"Dublin infrastructure not able to cope"

[James Shields]

A couple of articles I came across that aren't directly transport related, but certainly have implications for it.

This one was a couple of days ago, but I didn't get a chance to post it at the time:

"Dublin infrastructure not able to cope"

A new report has warned that Dublin's infrastructure will not be
able to cope if the current urban sprawl continues

The report, published today by the European Environmental Agency,
predicts that residential housing will have more than doubled in
the greater Dublin area by 2025

The EEA says this is not merely a problem here but is an
illustration of the problems posed by urban sprawl across Europe

The author of the report, Ronan U'ale, says Dublin's outward
expansion is "unsustainable in terms of resources, services and
quality of life

The report backs suggestions for the development of a polycentric
relationship between Dundalk, Newry and Drogheda

It forecasts that most future growth will be to the north-west of
Dublin, along the line of the Dublin- Belfast corridor

This external information has been sourced from Business World,
a service of Media World Ltd.

And this one along the same lines:

High rises needed to tackle urban sprawl

The Irish Home Builders Association (IHBA) has called for policies
to support landmark and high rise buildings in the Dublin area to
ensure optimum use of land and to address issues such as urban
sprawl

The call came from IHBA Director Hubert Fitzpatrick in response to
a report from the European Environmental Agency on the subject of
urban sprawl in the Greater Dublin Are

"What is needed to address the issues raised in this report about
the problems of urban sprawl is for better use of land within
Dublin, with the construction of landmark buildings, quality high
rise development, higher densities and optimum use of lands in
Dublin.

"Demand for housing in Dublin remains extremely positive as a
result of a number of factors, including strong economic and
population growth. The IHBA sees a need for 25,000 houses or
apartments in Dublin annually. This year 19,000 will be built in
Dublin, however planning permission has been granted for only
12,000 in the last twelve months.

"In order to address this demand for new homes we need to be more
supportive of higher residential density. Failure to do so will
see increased urban sprawl on the edges of our city and the
problems this brings in terms of providing transport and other
services".

"Higher residential density is also about giving people choice. A
falling average household size and an increase in commuting times
outside cities has prompted a resurgence in the popularity of city
living. Ireland has one of the lowest levels of apartment
dwellings in Europe and has a traditionally low rise built
environment that is contrary to the modern principles of
sustainable development, and which acts to frustrate those seeking
to live closer to their places of employment and to avail of the
range of services uniquely offered by city living.

"Increased densities will also make a significant contribution to
both the form and function of our urban areas. The vibrancy of
city life in Ireland should be reflected in a boldness of
residential density and design that creates landmark buildings and
more striking city streetscapes"


more stories

This external information has been sourced from Business World,
a service of Media World Ltd.

[Donal Quinn]

i hate agreeing with an orgnisation like Irish Home Builders Association ... but one of the things i yould love to do is knock 50% of crappy damp awkward and ineffiecent georgian dublin and replace it with 6 story large apartments

compare this
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=lib+ut...0.0 16158&t=h
barcelona 6 story lots of metro high density but also quite a wealthy area full of families etc. lots of schools cinema shops etc

typical area similar distance from city centre in dublin
low density, no transport feck all amenities
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=lib+ut...158 &t=h&om=1

---------
bring out the wrecking ball

[Oisin88]

The trouble is we let the builders build the low density sprawl houses all the way to the Shannon while they and their solicitors, accountants etc. keep their corporate HQs in the high density housing we used to know as Georgian Dublin.

I agree with having some high rise buildings, but this should be seen as exactly what it is: the building lobby lining up their future cashflow.

[PaulM]

Originally Posted by Oisin88

The trouble is we let the builders build the low density sprawl houses all the way to the Shannon while they and their solicitors, accountants etc. keep their corporate HQs in the high density housing we used to know as Georgian Dublin.

I agree with having some high rise buildings, but this should be seen as exactly what it is: the building lobby lining up their future cashflow.

Perhaps you are correct but if it does something positive it can't be a bad thing IMO.

[Donal Quinn]

keep their corporate HQs in the high density housing we used to know as Georgian Dublin.

that doesn't really make sense - some of the buildings will be corporate HQs but more will be apartments. the thing is that with proper 'city' density there will be alot more of each and they will all be nicer and more energy efficient

the building lobby will always have some sort of cashflow - it's up to the gov to direct that in the most useful way. an in my little opinion that means knocking georgian dublin AND crappy 1970's bungalow dublin as well

[Oisin88]

Originally Posted by Donalq

that doesn't really make sense - some of the buildings will be corporate HQs but more will be apartments. the thing is that with proper 'city' density there will be alot more of each and they will all be nicer and more energy efficient

What I mean is that if all the office buildings currently in spacious buildings between the green and ballsbridge were homes and the offices were in office buildings we wouldn't have the current problem.

Originally Posted by Donalq

the building lobby will always have some sort of cashflow - it's up to the gov to direct that in the most useful way. an in my little opinion that means knocking georgian dublin AND crappy 1970's bungalow dublin as well

I'm not sure they will always have the cashflow. In fact I think they are getting a bit scared that the good times are coming to a close. I'm also not sure the goverment can direct the building lobbies cashflow unless they get alot better at directing planning, which isn't really any Irish politicians forte. The only thing they can do is more urban grants, which the builders don't deserve.

Before they start knocking Georgian Dublin (and making it the exact same as all the Clone Cities) they should start rebuilding on all the derilict sites. There are a hell of a lot of them, some of which (up near croker) I remember seeing derilict for the last 20 years

[Oisin88]

Also, we should remember that the last time there was government sponsored knocking of georgian dublin we got a lot of really ugly buildings into the bargain. In fact the dismantling of the railways in the 1950s & 60s was part of the "get rid of the victorian legacy, we're moderen ireland now" mentality.

[Donal Quinn]

look, all that has to happen is for the gov to regulate the energy efficiency

the derelict land is derelict for a reason - it's usually in the wrong place!

and the area around croker is a classic example of the probelm. it might have development potential but it's cut off from the city by a swathe of crap (i.e. mountjoy sq etc

as for clone cities - so what? if it means that you can get a million people with a 15 min train ride of the centre then clone away IMO

What I mean is that if all the office buildings currently in spacious buildings between the green and ballsbridge were homes and the offices were in office buildings we wouldn't have the current problem.

well no, because all those buildings weren't designed to be homes for modern families / urdan dwellers. they were designed as grand residences for people with servants outside. they have crap insulation and the make terrible use of the space. We should start with putting 500 modern apartments (minimum 100 sq m with sufficient underground parking) in the area around mountjoy sq. how could that not be better than the decay that is there now

</rant>