Dublin: is it "too big"?

Cool Mo D

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

As usual in Ireland, the practical solutions will get lost behind the parochial solutions.

There should be a counter balance to Dublin developed somewhere, be it Cork, Limerick or Galway, not to detract from Dublin to make Dublin a better place to live for people currently living there and allow the country build proper infrastructure.

The reason that Dublin is as dominant as it is, is because no other town will ever accept that.

If the Government decided tomorrow that Cork was going to be expanded to 500,000 people in the urban area, and given the investment to infrastructure and planning required to do that, every other city (except Dublin, because it's already bigger), would go mental, wondering why Cork is getting this massive boost and they are not.

There can never be a counterweight city to Dublin, unless the other parts of Ireland accept that it means giving preference to ONE area outside of Dublin. Dublin now has an advantage over other cities, because it is large enough to expand on its own, without help, while growing another part of the country would require targeted investment that would leave some places out.

Have a look at the National Spacial Strategy - nearly every town in the country is a 'gateway' or a 'hub'. It means that development money is spread too thinly to ever make a difference.

Although I don't accept that developing somewhere else will make one iota of difference to either improve or disimprove Dublin. Dublin will rise or fall on what Dublin itself is like. The benefit of having another big city would be to break up some of the Dublin vs. the rest of the country rhetoric, and give people outside of Dublin options of which big city to live in, if that's where they want to go.

BluntGuy

I wouldn't think of it so much as being a counter-balance to Dublin as those areas getting an appropriate level of funding and more importantly appropriate use of said funding to make those areas better to live in and better to do business in. There needs to be an acceptance that Dublin is our most important city and will continue to be and that investment there is not to the detriment of everywhere else.

I'm all for balanced regional development, and I agree that Limerick, Galway and Cork should be the focus of any investment in that region. Building critical masses there is of benefit to the region as a whole. It shouldn't be though, as I suspect some advocates might be of the mindset of in competition to Dublin, but to compliment what Dublin and the other towns in Ireland bring to the country's society and economy as a whole. Crucially, we need to let the cities do what they're good at, and let the countryside to what it's good at, rather than spreading resources too thin trying to bring aspects of cities to towns and villages which don't warrant them.

Investment in Town X shouldn't be because Dublin or Cork or "that other town" got something. It should be because the town warrants and requires said investment. That is as much a problem of attitudes as it is a political and planning problem. The "whoever shouts loudest" system of obtaining investment isn't getting us anywhere.

Specifically on Dublin, agreed with the post that says we must focus all investment within the existing boundries of Dublin, most notably within the M50. Unfortunately An Bord Pleanala (and the people and organisations who make submissions) seem to get in the way of many appropriate high density developments, such as some that were proposed in the Docklands. The result being that these areas are left with mid-sized 6 storey office blocks which don't make efficient use of the area they're in and maximise land value. Simultaenously, many unnecessary office developments were given permission in areas not suited to them. The end result is that we now have loads of office space in Dublin, but it's completely unnecessarily spread out, and more critically, far harder to provide infrastructure to.

This excellent report, while 8 years old, highlights exactly the problem I describe above, which only got worse during the reckless years that were to follow.

http://www.ucd.ie/gsi/pdf/35-2/office.pdf

A key quote:

The planning environment has tended to permit office developments at highly dispersed peripheral locations requiring a considerable amount of new infrastructure investment, particularly transportation, by the public sector in order to sustain them.

...

Inevitably, administrative fragmentation and pressure on local authority budgets leads to a myopic concern on the part of individual authorities for matters relating to their own administrative area.

...

This diminution of planning coordination between the local authorities militates against wider metropolitan perspectives and any consideration of consequences for commuting patterns and the provision of public transport.

The problems are obvious, the solutions out there. But it'll take a massive shift in direction of individual and planning attitudes to make them happen.

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if I've repeated points.

Aard

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Have a look at the National Spacial Strategy - nearly every town in the country is a 'gateway' or a 'hub'. It means that development money is spread too thinly to ever make a difference.

Absolutely. There are at most 4 "gateways" in the country: Cork, Limerick, Galway, and Waterford. The rest of them in the NSS (Sligo, Letterkenny, Dundalk, and Mullingar-Tullamore-Athlone ) simply do not have the critical mass, and are not on par with the 4 others. Like you said, diverting funds from the bigger cities is the classic Irish way of trying to please everybody, and ending up pleasing nobody.

The benefit of having another big city would be to break up some of the Dublin vs. the rest of the country rhetoric, [...]

+1

Amazotheamazing

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The reason that Dublin is as dominant as it is, is because no other town will ever accept that.

If the Government decided tomorrow that Cork was going to expanded to 500,000 people in the urban area, and given the investment to infrastructure and planning required to do that, every other city (except Dublin, because it's already bigger), would go mental, wondering why Cork is getting this massive boost and they are not.

There can never be a counterweight city to Dublin, unless the other parts of Ireland accept that it means giving preference to ONE area outside of Dublin. Dublin now has an advantage over other cities, because it is large enough to expand on its own, without help, while growing another part of the country would require targeted investment that would leave some places out.

Have a look at the National Spacial Strategy - nearly every town in the country is a 'gateway' or a 'hub'. It means that development money is spread too thinly to ever make a difference.

Although I don't accept that developing somewhere else will make one iota of difference to either improve or disimprove Dublin. Dublin will rise or fall on what Dublin itself is like. The benefit of having another big city would be to break up some of the Dublin vs. the rest of the country rhetoric, and give people outside of Dublin options of which big city to live in, if that's where they want to go.

I agree, it's a huge problem in Ireland that we view the other regions as rivals moreso than anything else. See how Lowry threatened to walk when An Bord Snip recommended closing the Tipp Institute and moving it's students to LIT. Now we have some half-arsed LIT campus in Tipperary or somesuch. Similar situations have given half the towns in Ireland IT's of dubious merit (well, educationally anyway). In too many situations we've allowed quantity rule over quality.

Everyone says the obvious counterweight is the Cork-Limerick-Galway corridor but never really develops the theme? Ok, it's the obvious location, so what? What should be done in each of the three cities to make the CLG a viable counterbalance? Focus on one city? Have each city given different status? (Say Cork Administration, Limerick Industry, Galway Education (or whatever))

Aard

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Everyone says the obvious counterweight is the Cork-Limerick-Galway corridor but never really develops the theme? Ok, it's the obvious location, so what? What should be done in each of the three cities to make the CLG a viable counterbalance? Focus on one city? Have each city given different status? (Say Cork Administration, Limerick Industry, Galway Education (or whatever))

I think a start would be limiting development outside of the corridor, and building up the population of these cities. Basic infrastructure like their own versions of Dublin Bus would help with employment and mobility, and, hence, with the economy. The cities would start to look attractive for businesses and migrants. Building up the core urban area, and stopping unnecessary development in places like Tuam would give economies of scale to the cities, which would further help in reducing costs and improving services.


(Of course, I'm no professional planner, but in fairness they haven't done a fantastic job themselves :cool: )

CerebralCortex

Aard wrote: »

I think a start would be limiting development outside of the corridor, and building up the population of these cities. Basic infrastructure like their own versions of Dublin Bus would help with employment and mobility, and, hence, with the economy. The cities would start to look attractive for businesses and migrants. Building up the core urban area, and stopping unnecessary development in places like Tuam...

QFT.

RDM_83 again

Not a political point but the problem with ROI is that if Northern Ireland is included the Rank Size distribution of settlements is much more normal as belfast takes the place of 2nd city at about 500,000. Though if this was taken into account it would result in an even stronger Eastward population inblalance.

Tragedy

More development in Limerick? Even when the Tunnel is finished, infrastructure and transport inside Limerick itself will still be a mess.

I can't see how Cork would be any different either.

Developing another City over Dublin will mean dealing with the same problems you're dealing with in Dublin - terrible planning, poor infrastructure and crap transport.

purplepanda

Strange how the South East region centered around Waterford and adjacent counties / towns never seems to be seriously mentioned or have future plans put forward when it comes to discussion regarding balanced regional development.:rolleyes: There are 400,000 people living within 60km of Waterford City & well over 550,000 in the surrounding five counties including South Tipperary

Instead we have the continuing rundown of the region, which in other European countries, with it's close links to Britain & Europe would be an important hub of commerce & industrial activity & with it an increasing population:eek:

The SE region has been largely ignored by successive governments for decades Even the 3 regional railway lines built under British administration that once crossed over the River Barrow will all have gone with the passing of the Rosslare Waterford rail line. What a legacy of independence!!!!


Only a matter of time before the projected Barrow bridge / New Ross Bypass project is scraped I reckon, even though the transport links in the region are already bad enough & in dire need of upgrading. How can the South East attract investment with it's very poor infrastructure ???


Ah well, we can still build more underused roads in Mayo & Sligo instead & perhaps open more knackered old railways:mad:

Aard

You'll note that I mentioned Waterford above. The best way for Waterford to succeed, I'd think, is through some partnership with Kilkenny and, possibly, Carlow. The M9 corridor will help open the region up. And on that note of the "region", Waterford is not like Dublin: while parts of the latter's adjacent counties are certainly considered part of its Functional Urban Area, Waterford is far smaller and its FUA would only extend as far as Tramore, Carrick-on-Suir, and New Ross.

Also, I don't really know what you mean about not having "balanced regional development": the M9, and Suir Bridge would probably come under that heading.

Tragedy

Limerick and it's surrounding counties have over 1million people in it!
Cork and it's surrounding counties have even more.

BrianD

I think the development of other cities and fateway towns as defined in the National Spatial Strategy is a side issue in a way. Certainly the susstainable development at these locations would make them more attractive to live, work and develop and grow.

At the same time, Dublin is always going to be a major population draw for a variety of reasons. Most of the people living in the "too big Dublin" would not live in other towns or cities no matter how attractive they were. The problem is that we have created through bad planning, a sprawling Dublin. Those people living in suburban Kells should really be living higher density suburbs closer to Dublin.

jank

I think the question here should be, are Irelands other cities too small. Dublin is not too big but has been planned recklessly. What we have a chance to do is make a counter balance to Dublin in the other cities of Ireland and get them right!

CerebralCortex

jank wrote: »

I think the question here should be, are Irelands other cities too small. Dublin is not too big but has been planned recklessly. What we have a chance to do is make a counter balance to Dublin in the other cities of Ireland and get them right!

The answer is absolutely!

KevR

In terms of population, I don't think Dublin is too big at all. In terms of land area, I think it is too big - it's a sprawling mess with not even a single high rise building in the City Centre.

• Dublin Urban Area: 921 km2 (355.6 sq mi); Population: 1,045,769; Population Density: 4,398/km2 (11,390.8/sq mi)
• Manhattan Land Area: 59.5 km2 (22.96 sq mi ); Population: 1,629,054; Population Density: 27,394.3/km2 (70,951/sq mi)

I'm not saying that Dublin and every large city should consist almost entirely of high rise buildings and a very high population density like Manhattan but there is a lot to be said for higher population densities. 75% of the people in Manhattan don't own a car, there is great public transport (which is easy to provide), traffic jams are rare and minor league in Manhattan when compared to Dublin.

Big industrial estates and business parks on the outskirts of Dublin with many low rise office blocks - surely this is not good at all. In my opinion, office blocks should be in high or medium risers in the City Centre preferably within walking distance of a train station.

Galway is very similar to Dublin in the above sense.

Amazotheamazing

purplepanda wrote: »

Strange how the South East region centered around Waterford and adjacent counties / towns never seems to be seriously mentioned or have future plans put forward when it comes to discussion regarding balanced regional development.:rolleyes: There are 400,000 people living within 60km of Waterford City & well over 550,000 in the surrounding five counties including South Tipperary

Instead we have the continuing rundown of the region, which in other European countries, with it's close links to Britain & Europe would be an important hub of commerce & industrial activity & with it an increasing population:eek:

The SE region has been largely ignored by successive governments for decades Even the 3 regional railway lines built under British administration that once crossed over the River Barrow will all have gone with the passing of the Rosslare Waterford rail line. What a legacy of independence!!!!


Only a matter of time before the projected Barrow bridge / New Ross Bypass project is scraped I reckon, even though the transport links in the region are already bad enough & in dire need of upgrading. How can the South East attract investment with it's very poor infrastructure ???


Ah well, we can still build more underused roads in Mayo & Sligo instead & perhaps open more knackered old railways:mad:

The SE region is being drained by Dublin to the north and Cork to the south, I don't see this changing tbh. Ultimately, I think it makes more sense to have a much stronger city in Cork than weaken Cork to allow Waterford grow, Cork is more likely to provide a real counter-balance to Dublin (as opposed to the fairly pie in the sky plans I favour for the Atlantic Corridor).

Aard

KevR wrote: »

I'm not saying that Dublin and every large city should consist almost entirely of high rise buildings and a very high population density like Manhattan but there is a lot to be said for higher population densities. 75% of the people in Manhattan don't own a car, there is great public transport (which is easy to provide), traffic jams are rare and minor league in Manhattan when compared to Dublin.

Manhattan is New York's city-centre. New York has an urban area of 10 million; Dublin is one tenth the size. Any comparison between the two would be disingenuous. What would be more useful is to compare to similar-sized European cities, with similar status. Helsinki and Amsterdam are two that come to mind. Dublin is actually very similar in form to these two*, the main difference being that Dublin currently lacks a comprehensive transport-network. Helsinki has a low car-ownership rate also.



*Both Amsterdam City and Urban-area have very similar densities to Dublin. Helsinki Urban-area's is similar to Dublin's, but its City density is actually lower than that of Dublin. Their respective Urban and City populations are similar to those of Dublin too.

KevR

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The reason that Dublin is as dominant as it is, is because no other town will ever accept that.

If the Government decided tomorrow that Cork was going to be expanded to 500,000 people in the urban area, and given the investment to infrastructure and planning required to do that, every other city (except Dublin, because it's already bigger), would go mental, wondering why Cork is getting this massive boost and they are not.

There can never be a counterweight city to Dublin, unless the other parts of Ireland accept that it means giving preference to ONE area outside of Dublin. Dublin now has an advantage over other cities, because it is large enough to expand on its own, without help, while growing another part of the country would require targeted investment that would leave some places out.

Have a look at the National Spacial Strategy - nearly every town in the country is a 'gateway' or a 'hub'. It means that development money is spread too thinly to ever make a difference.

Although I don't accept that developing somewhere else will make one iota of difference to either improve or disimprove Dublin. Dublin will rise or fall on what Dublin itself is like. The benefit of having another big city would be to break up some of the Dublin vs. the rest of the country rhetoric, and give people outside of Dublin options of which big city to live in, if that's where they want to go.

I think the various Western airports is a good example of this.

I don't think Dublin Airport has been allowed to grow too big so the other airports can't compete, I think the West has undermined itself with every town and village wanting their own uncompetitive airport.

Donegal, Sligo, Knock, Galway, Shannon and Kerry (more South than West but whatever). It's crazy to have that many small airports on the West coast. Only one decent medium sized airport should have been built which would have been able to offer some competition to Dublin Airport. As it stands, none of the airports can compete with Dublin or each other and rely of funding from the state to survive. I use Dublin Airport (2 hours at least from where I live) more frequently than Galway (20 mins), Knock and Shannon (both 1 hour) combined - I simply can't get the flights I need from my local airports.

One decent medium sized airport in either Galway or Limerick with good transport links to the airport from surrounding regions would have been a lot better than the current situation. Imagine how much more Galway or Limerick could have grown over the past 20 years with a proper airport!!

I don't count Shannon as being an airport for Limerick; it was built because a certain someone wanted an airport for County Clare. When I say a proper airport for Limerick I mean that Shannon should have been built right on the outskirts of Limerick City and named 'Limerick Airport'. Seeing as though we are stuck in this crazy situation, I think Shannon Airport should be renamed 'Limerick-Galway Airport' when the M18 finally reaches Rathmorrissey (something like Leeds-Bradford Airport).

I don't think Dublin Airport has been allowed to grow too big so the other airports can't compete, I think the West has undermined itself with every town and village wanting their own uncompetitive airport.

KevR

Aard wrote: »

Manhattan is New York's city-centre. New York has an urban area of 10 million; Dublin is one tenth the size. Any comparison between the two would be disingenuous. What would be more useful is to compare to similar-sized European cities, with similar status. Helsinki and Amsterdam are two that come to mind. Dublin is actually very similar in form to these two*, the main difference being that Dublin currently lacks a comprehensive transport-network. Helsinki has a low car-ownership rate also.



*Both Amsterdam City and Urban-area have very similar densities to Dublin. Helsinki Urban-area's is similar to Dublin's, but its City density is actually lower than that of Dublin. Their respective Urban and City populations are similar to those of Dublin too.

I wasn't really trying to compare Dublin and Manhattan as if they are like for like; I was trying illustrate that Dublin has too much low rise sprawl and no high rise buildings whatsoever in the City Centre. I don't understand why there are so many low rise office blocks in places like City West where people are pretty much forced to drive to their office; I think many of these offices should have been built in high risers in the City Centre near train stations and other public transport links. It would have made it a lot easier to provide a comprehensive transport network if this had happened...

paulm17781

KevR wrote: »

I wasn't really trying to compare Dublin and Manhattan as if they are like for like; I was trying illustrate that Dublin has too much low rise sprawl and no high rise buildings whatsoever in the City Centre. I don't understand why there are so many low rise office blocks in places like City West where people are pretty much forced to drive to their office; I think many of these offices should have been built in high risers in the City Centre near train stations and other public transport links. It would have made it a lot easier to provide a comprehensive transport network if this had happened...

I completely agree. The horrific irony is these places were most likely built as the roads to the city would be congested if all the office space was there. I think it's our inability to plan (and love of rezoning land) that is the problem. If they had built the city highrise (or the whole docklands area), they could have put new roads, tunnels, underground etc. in while it was being done. Instead we went for industrial towns all over the outskirts.

KevR

Forgot to mention that Dublin City Council only realised the error of their ways last December - they finally implemented a new high rise policy which would allow buildings taller than 16 floors to be built in certain City Centre locations (particularly near train stations).

Pity they didn't do this at an early stage of the building boom, rather than doing it after the boom had ended..

Aard

KevR wrote: »

I wasn't really trying to compare Dublin and Manhattan as if they are like for like; I was trying illustrate that Dublin has too much low rise sprawl and no high rise buildings whatsoever in the City Centre. I don't understand why there are so many low rise office blocks in places like City West where people are pretty much forced to drive to their office; I think many of these offices should have been built in high risers in the City Centre near train stations and other public transport links. It would have made it a lot easier to provide a comprehensive transport network if this had happened...

100% agree. My point was just about the distribution of people. The distribution of office space is, as you rightly point out, far and away more disastrous, especially for a city that brands itself as a services economy.

Zoney

Probably of limited direct relevance to the Irish situation, but an at least some little bit analagous of a situation discussed in a BBC Magazine article today.

Personally, I think some people forget that the health of the nation depends on the entire nation, not just the health of Dublin. If it costs money to support the regions, that is preferable to them continuing to go downhill by cutting funding (even if in the short/medium term that is "cheaper"). There should be a serious attempt to skew further major development at Galway/Limerick/Cork rather than Dublin in order to improve the economic hubs that these cities provide. On a smaller scale, certain other hubs should be encouraged, for example Waterford and Sligo (as well as trying to get the Northerners to work on Derry and the west/south of NI). It is a bit more difficult to pick out which towns are more important beyond that - but nevertheless general policies should be put in place to better organise regional towns (not necessarily grow them, but make them more attractive for business and living).

In the current climate, not much is possible except perhaps for the kind of work that has gone on in previous decades of "marketing" places and actively going out to try and find suitable businesses for particular places.

Our poor telecoms infrastructure is a hindrance to the development of certain parts of Dublin let alone the country. Certain types of business we want for the "knowledge economy" are probably discouraged from setting up in Ireland at all at all, nevermind setting up outside Dublin (even though not much beyond the telecoms infrastructure might be needed - the cheaper costs would in fact make locating outside Dublin more attractive for some such companies if there was decent connectivity). The artificially high electricity prices are also a disaster that could be tackled easily.

liammur

Correct.

dubhthach

Zoney wrote: »

Our poor telecoms infrastructure is a hindrance to the development of certain parts of Dublin let alone the country. Certain types of business we want for the "knowledge economy" are probably discouraged from setting up in Ireland at all at all, nevermind setting up outside Dublin (even though not much beyond the telecoms infrastructure might be needed - the cheaper costs would in fact make locating outside Dublin more attractive for some such companies if there was decent connectivity). The artificially high electricity prices are also a disaster that could be tackled easily.

In general the telecoms situation in big urban areas isn't too bad anymore. With the Fibre MAN's in Cork/Limerick/Galway it's quite easy to get a high speed connection from multiple providers if you are in a business park. Most people don't realise this as their view into Broadband provision is usually from what's available to the Residential market

I think the main problem for Cork/Limerick/Galway axis is international access and transport connectivity between them. The amount of international connectivity provided by Dublin airport to the Greater Dublin region beats hands down what's going on with Cork airport/Shannon (Galway airport isn't worth mentioning)

liammur

Yes, dublin is too big for the size of the country, a bit like athens and greece. Both countries with immense problems.

Tragedy

How is it any way comparable to Athens and Greece, other than like many, MANY countries it has a very large capital and only a few small regional cities?

25% of English people live in the London metropolitan area. Higher in Cardiff/Wales. Could probably find 50 more countries with similar stats to Ireland.

liammur

They're both bankrupt countries, big capitals in small countries, too many resources being diverted to 1 area. Desperate policy and a very expensive one.

Tragedy

Ireland isn't bankrupt(yet?). Greeces problems stem mainly from a culture of tax avoidance, although the Civil Service doesn't help.

It's also the 74th most populous country in the world whereas Ireland is the 120th.

So they really have feck all in common.

D.L.R.

OK but besides GREECE (a well thought out and balanced example of course), you also have UK, France, Denmark, Austria, Norway, Belgium, Czech, Sweden, Finland, also most German states, Spanish regions, Italian regions, Portugal...

Its how society works. Its fundamental to a thriving Ireland to have a main centre which works well. Then the other cities can't help but see the benefits. Decentralisation is a bad idea. Ireland can't have a blanket of equal opportunities spread over the entire land mass. We tried that and look what happened - KAPUT!

Jaysus we're slow learners but.