The Draft Master Plan for the Dublin docklands, published yesterday, is a constructive and imaginative document directed towards the regeneration of one of the State's most neglected urban areas. The newly appointed development authority has taken on board many of the ideas already put forward by consultant planners to develop what could be a fitting symbol of, and monument to, Ireland's new-found prosperity. They now face the challenges of ensuring local communities are properly included as planning and development proceed and lobbying gets under way for appropriate public and private funding to achieve the plan's objectives over the next 10-15 years.
Socio-economic issues, land-use patterns, transport and infrastructural frameworks, civic and architectural planning, employment and educational facilities and cultural factors have all been taken into account in putting this multi-faceted plan together. It is not afraid to put forward a vision of a more beautiful urban space drawing on the area's rich inheritance as well as the potential contribution modern architecture and urban planning could make. It is very much to be hoped that the document's ambitious approach will be supported by the Government. Sufficient expertise and experience have certainly been accumulated in recent years to raise expectations that this can be achieved.
The plan's terms of reference refer to three main objectives - the social and economic regeneration of the Dublin docklands area on a sustainable basis and with a premium on local involvement; improvements in its physical environment; and the continued development of the Custom House Docks area of services in support of the financial sector of the economy. The key question posed in the previous report by the Riverrun consulting team remains relevant: how can the potential of the area be harnessed in a way that will include those who have been marginalised by the forces of change which have so reduced it in the first place? The three objectives could turn out to be contradictory if this challenge is not put at the centre of planning. Regenerating the area requires that improvements to its physical environment should enhance, not displace, existing inhabitants; so far, regrettably, they have experienced the financial services area as a fortress-like intrusion that excludes them. By its very nature, regeneration involves bringing new people, resources and energy to transform an area that has been run down. It is only to be expected that dominant social and economic groups would seek to exert a commensurate influence on such a major development. The purpose of planning and political oversight is to regulate such forces and to ensure that development is pursued in a coherent and inclusive fashion. In its work so far, the new authority has shown itself fully aware of such requirements. But it will face difficult choices in putting them into practice. This will test to the full the commitments in yesterday's plan to local participation and to link incentives for development with quality criteria. The authority is fortunate to have a number of auspicious international precedents from which it can learn how best to pursue its task. On the evidence of this document it has started on a progressive and confident note.