Sustainable Development in Rural Towns

Ironé

I live in a small rural town in Cork and I am involved in the local community development association. We, like many towns across the country face the problem of empty, often derelict buildings in our town centre. Luckily we don't have any ghost estates - that passed us by thankfully.

Rural life is changing so much - a large number of people are commuting and therefore shopping/banking outside the town. People are going to bigger towns to shop in large shops and this is having a huge effect on the small local businesses in the town. The same story for most small towns in Ireland I can imagine.

I am posting here to maybe hear some ideas some of you may have as to how we could develop our community in a sustainable way. We live in a beautiful area, have a rich heritage: history, music and dancing. So have a lot to offer.

The main thing that needs to be tackled I feel is the derelict buildings - many have no central heating, no double glazed windows, are damp and almost derelict. My idea is that we get all the owners together and find out what problems they are facing (legal? financial?) and why the buildings are empty. If we could get a few together perhaps we could get a reduced rate on getting the work done as a group - maybe by getting apprentices in to learn their trade? We could do some 'Property Dating' see if we can get some potential businesses interested in properties?

Any feedback would be really appreciated.

dardhal

Ironé wrote: »

Rural life is changing so much - a large number of people are commuting and therefore shopping/banking outside the town. People are going to bigger towns to shop in large shops and this is having a huge effect on the small local businesses in the town. The same story for most small towns in Ireland I can imagine.

It's easy to understand why people no longer make their shopping locally if you put yourself in their shoes. If you are working 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, by the time you arrive to your local village the small shops are all closed. Even if you are not working, it is sometimes less convenient to jump from shop to shop to do the groceries, than it is to drive the car to the nearest shopping center, and do everything at once.

What you describe doesn't only happens in small towns, but also in urban areas where small business struggle to get customers through the door due to tight schedules and convenience. The only way for small business to succeed is, sometimes, gather around at a same place (a market) and offer just about the same product range a big supermarket can, maybe not at the same (lower) prices, but that may be compensated by more skilled professionals and quality produce. You can't still offer much outside the daily groceries and stuff like that, but at least you may be able to get the Mon-Fri shoppers to your door.

But that takes lots of disparate people joining together on a shared project with a difficult to agree for all business proposal, a high initial investment, and uncertain profitability.

The main thing that needs to be tackled I feel is the derelict buildings - many have no central heating, no double glazed windows, are damp and almost derelict.

Even here in Ireland where there is no proper "property tax" in place (and the current one is a laughable 100€), just being the owner of a property costs money. You'd better have it insured, the better the older the property. Keeping a building in good condition costs money even if empty, but fixing and old and uncared place to make it suitable for tenants (be them either businesses or people) is extremely expensive.

Few people prefer to have a place being a source of expenses rather than being a source of income, but to turn an old place into something with any market value (and according to current regulations) is an investment that most of the time you can't or don't want to afford. There is too much risk in the whole operation at a very long term and (maybe) painful payback.

Retrofitting older building is even more expensive, much more than building from scratch on the same plot of land. You can't expect owner to shell thousands to refurbish a place according to local and national laws and regulations for no gain. Most older places would be better demolished that falling apart slowly, but that's not an allowed option for most places.

What can you do? Lobby policymakers to allow owners to bring down old places and (with some restrictions) build new ones. Quite cheaper than the other option, and you can get the same look and feel and the old one if you want. And pray for credit to flow and people to have real interest (and money) on investing / purchasing those places.

Corkblowin

dardhal wrote: »

Retrofitting older building is even more expensive, much more than building from scratch on the same plot of land. You can't expect owner to shell thousands to refurbish a place according to local and national laws and regulations for no gain. Most older places would be better demolished that falling apart slowly, but that's not an allowed option for most places.

What can you do? Lobby policymakers to allow owners to bring down old places and (with some restrictions) build new ones. Quite cheaper than the other option, and you can get the same look and feel and the old one if you want. And pray for credit to flow and people to have real interest (and money) on investing / purchasing those places.

You cannot say retrofitting existing buildings is automatically more expensive, nor is it environmentally sustainable - the embodied energy in existing buildings should not be dismissed.

However much more importantly, many of these buildings are part of our national heritage and are irreplaceable - far to many of our towns and villages have been destroyed by crappy mock traditional replacements - the proportions and elegance are never replicated. It should not be our first instinct to demolish.

I think OP you have the right idea talking about what you have in terms of community - a village is much more than its building stock.

dardhal

Corkblowin wrote: »

You cannot say retrofitting existing buildings is automatically more expensive, nor is it environmentally sustainable - the embodied energy in existing buildings should not be dismissed.

Not necessarily more expensive every time, but if you have to keep the facades, make foundations resistant, replace the roof, and make the whole building match the current regulations, it is going to be more expensive to much more expensive than starting from scratch.

Energy balances are a nice theoretical concept, and I am the first that privately and with MY money, try to live frugally, but you can't force people on an average wage to prioritize long term energy balance to available money and convenience.

However much more importantly, many of these buildings are part of our national heritage and are irreplaceable - far to many of our towns and villages have been destroyed by crappy mock traditional replacements - the proportions and elegance are never replicated. It should not be our first instinct to demolish.

I would like to agree, the problem being, who is going to put the money to save that "heritage" from collapsing? The owner, you, the taxpayers as a whole? I understand there are certain buildings must be kept due to sound historical reasons. But how many of the period houses in Dublin, for example, must be kept as they are? It's easy to see that even after a crazy housing boom, a big part of the city center is in extreme danger of collapsing, and that's because keeping the "feeling" and original appearance of such old constructions is complex, but specially, expensive.

How much "heritage" is too much, and at what expense? Those "mock" buildings you mention are used by families and companies, which few of the older "historic" places can say. And those which are still in use tend to be filthy creepy nasty places noone likes to be in or around.

If keeping heritage is letting buildings go down due to lack of maintenance, because it simply doesn't pay off due to current regulations, instead of "mock" buildings in the city center you will end will piles of debris in the same city center, with no families or businesses. Is that the kind of cities we want, surrounded by miles after miles of stupid and ultra-inefficient urban-sprawled developments. Lots of people want to live in the city centers, but they can't because "keeping heritage" is against common sense and very expensive. So big city centers are...what they are now, places were mostly low-profile immigrants, elderlies and knackers live, the rest of us move elsewhere.

I think OP you have the right idea talking about what you have in terms of community - a village is much more than its building stock.

You are very right, and it's very sad, because if it were a matter of building stock only money would be in the way. But unfortunately, there is no sense of community anymore (here in Ireland, or in my home country). Is "community" a very nice and recent development where mostly middle-upper class people live, and you can find from drink cans on the floor, to neighbours speeding on the streets, to others letting their dogs crap of the common gardens, or making noise every weekend until late at night? Unfortunately, I have lost faith in the human race long ago, and for a reason :-(

Corkblowin

Buildings do not create anti-social behaviour - people do. Replacing original buildings with modern (and in many cases, but not all) less attractive structures will not improve the behaviour of the people occupying them or the neighbouring buildings.

@. However the instances of it should be reduced.

The same effect can be seen in the modern housing estates you mention. Some are living in places because it was all they could afford, or were put there through the Council housing lists. There is no centre to may either. Consequently there is no sense of belonging to the area, or community spirit. In time, as the estates mature this may come. But it takes time.

What the OP is looking for here is the right approach. What these estates lack is a sense of community participation. Seeking to involve local people in deciding what to do and then carrying out the work will create a sense of the place being 'ours', and generate a sense of pride that, hopefully, will bring everyone together and lift the entire town. This is not guaranteed, but has a better chance of success than a scheme or development proposed by outside agencies such as developers or even the Local Authority.

By illustration - the Ballymun regeneration project was having problems with the new areas it built - usual anti-social behaviour of the gardens, trees and equipment installed by the council being broken or wrecked. Rather than simply replace everything or abandon the people, the regeneration team got the local residents together and they all worked to create a design and then planted new gardens, trees, benches over a few evenings. As the community were involved not only in the design but the actual construction of the open space they now felt it was 'theirs', and there has been no repeat of the widespread destruction.

Such methods are harder in larger towns and cities, but by no means impossible. Like I said - the first instinct should be to protect and save what we have - buildings and streets of character and history - rather than replace with new, but soul-less structures. Other european countries seem to manage it - many UK villages are a wealth of historic houses - theres no reason why we can't too.