Advertisement
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

NAMA and the future development of Dublin transport

  • 24-10-2010 9:19pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 BrianD


    One of the problems that we face in Dublin that much public transport is reactionary (we;ve built the houses better provide transport), led by the agenda of a few (we want to build houses and we'll pay for transport provision) or perceived need (Metro North) and there is no strategic planning or vision for a transport system.

    It would be fair to say that urban planning and transport planning are intertwined. One requires the other. We need to provide public transport (of any type) to communities within the city and those communities must be developed enough to make transport sustainable and economical in the long run.

    In the past it was stated that large amounts of development land in the Dublin area were controlled by a few developers who drip fed them onto the market. It seemed me that often Dublin development plans were reactionary and had to second guess what these developers wanted to do. It seems that DCC were unable to dictate how parts of the city would be developed as it was really the developers who were in the driving seat.

    Now that there is so much of these land banks going back into NAMA is it not a perfect opportunity for the various councils in Dublin (and elsewhere in the country) to start a new process of urban planning which will allow for sustainable transport systems.
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭ dubhthach


    TBH DCC has very little say given that only about half of the urban area is within it's boundary. A large part of the sprawl is due to other councils piggy backing on the city, after all wasn't it bertie who said "a rising tide lifts all boats" :rolleyes:

    The development of Tallaght/Clondalkin/Lucan/Blancharstown were called "New Towns" however other then rezoning vast tracts of lands for their development chums not one bit of urban planning was applied. Where planners actually tried to do their job their opinion were systematically ignored by councillors.

    As result you had tonnes of houses with no facilities (shops/schools etc) and all car dependent. At least with Adamstown there is a proper development plan in place. However for bulk of the Dublin area the horse had already bolted 30 years ago


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 BrianD


    True, even though that NAMA does have valuable sites within the DCC, the main development is going to be outside the DCC. For convenience let;s say outside the M50 ring. You don't have to far outside the M50 to see open fields and one would suspect that much of this land is developer owned.

    I would agree with you that for many parts the horse has already bolted and had the boom continued he would even be further away! However, with land now passing into NAMA control - technically government control - then how may be an opportunity to do something.

    On the other side of the coin, NAMAs objective is to maximise the value of the assets it obtains for the state. One wonders how compatible this will be with good planning?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,265 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    BrianD wrote: »
    On the other side of the coin, NAMAs objective is to maximise the value of the assets it obtains for the state. One wonders how compatible this will be with good planning?

    That is an interesting point, perhaps it would be cheaper in the long run to hold onto this land for as long as possible instead of selling them off as soon as the market picks up again. Although it would be very difficult to convince the majority of the population of this country of this. The state has the oppertunity now to prevent future housing bubbles by holding onto land around the M50 and releasing it onto the market for development when there is an actual demand for it (in 50 years time maybe).


  • Registered Users Posts: 760 ✭✭✭ dRNk SAnTA


    I agree with the desire to see transport development linked with land development. It is surely a issue of zoning and a long history of crazy county-development plans, and contraventions of those plans. The Green Party have introduced some reforms recently but I don't know how far they go.

    As regards NAMA, I'm not sure that buying up thousands of acres at a "long-term economic price" and then intentionally destroying their market value by never developing them is the best use of tax payer money...

    NAMA should remain completely free from political interference and do whatever it can to make money. Zoning is the issue, and it doesn't get enough media attention.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,265 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    dRNk SAnTA wrote: »
    I agree with the desire to see transport development linked with land development. It is surely a issue of zoning and a long history of crazy county-development plans, and contraventions of those plans. The Green Party have introduced some reforms recently but I don't know how far they go.

    As regards NAMA, I'm not sure that buying up thousands of acres at a "long-term economic price" and then intentionally destroying their market value by never developing them is the best use of tax payer money...

    NAMA should remain completely free from political interference and do whatever it can to make money. Zoning is the issue, and it doesn't get enough media attention.

    Nobody said anything about never developing the land, instead we should learn from the mistakes of the last 20 years and develop it when there is an actual demand for it. Artificially inflating the market value of the land in order for short term benefits is not wise and is what has us in the mess we are currently in. There is plenty of land closer to the city centre that should be developed before going near the M50. In terms of value for money for the taxpayer, it would make more sense to build MN and IC and develop along those corridors which would make those projects more viable. Alternatively we could go for the traditional Irish approach and build MN and IC at a cost of €5billion, then develop low density residential estates around the M50 and be forced to build Metro West, costing us another €1billion and then subsidies the public transport system because the critical mass does not exist for it to pay for itself. Indeed NAMA should remain free from political interference but as BrianD alluded to, good planning should be fundamental to its operations.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement