Advertisement
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Alot of nothing West of Adamstown

  • 20-02-2020 9:40am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,084 ✭✭✭ veryangryman


    Getting the train in, you cant help but wonder why we dont use the land around the tracks there for a further stretch.

    I know that long commutes arent to be encouraged but to have people from the Sallins, Celllbridge etc of this world having to skip by all this nothing on way to work seems a bit silly. Should use the space where its there.

    Anyways $4 a pound....


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭ Thrashssacre


    Getting the train in, you cant help but wonder why we dont use the land around the tracks there for a further stretch.

    I know that long commutes arent to be encouraged but to have people from the Sallins, Celllbridge etc of this world having to skip by all this nothing on way to work seems a bit silly. Should use the space where its there.

    Anyways $4 a pound....

    Plenty of land east of it to be developed first, as far as clondalkin/Fonthill.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,084 ✭✭✭ veryangryman


    Colin Mccarthy suggested same on Newstalk recently. Couldnt help agreeing. If high rise and/or metro is so far off, maybe there's something in this.

    Kishogue station is ready to be used like. A few housing developments around it would make it viable (and of course house these poor feckers)


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,268 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    To have an efficient train service, stations need to be adequately spaced. Density is needed at the stations, not strung along the track getting further from the station. Developing everything as far as Naas, or even Hazelhatch is still urban sprawl which should be avoided, regardless of the presence of the rail line.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,748 ✭✭✭✭ BonnieSituation


    Colin Mccarthy suggested same on Newstalk recently. Couldnt help agreeing. If high rise and/or metro is so far off, maybe there's something in this.

    Kishogue station is ready to be used like. A few housing developments around it would make it viable (and of course house these poor feckers)

    Kishogue could have long been used by those living in Foxborough, Griffeen, Moy Glas etc

    It should have been open long before now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,852 ✭✭✭ SeanW


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    To have an efficient train service, stations need to be adequately spaced. Density is needed at the stations, not strung along the track getting further from the station. Developing everything as far as Naas, or even Hazelhatch is still urban sprawl which should be avoided, regardless of the presence of the rail line.
    Are you suggesting that suburban development should be avoided even when people will be using DART type railway transport?

    If so, I suggest that's a bad idea because not everyone wants to spend 10+ years salary to buy a crappy apartment where they can hear the neighbour going to the toilet. Houses near suburban train stations are a thing all over the world, not sure why Dublin should be any different.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,268 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    SeanW wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that suburban development should be avoided even when people will be using DART type railway transport?

    No. I was clearly pointing out that in order to maintain quality of service (speed and frequency) stations need to be adequately spaced. Putting stations right beside each other slows trains down and limits frequency. Living beside a rail line isn't much good if you are not near a station. It is better to have higher density at stations and little or nothing in between than encouraging urban sprawl along the line regardless of access to a station.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,852 ✭✭✭ SeanW


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    No. I was clearly pointing out that in order to maintain quality of service (speed and frequency) stations need to be adequately spaced. Putting stations right beside each other slows trains down and limits frequency. Living beside a rail line isn't much good if you are not near a station. It is better to have higher density at stations and little or nothing in between than encouraging urban sprawl along the line regardless of access to a station.
    So ... yes, you want to herd everyone into ****ty apartment blocks where they can hear their neighbours conversations and bowel movements ... awesome :rolleyes:

    Because there is an alternative. The alternative is to allow housing constructions slightly further from train stations and allow people to have the choice between living in a crappy apartment next to the station, or having a slightly longer commute from a house but have to travel to the station. Allow people to decide which matters more to them. A nicer place to live but with a longer commute, or a crappy apartment with a shorter commute.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,673 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    Maybe build decent apartments?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,268 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    SeanW wrote: »
    So ... yes, you want to herd everyone into ****ty apartment blocks where they can hear their neighbours conversations and bowel movements ... awesome :rolleyes:

    Because there is an alternative. The alternative is to allow housing constructions slightly further from train stations and allow people to have the choice between living in a crappy apartment next to the station, or having a slightly longer commute from a house but have to travel to the station. Allow people to decide which matters more to them. A nicer place to live but with a longer commute, or a crappy apartment with a shorter commute.

    It’s amazing how some people still think urban sprawl is a good idea, thankfully sstandards now are not stuck in the 80s with them. Have you specific issues with the current Building Regulations?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,852 ✭✭✭ SeanW


    So, yes. In your Weltanschauung, people should only be allowed to live in overpriced concrete sh1tboxes.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,084 ✭✭✭ veryangryman


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    It’s amazing how some people still think urban sprawl is a good idea, thankfully standards now are not stuck in the 80s with them. Have you specific issues with the current Building Regulations?

    5 miles west of the city centre is not sprawl. My pee boils when simple ideas to solve housing problems get shot down with "urban sprawl" when it's anything but. This is a capital city. A cyclable distance from the city (Clondalkin) is not bloody urban sprawl.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,268 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    5 miles west of the city centre is not sprawl. My pee boils when simple ideas to solve housing problems get shot down with "urban sprawl" when it's anything but. This is a capital city. A cyclable distance from the city (Clondalkin) is not bloody urban sprawl.

    Why are you talking about Clondalkin, it is not west of Adamstown? If we take Heuston as the edge of the city centre, Adamstown is almost 12km (it's not the 70s any more) away as the crow flies. Another station west of Adamstown would have to be at least another km further out. There is a huge area east of Adamstown with a train station crying out to be developed, we don't need to be looking west of Adamstown.

    Developing greenfields on the periphery of a city is the definition of urban sprawl. There are huge areas of un- and under-developed land available in Dublin within which the population can expand. Future generations may need to expand west of Adamstown and we shouldn't ruin that for them. Current generations have destroyed the city by constantly expanding it with this every field is a building site in waiting mentality, resulting in the congested mess we have now. Lets focus on densifying the existing city and planned developments like Cherrywood, Clonburis and Docklands first.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,268 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    SeanW wrote: »
    So, yes. In your Weltanschauung, people should only be allowed to live in overpriced concrete sh1tboxes.

    What are you talking about? The minimum size for a 3-bedroom apartment is 90 sq.m, about the same as a standard 3 bed house. Come back to us when you have familiarised yourself with apartment design standards and the Building Regs instead of trotting out tired old nonsense. There are minimum acoustic standards and a testing regime required for new apartments so your "hear the neighbour going to the toilet" comment is irrelevant. Everything else has moved on over the last decade, even if you have not.

    All accommodation now is overpriced. That has a lot to do with your mentality that promotes low density houses over apartments. If we continue to build houses instead of a significantly higher number of apartments, it is only going to get more expensive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,852 ✭✭✭ SeanW


    If standards for apartments have improved in recent years then great. It's still likely that apartment living has downsides.

    And I also don't know what you mean by "my mentality" ... In the first instance, I am not suggesting that the Kildare line should have train stations every 500 metres. I also have no problem with apartments being built for people who want them - including prioritising high density around train stations. What I take issue with is the idea that people should not have the choice to live in a house further from the train station.

    Of course, what is built around train stations is somewhat academic given how all the train and tram services into Dublin City are massively over-subscribed. DART, Maynooth Commuter, Kildare Line, both Luas lines, all beyond maxed out. It won't make much difference what is built next to train stations if all the new apartment dwellers can't use the overcrowded trains. And that's the thing, even though we Irish have historically not been big on apartments, we've still managed to insanely over-utilise the Dublin public transport system. So, no, the use of houses is not a barrier to the adoption of public transport.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,673 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    In Copenhagen, their general way of doing things is to build apartments close to railway stations and houses further away.

    Live in an apartment and you get the benefit of top class PT on your doorstep which can be provided due to higher user numbers.

    Nobody is stopping you from living in a house, but the trade off is that you get a bus or cycle to the train station.

    I think that's fair.

    Obviously we don't have the same standard of PT as they do, but it's the way we should be doing things with long-term planning in mind.


Advertisement