Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Should Ireland become a city state?

2

Comments

  • #32
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    tharlear wrote: »
    NO you don't. Haven't you heard, "if you build it they will come" :-)

    I have.

    And it doesn't always work like that. :)
    But that's how Dublin MA got to be 1.8 million. There was little infrastructure in Ireland 25 years ago and what there was, was in Dublin. Job and people moved there, housing estates were built. Then 10 years later they have to figure out where to put the roads rail school .

    They don't have to "figure it out". Infrastructure proposals were in place, and are in place, successive governments have just failed to build them.
    Most of the jobs in Dublin are "gnovernment jobs" civil service, public service, esb, board na mora, CIE, eircom".

    Evidence?
    Financial service center was build in old dock area and with low tax and no reg attracted finical companies. All this was done with no thought to providing for growth. Now its billions to build an metro, billions to widen a road, billion for an interconnector.

    No one can argue that housing planning and zoning wasn't poor. That doesn't change the fact that people live there and require infrastructure.
    This is something that can never be achieved in Dublin as most of residential building is complete with no transport system in place.

    The DOOR/Leinster Orbital will provide a long term solution to this issue and there is more than enough land for that.
    Build a north ring road in cork

    It's in the plans. Dunkettle needs to be sorted first though.
    and invest in some public transport

    Cork would have the same issues as Dublin for putting in transport, except without the critical density to support it. This doesn't mean I don't support proposals to improve the bus system and if light rail is feasible in the future, provision should be made for it.
    and plan the city and you would have a city of 750K in 20 years with none of the cost associated with retrofitting a city like Dublin.

    Cork and its immediate surroundings (to the best of my knowledge) currently have a population of ~200,000 or so. You're looking at an increase of 275% (or ~6.8% rate of growth per year compound), when the Cork Area Strategic Plan, envisages 23% across the whole Cork area from 2000 to 2020. Notably, if you look at the link which is an update of the plan, the population targets across the region have broadly been met, with the exception of Cork City itself which is stagnating. The latest census has reiterated these results.

    I also want to see Cork doing well. But we have to be realistic about its growth prospects. It would be good to see the docklands proposals go ahead at some point. As far as I recall they have provision for light rail.
    It would attract industry and job and then the people, just as dublin has done for the last 20 years, at 1/3 of the cost. The chinese do this every day, Shenshen was a fishing village in 1980, its now over 15 million.

    Dublin didn't grow 275% between 1990 and 2012. Comparisons to the Chinese are really not apt for a country of this size.
    It time to forget dublin, and start again some where else. May be dublin as a city sate is a good idea. It would let the rest of the county fend for itself. My guess would be that within 10 years people would be moving out of Dublin to live in the low tax, hassel free cities of cork limerick galway which would have new infrastructure. Naturally half of the jobs in dublin would go as there would not be not country for them to administer.

    I want to see Cork, Limerick and Galway developed, but we have to be realistic.

    Even if this was a good idea, where would the billions needed come from to do this?


  • #33
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Even if this was a good idea, where would the billions needed come from to do this?

    By not even considering metro north, the piping water to dublin - which wouldn't be required if dcc got off their asses and fixed mains and brought in metering, like a lot of rural group water schemes (no they're not all free like city water)


  • #34
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,494 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    antoobrien wrote: »
    By not even considering metro north, the piping water to dublin - which wouldn't be required if dcc got off their asses and fixed mains

    You're wrong. We've been through this. Even if all the leaks were fixed, the capital will need and deserve Shannon water. It's like this;

    Dublin pumps money in to the country.

    The country pumps water and people in to Dublin.


  • #35
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,820 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Disgusted with the Dublin-bashing-for-the-sake-of-it in this thread.
    Maybe we need a "Chip on the shoulder" Forum.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #36
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,820 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    tharlear wrote: »
    Most of the jobs in Dublin are "gnovernment jobs" civil service, public service, esb, board na mora, CIE, eircom".

    That's not even remotely true.
    e.g. even before the 'decentralisation' insanity, about half of civil servants were already working outside Dublin.
    How many workers does Bord na Mona have in Dublin? Won't turf cutters be working where the turf is?
    CIE has jobs all over the country. Dublin Bus has a lot of employees because they have a lot of buses, because they have a lot of passengers...
    ESB and Eircom will have exchange/power station and line workers all over the country.

    The m50 was built and US companies located beside the highway in the suburb. who would have guessed that?

    The M50 was supposed to have been completed in the 1970s. Most of the Dublin rail plan from the 1970s hasn't been built yet. Go to a proper European city and see what a functioning city needs. What benefits Dublin benefits Ireland as a whole, Dublin taxes support most of the rest of the country yet it seems all you want to do is do Dublin down.
    Financial service center was build in old dock area and with low tax and no reg attracted finical companies. All this was done with no thought to providing for growth. Now its billions to build an metro, billions to widen a road, billion for an interconnector.

    How does more development make underground rail more expensive?
    Dublin should certainly have a decent underground system by now.
    The alternative to dense development is sprawl, and we've already had far too much of that. Sprawl which can't be serviced economically in any way and especially with fast frequent public transport.
    It time to forget dublin, and start again some where else.
    Right, and consign its inhabitants, and the companies and jobs here, to what?
    Like it or not, and you clearly don't appear to like it, Dublin is the engine of the Irish economy and that will always be the case. Every country has a capital city.
    May be dublin as a city sate is a good idea. It would let the rest of the county fend for itself.

    You really wouldn't like the outcome of that, believe me.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,820 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    You're wrong. We've been through this. Even if all the leaks were fixed, the capital will need and deserve Shannon water. It's like this;

    Dublin pumps money in to the country.

    The country pumps water and people in to Dublin.

    Not only are we planning to take their water, we've been stealing their hydro power for almost 90 years now!!!! :rolleyes:

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #38
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,494 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Not only are we planning to take their water, we've been stealing their hydro power for almost 90 years now!!!! :rolleyes:

    Ah, so, people think they own the air as well as the water too? :pac:


  • #39
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    tharlear wrote: »
    NO you don't. Haven't you heard, "if you build it they will come" :-)

    But that's how Dublin MA got to be 1.8 million. There was little infrastructure in Ireland 25 years ago and what there was, was in Dublin. Job and people moved there, housing estates were built. Then 10 years later they have to figure out where to put the roads rail school .
    Most of the jobs in Dublin are "gnovernment jobs" civil service, public service, esb, board na mora, CIE, eircom". Its a classic case of all roads lead to rome. The m50 was built and US companies located beside the highway in the suburb. who would have guessed that?
    Financial service center was build in old dock area and with low tax and no reg attracted finical companies. All this was done with no thought to providing for growth. Now its billions to build an metro, billions to widen a road, billion for an interconnector.

    I've lived in 2 us cities about the size of bublin, both had highways that were expanded recently (last 10 years) as they had reached capacity after 30 years of use and needed rebuilding anyway. Both of these cities expanded at around the same time as dublin and at about the same rate. When those highways were build the were well outside the city, and cost little to build, enough land ws left for future expansion. This is something that can never be achieved in Dublin as most of residential building is complete with no transport system in place.

    Build a north ring road in cork and invest in some public transport, and plan the city and you would have a city of 750K in 20 years with none of the cost associated with retrofitting a city like Dublin. It would attract industry and job and then the people, just as dublin has done for the last 20 years, at 1/3 of the cost. The chinese do this every day, Shenshen was a fishing village in 1980, its now over 15 million.

    It time to forget dublin, and start again some where else. May be dublin as a city sate is a good idea. It would let the rest of the county fend for itself. My guess would be that within 10 years people would be moving out of Dublin to live in the low tax, hassel free cities of cork limerick galway which would have new infrastructure. Naturally half of the jobs in dublin would go as there would not be not country for them to administer.
    And low taxes as dublin could keep the fin sector and all it debt! :-)
    To the original question of the thread. To those of us not from Dublin it always appeared if the country was run like that anyway.
    I'd love it if Dublin could be left fend for itself. Be careful what you wish for!

    It never ceases to amaze me how bitter and resentful some people are towards Dublin, depite Dublin generated wealth being spread around the country to "less productive" parts.

    Evn if government was removed from Dublin, it would thrive. Many capital cities are not actually economically vibrant at all. Dublin City Council loses millions each year in rates from all the state owned property in Dublin. It's not as straightforward as people make out.

    I would have no qualms about ending the fiasco of decentralisation and creating a new seat of government in Athlone (for example). Dublin (my hometown) would still be fine, possibly better, ceratinly so if it could elect a mayor with real powers directly. The Vikings didn't choose the site at random. I know well that locating a government in a particular place does not mean overnight change for the better for that place or disaster for the old place.

    Berlin is improving, but still has double the unemployment of Bonn. Rio De Janeiro is still a more succesful city than Brasilia and Canbera (last I heard) was still a sleepy administrative outpost, dwarfed by the economic activity elsewhere in Australia.


  • #40
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    These tedious anti-Dublin rants are, well, tedious.

    According to the IDA (largely staffed by exiled yokels) very many multinationals give us a choice such as "It's Dublin or Poland".

    Apparently only a minority of highly mobile international execs prefer living in Ballydrizzle than in or near a real city (and there is but one of those in Ireland).

    That's why what is happening here is just a tiny part of an international trend. Now that the country is bust we cannot afford to borrow to indulge the "hospital in every parish" mentality.

    And the rustics have proven that even in the boom, they can't agree on a small number of alternative locations to develop - never mind just one Chinese style New City!

    And they never will....meanwhile, if there is any growth in Eire it will stay focused on Dublin.

    City State? Ireland is largely that already - with an large agriculturally productive back yard - and why would we want to build a new city on a slab of our second greatest asset? :cool:


  • #41
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    BluntGuy wrote: »


    Masdar city will house ~50,000 people, at the cost ~$20 billion or so. Do you really think it is feasible for us to even contemplate something like this?

    Yep, for a mere €trillion we could build a Masdar-in-the-Bog!

    Apart from a knee-jerk envy-fueled anti-Dublinism the only things the average rustic anti-Dub have in common are

    (1) A virulent begrudgery towards each others counties, towns, villages and parishes

    (2) A connection with economic reality that is truly village-class :D


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I'd love to know what prime development sites there are left in Dublin that we can develop without evicting someone. Please do tell.

    No shortage of them here in sunny Sandyford; there is room here for a (more compact) suburb the size of Galway - no prob.

    In fact by densification (which would admittedly involve shooting a lot of Nimby/An Taisce types - some thing I'd wholeheartedly welcome) - you could double the population of the current metropolitan area.

    There are 15 million people living 80 miles east of here in an area about the size of County Dublin.


  • #43
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,494 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I'd love to know what prime development sites there are left in Dublin that we can develop without evicting someone. Please do tell.

    The Irish Glass site for one. Loads and loads more that you don't know about. Why? Cause you don't know what you are talking about.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    I think it was shaw said it about Dublin universities originally, I'm going change it slightly:

    Dublin has the cream of Ireland, the rich and the thick.

    I think it was your mother that said it about you. I won't change it slightly.

    You're an adult now, grow up.


  • #44
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    The Irish Glass site for one. Loads and loads more that you don't know about. Why? Cause you don't know what you are talking about.

    I think it was your mother that said it about you. I won't change it slightly.

    You're an adult now, grow up.

    "I don't agree with what you say" would be much politer and more accurate than "you don't know what you are talking about"

    Also calling on folk with different views to "grow up" isn't debating - it is name-calling.


  • #45
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,012 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Disgusted with the Dublin-bashing-for-the-sake-of-it in this thread.
    Maybe we need a "Chip on the shoulder" Forum.

    True, then we could put all the public service discussions in it as well, and the social welfare discussions, and the travellers and foreigners and all the other stuff that people whinge on about - except of course the Dubs, their arguments would always be logical and clear and never bash anyone.


  • #46
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    "Prime development sites"... for what exactly? There are plenty of run-down and disused/underutilised buildings in Dublin that can be repaired and restored into perfectly good working conditions. The fact of the matter is that (bar some exceptions) we don't need any new buildings in Dublin to house business and people. We need a massive urban renewal with a few new and good buildings. We don't need to start building sprawling low-rise offices on "prime development sites" out in the middle of nowhere.

    Ireland needs 4 things:
    1) Efficient and effective transport in Dublin - it's the only real hub for air transport. Regardless of where the business is, they arrive in Dublin.
    2) Focus on urban renewal in our cities rather than suburbanisation
    3) Focus on developing our Western ports (specifically Galway) into transport hubs which are not only fit for purpose for the supertankers and cargo ships of today, but also the future.
    4) Efficient and quick rail transport from those ports to Dublin


  • #47
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    You're wrong. We've been through this. Even if all the leaks were fixed, the capital will need and deserve Shannon water. It's like this;

    Dublin pumps money in to the country.

    The country pumps water and people in to Dublin.

    Our council is willing to sell the Shannon water to Dublin
    Get the cheque book ready :D
    Dublin will have to pay North Tipperary large amounts of cash for taking millions of gallons of water from Lough Derg to supplement the capital’s dwindling supplies, local county councillors insisted this week.
    Councillor Jim Casey said North Tipperary County Council needed to place itself in “a bargaining position” with Dublin City Council in regard to that local authority’s plans to pipe Lough Derg water to the capital.

    “I think we should be putting ourselves in a bargaining position now. Why not get our bargaining list together,” said Councillor Casey, who insisted that Dublin City Council should not be allowed extract millions of gallons of water from Lough Derg for free.

    He added: “There’s a price on everything and a cost on everything. Our water is an asset here and I think we should bargain for it from the beginning.”
    http://www.nenaghguardian.ie/news-detail.php?article=WEAKTD

    We can sell water, our county is rich :)

    Just an example of the mentality that is out there


  • #48
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Our council is willing to sell the Shannon water to Dublin
    Get the cheque book ready :D




    We can sell water, our county is rich :)
    We can also generate and sell massive amounts of ecologically sound energy through tidal, wave and wind generation... not that we will. :o


  • #49
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,494 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    "I don't agree with what you say" would be much politer and more accurate than "you don't know what you are talking about" Also calling on folk with different views to "grow up" isn't debating - it is name-calling.

    He clearly doesn't know Dublin! And who made you moderator?
    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Get the cheque book ready :D

    It will bounce!


  • #50
    schween
    Registered Users Posts: 444 ✭✭schween


    Some of the opinions on this thread embarrass me to be Irish. Backward thinking at its finest.


  • #51
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    C'mon guys, let's stick to debating the topic, rather than personal jibes or cheap digs.
    FreudianSlippers wrote:
    "Prime development sites"... for what exactly? There are plenty of run-down and disused/underutilised buildings in Dublin that can be repaired and restored into perfectly good working conditions. The fact of the matter is that (bar some exceptions) we don't need any new buildings in Dublin to house business and people. We need a massive urban renewal with a few new and good buildings. We don't need to start building sprawling low-rise offices on "prime development sites" out in the middle of nowhere.

    I agree with this.

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

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-liberty-hall-to-climb-higher-into-the-capital-sky-3031383.html
    schween wrote: »
    Some of the opinions on this thread embarrass me to be Irish. Backward thinking at its finest.

    Perhaps you could elaborate and give your take on whether we should primarily promote Dublin when selling Ireland abroad?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    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.


  • #53
    AngryLips
    Registered Users Posts: 2,676 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    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.


  • #54
    lucernarian
    Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    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.


  • #55
    saywhatyousee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭saywhatyousee


    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.


  • #56
    Aidan1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Aidan1


    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.


  • #57
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,438 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


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


  • #58
    AngryLips
    Registered Users Posts: 2,676 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    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.


  • #59
    lucernarian
    Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    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.


  • #60
    Aidan1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Aidan1


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    lucernarian
    Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    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.


Advertisement