Suburb after suburb after suburb...

pickarooney

CelticRambler wrote: »

If boards.ie had been around twenty-five years ago, I would have posted this same observation! At the time, I thought it'd make sense to define a virtual "wall" around the city - pretty much where the M50 is - beyond which there would be no new development, and to allow/encourage the creative re-development of the many derelict brownfield sites within the city.

That didn't happen, but most of the brownfield sites got re-developped anyway.

I'm in favour of high-rise, but don't understand this notion of "preserving the skyline" and trying to find a way of having high-rise in the city centre. It's the same here on the continent, with rules about how high/how close you can be to historic buildings, and not obstructing the view from 100km away :rolleyes: And then they offer "amazing panoramic views" from the bell tower of the cathedral/castle/whatever when the only thing you can see is a mass of boring rooftiles on the surrounding low-rise buildings, and what you really want to see is the cathedral rising out of that landscape.

But back to the virtual wall: most towns in France have something similar and what's actually happened is the historic centres have died anyway, developers have built highish-rise flats as the edge of the urban area (because they're not allowed build them in the centres) and all the commercial development is sprawled outside that. The approach to just about any decent-sized town in France now is a sprawling, boring, homogenous mess of low-rise car-showrooms, swimming-pool showrooms, Decathlon and Gémo stores, McDo, KFC & Quickburger eateries, cheap hotels and hypermarkets.

Where I live these commercial zones are 5 to 10km outside the city limits, where they basically wiped out a picturesque provencal village to put in hypermegaultrashoppingmall but already the space between the city and the zone is being filled up with ****ing car showrooms. How many of those things does a town need? There must be 100 in a 10km radius, Ferraris and Maseratis up the wazoo.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

seamus wrote: »

Of course we need to go high-rise. They should be allowed build up to ten stories right at the canal cordon, with that limit increasing as you get closer to the river.

There is nothing inherently appealing or unappealing about low-rise or high-rise, it's all about what you actually build.

Though I disagree about Dublin's suburbs being soulless and boring. There are certain pockets of stuff built during the Celtic tiger - mostly Lucan and Blanch, that are intensely dull and and endless, but most of the rest has enough variety and character to be interesting. Time is one of the things missing - a suburb filled with mature trees and mature communities has a better aesthetic than a brand new one. Give it another ten years and the celtic tiger areas will be far more grown up and appealing.

I live in an estate that was constructed during the Celtic Tiger era. It's about twelve years old and still lacks anything remotely resembling character or a community spirit. I'm really hoping to move in the next year or two as I really find it soul destroying. At weekends and during time off work I spend as little time as possible there.
I presume it's typical of many other estates built during that time, and it's depressing to see similar type areas being developed in the last year or so. This really isn't the best way to house people. Years ago, if a new estate was built, schools, shops, a church etc would soon follow. Now new areas are being left for years and years without sufficient amenities, and with no place for neighbours to really come together.

CelticRambler

Wyatt Little Home wrote: »

I live in an estate that was constructed during the Celtic Tiger era. It's about twelve years old and still lacks anything remotely resembling character or a community spirit.

Is it because there simply isn't room for people to personalise their space, compared to estates built in the 60s. I grew up in a D14 suburban estate (still the family home) and it was relatively boring at the time. Now, though, it has a degree of character, as little by little my parent's peers added extensions, porches, a garage (or converted the one that was there), a wider drive, or a second house in the corner garden.

That was possible because they had a decent separation between their house and the one next-door. My two sisters have middle of the road semi-d's and barely enough room to squeeze the wheelie bin down the side of the house, so any modifications they've done are limited to internal changes or sacrificing half the back garden for an extra bit of kitchen, none of which can be seen from out the front.

wakka12

Dublin is spread out because as you said, positive aspects such as open space, back gardens, and semi d's are seen as things all irish families are entitled to rather than the privileges that they are. Very few people are willing to move their families to apartments and its for that reason that the public spaces, the diversity, the transport and other aspects of our cities suffer hugely. Yet people living in these unnecessarily large suburban houses still have the nerve to complain about those things. You cant have the best of both worlds

Mainland European cities are wonderful because people are willing to live in densely populated apartment blocks close to the city and so the government can provide effective useful transport systems and excellent facilities

wakka12

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Isn't the reason Dublin doesn't have many high buildings because the bedrock is weak?
I could swear I read that somewhere.

Basically the rock under Dublin isn't strong enough to allow the building of really tall buildings on top of it.

Which is a good thing in my opinion, means Dublin doen'st look the same as anywhere else.
All the central European cities look the same, city square, old inner city, nice buildings and obligatory former-Jewish quarter and then nasty legoland blocks as far as the eye can see

Im not sure, maybe you're right about very tall skyscrapers but Dublin could support buildings considerably higher than the buildings we have at present. For instance Capital Dock is tall and there were no issues with ground rock there

Yeh its different but endless suburban sprawl is hardly something to be boast about or to strive towards in the name of uniqueness :rolleyes:

wakka12

seamus wrote: »

Of course we need to go high-rise. They should be allowed build up to ten stories right at the canal cordon, with that limit increasing as you get closer to the river.

There is nothing inherently appealing or unappealing about low-rise or high-rise, it's all about what you actually build.

Though I disagree about Dublin's suburbs being soulless and boring. There are certain pockets of stuff built during the Celtic tiger - mostly Lucan and Blanch, that are intensely dull and and endless, but most of the rest has enough variety and character to be interesting. Time is one of the things missing - a suburb filled with mature trees and mature communities has a better aesthetic than a brand new one. Give it another ten years and the celtic tiger areas will be far more grown up and appealing.

Honestly I don't think that will be the case. Suburbs like Blanch will never be interesting as they were built with the aim of speed and cost saving in mind. Victorian suburbs like Rathmines, Ranelagh, etc are interesting because the people who built them carefully considered the atmosphere of the neighbourhoods they were creating, attention to detail in the architecture was given, vistas and views were taken into account,it was all about creating as nice and comfortable a place for the upperclass to live as possible.

Modern day suburbs are all about putting a roof over people's heads as quickly and cheaply as possible, and it shows.. the results speak for themselves

Glenster

The bits from 1km west of the N11 to the Dart line from from Grand canal to monkstown and then again from glenageary to Killiney are nice.

All the rest of Dublin is depressing

wakka12

tomwaterford wrote: »

Maybe people like having gardens if they've got children for them to run about in???

Bring them to a park. With the world population reaching 7 billion this lifestyle is just becoming completely unrealistic. You simply cannot house all families in large detached homes with front and back gardens in a city of over a million and then expect effective transport systems and other services while living this very privileged lifestyle

wakka12

murpho999 wrote: »

I don't get the complaint here, every city I have been in has urban sprawl and suburbs. Dublin is no different and no where near as spread as other cities. Look at the size of London or Paris in comparison.

Yes , London and Paris are more spread out than dublin in terms of absolute land mass they take up but you must remember that their populations are about 12 times that of Dublin's also

pilly

wakka12 wrote: »

Dublin is spread out because as you said, positive aspects such as open space, back gardens, and semi d's are seen as things all irish families are entitled to rather than the privileges that they are. Very few people are willing to move their families to apartments and its for that reason that the public spaces, the diversity, the transport and other aspects of our cities suffer hugely. Yet people living in these unnecessarily large suburban houses still have the nerve to complain about those things. You cant have the best of both worlds

Mainland European cities are wonderful because people are willing to live in densely populated apartment blocks close to the city and so the government can provide effective useful transport systems and excellent facilities

Who exactly is suffering because Joe Bloggs wants to live in a 3 bedroom semi?

wakka12

pilly wrote: »

Who exactly is suffering because Joe Bloggs wants to live in a 3 bedroom semi?

Joe bloggs no.2 who has to live out in wicklow because all the joe bloggs before him bough big houses in the closer dublin suburbs before him and that forces everyone to keep moving further and further away. This is how suburban sprawl happens and its your exact attitude that causes it ironically

pilly

wakka12 wrote: »

Joe bloggs no.2 who has to live out in wicklow because all the joe bloggs before him bough big houses in the closer dublin suburbs before him and that forces everyone to keep moving further and further away. This is how suburban sprawl happens and its your exact attitude that causes it ironically

Ah stop, it's MY attitude that causes suburban sprawl??

Joe Bloggs No. 2 only needs to move to Wicklow if he also wants a 3 bedroom semi. If he wants an apartment near to Dublin city centre he's fully entitled to buy it.

I honestly don't know what the big fuss is about. Dublin has an excellent transport system, how does moving everyone into a smaller space improve those spaces or transport systems?

andekwarhola

I'm living in Dublin years and Blanchardstown confuses even me. It's a real sprawl if you don't know it.

Controlled high rise is obviously the answer to a lot of suburban sprawl.

That said, some people want to live in the suburbs. I wouldn't want to live really centrally tbf.

flutered

ther should be no building in any area without everything required to go with it is built first, shops school shopping area, leave an area vacent so that any religious group want to build a place for prayer etc. if they want it let them fund it, but ensure that the basic facilitys are advailable and ready to connect to

CaptainR

My dad was out visiting his brother in Ongar who lives in a relatively new estate, they went to the local for a pint. One thing dad noticed was that the pub didn't seem real. He reckoned it was like a film set because it was so new. It had no character and just seemed so bland. It actually put him off enjoying the evening.

Someone else mentioned trees being planted to liven up an area, I've other family who live in older areas with big mature trees and they actually hate them. They shed leaves into there gardens and all over the footpath. They also destroy footpaths with the roots and can actually disturb the front garden walls by going under them.

wakka12

pilly wrote: »

Ah stop, it's MY attitude that causes suburban sprawl??

Joe Bloggs No. 2 only needs to move to Wicklow if he also wants a 3 bedroom semi. If he wants an apartment near to Dublin city centre he's fully entitled to buy it.

I honestly don't know what the big fuss is about. Dublin has an excellent transport system, how does moving everyone into a smaller space improve those spaces or transport systems?

The attitude that just buying a detached house isn't contributing suburban sprawl when it is
Yes but nearly everyone wants a 3 bed semi and so this causes urban sprawl? You cant buy one yourself and then blame somebody else for buying the same thing and contributing to urban sprawl as well

Well I would believe that Dublin has among the worst public transport systems of any large city in Western Europe. And obviously transport can be provided more cheaply and quickly to places with higher population densities as the transport doesn't need to extend out as far but still serves large amounts of people

Dravokivich

wakka12 wrote: »

Bring them to a park. With the world population reaching 7 billion this lifestyle is just becoming completely unrealistic. You simply cannot house all families in large detached homes with front and back gardens in a city of over a million and then expect effective transport systems and other services while living this very privileged lifestyle

We're not Texas.

wakka12

Dravokivich wrote: »

We're not Texas.

What is that supposed to mean?

ScumLord

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Not a fan of the urban sprawl myself although am hesitant on building up.

Go down?

Graces7 wrote: »

i lived in Sheffield in the era of the tower blocks, They turned into ghettos and older folk on higher floors were stranded WHEN the lifts were vandalised.

They also moved in the wind.

I seem to remember they demolished them..

Yeah, and they probably replaced them with better high rises.

seamus wrote: »

Said the gardens were nothing but a headache -

It's just an area for muck production with Irish weather. A friend of mine moved into an estate house and the way the estate was built all the water basically ran into the back gardens of he's house, made the garden borderline unusable for most of the year.

Modern apartment blocks could provide an excellent quality of life and include things like small garden areas for those that wanted them. I suspect Irish builders would never build them though, they just want to throw up cheap shyte, collect their money and escape to Spain before anyone notices just how bad the build quality is.

LirW

When I first came to Dublin this was a thing that stood out for me. On the one hand it has some kind of charm overviewing the city but the reality is that the miles and miles of Semi-Ds is absolute madness in the long run. Especially in a place that has such a high demand as Dublin does. I do not understand why estate after estate is stomped out of the ground, all of them looking the same, instead of planning long-term.
I grew up in a fairly sized town in Mainland Europe, living in apartments was completely normal. Another irish thing seems to be that there is a lot of prejudice when it comes to apartment buildings since they are associated with social housing, drugs, antisocial behavior etc. There needs to be a lot of work done to get rid of this prejudice. That and build in a GOOD quality (I do understand, nobody would like to buy an apartment for family when the building quality is so poor that you can listen to your neighbor next to you while he's taking a crap) and people will start moving there.
People who want to live in a Semi-D will find the money to buy it, doesn't bother me at all. But at some point this city will have no choice and need to make massive changes in the way they are planning the city.

pilly

wakka12 wrote: »

The attitude that just buying a detached house isn't contributing suburban sprawl when it is
Yes but nearly everyone wants a 3 bed semi and so this causes urban sprawl? You cant buy one yourself and then blame somebody else for buying the same thing and contributing to urban sprawl as well

Well I would believe that Dublin has among the worst public transport systems of any large city in Western Europe. And obviously transport can be provided more cheaply and quickly to places with higher population densities as the transport doesn't need to extend out as far but still serves large amounts of people

I don't get the big problem people have with transport in Dublin. I've never been more than a few minutes waiting for a bus or Luas, what else do we want? Okay it's not cheap but it's a good reliable regular service.

I'm not blaming anyone for buying a semi d by the way, don't know how you picked that up? I'm just saying if people want to live in a house, can afford to and don't mind hopping on a bus or Luas what's the problem?

If it's simply that people don't like the look of them then they don't have to live there.

pilly

On the other hand I've been in capital cities where you rarely see a child because people don't want to live in a high rise environment with kids and so move outside the city and commute in by train to work. It kind of sucks a bit of life out a city I think to not see kids around the place.

railer201

wakka12 wrote: »

Dublin is spread out because as you said, positive aspects such as open space, back gardens, and semi d's are seen as things all irish families are entitled to rather than the privileges that they are. Very few people are willing to move their families to apartments and its for that reason that the public spaces, the diversity, the transport and other aspects of our cities suffer hugely. Yet people living in these unnecessarily large suburban houses still have the nerve to complain about those things. You cant have the best of both worlds

Mainland European cities are wonderful because people are willing to live in densely populated apartment blocks close to the city and so the government can provide effective useful transport systems and excellent facilities

Why would anyone want to move from a semi-d with gardens, within a half-hour bus or train ride, to a city centre apartment ? A semi-d is not unnecessarily large to me and if I couldn't live in one in Ireland, I'd take myself somewhere where I could and I'm effed if I would line the pockets of either an unscrupulous developer or some foreign investors by purchasing or renting their cramped heaps of crap in Dublin city centre.

One question amongst many others, such as the shortage of housing, that the younger generation should be asking is :-

'How people back in the 70's could on one salary, in an average job, afford to purchase a house with gardens in the city suburbs, and what has gone wrong since that makes this no longer possible '?

Ferrari3600

andekwarhola wrote: »

I'm living in Dublin years and Blanchardstown confuses even me. It's a real sprawl if you don't know it.

Controlled high rise is obviously the answer to a lot of suburban sprawl.

That said, some people want to live in the suburbs. I wouldn't want to live really centrally tbf.

The Sandyford/Dundrum/Knocklyon conurbation is probably the southside equivalent of Blanch. I grew up in nearby Leopardstown so you'd expect me to know my way around that neck of the woods, and yet everytime I visit relatives that sill live in that neck of the woods I say to them (only half-jokingly) everytime I come out here, I get lost because they've changed the roads yet again.

dd972

I've always preferred the coastal side to the western half of Dublin, however it could be worse, you could be stuck in outer London, the zenith of one s**t, nomark suburb blending into the next one...forever.

ChikiChiki

How anyone can argue against high rise is beyond me. The current situation is a farce.

When some think high rise they automatically think Ballymun or Sheffield. Grim blocks of flats.

Why not as a very wealthy city think Singapore, Dubai etc in terms of cityscape. Dublin seriously lacks ambition when such great potential and opportunities are there.

Dravokivich

wakka12 wrote: »

What is that supposed to mean?

It's big enough to do it appearently.

newacc2015

tomwaterford wrote: »

Maybe people like having gardens if they've got children for them to run about in???

Call me selfish. But if I had a choice between a large city centre apartment, where I could walk to work within 10 mins and be surrounded by cafes, shops, bars etc or have a house with a garden that is 60-90 min commute each way to work. I would choose the apartment any day.

People seem to forget that we live in Ireland, where it cold, wet and rainy a lot of the time. We barely get 6 hours of light in the middle of winter. Your children get such limited time in the garden. Where if you are in a nice apartment block (like in North America) you probably have a pool for them to go into 24/7. There is generally a park within 10 mins of most houses in Dublin. If you are in the city centre, you are rarely 5 mins walk from a green space

Irish people are so fixated on a house with a garden is superior to an apartment, they fail to realise that house might be costing them hours commuting per week.

IMO it is hard for a middle class family to live in the centre of the city, as there are no particularly great schools in between the canal that aren't fee paying.

Earthhorse

I hope we don't go down the high rise route because I do think it would ruin the character of the city. I don't like the imposing feel of block after block of apartments, even ones built to a high standard.

However, a few more apartment complexes as well as freeing up all the pokey unused space in the city centre will take the sting out of the tail of the sprawl. That, along with developing the Luas service and extending things like the Dublin Bike scheme are the long term solutions to the problem. I get why people want to go high rise but I think it's a decision we'd ultimately regret.

newacc2015 wrote: »

If you are in the city centre, you are rarely 5 mins walk from a green space.

I used to live one minute from Merrion Square and believe me it just isn't the same. I used it a fair bit on sunny days and it still wouldn't compare to how much use you'd get out of a private garden. It's way handier to be able to pop back inside for something and pop out again and I can only imagine that would be exacerbated if you had kids.

C. Montgomery Gurns

newacc2015 wrote: »

Call me selfish. But if I had a choice between a large city centre apartment, where I could walk to work within 10 mins and be surrounded by cafes, shops, bars etc or have a house with a garden that is 60-90 min commute each way to work. I would choose the apartment any day.
.

To be fair Irish people

a- don't like apartment living

b- don't want to live in the centre of Dublin (aside from inner city raised people who think the likes of Tallaght are the countryside :pac:). People see the new developments as souless and artificial, and ridiculously overpriced considering they are in parts where you would want to keep on your toes at night safety wise.


In all my years I don't think I have ever met an Irish person who lives in places like the IFSC, Grand Canal Dock or the redeveloped parts of Smithfield. They threw up these apartments in the last 20 years with an idea that it would mimic much of Europe, with the rich young professionals occupying them, yet instead the vast majority of these flats seem to be occupied 10 to a flat by South Americans or European professionals.