Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dublin: is it "too big"?

«1

Comments

  • #2
    johnmcdnl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭johnmcdnl


    Godge wrote: »
    The motorways were done first all right but overdone is the correct word. The M1, M4, M7 and M8 are more than justified but the M3 and M9 are not needed yet compared to other projects. The extension of the DART, the LUAS and Metro North are more important.

    The importance of Dublin to the country as a whole should not be understated. As jobs keep getting lost all over the country, it seems to me that the only positive announcements from the IDA cover Dublin. Why? Because it is the capital, because it is densely populated etc.

    you don't need the M3... the people of Cavan and Meath who commute to Dublin daily do... Your not the one that's stuck in Kells, Navan every day... my aunt lives in Kells and she's already noticed the huge difference the M3 has made to the town... and yes its for the better...

    luas dart are more important to you maybe but for the people in cavan and meath the M3 is gonna be hugely important to us...


    ireland is bigger than Dublin yano


  • #3
    Riddickcule
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭Riddickcule


    johnmcdnl wrote: »


    ireland is bigger than Dublin yano
    Relax he was justing making a point, it's not his opinion.


  • #4
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    johnmcdnl wrote: »
    you don't need the M3... the people of Cavan and Meath who commute to Dublin daily do... Your not the one that's stuck in Kells, Navan every day... my aunt lives in Kells and she's already noticed the huge difference the M3 has made to the town... and yes its for the better...

    luas dart are more important to you maybe but for the people in cavan and meath the M3 is gonna be hugely important to us...


    ireland is bigger than Dublin yano
    There's a lot less people in Cavan and Meath than in Dublin.


  • #5
    mcgeebers
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭mcgeebers


    As a Dub, I think the M3 and other motorway developments are fantastic.

    The rollout of motorways makes all parts of the island easily accessible and more importantly economically viable in terms of industry and creating employment. There should be a motorway from Dublin - Donegal, Dublin - Westport, etc. and the Atlantic Corridor should continue to be prioritised.

    The present set-up is too Dublin-oriented in my view. We have a fantastic country which should be equally accessible from an infrastructure standpoint


  • #6
    johnmcdnl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭johnmcdnl


    Tragedy wrote: »
    There's a lot less people in Cavan and Meath than in Dublin.

    I know that and i'm not tryin to deny that - but I'm just pointing out that we pay tax as well.. it's only fair a few euro of it goes back to us as well...


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,148 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    johnmcdnl wrote: »
    I know that and i'm not tryin to deny that - but I'm just pointing out that we pay tax as well.. it's only fair a few euro of it goes back to us as well...
    You're right of course it should - but proportionately. Since very few people live in the Border areas like Cavan, they can't expect anywhere near as much to be spent on them.

    I know it might seem like all the big building projects are going on in Dublin, but this is just because over a million people live there. Their infrastructure is going to cost billions.

    If anything a motorway from the Cavan border all the way to Dublin is way more than what would be provided in other countries. You're lucky!


  • #8
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    They might get a Virginia bypass some time but that is pretty much it :)


  • #9
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    johnmcdnl wrote: »
    ireland is bigger than Dublin yano
    In case you hadn't noticed, Dublin has woeful public transport for a city its size. Dublin is chronically underfunded wrt transport. All those motorways radiating out from the M50 help the regions they connect to Dublin MUCH more than they help Dublin itself.

    It's time to redress the balance and give Dublin the funding required to develop proper transport in the city that is the beating heart of the Irish economy.


  • #10
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    johnmcdnl wrote: »
    I know that and i'm not tryin to deny that - but I'm just pointing out that we pay tax as well.. it's only fair a few euro of it goes back to us as well...
    The average person [pdf] in the Greater Dublin Area (Dublin itself would be higher) contributes 23% more to the state's economy than the national average, while the average person in the Border region contribues 29% less than the national average. It only makes sense that Dublin should receive the benefits of big infrastructural projects like the Interconnector and Metro before other areas get their motorways built; if Dublin doesn't get these, then its economy stagnates, and the entire nation suffers as a result. It's not a case of Jackeens-vs-Culchies; Dublin is the gateway to the country for economic growth, so if the rest of the country expects to prosper in the future, Dublin has to be prioritised.

    Another way of putting it: There's a person (Ireland) who has a bad heart (Dublin) and several broken limbs (Cavan, Meath, Mayo, etc). The hospital only has enough money for either a heart transplant, or mending the arms and legs. No matter how healthy the arms and legs are made, if the heart is defective, they'll expire pretty soon anyway; it's wasted money. At least if the heart is given the care, the limbs will have a chance to survive.

    Not a perfect analogy, but it delivers the message.


  • #11
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    Aard wrote: »
    The average person [pdf] in the Greater Dublin Area (Dublin itself would be higher) contributes 23% more to the state's economy than the national average, while the average person in the Border region contribues 29% less than the national average. It only makes sense that Dublin should receive the benefits of big infrastructural projects like the Interconnector and Metro before other areas get their motorways built; if Dublin doesn't get these, then its economy stagnates, and the entire nation suffers as a result. It's not a case of Jackeens-vs-Culchies; Dublin is the gateway to the country for economic growth, so if the rest of the country expects to prosper in the future, Dublin has to be prioritised.

    Another way of putting it: There's a person (Ireland) who has a bad heart (Dublin) and several broken limbs (Cavan, Meath, Mayo, etc). The hospital only has enough money for either a heart transplant, or mending the arms and legs. No matter how healthy the arms and legs are made, if the heart is defective, they'll expire pretty soon anyway; it's wasted money. At least if the heart is given the care, the limbs will have a chance to survive.

    Not a perfect analogy, but it delivers the message.

    I'm not sure I agree with the analogy but I can't come up with a better one to explain my point. While I do accept your point about people in Dublin paying more and yes they should be entitled to some benefit out of that (and I live in Dublin by the way), one of the reasons that Dublin has grown so much is that industry and business did not want to relocate beyond Dublin because of the poor infrastructure beyond the city.

    Now we have gone some way to improving that with the road building programme of the last few years but we're still not there yet. And until we have a decent infrastructure to cover the whole country, Dublin will continue to grow in a manner that's not helpful for the rest of the country and with all the attendent social problems that a large poorly laid out conurbation brings.

    Dublin needs investment, yes, but it should be balanced with continuing development of the infrastructure of the rest of the country. We should also be encouraging growth outside of Dublin in those area that now do have a reasonable connection to the capital.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    The N3 mentioned a few posts back is easily the worst example too. The N8 goes to Cork, the N6 to Galway but the N3 goes to .........Ballyshannon :)

    I did say at length that if the motorway from Cork to Limerick to Galway together with Mullingar - Longford and Arklow - Rathnew were done that would then complete the National Motorway Network pretty much. The rest may or may not be expressway 2+2 roads at 100kph or a mix of that and S2


  • #13
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Jayuu wrote: »
    And until we have a decent infrastructure to cover the whole country, Dublin will continue to grow in a manner that's not helpful for the rest of the country and with all the attendent social problems that a large poorly laid out conurbation brings.

    Dublin will grow whether we will it or not. Its how we deal with that growth.

    The problem is this prevailing attitude that Dublin is somehow "too big".

    Its not too big - its just badly organised, because we're crap at predicting growth patterns and dealing with them ahead of time.

    Other similarly dominant national capitals in Europe are generally better organised in terms of transport and spatial planning. Their size and national dominance isn't an issue.

    The rest of Ireland is small change in economic terms. Yes we need to build up the national infrastructure, but we need to worry less about Dublin's relative size, and just build for the population where they reside. Dublin is Ireland too. Lets not cut off our nose to spite our face.


  • #14
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    Dublin will grow whether we will it or not. Its how we deal with that growth.

    The problem is this prevailing attitude that Dublin is somehow "too big".

    Its not too big - its just badly organised, because we're crap at predicting growth patterns and dealing with them ahead of time.

    Other similarly dominant national capitals in Europe are generally better organised in terms of transport and spatial planning. Their size and national dominance isn't an issue.

    The rest of Ireland is small change in economic terms. Yes we need to build up the national infrastructure, but we need to worry less about Dublin's relative size, and just build for the population where they reside. Dublin is Ireland too. Lets not cut off our nose to spite our face.

    Saying that Dublin is too big is a reality not just "a prevailing attitude" and the idea that we just have keep building because that's where people are, is the attitude that got us into the sorry mess that Dublin is. We just kept building and building. That sort of pressure put house prices in Dublin way into the stratosphere and have now created an entire generation of "negative equity" mortage holders. The idea that we should just keep building on top of the problems we already have is ridiculous.

    I remember a study being produced in 1987 which suggested that in order to combat the influence of Dublin and to promote decent regional development, the country should relocate the capital to the west coast and build a new city on the west coast, centred in and Limerick and east Clare and using Shannon as its main international airport. While such an idea was a bit of a "pie in the sky idea", perhaps if proper spatial strategies had been put into place back in the late 80s and 90s we might have managed to slow down the growth of Dublin so that we wouldn't have the infrastructural deficit that we have now. I also remember the initial Dublin Transport Initiative in the early 90s which was supposed to try and create an integrated transport network for the city but which kept being compromised by political and business interests.

    We have 40% of the country living within a fifty mile radius of the centre of Dublin. That is way too big for a country of our size. I'm not saying that we don't address the infrastructure deficit that exists in Dublin but we shouldn't take sorting these problems as giving us permission to allow Dublin to continue to grow in size. We're just going to create a whole new set of problems for the next 40 years. We should be planning to limit growth in the Dublin region for the next 20-30 years and that means actively promoting proper regional strategies alongside of alleviating the mess that Dublin is in, from a transport perpsective.

    It is possible to do both things. It just takes a bit of vision and less pandering to political whims.


  • #15
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,560 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    The N3 mentioned a few posts back is easily the worst example too. The N8 goes to Cork, the N6 to Galway but the N3 goes to .........Ballyshannon :)

    And you'll be damned to find a sign that believes it goes beyond Cavan. I've seen a few that have "SOUTH DONEGAL" but they're even rare.


  • #16
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Jayuu wrote: »
    We have 40% of the country living within a fifty mile radius of the centre of Dublin. That is way too big for a country of our size. We should be planning to limit growth in the Dublin region for the next 20-30 years

    I've taken just two of your points..

    Firstly, I still don't quite see how 40% of the country living withing 50 miles of Dublin is a real problem. Its not like Ireland is going to tip over into the sea. People gravitate towards the east of the island where the trade links are, whats the big deal. Happens all over the world.

    And second, regards "limiting" the size of Dublin. Migration patterns aren't something we should suppose to be able to affect all that much with schemes and initiatives. Let the east be densely populated, and build the necessary infrastructure. Simple, predictable, and actually possible.


  • #17
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Jayuu wrote: »
    I remember a study being produced in 1987 which suggested that in order to combat the influence of Dublin and to promote decent regional development, the country should relocate the capital to the west coast and build a new city on the west coast, centred in and Limerick and east Clare and using Shannon as its main international airport. While such an idea was a bit of a "pie in the sky idea", perhaps if proper spatial strategies had been put into place back in the late 80s and 90s we might have managed to slow down the growth of Dublin so that we wouldn't have the infrastructural deficit that we have now.
    So in order to save having to spend on infrastructure in Dublin, we'd have spent money on infrastructure on a green field site in the west of Ireland. Who the fcuk commissioned/published this report? They wouldn't be from the west would they?

    Why does Ireland think it should be any different to say Denmark, Norway or Finland....whose national capitals also dominate their economies: they are countries with similar small populations, it's just what happens when your population is pretty small. The same thing happens on a macro level in Germany: Berlin, Munich and Hamburg dominate the regions surrounding them (all similar sizes to Ireland) economically, with people leaving the more rural parts of Brandenburg or Bavaria, to live and find work in the cities. Why do so many people from rural Ireland think they should be excempt from a global trend. :confused:


  • #18
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    murphaph wrote: »
    Why do so many people from rural Ireland think they should be excempt from a global trend. :confused:
    Mé Féinism.



    I would encourage everybody against developing Dublin to read this: Twice the Size [pdf]. Then tell me we don't need to prioritise the heart-transplant.


  • #19
    nordydan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭nordydan


    MYOB wrote: »
    And you'll be damned to find a sign that believes it goes beyond Cavan. I've seen a few that have "SOUTH DONEGAL" but they're even rare.

    I think its policy nowadays to sign Cavan as the terminal destination. Then when you get near Cavan, Ballyshannon & Enniskillen are signed.


    There are still signs which have Donegal South, Enniskillen & Ballyshannon as terminal destinations (e.g. Ballyshannon, Enniskillen are on the old N3 out of Navan oi tink).


  • #20
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    murphaph wrote: »
    So in order to save having to spend on infrastructure in Dublin, we'd have spent money on infrastructure on a green field site in the west of Ireland. Who the fcuk commissioned/published this report? They wouldn't be from the west would they?
    :confused:

    Oh for God's sake!

    Actually as far as I can remember the study was done back in 1987 by a non-Irish professer. It wasn't a commissioned report, nor was it anything official. It was an attempt to show how even then back in the 80s there was a problem with the unchecked growth that was happening in Dublin. And it way underestimated how much Dublin would grow in the following twenty years. I think it also suggest high-speed rail connections and a full road network between Ireland's major cities but I can't be really sure about that.

    I live and work in Dublin and even I can see the problems that this city has. Its badly designed. Its too spread out and its has the worst infrastucture of any major European city. This has nothing to do with regional bias here. Don't put your own prejudices into your comments!

    Firstly, I still don't quite see how 40% of the country living withing 50 miles of Dublin is a real problem.

    Because it doesn't have the infrastructure to cope with a city of this size. And we're so far behind now that we're always going to struggle to catch up unless we really try to limit growth within this area. Even if we built everything mentioned in Transport 21, Dublin's infrastucture would still be barely able to cope. And lets face it most of what was proposed isn't going to be built at this stage.


    Stop looking at this as a Dublin vs The Rest argument. Its not. What it is, is an attempt to see how Dublin can become a better place to live, work, commute and be part of.


  • #21
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    @Jayuu:

    I actually agree somewhat with the theme of that report you mentioned. I am all for relocating the Capital. Limerick would be good for several reasons:
    1. It has an international airport that is popular with the US, offering customs clearance;
    2. It is in the centre of the Galway-Limerick-Cork corridor, which is the only real part of the country to rival Greater Dublin;
    3. It has good connections to Dublin, i.e. the M7.
    I would be against building a New Town from scratch; Limerick City is already there. Money spent improving it would return more than if it was spent on greenfield. Moving the Capital to a smaller city would also allow proper decentralisation. Moving parts of the public sector to small towns dotted around the country was a disaster. I say amalgamate them in one decent-sized city that actually offers a real alternative. The move to a provincial city would also diminish a lot of the "TDs up in Dublin", urban-rural divide attitude; it would allow people in the west to feel closer to the workings of the country, both psychologically and literally.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,148 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Jayuu wrote: »
    Saying that Dublin is too big is a reality not just "a prevailing attitude" and the idea that we just have keep building because that's where people are, is the attitude that got us into the sorry mess that Dublin is. We just kept building and building. That sort of pressure put house prices in Dublin way into the stratosphere and have now created an entire generation of "negative equity" mortage holders. The idea that we should just keep building on top of the problems we already have is ridiculous.
    The problem was not home building or the growth of Dublin per se - it was the fact that necessarily any growth in population of the city meant physical expansion of it into the surrounding countryside. This link needs to be broken - look at the staggering number of derelict and inappropriately small buildings in the centre of Dublin. Large areas of the city centre are dead or dying and need to be razed to the ground. If all Dublin's new housing was built there instead of on the periphery, not only would we not have any more new developments on the outskirts which need expensive infrastructure to be provided, but the city centre would become dense enough to support investment such as a big metro and higher-quality public services.

    Also you've got it backwards with the house prices. Prices rise when supply doens't meet demand. Demand was high both due to native demand and also because of the high number of investors outbidding each other. According to this logic, the problem in Dublin was that we didn't build *enough* houses. We should have built more - but in the *centre*, not the edge.
    Jayuu wrote:
    Perhaps if proper spatial strategies had been put into place back in the late 80s and 90s we might have managed to slow down the growth of Dublin so that we wouldn't have the infrastructural deficit that we have now. I also remember the initial Dublin Transport Initiative in the early 90s which was supposed to try and create an integrated transport network for the city but which kept being compromised by political and business interests.
    Nonsense. When a city has an infrastructural deficit you build more infrastructure. You don't try to "slow down the growth of Dublin" - like starving a strong man to make him weaker.

    The plan mainly failed due to people with attitudes like you, who wished to decentralise Dublin instead of strengthening it.
    Jayuu wrote:
    We have 40% of the country living within a fifty mile radius of the centre of Dublin. That is way too big for a country of our size. I'm not saying that we don't address the infrastructure deficit that exists in Dublin but we shouldn't take sorting these problems as giving us permission to allow Dublin to continue to grow in size. We're just going to create a whole new set of problems for the next 40 years.
    No, we would only create a whole new set of problems if we then continued building on the periphery and in outlying towns like we've done so far. All new development must be within the existing city envelope.


  • #23
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,148 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Aard wrote: »
    I actually agree somewhat with the theme of that report you mentioned. I am all for relocating the Capital. Limerick would be good for several reasons:
    1. It has an international airport that is popular with the US, offering customs clearance;
    2. It is in the centre of the Galway-Limerick-Cork corridor, which is the only real part of the country to rival Greater Dublin;
    3. It has good connections to Dublin, i.e. the M7.
    This nonsense about building a new capital has to stop.

    Limerick is Limerick, it doesn't need to be a capital. It has an international airport popular with the USA because for years we made people stopover there against their will while flying to and from Stateside. Its road connections are needed anyway and don't justify what you're proposing.
    Aard wrote:
    I would be against building a New Town from scratch; Limerick City is already there. Money spent improving it would return more than if it was spent on greenfield. Moving the Capital to a smaller city would also allow proper decentralisation. Moving parts of the public sector to small towns dotted around the country was a disaster. I say amalgamate them in one decent-sized city that actually offers a real alternative.
    All public offices are already amalgamated in one city - Dublin. Don't fix if it ain't broken.

    Before you would move Dublin, you need to figure out what the point is exactly. Fragmentation instead of cohesion; making Dublin smaller rather than larger; dispersal of assets instead of integration; incurring extra cost instead of less; duplication of infrastructure instead of rationalisation.

    Limerick needs more public transport, more jobs and more population. Dublin needs more infrastructure of all kinds and to continue growing slowly its population and adding jobs like it's already done. Transferring the capital to Limerick is unnecessary and needlessly destructive to Dublin.

    Though I would certainly agree that, as the centre of the Galway-Limerick-Cork axis, Limerick should be expanded to a larger size. At least doubled.


  • #24
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    @Spacetweak:
    If I had my way, Dublin would be physically smaller, but with the same population. There would be a metro/dart network complemented by local busses. The Docklands would be more like La Défence. I completely agree with you. The reason for my suggestions was that while you, me, and many other thousands of people think this, most non-Dubliners hate the idea of Dublin - yet again - being invested in to the detriment of provincial towns. My idea was a compromise: one the one hand, let people know that it's not all about Dublin, and on the other, invest somewhere that has potential. Not spending millions on rural train-stations and the likes.


  • #25
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,028 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    Aard wrote: »
    @Spacetweak:
    If I had my way, Dublin would be physically smaller, but with the same population. There would be a metro/dart network complemented by local busses. The Docklands would be more like La Défence. I completely agree with you. The reason for my suggestions was that while you, me, and many other thousands of people think this, most non-Dubliners hate the idea of Dublin - yet again - being invested in to the detriment of provincial towns. My idea was a compromise: one the one hand, let people know that it's not all about Dublin, and on the other, invest somewhere that has potential. Not spending millions on rural train-stations and the likes.

    well tbh, anyone who thinks like this is quite clearly an idiot. We need politicians with enough balls to say to rural voters, look, there is only 500 people in this town, you dont need a motorway, int. airport, high speed train link and a specialist hospital to go with it. Ok, maybe a slight over-exaggeration, but seriously, I mean people have to start realising that, weather they like it or not, Dublin is the capital city, it is the country's economic powerhouse, and it is the most important place in the country, so it deserves i larger share of the public finances.

    But this is Ireland, so I don't see that happening any time soon


  • #26
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    The continued development of Dublin is essential to the country's economy because unfortunately it's the only real population center. There in lies the problem, it seems as though the Irish have a pathological resistance to living close to each other. Instead of neglecting Dublin to build up other cities we should simply concentrate on building other cities. I live in Limerick city(if you call it a city) I can tell you the center is empty, why?


  • #27
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    There was an interesting video posted in Politics about "retrofitting" suburban communities. May be applicable to Dublin.

    Video: http://www.ted.com/talks/ellen_dunham_jones_retrofitting_suburbia.html
    Original thread: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055956771


  • #28
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    The real problem is not that Dublin is too big but the Dublin-centric area is too big. Weak planning coupled with the property boom has meant that we now have a city that was low density in the first place surrounded by a larger even lower density sprawl. It is uneconomical to maintain and sustain this sprawl. The inhabitants of this sprawl of high expectations of utilities and services e.g. public transport that can never be delivered economically or in a sustainable fashion.

    What need to do is to define the city as a geographic area. Within zones of that area we need to allow high density developments and the services that go with them. The kind of suburban developments that were allowed in surrounding counties need to be banned.

    Only yesterday, while travelling by DART and looking at the "route map" it should how bad the mindset is when you have Athlone, Dundalk and Gorey appearing on the Dublin suburban rail map. It shows that if there is a mindset with IR - and the same applies to other utilities and services - that there is an objective to provide some sort of a suburban rail services to AThlone then it is no wonder that services within what should be the suburbs are suffering.

    Unfortunately, some hard decisions are going to have to be made to get population densities increased within a realistically sized Dublin city that will be of benefit to all. I would maintain that if this could be achieved then rural Ireland would also benefit as a result.


  • #29
    yermanoffthetv
    Registered Users Posts: 625 ✭✭✭yermanoffthetv


    ^^ Spot on Brian, hit the nail on the head there.


  • #30
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    BrianD wrote: »
    The real problem is not that Dublin is too big but the Dublin-centric area is too big. Weak planning coupled with the property boom has meant that we now have a city that was low density in the first place surrounded by a larger even lower density sprawl. It is uneconomical to maintain and sustain this sprawl. The inhabitants of this sprawl of high expectations of utilities and services e.g. public transport that can never be delivered economically or in a sustainable fashion.

    What need to do is to define the city as a geographic area. Within zones of that area we need to allow high density developments and the services that go with them. The kind of suburban developments that were allowed in surrounding counties need to be banned.

    Only yesterday, while travelling by DART and looking at the "route map" it should how bad the mindset is when you have Athlone, Dundalk and Gorey appearing on the Dublin suburban rail map. It shows that if there is a mindset with IR - and the same applies to other utilities and services - that there is an objective to provide some sort of a suburban rail services to AThlone then it is no wonder that services within what should be the suburbs are suffering.

    Unfortunately, some hard decisions are going to have to be made to get population densities increased within a realistically sized Dublin city that will be of benefit to all. I would maintain that if this could be achieved then rural Ireland would also benefit as a result.

    Dublin is too low density - agreed.

    The solution is to increase density. There are large derelict sites within the canals let alone inside the M50. Better public transport.

    The craziest thing is that we have not learned from Dublin's problems. Low density results in an increased cost of living and because of poor public trasnport a lower standard of living. When this is added to a rural planning system that promotes one-off housing we have a recipe for highest infrastructure cost in the world.

    We need to build more houses and apartments at high density on derelict sites within the M50 but we also need to stop building (or charge full extra cost for services to) one-off housing on boreens.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Amazotheamazing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,048 ✭✭✭Amazotheamazing


    As usual in Ireland, the practical solutions will get lost behind the parochial solutions.

    There should be a counter balance to Dublin developed somewhere, be it Cork, Limerick or Galway, not to detract from Dublin to make Dublin a better place to live for people currently living there and allow the country build proper infrastructure.


  • #32
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Amazotheamazing wrote: »
    As usual in Ireland, the practical solutions will get lost behind the parochial solutions.

    There should be a counter balance to Dublin developed somewhere, be it Cork, Limerick or Galway, not to detract from Dublin to make Dublin a better place to live for people currently living there and allow the country build proper infrastructure.

    The reason that Dublin is as dominant as it is, is because no other town will ever accept that.

    If the Government decided tomorrow that Cork was going to be expanded to 500,000 people in the urban area, and given the investment to infrastructure and planning required to do that, every other city (except Dublin, because it's already bigger), would go mental, wondering why Cork is getting this massive boost and they are not.

    There can never be a counterweight city to Dublin, unless the other parts of Ireland accept that it means giving preference to ONE area outside of Dublin. Dublin now has an advantage over other cities, because it is large enough to expand on its own, without help, while growing another part of the country would require targeted investment that would leave some places out.

    Have a look at the National Spacial Strategy - nearly every town in the country is a 'gateway' or a 'hub'. It means that development money is spread too thinly to ever make a difference.

    Although I don't accept that developing somewhere else will make one iota of difference to either improve or disimprove Dublin. Dublin will rise or fall on what Dublin itself is like. The benefit of having another big city would be to break up some of the Dublin vs. the rest of the country rhetoric, and give people outside of Dublin options of which big city to live in, if that's where they want to go.


  • #33
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    I wouldn't think of it so much as being a counter-balance to Dublin as those areas getting an appropriate level of funding and more importantly appropriate use of said funding to make those areas better to live in and better to do business in. There needs to be an acceptance that Dublin is our most important city and will continue to be and that investment there is not to the detriment of everywhere else.

    I'm all for balanced regional development, and I agree that Limerick, Galway and Cork should be the focus of any investment in that region. Building critical masses there is of benefit to the region as a whole. It shouldn't be though, as I suspect some advocates might be of the mindset of in competition to Dublin, but to compliment what Dublin and the other towns in Ireland bring to the country's society and economy as a whole. Crucially, we need to let the cities do what they're good at, and let the countryside to what it's good at, rather than spreading resources too thin trying to bring aspects of cities to towns and villages which don't warrant them.

    Investment in Town X shouldn't be because Dublin or Cork or "that other town" got something. It should be because the town warrants and requires said investment. That is as much a problem of attitudes as it is a political and planning problem. The "whoever shouts loudest" system of obtaining investment isn't getting us anywhere.

    Specifically on Dublin, agreed with the post that says we must focus all investment within the existing boundries of Dublin, most notably within the M50. Unfortunately An Bord Pleanala (and the people and organisations who make submissions) seem to get in the way of many appropriate high density developments, such as some that were proposed in the Docklands. The result being that these areas are left with mid-sized 6 storey office blocks which don't make efficient use of the area they're in and maximise land value. Simultaenously, many unnecessary office developments were given permission in areas not suited to them. The end result is that we now have loads of office space in Dublin, but it's completely unnecessarily spread out, and more critically, far harder to provide infrastructure to.

    This excellent report, while 8 years old, highlights exactly the problem I describe above, which only got worse during the reckless years that were to follow.

    http://www.ucd.ie/gsi/pdf/35-2/office.pdf

    A key quote:
    The planning environment has tended to permit office developments at highly dispersed peripheral locations requiring a considerable amount of new infrastructure investment, particularly transportation, by the public sector in order to sustain them.

    ...

    Inevitably, administrative fragmentation and pressure on local authority budgets leads to a myopic concern on the part of individual authorities for matters relating to their own administrative area.

    ...

    This diminution of planning coordination between the local authorities militates against wider metropolitan perspectives and any consideration of consequences for commuting patterns and the provision of public transport.

    The problems are obvious, the solutions out there. But it'll take a massive shift in direction of individual and planning attitudes to make them happen.

    I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if I've repeated points.


  • #34
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Have a look at the National Spacial Strategy - nearly every town in the country is a 'gateway' or a 'hub'. It means that development money is spread too thinly to ever make a difference.

    Absolutely. There are at most 4 "gateways" in the country: Cork, Limerick, Galway, and Waterford. The rest of them in the NSS (Sligo, Letterkenny, Dundalk, and Mullingar-Tullamore-Athlone :confused: ) simply do not have the critical mass, and are not on par with the 4 others. Like you said, diverting funds from the bigger cities is the classic Irish way of trying to please everybody, and ending up pleasing nobody.
    The benefit of having another big city would be to break up some of the Dublin vs. the rest of the country rhetoric, [...]
    +1


  • #35
    Amazotheamazing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,048 ✭✭✭Amazotheamazing


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    The reason that Dublin is as dominant as it is, is because no other town will ever accept that.

    If the Government decided tomorrow that Cork was going to expanded to 500,000 people in the urban area, and given the investment to infrastructure and planning required to do that, every other city (except Dublin, because it's already bigger), would go mental, wondering why Cork is getting this massive boost and they are not.

    There can never be a counterweight city to Dublin, unless the other parts of Ireland accept that it means giving preference to ONE area outside of Dublin. Dublin now has an advantage over other cities, because it is large enough to expand on its own, without help, while growing another part of the country would require targeted investment that would leave some places out.

    Have a look at the National Spacial Strategy - nearly every town in the country is a 'gateway' or a 'hub'. It means that development money is spread too thinly to ever make a difference.

    Although I don't accept that developing somewhere else will make one iota of difference to either improve or disimprove Dublin. Dublin will rise or fall on what Dublin itself is like. The benefit of having another big city would be to break up some of the Dublin vs. the rest of the country rhetoric, and give people outside of Dublin options of which big city to live in, if that's where they want to go.

    I agree, it's a huge problem in Ireland that we view the other regions as rivals moreso than anything else. See how Lowry threatened to walk when An Bord Snip recommended closing the Tipp Institute and moving it's students to LIT. Now we have some half-arsed LIT campus in Tipperary or somesuch. Similar situations have given half the towns in Ireland IT's of dubious merit (well, educationally anyway). In too many situations we've allowed quantity rule over quality.

    Everyone says the obvious counterweight is the Cork-Limerick-Galway corridor but never really develops the theme? Ok, it's the obvious location, so what? What should be done in each of the three cities to make the CLG a viable counterbalance? Focus on one city? Have each city given different status? (Say Cork Administration, Limerick Industry, Galway Education (or whatever))


  • #36
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Amazotheamazing wrote: »
    Everyone says the obvious counterweight is the Cork-Limerick-Galway corridor but never really develops the theme? Ok, it's the obvious location, so what? What should be done in each of the three cities to make the CLG a viable counterbalance? Focus on one city? Have each city given different status? (Say Cork Administration, Limerick Industry, Galway Education (or whatever))
    I think a start would be limiting development outside of the corridor, and building up the population of these cities. Basic infrastructure like their own versions of Dublin Bus would help with employment and mobility, and, hence, with the economy. The cities would start to look attractive for businesses and migrants. Building up the core urban area, and stopping unnecessary development in places like Tuam would give economies of scale to the cities, which would further help in reducing costs and improving services.


    (Of course, I'm no professional planner, but in fairness they haven't done a fantastic job themselves :cool: )


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Aard wrote: »
    I think a start would be limiting development outside of the corridor, and building up the population of these cities. Basic infrastructure like their own versions of Dublin Bus would help with employment and mobility, and, hence, with the economy. The cities would start to look attractive for businesses and migrants. Building up the core urban area, and stopping unnecessary development in places like Tuam...

    QFT.


  • #38
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Not a political point but the problem with ROI is that if Northern Ireland is included the Rank Size distribution of settlements is much more normal as belfast takes the place of 2nd city at about 500,000. Though if this was taken into account it would result in an even stronger Eastward population inblalance.


  • #39
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    More development in Limerick? Even when the Tunnel is finished, infrastructure and transport inside Limerick itself will still be a mess.

    I can't see how Cork would be any different either.

    Developing another City over Dublin will mean dealing with the same problems you're dealing with in Dublin - terrible planning, poor infrastructure and crap transport.


  • #40
    purplepanda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,071 ✭✭✭purplepanda


    Strange how the South East region centered around Waterford and adjacent counties / towns never seems to be seriously mentioned or have future plans put forward when it comes to discussion regarding balanced regional development.:rolleyes: There are 400,000 people living within 60km of Waterford City & well over 550,000 in the surrounding five counties including South Tipperary

    Instead we have the continuing rundown of the region, which in other European countries, with it's close links to Britain & Europe would be an important hub of commerce & industrial activity & with it an increasing population:eek:

    The SE region has been largely ignored by successive governments for decades :confused: Even the 3 regional railway lines built under British administration that once crossed over the River Barrow will all have gone with the passing of the Rosslare Waterford rail line. What a legacy of independence!!!!


    Only a matter of time before the projected Barrow bridge / New Ross Bypass project is scraped I reckon, even though the transport links in the region are already bad enough & in dire need of upgrading. How can the South East attract investment with it's very poor infrastructure ???


    Ah well, we can still build more underused roads in Mayo & Sligo instead & perhaps open more knackered old railways:mad:


  • #41
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    You'll note that I mentioned Waterford above. The best way for Waterford to succeed, I'd think, is through some partnership with Kilkenny and, possibly, Carlow. The M9 corridor will help open the region up. And on that note of the "region", Waterford is not like Dublin: while parts of the latter's adjacent counties are certainly considered part of its Functional Urban Area, Waterford is far smaller and its FUA would only extend as far as Tramore, Carrick-on-Suir, and New Ross.

    Also, I don't really know what you mean about not having "balanced regional development": the M9, and Suir Bridge would probably come under that heading.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Limerick and it's surrounding counties have over 1million people in it!
    Cork and it's surrounding counties have even more.


  • #43
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    I think the development of other cities and fateway towns as defined in the National Spatial Strategy is a side issue in a way. Certainly the susstainable development at these locations would make them more attractive to live, work and develop and grow.

    At the same time, Dublin is always going to be a major population draw for a variety of reasons. Most of the people living in the "too big Dublin" would not live in other towns or cities no matter how attractive they were. The problem is that we have created through bad planning, a sprawling Dublin. Those people living in suburban Kells should really be living higher density suburbs closer to Dublin.


  • #44
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    I think the question here should be, are Irelands other cities too small. Dublin is not too big but has been planned recklessly. What we have a chance to do is make a counter balance to Dublin in the other cities of Ireland and get them right!


  • #45
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    jank wrote: »
    I think the question here should be, are Irelands other cities too small. Dublin is not too big but has been planned recklessly. What we have a chance to do is make a counter balance to Dublin in the other cities of Ireland and get them right!

    The answer is absolutely!


  • #46
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    In terms of population, I don't think Dublin is too big at all. In terms of land area, I think it is too big - it's a sprawling mess with not even a single high rise building in the City Centre.
    • Dublin Urban Area: 921 km2 (355.6 sq mi); Population: 1,045,769; Population Density: 4,398/km2 (11,390.8/sq mi)
    • Manhattan Land Area: 59.5 km2 (22.96 sq mi ); Population: 1,629,054; Population Density: 27,394.3/km2 (70,951/sq mi)
    I'm not saying that Dublin and every large city should consist almost entirely of high rise buildings and a very high population density like Manhattan but there is a lot to be said for higher population densities. 75% of the people in Manhattan don't own a car, there is great public transport (which is easy to provide), traffic jams are rare and minor league in Manhattan when compared to Dublin.

    Big industrial estates and business parks on the outskirts of Dublin with many low rise office blocks - surely this is not good at all. In my opinion, office blocks should be in high or medium risers in the City Centre preferably within walking distance of a train station.

    Galway is very similar to Dublin in the above sense.


  • #47
    Amazotheamazing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,048 ✭✭✭Amazotheamazing


    purplepanda wrote: »
    Strange how the South East region centered around Waterford and adjacent counties / towns never seems to be seriously mentioned or have future plans put forward when it comes to discussion regarding balanced regional development.:rolleyes: There are 400,000 people living within 60km of Waterford City & well over 550,000 in the surrounding five counties including South Tipperary

    Instead we have the continuing rundown of the region, which in other European countries, with it's close links to Britain & Europe would be an important hub of commerce & industrial activity & with it an increasing population:eek:

    The SE region has been largely ignored by successive governments for decades :confused: Even the 3 regional railway lines built under British administration that once crossed over the River Barrow will all have gone with the passing of the Rosslare Waterford rail line. What a legacy of independence!!!!


    Only a matter of time before the projected Barrow bridge / New Ross Bypass project is scraped I reckon, even though the transport links in the region are already bad enough & in dire need of upgrading. How can the South East attract investment with it's very poor infrastructure ???


    Ah well, we can still build more underused roads in Mayo & Sligo instead & perhaps open more knackered old railways:mad:

    The SE region is being drained by Dublin to the north and Cork to the south, I don't see this changing tbh. Ultimately, I think it makes more sense to have a much stronger city in Cork than weaken Cork to allow Waterford grow, Cork is more likely to provide a real counter-balance to Dublin (as opposed to the fairly pie in the sky plans I favour for the Atlantic Corridor).


  • #48
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    KevR wrote: »
    I'm not saying that Dublin and every large city should consist almost entirely of high rise buildings and a very high population density like Manhattan but there is a lot to be said for higher population densities. 75% of the people in Manhattan don't own a car, there is great public transport (which is easy to provide), traffic jams are rare and minor league in Manhattan when compared to Dublin.
    Manhattan is New York's city-centre. New York has an urban area of 10 million; Dublin is one tenth the size. Any comparison between the two would be disingenuous. What would be more useful is to compare to similar-sized European cities, with similar status. Helsinki and Amsterdam are two that come to mind. Dublin is actually very similar in form to these two*, the main difference being that Dublin currently lacks a comprehensive transport-network. Helsinki has a low car-ownership rate also.



    *Both Amsterdam City and Urban-area have very similar densities to Dublin. Helsinki Urban-area's is similar to Dublin's, but its City density is actually lower than that of Dublin. Their respective Urban and City populations are similar to those of Dublin too.


  • #49
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    The reason that Dublin is as dominant as it is, is because no other town will ever accept that.

    If the Government decided tomorrow that Cork was going to be expanded to 500,000 people in the urban area, and given the investment to infrastructure and planning required to do that, every other city (except Dublin, because it's already bigger), would go mental, wondering why Cork is getting this massive boost and they are not.

    There can never be a counterweight city to Dublin, unless the other parts of Ireland accept that it means giving preference to ONE area outside of Dublin. Dublin now has an advantage over other cities, because it is large enough to expand on its own, without help, while growing another part of the country would require targeted investment that would leave some places out.

    Have a look at the National Spacial Strategy - nearly every town in the country is a 'gateway' or a 'hub'. It means that development money is spread too thinly to ever make a difference.

    Although I don't accept that developing somewhere else will make one iota of difference to either improve or disimprove Dublin. Dublin will rise or fall on what Dublin itself is like. The benefit of having another big city would be to break up some of the Dublin vs. the rest of the country rhetoric, and give people outside of Dublin options of which big city to live in, if that's where they want to go.


    I think the various Western airports is a good example of this.

    I don't think Dublin Airport has been allowed to grow too big so the other airports can't compete, I think the West has undermined itself with every town and village wanting their own uncompetitive airport.

    Donegal, Sligo, Knock, Galway, Shannon and Kerry (more South than West but whatever). It's crazy to have that many small airports on the West coast. Only one decent medium sized airport should have been built which would have been able to offer some competition to Dublin Airport. As it stands, none of the airports can compete with Dublin or each other and rely of funding from the state to survive. I use Dublin Airport (2 hours at least from where I live) more frequently than Galway (20 mins), Knock and Shannon (both 1 hour) combined - I simply can't get the flights I need from my local airports.

    One decent medium sized airport in either Galway or Limerick with good transport links to the airport from surrounding regions would have been a lot better than the current situation. Imagine how much more Galway or Limerick could have grown over the past 20 years with a proper airport!!

    I don't count Shannon as being an airport for Limerick; it was built because a certain someone wanted an airport for County Clare. When I say a proper airport for Limerick I mean that Shannon should have been built right on the outskirts of Limerick City and named 'Limerick Airport'. Seeing as though we are stuck in this crazy situation, I think Shannon Airport should be renamed 'Limerick-Galway Airport' when the M18 finally reaches Rathmorrissey (something like Leeds-Bradford Airport).

    I don't think Dublin Airport has been allowed to grow too big so the other airports can't compete, I think the West has undermined itself with every town and village wanting their own uncompetitive airport.


  • #50
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    Aard wrote: »
    Manhattan is New York's city-centre. New York has an urban area of 10 million; Dublin is one tenth the size. Any comparison between the two would be disingenuous. What would be more useful is to compare to similar-sized European cities, with similar status. Helsinki and Amsterdam are two that come to mind. Dublin is actually very similar in form to these two*, the main difference being that Dublin currently lacks a comprehensive transport-network. Helsinki has a low car-ownership rate also.



    *Both Amsterdam City and Urban-area have very similar densities to Dublin. Helsinki Urban-area's is similar to Dublin's, but its City density is actually lower than that of Dublin. Their respective Urban and City populations are similar to those of Dublin too.

    I wasn't really trying to compare Dublin and Manhattan as if they are like for like; I was trying illustrate that Dublin has too much low rise sprawl and no high rise buildings whatsoever in the City Centre. I don't understand why there are so many low rise office blocks in places like City West where people are pretty much forced to drive to their office; I think many of these offices should have been built in high risers in the City Centre near train stations and other public transport links. It would have made it a lot easier to provide a comprehensive transport network if this had happened...


  • #51
    paulm17781
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,858 ✭✭✭paulm17781


    KevR wrote: »
    I wasn't really trying to compare Dublin and Manhattan as if they are like for like; I was trying illustrate that Dublin has too much low rise sprawl and no high rise buildings whatsoever in the City Centre. I don't understand why there are so many low rise office blocks in places like City West where people are pretty much forced to drive to their office; I think many of these offices should have been built in high risers in the City Centre near train stations and other public transport links. It would have made it a lot easier to provide a comprehensive transport network if this had happened...

    I completely agree. The horrific irony is these places were most likely built as the roads to the city would be congested if all the office space was there. I think it's our inability to plan (and love of rezoning land) that is the problem. If they had built the city highrise (or the whole docklands area), they could have put new roads, tunnels, underground etc. in while it was being done. Instead we went for industrial towns all over the outskirts. :o


  • Advertisement
Advertisement