Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Mahon and Zoning
The two words are inextricably linked. The Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters & Payments aka The Mahon Tribunal delivered its final report on 22nd March. Now that the dust has settled on the findings of the Tribunal, it’s about the right time to think what good has it done for planning? It is notable that one of the only recommendations Mahon J. came up with, was that there should be an independent planning regulator.
If there is one thing planning is not short-on, its regulations and regulators. But it fails to hit the obvious point. All the controversy surrounding allegations of political corruption and impropriety concern zoning.
Zoning is such a simple concept, that even politicians (not all!), who haven’t a clue or a care about what good planning means for their constituents(present and future), are able to understand it. A local Council decision can change the development rights on a piece of land from grazing cattle to building houses. Apart from capital gains tax, the landowner walks away a lottery winner every time.
The ‘zoning’ of land became such a momentous a decision, that in an overly simplistic construction industry, too much importance has been associated with it, and therefore too much monetary value attributed to it. Zoning created hope value, which created land-banking. It fundamentally skewed the real value of land, what it is worth, and what it can produce (either for farmers or developers). It feeds speculation, not investment.
Land Use Zoning is not a good planning tool. It is an unhappy marriage of post-war modernism and garden-city utopianism. Its clumsy, it doesn’t allow towns to grow organically, street by street or square by square. It is comprehensive and not incremental. It creates mono-use suburban areas, with a paucity of services, variety, interest and beauty, served and segregated by over-engineered distributor roads. This is not a personal opinion. People like Leon Krier, Jane Jacobs, Christopher Alexander, INTBAU , Congress for New Urbanism, Congress for European Urbanism and 'A Vision of Europe' have explained it much better, and in more detail.
The introduction of Core Strategies in the 2010 Planning Act (with de-zoning) and Strategic Environmental Assessment provide for a much improved regulatory environment. However, in many ways Development Plans are still focussing on ‘what use, where?’. When a Council seeks to provide jobs it’s solution has been to zone land for industrial or commercial use – build a business park for the IDA. For urban growth – zone fields for housing and retail parks. Census 2011 shows Ireland is still growing. Zoning doesn’t provide answers to fundamental questions of how a place should grow, how will it look and feel, and who will live there. Government (both central and local) should place zoning to one side. The focus should be on creating an enabling environment for small scale/low cost interventions to take place. Perhaps we need a regulator for de-regulation?
If there is one thing planning is not short-on, its regulations and regulators. But it fails to hit the obvious point. All the controversy surrounding allegations of political corruption and impropriety concern zoning.
Zoning is such a simple concept, that even politicians (not all!), who haven’t a clue or a care about what good planning means for their constituents(present and future), are able to understand it. A local Council decision can change the development rights on a piece of land from grazing cattle to building houses. Apart from capital gains tax, the landowner walks away a lottery winner every time.
The ‘zoning’ of land became such a momentous a decision, that in an overly simplistic construction industry, too much importance has been associated with it, and therefore too much monetary value attributed to it. Zoning created hope value, which created land-banking. It fundamentally skewed the real value of land, what it is worth, and what it can produce (either for farmers or developers). It feeds speculation, not investment.
Land Use Zoning is not a good planning tool. It is an unhappy marriage of post-war modernism and garden-city utopianism. Its clumsy, it doesn’t allow towns to grow organically, street by street or square by square. It is comprehensive and not incremental. It creates mono-use suburban areas, with a paucity of services, variety, interest and beauty, served and segregated by over-engineered distributor roads. This is not a personal opinion. People like Leon Krier, Jane Jacobs, Christopher Alexander, INTBAU , Congress for New Urbanism, Congress for European Urbanism and 'A Vision of Europe' have explained it much better, and in more detail.
The introduction of Core Strategies in the 2010 Planning Act (with de-zoning) and Strategic Environmental Assessment provide for a much improved regulatory environment. However, in many ways Development Plans are still focussing on ‘what use, where?’. When a Council seeks to provide jobs it’s solution has been to zone land for industrial or commercial use – build a business park for the IDA. For urban growth – zone fields for housing and retail parks. Census 2011 shows Ireland is still growing. Zoning doesn’t provide answers to fundamental questions of how a place should grow, how will it look and feel, and who will live there. Government (both central and local) should place zoning to one side. The focus should be on creating an enabling environment for small scale/low cost interventions to take place. Perhaps we need a regulator for de-regulation?
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
World Heritage site or bungalows......
Sunday’s Irish Independent reported the shocking scandal [irony!] “Locals lose out in ‘dead zone’ of heritage centre -Bru na Boinne visitors bypass Slane — traffic goes straight through” What audience does Indo journalist Jerome Reilly or his editor think they are serving.
Even pump parish politics operates on a much higher plane that this quality of reporting. It’s as if planning was enforced on the community by a foreign state for somebody else’s benefit.
The article does not even mention the World Heritage status of Bru na Boinne, and the rationale for planning restrictions. There is no attempt to consider the importance of heritage for this and future generations as being even an equivocal consideration. Rather it reads as the local farmer versus the heritage centre and the bunch of foreigners it buses in:
Could it be that missing Father Ted episode….
Here’s a novel idea. Build on individual house plots in the village, where your children can be near facilities, amenities and their friends, thereby preserving more land for farming, and less pollution of the land through septic-tanks. Problem solved.
Even pump parish politics operates on a much higher plane that this quality of reporting. It’s as if planning was enforced on the community by a foreign state for somebody else’s benefit.
The article does not even mention the World Heritage status of Bru na Boinne, and the rationale for planning restrictions. There is no attempt to consider the importance of heritage for this and future generations as being even an equivocal consideration. Rather it reads as the local farmer versus the heritage centre and the bunch of foreigners it buses in:
"Gabriel Mullen lives in Dowth. He says that the OPW and the other authorities have a stranglehold on the area. His daughter Sarah has been trying for seven years to get planning permission to build on the site beside the family home, without success.
“They are slowly but surely killing off this area. We are being treated as second-class citizens,” he says.
Cllr Wayne Harding says the world heritage status was now toxic in its immediate environment.
“I have met farmers who cannot give their children a site for a house, and community organisations who have to meet with government officials before they apply for very minor planning applications. The villages of Duleek, Donore and Slane get no economic kickback from 230,000 visitors a year that are right on their doorstep.
…. “There is an effort to ethnically cleanse the area,” Gabriel Mullen says."
Could it be that missing Father Ted episode….
Here’s a novel idea. Build on individual house plots in the village, where your children can be near facilities, amenities and their friends, thereby preserving more land for farming, and less pollution of the land through septic-tanks. Problem solved.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Are the lending institutions getting it wrong again?
According to the lending institutions (banks and NAMA) apartments are a non-runner. It is widely known in planning circles that apartment schemes will not get finance, good permissions are not being built-out, and that the institutions are telling local authorities to lower the densities. However, there is a suspicion that this ‘policy’ is based on a hunch rather than sound analysis. 3 sets of information out this week, suggest that this the lenders are getting it wrong. i.e. the Think Dublin Demoraphic Report, Social Housing Waiting lists and the Residential Property Price Index (RPPI).
The ‘Demographic Trends in Dublin’ Report came out this week, launched by the Lord Mayor, Andrew Montague. It is part of the Dublin City Council – Think Dublin! Research Series, by Declan Redmond and Brendan Williams (UCD), Brian Hughes (DIT) & Jamie Cudden, Office of International Relations and Research, Dublin City Council. This report is really important. It’s proper research, based on the latest census results (2011) with some sharp analysis. At risk of copying the entire Executive summary.....
Population growth in Dublin City over the period 1991 to 2011 has lagged significantly behind national population growth and growth in the other GDA local authorities. In the State the population increased by 30 per cent from 1991 to 2011, but by only 9.8 per cent in Dublin City. These figures reflect the rapid outward expansion of population and housing during the period of the residential property boom.
Dublin City’s share of the Dublin region’s population declined from 47 to 41 per cent between 1991 and 2011. By contrast, however, Fingal has seen its share of the region’s population increase from 15 to 22 per cent over the same period. South Dublin’s share of the population has remained static at 21 per cent while Dún Laoghaire Rathdown’s share has fallen from 18 to 16 per cent.
In contrast to the sprawl and dispersion of population described above, the inner city of Dublin has seen strong population growth. Between 1991 and 2011 the population of Dublin City increased by just 9.8 per cent. However, in the inner city there was an increase of 62% in the same period. This increase reflects the high level of apartment building in the inner city from the late 1980s onwards.
In the rest of the city there was a decrease of 1.2% between 1991 and 2011, with many electoral divisions seeing a loss of population. “ Given strong national and regional increases in population in this period, this loss of population is remarkable”.
In 2006 the average household size in Dublin City was 2.50 compared with 2.8 for the GDA. Average household size has fallen consistently since 1991. Average household size in the state has fallen from 3.14 in 1996 to 2.81 in 2006 (This was predicted long-ago in the DTI Strategy).
Almost 30% of households in Dublin City are one person households as compared with 17% in Fingal and 16% in South Dublin. By contrast, Dublin City has a much lower rate of households comprised of husband and wife with children. Only 19% of households in Dublin City were husband and wife with children compared with 33% in Dun Laoghaire, 36% in Fingal and South Dublin and almost 40% in Meath and Wicklow.
The Report notes that Eurostat projects the Irish population is to increase from 4.5 million to 6.5 million between 2010 and 2060, a 47% increase. The UK is projected to increase from 62 million in 2010 to 79 million over the same period, an increase of 27%. The German population, by contrast, is expected to fall by 15.3 million between 2010 and 2060, a decrease of 19%.
Given the severity of the recession many commentators had predicted that net emigration had returned. However, the preliminary 2011 Census figures show that there was net positive in-migration of 118, 650 in the period 2006-2011. This does not, of course, mean that there was no emigration out of the country but that more people moved into Ireland than left it.
So in contrast to many common perceptions, sprawl and dispersion have continued and the older suburbs have declined, but the inner city has done well.
Social Housing
On Tuesday the Irish Times reported that The National Asset Management Agency has drawn up a list of just over 2,000 houses and apartments which it will make available for social housing over the coming months..http://bit.ly/zDocbv.
It is notable that just 18 apartments, or less than 1 per cent of the overall total, have been identified as suitable properties in the South Dublin County Council area (reflecting their Council policy to restrict apartments below national guidance levels). By contrast, it noted 484 apartments or almost 25 per cent of the total are based in the Dublin City Council area. Fingal and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown account for a further 408 houses and apartments, or 20 per cent of the total housing units. The big shock is the statement that the “Latest data shows the number of households requiring social housing reached a record 98,000 in 2011, up from 58,000 three years ago. All indications are that the numbers are continuing to rise”
RPPI
The Residential Property Price Index this week headlined that house prices in Dublin are 55% lower than at their height in early 2007, and apartments 59% lower.
However, this doesn’t tell the full story. The RPPI shows that the only area that experienced growth in 2011 (albeit minor) was in the apartment sector. There was 0.6% growth in the 3 months up to December. In Dublin there was 3.7% growth in the 3 months up to December and 2.4% growth in the 3 months up to January 2012.
The conclusion from this is that there is very little difference between the market performance of houses and apartments, and if anything apartments may possibly have turned a corner.
Waiting lists of the order of 100,000 units is not about some down-trodden minority that should only be catered for by subsidised housing. It suggests that the wrong type or the wrong tenure of housing has been built.
If the population needs averages households off 2.5 persons, and where the only population growth has been in the city centre apartment market (or sprawl) why is there an insistence on the good old semi-D? Does it reflect the age and status of people making these decisions or a lack of information? The whole idea of the original residential density guidelines was to make housing more affordable. This is a challenge for the market not the public sector. At the moment, it seems that the lending institutions are ignoring these important macro and micro trends and signals, and telling the market, what they think it needs.
The ‘Demographic Trends in Dublin’ Report came out this week, launched by the Lord Mayor, Andrew Montague. It is part of the Dublin City Council – Think Dublin! Research Series, by Declan Redmond and Brendan Williams (UCD), Brian Hughes (DIT) & Jamie Cudden, Office of International Relations and Research, Dublin City Council. This report is really important. It’s proper research, based on the latest census results (2011) with some sharp analysis. At risk of copying the entire Executive summary.....
Population growth in Dublin City over the period 1991 to 2011 has lagged significantly behind national population growth and growth in the other GDA local authorities. In the State the population increased by 30 per cent from 1991 to 2011, but by only 9.8 per cent in Dublin City. These figures reflect the rapid outward expansion of population and housing during the period of the residential property boom.
Dublin City’s share of the Dublin region’s population declined from 47 to 41 per cent between 1991 and 2011. By contrast, however, Fingal has seen its share of the region’s population increase from 15 to 22 per cent over the same period. South Dublin’s share of the population has remained static at 21 per cent while Dún Laoghaire Rathdown’s share has fallen from 18 to 16 per cent.
In contrast to the sprawl and dispersion of population described above, the inner city of Dublin has seen strong population growth. Between 1991 and 2011 the population of Dublin City increased by just 9.8 per cent. However, in the inner city there was an increase of 62% in the same period. This increase reflects the high level of apartment building in the inner city from the late 1980s onwards.
In the rest of the city there was a decrease of 1.2% between 1991 and 2011, with many electoral divisions seeing a loss of population. “ Given strong national and regional increases in population in this period, this loss of population is remarkable”.
In 2006 the average household size in Dublin City was 2.50 compared with 2.8 for the GDA. Average household size has fallen consistently since 1991. Average household size in the state has fallen from 3.14 in 1996 to 2.81 in 2006 (This was predicted long-ago in the DTI Strategy).
Almost 30% of households in Dublin City are one person households as compared with 17% in Fingal and 16% in South Dublin. By contrast, Dublin City has a much lower rate of households comprised of husband and wife with children. Only 19% of households in Dublin City were husband and wife with children compared with 33% in Dun Laoghaire, 36% in Fingal and South Dublin and almost 40% in Meath and Wicklow.
The Report notes that Eurostat projects the Irish population is to increase from 4.5 million to 6.5 million between 2010 and 2060, a 47% increase. The UK is projected to increase from 62 million in 2010 to 79 million over the same period, an increase of 27%. The German population, by contrast, is expected to fall by 15.3 million between 2010 and 2060, a decrease of 19%.
Given the severity of the recession many commentators had predicted that net emigration had returned. However, the preliminary 2011 Census figures show that there was net positive in-migration of 118, 650 in the period 2006-2011. This does not, of course, mean that there was no emigration out of the country but that more people moved into Ireland than left it.
So in contrast to many common perceptions, sprawl and dispersion have continued and the older suburbs have declined, but the inner city has done well.
Social Housing
On Tuesday the Irish Times reported that The National Asset Management Agency has drawn up a list of just over 2,000 houses and apartments which it will make available for social housing over the coming months..http://bit.ly/zDocbv.
It is notable that just 18 apartments, or less than 1 per cent of the overall total, have been identified as suitable properties in the South Dublin County Council area (reflecting their Council policy to restrict apartments below national guidance levels). By contrast, it noted 484 apartments or almost 25 per cent of the total are based in the Dublin City Council area. Fingal and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown account for a further 408 houses and apartments, or 20 per cent of the total housing units. The big shock is the statement that the “Latest data shows the number of households requiring social housing reached a record 98,000 in 2011, up from 58,000 three years ago. All indications are that the numbers are continuing to rise”
RPPI
The Residential Property Price Index this week headlined that house prices in Dublin are 55% lower than at their height in early 2007, and apartments 59% lower.
However, this doesn’t tell the full story. The RPPI shows that the only area that experienced growth in 2011 (albeit minor) was in the apartment sector. There was 0.6% growth in the 3 months up to December. In Dublin there was 3.7% growth in the 3 months up to December and 2.4% growth in the 3 months up to January 2012.
The conclusion from this is that there is very little difference between the market performance of houses and apartments, and if anything apartments may possibly have turned a corner.
Waiting lists of the order of 100,000 units is not about some down-trodden minority that should only be catered for by subsidised housing. It suggests that the wrong type or the wrong tenure of housing has been built.
If the population needs averages households off 2.5 persons, and where the only population growth has been in the city centre apartment market (or sprawl) why is there an insistence on the good old semi-D? Does it reflect the age and status of people making these decisions or a lack of information? The whole idea of the original residential density guidelines was to make housing more affordable. This is a challenge for the market not the public sector. At the moment, it seems that the lending institutions are ignoring these important macro and micro trends and signals, and telling the market, what they think it needs.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
TIF redevelopment projects
An interesting little article on one city's experience with Tax Increment Financing (TIFs)(Madison, Wisconsin) http://bit.ly/vM8NDo (Sourced from: Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space Blog http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/)
Dublin’s failed Design Capital Bid - The Pivot.
So Dublin failed in its bid to be called World Design Capital 2014. Its a shame for those people who put a lot of hard work into the proposal (and the long list of the great and the good who endorsed the effort), and as with any tender submission its pretty hard to take when you don’t come up trumps. Its also a normal human reaction to say to yourself that you put the best bid together possible, and you’re proud of what you achieved. And this reaction is evident post the failure of the Pivot (www.pivotdublin.com). They say "PIVOT Dublin intends forging ahead with its plans to implement its strategy".
However, now is the time to ask some hard questions about the Pivot bid (this was not done by the Irish Times or any other media).
Clearly what Dubliners should now be asking is: Did we do the right thing? How much was spent on this World Design Capital bid? (was it too much or too little) Did we spend the money in the best way we could? Were the right people involved? Should it be Council led or designer led?
When you think of cities and design, there is always a strong association with traditions, and skill sets. Milanese fashion, Turin cars, Copenhagen furnishings, Glasgow Macintosh, Birmingham motor engineering, Paris... everything. In Dublin are we any the wiser?
For me the Pivot was unbalanced by too much emphasis on architecture and development, too much talk of the future and visions, and not enough digging for the design culture in the city as it is experienced now. Contemporary design is always a reflection of what the city is and where it has come from and who is there. A design culture is the sum of a multitude of art, craft and creativity (which I believe the Pivot recognises). Its also about a sense of pride and care in the city and what it stands for. Its also about wider society, and the design that it uses and appreciates every day.
Its a similar scenario to Dublin’s recent bid for the Georgian core to be designated a World Heritage Site? Who held up their hand and said this is why we failed and this is why we got it wrong and why our proposal never stood a chance with UNESCO. Did anyone even point a finger?? Why not! Its very important.
Dublin should be a design capital; the talent is here and it is a wonderful city (present tense). But if we got it wrong once.......
However, now is the time to ask some hard questions about the Pivot bid (this was not done by the Irish Times or any other media).
Clearly what Dubliners should now be asking is: Did we do the right thing? How much was spent on this World Design Capital bid? (was it too much or too little) Did we spend the money in the best way we could? Were the right people involved? Should it be Council led or designer led?
When you think of cities and design, there is always a strong association with traditions, and skill sets. Milanese fashion, Turin cars, Copenhagen furnishings, Glasgow Macintosh, Birmingham motor engineering, Paris... everything. In Dublin are we any the wiser?
For me the Pivot was unbalanced by too much emphasis on architecture and development, too much talk of the future and visions, and not enough digging for the design culture in the city as it is experienced now. Contemporary design is always a reflection of what the city is and where it has come from and who is there. A design culture is the sum of a multitude of art, craft and creativity (which I believe the Pivot recognises). Its also about a sense of pride and care in the city and what it stands for. Its also about wider society, and the design that it uses and appreciates every day.
Its a similar scenario to Dublin’s recent bid for the Georgian core to be designated a World Heritage Site? Who held up their hand and said this is why we failed and this is why we got it wrong and why our proposal never stood a chance with UNESCO. Did anyone even point a finger?? Why not! Its very important.
Dublin should be a design capital; the talent is here and it is a wonderful city (present tense). But if we got it wrong once.......
First Impressions: Dublin
Came home last night to Dublin through the Airport. First Impression on the walk to passport check? The modern and efficient Pier D, the Impressive Terminal 2? Nope, it was a long series of Vodafone adverts.. showing people with placards welcoming home their friends and siblings with various 'hilarious' jibes about their holiday sexcapades. So this is how we welcome and encourage business- how was the holiday shag? Are there any serious people in Dublin Tourism, Failte Ireland, IDA or Enterprise Ireland who spend millions on investment in this country managing the message? This is not a question of morality, prudishness or sense of humour - its a question of 'is this a serious city or not'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)