Knocknacara Houses knocked for access?

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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:

This discussion is about opening areas which are secluded. I have no problem using any route which I find convenient to get places but it doesn't mean I would live in one of the areas I happily pass through. I would seek out a place to live that did not have people passing through regularly particularity if I was investing hundreds of thousands of euro buying a place. If I were living in a nice quiet cul de sac and there was talk of opening a through route for pedestrians I'd fight it tooth and nail.

fergiesfolly

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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.

And these people don't pay taxes??!!
I suppose private motorists shouldn't expect access to public roads?
They don't pay any taxes either, I suppose???!!
Get over yourself ffs

Crumbs868

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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.

Hold on a second chap, maybe the fact that the houses are in a cul de sac was initially reflected in the house price and was the reason for people buying

Crumbs868

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Hold on a second chap, maybe the fact that the houses are in a cul de sac was initially reflected in the house price and was the reason for people buying

Exactly, houses at the end of cud de sacs are worth more and rightly so as they are a much more pleasant place to live. Why should my house be devalued because either you won't walk the extra distance required to use the road provided (which you knew was the route when you bought or rented your house) or are too stubborn to being the car.

L'Enfer du Nord

The funny thing about these walls between estates is theres hardly an area in Ireland with a flatter 'class' structure than Knocknacara. The 'elite' don't live there they for thr most part live in one off houses or in suburbs with better shortcuts like Salthill. I'm sure there are some poor people living there but you be hard presed to identify any disadvantaged areas. The size of the houses doesn't vary that much. Crime in my experience is fairly low. All this boils down to is people don't want pedestrians walking past their houses. I really think this stems from an unease with urban or indeed suburban living. As it happens I lived for five years next to one of these walls. It was a barrier to me but it wasn't a barrier to kids who just climbed over it. The biggest crime I was exposed to was a some shorter kids knicking/borrowing my wheelie bins to help them scale the wall.

L'Enfer du Nord

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

Exactly, houses at the end of cud de sacs are worth more and rightly so as they are a much more pleasant place to live. Why should my house be devalued because either you won't walk the extra distance required to use the road provided (which you knew was the route when you bought or rented your house) or are too stubborn to being the car.

For a start my destination e.g. School my kids attend or Super market may not have existed when I moved in.

I may not have a car. I May be too young to drive, I may be too old to drive, I may not be able to afford a car, my partner may need our car for work while I have to collect the kids from school.

As an aside cul-de-sac estates are a product of cars. If you look at suburban housing before c. 1970 thete are very few cul-de-sacs. They were introduced because increased traffic made it unsafe for kids to play on the streets. Cul de ssc estates still usually had lanes or paths across greens to people could walk to school, bus stops, shops. By c. 2000 this had died out because people just expect to drive everywhere and because of fear of the 'randomer'.

Iwannahurl

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

I may not have a car. I May be too young to drive, I may be too old to drive, I may not be able to afford a car, my partner may need our car for work while I have to collect the kids from school.

Or you may own a car but, perhaps because you don't want to contribute to or get caught up in traffic congestion, you choose to leave it at home in favour of public transport, walking or cycling. Then maybe you start to notice the attitude that seems to pervade the socio-political culture, which is that motorists are "the people that matter" and that by walking, cycling or taking the bus you have become part of an underclass. Irish transport policy is just one of the two-tier systems we seem to delight in creating.

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

As an aside cul-de-sac estates are a product of cars. If you look at suburban housing before c. 1970 thete are very few cul-de-sacs. They were introduced because increased traffic made it unsafe for kids to play on the streets. Cul de ssc estates still usually had lanes or paths across greens to people could walk to school, bus stops, shops. By c. 2000 this had died out because people just expect to drive everywhere and because of fear of the 'randomer'.

Interesting point. Perhaps it's a bit of both? Decades ago, the original purpose of cul-de-sac development was to exclude through traffic. However, increasing motorisation was encouraged, not controlled, so that cars came to dominate everywhere. The inevitable decline in sustainable transport then served to justify even greater levels of car-dependent "planning". Certainly that has been the case in Galway, for instance in situations where cycle hostile "planning" decisions were justified on the grounds that less than 3% of the population cycles to work.

Likewise, fear of "randomers" may well have been generated by cul-de-sac developments: certainly in my neck of the woods, climbing over the wall is seen as inherently transgressive, even though there's nothing random or suspicious about it at all, because the climbers are just taking a short cut. I've already mentioned the 'Community' Garda who suggested taking photos of the 'offenders' -- imo that's a small illustration of the way in which our police "service" and local government cultures have combined to create a two-tier system in which pedestrians, cyclists and bus users are second-class citizens. It's not as bad as the USA, of course, where you can come to the attention of the police just by walking (especially while black).

Incidentally, I find it bizarre that motorists and local authority officials/members often oppose traffic calming because of the alleged adverse effects on emergency vehicles, yet they defend cul-de-sac layouts, which are known to delay police, fire and ambulance services by forcing them to take convoluted routes.

That said, it's perfectly possible to have cul-de-sacs that stop through traffic but which also have 'filtered permeability' for pedestrians and cyclists. Perhaps planners can now be forced to change their out-of-date habits, and all future developments will be permeable. However, how do we deal with current levels of impermeability as well as the suspicious and reactionary mindset which sees the car as king and the cul-de-sac as a kingdom to be defended at all costs?

Iwannahurl

fergiesfolly wrote: »

And these people don't pay taxes??!!
I suppose private motorists shouldn't expect access to public roads?
They don't pay any taxes either, I suppose???!!
Get over yourself ffs

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Hold on a second chap, maybe the fact that the houses are in a cul de sac was initially reflected in the house price and was the reason for people buying

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

Exactly, houses at the end of cud de sacs are worth more and rightly so as they are a much more pleasant place to live. Why should my house be devalued because either you won't walk the extra distance required to use the road provided (which you knew was the route when you bought or rented your house) or are too stubborn to being the car.

House prices change.

In any case, research shows that greater 'walkability' in a neighbourhood correlates with higher house prices:

http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/12/growing-evidence-shows-walkability-is-good-for-you-and-for-cities/383612/
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tfl-improving-walkability.pdf

It's not just about money money money though. There are also numerous social and health-related co-benefits to making communities more walkable:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448008/
http://www.planetizen.com/node/61128

The evidence is clear. The reactionary mindset has nothing supporting it other than wilful ignorance and suspicion.

fergiesfolly

Iwannahurl wrote: »

House prices change.

In any case, research shows that greater 'walkability' in a neighbourhood correlates with higher house prices:

http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/12/growing-evidence-shows-walkability-is-good-for-you-and-for-cities/383612/
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tfl-improving-walkability.pdf

It's not just about money money money though. There are also numerous social and health-related co-benefits to making communities more walkable:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448008/
http://www.planetizen.com/node/61128

The evidence is clear. The reactionary mindset has nothing supporting it other than wilful ignorance and suspicion.

You could be helpful and highlight the points in those links that support your argument. Haven't time to go through all of it.
The one from Galway is interesting.
Is there anything more recent, as it's 14 years old.

Crumbs868

Iwannahurl wrote: »

House prices change.

In any case, research shows that greater 'walkability' in a neighbourhood correlates with higher house prices:

http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/12/growing-evidence-shows-walkability-is-good-for-you-and-for-cities/383612/
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tfl-improving-walkability.pdf

It's not just about money money money though. There are also numerous social and health-related co-benefits to making communities more walkable:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448008/
http://www.planetizen.com/node/61128

The evidence is clear. The reactionary mindset has nothing supporting it other than wilful ignorance and suspicion.

Unable to argue ones case so flood the thread with random statistics from irrelevant surveys to suit ones argument and drive participators away, where have I seen that before?

pmasterson95

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Unable to argue ones case so flood the thread with random statistics from irrelevant surveys to suit ones argument and drive participators away, where have I seen that before?

If I answer correctly whats my prize?

L'Enfer du Nord

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Unable to argue ones case so flood the thread with random statistics from irrelevant surveys to suit ones argument and drive participators away, where have I seen that before?

Well if anyone has any evidence that increasing permiability i.e. allowing pedestrians and cyclist pass through cul-de-sacs reduces house prices please post it.

pmasterson95

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

Well if anyone has any evidence that increasing permiability i.e. allowing pedestrians and cyclist pass through cul-de-sacs reduces house prices please post it.

Its a bit odd how you now want specified "on topic" answers when ye decided to bring into the thread nox's posts on an unrelated issue solely to discredit him.

Crumbs was merely aliluding to those stunts combinded with Iwannahurls tendency to post large pdf documents.

L'Enfer du Nord

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Its a bit odd how you now want specified "on topic" answers when ye decided to bring into the thread nox's posts on an unrelated issue solely to discredit him.

Crumbs was merely aliluding to those stunts combinded with Iwannahurls tendency to post large pdf documents.

Where have I quoted unrelated treads? Or indeed post off topic. There was an asertion that permiability in cul-de-sacs reduces property values. No evidemce for this has been posted. All thats happened is prople have complained when evidence to the contrary has been posted.

John_Rambo

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

Exactly, houses at the end of cud de sacs are worth more and rightly so as they are a much more pleasant place to live. Why should my house be devalued because either you won't walk the extra distance required to use the road provided (which you knew was the route when you bought or rented your house) or are too stubborn to being the car.

It's not stubbornness, you're being either naive or obtuse here. Some people don't have cars, can't afford cars, don't want to use them all the time, can't afford to use them all the time when there's a free alternative. Some people can't drive, others are too old, too young, physically or mentally restricted. We can't have a country devoted to car drivers ignoring anyone that is restricted from car driving.

I lived in a 70's cul de sac estate (road signs graffitied to pul de sac frequently:D) for a while. They're grand for families with very young kids, but once they get older and have to travel three kilometres to the nearest shop or even main road (which is actually a couple of hundred metres away) it's not suitable. I hated it. Grey, and closed in.. very little freedom. Plus, as pointed out before, walled cul de sac estates are impossible to police and in my opinion encourages alfa families, bullying, over familiarity, highly internalised and very defined communities. There's a sheep herd effect.

As you say yourself

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

I don't care what the weather is like, I'd think twice about cycling 3km myself never mind forcing a child to do it.

So, why force a kid to make a three kilometre trek when it's 100 metres with direct pedestrian and cycle roads? It's healthier for families to get out of the car and go to shops/sports/gym/parks/beaches/bus stops/ameneties by foot or bike instead of piling in to the car for every single journey.

It's perfectly reasonable to knock houses with CPO's for this reason, as much as it is for any other transport systems. Probably more of a case in some reasons. Open them up. It will open the communities up and get then out of the forced car culture.

(By the way, I have a three year old that daily cycles 3k on a balance bike, man up )

L'Enfer du Nord

You know all this F##k you just get a car/save me and my house price from the randomer hordes and their two wheeled cavalry would be funney if it wasn't acually a reflexion of oficial policy. Funnily enough the people with money and power in Galway are laughing at you. Many times I've heard Knocknacarra descrided as just a load of houses or refered to has Knocknatalla. Which is in fact unfair on Tallaght. You think any developers live in Knocknacarra? I doubt many planners do either. Anyone with the money to do so in Galway either lives in one of the older permiable suburbs, a one off house or a semirural idle like Menlo or Barna. There's actually a concept in the US of a place where you have to drive to buy a pint of milk. This usually an Exurb with MacMansions on acre sites. Thats the trade off space vs proximity to services. Galway has created such a place 4 km from the city centre with 3 bed room houses and small gardens.

nuac

John_Rambo wrote: »

It's not stubbornness, you're being either naive or obtuse here. Some people don't have cars, can't afford cars, don't want to use them all the time, can't afford to use them all the time when there's a free alternative. Some people can't drive, others are too old, too young, physically or mentally restricted. We can't have a country devoted to car drivers ignoring anyone that is restricted from car driving.

I lived in a 70's cul de sac estate (road signs graffitied to pul de sac frequently:D) for a while. They're grand for families with very young kids, but once they get older and have to travel three kilometres to the nearest shop or even main road (which is actually a couple of hundred metres away) it's not suitable. I hated it. Grey, and closed in.. very little freedom. Plus, as pointed out before, walled cul de sac estates are impossible to police and in my opinion encourages alfa families, bullying, over familiarity, highly internalised and very defined communities. There's a sheep herd effect.

As you say yourself So, why force a kid to make a three kilometre trek when it's 100 metres with direct pedestrian and cycle roads? It's healthier for families to get out of the car and go to shops/sports/gym/parks/beaches/bus stops/ameneties by foot or bike instead of piling in to the car for every single journey.

It's perfectly reasonable to knock houses with CPO's for this reason, as much as it is for any other transport systems. Probably more of a case in some reasons. Open them up. It will open the communities up and get then out of the forced car culture.

(By the way, I have a three year old that daily cycles 3k on a balance bike, man up )

I don't agree that it is perfectly reasonable to use CPOs to knock houses for the reason stated.

I presume that area was laid out as a cul-de-sac pursuant to planning permissions. Those who bought houses in it would have relied on the PP. While there are pros and cons re such layouts, many valued the privacy and safety.

Nobody likes a rat-run through a hitherto secluded estate either by bikes or on foot. While every body likes to facilitate small kids, the new path will be used by all sorts at all times, including loutish drunken teenagers who may well decide to party near some of the houses near the new path.

Any application for a CPO for a new path thru the estate, or indeed for acquisition of a house to knock for such access, would be made by a successor to the planning authority which granted permission for the original estate. Likely to be successfully challenged

John_Rambo

nuac wrote: »

I don't agree that it is perfectly reasonable to use CPOs to knock houses for the reason stated.

I presume that area was laid out as a cul-de-sac pursuant to planning permissions. Those who bought houses in it would have relied on the PP. While there are pros and cons re such layouts, many valued the privacy and safety.

Nobody likes a rat-run through a hitherto secluded estate either by bikes or on foot. While every body likes to facilitate small kids, the new path will be used by all sorts at all times, including loutish drunken teenagers who may well decide to party near some of the houses near the new path.

Any application for a CPO for a new path thru the estate, or indeed for acquisition of a house to knock for such access, would be made by a successor to the planning authority which granted permission for the original estate. Likely to be successfully challenged

Rat running is the practice of car/van drivers using secondary roads, or residential side streets instead of the intended main roads in urban or suburban areas even where there are traffic calming measures to discourage them. It can be dangerous and they tend to hit speeds on roads that aren't designed for speed.

Pedestrians and cyclists aren't rat runners, they're walking or cycling.

Loutish and drunks can be dealt with as access is clear. It's ok. Don't fear paths, they're a good thing.

I now live on a main road, to the back of me is a well designed small estate with no cul de sacs. We have parks and communal areas. We don't suffer from drunken louts as they get moved on or taken off in the back of a Garda car. The area is very easy to police. There's no walls at the end of dead ends for easy escape. There's a healthy flow of pedestrians, families, walk/cycle/skate to schoolers and it works well. Burglars, dodgy types etc are spotted quickly as there's more people out and about on foot instead of cooped up in cars.

FortySeven

Lots of people on here who are scared of people. Would do them good to get out of the protection of the car and walled estate to meet some people.

Victor

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

These walk through paths are a hot spot for anti-social behaviour also, threads often pop up in the accommodation and property form with people wondering how to deal with youths in these alley ways etc.

Bollocks.

FortySeven

Victor wrote: »

Bollocks.

That's not very moderate Victor. :eek:

:P

John_Rambo

FortySeven wrote: »

That's not very moderate Victor. :eek:

:P

He's moderately right though!

FortySeven

FortySeven wrote: »

Lots of people on here who are scared of people. Would do them good to get out of the protection of the car and walled estate to meet some people.

People wanting more privacy and being afraid of people are very different. Why on earth would you want people walking passed your house who have no business in the estate or being near your house?

I've no interest in mixing with random strangers, hence why my house will have high electric gates and only friends and family members will be able access.

Victor wrote: »

Bollocks.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96507192

FortySeven

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

People wanting more privacy and being afraid of people are very different. Why on earth would you want people walking passed your house who have no business in the estate or being near your house?

I've no interest in mixing with random strangers, hence why my house will have high electric gates and only friends and family members will be able access.



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96507192

And everyone else on estates should suffer inconvenience because you can't afford to go and build your anti-social castle in the country?

FortySeven

FortySeven wrote: »

And everyone else on estates should suffer inconvenience because you can't afford to go and build your anti-social castle in the country?

Where did I say I can't afford to build my own house in the country? I fully intend to in the coming years on our own land where I will be surrounded by fields and next door to other family members houses. No passing randomers, no one passing my door who I don't want, a strange car or walker on the road watched like a hawk by everyone around etc.

But if I'd bought a house in an estate in a cul de sac I wouldn't not just lie down and allow it to be opened up to passing pedestrians and cyclists which is the point I'm making.

Zzippy

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

t in mixing with random strangers, hence why my house will have high electric gates and only friends and family members will be able access.

You sound delightful. And despite the fact that you grew up in isolation and intend to live long-term in isolation you feel qualified to advise people who grew up and live in suburban estates how they should plan their neighbourhoods. That's like urban dwellers telling you that one-off houses are a blight on the countryside, are unsustainable, and that planning laws should be changed so you can't build one. I'm sure you'd listen alright...

John_Rambo

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

Where did I say I can't afford to build my own house in the country? I fully intend to in the coming years on our own land where I will be surrounded by fields and next door to other family members houses. No passing randomers, no one passing my door who I don't want, a strange car or walker on the road watched like a hawk by everyone around etc.

And we wonder why rural communities are falling apart, the elderly are exposed and vulnerable, burglaries are on the rise. You don't even want to know each other, let alone live near each other.

Is this what you think happens? Do you honestly believe that everyone around you is watching you like a hawk? That's reaching new levels of paranoia.

FortySeven

No passing randomers, no one passing my door who I don't want, a strange car or walker on the road watched like a hawk by everyone around etc.

Thank god it is not like that where I live, in rural Galway.

I can just imagine you now, hiding in a bush with a pair of night vision goggles waiting for the next unsuspecting jogger to dare to darken your driveway.

FortySeven

FortySeven wrote: »

Thank god it is not like that where I live, in rural Galway.

I can just imagine you now, hiding in a bush with a pair of night vision goggles waiting for the next unsuspecting jogger to dare to darken your driveway.

The road is a dead end, if you aren't one of the people who own land on the road then you have no business on the road.

Thankfully things are like this, we don't lock our houses and leave the keys in the ignition of the car as no thief would get anywhere without being spotted and confronted.

FortySeven

Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

The road is a dead end, if you aren't one of the people who own land on the road then you have no business on the road.

Thankfully things are like this, we don't lock our houses and leave the keys in the ignition of the car as no thief would get anywhere without being spotted and confronted.

Thankfully the advent of the motor car has enabled a generation or two to take a dip in the gene pool. This kind of attitude will be gone by the time my kids grow up. The days of locals v blow-ins and established families ruling rural areas are coming to an end sir. Get with the program.