Published Articles
The contemporary Irish suburb is a victim of its own success. From the middle of the 19th Century, with the advent of the railways, the middle classes have been leaving our towns and cities. The Irish were seeking the advantages of suburbia long before the motorcar appeared to make them conveniently accessible.
This is no different to the experience in most Western countries. The leafy suburb between town and country is precisely the form of settlement that has been desired by most western families since the early part of the last century. The traditional separate worlds of town and country would, in the mid 19th century, make way for what Ebenezer Howard called the 'third magnet' of city and country. The success of the suburb as a place to live was reinforced as it became the accepted refuge from the evils of the Victorian industrial city. In its first century and a half, the advantages of this new area between town and country were dominant: clean air, greenery, open space, a place to bring up family and for encouraging family values, a refuge from industry and commerce and the hectic nature of city life.
However, as the suburbs have become the dominant form of human settlement, the weaknesses and problems associated with it have become more apparent. As the majority of the community live in suburbs, the assumed advantages became disadvantages as the difficulties of communication and accessibility become more car-dependant and hence more time consuming. In addition, the aspirations of most Irish suburban dwellers to live near city and country, to own and control their own property, including front and back garden, to have constant freedom of movement and to cherish our privacy, all tend to work against establishing good communities.
There is no shortage of criticism levelled at such modern development. The limited number of alternative designs which are emerging, especially those which contain quality urban planning and place-making, are published here as a reference for architects, planners and policy makers with the aim of providing appropriate models for the development of future housing design standards.
DENSITIES IN IRISH TOWNS & CITIES
In any review of this kind, it is useful to set the subject of study within historical perspective not only as a means of validating current assumptions but also because any residential new prototypes in Irish towns and cities ought to acknowledge past patterns of development and relevant historical lessons.
Until recent times, discussion of urban density in Ireland has tended to focus on the concept of 'net residential density' and was expressed in terms of persons per hectare or persons per acre. County development plans identified a number of density zones. An inner city zone of 100/150 bed spaces per acre, an inner suburb and zone of 50-70 bed spaces per acre and an outer zone of 10-12 houses per acre. Such simplistic patterns of concentric density bands were a familiar feature of post-war development strategies across Europe. This policy of limiting residential densities reflected deep-seated perceptions that higher density housing was synonymous with overcrowded and unsanitary living conditions. Indeed, in the literature, politics and social commentary of Irish cities throughout their history, runs a continuous theme of opposition, even escape, from the city as an undesirable environment.
However, high density can often be synonymous with high values. The Victorian terraces of Rathgar, Rathmines and Phibsborough achieve high net residential densities of the order of 300 persons per hectare; yet remain visibly successful pieces of urban design. The root of this lies in the relationship between density and intensity. The latter term is usually taken to mean an urban environment perceived as being acceptably dense and vital while retaining personal amenity, privacy and well-being.
Innovative public housing schemes in the UK, Holland and, more recently, Ireland have proved that the theoretical calculations could be fully realised in practice with typical outcomes in density terms of between 150 and 300 persons per hectare without loss of privacy, amenity or compromising housing mix and choice. What these successful projects have also demonstrated is that their site planning and detailed design generally require a higher standard of professional performance, certainly compared to standard house builders products of the same period. The examples shown in this publication such as Temple Bar West End and Clarion Court in the inner city, St. Anne's, Milltown and Saggart on the suburban fringe, show a reinterpretation in contemporary built forms of housing with much higher space standards for each residence than would normally be associated with the density of housing provided.
Arguments for and against the adoption of higher density for urban and suburban sites are often clouded by misconceptions. Despite the evidence that identical numbers of residents could be accommodated either in terraced houses on the ground or in high rise blocks to quote the two contrasting extremes, the misconception has persisted that high rise forms of development automatically mean higher density, while often in practice the plot ratios and dwelling outputs are identical in both cases. The difference lies in the physical form itself and not in the numbers accommodated.
