IS ireland gone to hell

Eagleye

is it me or is ireland goverment , ruined ireland , because all they seem and most people care about is money and economy.


Housing estates are what im talking about, Enviromental i know , Some say it doesent matter , yet it really pisses me off when i travel through the country and there everywhere,Is it the prices of houses ,supply and demand all that ****e, and the fact the devolopers money ,,, are heavily favoured,


if you look a holland and denamark ,the model system they over there , is nothing like here, housing is 100% better planned than it is here , its like
if ireland adopted that system ten years ago there would be no bloody hos. est.

patzer117

huh?

Demetrius

Totally agree eagleeye. One off housing has destroyed this country since sixties. Though I was brought up in a one-off bungalow. In Denmark I think they have to build a new house on the site of an old one in the countryside at least

BrianD

What economy?

As some one recently said, when there is a 'fast buck' to be made - in our case property - all other economic activity ceases. This seems to be fast becoming the case in Ireland.

As Dick Roche continues to say when confronted with our poor track record on the environment (polution and bad development) - "I make no apologies for our economic success".

Yet, we complain about the Americans in Iraq, drilling in Alaska and ignoring the Kyoto Protocol. How hypocritical - as a nation with no natural resources we need that damn oil to drive to and heat all those boxes we call homes that we are building across the landscape!

There was a time when an entrepeneur was somebody with a clever idea and a good business model. Now an entrepeneur is a guy or gal with a couple of houses mortgaged and rented out.

Hal1

Well one main contributing factor to our increased need for more housing is the boom in the population over the last number of years.

And with so many non-nationals emmigrating to Ireland it doesn't help matters at all. So we need to develop and invest in our housing structure to compeate with the growing demands.

Hal1

Its becoming harder each DAY for anyone considering purchasing a home because of the growing interest rates and money gready property developers leeching on the blood of first time buyers.

gilroyb

I think the initial post was in favour of 'one of housing' and against estates.

Ireland needs high rise in its urban centres so that estates in the surrounding areas aren't necessary. As long as people say that tall buildings are an environmental eyesore, the longer they will have to put up with the eyesore of neverending rows of identical houses as far as the eye can see.

Cork

I think the fact Irish people can find work here is a great thing.

Now house prices - They are high over in the UK at the moment.

Never has there been more houses been built. But we have a problem.

Houses are over priced.

Solution:
Increase capital gains tax on houses that are not your residence to 40%.
Bring in a property tax.

Bertie brought in property tax & there was a minor revolt among interest groups.

This country have much more one off housing in Famine times. I see no problem with this as long as it it is properly in keeping with its surrordings.

BrianD

Introduction of a property tax would be a logical step and one of bringing the market into some sort of normality. The tax would apply to second and third homes that are not the primary residence.

On paper it's a good idea, in reality it would hit some people very hard and cause chaos in the short term. As I said in an earlier post many so called entrepeneurs are "property investors" and would feel the pinch. The property market is like a run away train and any sudden measures to slow it down will de-rail it. I don't think any political party has the will or the guts to tackle this monolith.

Right now you have plenty of people who will rapidly turn any green field into as many housing units (all poorly built) as physically possible to turn a quick buck. Forget the facilities and the transport - they can add the price of a car onto the mortgage! On the other hand, you have people building a one off house on family land in an attempt to live in something affordable. Far too often, these houses like any design qualities, pollute the enviromnemt and aren't economically sustainable in the long term (i.e those who live in equally bad suburban developments end up subsidising them).

Hobbes

The main problem with housing (well apart from price) is that the infrastructure wasn't put in place for all the people moving. I recall a few years back that they had to pause building on the northside because the drainage system couldn't handle the extra houses. But more to the point for examples is Schools/Doctors/Dentists.

patzer117

Cork wrote:

Solution:
Increase capital gains tax on houses that are not your residence to 40%.
Bring in a property tax.

You're right about one thing, that will bring down the price of houses, but our economic boom has it's foundations in investment in the construction industry, and that is being financed soley by investors buying houses in Ireland. If you were to increase capital gains tax on houses i fear the investors would simply shift market, and our expansion would dry up.

BrianD

But surely this is no basis for an economy? A property boom or a strong construction industry should follow a sound diversified economy and not the bedrock of it. Eventually these 'investors' will shift to another market and we need to create an environment where investors will look at other options outside of property.

Sand

A 40% capital gains tax? Yeah, well speaking as a property owner I just wont sell. No sell = reduced supply. Reduced supply = rising prices!

In the meantime the rent will cover the mortgage. Property tax will hit the people looking for rented accomadation more than it will hurt me tbh. Ill just add it on top of the rent. The Dublin area is pretty demand inelastic so costs can be quite happily shovelled onto the consumer.

And thats the problem - everyone wants to live in Dublin or within a reasonable commute of it. If you really want to "fix" the property market then you either go high rise in Dublin - appartment living - or you work on cutting down the commutes through viable public transport links.

I know typical government policy on the economy is to tax it until it stops moving, but quickfix solutions like taxes etc wont change the realities that people want to live in Dublin, and are willing to pay for it. Theres nowhere else in the country to rival it, and the Governments haphazard gombeen handling of "decentralisation" doesnt make it likely that will change soon.

BrianD

I agree and disagree. Yes, I think a tax will hit rental prices (as you say land lords will seek to pass them on) . So what happens next? Rental market depresses and land lords are left with empty buildings while the flood of migrant workers head off to somewhere else where they can live and work. I'm not sure if I agree with Dublin being demand inelastic - there are plenty of rental properties knocking about.

One of the reasons why the property market is so buoyant is that people can leverage the (artificially high) equity contained in an existing property to but a second etc. Property is always a good investment so why not. Though its only as good as when you can get a contribution from it.

I do agree that we need to get rid of the Ballymun syndrome and start building high rise in a planned manner in our cities both for offices and residential use (though I'm sure there's plenty of developers who don't want to see that happen).

Out of curiosity, does anybody know what percentage of the market is either first time buyers and/or people trading up/down?

jd

Cork wrote:

This country have much more one off housing in Famine times. I see no problem with this as long as it it is properly in keeping with its surrordings.

We were dog poor, lived in hovels, and had pigs in the parlour. Saying we had lots of one off housing in famine times isn't a great argument in its favour

Sand

I agree and disagree. Yes, I think a tax will hit rental prices (as you say land lords will seek to pass them on) . So what happens next? Rental market depresses and land lords are left with empty buildings while the flood of migrant workers head off to somewhere else where they can live and work. I'm not sure if I agree with Dublin being demand inelastic - there are plenty of rental properties knocking about.

A property tax will be hitting all landlords, and the majority will have to pass it on, and the rest who dont have to will because they can. Rental market isnt going to go anywhere - the 18-30 demographic cant really commute to work from Cork. Im told the rental market is in the doldrums (when exactly was it fantastic?) and yet the place I rent has never gone a mortgage repayment without a tenant to soften the blow. Let alone the people I have to turn down for the week or two following it being gone. Dublin is pretty demand inelastic, especially when renters will be facing the same passed on tax increases everywhere they go. In dublin anyway.

I do agree that we need to get rid of the Ballymun syndrome and start building high rise in a planned manner in our cities both for offices and residential use (though I'm sure there's plenty of developers who don't want to see that happen).

Id disagree - developers would love to stack 40 appartments on the same square footage as a 2 bed semi detached if they could. 40 times the profit per square foot.

The thing with appartment buildings is that they need to be extremely well built, to shake the Irish love of suburbia. In Irish terms youre seen to have failed if youre still living in an appartment at 30-35.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote:

...everyone wants to live in Dublin or within a reasonable commute of it.

I don't.

BrianD

Sand wrote:

Id disagree - developers would love to stack 40 appartments on the same square footage as a 2 bed semi detached if they could. 40 times the profit per square foot.

The thing with appartment buildings is that they need to be extremely well built, to shake the Irish love of suburbia. In Irish terms youre seen to have failed if youre still living in an appartment at 30-35.

Personally, I believe that a planned high rise strategy for all urban centres would wipe out the property market overnight. Part of the reason for high prices is essentially an inefficient use of land for both apartment type accomodation and traditional housing. Within a few km of the city centre you have two storey houses with gardens - something that doesn't happen in other countries.

Build up and you increase the supply of apartments in urban areas dramatically. This will also suck many renters out of suburban housing (you know the 3-4 people renting a house together in Rathfarnham) into these newly created units. Despite what people may think, there is not an infinite supply of renters in the market. I think it will restore some order to the market.

DublinWriter

Eagleye wrote:

if you look a holland and denamark ,the model system they over there , is nothing like here, housing is 100% better planned than it is here , its like
if ireland adopted that system ten years ago there would be no bloody hos. est.

There has been a complete lack of urban planning in this country.

When I worked in Frankfurt, I used to be able to walk to the office as the city was a happy mix of apartments, offices, schools and playgrounds. The same applies for almost every other major European city.

Urban planning in this country has been left to windy and corrupt politicians fumbling about for the brown bag stuffed with cash.

bonkey

DublinWriter wrote:

When I worked in Frankfurt, I used to be able to walk to the office as the city was a happy mix of apartments, offices, schools and playgrounds. The same applies for almost every other major European city.

Notably, the word house is absent from this description, and therein lies the problem.

Until the Irish get over this "need" to own a house (as opposed to even the "need" to own a home), urban densities cannot climb significantly. While urban densities cannot climb, the best one can do with respect to urban planning is pay it a mild form of lip-service.

As for Ireland "going to hell"....sorry...I may not live there any more, but I don't buy into that for a second. Ireland is facing new problems because its managed to overcome some of the old, and thats all. If people would prefer a return to the days of mass-exodus, 78% upper tax brackets and significantly higher unemplopyment for those who remain....you're more than welcome to, but I can guarantee you won't see it as an improvement.

jc

DublinWriter

bonkey wrote:

Until the Irish get over this "need" to own a house (as opposed to even the "need" to own a home), urban densities cannot climb significantly.

We'll get over the "need" to own a house when we get over the "need" to get sick and ill and require long term residential care when we are older.

bonkey

DublinWriter wrote:

We'll get over the "need" to own a house when we get over the "need" to get sick and ill and require long term residential care when we are older.

You've lost me.

How would owning a flat or an apartment instead of a house be different in this regard.

And thats what I was hinting at. For the Irish, owning a home - a residence - is not sufficient. People want to own a house. This has an unavoidable effect on population-density which ultimately is a prime factor in the problems we have with urban planning.

Take a simple issue - public transport. The number of stops you require on a route is inversely proportional to population density. THe lower the density, the more stops needed, or the further you require people to walk in order to avail of transport. The more stops, the longer the transit-time. This can be countered by more routes, but then each route serves fewer people, and is thus less economical.

Thus, the lower the population density, the less feasible it is to make public transport attractive, as it requires too much walking, too much time and/or too much cost to maintain.

People in Frankfurt face the same sickness / ageing issues that we in Ireland do. They, however, do not feel the need to own a house. As you pointed out - their city (as with most European cities) is full of apartments.

jc

musiknonstop

I think what DublinWriter meant by "the need for long term residential care" is that if you own a house, you can sell it in your later years to fund care in a nursing home, instead of relying on your pension/the state.

bonkey

musiknonstop wrote:

I think what DublinWriter meant by "the need for long term residential care" is that if you own a house, you can sell it in your later years to fund care in a nursing home, instead of relying on your pension/the state.

And I think that what I meant is that if you own an apartment, you can also sell it in later years to do exactly likewise.

The difference, as I pointed out in my first and second postings, being that one is a house, and one is an apartment. That might sound bloody obvious but the impact of the difference is a significant factor in why DW could walk around a city like Frankfurt, but not around a city like Dublin.

The effect of this difference is primarily on population density, and population density is one of the most significant factors in the problems that Dublin experiences.

Irish - broadly speaking - want to own (or at least live in) houses, regardless of whether they are living in the countryside or in/around Dublin city. Mainland Europeans - like the Frankfurters DW mentioned - generally do not own / live in houses in cities.

Dublin has, over the last number of years, seen a huge increase in the number of apartments springing up around the place, but the impression I've got of people buying them is that for the majority its either to get a foot on the property ladder with a mind to selling and trading up to a house, or its to rent out (immediately or after a while) in order to be able to afford a house.

Ownership also tends to have a reduction on mobility (although this is less of a factor than it may initially seem), which means that people are less likely to live near their job, but rather will live where they have bought their house, and work where their job is. This makes it more difficult again to be withing walking distance of your office. There may be offices within walking distance, but if you work for a different company, that doesn't really help you.

But lets not get distracted on that one. I did not say, and am not saying, that it is the high degree of ownership which is the problem in ireland. I said, and continue to say, that it is the penchant for houses that lies at the root of the problem.

jc

Its a matter of perception. Houses are seen as being a more stable and more reliable investment than Apartments. With Housing you're going to firstly gain ownership of the land the house is built on, and secondly, houses used to be better built than apartments. Apartments in Ireland used to (not sure if its still the same) be built with very low quality in mind, which leads to the viewpoint that houses, which are stronger structures are a better investment.

I bought a house rather than an apartment because I wanted the insurance of owning the land it was built on aswell. At least that was the intention at the time. After I bought the house, reality set in and I started learning about Management companies, and other little tidbits that aren't immediately obvious.

Regardless though, Houses are seen as being more "sound" and therefore a better place to raise children or to invest in.

Hagar

bonkey wrote:

People in Frankfurt face the same sickness / ageing issues that we in Ireland do. They, however, do not feel the need to own a house. As you pointed out - their city (as with most European cities) is full of apartments.

jc

So who owns all the properties then and collects all the rent?
There couldn't be that many Gardaí in the world could there?

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

Apartments in Ireland used to (not sure if its still the same) be built with very low quality in mind, which leads to the viewpoint that houses, which are stronger structures are a better investment.

Isn't that putting teh cart a bit before the horse?

Apartments were/are built to lower quyality because there was the viewpoint that what people wanted were houses, and therefore apartments are really only for those people who haven't gotten a house yet...until such times as they get one.

Regardless...it still isn't relevant to the point I am making. I'm not saying we are right or wrong to have chosen / continue to choose houses. I'm saying that the ensuing population density is a root cause of the problems being faced, and that while its convenient to blame corrupt politicians, it is still true that no-one has produced a successful model of large-scale urban planning with such low population densities.

Regardless though, Houses are seen as being more "sound" and therefore a better place to raise children or to invest in.

And houses are also a/the root evil of the problems that are being attributed to other factors such as corruption. This is basically what I'm driving at. We can offer any number of justifications as to why its better to own / live in a house over an apartment...but when it comes to dealnig with the ramifications that are a direct result of a lot of people making such a decision....we seek someone or something else to blame.

Houses are seen as being more "sound" - at least partly - because we focus on the benefits and ignore or re-attribute the problems. Apartments are seen as less "sound" because we - again, at least partly - ignore or re-attribute the benefits and focus on the problems.

Hagar wrote:

So who owns all the properties then and collects all the rent?

From my last post - the one you responded to : I did not say, and am not saying, that it is the high degree of ownership which is the problem in ireland.

I'm at a loss as to what you're responding to in my post. It seems to be that you're trying to take issue with what I've already clarified is not what I'm talking about.

jc

Hagar

It would appear that in continental Europe the average person cannot aspire to own the home he lives in. Most of the property is owned by either corporations or very wealthy landlords.

The apartment rental culture that is arising in Ireland is creating great wealth for a small number of people, much of it through corruption if the various tribunals are anything to go by. At the same time it is impoverishing a generation, and by extension future generations, by robbing them of the opportunity to own their own homes.

The new culture evolving is a culture of greed fuelled by politicians working hand in glove with developers and aided and abetted by avaricious estate agents.

"One-off" housing is the only way a lot of people could ever own there own homes. What is so terrible about it? I wonder is the clampdown on "one-off" housing just a new way to force people into the developers hands?

grumpytrousers

Hagar wrote:

It would appear that in continental Europe the average person cannot aspire to own the home he lives in. Most of the property is owned by either corporations or very wealthy landlords.

The apartment rental culture that is arising in Ireland is creating great wealth for a small number of people, much of it through corruption if the various tribunals are anything to go by. At the same time it is impoverishing a generation, and by extension future generations, by robbing them of the opportunity to own their own homes.

The new culture evolving is a culture of greed fuelled by politicians working hand in glove with developers and aided and abetted by avaricious estate agents.

"One-off" housing is the only way a lot of people could ever own there own homes. What is so terrible about it? I wonder is the clampdown on "one-off" housing just a new way to force people into the developers hands?

Surely, Hagar, the point that Bonkey is trying to make is that if 25 floor skyscrapers of apartments suddently started to appear dotted around dublin, they would provide accomodation for a lot more people in a smaller geographical footprint and thus ensure that the services in the area actually become more efficient in that they serve a lot more people. All that being said, and while this would be the case, we, as a people, would appear to be (for no good reason) reluctant to live in such a thing. To quote Baldrick, we all aspire to our nice big Turnip in the Country, but for no good reason

I'm not a lawyer, but there's no obstacle to owning your own apartment. Sure, you don't own the ground that'd (perhaps) be 20 floors down, but then neither does anybody else in your block. But you DO own the four walls within which you live (or have a very very very very long lease) and if you really need to raise money for that spell in the nursing home...heck, you can sell your apartment...

Hagar

grumpytrousers wrote:

Surely, Hagar, the point that Bonkey is trying to make is that if 25 floor skyscrapers of apartments suddently started to appear dotted around dublin, they would provide accomodation for a lot more people in a smaller geographical footprint and thus ensure that the services in the area actually become more efficient in that they serve a lot more people.

They had seven 15 storey apartment blocks in Ballymun and even with all services being funded out of the bottomless taxpayers pocket it turned into a social disaster. They had to be pulled down. Are we really talking about developers providing services for the occupants of these buildings? We would be building time bombs. Realistically only the poorest of society will ever end up in buildings like that. The better off will rent or possibly own in the less oppresive low-rise blocks and the well off will live in houses and own the majority of apartments that the others are living in. That's the way it is here in France anyway and that's the path Ireland is being led down like it or not.

*No offence to anyone living in high-rise developments intended I'm just quoting history

Gurgle

Hagar wrote:

It would appear that in continental Europe the average person cannot aspire to own the home he lives in

And thats why Irish people are buying second homes all over continental europe ?

grumpytrousers

Aye - point certainly taken regarding the clusterf*ck that was the high density experiment in Ballymun, and obviously you need an element of political will* to make living in apartments (as opposed to 'flats', if you know what i mean!) a viable alternative to working for that dream house in Ballinasloe as you commute to Dublin...

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that most every other country in the world can handle well maintained high density accomodation, owned by the occupants, and it still mystifies me as to what the frig is so special about us Paddies that we just can't...

* Political Will. Oxymoron. See also Talented Boy Band,

Hagar

Gurgle wrote:

And thats why Irish people are buying second homes all over continental europe ?

Ireland is not part of continental Europe, and not all Irish people are buying. TBH buying in Eastern Europe and Turkey is very iffy in my opinion. I predict tears there for many people.

I suppose in time Irish people would accept/ become accustomed to living in flats/apartments under communal ownership but right now I don't think its part of the psyche. In my business I am in and out of all sorts of property over here but I still find it strange how people live like ants and pretend that they cannot hear the TV next door. Maybe it's just me.

bonkey

Hagar wrote:

It would appear that in continental Europe the average person cannot aspire to own the home he lives in. Most of the property is owned by either corporations or very wealthy landlords.

Home ownership in European mainland countries ranges from mid-80s to low-30s.

Its a bit of a stretch to say that "the average person" across continental Europe cannot afford his or her home given such a massive swing.

But again....I'll requote myself and remind you that I did not say, and am not saying, that it is the high degree of ownership which is the problem in ireland.

"One-off" housing is the only way a lot of people could ever own there own homes. What is so terrible about it? I wonder is the clampdown on "one-off" housing just a new way to force people into the developers hands?

Maybe you'd care to address DublinWriters assertion that its a lack of urban planning thats the issue, then, rather than my assertion that you simply cannot plan effectively even if you wanted to. After all, one-off is the antithesis of urban planning.

I haven't once suggested that our urban planning is good, that Balymun was the correct model of apartment-dwelling, or anything else that people seem to be taking out of my posts. Its amazing that I'm being so knocked on what I'm not saying...whilst what I am saying is that we do this knocking by focussing on the negative of one and the positive of the other...which is what seems exactly to be the case here.

I have suggested two main points:

1) That the population density from house-dwelling is simply too low to be able to fix the problem even if we dealt with the corruption/incompetence etc that exacerbates it,

and

2) We tend to blame all the problems on stuff like corruption etc. even when there are other causes that we're not willing to tackle.

You see a big conspiracy to kill one-off housing so people can't own houses. I see it as a necessary admission that beyond a certain point on the scale (which I believe has been passed), one-off housing is simply not a viable solution. For a start, it effectively makes long-term planning for anything like transport infrastructure impossible. How can you build roads when you can't predict where teh population densities will be over the coming years, as it will depend on where people decide to build their houses?

Perhaps if you charged all the one-offers the cost of running services to their houses and of the costs resulting from the disruption of long-term-planning...sure, I'd let them continue...but the resultant (and horrific) costs would no doubt be billed as yet another conspiracy to kill off the "right thing".....

And why is it right? Its right because people want to do it, not because its workable.

DW sees it otherwise - he sees it as a lack of planning...its allownig too many people to do what suits them, be that individuals and their one-offs or builders getting away with using building models we know have problems associated with them. After all...they manage not to avoid these problems on the continent...right? (Lets not mention that apartments are intrinsic to how they try and avoid the problems...we want houses)

And yet there is a staggering lack of evidence of somewhere we can point to and say "look - if we built our houses like these guys did....we'd be fine".

As I said...we focus on the negative of apartments, and the positive of hosues, and therefore come to the wrong conclusions - that its not what we're doing, but how its being done.

The fact that you use Ballymun as the counter to my population density only highlights that. There are no shortage of successful apartment complexes, which significantly raise population density without going to those extremes, nor have I ever suggested that a Towers-solution is the extreme we need to go to. After all...mainland Europe's cities don't consist solely of Towers....and thats where I started the comparison.

Hagar

I would agree that poor planning is at the heart of the problem. It would be wrong however to underestimate the effect corruption has on the planning process. If the decisions made are based on the criteria of "how can I make a buck out of this" rather than "what do the people need" things are not going to work out for society except by pure luck.

One-off housing can be planned for and must be unless we are going to all move to the 3 or 4 cities and leave the country empty. Don't the people building one-offs pay massive charges for connections to existing services even if they are only a few metres away? I don't think they get much for free.

Maybe thinking of the clampdown on one-off houing as a conspiracy is a bit strong but a healthy cynicism when dealing with Irish politicians is warrented.

Apartment complexes which are owned by the residents usually work out well. Complexes where the apartments are rented, in particular by council tenants*, seem to got to shit very quickly as there is a "it's not mine, why should I care?" mentality. Sad but true.

* cue moral indignation

jd

Hagar wrote:

They had seven 15 storey apartment blocks in Ballymun and even with all services being funded out of the bottomless taxpayers pocket it turned into a social disaster. They had to be pulled down. Are we really talking about developers providing services for the occupants of these buildings?*No offence to anyone living in high-rise developments intended I'm just quoting history

Ballymun was not high density housing. It was highish-rise/lowish density.
jd

Hagar

"Ballymun" did not just consist of the seven 15 storey blocks. There were also a significant number of 8 storey and 4 storey blocks. Don't forget the sprawl of houses that clustered around these towers.
For along time there were no facilities whatsoever. No schools or shops. Very poor public transport. The area was served by mobile shops. Some of which still operate from behind iron grills. Guys selling groceries out of the back of vans at high prices to people who had no alternatives. The nearest supermarket was a spar type shop a good bit down Ballymun avenue. A bloody long walk with shopping I can tell you. Ballymun shopping centre was only built a few years later.

It wasn't poor planning. There was no planning. It was criminal.

samb

Hagar wrote:

What is so terrible about it? I wonder is the clampdown on "one-off" housing just a new way to force people into the developers hands?

What is wrong with one-off houses.
1. Cause eutrophication of lakes and rivers, from nutrient leachate from septic tanks
2. Contribute to reliance on cars (costs of roads, CO2 emmissions)
3. Cause inceased costs or make unworkable public transport systems, public health services, public education systems and postal systems.
4. Visual impact on countryside (effects on tourism numbers) probably biggest issue IMO.
5. Bad for community cohesion. people work far from where they live.

I think FF in particular do not want to upset farmers on this issue. I agree that farmers should be able to build houses for themselves or for people who work nearby to built one-off, but certainly not as they are doing now.

Arguments such as 'in the past, everyone was leaving the countryside, we should be happy' are rubbish. Are we PLANNING on going back to the 1980's, NO. So yets not PLAN our housing as if we were.

Coruption in Planning has come from the system of rezoning that has not changed. The county councils should have the power to buy non-zoned land and then contract out building to developers (on advice from proffesional planners) instead of councillers decsion to rezone making someone millions for doing absolutely nothing.

So that everyone who wants to own thier own home can, I think some kind of smallish tax should be brought in on investment properties, not too big or it might cause problems. Capital gains tax was reduced from 40 - 20 percent, which has been great in some respects (encouraged investments) but should maybe be inceased for investment properties in Ireland so that people who want a house for themeslves to live in can.

Planners need more power to build in a coherent manner around small centres such as village centres. In larger towns and cities, higher density is needed, but ballymun is hardly the model to follow. We need German style housing units that are not high-rise, but are high density, with no individual gardens for example but excellent facilities such as parks, playgrounds, retail centres etc.

If Ireland loses its Green image and beutiful countryside, tourism will fall (as it is) and everyone will lose out.

samb

P.S what clamptown on one-off housing? it is a free for all now, look around, OUR country littered with them. The only people giving off about them that I know of is An Taise and the Greens, hardly the friends of developers.

A Dub in Glasgo

Hagar wrote:

"Ballymun" did not just consist of the seven 15 storey blocks. There were also a significant number of 8 storey and 4 storey blocks. Don't forget the sprawl of houses that clustered around these towers.
For along time there were no facilities whatsoever. No schools or shops. Very poor public transport. The area was served by mobile shops. Some of which still operate from behind iron grills. Guys selling groceries out of the back of vans at high prices to people who had no alternatives. The nearest supermarket was a spar type shop a good bit down Ballymun avenue. A bloody long walk with shopping I can tell you. Ballymun shopping centre was only built a few years later.

It wasn't poor planning. There was no planning. It was criminal.

Totally agree, I was brought up in Connolly Tower and then in the houses in Popintree. Sucessive governments and Dublin coporation did not give a flying duck about the people that they housed in Ballymun. I had some great times but my god, I would not want to bring up my children in a box 10 stories up in the air without lifts working and all sort of debris in the stairwells. I think this has blighted a lot of peoples view about apartment/flat living.

If apartment living is to be successful, the developers/government must ensure that the the facilities in the complex are good quality and are well maintained with a rapid response time for faults. Good quality recreational/park facilities are also needed for people.

A Dub in Glasgo

jd wrote:

Ballymun was not high density housing. It was highish-rise/lowish density.
jd

Ballymun was one of the higher density areas in Dublin!

oscarBravo

samb wrote:

1. Cause eutrophication of lakes and rivers, from nutrient leachate from septic tanks

Do you have figures that indicate a greater hazard to waterways from septic tanks than from farming?

samb wrote:

2. Contribute to reliance on cars (costs of roads, CO2 emmissions)

Poor urban planning is making those costs orders of magnitude higher in urban than rural areas. I generated a lot more pollution driving from Mullingar to Dun Laoghaire every day than I do now in Mayo.

samb wrote:

4. Visual impact on countryside (effects on tourism numbers) probably biggest issue IMO.

I really don't understand this. I keep hearing this ZOMG HOUSES R TEH UGLEH attitude, with a philosophy that you should be able to drive for a hundred miles without seeing more than one or maybe two thatched cottages.

Some of the more spectacular scenery in this country is in west Mayo. Areas like Killadoon and Mulranney are dotted with individual houses. For me, it's part of the scenery. If I want desolate emptiness, I'll go to Siberia (or parts of Erris ). A dispersed rural population is part of who we are.

samb wrote:

5. Bad for community cohesion. people work far from where they live.

Rural communities are, in my experience, much more cohesive than urban. I lived in an apartment building in Dun Laoghaire for two years - I only ever spoke to one of the neighbours in the building, and never to anyone else on the street. I lived in a housing estate in Mullingar before that, and there was a fairly limited degree of social interaction among those who made the effort.

Here in rural Mayo, there's a real sense of community. It's like a big family - sometimes you argue, mostly you're there for each other, but you're always mutually involved.

samb

Do you have figures that indicate a greater hazard to waterways from septic tanks than from farming?

No, and I am fairly sure that farming is a significantly greater polluter at present. This does not make pollution from septic tanks ok. Farmers are generally becoming more environmental with many joining REPS.

Poor urban planning is making those costs orders of magnitude higher in urban than rural areas. I generated a lot more pollution driving from Mullingar to Dun Laoghaire every day than I do now in Mayo.

Agreed, poor urban planning is making our towns and cities undesirable places to live generally, this is the main problem and is causing the desire to live in the country.

I really don't understand this. I keep hearing this ZOMG HOUSES R TEH UGLEH attitude, with a philosophy that you should be able to drive for a hundred miles without seeing more than one or maybe two thatched cottages.

Some of the more spectacular scenery in this country is in west Mayo. Areas like Killadoon and Mulranney are dotted with individual houses. For me, it's part of the scenery. If I want desolate emptiness, I'll go to Siberia (or parts of Erris ). A dispersed rural population is part of who we are

I agree to an extent. I am not saying we should tear down all existing one-off houses (I grew up in one), all I am saying is that as our population grows we should stop building so many of them. If we continue then Killadoon and Mulranney will be more than dotted with them.
Tourists will not want to come here if we keep building at this rate because the countryside will essentially be suburban.

Rural communities are, in my experience, much more cohesive than urban. I lived in an apartment building in Dun Laoghaire for two years - I only ever spoke to one of the neighbours in the building, and never to anyone else on the street. I lived in a housing estate in Mullingar before that, and there was a fairly limited degree of social interaction among those who made the effort.

Yes, In my experience also. Again this is partially due to poor urban planning. This social cohesion in rural communities will decline in the future if the people living there have little connection to the area.

I am not against rural communities, quite the opposite, but I fear that into the future they will lose the qualities you enjoy and will become more and more like chaotic suburbs.

jd

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Ballymun was one of the higher density areas in Dublin!

Was it?

Ballymun is regularly cited by opponents of higher-density housing as a planning disaster. But they are confusing high-rise with high-density. In fact, the estate was built on a 359-acre site, so density worked out at just 8.5 units per acre, or about the same as the suburban norm.

from
http://www.constructireland.ie/news.php?pageNum_rsNewsHeadline=168&artID=1699&totalRows_rsNewsHeadline=1682

jd

oscarBravo wrote:

with a philosophy that you should be able to drive for a hundred miles without seeing more than one or maybe two thatched cottages.

Some of the more spectacular scenery in this country is in west Mayo. Areas like Killadoon and Mulranney are dotted with individual houses. For me, it's part of the scenery. If I want desolate emptiness, I'll go to Siberia (or parts of Erris ). A dispersed rural population is part of who we are. Rural communities are, in my experience, much more cohesive than urban. .

I don't think anybody is suggesting that you should be able to drive for a hundred miles without seeing more than a few thatched houses. But surely it makes more sense to build in clusters/villages, rather than a house every quarter mile or so? What is the point in that? If you go to Gweedore you can see dispersed housing taken to an extreme, and it harfdly adds anything to the landscape.

grumpytrousers

jd wrote:

I don't think anybody is suggesting that you should be able to drive for a hundred miles without seeing more than a few thatched houses. But surely it makes more sense to build in clusters/villages, rather than a house every quarter mile or so? What is the point in that? If you go to Gweedore you can see dispersed housing taken to an extreme, and it harfdly adds anything to the landscape.

oscarBravo wrote:

Some of the more spectacular scenery in this country is in west Mayo. Areas like Killadoon and Mulranney are dotted with individual houses. For me, it's part of the scenery. If I want desolate emptiness, I'll go to Siberia (or parts of Erris ). A dispersed rural population is part of who we are. Rural communities are, in my experience, much more cohesive than urban. .

Indeed. I was down in Mulranny only last weekend...(my Dad was from that part of the world), and would agree that the 'houses dotted around' are not unpleasant. But if you take this to its logical conclusion, where there are no limits placed on the amount of houses build as one offs, then at some time in the future, you'll be able to leave Newport and drive all the way to Achill Sound with a one off house every few hundred yards which isn't actually particuarly efficient. It's just another sodding housing estate with just bigger gaps, no semi-d houses, and shops you simply have to drive to.

One can, if one wishes, live in a one-off house, but for my money, once once chooses to do that, one loses the right to whinge about the fact that there are no facilities. One off houses make the provision of facilities much less economically viable.

oscarBravo

jd wrote:

But surely it makes more sense to build in clusters/villages, rather than a house every quarter mile or so?

In my experience, "one-off housing" tends much more strongly to the cluster/village than to the every quarter mile or so.

I guess it depends on your definition of "village". I live in what's locally described as a "village" called Derrygullinan, in which there are (to the best of my knowledge) five houses, with a sixth under construction. The same locally-designated area would have been called a "townland" where I grew up in Westmeath,

A "village" isn't always defined by a pub, church and post office.

oscarBravo

grumpytrousers wrote:

But if you take this to its logical conclusion, where there are no limits placed on the amount of houses build as one offs, then at some time in the future, you'll be able to leave Newport and drive all the way to Achill Sound with a one off house every few hundred yards which isn't actually particuarly efficient.

"Efficiency" isn't, and shouldn't be, the only criterion in the siting of a home.

grumpytrousers wrote:

It's just another sodding housing estate with just bigger gaps, no semi-d houses, and shops you simply have to drive to.

...as opposed to the housing estate I lived in in Mullingar, with smaller gaps, semi-d houses, and shops I simply had to drive to.

What was the problem again?

grumpytrousers wrote:

One can, if one wishes, live in a one-off house, but for my money, once once chooses to do that, one loses the right to whinge about the fact that there are no facilities.

You know what's funny? I rarely hear one-off dwellers whinging about the lack of facilities. Most rural people are aware of the limitations of distributed living, and adapt to it. Most of the complaints about lack of access to services I've heard about come from city-dwellers who are inventing objections to rural populations.

grumpytrousers

Sorry - I sound as if I have it in for people who live in 'the country' and nothing could be further from the truth - living as I do in a small town, which isn't too far removed; in other words, I'm not some Jackeen having a pop at culchies. I'm one meself.

You're dead right. 'efficiency' as I so clumsily put it should not be the only criterion for deciding on where one wants to live. But I would contend that it should be an important criterion for the purposes of the granting of planning permission when you *ask* to build where you'd like to live. Coming from, and living in, a 'small-town-in-the-west-of-ireland' I have to admit I find it rather incongruous to see any sort of apartment development going on. I'm used to the local skyline being 'butcher shop, mart, church, pub' and having 'apartment complex' shoved in there IS a bit strange.

But surely isn't that how towns and villages should grow - from the inside and out. Not that village one, village two and village three each comprising of a pub and a school each get joined up by a series of houses and thereafter no attendant services within.

(BTW, and slightly OT) I'm all for there being plenty of 'Rural populations'. And more importantly 'Young Rural Populations''; it breaks my f*cking heart that when i go into my local newsagents that the only magazines on display are either aimed at teenagers or else old biddys. You want a copy of Empire (yeah i know it's sh!te, but you get my drift!) then you have to order it. There's damn all folks between 20 and 35 living about!)

My point on the 'housing estate' notion of the road to (say) Mulranny was that surely it would make more sense if the land was zoned such that houses could only be build in the (ahem ) urban area of either Mulranny or Newport..which allows each village/town to grow in the way that villages and towns should grow...


Lookit - i'll shut my yap at this point. I'm not ducking out of a debate as such...but we might be veering off the topic of whether the country has gone to hell...i'm sure there's a 'one off housing is bad' debate knocking around these parts. Might see you there!

BrianD

oscarBravo wrote:

In my experience, "one-off housing" tends much more strongly to the cluster/village than to the every quarter mile or so.

Unfortunately, this is not the case and you only have to take a short drive to see this.

Plus rural dwellers are always whinging about the state of their laneway, price of the bin collection etc. The problem is that those in sustainable developments are subsidising one-off houses to the tune of an estimated €30,000 a year (a figure that came out of some planning conference).

Most of the complaints about lack of access to services I've heard about come from city-dwellers who are inventing objections to rural populations.

It doesn't matter what objections a city dweller invents or otherwise. An objection has NO INFLUENCE on a planning decsion. These decisions are made by professional planners. No planning application has ever failed because of an objection raised by a local or otherwise. There may be some terms applied because of objections or observations. Either the application is valid or its not. It's a simple as that.

The one off rural dwellers lobby like to use these objections from the likes of An Taisce as a scapegoat to avoid the issue that application can be passed because it would simply be bad planning.

Gurgle

BrianD wrote:

The problem is that those in sustainable developments are subsidising one-off houses to the tune of an estimated €30,000 a year (a figure that came out of some planning conference).

Total bull tbh.

BrianD wrote:

These decisions are made by professional planners.

Now you're just trolling.
Nobody could actually believe that.