Whatever way one looks at it, the first decade of the new millennium is make-or-break time for Dublin. Not since its golden era in the late 18th century has it been at such a critical crossroads. The future shape of the city and its hinterland - indeed, of the Republic as a whole - will be determined by the decisions we make during these years of unprecedented prosperity.
Just as we are still living with the legacy created by the Duke of Ormonde and the Wide Streets Commissioners, future generations of Dubliners will long be living with the physical shape of the city we leave to them. Thus, the course we choose to follow in catering for the current surge in population is of overwhelming importance.
We could, of course, continue travelling down the same road by allowing the capital to sprawl out over the countryside, gobbling up some of the best agricultural land in Ireland. Or we could attempt to consolidate the existing built-up area by developing housing at higher densities, especially in areas close to public transport routes.
After all, it was the inauguration of the Kingstown railway line in 1834 that allowed Dublin's upper middle classes to colonise Merrion, Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire, just as the Harcourt Street line opened up Dundrum, Foxrock and Carrickmines, and the old tram lines did the same for Rathmines, Rathgar, Churchtown and Clontarf.
Yet despite an allocation of £1.58 billion in the National Development Plan for public transport in the Dublin area, there is no real indication that the Government fully appreciates the crucial connection between transport and land use in determining how a city develops. Almost everyone involved in the planning arena is nervous about what may happen; indeed, many anticipate chaos for the next few years as we feel way towards a more environmentally-sustainable path of development.
The choice facing us now is stark: either the capital continues to expand endlessly on its periphery and pops up in the form of suburban housing estates tacked on to Carlow, Portlaoise, Tullamore, Mullingar, Navan, Drogheda, Dundalk and other provincial towns within an ever-growing commuter belt; or we learn from the lessons of other European cities which have confronted the problems associated with population growth and made a very good stab at solving them by consolidating the built-up area and developing new towns at higher densities linked to high-grade public transport systems.
If we choose to travel down the second road - and we can still make that conscious choice - there is a chance that we might end up with something approaching a more compact, European-style, sustainable city. And so, for the second time in its history, Dublin has reached the point where things become fixed for two or three hundred years. This may not be widely understood, even by most of our political leaders, but it is nonetheless a fact. Perhaps we have been too distracted by raking over old coals to focus on the future.
Acres of newsprint and countless hours of broadcasting air time have been given over to coverage of the various tribunals - and there can be no doubt we've learned a lot about the interaction between business and politics, as well as Charlie Haughey's penchant for Charvet shirts and much besides. But despite the Government's commitment to invest £40 billion under its National Development Plan between now and 2006, there has not been nearly enough public debate about where this is likely to lead us and what kind of Dublin we will be left with after its money is spent.
Based on what has been going on over the past 10 years, only the most blinkered optimist could have any real confidence that we will get it right.
