Irish Times calls for "10 new Ballymuns"

Kermit.de.frog

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/housing-crisis-ireland-needs-five-to-10-new-ballymuns-as-soon-as-possible-1.2321041

??? Any article that mentions Ballymun and the need for social housing in a positive narrative seems a little strange.

There is barely a mention of the hole that Ballymun became.

I wonder would the author of the article and the Irish Times be equally enthusiastic if such proposals were made in Dublin 4? A few Ballymun type tower blocks down there would surely meet with middle class liberal approval?

Oh I forgot they are comfortable in the knowledge that the world can't change there because there is not the space to build and land is too expensive.

Seems a strange reference for a positive article on social housing.

smash

Walk around any other city in Europe and you'll see high rise accommodation. It works, it's a good idea. Just because Ballymun is a hole, it doesn't mean all high rise accommodation will turn an area into a hole.

For what it's worth, the people make it what it is, not the structure of the building.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/housing-crisis-ireland-needs-five-to-10-new-ballymuns-as-soon-as-possible-1.2321041

??? Any article that mentions Ballymun and the need for social housing in a positive narrative seems a little strange.

There is barely a mention of the hole that Ballymun became.

I wonder would the author of the article and the Irish Times be equally enthusiastic if such proposals were made in Dublin 4? A few Ballymun type tower blocks down there would surely meet with middle class liberal approval?

Oh I forgot they are comfortable in the knowledge that the world can't change there because there is not the space to build and land is too expensive.

Seems a strange reference for a positive article on social housing.

Having read the article (as opposed to just the headline) it apepars to be suggesting a move towards apartments and away from houses, as opposed to building ****loads of flats.

Kermit.de.frog

smash wrote: »

It works

Never said it didn't. I'm just curious as to how an article quoting Ballymun in it's title in a positive context along with a convenient picture of the old blocks in case anyone forgot is supposed to make that point rather than worry people.

Ballymun was almost completely social housing as well and anyone honest about it would have said they could have been given all the services and amenities possible and it would still have ended up the same way and a ghetto.

The alternative is some mix of social and private but that brings it's own moral hazard issues too. Why should someone on social welfare get the same type of apartment as someone paying a mortgage? And not that private housing does not have it's fair share of social issues but why should they endure the enhanced type given a minority of their neighbors?

awec

Dublin does need more high rise apartment buildings. Valuable plots of land are being wasted building low-rise apartment blocks.

smash

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Never said it didn't. I'm just curious as to how an article quoting Ballymun in it's title in a positive context along with a convenient picture of the old blocks in case anyone forgot is suppose to make that point rather than worry people.

Then why mention Dublin 4? You're confusing apartment living with government funded social accommodation. Did you know that the grand canal docklands are in Dublin 4? There's a fair few high rise blocks around there and they're bloody expensive.

the evasion_kid

High rise living generally doesn't work here or in the UK,places like Sweden and Poland it seems too.

uck51js9zml2yt

Ballymun was innovative for its time. Got people out of the tennaments into nice flats. The rooms were huge. They also had underfloor heating which went on for the winter.

The lack of resources and government investment became the problem rather than the towers themselves.

Shenshen

While I would cautiously agree that, yes, the solution to the housing crisis is not to extend Dublin housing estates all the way to Drogheda and beyond, I think we need to first examine why it was that Ballymun did turn into such a hole (as another poster put it) in the first place.

Many other countries have tackled housing problems by building apartments and flats rather sucessfully. So what are they doing right that the UK and Ireland seem to be doing wrong? Why does it work there any not here?
Until that question has been addressed, I'd be very cautious about wasting money building new highrises that might have to get torn down again a few years from now.

awec

smash wrote: »

Then why mention Dublin 4? You're confusing apartment living with government funded social accommodation. Did you know that the grand canal docklands are in Dublin 4? There's a fair few high rise blocks around there and they're bloody expensive.

There are no real high rise buildings in Dublin, Docklands included. I don't think you're allowed to build anything over 60m with current planning laws.

Kermit.de.frog

the evasion_kid wrote: »

High rise living generally doesn't work here or in the UK,places like Sweden and Poland it seems too.

Social housing high rise living or private housing high rise living? The latter most certainly works in London, the former always turned in to a version of Glasgow.

BoJack Horseman

Dublin needs housing.

Public housing works fine when it isn't saturated with scum.

OldGoat

Shenshen wrote: »

While I would cautiously agree that, yes, the solution to the housing crisis is not to extend Dublin housing estates all the way to Drogheda and beyond, I think we need to first examine why it was that Ballymun did turn into such a hole (as another poster put it) in the first place.

The article is about all of Ireland rather than just Dublin and it is using Ballymun as an example of scale rather that quality. It calls for 'joined up thinking' and a long term view of 30 to 50 years.
I applaud the cry for long term views. Sadly with most governments only looking forward to the 4 years or so that they are in power any long term plans get short shrift in terms of commitment.

smash

awec wrote: »

There are no real high rise buildings in Dublin, Docklands included. I don't think you're allowed to build anything over 60m with current planning laws.

Well within planning rules, they're the highest of the 'high' rise.

the evasion_kid

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Social housing high rise living or private housing high rise living? The latter most certainly works in London, the former always turned in to a version of Glasgow.

Social housing,it generally doesn't take long for ghettoisation to occur,and before you know it the place looks like Cabrini green in the film candyman

Kermit.de.frog

Dwayne Breezy Hacksaw wrote: »

The lack of resources and government investment became the problem rather than the towers themselves.

So it's the lack of resources and government investment is the reason? The reason a lot of people have a problem with this argument despite it's valid points is that they don't believe that. They believe people have personal responsibility.

They believe (and maybe they are wrong) that when a parent from some other complex in Dublin has that favorite excuse for their tearaway children that "there is nothing for them to do" they think that is bullsh!t and that contrary to that there is plenty for them to do and all the services in the world won't make these places livable.

When you combine that with high rise it's asking for trouble.

SEPT 23 1989

One big tower would be easier to police

Dyr

Shenshen wrote: »

Many other countries have tackled housing problems by building apartments and flats rather sucessfully. So what are they doing right that the UK and Ireland seem to be doing wrong? Why does it work there any not here?
Until that question has been addressed, I'd be very cautious about wasting money building new highrises that might have to get torn down again a few years from now.

The phenomenon of the people-who know-whats-best-for-the-great-unwashed is what's unique in Ireland and England, a by product of our unique class system. Although the phenomenon is present in other European countries too.

Irish gombeenism also adds some local flavour.

KlausFlouride

Where have tower blocks been a success? All around the world they are being demolished.

1. CPO's to renovate all the derelict buildings in Dublin
2. Build 3-4 bedroom houses with proper gardens that people actually want to live in, there is any amount of land in North Dublin/along the M50 that should be used.
3. Carry out decentralisation properly (500 Irish Water staff in Dublin City Centre, give me strength)


Jesus, this country, we never learn, I'm just amazed we've haven't rerun the famine

KungPao

Well we do need a setting and backdrop for the next generation of gritty Roddy Doyle/Adam and Paul type films.

awec

KlausFlouride wrote: »

Where have tower blocks been a success? All around the world they are being demolished.

1. CPO's to renovate all the derelict buildings in Dublin
2. Build 3-4 bedroom houses with proper gardens that people actually want to live in, there is any amount of land in North Dublin/along the M50 that should be used.
3. Carry out decentralisation properly (500 Irish Water staff in Dublin City Centre, give me strength)


Jesus, this country, we never learn, I'm just amazed we've haven't rerun the famine

#2 leads to urban sprawl which drives up prices. You can't just build 3 and 4 bed houses everywhere with gardens.

Some one directed me to look at the pearl district in Portland as an example of how it can be done well and how low cost and social housing can work in a mixed environment, so look it up it is interesting.

KlausFlouride

awec wrote: »

#2 leads to urban sprawl which drives up prices. You can't just build 3 and 4 bed houses everywhere with gardens.

Why not? What is actual case against? Properly laid out suburbs, a luas link, a local public space for shops, entertainment. It's been done in the nicer parts of Dublin, what's to stop it being done on a planned basis? It's a genuine question, I actually don't understand why it can't be done

conorhal

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

One big tower would be easier to police

By Judge Dredd?

Dyr

mariaalice wrote: »

Some one directed me to look at the pearl district in Portland as an example of how it can be done well and how low cost and social housing can work in a mixed environment, so look it up it is interesting.

I'm always a little cynical about such stories, there was plenty of guff about how the ballymun regeneration was a great model for other projects.

KomradeBishop

If they did this in the form of Housing Co-Operatives, that would give people living there a stake in keeping the place and community well-run, would keep it a stable place to live, and would help prevent silly rent and/or purchase prices in boom times.

There are good ways of doing this, such as the above or proper private management companies building/renting places - and there are bad ways, like Ballymun.

Jimoslimos

KlausFlouride wrote: »

2. Build 3-4 bedroom houses with proper gardens that people actually want to live in, there is any amount of land in North Dublin/along the M50 that should be used.

There might be any amount of land in North County Dublin, there is, however, f*** all transport infrastructure. Not even a rail link to Dublin Airport/Swords.

awec

KlausFlouride wrote: »

Why not? What is actual case against? Properly laid out suburbs, a luas link, a local public space for shops, entertainment. It's been done in the nicer parts of Dublin, what's to stop it being done on a planned basis? It's a genuine question, I actually don't understand why it can't be done

Infrastructure (roads, water, sewers etc) is not there to allow for urban sprawl. It increases traffic congestion because it increases the reliability on cars for commuting because transport infrastructure is not there to support it.

Dublin has an accommodation shortage and is crying out for high quality high density housing. They should be building 30/40/50 story high apartment buildings in the city so that people who want to or need to live in the city can, instead of living miles outside the city and having to commute in.

There just isn't room for a plethora of 3 and 4 bed houses with gardens or else we'll eventually see parts of Dublin City in Kildare and Wicklow!

riclad

Ballymun has been totally rebuilt with modern hi spec apartments ,
and houses .
They knocked down the high rise blocks .
All new buildings built with high insulation and sound insulation ,
better than 90 per cent of apartments built in the boom .
I think what they mean is we need high density housing ,
3-4 storeys
eg its not practical to give every family a 3bed house with a back garden .
The new ballymun all buildings are max 2- 3 storey , around 120 ft max height .

quote
There are good ways of doing this, such as the above or proper private management companies building/renting places - and there are bad ways, like Ballymun.


this is simply wrong ,
the new ballymun is built to a very high standard ,
free parking for every tenant ,
trees planted on every street .
New buildings contain the health centre council offices and a new garda
station and an art centre with a theatre .
The residents were consulted as to the layout design of the buildings .
The apartments are better than most private apartments ,
larger, built to a very high standard .
They mean we need a large program of social housing ,
we cant rely on private companys to build low cost housing .
The old blocks were badly designed , but they were built in the 60s .
IT would have cost millions to bring them up to modern standards .
The old towers have been demolished ,
it would have been more accurate to say we need 20k plus social housing
units .
we have a housing crisis .
The old ballymun does not exist ,
calling it a hole is just sheer snobbery .
OR maybe the last time you were there was years ago ,
before the new building started .

i understand high rise large 7 storey block building is out of fashion ,
its funny ,in new york they build a 10 story building and every unit is sold to private investors.
I think its down to the design and standard you build to .

psicic

Well, the article seems confused. On the one hand, it says it's looking for 5 to 10 new Ballymuns, but then describes well-serviced, centrally located hi-rise living that's the opposite of what Ballymun was.

I once had the pleasure of attending a briefing session on Ballymun for a previous job - what we were told reflects what tatranska said. Poor location and disinterest from the powers-that-be undermined the whole effort. I am no expert on the area but it seems like Ballymun-style projects require a lot of management and follow-through on planning or else they spiral downwards.

According to the presenter, Ballymun started off extrememly well and was innovative. The flats were laid out to have the same floorspace as a standard house (I think some were three bed and some were two bed), and had dual aspect, so there would be sunlight in the flats all hours of the day. It copied best-practise of the day. There was a long waiting list to get into the area.

But a lot of political infighting (Dublin City Corporation wasn't happy with how, why and where it was built) meant that the provision of important local services we're either delayed or abandoned. I have vague recollections of DCC refusing street lights for years and they were supposed to build and manage local amenities, like community centres, shopping centres and the like, but only made a half-hearted effort after it was all built. They also refused to do the basic maintenance they were supposed to do, creating long waiting lists for even the most basic repairs. People suffered while different levels of government argued.

Bad luck, economic downturn and poor procurement led to other problems. (The lifts, for example, were originally provided by a Spanish company that either went bankrupt or else interpreted their obligations to provide working lifts entirely differently. This set up years of problems.).

The area was designed so parents could supervise children's play areas from the flats which worked well to a point, but 'blind spots' became havens for anti-social behaviour as children aged and fell into bad habits.

One of the biggest detriments to the social fabric, we were told, was the launch of government initiatives for house purchase. Expansion in other areas of the housing stock meant that the sort of people who had been leading community groups and working out the problems with the project on the ground took the opportunity to purchase their own houses elsewhere. (They couldn't purchase their flats.)

This removed the main groups of ordinary working people stopping the unfettered proliferation of drugs and anti-social behaviour. (edit: I know there were still a lot of ordinary working people left)

One of the things that really signified how little DCC was interested in fixing the problems out there was when DCC decided to house care in the community and assorted vulnerable persons in vacant units. These vulnerable persons were never realistically going to become community leaders and just became 'victims' of the whole endeavour. The person giving the talk had been involved in the 'decommissioning' of the flats and spoke of traumatic scenes when they were helping some tenants move that hadn't been outside their home sometimes for more than a decade.

It doesn't excuse the 'bad element' from being the 'bad element' - it just means that the Ballymun model requires a lot of management to control the bad element. (And again.... I know there were a lot of ordinary, decent people in Ballymun)

I'm not sure low-density sprawl is necessarily the answer either - look at some areas of Tallaght (disclaimer: I currently rent in Tallaght and I'm not slating the whole area). Take the 56A and pass by Jobstown or any of the other extremely disadvantaged areas - stunning scenery and great houses - you can see the good intentions of the original planners - but lots of anti-social behaviour. Houses that they can't give away in Sundale would be €300k anywhere else.

Social planning has been sidelined in the past just to throw up housing units (be they towerblocks or semi-Ds) or in the wake of political infighting. However, it seems that social housing just won't work unless community and commercial activity are also provided for.

*Just want to add, I realise there were a lot of people in Ballymun not engaged in anti-social behaviour... apologies if my post focuses on the negative anti-social aspects, but that's what the thread is about.

tobsey

Ballymun was the largest social housing project ever conducted in the state. However it only delivered 3,000 homes for families. The point of the article is that 5 to 10 times that volume is needed today. That's the only relevance Ballymun has to the article. The article also says we need to learn the lessons from the ultimate failure of Ballymun. All makes sense really.

KomradeBishop

riclad wrote: »

this is simply wrong ,
the new ballymun is built to a very high standard ,
free parking for every tenant ,
trees planted on every street .
New buildings contain the health centre council offices and a new garda
station and an art centre with a theatre .
The residents were consulted as to the layout design of the buildings .
The apartments are better than most private apartments ,
larger, built to a very high standard .
They mean we need a large program of social housing ,
we cant rely on private companys to build low cost housing .
The old blocks were badly designed , but they were built in the 60s .
IT would have cost millions to bring them up to modern standards .
The old towers have been demolished ,
it would have been more accurate to say we need 20k plus social housing
units .
we have a housing crisis .
The old ballymun does not exist ,
calling it a hole is just sheer snobbery .
OR maybe the last time you were there was years ago ,
before the new building started .

i understand high rise large 7 storey block building is out of fashion ,
its funny ,in new york they build a 10 story building and every unit is sold to private investors.
I think its down to the design and standard you build to .

Perhaps, ya - I don't know a lot about the rebuild there, or what it's like now compared to before; I still like the idea of housing co-operatives and proper rental management companies though, as the former can potentially greatly help reduce property booms and excessive prices/rents (if done on a large scale), and the latter can help reform the abysmal rental market.

More social housing is needed in addition to this as well though (and co-operatives can be used for this purpose too, as well as for all-private dwellings).

riclad

ITS 10 times better now than it was in in 2007 .
i,m in favor of housing co ops ,charitys like cluid and theres
also a charity where people can build there own houses on sites provided by the council ,supervised by professional builders ,
ie the ordinary people do 95 per cent of the work .
You sign up to do x amount of hours after that you get a house ,
the rent you pay is based on your income .
i presume its limited to people on a low income .
i don,t think ballymun was a failure in that it provided housing for 1000,s of people on low incomes even before the blocks were knocked own.
Many people lived in ballymun and moved out when they could afford to buy a house .
Theres also new housing there for students .

KomradeBishop

psicic wrote: »

But a lot of political infighting (Dublin City Corporation wasn't happy with how, why and where it was built) meant that the provision of important local services we're either delayed or abandoned. I have vague recollections of DCC refusing street lights for years and they were supposed to build and manage local amenities, like community centres, shopping centres and the like, but only made a half-hearted effort after it was all built. They also refused to do the basic maintenance they were supposed to do, creating long waiting lists for even the most basic repairs. People suffered while different levels of government argued.

Wow, really? What was the in-fighting over? (i.e. why did they have such a problem with Ballymun, to the point of crippling local services)

I've always had the impression that local services on the North side, particularly around the North-West Ballymun/Finglas area, have been abysmal - while plenty of resources get allocated to the South side (though again, less to some parts of the South-West); has made me wonder if there is a level of corruption and/or deliberate snobbery, with regards to allocation of public resources.

I don't like to speak bad of an area either, but you can tell today that the general area (not just Ballymun/Finglas, parts of the whole surrounding area) is incredibly poorly serviced relative to the rest of Dublin (looking like some bits of it haven't seen much work in 3+ decades), and the people living there suffer as a result.

So, given all of that, I'm very curious about the political infighting, what it's about, and how that works?

KlausFlouride

awec wrote: »

Infrastructure (roads, water, sewers etc) is not there to allow for urban sprawl. It increases traffic congestion because it increases the reliability on cars for commuting because transport infrastructure is not there to support it.

They should be building 30/40/50 story high apartment buildings in the city so that people who want to or need to live in the city can, instead of living miles outside the city and having to commute in.

There just isn't room for a plethora of 3 and 4 bed houses with gardens or else we'll eventually see parts of Dublin City in Kildare and Wicklow!

Yes, but build and plan for the infrastructure in conjunction with housing needs. "We don't have the infrastructure so we can't build the houses" makes no sense to me as an argument, & I'm not having a go, I just don't understand why we cannot ever as a country plan anything.

With enough density, you can have park and ride facilities, maybe an underground system. Commuting from Kildare and Wicklow is doable, compared to Tiger era commutes. And move civil service jobs out from the city, but do it in a planned way so that you would have a sufficiently large
centre (200-300k population)

Maybe 30-50 apartment blocks have their place, but they haven't worked in Ireland (yet), and the original article was saying these would be "affordable", which is a nice way of saying let's stack all these ****ing poor people into places we wouldn't live ourselves.

hatrickpatrick

People can correct me if I'm wrong here, but after doing a lot of research I've come to the conclusion that the primary reason developments such as Ballymun, O'Devaney, St Michael's etc were such unmitigated disasters wasn't because they were high rise or high density, but because they were built (at the time, when the city was a lot smaller) in the middle of nowhere and had no local conveniences, facilities, transport or employment prospects.

I mean there are blocks of council flats all over the city itself (a bunch of ones I enjoy walking past on Cuffe St, due to the cool outdoor "stairwell round towers" they have) and those didn't turn into the hotbeds of misery and deprivation which many others did. The ones which were true disasters were the ones which were tucked away in desolate parts of the city's outskirts, where the inhabitants had nothing to do, nowhere to do their basic living such as shopping, doctors' visits, restaurants etc.

Read anything about Ballymun and the most commented upon failure is the fact that people loved them when they were first moved from the tenements to the flats, and it was only when they realised "f*ck, we're miles from the city, we have no transport, no schools for our kids and we need to buy food etc somewhere" that it kind of fell apart. The drugs, crime etc all followed this initial problem, and easily took hold of communities which had nothing else going for them.

This an accurate portrayal? If so, then there's nothing wrong with future tower block style projects as long as they include an actual proper village or are close to the city, instead of massive residential complexes with absolutely no commercial developments within walking distance.

Smidge

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

One big tower would be easier to police

This is the biggest problem with building anything like this.

Before even a block has been layed, the people who will be living in it are judged and are already deemed scum.

riclad

When ballymun was built there was a lack of shops,
i, think after a few years school,s and the shopping centre was built.
There were local small shops all over the place too .
it had a tesco or dunne store s in the shopping centre .
dublin is still short of schools in some area,s .
There were 100,s of ordinary houses built too .
Calling it a disaster is wrong.
There,s drugs avaidable in every town and city in ireland .
if that,s what you want .
I think a lot of the comments here are by people who never lived there ,
or read a few articles in the papers 5 years ago .
They have no relevance to the current situation there
WE have no transport , wtf ?
theres always been a good bus service ,
not everyone has to go to the city centre every day .

harry Bailey esq

awec wrote: »

There are no real high rise buildings in Dublin, Docklands included. I don't think you're allowed to build anything over 60m with current planning laws.

In fairness,60 metres is a 17-20 story building.By Irish standards thats high rise,especially if you take into account that the towers in Ballymun where 14 stories,and were approximately 55 metres high.Thats just the towers though,which only accounted for a small percentage of the total amount of flats,most of the flats in ballymun were/are a mere 25-30 metres high,and many would consider even that to be high rise.The social problems in Ballymun were not caused by people 'living in the sky' per se,although it didn't help.The main reason in my opinion was dumping a large volume of people into a sparcely populated,rural area virtually overnight,and not having the services in place to deal with the influx.By all accounts it was a social experiment that went tits up.The stupid thing is,instead of learning from it,the same thing happened again in the late 90s and early 00s albeit without the high rise.Places like lusk,enfield,portarlington and balbriggan would be good examples.

Conall Cernach

One and two bed high rise apartments designed for young professionals would free up a fair few 3 bed semis for families.

Dyr

riclad wrote: »

Ballymun has been totally rebuilt with modern hi spec apartments ,
and houses .
They knocked down the high rise blocks .
All new buildings built with high insulation and sound insulation ,
better than 90 per cent of apartments built in the boom .
.

lollerpops

MadsL

People who handwring over Dublin having no highrise remind me of someone peering over at the next urinal. Just because other countries have it bigger doesn't mean that Ireland is inadequate, cities that have managed to keep a low skyline are in fact lucky to have escaped the architectural expression of penis envy.

There are plenty of ways to increase density without highrise, Dublin is like a swiss cheese - full of brown field sites that could contribute infill mixed use social housing.

harry Bailey esq

harry Bailey esq wrote: »

The main reason in my opinion was dumping a large volume of people into a sparcely populated,rural area virtually overnight,and not having the services in place to deal with the influx.

That's often given as a reason, but we can't just ignore that these people had previously lived in tenements, and probably just packed up their problems in boxes and brought them with them from the slums. Where previously you had these individuals with their problems dispersed around Dublin city centre, and many of them known personally to good, community police, suddenly they were all concentrated on one huge estate.

So now you've dumped all these people with dysfunctional lives all together, where the police no longer know people by their name and family, and soon after, drugs like heroin start to make their way into the country, giving dealers a huge, accessible market. It must have been a confluence of disasters, a perfect storm.

Dyr

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's often given as a reason, but we can't just ignore that these people had previously lived in tenements, and probably just packed up their problems in boxes and brought them with them from the slums. Where previously you had these individuals with their problems dispersed around Dublin city centre, and many of them known personally to good, community police, suddenly they were all concentrated on one huge estate..

Like I was saying

Bambi wrote: »

The phenomenon of the people-who know-whats-best-for-the-great-unwashed is what's unique in Ireland and England

Jimoslimos

MadsL wrote: »

People who handwring over Dublin having no highrise remind me of someone peering over at the next urinal. Just because other countries have it bigger doesn't mean that Ireland is inadequate, cities that have managed to keep a low skyline are in fact lucky to have escaped the architectural expression of penis envy.

There are plenty of ways to increase density without highrise, Dublin is like a swiss cheese - full of brown field sites that could contribute infill mixed use social housing.

You are completely missing the point. We simply don't have the transport infrastructure to build on brownfield sites - what happens then is everyone needs cars (and car parks) and the roads get congested, which is fine if you live in the US, with large tracts of land to expand into.

High rise should aim to provide the city with easy access to businesses and people, meaning resources can be concentrated into a smaller area, instead of trying to provide everybody with a semi-d, garden and two car parking spaces.

Also while I'm all for preserving aspects of Dublin Georgian architecture people need to realise that cities change, evolve and grow. Managing that can be difficult but the default answer can't be "this is how it looked in 1800 and it shall for ever more"

Dyr

MadsL wrote: »

People who handwring over Dublin having no highrise remind me of someone peering over at the next urinal. Just because other countries have it bigger doesn't mean that Ireland is inadequate, cities that have managed to keep a low skyline are in fact lucky to have escaped the architectural expression of penis envy.

This is the driving force for much of what happens in Ireland, in trying to impress the big boys by showing we can keep up with them, we usually copy what they do right around the time big boys realize that it was a massive mistake

As for what went wrong in ballymun originally i could give chapter and verse on it but it's not really relevant to fixing the current housing crisis.

I'm confident we'll just repeat the same mistakes again and then add a few new ones for good measure, all wrapped up in the "half a job for twice the price" (to quote our finest politician) gombeenism that permeates any attempt to deliver major infrastructure in Ireland

harry Bailey esq

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's often given as a reason, but we can't just ignore that these people had previously lived in tenements, and probably just packed up their problems in boxes and brought them with them from the slums.


suddenly they were all concentrated on one huge estate.

So now you've dumped all these people with dysfunctional lives all together

Well thats what I was getting at.The services needed to be already in place, but that's not what happened.I kinda disagree with the first part I quoted there though,whilst many ballymunners came from town,many chose to move to Ballymun from older,more established corpo estates in places like Finglas,Cabra and Crumlin.These places had gardens,front and back,and indoor plumbing.Whatever people feel about those areas now is their own business,but back then,slums they certainly were not.Those people chose to embrace high rise living,it was the string pullers who f#@*d up for the most part.

crockholm

We are assuming that this is a problem that we can somehow fix,add a certain amount of social housing tennants to a quart of finely built homes and then multiply it by x amount of stories and that is the recipe for success.
I have lived in a few highrises on the Continent,one we moved from because the area was going downhill fast.Another was very well run,but expensive enough-it used to average out at 1 in 6 of the appts. per floor was paid for by the city,and if the tennents were any way anti-social they were moved on.
I doubt it would work in Ireland as many people have a negative image of living in a Highrise,also the 1/6 would probably be closer to 5/6 and the anti social families would be left there.

So after that stream of conciousness,I reckon that we should build them and build them high,build them so there is density,density can lead to infrastructure,both transport and social.
No country has avoided Ghetto's/no go areas, so lets quit thinking that we can avoid it and lets just,at best,be able to manage it.

psicic

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Wow, really? What was the in-fighting over? (i.e. why did they have such a problem with Ballymun, to the point of crippling local services)

I've always had the impression that local services on the North side, particularly around the North-West Ballymun/Finglas area, have been abysmal - while plenty of resources get allocated to the South side (though again, less to some parts of the South-West); has made me wonder if there is a level of corruption and/or deliberate snobbery, with regards to allocation of public resources.

I don't like to speak bad of an area either, but you can tell today that the general area (not just Ballymun/Finglas, parts of the whole surrounding area) is incredibly poorly serviced relative to the rest of Dublin (looking like some bits of it haven't seen much work in 3+ decades), and the people living there suffer as a result.

So, given all of that, I'm very curious about the political infighting, what it's about, and how that works?

I don't have a huge overview of all the players (so anyone more in the know can correct me), but my understanding is you had:
1. A minister determined to make their mark
2. A relatively new state agency full of architects and planners (Foras Forbartha, I think... National Building Agency) who were also determined to leave a mark designed the project with minimal input from others
3. Department of Local Government who were keen on the idea, but not hugely keen on the expert advice.
4. Dublin County Council who refused to have anything to do with the project because they weren't in charge and they felt they were being exported a 'problem'. Originally they were onboard, but took offence at something (I think their views weren't taken onboard during planning, then they were told they wouldn't be getting the funding/staff they felt they needed)
5. Dublin Corporation which eventually did agree to assume responsibility, but through gritted teeth as it didn't want to spend it's cash reserves on delivering on the project either. When they agreed to take over, they (from their view) never agreed to the 'extras' - i.e. the social planning elements. Hence the low priority and delays to building any of the promised amenities others mentioned (there were supposed to be shops, a pool, church and other amenities in place BEFORE the first people moved in to the towerblocks.
6. Various other Departments and bodies that committed at the planning phase to provide part funding for various amenities , but either pulled out due to the lapse of time, change in personnel or a perceived lack of interest from the Corporation. (for instance, and my recollection is fuzzy on this, but I think Education & Science withheld funding for building the schools in the area because of confusion between the Building Agency the County Council and the Corporation. Each had a separate reason for wanting to not be the one signing off on the school even though funding was available)

That's a lot of different players with a lot of different viewpoints, but it's about all I can remember. There were supposed to be entertainment venues, business space and leisure facilities built, but everyone seemed to baulk at the idea that they could end up funding these long term if private tenants couldn't be found.

Eugene Norman

Shenshen wrote: »

While I would cautiously agree that, yes, the solution to the housing crisis is not to extend Dublin housing estates all the way to Drogheda and beyond, I think we need to first examine why it was that Ballymun did turn into such a hole (as another poster put it) in the first place.

Many other countries have tackled housing problems by building apartments and flats rather sucessfully. So what are they doing right that the UK and Ireland seem to be doing wrong? Why does it work there any not here?
Until that question has been addressed, I'd be very cautious about wasting money building new highrises that might have to get torn down again a few years from now.

People make ghettoes. By and large.

OneArt

riclad wrote: »

Ballymun has been totally rebuilt with modern hi spec apartments ,
and houses .
They knocked down the high rise blocks .
All new buildings built with high insulation and sound insulation

Are you only referring to the social housing or all new buildings in Ballymun?

Rented two apartments there (not at the same time though...), one across from the Gateway Student Village and the other near the Days Hotel. Both certainly looked clean and modern but insulation and sound proofing were nonexistent. Typical shoddy Celtic Tiger work.

Then again, I could've been incredibly unlucky!