the pellets start flying in all directions. If you were to draw up such a document in an ideal world, it'd closely resemble the NSS, except that the recommendations would single out the 4 cities outside of Dublin as key growth targets (with tailored regional spatial plans), and then list the remaining hubs/gateways as lower priorities for investment, but priorities nonetheless. A cynic may suggest that this was the actual intention of the authors of the report, given the way it was drafted, and the suble hints that might lie scattered throughout the text. But that's a different story.

I think the final recommendations were deplorable in that there should not have been selective targeting of some towns over other equally relevant towns. And it's small fry stuff in comparison to ensuring balanced national development - something that will only happen with the targeting of resources at Galway, Limerick, Waterford and Cork. I don't see a justification for prioritising resources for say Nenagh instead of Thurles. All those towns should be treated in an even-handed manner and one that is secondary to the needs of the nearest city, i.e. Limerick. I would also aim for a separate strategy targeting areas outside the M50 within commuting distance of Dublin, given their particular socioeconomic and historical circumstances. But the idea of hubs and gateways beyond the 4 runners-up to Dublin strikes me as flawed and an unnecessary micromanagement of a secondary issue.

invinciblePRSTV · 27-02-2012 4:54pm

I'd disagree with contributors suggesting that 'only' 4 urban area's should be prioritised in a NSS 2.0. It still seems like too much for what is still a quite sparsely populated island outside of the GDA - East Ulster corridor.

The kind of incentives in terms of infrastructure, tax measures and the like would be spread too thinly imo - especially given the perilous public finances - for there to be much progress in the form of tangible population and economic growth if the 4 'cities' were prioritised.

Aidan1 · 27-02-2012 5:13pm

I'd disagree with contributors suggesting that 'only' 4 urban area's should be prioritised in a NSS 2.0. It still seems like too much for what is still a quite sparsely populated island outside of the GDA - East Ulster corridor.

Valid point - I suppose we're all self censoring to a degree, in the knowledge that any attempt to focus attention on just one city (outside of Dublin which plainly needs infrastructural investment) would be shot down in flames. Rationally, you would have to conclude that Cork should be the focus of investment, given that it stands the best chance as acting as a counterweight of its own right - in some ways and in some sectors it already fills that role, so the amount of additional scale required would be much less.

My county jersey is red though, so I have additional reasons to self censor.

invinciblePRSTV · 27-02-2012 6:05pm

Aidan1 wrote: »

I'd disagree with contributors suggesting that 'only' 4 urban area's should be prioritised in a NSS 2.0. It still seems like too much for what is still a quite sparsely populated island outside of the GDA - East Ulster corridor.

Valid point - I suppose we're all self censoring to a degree, in the knowledge that any attempt to focus attention on just one city (outside of Dublin which plainly needs infrastructural investment) would be shot down in flames. Rationally, you would have to conclude that Cork should be the focus of investment, given that it stands the best chance as acting as a counterweight of its own right - in some ways and in some sectors it already fills that role, so the amount of additional scale required would be much less.

My county jersey is red though, so I have additional reasons to self censor.

And therein lies the problem that was first encountered 4 decades ago. How you can develop a coherent and workable plan to foster development of the main urban area's when fierce opposition from the 'have-nots' will stymie any such plan?

Trying to develop 4 small cities/towns which are spread out over several hundred KM's as a viable alternative to the GDA will be forever doomed to failure imo.

Wild Bill · 27-02-2012 10:39pm

looksee wrote: »

the Dubs, their arguments would always be logical and clear and never bash anyone.

Not sure about the bashing bit, but you got "logical and clear" right on. :cool:

Wild Bill · 27-02-2012 10:46pm

saywhatyousee wrote: »

Tax take in Sligo was 309 million while government spending was 297 million.

Is that true? Why is Sligo so tax-positive?

Janedoe10 · 27-02-2012 10:51pm

Oh of course .. Let's make. Ireland one large urban hell hole and we all can head to the old city and dream of going to tallifornia ... How many culchis only work In Dublin only because of the jobs been there ... Let's sell out the nice part of Ireland to the Germans and the like ...yes that sounds like a great plan ... When are u running for government that calibre ... Ah u were joking ....

John_Rambo · 27-02-2012 11:12pm

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

And therein lies the problem that was first encountered 4 decades ago. How you can develop a coherent and workable plan to foster development of the main urban area's when fierce opposition from the 'have-nots' will stymie any such plan?

I don't know, why did decentralisation not work? Were people not willing to move out of the cities? I guess people have to learn what's good for the cities is good for the rest of the country, just like successful agriculture is good for the whole country.

BluntGuy · 28-02-2012 2:26am

Janedoe10 wrote: »

Oh of course .. Let's make. Ireland one large urban hell hole and we all can head to the old city and dream of going to tallifornia ... How many culchis only work In Dublin only because of the jobs been there ... Let's sell out the nice part of Ireland to the Germans and the like ...yes that sounds like a great plan ... When are u running for government that calibre ... Ah u were joking ....

Perhaps you could give your opinion on the topic a little more constructively.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

BluntGuy, I agree with the jist of your posts but I feel some of your points here are verging on nitpicking. E.g. a poster using one example to justify Dublin's overexpansion (Shannon water need) does not mean that it's the only reason s/he has for thinking Dublin has grown too big.

It doesn't, but if you recall, I asked the poster in question what criteria would need to be met for a city to be "too big for its own good", i.e. invited a fuller explanation, and received no clarification on that point. I can only respond to what's put in front of me.

AngryLips · 28-02-2012 9:59am

Wild Bill wrote: »

Is that true? Why is Sligo so tax-positive?

Were there any sitting ministers from Sligo during this time? I guess whether a county is tax positive or not is down to how much the Government decides to invest in that county.

antoobrien · 28-02-2012 2:48pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

It doesn't, but if you recall, I asked the poster in question what criteria would need to be met for a city to be "too big for its own good", i.e. invited a fuller explanation, and received no clarification on that point. I can only respond to what's put in front of me.

In fairness part of you rationalization for the shannon scheme was that they do it in other places. Sense isn't going to come out of that kind of argument, especially when the next poster to comment use the word deserve in relation to the scheme.

I'll note that DCC went from saying they had 20% water loss to it's all the customers fault. This based on a pilot scheme of one line, which said that there was 20% loss after the main was fixed.

Now bringing up figures like that is a bit absurd considering they won't tell us what the total loss was before fixing the mains.

But lets take the best case scenario that DCC are right and they're losing next to nothing off the mains (which we know is not true): bringing in water metering, which has to be done regardless under the troika deal, will result in an extra 110 million liters of water being saved every day. The estimated cost of nationwide water metering is somewhere between €250 & €500m (i can't remember exactly). The estimated cost of this project is €500m (with no figure I can remember seeing about how much water they'll need).

No the real reason for this project is that the system has become so dilapidated that it's easier to pump extra water into the system than upgrade the existing system - not to mention it'll annoy the locals, costing some city councilors & tds their seats.

lucernarian · 28-02-2012 4:14pm

Aidan1 wrote: »

Valid point - I suppose we're all self censoring to a degree, in the knowledge that any attempt to focus attention on just one city (outside of Dublin which plainly needs infrastructural investment) would be shot down in flames. Rationally, you would have to conclude that Cork should be the focus of investment, given that it stands the best chance as acting as a counterweight of its own right - in some ways and in some sectors it already fills that role, so the amount of additional scale required would be much less.

My county jersey is red though, so I have additional reasons to self censor.

My county jersey is likely a different shade of red but otherwise I also have to agree for the same reasons. I feel the development of Cork in particular would best distribute economic clout and make development more sustainable across the country. Though I don't feel very comfortable with stoking rivalries between the two large cities, something that wouldn't happen if Limerick or Galway was also developed further.

I do think it would be more acceptable to develop two or three alternative centres for economic development rather than one. Limerick, Galway and Cork are all in their own league of size, neither comparable to Waterford maybe and Dundalk/Drogheda nor comparable to Dublin. The moment one of those 3 were left out, there would be cries of unfairness etc. I don't think using all three as centres of development (aka gateways) would lead to the same clamours of ministerial favouritism or local bias etc and it would have a better chance of being politically palatable. In my experience, the "have-nots" were only vocal when similar places were "chosen" for gateway and hub status while others were left out. E.g. Drogheda and Dundalk. A strategy would work better nationally in taclking the real infrastructure difficulties of three cities than developing only one to a higher standard.

There has to be realistic expectations as to what sort of investment priorities a city can achieve. One can't neglect cities the size of Limerick and Galway with their own particular infrastructure problems so that Cork can enjoy even more expansive development. And three more prosperous cities benefiting the whole of the mid-west would be more socially beneficial than concentrating it in the very south of Ireland, along with the greater dublin area.

Edit: I don't think cities necessarily need to have the scale of Dublin in being more effective as a place to live and work. Further development of a city needs to include the character of e.g. Cork, Limerick or Galway (3 distinct cities) in deciding how to progress its development or what infrastructure needs it has for the jobs it wants to attract. Cork and Galway has some clear infrastructural deficits (N28, GCOB, Cork North ring road) while the social infrastructure of Limerick in particular and to a lesser extent Cork need investment. Once that kind of investment is prioritised, these three cities all become much more desirable places to invest in.

saywhatyousee · 28-02-2012 7:33pm

Wild Bill wrote: »

Is that true? Why is Sligo so tax-positive?

It is indeed the figures came to light in the local paper that is why people were so mad when the cancer services were taking away from the local hospital.
Number of reasons really
Poor government representation
Large regional workforce that comes into the area
Large concentrations of people in certain areas(south and west Sligo have the lowest population density in the country at just 6 people per square km)North Sligo is densely populated by Irish standards.Coillte also own a large amount of Land in Sligo.

Wild Bill · 28-02-2012 9:37pm

AngryLips wrote: »

Were there any sitting ministers from Sligo during this time? I guess whether a county is tax positive or not is down to how much the Government decides to invest in that county.

Being tax-positive would suggest Sligo did not benefit from Government pork.

Coillte may well spend a lot of money in Sligo but by that measure Wicklow should be likewise; of course Wicklow gets lots of political pork which means the tax money flows in from Dublin (and Sligo!).

And they don't even appreciate it - I should know, I'm from there and a more ungrateful bunch of hillbillies you couldn't find east of the Shannon :cool:

Should Ireland become a city state?

Comments