Should Ireland become a city state?

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?

Spacedog

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

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.

celticbest

prisoner42 wrote: »

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

Nama?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jehuty42

antoobrien wrote: »

But because it's in Dublin it's of national importance

Er, well, yeah, it is. Sorry.

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.

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).

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.

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)

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?

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

BluntGuy

tharlear wrote: »

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

I have.

And it doesn't always work like that.

But that's how Dublin MA got to be 1.8 million. There was little infrastructure in Ireland 25 years ago and what there was, was in Dublin. Job and people moved there, housing estates were built. Then 10 years later they have to figure out where to put the roads rail school .

They don't have to "figure it out". Infrastructure proposals were in place, and are in place, successive governments have just failed to build them.

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

Evidence?

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

No one can argue that housing planning and zoning wasn't poor. That doesn't change the fact that people live there and require infrastructure.

This is something that can never be achieved in Dublin as most of residential building is complete with no transport system in place.

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

Build a north ring road in cork

It's in the plans. Dunkettle needs to be sorted first though.

and invest in some public transport

Cork would have the same issues as Dublin for putting in transport, except without the critical density to support it. This doesn't mean I don't support proposals to improve the bus system and if light rail is feasible in the future, provision should be made for it.

and plan the city and you would have a city of 750K in 20 years with none of the cost associated with retrofitting a city like Dublin.

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

I also want to see Cork doing well. But we have to be realistic about its growth prospects. It would be good to see the docklands proposals go ahead at some point. As far as I recall they have provision for light rail.

It would attract industry and job and then the people, just as dublin has done for the last 20 years, at 1/3 of the cost. The chinese do this every day, Shenshen was a fishing village in 1980, its now over 15 million.

Dublin didn't grow 275% between 1990 and 2012. Comparisons to the Chinese are really not apt for a country of this size.

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

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

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

antoobrien

BluntGuy wrote: »

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

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

John_Rambo

antoobrien wrote: »

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

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

Dublin pumps money in to the country.

The country pumps water and people in to Dublin.

Hotblack Desiato

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

Hotblack Desiato

tharlear wrote: »

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

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

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

The M50 was supposed to have been completed in the 1970s. Most of the Dublin rail plan from the 1970s hasn't been built yet. Go to a proper European city and see what a functioning city needs. What benefits Dublin benefits Ireland as a whole, Dublin taxes support most of the rest of the country yet it seems all you want to do is do Dublin down.

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

How does more development make underground rail more expensive?
Dublin should certainly have a decent underground system by now.
The alternative to dense development is sprawl, and we've already had far too much of that. Sprawl which can't be serviced economically in any way and especially with fast frequent public transport.

It time to forget dublin, and start again some where else.

Right, and consign its inhabitants, and the companies and jobs here, to what?
Like it or not, and you clearly don't appear to like it, Dublin is the engine of the Irish economy and that will always be the case. Every country has a capital city.

May be dublin as a city sate is a good idea. It would let the rest of the county fend for itself.

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

Hotblack Desiato

John_Rambo wrote: »

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

Dublin pumps money in to the country.

The country pumps water and people in to Dublin.

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

John_Rambo

ninja900 wrote: »

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

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

murphaph

tharlear wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

I'd love it if Dublin could be left fend for itself. Be careful what you wish for!

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

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

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

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

Wild Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wild Bill

BluntGuy wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Wild Bill

antoobrien wrote: »

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

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

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

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

John_Rambo

antoobrien wrote: »

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

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

antoobrien wrote: »

I think it was shaw said it about Dublin universities originally, I'm going change it slightly:

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

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

You're an adult now, grow up.

Wild Bill

John_Rambo wrote: »

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

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

You're an adult now, grow up.

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

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

looksee

ninja900 wrote: »

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

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

FreudianSlippers

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

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

mikemac1

John_Rambo wrote: »

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

Dublin pumps money in to the country.

The country pumps water and people in to Dublin.

Our council is willing to sell the Shannon water to Dublin
Get the cheque book ready

Dublin will have to pay North Tipperary large amounts of cash for taking millions of gallons of water from Lough Derg to supplement the capital’s dwindling supplies, local county councillors insisted this week.

Councillor Jim Casey said North Tipperary County Council needed to place itself in “a bargaining position” with Dublin City Council in regard to that local authority’s plans to pipe Lough Derg water to the capital.

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

He added: “There’s a price on everything and a cost on everything. Our water is an asset here and I think we should bargain for it from the beginning.”

http://www.nenaghguardian.ie/news-detail.php?article=WEAKTD

We can sell water, our county is rich

Just an example of the mentality that is out there

FreudianSlippers

mikemac1 wrote: »

Our council is willing to sell the Shannon water to Dublin
Get the cheque book ready




We can sell water, our county is rich

We can also generate and sell massive amounts of ecologically sound energy through tidal, wave and wind generation... not that we will.

John_Rambo

Wild Bill wrote: »

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

He clearly doesn't know Dublin! And who made you moderator?

mikemac1 wrote: »

Get the cheque book ready

It will bounce!

schween

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

BluntGuy

C'mon guys, let's stick to debating the topic, rather than personal jibes or cheap digs.

FreudianSlippers wrote:

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

I agree with this.

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

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-liberty-hall-to-climb-higher-into-the-capital-sky-3031383.html

schween wrote: »

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

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