As a capital city is Dublin one of the biggest kips in any 1st world country?

_Dara_ wrote: »

I found Berlin to be quite shabby. Lisbon too, despite the pretty buildings.

Lisbon is very much a charming ancient run down though like many southern european old towns

A re-tuning of perspectives is in order for some here. Dublin has never been the centre of any great empire, nor does it have vast swathes of rich architecture built with imperial riches. It is the primary city of a country which for most of the past few hundred years has been impoverished and subjugated. It exists on the fringes of Western Europe, and as such never developed the great rail networks which in turn spur on overall public transport.

Dublin, along with Ireland as a whole, does not have the historical glory of the cities with which many here seem eager to compare it. But it has come a hell of a long way. It remains plagued by issues and a lack of vision by its governing authorities -- but the vision is starting to slowly take shape and Dublin continues to punch way above its weight in the opportunity it provides. There is so much energy and ambition in the city right now and it can take years for the cumulative effect of that to translate into something tangible.

I have lived in Paris, London and Brussels and each city has much to love and much to hate. Dublin is a city whose strength has always been in its charming humbleness but I really find it difficult to take people seriously when they fail to acknowledge the vast improvement of the city even in the past 10 years never mind 20-30.

mg1982 wrote: »

Thank god Dublin has all the culchies down keeping the place going. The place would really fall apart without them.

Absolutey
Couldnt agree more. As I said earlier, All are welcome.
What I don't like are provincials who complain about the city and call it a kip.
A kip it may well be but not quite on the same level as kippery as Ballygobackwards or where ever

ArthurDayne wrote: »

A re-tuning of perspectives is in order for some here. Dublin has never been the centre of any great empire, nor does it have vast swathes of rich architecture built with imperial riches. It is the primary city of a country which for most of the past few hundred years has been impoverished and subjugated. It exists on the fringes of Western Europe, and as such never developed the great rail networks which in turn spur on overall public transport.

Dublin, along with Ireland as a whole, does not have the historical glory of the cities with which many here seem eager to compare it. But it has come a hell of a long way. It remains plagued by issues and a lack of vision by its governing authorities -- but the vision is starting to slowly take shape and Dublin continues to punch way above its weight in the opportunity it provides. There is so much energy and ambition in the city right now and it can take years for the cumulative effect of that to translate into something tangible.

I have lived in Paris, London and Brussels and each city has much to love and much to hate. Dublin is a city whose strength has always been in its charming humbleness but I really find it difficult to take people seriously when they fail to acknowledge the vast improvement of the city even in the past 10 years never mind 20-30.

Hmmmm, I kind of agree but think you're a bit dismissive of Dublin, it does have some signs of grandeur and you can tell it has been important at times in history(Obviously very far back in Viking times which I don't know if you count) and later with the Normans and onto the later British Empire. IMO, you can tell it was an important city in the British Empire even if the claims of it being the second city of the empire are off the mark. It looks like a British city that has actually been given precedence by the powers to be. Remember Dublin was the first occupied territory in the Empire so it obviously had a significance for those in power.

Cody Montana
I am sitting in Davy Byrnes enjoying a gin and tonic.
Beautiful summers evening. Lovely atmosphere
Dublin can be heaven

shakeitoff wrote: »

Hmmmm, I kind of agree but think you're a bit dismissive of Dublin, it does have some signs of grandeur and you can tell it has been important at times in history(Obviously very far back in Viking times which I don't know if you count) and later with the Normans and onto the later British Empire. IMO, you can tell it was an important city in the British Empire even if the claims of it being the second city of the empire are off the mark. It looks like a British city that has actually been given precedence by the powers to be. Remember Dublin was the first occupied territory in the Empire so it obviously had a significance for those in power.

Yeh funnily enough Dublin was quite important throughout history and was one of the bigger cities in the world in the 1800's, hard to believe today though, it was also renowened as being quite a grand/beautiful city despite having bad slums also

Dublin missed out on the big industrial population boom victorian era of the late 1800's and early 1900's that allowed ciites like paris and lonond and new york their grandeur though as technology and population had increased hugely by then

Look at this table for biggest cities in europe 1800
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4kdvo1/the_thirty_largest_cities_in_europe_by_population/
In the year 1800 Dublin was 6th biggest city in europe!
And given how europe held the lions share of the worlds population during that era(bar some of the middle east and east asia) dublin would have been one of the biggest cities in the world then, probably in top 20 or even top 10

wakka12 wrote: »

Yeh funnily enough Dublin was quite important throughout history and was one of the bigger cities in the world in the 1800's, hard to believe today though, it was also renowened as being quite a grand/beautiful city despite having bad slums also

Dublin missed out on the big industrial population boom victorian era of the late 1800's and early 1900's that allowed ciites like paris and lonond and new york their grandeur though as technology and population had increased hugely by then

Look at this table for biggest cities in europe 1800
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4kdvo1/the_thirty_largest_cities_in_europe_by_population/
In the year 1800 Dublin was 6th biggest city in europe!
And given how europe held the lions share of the worlds population during that era(bar some of the middle east and east asia) dublin would have been one of the biggest cities in the world then, probably in top 20 or even top 10

The earlier poster was pretty off the mark in fairness. Like you say, Dublin starts to lose it's prominence around the 19th century which I suppose you can see why people would view it as a secondary unimportant city because that's all it has been in recent history. It seems to only become a backwater once we achieve independence and the connection to the empire waned. It had one of the best transport systems in Europe as well at the start of the last century before it was dismantled. People talk about the slums that were the worst in Europe back then but that doesn't mean anything. Most of the powerful cities were blighted by massive inequality and to me the fact we had a huge population living in urban squalor, is an indication of Dublin's relative prominence.

Nah, Dublin is the perfect location to compliment the sunshine and alcohol, around Grafton St is just amazing.

Paris is far more of a kip than Dublin, we don't live far away from it, how people can have this romantic view of Paris is crazy.

*I love Paris but based on this threads criteria for a kip it fits most of the boxes

Sycamore Tree wrote: »

I hear this comment on this thread and I wonder what people are talking about. The centre of Paris is amazing and beautiful. It's a magical city and the city centre is very large. I go there 4 times a year and it never fails to enthrall me.

Now some of the suburbs of Paris are manky. But the city centre (Arrondissement 1-12) is fantastic.

Comparing the quays in Dublin to the quays of the Seine is like comparing 2 different worlds.

And why even compare them? Paris was only able to look like that because of how the people who lived there enslaved millions of people around the world and brought the wealth back home
Oslo and Copenhagen are cute cities of more comparable terms and thats what dublin should aim for and could actually be

Stay away from O'Connell St, Parnell, the boardwalk and Talbot if you're afraid of the povs and garish shops. Every city has its eyesores and addicts.

Thankfully my favourire gallery is around that area and it's rarely overcrowded with tourists.

The "nicer" parts of the city have too many tourists in them so choose your poison - too many tourists or too many skangers.