One off housing

Cú Giobach · 07-12-2010 9:53am

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

A good pre-boom article on the topic and sums up many of my feelings. .........

You are ignoring what I personally feel is the most important point.
What about people like me who would go insane living in a town or village?
There are people who are happy living in urban areas and people who are happy living in rural ones all over the planet, and this cannot be ignored. I could only be moved to a town at gunpoint (and I really mean that).

To take your "economic argument" to its logical conclusion then everyone should live in flat complexes like the old Ballymun flats in Dublin, this way everything could be centralised and save millions on infrastructure instead of putting it into sprawling suburbs.
To put it simply your ideas and vision would be a nightmare of a future if it was to be implemented.

Good planning is what is needed, not the abandonment of the countryside.

wiseguy · 07-12-2010 10:27am

Great another thread on the same subject full of opinions of people who like to judge a book by its cover and stereotype.

After watching last night's Primetime on Limerick, I am happy my family lives in a friendly community where we all know each other and look out for each other.

ei.sdraob · 07-12-2010 10:44am

Looks like a fine house, pitty about the color tho

magicbastarder · 07-12-2010 10:51am

you make it sound like those houses were needed for people living locally. i'd say one third of them were occupied. there's no 'rural houses for rural people' card to be played there.

Black Swan · 07-12-2010 11:07am

Reminder... Some of these posts, be they in favour of, or against One Off Housing are becoming a bit too personal. Address the content of the argument, and not each other please. Thanks.

magicbastarder · 07-12-2010 11:24am

okay, i'll readdress my post which was deleted; i was in achill recently, and especially around keel, i'd say 33% of the (huge number of) houses were unoccupied and looked like they were long term unoccupied, 33% were unoccupied, but probably short term unoccupied, and the remainder occupied. the landscape was utterly ruined by one off houses which had no sense nor plan as regards use or benefit, and as a place to have a holiday home, i cannot fathom why people would still build homes there - there were damn all shops or restaurants, and no aesthetic value to the place. the 'town' looks like it's used by people to commute to their holiday homes (having done their shopping on the way, judging by the lack of facilities) and make no attempt to engage with the local community.

i know several people built or bought one off houses in rural areas, and two have admitted that the local economy in their area seemed to be driven by the one off houses - farmers were making more money selling land or building houses on their land and selling, than they were off agriculture. that's not a sustainable strategy, as we've discovered.

mikom · 07-12-2010 2:01pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Ironically the image is titled ............. thisfabtrek.com/journey/europe/ireland/dublin/new-ugly-house2-2.jpg
Not exactly the best example of countryside.

Liam Byrne · 07-12-2010 11:17pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Hours of our life were squandered travelling to and from school, to the sports clubs, swimming pool, and the houses of friends and, later on, to and from discos and pubs. Like most of our neighbours we were a single car household and huge demands were placed on the car.

Ah yeah......all of the sprawling estates that involve a two-mile drive to the nearest actual road and another 2 miles to the school, sports club, swimming pool, etc, involve no cars whatsoever.....that's why Dublin is completely car-free. :rolleyes:

keithcan · 08-12-2010 1:45am

A key dimension to this is good planning. And guess who has held the reins there for the lask yonks? That's right, the very close relatives of those who have done their worst at national govt level. No wonder we've ended up with ghost estates and the legacy of bad planning. But yet again, we get what we vote for, whether at local or national level.

Good planning needs balance, sutainability, etc., but also an understanding of the valid expectation of a good amount of people to seek to live in rural settings, often out of an attachment to place that is notably strong esp in rural Ireland. And that's a good thing, key to community spirit, etc.

The National Spatial Strategy was brought out a decade ago and meant to bring 'order' to planning, but failed miserably. It's now been 'refreshed' and extraordinarily, wants to tip the country back on the east coast, believing that Dublin will drive the economic recovery - see link http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/PlanningDevelopment/NationalSpatialStrategy/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,24144,en.pdf

There's been some serious nonsense posted about the cost of 'subsidising' rural dwellers which, thankfully, has been countered by the obvious fact that rural dwellers pay far more for services. For example, transport in the cities is massively subsidised. By all taxpayers. Including rural-dwellers. Yet the latter get a puny Rural Transport Scheme. We don't expect buses down every road; we'd settle for 2% of the publicly subsidised transport provision that urban areas get. But we won't see it and we'll make do.

One only has to take a quick look at the concentration of deprivation, anti-social behaviour, etc. in urban areas to see how the model our planners have overseen is nowhere that anyone sensible would want to live.

Maybe when we the risen people effect the change we're about to at national level (not sure I believe that will really really happen) we'll then look at getting smarter people at local level too and good planning might follow. This does have to have regard to some constraints on one-off housing, but only within a publicly debated and accepted planning context that isn't either black (no rural housing) or white (unrestricted one-offs).

flutered · 08-12-2010 11:54am

looking at that primetime program made me glad of where i am living, now a few points, who subsidised the m50, the new terminal at dublin airport, us rural dewellers, the same ones who some of whom will never use them facilitys,and as in my case will never want to, all that new infrastrusture was not built for our use, it was built to enable exporters easy and fast acess to seaports.

JustinDee · 08-12-2010 12:15pm

flutered wrote: »

looking at that primetime program made me glad of where i am living, now a few points, who subsidised the m50, the new terminal at dublin airport, us rural dewellers, the same ones who some of whom will never use them facilitys,and as in my case will never want to, all that new infrastrusture was not built for our use, it was built to enable exporters easy and fast acess to seaports.

You'd swear "rural dwellers" lived out in the boonies of Broken Hill with the above.
I think you need to read up on EU structural funding because thats where the bulk of the money that was required came from.

jmayo · 08-12-2010 12:33pm

flutered wrote: »

looking at that primetime program made me glad of where i am living, now a few points, who subsidised the m50, the new terminal at dublin airport, us rural dewellers, the same ones who some of whom will never use them facilitys,and as in my case will never want to, all that new infrastrusture was not built for our use, it was built to enable exporters easy and fast acess to seaports.

Ehh you forgot that rural dwellers lost their local Garda stations and now they don't ahve alocal Garda because more Gardaí are necessary to patrol urban areas where drug gangs spend a lot of their time trying to gun each other down.

Liberalbrehon · 08-12-2010 1:32pm

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh you forgot that rural dwellers lost their local Garda stations and now they don't ahve alocal Garda because more Gardaí are necessary to patrol urban areas where drug gangs spend a lot of their time trying to gun each other down.

okay, let's demolish all towns and cities and just have people living on side of our 100k of roads in concrete, lemon bungalows. then there would be no crime, we would all know our neighbours and other drivel about sustainable once-off houses.

Alot of those 100k of roads should be re-zoned as agricultural roads. If you have to live in middle of nowhere because you don't like living in a town then go for it and accept the long-term consequences for yourselves and families. It's about scarce resources. string development along a country road has blighted our countryside and been responsible for thousands of young people dying needless because they lived so far from towns. The countryside is no place for young people unless they or their parents work the land.

it's a hugely emotive issue but I'd like one person that lives in a one off house in remote area to outlined the long-term benefits for their families as they see them and then realistically outlined the long term bad consequences. It can't be all good. be honest now.

Avns1s · 08-12-2010 1:32pm

This argument is ongoing for years and will still be ongoing when I am six foot under in the nearby rural cemetry. (I presume that this will be sustainable and that I can have a "one off" grave without the environmental lobby objecting!!)

I think the fundamental point that is forgotton, is that the services and infrastructure in place in rural areas, are there primarily to support and economic function, that is, the production of food. If the roads in rural Ireland didn't exist, telephone lines didnt exist, ESB lines didn't exist, how would the farmers conduct their business?

Its unlikely that the farmers of Ireland would trek for miles over fields to gather sheep and cattle or vegetables. Agriculture is a business and needs its ESB and Broadband the same as any other business. How would the cows be milked so the townies could have milk on the rice crispies in the morning??

The reality is that the infrastructure is in place for decades and will be in place unless we want to import all of our food. One off housing is merely piggy backing on those services and arguable making them more sustainable.

mikom · 08-12-2010 1:50pm

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

If you have to live in middle of nowhere because you don't like living in a town then go for it and accept the long-term consequences for yourselves and families. It's about scarce resources.

Many of which we produce in the countryside.

ei.sdraob · 08-12-2010 1:57pm

Why should the countryside only be used for agriculture? its the 21st century ffs.

me and my OH are in middle of moving to our new built high spec house in the country, which will also be an office for both of us, and yes there is broadband
and yes we pay more for everything from water to electricity including very high once off installation charges despite all of these services already running on the road we are on only few meters away.
as for sewage i had to pay for an expensive treatment plant which has cleaner water coming out the other end of the bio system than taps in city :P

we work via internet, there is absolutely no reason for us to be crammed into some small tiny apt/house in the city and waste hours commuting, the people i work with mostly are not even in this country or continent for that matter, ive never even met most of them face to face. thats how some business is done in 21st century

we knew exactly what we were doing by moving out, but i would need to be a millionaire to afford a similar sized home build to same high standards in the city, a house that was build under my supervision (and not some cowboys) to an A rated standard with plenty of insulation and other "green" stuff

also use third of the house as a large office for company saving on rent
and finally as added bonus have alot of land now to grow fruit and veg on.

btw I find it highly hypocritical some people moaning about houses in country, yet the same people want to blanket the whole countryside in windmills and pylons to connect these

Cú Giobach · 08-12-2010 2:06pm

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

it's a hugely emotive issue but I'd like one person that lives in a one off house in remote area to outlined the long-term benefits for their families as they see them and then realistically outlined the long term bad consequences. It can't be all good. be honest now.

If it's so bad why do millions and millions of people all around the planet choose to do it?
It's not just a matter of economics, all people are different and have different priorities. Some people would go mad living in an isolated part of the country and others mad from living in suburbia.
To not understand this and think all people must feel the same way you do is a tad naive.
I live in the country because of the peace and the feeling of tranquility here, something you can't quantify.
I grew up in the countryside and when I look back wouldn't have had it any other way, when I was old enough I moved to the city and had all the fun that entailed and now years later am back in the country, I feel I've had it all.
In a small country like this and with the interweb, mobile phones and modern transport links one is not quite as isolated as in the mid 19th or even 20th century.

Avns1s · 08-12-2010 2:15pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

btw I find it highly hypocritical some people moaning about houses in country, yet the same people want to blanket the whole countryside in windmills and pylons to connect these

Funny thing is that many of those who promote the environmental aspects of green electricity production are the same nuts who are behind the objections to wind energy projects on the basis of their impact on the landscape! Go figure!!

ei.sdraob · 08-12-2010 2:36pm

Avns1s wrote: »

Funny thing is that many of those who promote the environmental aspects of green electricity production are the same nuts who are behind the objections to wind energy projects on the basis of their impact on the landscape! Go figure!!

Now that I think of it, during my time in power generation i got to visit alot of power plants across the country, in almost all cases (poolbeg be an exception) all of the large powerplants providing most of the electricity (even more on the days when there's **** all wind) are in the countryside from that giant on the Shannon called Moneypoint to the carved up mountaintop in Wicklow (which is a really cool place!)

I would love to see the face on Gormley if they had to build a 1000MW coal eating monstrosity like Moneypoint in his constituency

, most of this electricity is used in the cities

Also instead of destroying the countryside in windmills i strongly believe that if we start now could have a nuclear plant replacing Moneypoint in 10 years time when it days are numbered, no need to build new pylons since the largest cables in country go from there, no thats to simple a solution

Thats what the English are doing now, instead of destroying their countryside which they protect a bit more than here, they will build more nukes

flutered · 08-12-2010 2:44pm

JustinDee wrote: »

You'd swear "rural dwellers" lived out in the boonies of Broken Hill with the above.
I think you need to read up on EU structural funding because thats where the bulk of the money that was required came from.

to whose benefit ?.

flutered · 08-12-2010 3:22pm

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

okay, let's demolish all towns and cities and just have people living on side of our 100k of roads in concrete, lemon bungalows. then there would be no crime, we would all know our neighbours and other drivel about sustainable once-off houses.

Alot of those 100k of roads should be re-zoned as agricultural roads. If you have to live in middle of nowhere because you don't like living in a town then go for it and accept the long-term consequences for yourselves and families. It's about scarce resources. string development along a country road has blighted our countryside and been responsible for thousands of young people dying needless because they lived so far from towns. The countryside is no place for young people unless they or their parents work the land.

it's a hugely emotive issue but I'd like one person that lives in a one off house in remote area to outlined the long-term benefits for their families as they see them and then realistically outlined the long term bad consequences. It can't be all good. be honest now.

where are dublin trying to source their water, from the shannon no less, if they kept their network up to date there would be no need of this requirement.

Liberalbrehon · 08-12-2010 3:35pm

flutered wrote: »

where are dublin trying to source their water, from the shannon no less, if they kept their network up to date there would be no need of this requirement.

totally agree. but isn't that a different issue. poor water infrastructure in probably all of our cities due to inept councils, bad political governance etc.
We should have privatized water supply 30 years ago and we'd be much better off now.

a nice view of string development in Achill, makes it look real pretty, doesn't it

cill-bill · 09-12-2010 5:05pm

i can tell you exactly the planning in the country is ****, there are something like 36 planning councils in ireland, the counties, plus the cities and areas of dublin, but they are all inward looking, even tough they only govern extremely small populations in comparison to other countries. in germany, a federal state, there are 4 governing states in the country, planning for a hugh are with hugh populations. the further problem in ireland is that everyone wants everything in areas where they shiouldnt be, why would a village have a cinema? its unviable. if people lived in cities, they would have all the facilities they needed, but then again the cities would have to be planned correctly, which of course they arent. the notion of not allowing tall buildings in ireland lead to high property prices, thus urban sprawl, and innifician infrastructure. green belts do work, ut only if they are inforeced, and people are willing to live in town houses or apartments, but again the standars are so low in most apartments, due to poor planning, and nobody caring as long as the councels collected taz from the development. all in all, irelands plannig is BS. all my lectureshave even admitted it was their generation that messed it all up, but none taking individual blame, blinded by their own arrogance. take henrietta street in dublin for instance, the ****ty new apartment building put on the first georgin street in dublin is one of the biggest mistakes ever, all all my lectures slag it, except the lecturer who granted permission. he simply defend his poor judgement...rant over

Liberalbrehon · 09-12-2010 5:19pm

cill-bill wrote: »

i can tell you exactly the planning in the country is ****, there are something like 36 planning councils in ireland, the counties, plus the cities and areas of dublin, but they are all inward looking, even tough they only govern extremely small populations in comparison to other countries. in germany, a federal state, there are 4 governing states in the country, planning for a hugh are with hugh populations. the further problem in ireland is that everyone wants everything in areas where they shiouldnt be, why would a village have a cinema? its unviable. if people lived in cities, they would have all the facilities they needed, but then again the cities would have to be planned correctly, which of course they arent. the notion of not allowing tall buildings in ireland lead to high property prices, thus urban sprawl, and innifician infrastructure. green belts do work, ut only if they are inforeced, and people are willing to live in town houses or apartments, but again the standars are so low in most apartments, due to poor planning, and nobody caring as long as the councels collected taz from the development. all in all, irelands plannig is BS. all my lectureshave even admitted it was their generation that messed it all up, but none taking individual blame, blinded by their own arrogance. take henrietta street in dublin for instance, the ****ty new apartment building put on the first georgin street in dublin is one of the biggest mistakes ever, all all my lectures slag it, except the lecturer who granted permission. he simply defend his poor judgement...rant over

good post, no offence but you either wrote that very quickly or you need to improve your English writing skills. you do say rant, so maybe written in anger?

Arts student · 09-12-2010 5:23pm

I’ve heard some of the most ridiculous arguments here, can some of you not come up with a more convincing argument against people living in the countryside seen as you hate the concept so much? Its barren and most often flat featureless open fields we are talking about for god sake, all 20 million acres of it nationwide. I doubt every square inch of it is need in this day and age, what with all the mechanised agriculture. I think people, including myself are more than entitled to live in the countryside and I’m saying this as somebody who lives and has grown up in a town. I do agree however about paying ones way, but I think there is a bit of patronising going on here because I know many people who live in the countryside and pay their own way.

With technology taking over in all areas of our lives whether its for energy or simply the use of the internet, the trend is toward decentralization. I personally would love to have a little home in the countryside and I don’t understand what the problem is, or how I’d be harming anybody else in doing so.

One thing I will agree on though is that we do need to monitor environmental and design issues. I think eyesores are as unacceptable in the countryside as in the town or city and more should be done to avoid this in future, I would even suggest a nationwide programme such as the Cork Rural Guidelines which proved successful, particularly when it came to things such as housing types and roadside / garden vegetation, because I believe the countryside belongs to everybody. But to depopulate wide open spaces doesn’t make one ounce of sense. I would certainly prefer to live in nature than in some ugly gerry-built housing estate throwin up by FF cowboy builders.

Liberalbrehon · 09-12-2010 5:33pm

I would not defend the poor standard of private housing estates around the country on edges of towns, small villages. However lets take Achill, wouldn't it be better to have 3 or 4 small quaint villages, rather than house upon house on 1 acre plots dotted along side the main road for miles on end as can be seen in attachment above. take a look at it on google street view. it's awful.

Again not defending poor housing planning or standards in towns and cities which have been awful for decades. FF/FG coucillors have ensured that since the foundation of State.

Arts student · 09-12-2010 5:45pm

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

I would not defend the poor standard of private housing estates around the country on edges of towns, small villages. However lets take Achill, wouldn't it be better to have 3 or 4 small quaint villages, rather than house upon house on 1 acre plots dotted along side the main road for miles on end as can be seen in attachment above. take a look at it on google street view. it's awful.

Again not defending poor housing planning or standards in towns and cities which have been awful for decades. FF/FG coucillors have ensured that since the foundation of State.

Quaint villages?? Villages in this country are a shambles and the only accomadation available in them is in housing estates, and it's the same thing nationwide - ugly houses throwin up for a quick buck by corrupt cowboys with carboard walls and poor insulation surrounded by sterile self-same houses. How exactly are Irish villages quaint?

Liberalbrehon · 09-12-2010 5:55pm

apart from the ones built 100 years ago, they are not. I hate driving through the awful towns and villages of country. Bar a small percentage, I couldn't agree more.

Liam Byrne · 09-12-2010 7:31pm

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

If you have to live in middle of nowhere because you don't like living in a town then go for it and accept the long-term consequences for yourselves and families.

We do. It's called slow broadband, expensive waste collection, added fuel bills and a complete lack of public transport.

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

The countryside is no place for young people unless they or their parents work the land.

What kind of a ridiculous statement is that ?

It's certainly not particularly "liberal" to impose your standards and beliefs on others, now is it ?

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

it's a hugely emotive issue but I'd like one person that lives in a one off house in remote area to outlined the long-term benefits for their families as they see them and then realistically outlined the long term bad consequences. It can't be all good. be honest now.

It's not all good, but all things considered, it's better.

Nermal · 09-12-2010 8:23pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yes we pay more for everything from water to electricity including very high once off installation charges despite all of these services already running on the road we are on only few meters away.
as for sewage i had to pay for an expensive treatment plant which has cleaner water coming out the other end of the bio system than taps in city :P

Are you paying extra for your fire brigade service? For your ambulance? Are you paying the full cost of your child's trip to school, or the full cost of providing tiny schools up and down the country?

There are a vast number of ways in which you're not paying your way - you just haven't thought of them.

One off housing

Comments