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

Should Ireland become a city state?

  • 22-02-2012 12:11pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭ AngryLips


    Given the relatively small population and the strengths and attractions posed by Dublin over the regions should Government policy give up the illusion of balanced development and concentrate on promoting Ireland as a city state with Dublin at the core?


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,775 Spacedog


    no, Dublin is a kip. it should be written off, and focus put on the rest of the country... except Cork obviously.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭✭✭ prisoner42


    Yea Dublin should be given up on as well as the other cities a modern city with future planning for energy efficiency and modern transport links should be planned could be based in the west of ireland to take advantage of tidal energy.
    but it rains way to much over there.
    Its a shame Ireland doesn't have some natural disasters to get rid of some of the out dated cities everyone is holding onto.

    we could plan it like masdar city couldn't find a better video for this saw it on some bbc documentary recently looked really cool.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyghLnbp20U

    just need a cool Irish name for it to represent the city of the future.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭ celticbest


    prisoner42 wrote: »
    just need a cool Irish name for it to represent the city of the future.

    Nama?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 antoobrien


    It already is, what's best for dublin is considered what's best for the country.

    But then the development of the Dublin region at the expense of the rest of the country is one of the underlying factors in the price boom of the past 10-15 years.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 BluntGuy


    I certainly agree the illusion should be abandoned, but promoting Ireland as a city state? What do you think the specific advantages of that would be?
    prisoner42 wrote: »
    Yea Dublin should be given up on as well as the other cities

    You make it sound so simple.
    a modern city with future planning for energy efficiency and modern transport links should be planned could be based in the west of ireland to take advantage of tidal energy.

    You propose building a modern city in the place most isolated from the centers of commerce, where much of our most beautiful scenery is?
    we could plan it like masdar city couldn't find a better video for this saw it on some bbc documentary recently looked really cool.

    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭ AngryLips


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I certainly agree the illusion should be abandoned, but promoting Ireland as a city state? What do you think the specific advantages of that would be?

    I didn't suggest promotion/ I just meant that Government policy should reflect the reality instead of maintaining a pretence... it would be to the benefit of the entire country.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 BluntGuy


    AngryLips wrote: »
    I didn't suggest promotion/ I just meant that Government policy should reflect the reality instead of maintaining a pretence... it would be to the benefit of the entire country.

    Well I think businesses will generally probably invest where they see as fit, regardless. That's why Limerick (allegedly) "lost out" to Dundalk on the recent Paypal jobs.

    I don't normally like citing "local" papers, but the last paragraph is bang on the money:

    http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/business/breaking_limerick_was_never_in_running_for_paypal_as_1000_jobs_set_to_be_announced_for_dundalk_1_3542489
    Dundalk was seen as a more advantageous location as being “practically a part of Greater Dublin” and with a bigger pool of people with language skills critical for the new call centre.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭ Cool Mo D


    antoobrien wrote: »
    It already is, what's best for dublin is considered what's best for the country.

    But then the development of the Dublin region at the expense of the rest of the country is one of the underlying factors in the price boom of the past 10-15 years.

    Quite the opposite! Massive housing estates were built on the outskirts of county towns up and down the country, while lots of prime sites in Dublin were left undeveloped. Motorways criss-cross the country, while public transport in Dublin is still a shambles. The IDA has been trying to encourage business to set up anywhere but Dublin for at least 10 years (even though they haven't really suceeded).


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 antoobrien


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Quite the opposite! Massive housing estates were built on the outskirts of county towns up and down the country, while lots of prime sites in Dublin were left undeveloped. Motorways criss-cross the country, while public transport in Dublin is still a shambles. The IDA has been trying to encourage business to set up anywhere but Dublin for at least 10 years (even though they haven't really suceeded).

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 BluntGuy


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Quite the opposite! Massive housing estates were built on the outskirts of county towns up and down the country, while lots of prime sites in Dublin were left undeveloped. Motorways criss-cross the country, while public transport in Dublin is still a shambles. The IDA has been trying to encourage business to set up anywhere but Dublin for at least 10 years (even though they haven't really suceeded).

    If that article is to be believed, the IDA were trying to get Paypal to set up in Limerick. Ultimately Paypal decided what would be best for the company was to be close to Dublin.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭ Cool Mo D


    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.

    Much of the north end of O'Connell street and the west part of parnell street have been boarded up for years. There are big sites on the quays on Ormond Quay and behind the 4 courts. Much of Tara street has been been empty or half empty for years. Large amounts of land beside the Luas line on the northside is single storey commercial premises which should be built up, and the same on Aungier street on the southside.

    Then there are brownfield sites like Grangegorman, Botanic road in Phibsboro, Bolands Mill in grand Canal dock, and dotted around the south docks.

    And that's just in the city centre. There is also space for public transport-focused development along the railway line into Heuston, and along the Maynooth line, south of Blanchardstown and north of the Phoenix park.

    This also applies to sites in Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford, which should have been the priority for development, rather than more rural areas.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 antoobrien


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Much of the north end of O'Connell street and the west part of parnell street have been boarded up for years. There are big sites on the quays on Ormond Quay and behind the 4 courts. Much of Tara street has been been empty or half empty for years. Large amounts of land beside the Luas line on the northside is single storey commercial premises which should be built up, and the same on Aungier street on the southside.

    Then there are brownfield sites like Grangegorman, Botanic road in Phibsboro, Bolands Mill in grand Canal dock, and dotted around the south docks.

    And that's just in the city centre. There is also space for public transport-focused development along the railway line into Heuston, and along the Maynooth line, south of Blanchardstown and north of the Phoenix park.

    This also applies to sites in Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford, which should have been the priority for development, rather than more rural areas.

    So more tax breaks to fund these like Georges dock? They're not being developed because it's (a) prohibitively expensive or (b) objections - soemthing we know all about with the nimby's in Galway.


    Tell me where has the infrastructure spending occurred? There have been two projects that I can think of that are not Dublin centric (i.e. directly for the access of Dublin) - the M18 Limerick to Galway dc/motorway (part of the ARC) and the WRC.

    The rather ludicrous notion that MN is a national project because it's in Dublin and passes a hospital, pitch and airport is obscene. If a similar argument was made in Cork or Galway the arguer would be laughed all the way to the funny farm. But because it's in Dublin it's of national importance - such rubbish is what's ruining this country.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭ AngryLips


    Ultimately, targeting investment on a more concentrated population centred around Dublin will cost less to the exchequer and leave more to spend on essential public services.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 560 Jehuty42


    antoobrien wrote: »
    But because it's in Dublin it's of national importance

    Er, well, yeah, it is. Sorry.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 BluntGuy


    antoobrien wrote: »
    The rather ludicrous notion that MN is a national project because it's in Dublin and passes a hospital, pitch and airport is obscene. If a similar argument was made in Cork or Galway the arguer would be laughed all the way to the funny farm. But because it's in Dublin it's of national importance - such rubbish is what's ruining this country.

    I remember a similar argument coming up in the Metro North thread, anto.

    My points remain the same.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73770646&postcount=1309

    Curiously, Paypal was mentioned in that post too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 antoobrien


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I remember a similar argument coming up in the Metro North thread, anto.

    My points remain the same.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73770646&postcount=1309

    Curiously, Paypal was mentioned in that post too.

    Yeah, and through the use of logic you can prove the moon is made of green cheese when you set up the rules just so.

    If all you're looking at it the present and not the future then of course all you're going to do is pump money into Dublin. But that totally ignores the fact that Dublin has become too big for its own good and to make it viable (not sustainable) we have to talk about things like bringing water from the Shannon.

    The question you seem to be asking is "where can we do most good now?"

    The question that needs to be asked is "where can we do most good in the future?"

    If you break the Dublin centric thinking, the first question becomes part of the second instead of just supplanting it (as is currently the case).


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭ Cool Mo D


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Yeah, and through the use of logic you can prove the moon is made of green cheese when you set up the rules just so.

    If all you're looking at it the present and not the future then of course all you're going to do is pump money into Dublin. But that totally ignores the fact that Dublin has become too big for its own good and to make it viable (not sustainable) we have to talk about things like bringing water from the Shannon.

    The question you seem to be asking is "where can we do most good now?"

    The question that needs to be asked is "where can we do most good in the future?"

    If you break the Dublin centric thinking, the first question becomes part of the second instead of just supplanting it (as is currently the case).

    The bigger and denser a city is, the more sustainable it is, because you can use resources much more efficiently than for a spread out population.


  • Registered Users Posts: 129 ✭✭ tharlear


    The bigger and denser a city is, the more sustainable it is, because you can use resources much more efficiently than for a spread out population.

    Then why are the big densist cities of the world the most expensive places to live and highest taxed places in the world. (dublin was the exception 6 years ago, low density, same taxes as the rest of the country, high cost of living, housing)


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,990 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    tharlear wrote: »
    Then why are the big densist cities of the world the most expensive places to live and highest taxed places in the world. (dublin was the exception 6 years ago, low density, same taxes as the rest of the country, high cost of living, housing)

    Supply and demand, people want to live there because of the better services and available jobs. The better jobs and services are there because more people live there.

    There is no question that is is cheaper to deliver services in a city. You don't need to think even for two seconds to realise that.

    Why do you think the ESB charge more for electricity in rural areas, or why do Eircom have a higher fee for laying a phone line in rural areas or why do only big cities have underground rail services?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭ AngryLips


    tharlear wrote: »
    Then why are the big densist cities of the world the most expensive places to live and highest taxed places in the world.

    Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Even if the entire country decided to move to Dublin tomorrow it'd still be no bigger than Berlin. We're not talking about Tokyo or Bangkok here...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭ Solair


    Eh... no.

    It would be a total impossibility!

    Most of the population of Ireland does not live in Dublin and you can't just move millions of people or ignore the rest of the country.

    We do need to be a lot less GAA-shirt mentality about development though. There's a lot of sense in concentrating development on the major hubs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭ Ben D Bus


    Solair wrote: »
    We do need to be a lot less GAA-shirt mentality about development though.

    Amen to that!

    Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford, Sligo, Kilkenny, Letterkenny, Athlone, Dundalk. Not to mention Belfast & Derry. That's already more than enough urban locations for such a small (population & geography) country. If the focus could be on those, as per the National Spatial Strategy then we'd be making progress.

    But the GAA Shirt and the electoral system gave us the likes of the decentralisation project which has now thankfully been canned and partly reversed.

    When selling Ireland abroad though, the country should be marketed as a single entity. Let the multinationals evaluate specific locations themselves.


  • Registered Users Posts: 129 ✭✭ tharlear


    There is no question that is is cheaper to deliver services in a city. You don't need to think even for two seconds to realise that.

    Not always true. Due to existing infrastructure it is often more expensive to deliver/upgrade services in large cities.

    Why do you think the ESB charge more for electricity in rural areas, or why do Eircom have a higher fee for laying a phone line in rural areas or why do only big cities have underground rail services

    Big cities have underground rails services that are incredibly expensive to build because of, as state above "existing infrastructure".
    It would be cheaper to pick cork or limerick or even galway (which has a natural boundary splitting it in 2) and build one of them into a city of 500K to 700k than to try to provide the same services to a dublin of 2.5 million. Its way cheaper to build on a open site and plan were you are going to build roads/rail and services than to try to squeeze them under an existing city. You can leave easement for future development also when there is nothing there.

    look at the expansion of city in china recently, cities like Shenzhen, Guangdong etc. much cheaper to build the underground down the middle of a street where space was left than in older cities like HK "dublin" where they had to go under a completed city.

    Your argument maybe correct for new cities vs rural but not for upgrading badly planned cities v rural


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,278 ✭✭✭ dowlingm


    tharlear wrote: »
    Due to existing infrastructure it is often more expensive to deliver/upgrade services in large cities.
    For example - Luas Point Extension through the heart of the IFSC.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 BluntGuy


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Yeah, and through the use of logic you can prove the moon is made of green cheese when you set up the rules just so.

    If your premises are wrong, sure.
    If all you're looking at it the present and not the future then of course all you're going to do is pump money into Dublin. But that totally ignores the fact that Dublin has become too big for its own good and to make it viable (not sustainable) we have to talk about things like bringing water from the Shannon.

    You've just decided this, based on... the fact water has to be pumped there? Really? What criteria does a city need to reach before it's "too big for its own good"?
    The question you seem to be asking is "where can we do most good now?"

    The question that needs to be asked is "where can we do most good in the future?"

    If you break the Dublin centric thinking, the first question becomes part of the second instead of just supplanting it (as is currently the case).

    I'm fairly sure Dublin is going to continue generating most of the country's wealth for the forseeable future. Despite the best efforts of successive governments to invest as little as possible in Dublin, people continue to naturally migrate there.
    tharlear wrote:
    It would be cheaper to pick cork or limerick or even galway (which has a natural boundary splitting it in 2) and build one of them into a city of 500K to 700k than to try to provide the same services to a dublin of 2.5 million. Its way cheaper to build on a open site and plan were you are going to build roads/rail and services than to try to squeeze them under an existing city. You can leave easement for future development also when there is nothing there.

    It may well be cheaper to do such but you have to build your infrastructure in the places where people live and work, and where people are likely to live and work. You can't just build on some open site and decide X amount of people will live here. The fact is that over a million do live in Dublin, and they're not moving any time soon because that's where they live and work. The reality is that infrastructure has to be provided there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭ AngryLips


    Solair wrote: »
    Eh... no.

    It would be a total impossibility!

    Most of the population of Ireland does not live in Dublin and you can't just move millions of people or ignore the rest of the country.

    No one's talking about the forced movement of people here. And as a matter of fact there are 1.8 million people living in greater Dublin, that's nearly half the population.
    tharlear wrote: »
    Not always true. Due to existing infrastructure it is often more expensive to deliver/upgrade services in large cities.

    Such as the roll out of high speed broadband ...oh wait :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 antoobrien


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    You've just decided this, based on... the fact water has to be pumped there? Really? What criteria does a city need to reach before it's "too big for its own good"?

    Water has to be pumped into dublin because it's too expensive and politically inconvenient to fix the mess that has been allowed to grow. That is one of the things that is making it unsustainable in my view.
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    It may well be cheaper to do such but you have to build your infrastructure in the places where people live and work, and where people are likely to live and work. You can't just build on some open site and decide X amount of people will live here. The fact is that over a million do live in Dublin, and they're not moving any time soon because that's where they live and work. The reality is that infrastructure has to be provided there.

    Yeah let's take a look at the 1m+ people living in Dublin.

    1/3 of them were not born in Dublin - so it seems that Dublin has to import people to keep itself going.

    I work in an office in Dublin with about 300 people in this location. I know of 20 Dublin people working for the company. The rest of the people are from outside Dublin.

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭ AngryLips


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Water has to be pumped into dublin because it's too expensive and politically inconvenient to fix the mess that has been allowed to grow. That is one of the things that is making it unsustainable in my view.

    But this is the case with many cities and not just Dublin. Singapore has to have water pumped in from Malaysia; Kuwait City has to build costly desalinisation plants to provide their fresh water, Dublin isn't unique in this regard and it's certainly not an extreme case. What are you suggesting as the solution for water supply in the capital? To be honest the issue of water from the Shannon is probably the biggest red herring in the entire debate that's rooted in an unfounded persecution complex of the west. There is nothing being sacrified by local communities to facilitate it yet somehow it has become an issue. It's not "unsustainable" because, in light of the fact that Dublin is the number one driver of economic growth, it's makes perfect sense. If you're going to talk about examples of unsustainable investments then I could think of many examples to add to the list but very few of them would be in Dublin.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    Yeah let's take a look at the 1m+ people living in Dublin.

    1/3 of them were not born in Dublin - so it seems that Dublin has to import people to keep itself going.

    I work in an office in Dublin with about 300 people in this location. I know of 20 Dublin people working for the company. The rest of the people are from outside Dublin.

    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.

    Isn't this just proving the point of the topic though?


  • Registered Users Posts: 129 ✭✭ tharlear


    It may well be cheaper to do such but you have to build your infrastructure in the places where people live and work, and where people are likely to live and work. You can't just build on some open site and decide X amount of people will live here. The fact is that over a million do live in Dublin, and they're not moving any time soon because that's where they live and work. The reality is that infrastructure has to be provided there.


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 invinciblePRSTV


    Could we not make the argument based on social transfers that we are effectively a city state already? The GDA pays for the midlands and West, with the smaller 'cities' just about covering the costs of their rural county hinterlands.

    Also based on a report I think by the Irish Academy of engineering which was posted here a while back concerning spatial planning until 2030 - they forecast in one of their scenario's that if we stay on the same path of spatial planning as currently envisaged by the NSS and planning guideline's as is, that this will only increase the dominance of the GDA as an economic and population entity. This come's at the expense of the provincial urban area's as most will choose to live in a one-off somewhere in the midlands or east coast which was formerly rural Ireland, whilst the smaller cities whither and the exurb doughnuts around them grow yet further.


Advertisement