Urban v Rural


You could make the same point about small cars.


Alright then: I don’t think people should live in small cars either. :wink:


Do you think people should be moving every x number of years?
I remember the calls to move the older people out from the areas they made their lifes, their friends/social circles in so that a new generation could move in.


A better example would be why should cars be required to be up to a set safety standard


How else do they create barriers for new manufacturing entrants?


What’s not ok about it? Not everyone wants to milk their own cows.


When these discussions come up, I always wonder what I’m missing out by not living next to a hospital. Does the average people pop into them every week?
Also, do we really think that shops within ‘walking distance’ means you can shop without a car. Should I be able to carry 7 or 8 bags 500 metres without cutting the hands off myself?


Probably means you can get the paper and a litre of milk without having to drive 3 miles for it.

Who drives to a supermarket anymore anyway when they will deliver it to you


Judging by the packed out car parks in most urban supermarkets, it appears there are lots of people are still driving. Who buys a paper these days?


When you’re young, no, it’s not usually a big deal. For older people, though, distance to a hospital can have a big impact on quality of life, and potentially, in emergency circumstances, a big impact on lifespan.

If you’re in walking distance of a supermarket, you can do smaller shops more frequently (on the way home from work, say).

Ultimately, a lot of this is public preference, of course, though. I wouldn’t even consider living somewhere that I was dependent on a car for shopping etc; on the other hand some people like being a bit more isolated.


But most people would like to be able to swing their own cat.


I lived within walking distance of a city centre for 2 years (one of the smaller cities in Australia). It was great for that stage of my life, free and single. I even saved money by being car less for a while. It meant I had to shop several times a week and took up far more time than if I had a vehicle. Why? Because you can only carry so many groceries.
I cant imagine that with a family. You`d be shopping every single night.

Then the impact on hobbys was real. I enjoy hiking, salsa dancing, kayaking and paddle boarding. Kayaking and paddle boarding were simply not possible because the cost involved in hiring them was too much. I already owned both but was willing to skip it for a while. Hiking anywhere except the city parks is a pain as public transport takes so long to get to anywhere. Salsa was the only thing I could do. But there are classes in the suburbs and in some towns too.

I also like going out into the outback and camping under the stars, 4x4ing on dirt tracks. Fishing it something i do occasionally.For a good fishing spot you need to be able to get away from people and have the capacity to carry your gear in your mode of transport. Obviously off roading is nigh on impossible with a vehicle and is to be expected.

I now own a 4x4 again but run it on lpg and would love nothing more than a hybrid or electric option or biofuel availability. I dont live near the city anymore but in the hills beside the city and hike every evening after work 9 months of the year (enough light here for it). The city is only good if you spend most of your time in coffee shops, museums, at the theater or going to the hospital or want a shorter commute.

The bottom line is its no good to me saving on a commute everyday to work if every evening & weekend i have to commute all/some of that saving to my hobbies anyway. This is before we even get into the issue of spending all your time walking back and forth to shops or how housing is small near cities compared with same price point in the suburbs. Those with any gear for a hobby simply ends up with no room to store things.



If people lived in small cars, they could move as often as they liked. :smiley:


oh i agree

about 80% of beef farmers would be out of business in the morning were subsidies removed


or you scrap subsidies , force inefficient small ( most are too small ) farmers to sell up, thus freeing up land and allowing sufficiently large farmers to scale up , subsidies dont have any effect on the price consumers pay for meat , milk etc , thats just IFA propoganda


aint that the truth , the clannishness in rural ireland is a sight to behold , unless the locals know or knew your " seed , breed and generation " , you are always treated as some sort of alien , rural ireland is not one jot friendlier than the city and its the complete opposite of a meritocracy , unless you are of the area , you dont get the same opportunities even when it comes to the local GAA team


I think you’ll find Tfp was referring to a sraid…


Well, so only the rich get to live in the country and in the city? So you should go to the city to work through your life, then retire to a field somewhere (presuming that’s not a euphemism…)? Most people’s housing needs do change during their lifetimes, but if you charge them a fortune for a shoebox, what happens when they outgrow it? Condemned to the peripherique (Paris is no great shakes aside from the centre…)?


The real divide is between The Considerate v The Inconsiderate. If you watch an unworldly 85 year old try to precariously navigate our urban environment while young people rush by them haphazardly (and sometimes feral gangs harass/try to confuse them at parking meters). The same 85 year old gets visited by a stream of ‘do you need any odd jobs done’ chancers/fraudsters if they live in the isolated rural setting.

Aside - I will never stop laughing at planners (surely Ireland’s most doctrinaire profession) try to convince us that Holland is the solution. The Dutch have been living in each other’s ears for centuries, we haven’t and we don’t really want to.


Development and amenity

sdcc.ie/en/services/plannin … -areas.pdf

Reinforcing failure