Mass immigration will ruin our countryside

mossy95

If our population increases at the rate it is now were going to have soulless commuter towns in kildare, Meath Wicklow and probably even further out as well. I really fear that our country side will be just plagued with ugly looking flats for miles.

_Brian

It'll be grand, relax.

ScumLord

mossy95 wrote: »

If our population increases at the rate it is now were going to have soulless commuter towns in kildare, Meath Wicklow and probably even further out as well. I really fear that our country side will be just plagued with ugly looking flats for miles.

Seems unlikely. I really wish we had some proper planning in this country to stop even Irish people contributing to urban sprawl, which is happening in every small town around the country, our countryside is treated like plots where everything is up from grabs to the people who can afford it.

Ireland can easily support a higher population, remember this island had a much higher population that's only starting to recover from the famine and immigration. But we need proper planning, no more one off housing and as a result no one off apartment blocks in the middle of nowhere, not that I think that would ever happen anyway.

SEPT 23 1989

Cant blame them for this

Blame the gombeens we vote for

Mr. CooL ICE

The subject of the thread sounds like something from the daily mail headline generator.

In other news, HAS FEMINISM GIVEN YOUR PENSION CANCER?

Icepick

Haha

The countryside is already littered by ugly one offs.

And we need to build up anyway. If immigrarion helps with that, it's anotger positive.

_Brian

Icepick wrote: »

Haha

The countryside is already littered by ugly one offs.

And we need to build up anyway. If immigrarion helps with that, it's anotger positive.

My one off is perfectly nice, down a lane not visible from the road, away from the lot of ye.

Not everyone wants to live in a photocopied apartment stacked up like battery chickens listening to the guy above taking a piiss during the night. No thanks.

osarusan

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

The subject of the thread sounds like something from the daily mail headline generator.

In other news, HAS FEMINISM GIVEN YOUR PENSION CANCER?

COULD SINGLE MOTHERS GIVE THE CHURCH DIABETES?
ARE MUSLIMS SCROUNGING OFF YOUR PETS?
HAVE TEACHERS TURNED BRITISH JUSTICE GAY?

hahahahaha I love it.

ScumLord

_Brian wrote: »

My one off is perfectly nice, down a lane not visible from the road, away from the lot of ye.

Not everyone wants to live in a photocopied apartment stacked up like battery chickens listening to the guy above taking a piiss during the night. No thanks.

We need much higher building standards for apartments too. there's no reason why what you're describing should be happening in this day and age, there's no need for tiny apartments and there's no chance builders will do this on their own.

BrokenArrows

mossy95 wrote: »

If our population increases at the rate it is now were going to have soulless commuter towns in kildare, Meath Wicklow and probably even further out as well. I really fear that our country side will be just plagued with ugly looking flats for miles.

The England population density is 413 people per square kilometer. Ireland is 69.

England still has plenty of green space and countryside.

Dont worry about it.

Harry Palmr

Ireland probably has the worst town planning in the western world, that's the problem.

DontThankMe

Are you mad no one wants to live in the country side these days just look at the amount of ghost estates in the back ass of no where.

Fr_Dougal

ScumLord wrote: »

We need much higher building standards for apartments too. there's no reason why what you're describing should be happening in this day and age, there's no need for tiny apartments and there's no chance builders will do this on their own.

The government have relaxed legislation on apartments, minimum size has been reduced. The future is shoeboxes.

_Brian

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

The government have relaxed legislation on apartments, minimum size has been reduced. The future is shoeboxes.

Great way to increase density without building up and "spoiling" tue Dublin skyline.

osarusan

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

The future is shoeboxes.

I hope not. If apartments are built that a family of 4 or 5 can live in long-term, then plenty will live in them long-term.

If nothing but shoeboxes are built, then families will eventually still want to get their own house, as there's no long-term alternative.

_Brian

osarusan wrote: »

I hope not. If apartments are built that a family of 4 or 5 can live in long-term, then plenty will live in them long-term.

If nothing but shoeboxes are built, then families will eventually still want to get their own house, as there's no long-term alternative.

Never happen.

Developers will build stuff that sells easily and max return for space.
The prime market for apartments is couples and singles, build an apartment for a family of five and it's beyond the reach of the prime market, it would take twice the floor space of a single bed appt so need to be twice the price and somit would never sell.

Mrs OBumble

osarusan wrote: »

I hope not. If apartments are built that a family of 4 or 5 can live in long-term, then plenty will live in them long-term.

If nothing but shoeboxes are built, then families will eventually still want to get their own house, as there's no long-term alternative.

People with children need larger units to live in for part of their lives - while they're raising the children.

But before that and also afterwards (aging population and all) - they don't, Smaller units are just fine.

Especially for poorer people, a well designed shoebox is a good deal better than a doorway or a hostel bed.


As for the OP trying to pin the ruination of the Irish countryside on immigrants - P*SS OFF with that. Ye managed to destroy huge areas wth ridiculous mcMansions all by yourselves, no immigrant input required (except to actually do the building!).

Soulless commuter towns? You mean instead of the genuinely soul-sparse towns which most people have moved out of?

LeinsterDub

_Brian wrote: »

My one off is perfectly nice, down a lane not visible from the road, away from the lot of ye.

During planning appeal. A person wanting to build a one off "but Brian got his one off!" Next thing you know it's one offs for miles

_Brian

LeinsterDub wrote: »

During planning appeal but Brian got his one off! Next thing you know it's one offs for miles

What?

Burial.

osarusan wrote: »

COULD SINGLE MOTHERS GIVE THE CHURCH DIABETES?
ARE MUSLIMS SCROUNGING OFF YOUR PETS?
HAVE TEACHERS TURNED BRITISH JUSTICE GAY?

hahahahaha I love it.

COULD HOODIES MAKE YOUR PETS OBESE?
WILL THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT TURN CLIFF RICHARD GAY?
HAVE GAYS HAD SEX WITH MIDDLE BRITAIN?
COULD THE E.U. INFECT YOUR PETS WITH AIDS?
COULD FOXES MAKE THE COUNTRYSIDE OBESE?

Unreal

_Brian

This whinging about "one off's for miles", in pre famine times the rural countryside was littered with houses, these over time fell into disrepair and most have been ploughed into the ground.
Big swing, we are returning to what was once the norm.

But I'm fed up hearing people talking about all these houses popping up and spoiling virgin countryside.

Our farm had maybe 6 famine houses, now there are two family houses, both connected to farming. Not sure how many "grates" but my great, great grandmother was born about 700meters from where my "one off" house is now.

LeinsterDub

_Brian wrote: »

What?

Your one off set the precedent for others

Guy:Incognito

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Cant blame them for this

Blame the gombeens we vote for

Is there a majority demanding that cities be built upwards that the government are ignoring? I doubt it's something most voters bring up with politicians. The people from the city centre probably oppose it in the majority if anything,

Ash.J.Williams

This thread is like the chap that rang liveline to specifically complain about halaal butchering practices, and but really had a deep rooted hatred of brown people and turned out to also be an anti immigration independent candidate :pac:

LeinsterDub

_Brian wrote: »

This whinging about "one off's for miles", in pre famine times the rural countryside was littered with houses, these over time fell into disrepair and most have been ploughed into the ground.
Big swing, we are returning to what was once the norm.

But I'm fed up hearing people talking about all these houses popping up and spoiling virgin countryside.

Our farm had maybe 6 famine houses, now there are two family houses, both connected to farming. Not sure how many "grates" but my great, great grandmother was born about 700meters from where my "one off" house is now.

The difference was the state wasn't required to provide any infrastructure then and people didn't have cars allowing them to bypass and effectively kill the local town.

LirW

Especially for poorer people, a well designed shoebox is a good deal better than a doorway or a hostel bed.

That's something I don't really understand: the average 3bed ex council house without extension has around 75 sqm. This is not that much.
If you have well-built 3 or 4 bedroom apartments with a balcony, that's grad for a family really. It's done like that everywhere and it works out quite well. The way you build it is the key. But there are plenty of people with children that are not interested in the upkeep that a house with garden.

There is honestly nothing wrong with 6 story apartment blocks containing 1 - 4 bedroom apartments in different sizes.

Skylinehead

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

The subject of the thread sounds like something from the daily mail headline generator.

In other news, HAS FEMINISM GIVEN YOUR PENSION CANCER?

I actually got ARE THE UNEMPLOYED DESTROYING OUR COUNTRYSIDE?


Close enough I guess

_Brian

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Your one off set the precedent for others

Your right.
My brother is building next to me, on our own farmland, and he also works on the farm. My previous planning assured he got his through.

Guy:Incognito

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

The government have relaxed legislation on apartments, minimum size has been reduced. The future is shoeboxes.

You should see what was considered nice when I was working in one of the supposed utopias , Norway, a few years back. apartments which were glorified bedsits, the bedroom boxed off by a sliding wall. It was a wardrobe with a bed in it. You'd actually have to open in to make the sitting room big enough to use. All for about 300 grand.

ScumLord

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Especially for poorer people, a well designed shoebox is a good deal better than a doorway or a hostel bed.

I don't think there's any need for shoe box apartments in Ireland though, we don't have the density for it to be necessary. The only advantage to it now is developers selling more units. If Dublin would build up it would take a lot of pressure off sprawl and make things like transport easier to manage.

I'm very much a country boy and hate over crowded cities but some concessions need to be made to save this island from being completely overrun by humans. This island has been abused ever since we were forced to settle down into farming. Those people ruined large chunks of the land by cutting down forests and we still see the effects of that ecological disaster with our bogs today, yet we continue to make the same mistakes as those ignorant nomads who tried to turn the entire country into farmland. We still cut down trees and don't replace them, we still turn land that's unstable into housing, what's left of our wildlife is on the brink of collapse, our land is a mess because it can't handle the weather anymore because of lack of trees in highlands.

Personally I think it should be a crime to cut down a tree without a very, very good reason, I think farmland that's not used should be bought up by the state and allowed to go wild and that efforts should be made to get more land off people. Housing should be restricted to towns and cities and no one off housing in the middle of nowhere. I'd even bring in a license for farming to restrict the amount of farmers even encouraging them to move into more regimented farming regions instead of having anyone with a plot of land claiming to be a farmer and let whole regions that aren't really any good as farmland go completely wild.

It would require some real effort put into making the urban areas much better places to live in though. We're behaving very irresponsibly and making no effort to protect the land that provides for us. Ire;and is tiny, it's extremely fertile but we're pushing it beyond it's capabilities.

_Brian

Beyond what ??
We currently export 90% of beef produced and some similar amount of dairy Produce.

Rural housing consists only a tiny % of total land and has very little effect on food production.

_Brian

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think there's any need for shoe box apartments in Ireland though, we don't have the density for it to be necessary. The only advantage to it now is developers selling more units. If Dublin would build up it would take a lot of pressure off sprawl and make things like transport easier to manage.

I'm very much a country boy and hate over crowded cities but some concessions need to be made to save this island from being completely overrun by humans. This island has been abused ever since we were forced to settle down into farming. Those people ruined large chunks of the land by cutting down forests and we still see the effects of that ecological disaster with our bogs today, yet we continue to make the same mistakes as those ignorant nomads who tried to turn the entire country into farmland. We still cut down trees and don't replace them, we still turn land that's unstable into housing, what's left of our wildlife is on the brink of collapse, our land is a mess because it can't handle the weather anymore because of lack of trees in highlands.

Personally I think it should be a crime to cut down a tree without a very, very good reason, I think farmland that's not used should be bought up by the state and allowed to go wild and that efforts should be made to get more land off people. Housing should be restricted to towns and cities and no one off housing in the middle of nowhere. I'd even bring in a license for farming to restrict the amount of farmers even encouraging them to move into more regimented farming regions instead of having anyone with a plot of land claiming to be a farmer and let whole regions that aren't really any good as farmland go completely wild.

It would require some real effort put into making the urban areas much better places to live in though. We're behaving very irresponsibly and making no effort to protect the land that provides for us. Ire;and is tiny, it's extremely fertile but we're pushing it beyond it's capabilities.

You make an excellent point regarding grading farmland as for its potential productivity.

Take my own region Cavan/Leitrim.
On the whole it really is only suitable for mass plantation rather than livestock farming. It would be an opportunity to concentrate broadleaf plantation all in one area and create a super forest for Ireland. Current subsidies diverted to pay farmers to maintain the forest and agreed access for walkers, ban forestation of prime lands in good farming areas.
This would be a worthwhile long term project but one that would enhance the environment and provide brilliant tourist potential for the region.

These lands need huge chemical input to keep them farming and as a result more and more of these chemicals is finding its way into ground water.

However farmers are currently punished for not maintaining this land "green" for grazing and so have no choice but continue to spray cut and manage a green monoculture.

osarusan

_Brian wrote: »

Never happen.

Developers will build stuff that sells easily and max return for space.

There are others who can build, on grand scales.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

People with children need larger units to live in for part of their lives - while they're raising the children.

But before that and also afterwards (aging population and all) - they don't, Smaller units are just fine.

This is true, but just because most of the aging population could live in smaller unit, that doesn't mean they will move, especially to something resembling a shoebox.

Nabber

I always found the issue in Ireland is that for the most part we measure a house by number of bedrooms. Take a look through daft and you see house advertisied as 3 bedroom, with the downstairs dinning room converted prior the selling as a bedroom.

Houses should be bought on and sold as square meters.

Farms are not sold as "can graze 110 cows"!!!
I lived in an apartment that was two bedrooms. Both bed rooms combined aren't the size of my current houses master bedroom.

As many have said before, this country can support more, 40million easily, I'd say. But planning needs to be corrected.

123shooter

Before I post this I have to state I am not against immigrants.

I see no problem with immigrants as long as they comply and adhere to the rules/regulations/laws of the country they go to.

BUT..... In all my years I have never seen an explanation as to why a country like the UK or in this instance Ireland requires immigrants in the numbers they come.


So why do we suddenly need mass immigration never before seen in history?

JupiterKid

No, immigration is not affecting the Irish countryside. Decades of social research has shown that immigrants overwhelmingly concentrate in urban areas, particularly the largest cities, so that they can develop ethnic communities (which some call ghettoes) and avail or job and work opportunities.

The scourge of one-off rural housing is and has been generated by self-entitled native Irish, not immigrants. The era of "bungalow bliss" precedes significant immigration into Ireland by a few decades.

The problem is good, or the lack of, good town planning in this country. Allowing Dublin to sprawl into a 100km radius commuter belt in an unsustainable manner without looking at how to intensify development in the existing urban fabric with high quality mixed housing linked to good quality public transportation has been a disaster. We don't seem to do coherent, joined up urban planning well in Ireland and it is a total shame.

Ireland could accommodate another 5 million in the long-term but without proper planning it would be a bit of a disaster.

123shooter

JupiterKid wrote: »

No, immigration is not affecting the Irish countryside. Decades of social research has shown that immigrants overwhelmingly concentrate in urban areas, particularly the largest cities, so that they can develop ethnic communities (which some call ghettoes) and avail or job and work opportunities.

Doesn't that push the native population who once lived in same towns out in to the countryside?

Dr Crayfish

Our countryside is already ruined. One. Off. Housing.

irishgrover

123shooter wrote: »

Before I post this I have to state I am not against immigrants.

I see no problem with immigrants as long as they comply and adhere to the rules/regulations/laws of the country they go to.

BUT..... In all my years I have never seen an explanation as to why a country like the UK or in this instance Ireland requires immigrants in the numbers they come.


So why do we suddenly need mass immigration never before seen in history?

I'll attempt to answer this....
Our modern economy (last 30 years or so ) is largely a knowledge based economy.....IT, Pharma, MedTech, FinTech, multi lingual call centres etc...... we don't have sufficient numbers of intelligent/qualified people to do this without immigrants......there are plenty other reasons but this is a big one

I think the UK is different as a lot of its historic immigration was related to its empire past.....

123shooter

irishgrover wrote: »

I'll attempt to answer this....
Our modern economy (last 30 years or so ) is largely a knowledge based economy.....IT, Pharma, MedTech, FinTech, multi lingual call centres etc...... we don't have sufficient numbers of intelligent/qualified people to do this without immigrants......there are plenty other reasons but this is a big one

Exactly so the theory that big business has corrupted the socialist governments especially in the EU to allow immigration en-mass into our countries because they cannot sell goods into countries where the immigrants come from as the wages are so low. So by allowing them into the west they acquire more money from work and or at least benefits and become consumers which is not to the liking of the native population as they and their way of life and in this case countryside suffer.

So mass immigration suits big business/global companies and doesn't suit our populations?

What's wrong with work visa's which worked well for many years?

I think the UK is different as a lot of its historic immigration was related to its empire past.....

No mass immigration to the UK only happened after 2004 and was down to the legendary completely honest and trustworthy, the one and only impeccable it wasn't me guv.......... Tony Bliar.

123shooter

irishgrover wrote: »

I'll attempt to answer this....
Our modern economy (last 30 years or so ) is largely a knowledge based economy.....IT, Pharma, MedTech, FinTech, multi lingual call centres etc...... we don't have sufficient numbers of intelligent/qualified people

So what's wrong with training the native population so immigrants are not needed en-mass, or is it more cost effective to let them sit around on benefits and by doing so attract their support because if a government pays people to sit at home they will definitely get their vote?

Boggy Turf

DontThankMe wrote: »

Are you mad no one wants to live in the country side these days just look at the amount of ghost estates in the back ass of no where.

I don't equate living in the countryside to living in a housing estate in a rural area.

I love living in my one off house. It beats living anywhere near grotty Dublin.

osarusan

COULD THE UNEMPLOYED TURN THE MIDDLE CLASS GAY?
IS THE E.U. MOLESTING YOUR MORTGAGE?

mcgovern

123shooter wrote: »

So what's wrong with training the native population so immigrants are not needed en-mass, or is it more cost effective to let them sit around on benefits and by doing so attract their support because if a government pays people to sit at home they will definitely get their vote?

I'm sure there are people on benefits that could be re-trained into these areas and who would love the opportunity. But, that is a small fraction of those on benefits. A 60 year old builder is not going to re-train to be an IT technician for example.
There is also the fact that most of the jobs are in areas that require specialised (expensive) qualifications that can take years to acquire. This doesn't suit most of those who are actively looking for work as they need something quick.
Then of course there are the large numbers who have no interest in working at all.

Grayson

mcgovern wrote: »

I'm sure there are people on benefits that could be re-trained into these areas and who would love the opportunity. But, that is a small fraction of those on benefits. A 60 year old builder is not going to re-train to be an IT technician for example.
There is also the fact that most of the jobs are in areas that require specialised (expensive) qualifications that can take years to acquire. This doesn't suit most of those who are actively looking for work as they need something quick.
Then of course there are the large numbers who have no interest in working at all.

and do you force people to work in areas they're not interested in? Of course not. You could always try some kind of financial incentive but that may mean paying that person more than someone who chose that career.

there will always be gaps. And the thing about migration is that it changes according to market demands. If there's a load of jobs in construction that are high paid then people will come for them. many of them may leave when the jobs aren't available.

topper75

ScumLord wrote: »

...
Ireland can easily support a higher population, remember this island had a much higher population that's only starting to recover from the famine and immigration.

Wait a sec...
how can we 'easily' support a higher population when a famine resulted the last time we pushed up to that higher population?

If we have recovered, all the more reason to limit an unsteadying rise in population, no?

Remember, that historic higher population was about mud cabins on damp hillsides and dangerous monoculture. Disease was rife and it ended in a brutal collapse with starvation and mass exodus.

endacl

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

The subject of the thread sounds like something from the daily mail headline generator.

In other news, HAS FEMINISM GIVEN YOUR PENSION CANCER?

HAS THE METRIC SYSTEM IMPREGNATED CLIFF RICHARD?

ohnonotgmail

topper75 wrote: »

Wait a sec...
how can we 'easily' support a higher population when a famine resulted the last time we pushed up to that higher population?

If we have recovered, all the more reason to limit an unsteadying rise in population, no?

Remember, that historic higher population was about mud cabins on damp hillsides and dangerous monoculture. Disease was rife and it ended in a brutal collapse with starvation and mass exodus.

it collapsed precisely because of that monoculture. we no longer have that monoculture. Our country is more than capable of supporting a much bigger population. our population density is among the lowest in europe.

123shooter

mcgovern wrote: »

I'm sure there are people on benefits that could be re-trained into these areas and who would love the opportunity. But, that is a small fraction of those on benefits. A 60 year old builder is not going to re-train to be an IT technician for example.
There is also the fact that most of the jobs are in areas that require specialised (expensive) qualifications that can take years to acquire. This doesn't suit most of those who are actively looking for work as they need something quick.
Then of course there are the large numbers who have no interest in working at all.

So are you saying governments are adopting the policy of leaving people on benefits to rot and importing a workforce to suit big business while the way of life and native population suffer?

Something wrong there don't you think? I thought a country was about it's people not about whatever global corporation waived a bundle of notes?

123shooter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

our population density is among the lowest in europe.

And quality of life high.

ohnonotgmail

123shooter wrote: »

And quality of life high.

is it? the dutch, belgians, germans and the swiss have a much higher population density yet dont seem to be suffering on the quality of life metric. are you suggesting that there is some link between quality of life and population density?