Last week Sligo Borough and County Council considered de-zoning 500 hectares of lands zoned for development as reported in the Sligo Champion http://tinyurl.com/3uqrk2y This is a hugely significant move in a national context, made in the context of the 2010 Planning Act's requirement for Development Plan's to follow core strategies. There has been remarkably little comment about this outside of local media.
Away from the specific case of Sligo, this in many ways it shows the planning system following the market yet again i.e. theres no volume house building at the moment so we'll just dezone all their land. However, there was no equivalent attempt to look at rural housing guidance, while choking land supply in urban areas. There is no attempt to look at how to facilitate cheap build your-own solutions within urban areas, or serving self-build plots, and shared services.
There is a wider issue where the macro-scale interests of NAMA are preventing micro-scale developments for ordinary people, because NAMA assumes the national interest is recovery of land/development values and pretending current values are not real values (delusion on a Mao level). But more on NAMA another time.....
Friday, August 12, 2011
... I just hate the way architects and city planners and everyone else responsible for urban life seems to have lost sight of what cities are for. They are for people. That seems obvious enough, but for almost half a century we have been building cities that are for almost anything else; for cars,for business, for developers, for people with money and bold visions who refuse to see cities from ground level, as places in which people must live and function and get around.
- Bill Bryson (1998) Neither here nor there (Travels in Europe), pp 61-62.
- Bill Bryson (1998) Neither here nor there (Travels in Europe), pp 61-62.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Superquinn Naas Closure
Superquinn have announced the closure of their supermarket on Naas Main Street. (see Irish Times article http://bit.ly/dNGaZ5). This is interesting on a lot of levels.
Firstly, the retail chain has gone seriously awry since Senator Feargal Quinn sold the then family business in 2005 for around n450 million to Select Retail Holdings. Their business model was to ignore the healthy cash business, and cash-in on the [then] valuable sites, for property speculation. As part of their strategy (as reported) Superquinn offloaded six of its properties in 2007, including that at Naas, in a sale-and-leaseback deal that netted its owners €142.5 million from Friends First F&C. That they only leased back for 3 years is extaordinary. However, it also points to serious issues behind the scenes, that Primark (now landlord) would rather take Superquinn to the High Court to get them out, rather than maintain a good cash tenant.
However, the big issue here is Retail Planning Policy, and what it has done to the mainstreet. It is only two months after the Taoiseach opened a new out-of-town Tesco hypermarket on the Monread Road. So 260 jobs created out-of-town, and 100 already lost on main street, while a shopping centre just off main street has been halted mid-construction.
Naas is potentially a fine town, with what should be a good public open space at its core (instead of a car park). It should have benefitted from population growth and investment in boom years. Instead this has gone into the suburban housing estates, and retail parks that circle the town. Retail Planning Policy (at government and regional level) is at the heart of this problem. While there is no evidence of good governance at the local level to improve the towns product and performance, the Retail Parks are part of the Retail Strategy for the county! There has been no attempt by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government to quantify or analyse the impact of their policy on town centres, and yet they continue to prepare draft guidelines that were referred to as a limited review. If Planning Policy proactively supports the unsustainable segregation of retail use from the town core, what hope for the main street?
Firstly, the retail chain has gone seriously awry since Senator Feargal Quinn sold the then family business in 2005 for around n450 million to Select Retail Holdings. Their business model was to ignore the healthy cash business, and cash-in on the [then] valuable sites, for property speculation. As part of their strategy (as reported) Superquinn offloaded six of its properties in 2007, including that at Naas, in a sale-and-leaseback deal that netted its owners €142.5 million from Friends First F&C. That they only leased back for 3 years is extaordinary. However, it also points to serious issues behind the scenes, that Primark (now landlord) would rather take Superquinn to the High Court to get them out, rather than maintain a good cash tenant.
However, the big issue here is Retail Planning Policy, and what it has done to the mainstreet. It is only two months after the Taoiseach opened a new out-of-town Tesco hypermarket on the Monread Road. So 260 jobs created out-of-town, and 100 already lost on main street, while a shopping centre just off main street has been halted mid-construction.
Naas is potentially a fine town, with what should be a good public open space at its core (instead of a car park). It should have benefitted from population growth and investment in boom years. Instead this has gone into the suburban housing estates, and retail parks that circle the town. Retail Planning Policy (at government and regional level) is at the heart of this problem. While there is no evidence of good governance at the local level to improve the towns product and performance, the Retail Parks are part of the Retail Strategy for the county! There has been no attempt by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government to quantify or analyse the impact of their policy on town centres, and yet they continue to prepare draft guidelines that were referred to as a limited review. If Planning Policy proactively supports the unsustainable segregation of retail use from the town core, what hope for the main street?
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Redrawing Dublin: Irritating rather than illuminating
‘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.
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.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Tomorrow!
Finally, his desk was clear, if he didn't count that folder of poems he was uneasy just to look at. He put the folder in a drawer, out of sight. That was a good place for it, it was safe there and he'd know just where to go to lay his ands on it when he felt like it. Tomorrow! He'd done everything he could do today. There were still those few calls he'd have to make, and he forgot who was supposed to call him, and there were a few notes he was required to send due to a few of the calls, but he had it made now, didn't he? He was out of the woods. He could call today a day. He'd done what he had to do. What his duty told him he should do. He'd fulfilled his sense of obligation and hadn't disappointed anybody.
...... Nothing else needs to be said, really. What can be said for a man who chooses to blab on the phone all day, or else write stupid letters while he lets his poems go unattended and uncared for, abandoned - or worse, unattempted. This man doesn't deserve poems and they shouldn't be given to him in any form. His poems, should he ever produce any more, ought to be eaten by mice.
- Raymond Carver, One More, from A New Path to the Waterfall (1989)
...... Nothing else needs to be said, really. What can be said for a man who chooses to blab on the phone all day, or else write stupid letters while he lets his poems go unattended and uncared for, abandoned - or worse, unattempted. This man doesn't deserve poems and they shouldn't be given to him in any form. His poems, should he ever produce any more, ought to be eaten by mice.
- Raymond Carver, One More, from A New Path to the Waterfall (1989)
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Procurement and other ailments
[this was written for RTPI Insite Magasine - a publication circulated to Irish members of the RTPI]
While its hard not to think of the Irish “smart economy” or “smart planning” as a complete oxymoron, on a par with “military intelligence”, it is nonetheless a pretty serious concept as we now start to scrape ourselves to our collective feet. Repetition of a mantra doesn’t make it a reality. The Daily Show’s slogan “maybe we can’t” is a particularly devilish turn on Obama’s epiphany. How do we encourage innovation, creativity and efficiency that will make this country truly competitive? Well, one of the lessons of economic recoveries in Finland and New Zealand is the importance of supporting small indigenous, creative companies.
One area of our economy that is desperately in need of a spring clean is procurement. The system of tendering for projects in Ireland is an administrative dinosaur. It is wasteful of resources, time and energy. It is slow, inefficient and opaque. It is unfair and stifles creativity, in favour of status quo and propagation of doing things as they have always been done.
This is because, even for the most basic job, public liability insurance thresholds are typically of the order of 3 million, annual turnover of the company is usually required to be in excess of €1m per annum. Businesses irrespective of the personnel involved are required to have long established trading records. This is not a question of smaller firms being placed at a disadvantage, its effect is that such firms cannot even contemplate competing for projects, because they will fail at the first hurdle irrespective of all other criteria.
The consultancy sector in Ireland has been broken up into a multitude of small firms, alliances and sole traders. People are rolling up their sleeves and adopting to the new realities of the IMF of Ireland, but they have to be given a fighting chance.
We also need to look at the practices of local authorities and private interests who procure work. For example a western county who recently advertised for a PPP road scheme project (design), invited approximately 20 consultancies to interview. The amount expended on tendering, and appearance at the interview by the firms was more than the project was worth. There was also the incidence of a harbour company inviting architectural firms from across Europe to come up with plans for redevelopment, without any statutory basis for the project. It was basically a beauty parade to serve the directors own misguided egos. This sort of practice wastes everybody’s time, and deflects them from addressing their daily duties. Firms cannot employ staff on the basis of putting in tenders, as there is no income from it to justify such appointments. There a complete lack of transparency.
What is more important for a developer commissioning a planning consultant, Health and safety, project management practices, or the ability to give good advice?
As an Institute we need to consider a set of rules, and instruct both the client and the consultant what should be reasonably expected in procurement and negotiation.
Is there a price beneath which a piece of work should not be done? Is it acceptable or ethical for consultants to undertake projects at a cost or on a loss making basis. Should the Institute write to architectural and engineering practices that offer free planning advice? Is it ethical for a local authority to appoint professional planners to undertake a project at a fee level that does not allow the payment of household bills? Should we have standards for consultations- where we charge a fee for professional consultation as any doctor or lawyer?
We also need to be conscious of the non-payers. Should the institute possess a book of clients with a record of poor payment or non-payment (in both public and private sectors)? Whatever about competition, none of us wants to see rogue operators getting away with sharp practices to the loss of colleagues in the Institute. No allegations need to be set down in writing, but it may be sufficient to flag an issue, that would allow a phone call to be made.
Planners need to compete for work on a fair, ethical and transparent basis. Current practices and rules are unacceptable and detrimental to the profession. The RTPI has an important role in firstly recognising a vastly changed planning sector and supporting its development.
While its hard not to think of the Irish “smart economy” or “smart planning” as a complete oxymoron, on a par with “military intelligence”, it is nonetheless a pretty serious concept as we now start to scrape ourselves to our collective feet. Repetition of a mantra doesn’t make it a reality. The Daily Show’s slogan “maybe we can’t” is a particularly devilish turn on Obama’s epiphany. How do we encourage innovation, creativity and efficiency that will make this country truly competitive? Well, one of the lessons of economic recoveries in Finland and New Zealand is the importance of supporting small indigenous, creative companies.
One area of our economy that is desperately in need of a spring clean is procurement. The system of tendering for projects in Ireland is an administrative dinosaur. It is wasteful of resources, time and energy. It is slow, inefficient and opaque. It is unfair and stifles creativity, in favour of status quo and propagation of doing things as they have always been done.
This is because, even for the most basic job, public liability insurance thresholds are typically of the order of 3 million, annual turnover of the company is usually required to be in excess of €1m per annum. Businesses irrespective of the personnel involved are required to have long established trading records. This is not a question of smaller firms being placed at a disadvantage, its effect is that such firms cannot even contemplate competing for projects, because they will fail at the first hurdle irrespective of all other criteria.
The consultancy sector in Ireland has been broken up into a multitude of small firms, alliances and sole traders. People are rolling up their sleeves and adopting to the new realities of the IMF of Ireland, but they have to be given a fighting chance.
We also need to look at the practices of local authorities and private interests who procure work. For example a western county who recently advertised for a PPP road scheme project (design), invited approximately 20 consultancies to interview. The amount expended on tendering, and appearance at the interview by the firms was more than the project was worth. There was also the incidence of a harbour company inviting architectural firms from across Europe to come up with plans for redevelopment, without any statutory basis for the project. It was basically a beauty parade to serve the directors own misguided egos. This sort of practice wastes everybody’s time, and deflects them from addressing their daily duties. Firms cannot employ staff on the basis of putting in tenders, as there is no income from it to justify such appointments. There a complete lack of transparency.
What is more important for a developer commissioning a planning consultant, Health and safety, project management practices, or the ability to give good advice?
As an Institute we need to consider a set of rules, and instruct both the client and the consultant what should be reasonably expected in procurement and negotiation.
Is there a price beneath which a piece of work should not be done? Is it acceptable or ethical for consultants to undertake projects at a cost or on a loss making basis. Should the Institute write to architectural and engineering practices that offer free planning advice? Is it ethical for a local authority to appoint professional planners to undertake a project at a fee level that does not allow the payment of household bills? Should we have standards for consultations- where we charge a fee for professional consultation as any doctor or lawyer?
We also need to be conscious of the non-payers. Should the institute possess a book of clients with a record of poor payment or non-payment (in both public and private sectors)? Whatever about competition, none of us wants to see rogue operators getting away with sharp practices to the loss of colleagues in the Institute. No allegations need to be set down in writing, but it may be sufficient to flag an issue, that would allow a phone call to be made.
Planners need to compete for work on a fair, ethical and transparent basis. Current practices and rules are unacceptable and detrimental to the profession. The RTPI has an important role in firstly recognising a vastly changed planning sector and supporting its development.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Modernism...the one true religion
The Irish Times ran an interview with Ronnie Tallon in the weekend edition of the newspaper http://bit.ly/eo5Atw Tallon has left a large mark on Irish Architecture, and has without doubt produced some really good modern buildings.
Unfortunately, the interview underlines a very puritanical and dogmatic approach to design. It was unsettling yet revealing that the interview attributes Tallon with the phrase "modernism is the one true religion".
The concluding paragraph is also a bit disturbing: -
He also delights in the demise of “post-modernism”, a trend in architecture that he found utterly retrograde. “We went on with the same philosophy we developed 50 years ago. And the new generation in the office carry on that tradition, as devoted to architecture as we were in our day. It’ll go on long after me, and I like that.”
This essentially means that Architecture is Modernism. The article suggests a view that a design that isn't modernist is considered retrograde, and given a contemptuous label. What does it mean "to be devoted to architecture?". However, if you consider you are obeying a religion or a philosophy, you do not stop or take stock of your approach, but reinforce that approach whether valid or not.
Modernism remains at the heart of Irish architecture
Unfortunately, the interview underlines a very puritanical and dogmatic approach to design. It was unsettling yet revealing that the interview attributes Tallon with the phrase "modernism is the one true religion".
The concluding paragraph is also a bit disturbing: -
He also delights in the demise of “post-modernism”, a trend in architecture that he found utterly retrograde. “We went on with the same philosophy we developed 50 years ago. And the new generation in the office carry on that tradition, as devoted to architecture as we were in our day. It’ll go on long after me, and I like that.”
This essentially means that Architecture is Modernism. The article suggests a view that a design that isn't modernist is considered retrograde, and given a contemptuous label. What does it mean "to be devoted to architecture?". However, if you consider you are obeying a religion or a philosophy, you do not stop or take stock of your approach, but reinforce that approach whether valid or not.
Modernism remains at the heart of Irish architecture
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)