Deleted User wrote: » On a very practical basis - what would people suggest to make living in urban areas more attractive? How would you bring down the cost, improve the quality or change things?
Shurimgreat wrote: » I wish people would move away from this subsidised thing. Its a huge grey area. The broadband cable is likely going to the home of a middle aged or elderly couple who reared their children in the country. The same children then moved to Dublin where they pay the tax which pays for the broadband, healthcare, pensions, etc of their parents. In a Republic there are many people "subsidised" by the majority. Pensioners, the unemployed, children in school, college students, medical card holders, bus pass holders, etc etc. Its not black and white. Many of those living in rural areas also may have worked their entire lives in cities, paid taxes and then retired to the countryside. To claim they are being subsidised after paying a lifetime of taxes is foolish.
Shurimgreat wrote: » The point I was making is that all the big companies such as Facebook, Google, etc want to base themselves in Dublin. As long as the government are happy to bend over backwards to accommodate them in Dublin, then Dublin will continue to grow at the expense of the rest of the country and its own expense. There may need to be a negative bias against Dublin when it comes to new jobs. If these companies say they'd rather go elsewhere good luck to them. With an improving economy we can at last afford to move the focus away from new jobs in Dublin.
cgcsb wrote: » That doesn't negate anything they are demanding a service that is uneconomic and want it heavily subsidized. The point is it's an unsustainable way for society to develop.
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. If you work in IT, for example, you'd loathe living outside Dublin because of the lack of employment opportunity choices. Bizarrely IT is still reluctant to allow remote working despite the positives of having some peace an quiet to actually get on with programming. So the real hold-back is the inability of slow broadband to measure up to the equivalent of being in the office. It'll happen eventually. Just like in Sci-fi movies, when I can do the equivalent of a meeting where I can virtually be in the middle of a meeting, and not just looking at a webcam picture, then there'll be no rationale for holding up remote working. So I think rural broadband is as important as the rural electrification scheme in the early days of the state. Not just for the benefit of Rural communities but also to take the pressure off commute choked Dublin and other cities.
bk wrote: » Dublin has plenty of space to massively densify. Move Dublin Port and you have massive amounts of available space. Look at Broombridge Industrial Estate, what a waste, hundreds of acres of underused industrial warehouses, inside the M50 and right next to both the new Luas line and commuter rail line! You could houses literally, tens of thousands of people there. 40,000 new homes planned for Swords once Metro North is built. Tens of thousands of new apartments in south Dublin once the Green Luas line is built. I could go on all day.... While Amsterdam is a great comparison for Dublin, Netherlands is a very poor one. Netherlands is 17 million people living in an area half the side of Ireland! The entire country has massive population density. Also it isn't an island and is highly connected with it's neighbours. 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.
cgcsb wrote: » Remote working has been promised since the 1970s, not happening. Rural electrification was supposed to facilitate the ruralisation fantasy. It didn't work though they still left and left en masse. A heavily subsidized broadband network also will not work, because ruralisation as a policy does not work, doesn't work in Albania, Portugal and doesn't work here. And most importantly we don't want ruralisation to work because it destroys the environment with car dependency and septic tanks, it destroys our villages and towns with economic isolation, and it adds multiples to the cost of public services and infrastructure supply and maintenance. It's a failed policy, we don't need more of it we need less, a lot less.
Shurimgreat wrote: » The use of land in Dublin is probably more inefficient than in the countryside.
Shurimgreat wrote: » 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.
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.
Shurimgreat wrote: » As I said in my posts, its common for those with an advantage to "subsidise" those who are disadvantaged in our society. Its the essence of living in a democratic republic and a concept which seems to escape many people. You also missed the issue about it being a grey area, that many rural people might have worked their entire lives in cities and retired to the country. Would you deny them help too in getting broadband? I know you would!
bk wrote: » This big time. People don't seem to understand the importance of this. Cork, Limerick, etc. will never attract top tier employers like Google, Facebook, etc. (Apple aside for historical reasons in Cork). However they can attract the smaller second tier companies, the Ubers, Payapls, etc. However they can only do that if Dublin is attracting the top tier companies. The second tier companies are hoping to attract top tier talent from the top tier companies, either due to people wanting to move for family reasons, cheaper housing, big fish in a small pond, etc. It is a network effect. We need all our cities performing to really develop our economy.
cgcsb wrote: » They are not disadvantaged, they chose to live an isolationist lifestyle and want the rest of us to pay for it. That's not disadvantage.
cgcsb wrote: » Err how do you recon that? Even a sparse enough housing estate is multiples more environmentally and economically efficient than a 4km ribbon of houses at irregular intervals.
Shurimgreat wrote: » Pay for what exactly? Aside from the broadband issue what else do you pay for?
Shurimgreat wrote: » Lots of people are "subsidised" in this country. Deal with it.
Shurimgreat wrote: » Hmm let me see. One story bungalows in Ringsend beside the European HQs of Facebook, Google, etc where thousands of workers are crying out for accommodation and forced to pay exorbitant rents. The entire city centre is essentially made up of 4 or 5 story Georgian Houses or else buildings designed to mimic Georgian Houses. Great big sprawling estates and commuter towns outside Dublin because few people can afford to live near their often city centre workplace. Two story houses within a mile or two of the city centre, and again close to Facebook and Google. About as inefficient as you can get.
jobbridge4life wrote: » Shurimgreat why are you determined to make this a Dublin vs the countryside thing? Can you not see that your apparent entrenched resentment of Dublin does not benefit anyone? Dublin is your capital, it is all of our capitals, and only international city of any scale. It is in your direct interest that the capital prosper and this in no way needs to be at the expense of rural Ireland.
bk wrote: » Plenty of cities have moved their port out of the city center and developed the land as housing. It is pretty standard. Dublin Port really isn't that economically important, really it just serves Dublin and the surrounding region. It certainly is no Rotterdam or Antwerp.
Del.Monte wrote: » Any plans to build some new reservoirs to cater for the projected population increase in Dublin as the existing ones are struggling to keep pace with the current demand?
nuac wrote: » Where on the East coast is there potential for a similar port with the same access to road and rail. I see that major improvements are currently under way at Dublin - no indication of this traffic going elsewhere
BoatMad wrote: » Services like these were always provided at a cost , all these things cost money , postal service grew because they were needed Today they are not needed as there is a plethora of options I live 150km from my actual Bank Branch where my account is held , its irrelevant Garda stations are a throwback to a different era, whats actually needed is a mobile force, not ones sitting behind a desk . Criminals dont cycle around on bikes robbing farms The debate over post offices and Garda stations and physical banks is entirely misplaced and largely a generational thing, it will be meaningless to our children , rathe like closed rural railway stations are today
bk wrote: » Cork, Limerick, etc. will never attract top tier employers like Google, Facebook, etc. (Apple aside for historical reasons in Cork). However they can attract the smaller second tier companies, the Ubers, Payapls, etc.
CHealy wrote: » This is far from the truth, Cork has top tier employers all over the city and county, both Pharmaceutical (Phizers, Johnson Johnson, GSK etc) and tech (Apple, Amazon, Facebook, VMware, Dell EMC, etc). Im not sure about Limerick but Cork as a region can more than hold its own without Dublin.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Yeah the shannon pipeline but you are well aware of that I would think
