fly_agaric wrote: » This is really just a catch-all position that puts a moral sheen on not wanting to pay any more tax. They're all lazy public sector bums on the take anyway, so I'm dead right to vote FF/FG and take my few Euro extra when they cut usc/top tax rate as promised! Shure those wasters would have just squandered it! There is opportunity cost of subsidising the fairly inefficient "one-off house" lifestyle Irish people like + as was pointed out is traditional for the country. Any subsidy so spent is not available to be directed elsewhere in economy (such as better services for towns and villages...[and cities but say that quietly]). Technological changes may make this type of living somewhat more feasible but at the moment it is a massive white elephant. Even if there are revolutions in manufacturing, energy, automation etc I can't see it emptying out the cities - most it will do is stop their growth. Clusters of people (as in a town or a village) will still be more sustainable than the way we have been doing things.
Shurimgreat wrote: » And just as bad you would have to agree is the semi detached and detached houses built within a couple miles of Dublin city centre, many of them fairly recent estates. Also the one story houses in Ringsend in what is now prime area for workers. Also the unwillingness to touch or replace Georgian Houses with modern high rise apartments, even those which are vacant and fell into ruin. The use of land in Dublin is probably more inefficient than in the countryside.
Shurimgreat wrote: » The use of land in Dublin is probably more inefficient than in the countryside.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » The only thing that will save rural Ireland is twofold: the introduction of fibre-quality (not necessarily actual fibre) broadband, and an actual transition to acceptance of remote working.
LeinsterDub wrote: » What metric are you using for this claim? Also we've plenty of space in Dublin without destorying our Georgian heritage
Shurimgreat wrote: » Dublin is a long long way behind most modern European cities. If you want to double the population of Dublin that's fine. But you will have to double or treble the current density if you are going to do that. The simple question is, where do you put all these people? Build out, or build up? These are just basic questions that need to be answered by those who want to see a dramatic increase in the population of Dublin. Here's a list of some European cities by density.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_cities_proper_by_population_density Dublin on the other hand has a density of 1,736 persons per km2http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011vol1andprofile1/Profile1_Town_and_Country_Entire_doc.pdf
Shurimgreat wrote: » Dublin is a long long way behind most modern European cities. If you want to double the population of Dublin that's fine. But you will have to double or treble the current density if you are going to do that. The simple question is, where do you put all these people? Build out, or build up? These are just basic questions that need to be answered by those who want to see a dramatic increase in the population of Dublin.
wakka12 wrote: » You claimed dublin used land more inefficiently than rural ireland, not that it used land less efficiently than many other major european cities , which goes without saying.
bk wrote: » Errr.. No it isn't! Despite the crappy semi-d's Dublins population density is similar to Amsterdam and other similar sized European cities. Dublin City 4,811 persons per km2 Amsterdam 5,135 persons per km2 By Comparison rural Ireland is 27 persons per km2 !!!!! :eek:
Shurimgreat wrote: » But no-one in the Netherlands is calling for the doubling or huge increase of the population of Amsterdam. Netherlands is a good model of how to distribute population evenly. Ireland is going towards an alternative model where it seems to be all or nothing in Dublin.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Once again urban doesn't mean Dublin only
Shurimgreat wrote: » Yes Dublin does use it very inefficiently. Most people agree Dublin has to go up. But its difficult to see how you can build up enough to double the population. The suburbs are probably not an option. Building new towns such as Cherrywood, etc just increase the pressure on LUAS or cause more cars and more misery for commuters.At some stage difficult decisions will need to be made around pulling down lower density structures around the city centre.
Shurimgreat wrote: » At some stage difficult decisions will need to be made around pulling down lower density structures around the city centre.
wakka12 wrote: » I agree, but on second point why would it be difficult? Are you saying low rise historic? Theres not a lot of low rise historic buildings, most georgian buildings are 4-6 stories, and also they will never demolished. What would be much wiser is demolishing modern ****e architecture and doubling its height not demolishing historic buildings. Every building in the docklands should be 2x-3x higher than it is with a few skyscrapers thrown in. Why not focus on demolishing them rather than history , seeing as they boring glass boxes of no cultural value. The least they could do is densify our city And theres lots of 1 story cottages around areas areas like ringsend and behind bolands quay, and literally thousands more in prime areas. The ones of little historic value should be demolished. There is no argument ever for demolishing large amounts of intact georgian townhouses of reasonable density.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » I do think we should fix the problems in Dublin though. We need a strong Dublin to support pushing growth to the secondary cities; it seems to be the thought that it's an either-or situation, whereas it's a rising tide lifts all boats.
bk wrote: » Dublin has plenty of space to massively densify. Move Dublin Port and you have massive amounts of available space.
bk wrote: » BTW of course no one is saying it should just be Dublin. We are saying develop all urban areas, which in Ireland is any town/village with a population of 1,500 or more.
Bray Head wrote: » Except that Dublin Port is responsible for lots of economic activity and is home to billions of euros in sunk investment. Dublin is not so stuck for space that it needs to build on its port. I would start with the dozen or so golf courses inside the M50!
Shurimgreat wrote: » You can't develop small and medium sized towns without having significant industry and well paying jobs nearby and these are largely absent from many parts of Ireland. Here's a shocker for you, a lot of people in Dublin particularly those not from Dublin, would love to work somewhere else in the country. But they can't as the jobs aren't there. Its a catch-22 situation with our spatial strategy. You can't develop the rest of the country without jobs. But the jobs won't go where there aren't people and developed infrastructure. Ideally the government would encourage a more even distribution of population across the island but I'm not hopeful.
wakka12 wrote: » But how do you do this? Thats the problem! Population movements have happened organically throughout history, whether the people migrating liked it or not was another story (like slum creation in english cities during industrial era for instance) and government actions to try and change this are generally failures (such as new brazilian capital )
Shurimgreat wrote: » When the majority of new jobs are in Dublin, don't be surprised when the majority of people have to live there. At this stage its a trend which is too late to reverse.
hans aus dtschl wrote: » I don't quite understand this particular train of thought which is evident throughout this thread (not just you) it seems to be as follows: 1: Dublin is too congested, it needs better infrastructure to grow 2: Dublin is growing fastest because it has jobs 3: Dublin has jobs because it has the best infrastructure and density 4: Nowhere else can grow Some thoughts: until November, Dublin was the only Irish city that was connected to more than one other City (it's connected to 5 cities). Unlike the other small cities, Dublin has a fully completed ring road (M50) Dublin has good (subsidised) public transport systems compared with all of the other small cities Dublin has most of the government agencies, including the government-owned state airport company DAA located locally I don't see why, for instance, Cork-Limerick-Galway as a single investment alternative couldn't grow as fast combined as Dublin, if they had the same raw interconnecting infrastructure that Dublin has.
