‘Redrawing Dublin’ by Paul Kearns and Motti Ruimy was released just in time for Christmas published by Gandon Books and with funding from the Arts Council. Judging by how difficult it was to get a copy, most people in planning and architecture probably got one in their Christmas stocking. At 360 pages this is a big book, and by all accounts a very beautiful one. The graphic design and imagery are really well put together. It is no doubt a labour of love by the authors, who have clearly put a huge amount of work into it.
However, while this book proclaims to let the facts speak for themselves, the overall impression one is left with is of a passionate but highly personal view of the city. While facts are presented, the source is narrow (census material generally) and analysis far from convincing. That Paul Kearns is currently employed by Dublin City Council as a Senior Planner, this bias gives the publication an awkward albeit interesting tension.
The book is full of wild left hooks which are personal in nature. Opinions or lifestyles (people that don’t live in apartments in the city centre) that diverge from the authors are described openly as bigoted. This is the language of modernism, not pluralism or urbanism. The authors had a vision, and the city didn’t buy it; so now they’re bitter.
They’re disappointed of the failed project of the current city development plan, and the English (DEGW) approach to messing up a European city through insertion of tall buildings in a willy-nilly fashion.
They fire shots at An Bord Pleanala for saving the city from a host of poorly conceived projects designed by Irish architects. The Digital Hub would (as illustrated) clearly have been appalling physical legacy of the Celtic Tiger if the towers had been allowed to rise up, to scar Dublin as they have London for instance.
However, rather than investigate the real reason for the failure of the grandiose modernist architectural projects for the capital (i.e. complete failure to comply with policy and guidance and the abject failure of the PPP procurement/competition process and government agencies such as Digital Hub), they prefer to take cheap shots at the City Planner for living outside the canals.
The ideas presented for projects come in the shape of ‘brave’ concepts such as a ‘lattice boulevard’, or a new diagonal street cut through the hear of the much abused Dublin 8, so that it makes a nice straight line with Phoenix Park; abstract would be a kind way of describing it.
There is regurgitation of the critique that the problem is the people who have children and move out of the city. So what does a Senior Planner do? Blame the people and their life decisions. This is a complete mis-analysis of the problem.
The reality is that young childless couples, and singles, just as much as families chose to live in the suburban periphery because they wanted to get on the housing ladder... and apartments weren’t seen as a good bet. It was all part of the grandiose pyramid property scheme. The regional shopping centres are full of people in their twenties with spending power who drive around the periphery or edge city, without due incentive to disrupt their comfortable car-based lifestyle. The city centre wasn’t a good enough product, it was too expensive, and too little quality – not just in apartments; but in every department.
The city centre still is nowhere near a good enough product. The average housing estate has better tree planting and pavements than the average Dublin City Street. Walk down a street in Barcelona or Madrid and have a look what you’re walking on ... the chances are its tiles or mosaics.. not tarmac or broken cement. This is urbanism at its most basic. If you want the city to be your living room; put down a nice carpet! If you want to know why Ranelagh is a successful neighbourhood, its because it looks and feels nice! Real urbanism would cherish, and replenish the historic buildings on Thomas Street, not send them into a downwards spiral of planning blight because of failed mega-projects. What position are the authors in to throw stones at people with families and responsibilities?
Of course, theres much worthwhile material in the book, not least the wonderfully inane contribution of Bertie Aherne. But if you miss the big picture, whats the point?
Planners tend to use the weapons and strategies of the last war to fight the battles of the next one [Deyan Sudjic, The Endless City, p. 35].
1 in 6 of the worlds population are slum dwellers [source: The Endless City]. We shouldn’t underestimate the impact of this statistic or of climate change refugees on our city. There is still an unimagined capacity of Dublin to be an attractive place in a low growth or negative growth economy. But lets hope Prenzlauerberg in Berlin is the model and not Mexico City or bauhaus Tel Aviv.
No comments:
Post a Comment