Planet Rugby Forum

Blackrock Bullet wrote:What a pointless question, there are a variety of factors in choosing where to live. Would I live in a nice development on the old Bottle Bank site, yes quite possibly, as it is close to where I am from. It isn't surrounded by the nicest possible areas but has itself greatly improved and a further mix of people will only make it better.

What are the objections to this put forward so far?

Transport: nonsense, people not aware of Bus Connects
Institutional landlords: Are they all excellent? Clearly not. But Are all private landlords or the county councils? Absolutely not.
It's a poor area: so what? Are we just suggesting that we leave areas close to the city go undeveloped and we reject private money going into the area? What is the proposal for here from people?

Private landlords will be a thing of the past in 20 years. They are leaving in droves.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:What a pointless question, there are a variety of factors in choosing where to live. Would I live in a nice development on the old Bottle Bank site, yes quite possibly, as it is close to where I am from. It isn't surrounded by the nicest possible areas but has itself greatly improved and a further mix of people will only make it better.

What are the objections to this put forward so far?

Transport: nonsense, people not aware of Bus Connects
Institutional landlords: Are they all excellent? Clearly not. But Are all private landlords or the county councils? Absolutely not.
It's a poor area: so what? Are we just suggesting that we leave areas close to the city go undeveloped and we reject private money going into the area? What is the proposal for here from people?

It's 500 apartments in towers on a site the size of a Rugby field....... Are you seriously this fúcking nieve to not realize how that will pan out ?

It is two and a half times the size of a rugby field.

How will it turn out?

Like other areas of the city that have been gentrified? Were you queuing up to go into Millenium Tower in Grand Canal Docks when all that surround it was derelict land and Ringsend flats?

The objections to this have been the usual suspects talking about it being "monolithic", "established residential area". The ones on here are from people not aware of the basic transport plans for this city and seemingly with a snobby belief on where private money can or can't go into.

Again - what do you propose for this area? A site few KM from the city centre about to be serviced by a major public transport project with disused factory sites all over. Do you want another Ballymun regeneration project?

What people are suggesting is fewer apartments.

Overcrowding areas is a real thing. It requires a level of management and provision of facilities that is unheard of here outside of high-end development.

GCD took a few years to catch on, you might recall, but it was all an empty brownfield site. This isn't. It's Coolock.

anonymous_joe wrote:What people are suggesting is fewer apartments.

Overcrowding areas is a real thing. It requires a level of management and provision of facilities that is unheard of here outside of high-end development.

GCD took a few years to catch on, you might recall, but it was all an empty brownfield site. This isn't. It's Coolock.

How is it overcrowding?

TSG is wrong, it is 2.5 rugby fields. There is plenty of excess greenspace there. What would be the difference in lobbing in 20 floor towers instead of 9 floor ones?

What do you require for it to be overcrowding? It will have excellent transport links. The State, council and other organisations have already sank a lot of money in nearby, in places like Chanel College, which is being criminally wasted because nobody will take on the culture in the locality.

The excuses here wear thin.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:What people are suggesting is fewer apartments.

Overcrowding areas is a real thing. It requires a level of management and provision of facilities that is unheard of here outside of high-end development.

GCD took a few years to catch on, you might recall, but it was all an empty brownfield site. This isn't. It's Coolock.

How is it overcrowding?

TSG is wrong, it is 2.5 rugby fields. There is plenty of excess greenspace there. What would be the difference in lobbing in 20 floor towers instead of 9 floor ones?

What do you require for it to be overcrowding? It will have excellent transport links. The State and council have already sank a lot of money in nearby, in places like Chanel College, which is being criminally wasted because nobody will take on the culture in the locality.

The excuses here wear thin.

500 apartments on a site smaller than Longford rugby club is mental.

What is the average apartment size? How many M2?

That's the real question. Also if you don't go up and go sprawl you require more services that are required in a more spread out manner. It's less efficient. You also require people to travel more which strains transport more.

In a European city context this really isn't anything close to being very high density.

You do have to look at the area which has less the nice areas around it. For that reason it should be highly concentrated on private ownership / private rented. Long term it could act as a stimulus to improving the area of it is done properly.

It's close enough to the M50 / airport / city / port so ideally located to employment hubs.

This is a perfect example of not wanting things to change and resistance to Dublin going up. It's only 9 stories for heavens sake. You get that in commuter towns and villages in Holland... It's standard. It's either than or a lot more infra being required to move people as they sprawl out.

Also, nobody want to actually deal with the housing crisis? Units and concentration need to go up if you want to keep housing affordable in Dublin.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:What people are suggesting is fewer apartments.

Overcrowding areas is a real thing. It requires a level of management and provision of facilities that is unheard of here outside of high-end development.

GCD took a few years to catch on, you might recall, but it was all an empty brownfield site. This isn't. It's Coolock.

How is it overcrowding?

TSG is wrong, it is 2.5 rugby fields. There is plenty of excess greenspace there. What would be the difference in lobbing in 20 floor towers instead of 9 floor ones?

What do you require for it to be overcrowding? It will have excellent transport links. The State, council and other organisations have already sank a lot of money in nearby, in places like Chanel College, which is being criminally wasted because nobody will take on the culture in the locality.

The excuses here wear thin.

Chanel College and the Chivers site, while only 500 meters away from each other are miles apart in terms of socio/economic demographics.Chanel is surrounded by private houses all the way down to Artane. The Chivers development is in one of the worst areas of Coolock with Industrial , industrial commercial and council housing on 3 sides. The fourth is the Malahide road.
2.5 Rugby pitches is still tiny for that amount of accommodation, excess greenspace my arse.

nardol wrote:What is the average apartment size? How many M2?

That's the real question. Also if you don't go up and go sprawl you require more services that are required in a more spread out manner. It's less efficient. You also require people to travel more which strains transport more.

In a European city context this really isn't anything close to being very high density.

You do have to look at the area which has less the nice areas around it. For that reason it should be highly concentrated on private ownership / private rented. Long term it could act as a stimulus to improving the area of it is done properly.

It's close enough to the M50 / airport / city / port so ideally located to employment hubs.

This is a perfect example of not wanting things to change and resistance to Dublin going up. It's only 9 stories for heavens sake. You get that in commuter towns and villages in Holland... It's standard. It's either than or a lot more infra being required to move people as they sprawl out.

Also, nobody want to actually deal with the housing crisis? Units and concentration need to go up if you want to keep housing affordable in Dublin.

Shoe boxes for the masses.

Liathroidigloine wrote:

nardol wrote:What is the average apartment size? How many M2?

That's the real question. Also if you don't go up and go sprawl you require more services that are required in a more spread out manner. It's less efficient. You also require people to travel more which strains transport more.

In a European city context this really isn't anything close to being very high density.

You do have to look at the area which has less the nice areas around it. For that reason it should be highly concentrated on private ownership / private rented. Long term it could act as a stimulus to improving the area of it is done properly.

It's close enough to the M50 / airport / city / port so ideally located to employment hubs.

This is a perfect example of not wanting things to change and resistance to Dublin going up. It's only 9 stories for heavens sake. You get that in commuter towns and villages in Holland... It's standard. It's either than or a lot more infra being required to move people as they sprawl out.


Also, nobody want to actually deal with the housing crisis? Units and concentration need to go up if you want to keep housing affordable in Dublin.

Shoe boxes for the masses.

Jobs are in Dublin. People want to live in Dublin. People are often willing to live in a vibrant area with a smaller house as opposed to in the middle of nowhere where it apparently costs a fortune to live because it costs 100 euro per wipe of the ass and flush.

Prices of these apartments are worth more than 90% -if not more - of the houses in Longford. So the shoe boxes are more appealing than a house on a bog.

But you are right - everyone in Dublin should have a hunting lodge and estate to shoot some deer on a Sunday. Even those doing average hard work.

FFS I posted a link to the housing guidelines yesterday. Minimum areas etc are specified in the document and are far from shoeboxes.

camroc1 wrote:FFS I posted a link to the housing guidelines yesterday. Minimum areas etc are specified in the document and are far from shoeboxes.

Too busy picketing the meat processors - because picketing the people who buy your beef off you makes perfect sense.

#Culchielogic

The Sun God wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:What people are suggesting is fewer apartments.

Overcrowding areas is a real thing. It requires a level of management and provision of facilities that is unheard of here outside of high-end development.

GCD took a few years to catch on, you might recall, but it was all an empty brownfield site. This isn't. It's Coolock.

How is it overcrowding?

TSG is wrong, it is 2.5 rugby fields. There is plenty of excess greenspace there. What would be the difference in lobbing in 20 floor towers instead of 9 floor ones?

What do you require for it to be overcrowding? It will have excellent transport links. The State, council and other organisations have already sank a lot of money in nearby, in places like Chanel College, which is being criminally wasted because nobody will take on the culture in the locality.

The excuses here wear thin.

Chanel College and the Chivers site, while only 500 meters away from each other are miles apart in terms of socio/economic demographics.Chanel is surrounded by private houses all the way down to Artane. The Chivers development is in one of the worst areas of Coolock with Industrial , industrial commercial and council housing on 3 sides. The fourth is the Malahide road.
2.5 Rugby pitches is still tiny for that amount of accommodation, excess greenspace my arse.

So you admit being wrong about the "one rugby pitch", much like being wrong about the PT capacity.

This is Brownfield sites now mostly deserted and rezoned to better utilise it going forward. What even is your point about Artane? Chanel College is performing poorly and needs a better mix of students.

2.5 rugby fields is plenty big enough. These are the excuses of the Planner;

In her 72-page report submitted to the board, Ms Kelly described the "arrangement of the proposed blocks and overall design of the scheme" as "monolithic".

She said it "would set an undesirable precedent for the repetition of this proposed form, with unsympathetic proportions relative to the character and pattern of development in the immediate area".

Ms Kelly also noted her concerns that the scale and density of the project is "premature pending the delivery of a high-capacity public transport system in the immediate area of the development site".

She said a subsequent influx of tenants to the area "will give rise to an increase in population within this local area".

Ms Kelly added that she was "not convinced that there is a commensurate level of employment opportunities, social and recreational facilities required to underpin sustainable neighbourhoods".

Let's look at those words, "Monolithic", loaded emotive language based on subjective taste. "Sustainable neighbourhoods" - as opposed to what is there now?

Increase in population? A few KMs from the City Centre? Oh no.
No jobs? A few KMs from the City Centre? Really?

Talking about lack of required PT. BC is supposed to be in operation by the time of this development. Other NIMBYs are trying to hold that up. And we wonder why we have a shortage of housing. Sorry but the various excuses trotted out do not stand up to scrutiny.

This is a 2.5 hectare site. 233 homes per hectare are planned for the Irish bottle site, a higher proportion. There is quite clear green space there, that you choose to ignore.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:What a pointless question, there are a variety of factors in choosing where to live. Would I live in a nice development on the old Bottle Bank site, yes quite possibly, as it is close to where I am from. It isn't surrounded by the nicest possible areas but has itself greatly improved and a further mix of people will only make it better.

What are the objections to this put forward so far?

Transport: nonsense, people not aware of Bus Connects
Institutional landlords: Are they all excellent? Clearly not. But Are all private landlords or the county councils? Absolutely not.
It's a poor area: so what? Are we just suggesting that we leave areas close to the city go undeveloped and we reject private money going into the area? What is the proposal for here from people?

You sure have a lot of faith. I guess we'll see what happens.

Liathroidigloine wrote:

nardol wrote:What is the average apartment size? How many M2?

That's the real question. Also if you don't go up and go sprawl you require more services that are required in a more spread out manner. It's less efficient. You also require people to travel more which strains transport more.

In a European city context this really isn't anything close to being very high density.

You do have to look at the area which has less the nice areas around it. For that reason it should be highly concentrated on private ownership / private rented. Long term it could act as a stimulus to improving the area of it is done properly.

It's close enough to the M50 / airport / city / port so ideally located to employment hubs.

This is a perfect example of not wanting things to change and resistance to Dublin going up. It's only 9 stories for heavens sake. You get that in commuter towns and villages in Holland... It's standard. It's either than or a lot more infra being required to move people as they sprawl out.

Also, nobody want to actually deal with the housing crisis? Units and concentration need to go up if you want to keep housing affordable in Dublin.

Shoe boxes for the masses.

Sorry but this is exactly like the co-living stuff. Others demanding their own standards for everyone else.

nardol wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:

nardol wrote:What is the average apartment size? How many M2?

That's the real question. Also if you don't go up and go sprawl you require more services that are required in a more spread out manner. It's less efficient. You also require people to travel more which strains transport more.

In a European city context this really isn't anything close to being very high density.

You do have to look at the area which has less the nice areas around it. For that reason it should be highly concentrated on private ownership / private rented. Long term it could act as a stimulus to improving the area of it is done properly.

It's close enough to the M50 / airport / city / port so ideally located to employment hubs.

This is a perfect example of not wanting things to change and resistance to Dublin going up. It's only 9 stories for heavens sake. You get that in commuter towns and villages in Holland... It's standard. It's either than or a lot more infra being required to move people as they sprawl out.


Also, nobody want to actually deal with the housing crisis? Units and concentration need to go up if you want to keep housing affordable in Dublin.

Shoe boxes for the masses.

Jobs are in Dublin. People want to live in Dublin. People are often willing to live in a vibrant area with a smaller house as opposed to in the middle of nowhere where it apparently costs a fortune to live because it costs 100 euro per wipe of the ass and flush.

Prices of these apartments are worth more than 90% -if not more - of the houses in Longford. So the shoe boxes are more appealing than a house on a bog.

But you are right - everyone in Dublin should have a hunting lodge and estate to shoot some deer on a Sunday. Even those doing average hard work.

Regional development means all jobs aren't in Dublin, people can choose to bring their families up in family homes with a back garden where you can kick a ball with your kids or enjoy the odd summer BBQ. We don't all want to live like the Dutch.

Still desperately pulling against the fact that the world is getting more urban. But let's keep pretending.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:Still desperately pulling against the fact that the world is getting more urban. But let's keep pretending.

Do you really think this will all work out grand?

Blackrock Bullet wrote:Still desperately pulling against the fact that the world is getting more urban. But let's keep pretending.

Urban is fine but hollowing out the whole center of the country is not. Pulling all resources to the east coast is madness. Have a regional center in the middle (Athlone) and provide decent infra to the towns surrounding it.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

The Sun God wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:What people are suggesting is fewer apartments.

Overcrowding areas is a real thing. It requires a level of management and provision of facilities that is unheard of here outside of high-end development.

GCD took a few years to catch on, you might recall, but it was all an empty brownfield site. This isn't. It's Coolock.

How is it overcrowding?

TSG is wrong, it is 2.5 rugby fields. There is plenty of excess greenspace there. What would be the difference in lobbing in 20 floor towers instead of 9 floor ones?

What do you require for it to be overcrowding? It will have excellent transport links. The State, council and other organisations have already sank a lot of money in nearby, in places like Chanel College, which is being criminally wasted because nobody will take on the culture in the locality.

The excuses here wear thin.

Chanel College and the Chivers site, while only 500 meters away from each other are miles apart in terms of socio/economic demographics.Chanel is surrounded by private houses all the way down to Artane. The Chivers development is in one of the worst areas of Coolock with Industrial , industrial commercial and council housing on 3 sides. The fourth is the Malahide road.
2.5 Rugby pitches is still tiny for that amount of accommodation, excess greenspace my arse.

So you admit being wrong about the "one rugby pitch", much like being wrong about the PT capacity.

This is Brownfield sites now mostly deserted and rezoned to better utilise it going forward. What even is your point about Artane? Chanel College is performing poorly and needs a better mix of students.

2.5 rugby fields is plenty big enough. These are the excuses of the Planner;

In her 72-page report submitted to the board, Ms Kelly described the "arrangement of the proposed blocks and overall design of the scheme" as "monolithic".

She said it "would set an undesirable precedent for the repetition of this proposed form, with unsympathetic proportions relative to the character and pattern of development in the immediate area".

Ms Kelly also noted her concerns that the scale and density of the project is "premature pending the delivery of a high-capacity public transport system in the immediate area of the development site".

She said a subsequent influx of tenants to the area "will give rise to an increase in population within this local area".

Ms Kelly added that she was "not convinced that there is a commensurate level of employment opportunities, social and recreational facilities required to underpin sustainable neighbourhoods".

Let's look at those words, "Monolithic", loaded emotive language based on subjective taste. "Sustainable neighbourhoods" - as opposed to what is there now?

Increase in population? A few KMs from the City Centre? Oh no.
No jobs? A few KMs from the City Centre? Really?

Talking about lack of required PT. BC is supposed to be in operation by the time of this development. Other NIMBYs are trying to hold that up. And we wonder why we have a shortage of housing. Sorry but the various excuses trotted out do not stand up to scrutiny.

This is a 2.5 hectare site. 233 homes per hectare are planned for the Irish bottle site, a higher proportion. There is quite clear green space there, that you choose to ignore.

You really are an obnoxious little prick. Before this week you wouldn't have managed to find Coolock on a fúcking map but today you are an expert on the area.

Good stuff TSG.

As usual when called out on being wrong on something you devolve to personal abuse.

Easy enough to be against everything sitting abroad with few worries.

So far it’s been;

- wrong about PT capacity
- wrong about the size of the development and the density
- a bizarre question on whether I’d live there
- some muddled discussion on the mix of socio economic class in the area

Liathroidigloine wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:Still desperately pulling against the fact that the world is getting more urban. But let's keep pretending.

Urban is fine but hollowing out the whole center of the country is not. Pulling all resources to the east coast is madness. Have a regional center in the middle (Athlone) and provide decent infra to the towns surrounding it.

Jesus.

Liathroidigloine wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:Still desperately pulling against the fact that the world is getting more urban. But let's keep pretending.

Urban is fine but hollowing out the whole center of the country is not. Pulling all resources to the east coast is madness. Have a regional center in the middle (Athlone) and provide decent infra to the towns surrounding it.

We work in a free world where people live where they want to live - its not government policy to move people, its their choice. Unless you want government to force people to live in certain areas its not something they can easily influence.

Once people move its always a catch up game for government. With a third of the country living in Dublin you have to provide schools teachers transport for those people. This narrative that government is pumping all its resources into Dublin is bollocks - it's facilitating the population of Ireland where they live.

In fact everything from small schools of 10 children with 2 teachers (or whatever the number is) - Dublin property tax going to rural counties - expenditure on rural Ireland being much much higher per capita than Dublin - Actually developing Limerick and waterford etc, places with a chance of actually growing and reaching urban status that people want to move there. A shitload is being done for pan irish development.

Also - if your area got better facilities and people wanted to move there - YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUY THE HOUSE YOU ARE CURRENTLY IN. Which defeats the purpose - if i am correct - of you living where you do in the first place!

I am more of a country person than a city person myself. I prefer isolation space and quiet but the choices i make preclude me doing that (for the moment). However the entitlement from rural Ireland is un be fcking leaveeeeable. Hearing them you would think they are being hard done by and the wants are endless. Its lifetime dole recipient level and what does Dublin get back in return?

The f**king Healy Rays, Lowry and company.

The Sun God wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

The Sun God wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:What people are suggesting is fewer apartments.

Overcrowding areas is a real thing. It requires a level of management and provision of facilities that is unheard of here outside of high-end development.

GCD took a few years to catch on, you might recall, but it was all an empty brownfield site. This isn't. It's Coolock.

How is it overcrowding?

TSG is wrong, it is 2.5 rugby fields. There is plenty of excess greenspace there. What would be the difference in lobbing in 20 floor towers instead of 9 floor ones?

What do you require for it to be overcrowding? It will have excellent transport links. The State, council and other organisations have already sank a lot of money in nearby, in places like Chanel College, which is being criminally wasted because nobody will take on the culture in the locality.

The excuses here wear thin.

Chanel College and the Chivers site, while only 500 meters away from each other are miles apart in terms of socio/economic demographics.Chanel is surrounded by private houses all the way down to Artane. The Chivers development is in one of the worst areas of Coolock with Industrial , industrial commercial and council housing on 3 sides. The fourth is the Malahide road.
2.5 Rugby pitches is still tiny for that amount of accommodation, excess greenspace my arse.

So you admit being wrong about the "one rugby pitch", much like being wrong about the PT capacity.

This is Brownfield sites now mostly deserted and rezoned to better utilise it going forward. What even is your point about Artane? Chanel College is performing poorly and needs a better mix of students.

2.5 rugby fields is plenty big enough. These are the excuses of the Planner;

In her 72-page report submitted to the board, Ms Kelly described the "arrangement of the proposed blocks and overall design of the scheme" as "monolithic".

She said it "would set an undesirable precedent for the repetition of this proposed form, with unsympathetic proportions relative to the character and pattern of development in the immediate area".

Ms Kelly also noted her concerns that the scale and density of the project is "premature pending the delivery of a high-capacity public transport system in the immediate area of the development site".

She said a subsequent influx of tenants to the area "will give rise to an increase in population within this local area".

Ms Kelly added that she was "not convinced that there is a commensurate level of employment opportunities, social and recreational facilities required to underpin sustainable neighbourhoods".

Let's look at those words, "Monolithic", loaded emotive language based on subjective taste. "Sustainable neighbourhoods" - as opposed to what is there now?

Increase in population? A few KMs from the City Centre? Oh no.
No jobs? A few KMs from the City Centre? Really?

Talking about lack of required PT. BC is supposed to be in operation by the time of this development. Other NIMBYs are trying to hold that up. And we wonder why we have a shortage of housing. Sorry but the various excuses trotted out do not stand up to scrutiny.

This is a 2.5 hectare site. 233 homes per hectare are planned for the Irish bottle site, a higher proportion. There is quite clear green space there, that you choose to ignore.

You really are an obnoxious little prick. Before this week you wouldn't have managed to find Coolock on a fúcking map but today you are an expert on the area.

And you are ?

alliswell wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:Still desperately pulling against the fact that the world is getting more urban. But let's keep pretending.

Do you really think this will all work out grand?

Like what does this mean?

We won’t have Bus Connects in time because of other NIMBYs so we shouldn’t build? Why always this negativity? Get on with it.

No coherent argument has been put forward her so far. If this were all public money going in I would be very wary. But it is not. It is private money going into an area that desperately needs investment and is within close proximity to the urban centre of this country.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:Still desperately pulling against the fact that the world is getting more urban. But let's keep pretending.

Urban is fine but hollowing out the whole center of the country is not. Pulling all resources to the east coast is madness. Have a regional center in the middle (Athlone) and provide decent infra to the towns surrounding it.

Jesus.

That is a fine well thought out argument that you have put forward.

Liathroidigloine wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:Still desperately pulling against the fact that the world is getting more urban. But let's keep pretending.

Urban is fine but hollowing out the whole center of the country is not. Pulling all resources to the east coast is madness. Have a regional center in the middle (Athlone) and provide decent infra to the towns surrounding it.

Jesus.

That is a fine well thought out argument that you have put forward.

It has been shown on here time and time again, and even on recent pages, that tax payer investment is disproportionately spent outside of Dublin. You are arguing with facts and creating alternate realities.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:Still desperately pulling against the fact that the world is getting more urban. But let's keep pretending.

Urban is fine but hollowing out the whole center of the country is not. Pulling all resources to the east coast is madness. Have a regional center in the middle (Athlone) and provide decent infra to the towns surrounding it.

Jesus.

That is a fine well thought out argument that you have put forward.

It has been shown on here time and time again, and even on recent pages, that tax payer investment is disproportionately spent outside of Dublin. You are arguing with facts and creating alternate realities.

People keep saying it. I haven't seen any evidence other than there is more LPT collected in Dublin. You keep missing the point that we will need to invest vast sums on infra in Dublin as it becomes more congested and unpleasant to live in. There are alternatives. A perfect example is the Childrens Hospital. I have no doubt that it could have been built for 50% of the cost if the site chosen was say somewhere outside of the M50. Dublin is too expensive, I lived there for about half my life. There are alternatives to cramming people into cities.

Liathroidigloine wrote:People keep saying it. I haven't seen any evidence other than there is more LPT collected in Dublin. You keep missing the point that we will need to invest vast sums on infra in Dublin as it becomes more congested and unpleasant to live in. There are alternatives. A perfect example is the Childrens Hospital. I have no doubt that it could have been built for 50% of the cost if the site chosen was say somewhere outside of the M50. Dublin is too expensive, I lived there for about half my life. There are alternatives to cramming people into cities.

You ignore the evidence and drone on about paying more for water etc, which is completely irrelevant to the point of subsidies and investment.

Your "perfect example" is the same old tired one off example of an infra project running over. Doesn't happen anywhere else, no siree.

"There are alternatives to cramming people into cities" - ONCE AGAIN you ignore international evidence. Populations are moving because they want to. Dublin is under invested in, from infrastructure to day to day expenditure. That is a fact.

Dublin the second lowest county for investment per capita. That is exacerbated by the fact that so many people from outside Dublin come in and use the city's services and pay nothing towards it.

When you say Dublin is unpleasant to live you're confusing YOUR PREFERENCE with statistical fact.

People want to move to cities. They don't mind smaller living space because they have local pubs, local sport clubs, night life, education opportunities, meeting people, public transport (because public transport doesn't cost an arm and a leg if there are enough people in a small area to make it feasible).

So while you may not like cities the majority of people do. So to say Dublin is horrible to live in can't just be thrown out there as a blanket fact.

Housing policy and infrastructure spend in Ireland can't be based on your preference it has to be based on actual fact.

I do agree with decentralising where possible. New children's hospital should have definitely been on the M50 ring and not inside it.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

alliswell wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:Still desperately pulling against the fact that the world is getting more urban. But let's keep pretending.

Do you really think this will all work out grand?

Like what does this mean?

We won’t have Bus Connects in time because of other NIMBYs so we shouldn’t build? Why always this negativity? Get on with it.

No coherent argument has been put forward her so far. If this were all public money going in I would be very wary. But it is not. It is private money going into an area that desperately needs investment and is within close proximity to the urban centre of this country.

You surely know what it means. It's an area that struggles with antisocial behaviour. Stick 500 low cost apartments into one of the dodgier parts of it and my concern is that it would make matters worse. I don't know that it's the wrong idea or that it will happen but your certainty that it'll all be grand just seems a bit cocksure.

alliswell wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

alliswell wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:Still desperately pulling against the fact that the world is getting more urban. But let's keep pretending.

Do you really think this will all work out grand?

Like what does this mean?

We won’t have Bus Connects in time because of other NIMBYs so we shouldn’t build? Why always this negativity? Get on with it.

No coherent argument has been put forward her so far. If this were all public money going in I would be very wary. But it is not. It is private money going into an area that desperately needs investment and is within close proximity to the urban centre of this country.

You surely know what it means. It's an area that struggles with antisocial behaviour. Stick 500 low cost apartments into one of the dodgier parts of it and my concern is that it would make matters worse. I don't know that it's the wrong idea or that it will happen but your certainty that it'll all be grand just seems a bit cocksure.

Agree. Its all about how this is done.

If done correctly though it could lead to a big improvement of the area. Kick off gentrification.

How are they low cost?

Blackrock Bullet wrote:How are they low cost?

tbf that's an assumption I'm making based on the rent on newish developments up clarehall way and the fact that it's in a proper dodgy area.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:People keep saying it. I haven't seen any evidence other than there is more LPT collected in Dublin. You keep missing the point that we will need to invest vast sums on infra in Dublin as it becomes more congested and unpleasant to live in. There are alternatives. A perfect example is the Childrens Hospital. I have no doubt that it could have been built for 50% of the cost if the site chosen was say somewhere outside of the M50. Dublin is too expensive, I lived there for about half my life. There are alternatives to cramming people into cities.

You ignore the evidence and drone on about paying more for water etc, which is completely irrelevant to the point of subsidies and investment.

Your "perfect example" is the same old tired one off example of an infra project running over. Doesn't happen anywhere else, no siree.

"There are alternatives to cramming people into cities" - ONCE AGAIN you ignore international evidence. Populations are moving because they want to. Dublin is under invested in, from infrastructure to day to day expenditure. That is a fact.

Dublin the second lowest county for investment per capita. That is exacerbated by the fact that so many people from outside Dublin come in and use the city's services and pay nothing towards it.

People don't move to cities because they want to, they do so because they have to. If you place all educational facilities, primary medical facilities and the bulk of employment there then people do not have a choice. The numbers heading home to the country each Friday would back up this opinion.

It's obviously a chicken and egg thing. People live/work where there are job and amenities, further development is prioritised where there are more people.

Not everyone living in Dublin lives in a shitty shoebox. Not everyone wants to live in a large detached house with cattle for neighbours. Lots of people probably want more space, but rank living near schools, pubs, restaurants, sports facilities, etc as a higher priority.


More development should take place outside Dublin, but in other urban centres and their surrounding areas. That means prioritising Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford. Not Longford or Tipp.

Liathroidigloine wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:People keep saying it. I haven't seen any evidence other than there is more LPT collected in Dublin. You keep missing the point that we will need to invest vast sums on infra in Dublin as it becomes more congested and unpleasant to live in. There are alternatives. A perfect example is the Childrens Hospital. I have no doubt that it could have been built for 50% of the cost if the site chosen was say somewhere outside of the M50. Dublin is too expensive, I lived there for about half my life. There are alternatives to cramming people into cities.

You ignore the evidence and drone on about paying more for water etc, which is completely irrelevant to the point of subsidies and investment.

Your "perfect example" is the same old tired one off example of an infra project running over. Doesn't happen anywhere else, no siree.

"There are alternatives to cramming people into cities" - ONCE AGAIN you ignore international evidence. Populations are moving because they want to. Dublin is under invested in, from infrastructure to day to day expenditure. That is a fact.

Dublin the second lowest county for investment per capita. That is exacerbated by the fact that so many people from outside Dublin come in and use the city's services and pay nothing towards it.

People don't move to cities because they want to, they do so because they have to. If you place all educational facilities, primary medical facilities and the bulk of employment there then people do not have a choice. The numbers heading home to the country each Friday would back up this opinion.

What do you propose? Moving UCD to Athlone?

Some truth to what you say IMO but there is no coincidence that a strong majority of the highest ranked Unis globally are all in major cities or very close.

Nolanator wrote:It's obviously a chicken and egg thing. People live/work where there are job and amenities, further development is prioritised where there are more people.

Not everyone living in Dublin lives in a shitty shoebox. Not everyone wants to live in a large detached house with cattle for neighbours. Lots of people probably want more space, but rank living near schools, pubs, restaurants, sports facilities, etc as a higher priority.


More development should take place outside Dublin, but in other urban centres and their surrounding areas. That means prioritising Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford. Not Longford or Tipp.

I'm not suggesting Longford. I do want a dual carriageway/motorway extension to Sligo as it will open up the Northwest. I do want significant investment in a selected town (Athlone) with upgrade of the IT to University status, designate it a city and invest in public transport from the surrounding towns. That will provide a balance to the eastward drift that we are witnessing.

Liathroidigloine wrote:

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:People keep saying it. I haven't seen any evidence other than there is more LPT collected in Dublin. You keep missing the point that we will need to invest vast sums on infra in Dublin as it becomes more congested and unpleasant to live in. There are alternatives. A perfect example is the Childrens Hospital. I have no doubt that it could have been built for 50% of the cost if the site chosen was say somewhere outside of the M50. Dublin is too expensive, I lived there for about half my life. There are alternatives to cramming people into cities.

You ignore the evidence and drone on about paying more for water etc, which is completely irrelevant to the point of subsidies and investment.

Your "perfect example" is the same old tired one off example of an infra project running over. Doesn't happen anywhere else, no siree.

"There are alternatives to cramming people into cities" - ONCE AGAIN you ignore international evidence. Populations are moving because they want to. Dublin is under invested in, from infrastructure to day to day expenditure. That is a fact.

Dublin the second lowest county for investment per capita. That is exacerbated by the fact that so many people from outside Dublin come in and use the city's services and pay nothing towards it.

People don't move to cities because they want to, they do so because they have to. If you place all educational facilities, primary medical facilities and the bulk of employment there then people do not have a choice. The numbers heading home to the country each Friday would back up this opinion.

Except AGAIN you ignore the fact that Dublin is under invested in. The vast majority of educational institutions opened in the last 50 years were outside of Dublin, nearly all of the ITs for example. What's interesting is though that the likes of DIT motored ahead of ones outside of the capital, why do you think that is?

Primary medical facilities go where they suit the most population, simples. There is plenty of discussion around where the NCH should have been, but there was a logic to James. It wasn't to just "suit" Dublin - many areas around the M50 would suit more Dubliners in fact. Consideration of the proximity to the main train lines was one of the major reasons cited for example.

The "bulk of employment" is not at the whim of the State. It is the private sector. This is a GLOBAL phenomenon that you think is just magicked up somehow.

Just because you like to live on a bit of land in a house doesn't mean that you know what everyone else wants, with your disparaging of "shoe boxes" for example an illustration of how you think you know best for everyone else.