Knocknacara Houses knocked for access?

pmasterson95

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

One and one only exit from an area is madness. What happens if there's a collision and the roadway is close? Oh that's right, no one goes anywhere.

Making humans walk the long way around to that one exit, when that could an an extra kilometre to the trip just forces people to use their cars for journeys that shouldn't need to be by car. Scummers just jump the walls anyway.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

If someone is going to be forced to walk "through the one entrance" 15 minutes to get to a bus stop and then take a longer journey by public transport they're more likely to take their car instead.
It really is quite simple, permeability is about making walking, cycling and using public transport an easier option for people, is it really that difficult to understand?

well as I've said before. I would just walk those 15 minutes. I dont drive. So its really not that confusing. Some people can walk without the need to martyr themselves. If you want to walk you can walk. Apparently its the simple art of walking that is too complicated.

fergiesfolly

Well, I don't have any facts or figures to back me up.
Just twenty odd years of living in various estates throughout the city and the anecdotes of family and friends.
There tended to be more experiences of occasional crime in estates where people could walk through unhindered.
I've lived in estates where there were both cul de sacs and multiple access points and always felt safer and saw less occasional crime in the cul de sacs.
Whilst the Gardaí may hate traversing through these small spur estates, their response time is so slow as to make it irrelevant what kind of estates their calling to. Again personal experience and anecdotes of family and friends.

And it is of course a Me Feinism, but very few people want hoards of strangers(cyclist, pedestrian or motorist) passing by the front of their home everyday...ask some of the disgruntled residents in Murrough or Renmore.
It's human nature to want to feel safe and protected( perceived or otherwise) and it's why these estates have become more popular.
It won't suit everyone, but until a majority want to change, the status quo will remain.

Zzippy

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Well, I don't have any facts or figures to back me up.
Just twenty odd years of living in various estates throughout the city and the anecdotes of family and friends.
There tended to be more experiences of occasional crime in estates where people could walk through unhindered.
I've lived in estates where there were both cul de sacs and multiple access points and always felt safer and saw less occasional crime in the cul de sacs.
Whilst the Gardaí may hate traversing through these small spur estates, their response time is so slow as to make it irrelevant what kind of estates their calling to. Again personal experience and anecdotes of family and friends.

And it is of course a Me Feinism, but very few people want hoards of strangers(cyclist, pedestrian or motorist) passing by the front of their home everyday...ask some of the disgruntled residents in Murrough or Renmore.
It's human nature to want to feel safe and protected( perceived or otherwise) and it's why these estates have become more popular.
It won't suit everyone, but until a majority want to change, the status quo will remain.

Murrough/Renmore residents are plagued by motorists using their roads as ratruns, not by pedestrians or cyclists though. If the roads were closed to cars at one end it would make their life a lot nicer, while still allowing pedestrians through access. Not quite the same.

Personally, I live in a cul de sac. The most direct route for me to shops, work, bus stop is via the main entrance. But I live about 100m from a lovely park, that I use occasionally. However, the walk to the park is over a kilometre because of the cul de sac. A pedestrian walkway would make amenity use of the area so much better.

fergiesfolly

Zzippy wrote: »

Murrough/Renmore residents are plagued by motorists using their roads as ratruns, not by pedestrians or cyclists though. If the roads were closed to cars at one end it would make their life a lot nicer, while still allowing pedestrians through access. Not quite the same.

Personally, I live in a cul de sac. The most direct route for me to shops, work, bus stop is via the main entrance. But I live about 100m from a lovely park, that I use occasionally. However, the walk to the park is over a kilometre because of the cul de sac. A pedestrian walkway would make amenity use of the area so much better.

Residents in Murrough/Renmore also have to put up with random students walking through at all hours of the day and night.
If opening a pedestrian access to the playground also made it easier for randomers (scummers) to stroll through your estate, would you still be happy about your shorter walk? Would your neighbours?
And... Why did you choose to live there, if it doesn't suit your needs?
Or is just the shortcut to the park that's bothering you?
If so, you haven't much to complain about.

Unrealistic

I'm not directly impacted on either side of this debate. I don't have a commute that requires me to drive across the city and I don't live in an enclosed estate that forces me to do take roundabout routes when walking. But I can't help noticing that the attitude of 'you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs' with regards to knocking dozens of houses to make some car journeys a few minutes quicker gets completely reversed when it comes to making the journeys of pedestrian's or cyclists a few minutes quicker. In some cases it's even the same posters who were advocating for houses to be knocked to facilitate cars but are now ridiculing the idea that this might be done to facilitate cyclists or pedestrians. It makes me wonder whether the original suggestion about knocking houses in Knocknacarra was made not with any serious intent but just to highlight this hypocrisy.

schemingbohemia

pmasterson95 wrote: »

well as I've said before. I would just walk those 15 minutes. I dont drive. So its really not that confusing. Some people can walk without the need to martyr themselves. If you want to walk you can walk. Apparently its the simple art of walking that is too complicated.

You would, I would probably too, but lots of people won't, that's the problem. Transport planning shows that a ten - twelve minute walk is the most that "most" people will walk to a bus stop, once it gets beyond that people decide to drive instead.
When it comes to cycling the choice of going through your estate in a low speed environment rather than going the long way around to get to a busy main road will obviously impact on people's decisions as to whether they cycle or drive.

Are there any real world examples? Kids being driven to a school behind their house because the walk is too long?

Impermeability is probably adding to congestion.

I understand the feeling that a cul-de-sac is safer but I'm not sure if statistics would see any great difference - a dead end won't stop an opportunistic thief, being spotted by a randomer walking past might.

pmasterson95

schemingbohemia wrote: »

You would, I would probably too, but lots of people won't, that's the problem. Transport planning shows that a ten - twelve minute walk is the most that "most" people will walk to a bus stop, once it gets beyond that people decide to drive instead.
When it comes to cycling the choice of going through your estate in a low speed environment rather than going the long way around to get to a busy main road will obviously impact on people's decisions as to whether they cycle or drive.

Well if people are too lazy to walk then thats a separate problem. I cant see how knocking a few houses will suddenly increase their desire to walk and magically eradicate the laziness. It would just make the drive even shorter for them. People who are lazy will drive. People who arent will walk/cycle. People who want to bitch will bitch.

Zzippy

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Residents in Murrough/Renmore also have to put up with random students walking through at all hours of the day and night.
If opening a pedestrian access to the playground also made it easier for randomers (scummers) to stroll through your estate, would you still be happy about your shorter walk? Would your neighbours?
And... Why did you choose to live there, if it doesn't suit your needs?
Or is just the shortcut to the park that's bothering you?
If so, you haven't much to complain about.

I see randomers jumping the wall all the time anyway so it's not a deterrent. Opening it up would not suddenly bring a rush of randomers walking past my house, it would however make the enjoyment of a local amenity much more convenient for residents and increase the healthy use of said resource by encouraging people to walk more.
Also, I wasn't complaining, just giving an example of how how cul de sacs restrict the movement of pedestrians and discourage walking. Thanks for telling me I haven't much to complain about though...

Mrs OBumble

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any real world examples? Kids being driven to a school behind their house because the walk is too long?

There are number of examples given here: http://www.galwaycycling.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2015_GCC_Submission_Galway_City_Integrated_Traffic_Management_Programme.pdf

I can almost name others. Almost because I don't actually live in the areas, so may get the details wrong - or in some cases solutions (eg pedestrian gates in fences) have been provided since people complained.

Iwannahurl

Zzippy wrote: »

Murrough/Renmore residents are plagued by motorists using their roads as ratruns, not by pedestrians or cyclists though. If the roads were closed to cars at one end it would make their life a lot nicer, while still allowing pedestrians through access. Not quite the same.

Personally, I live in a cul de sac. The most direct route for me to shops, work, bus stop is via the main entrance. But I live about 100m from a lovely park, that I use occasionally. However, the walk to the park is over a kilometre because of the cul de sac. A pedestrian walkway would make amenity use of the area so much better.

As the NTA has pointed out, the deliberate segregation of residential estates has meant that, in addition to the damage done to sustainable transport, the societal objectives of planning (aka social capital) have not been achieved. It says a lot about modern Irish society that we prefer to have people we barely know driving past our house in their cars to people from neighbouring estates walking or cycling past. That's a sick society, in my view. Of course the people who favour such community severance don't feel sick, so they call this sorry state of affairs "the status quo". Our current president has identified this culture as one of "corrosive individualism", and he's right.

Stay away from that park! You might meet a stranger/"randomer"/"scummer"...

Unrealistic wrote: »

I'm not directly impacted on either side of this debate. I don't have a commute that requires me to drive across the city and I don't live in an enclosed estate that forces me to do take roundabout routes when walking. But I can't help noticing that the attitude of 'you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs' with regards to knocking dozens of houses to make some car journeys a few minutes quicker gets completely reversed when it comes to making the journeys of pedestrian's or cyclists a few minutes quicker. In some cases it's even the same posters who were advocating for houses to be knocked to facilitate cars but are now ridiculing the idea that this might be done to facilitate cyclists or pedestrians. It makes me wonder whether the original suggestion about knocking houses in Knocknacarra was made not with any serious intent but just to highlight this hypocrisy.

The impact that really matters is the cumulative one experienced by communities, regardless of whether that impact is consciously felt by individuals. The same principle applies to other permeability issues, such as the total absence of one-way street exemptions for cyclists in the city. A single one-way street may not be a significant barrier to one cyclist on any one occasion or even on repeated occasions, but the aggregate effect is to reduce the general utility and hence the prevalence of cycling generally.

Likewise, impermeable residential estates make walking, cycling and public transport less convenient for the entire community. Individuals may regard this as normal, and may adapt by climbing the walls, by continuing to walk/cycle or by going out less. The generalised effect is less use of sustainable modes of travel and more reliance on cars.

With regard to the demolition of houses, you are right to point out that it is seen as an unfortunate necessity for the facilitation of cars but an "April Fool's" joke when suggested in the context of promoting public transport, walking and cycling.

I've noticed that the OP and his/her supporters has not replied to my question: how would they retrofit housing estates to solve the permeability issue, in situations where there are no suitable gaps between private houses?

Denial that a permeability problem exists is not a satisfactory answer, as the National Transport Authority and others have made clear.

Galway City Council has literally cemented this problem in place. How can it be solved without breaking down walls?

FortySeven

A classic example of this was Fionn Uisce in Doughiska, Galway. A 10ft wall seperated the estate, (mixed residential with large apartment blocks and houses) from the new primary care unit and the doctors, also Lidl was over that wall. If you wanted to walk it was a 1.1km walk, google reckons 14 minutes. More like 20. Hell of a walk with shopping.

https://www.google.ie/maps/dir/53.2853703,-8.9889128/53.2854729,-8.9877521/@53.2847545,-8.9844959,16.25z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e2

fergiesfolly

I suppose the solution would be for residents of individual cul de sacs to approach the local authority to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists. Residents in Castlepark and (I think) Castlelawn convinced them to close off alleys behind some houses.
I personally wouldn't be happy to open any access where I live, but if it suits those it affects the most, fire ahead.

Iwannahurl

FortySeven wrote: »

A classic example of this was Fionn Uisce in Doughiska, Galway. A 10ft wall seperated the estate, (mixed residential with large apartment blocks and houses) from the new primary care unit and the doctors, also Lidl was over that wall. If you wanted to walk it was a 1.1km walk, google reckons 14 minutes. More like 20. Hell of a walk with shopping.

https://www.google.ie/maps/dir/53.2853703,-8.9889128/53.2854729,-8.9877521/@53.2847545,-8.9844959,16.25z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e2

Absolutely standard for Galway, in my experience. I've spoken to officials about the obvious ramifications of this sort of "planning", and the response I've got can be summed up as "it has nothing to do with me".

My understanding is that each "planning" application is looked at individually, and no account is taken of wider issues such as accessibility, permeability, public transport, walking and cycling at district level. This means that, for example, a new supermarket can be deemed to have satisfied traffic and transport conditions if it has a few bike parking stands and a pedestrian entrance somewhere. It is of no relevance or consequence to the "planners" that the development is cut off from neighbouring residential estates, because they are required only to consider the application before them, without reference to the bigger picture.

It also means that, to cite another actual example, the "planners" can claim that a proposed new school development satisfies sustainable transport conditions because there were bike lanes, footpaths and a bus turning circle drawn on the map submitted with the planning application, even though in real life there are no safe and convenient routes for children living in the district to walk or cycle to the school, cars are routinely parked on the bike lanes and footpaths and there is no school bus service.

This is the Irish "planning" process in action, and it's why we are where we are (eg the second highest level of car dependence in the EU28).

fergiesfolly wrote: »

I suppose the solution would be for residents of individual cul de sacs to approach the local authority to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists. Residents in Castlepark and (I think) Castlelawn convinced them to close off alleys behind some houses.
I personally wouldn't be happy to open any access where I live, but if it suits those it affects the most, fire ahead.

This is another aspect of our dysfunctional "planning" system that needs urgent reform. I don't know how it works in practice, but it seems to me that a small group of well-connected or vociferous residents can succeed in thwarting the greater good (ie sustainable urban planning, public transport, walking and cycling) for the benefit of their own private interests.

I've been told of a situation where a community garden and playground, with pedestrian access from two sides, was proposed in association with a school development. A small group of well-connected locals got together and shot down the plan, dictating that there could be a garden or a playground, but not both. They also succeeded in restricting pedestrian access. Of course, in the end neither a playground nor a community garden was provided, and car traffic dominates the entire area.

In contrast, get a group of concerned residents together and try to have some traffic calming installed. It'll take years. I've heard it took fifteen years of campaigning to get traffic calming in Shantalla.

Reactionaries rule.

fergiesfolly

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Absolutely standard for Galway, in my experience. I've spoken to officials about the obvious ramifications of this sort of "planning", and the response I've got can be summed up as "it has nothing to do with me".

My understanding is that each "planning" application is looked at individually, and no account is taken of wider issues such as accessibility, permeability, public transport, walking and cycling at district level. This means that, for example, a new supermarket can be deemed to have satisfied traffic and transport conditions if it has a few bike parking stands and a pedestrian entrance somewhere. It is of no relevance or consequence to the "planners" that the development is cut off from neighbouring residential estates, because they are required only to consider the application before them, without reference to the bigger picture.

It also means that, to cite another actual example, the "planners" can claim that a proposed new school development satisfies sustainable transport conditions because there were bike lanes, footpaths and a bus turning circle drawn on the map submitted with the planning application, even though in real life there are no safe and convenient routes for children living in the district to walk or cycle to the school, cars are routinely parked on the bike lanes and footpaths and there is no school bus service.

This is the Irish "planning" process in action, and it's why we are where we are (eg the second highest level of car dependence in the EU28).




This is another aspect of our dysfunctional "planning" system that needs urgent reform. I don't know how it works in practice, but it seems to me that a small group of well-connected or vociferous residents can succeed in thwarting the greater good (ie sustainable urban planning, public transport, walking and cycling) for the benefit of their own private interests.

I've been told of a situation where a community garden and playground, with pedestrian access from two sides, was proposed in association with a school development. A small group of well-connected locals got together and shot down the plan, dictating that there could be a garden or a playground, but not both. They also succeeded in restricting pedestrian access. Of course, in the end neither a playground nor a community garden was provided, and car traffic dominates the entire area.

In contrast, get a group of concerned residents together and try to have some traffic calming installed. It'll take years. I've heard it took fifteen years of campaigning to get traffic calming in Shantalla.

Reactionaries rule.

Well, I didn't mean a "small group of well-connected or vociferous residents", I meant a majority of residents in a given area, who might want to make changes that would be beneficial to them.
Or are you suggesting that they should have no rights in regard to their own neighbourhood.

Iwannahurl

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Well, I didn't mean a "small group of well-connected or vociferous residents", I meant a majority of residents in a given area, who might want to make changes that would be beneficial to them.
Or are you suggesting that they should have no rights in regard to their own neighbourhood.

As is probably clear by now, for me the greater good in the present context means things such as mixed development, sustainable transport, energy efficiency, healthy communities etc. EU, national and local policy is supposedly based on such principles, even if in these parts they're honoured more in the breach than in the observance.

Therefore, even if only a minority of residents in a given area want such policies implemented, then they have a right to have their voices heard and the required changes made according to public policy.

Conversely, even if a majority of residents want something that is contrary to public policy at EU, national or local level, then they have no right to get what they want.

Ideally the benefits accruing to people in a particular neighbourhood should be benefits to society as a whole. Unfortunately it's too easy in this country for small local groups to achieve the opposite, ie a benefit for them at the expense of the greater good.

Of course these things are open to debate within a society. Some people -- most likely a majority in this country, given the level of car dependence -- think that more cars on more roads is A Good Thing, which is why, for example, the vast majority of (impermeable) residential estates still have a 50 km/h speed limit and no traffic calming, even though national legislation and policy ought to have led to a very different situation by now.

As an example, I have heard of one neighbourhood where a group of concerned residents asked a Councillor to help them get traffic calming installed. The Councillor went away and had plans drawn up, and returned to present the community with the proposals only to be "ran out of it" by a more dominant group of reactionaries (mostly retirees I'll bet) who would not tolerate having to drive their precious cars over such monstrosities. The greater good -- eg the safety of families with young children cycling and walking to school or just crossing the road -- came a poor second to influential private interests, and greater clout trumped greater concern. As for elected representatives, they will find that there are more votes to be had from pleasing the reactionaries than from advocating things such as traffic calming and permeable housing estates.

fergiesfolly

I'd be of the opinion that people have the right to have their neighbourhood laid out and developed to suit themselves(within reason)
And if this puts a hardship on those who don't live there, but will only be using it to ease their own commute, well so be it.
Ten or fifteen miutes added to your journey doesn't compare to the upset it might cause some one who has to live with increased access to their neighbourhood.

On a side note, I'd prefer speed cameras to speed bumps.
They're usually breaking up within months on installation,needing constant attention from council workers, do damage to cars in the long run(regardless of how slow you travel over them) and don't deter the scumbags they're supposed to stop.
Every motorist hates speedbumps, not just OAPs.
I hate them when I'm cycling ffs.

Also, and this is from personal experience as well as parents, family and friends, I've never found any instance where a Councillor will be bullied into making a decision by a few busybodies, when there is a natural majority to do the opposite.
There are occasions where a small vocal minority may want their own way, but if the majorty stand up, it usually comes to nought.
And this includes traffic access, pedestrian access, right of ways, park and recreational areas.

Iwannahurl

Public roads are for the public good. If people want to live out of the way in private enclaves then they can pay for it themselves, although I would also argue that the 'gated community' mindset, imported from the USA or some such bastion of conservative individualism, is also bad for social capital.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Therefore, even if only a minority of residents in a given area want such policies implemented, then they have a right to have their voices heard and the required changes made according to public policy.

Conversely, even if a majority of residents want something that is contrary to public policy at EU, national or local level, then they have no right to get what they want.

What absolute nonsense. Majority rules and non-locals should have no say in what happens in an area. Particularly for people who own their homes and have invested a lot of money in living in an area they should have control over what happens in the area.

I would be massively against the opening up of an estate I was living in. One way in one way out makes for a much nicer, quieter place to live and cuts out people passing through the estate who have no business being there other than walking through it.

Reasons like the above is why I want to build my own house in the country where I dont have to put up with any of this crap and can have a big gate to stop people entering and surrounded by our own land so no passers by either and no one being able to have any control over what happens in my surrounds only ourselves.

pmasterson95

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

What absolute nonsense. Majority rules and non-locals should have no say in what happens in an area. Particularly for people who own their homes and have invested a lot of money in living in an area they should have control over what happens in the area.

I would be massively against the opening up of an estate I was living in. One way in one way out makes for a much nicer, quieter place to live and cuts out people passing through the estate who have no business being there other than walking through it.

Reasons like the above is why I want to build my own house in the country where I dont have to put up with any of this crap and can have a big gate to stop people entering and surrounded by our own land so no passers by either and no one being able to have any control over what happens in my surrounds only ourselves.

Ah yeah but you cant listen to retirees. Or follow a majority. Following a majority and listening to members of the community (especially those retiree's) who may disagree is clearly an abomination. Who cares what the majority want.

Unrealistic

Adam Crashing Beefsteak wrote: »

What absolute nonsense. Majority rules and non-locals should have no say in what happens in an area. Particularly for people who own their homes and have invested a lot of money in living in an area they should have control over what happens in the area.

So I take it you will now support the people in Dangan and Castlegar having an absolute veto over any bypass ploughing through the area and demolishing their homes? Surely if you believe communities should have a veto over people just walking through their estates you couldn't possibly deny them the right to prevent people driving through their homes? I mean you couldn't be the same Adam Crashing Beefsteak who managed to produce 32 different posts in the Bypass thread telling the people who were set to lose their homes that it was just their tough $hit because people from outside their area needed to pass through.

Iwannahurl

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

What absolute nonsense. Majority rules and non-locals should have no say in what happens in an area. Particularly for people who own their homes and have invested a lot of money in living in an area they should have control over what happens in the area.

I would be massively against the opening up of an estate I was living in. One way in one way out makes for a much nicer, quieter place to live and cuts out people passing through the estate who have no business being there other than walking through it.

Reasons like the above is why I want to build my own house in the country where I dont have to put up with any of this crap and can have a big gate to stop people entering and surrounded by our own land so no passers by either and no one being able to have any control over what happens in my surrounds only ourselves.

Modern Irish society in three paragraphs.

Iwannahurl

Unrealistic wrote: »

So I take it you will now support the people in Dangan and Castlegar having an absolute veto over any bypass ploughing through the area and demolishing their homes? Surely if you believe communities should have a veto over people just walking through their estates you couldn't possibly deny them the right to prevent people driving through their homes? I mean you couldn't be the same Wren Ashy Stubbornness who managed to produce 32 different posts in the Bypass thread telling the people who were set to lose their homes that it was just their tough $hit because people from outside their area needed to pass through.

You're on to something there.

Wren Ashy Stubbornness wrote: »

If there is one thing that annoys me its residents complaining about pearse stadium.

Wren Ashy Stubbornness wrote:

a lot of residents are not really being inconvenienced at all by matches and probably just have something against the gaa or just like kicking up a fuss.

Wren Ashy Stubbornness wrote:

Come on there is about 2 or 3 matches a year in pearse that parking/traffic could be a problem are you really that awkward that you cannot but up with a bit of inconvenience for a few hours a couple of Sundays a year. I dont even see the problem with people parking around the area once they dont block drive ways etc.

The flood lights should be granted also. It will make for a nice evening out to watch a game on a saturday evening and will cause little of no inconvience. I'm afraid if you want to live in a city you have to be prepared to accept progress and development.

Wren Ashy Stubbornness wrote: »

If it is a public road then the residents have no claim on the parking spaces even right in front of their house, any member of the public is just as entitled as them to park there, they obviously have too much time on their hands if they are getting bothered about you parking for a few mins. Ignore them or tell them where to go.

Wren Ashy Stubbornness wrote:

I am as entitled to use the public road outside your house as you are and vice versa. That will never change unless we turn into a communist or a fascist state in the future.

Wren Ashy Stubbornness wrote: »

And who cares of it is or it isn't, I certainly wouldn't give a damn, I use any available route to make my journey quicker be it back roads, side roads, housing estates, shopping centre car parks etc etc.

And so on ad nauseam...

Unrealistic

Unrealistic wrote: »

So I take it you will now support the people in Dangan and Castlegar having an absolute veto over any bypass ploughing through the area and demolishing their homes?

There are of course always exceptions and the bypass is one of them (as are the motorways linking up different parts of the country which were also build through peoples land including some of our family owned land).

The bypass is of vital importance and will benefit thousands and thousands of people every single day.

L'Enfer du Nord

The walls between residential areas are a product of developers, house buyers/ public opinion/ culture and lack of intervention by planners. Developers build what they think there is a market for. As illustrated by this thread there is a market for houses in estates that won't have 'randomers' walking past. This is driven by fear of crime, fear of anti social behaviour and possibly tenagers in general. Also a kind of trupence vs tupence halfpenny snobbery. There's a certain amount of people who won't buy a house next or near a lane, or by extension some where with a lot of pedestrian through traffic. Others may be in favour of permiability. I know I am. Why don't I F**k of and by a house somewhere where there is more permiabilty? Because paradoxically those parts of the city are also the most desirable and most expensive so I can't afford to. Unless the predominant attitude changes from 'keep randomers out' to 'I want my kids to be able to walk to school and I want to be able to walk to the shops and Bus stop in less than 5 minutes' you'll continue to get Developers building walls around housing estates.

L'Enfer du Nord

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

What absolute nonsense. Majority rules and non-locals should have no say in what happens in an area. Particularly for people who own their homes and have invested a lot of money in living in an area they should have control over what happens in the area.

I would be massively against the opening up of an estate I was living in. One way in one way out makes for a much nicer, quieter place to live and cuts out people passing through the estate who have no business being there other than walking through it.

Reasons like the above is why I want to build my own house in the country where I dont have to put up with any of this crap and can have a big gate to stop people entering and surrounded by our own land so no passers by either and no one being able to have any control over what happens in my surrounds only ourselves.

So walled estates are suited to people who don't want to live in urban areas in the first place.

L'Enfer du Nord

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

So walled estates are suited to people who don't want to live in urban areas in the first place.

Or maybe people who want to live in an urban area but maintain privacy and minimise the amount of people passing by their front door.

Zzippy

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

Or maybe people who want to live in an urban area but maintain privacy and minimise the amount of people passing by their front door.

All of which discourages people from walking - making journeys to school, shops, doctor etc multiple distances of what they should be. Encourages car use and unnecessary car journeys. Reduces exercise taken by the population as whole. Just because some people want something doesn't mean it's good for society.

As for your earlier point - locals should be the only ones who have a say :rolleyes: - as you've stated you live outside Galway and want to live in a one-off house outside Galway, what are you doing posting on this thread and telling Galway people what they should do?

Iwannahurl

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

So walled estates are suited to people who don't want to live in urban areas in the first place.

Interesting perspective. Maybe walled estates are preferred by those who want to carve out some semblance of a private estate on public space, so that they can enjoy the publicly-funded benefits (street lights, green spaces etc) but can avoid having to buy a ride-on lawnmower or pay annual fees to a management company.

Iwannahurl

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

Or maybe people who want to live in an urban area but maintain privacy and minimise the amount of people passing by their front door.

I didn't previously form the impression that you cared much about the amount of traffic passing by people's front door, given your insistence on your right to use public roads and and to take any available route to make your journey quicker, "be it back roads, side roads, housing estates, shopping centre car parks etc etc."

Oh, and here's another beauty:

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

These are all public roads (apart from shopping centers) and I have as much right to drive on them and my taxes contribute to their up keep exactly the same as the people living in the area.

If I cared or not is irrelevant as I have no grounds to complain and I know it and as I would have no problem doing the same in other areas I simply would accept that I gain by doing it in other areas and other people gain by doing it in my area.