124 new homes for Clonsilla

beauf · 09-04-2014 3:15pm

I can only find old data. Can anyone find any recent data on vacancy rates and anything that indicates the main type of housing demand?

That does seem to happening in some parts of Dublin. The tentative evidence is that: housing vacancy is less than 5% in the city according to the Census 2011; prices seem to have stabilised for family homes (though they are still fluctuating a little – according to the CSO they fell 3% Nov 2011-Nov 2012); and according to Daft.ie, two thirds of properties selling within 4 months in Dublin.

It is not the case for all types of property. Apartment vacancy is 17-19% in Dublin and apartment prices are still falling (they fell 13% last year). In other words, there is still a large oversupply of apartments.

There is little evidence that prices have stabilised in the other principal cities, and elsewhere they are still going down, albeit more slowly than before. There is certainly no need to build anything in rural areas as a large oversupply exists there.

https://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/tag/housing/

But beyond these supply constraints lies an even bigger problem: we simply cannot expect to build any meaningful quantity of new family homes in the areas where we need them.

In Dublin, new construction implies either building apartments blocks or redeveloping existent neighborhoods to increase density. Apartments are hardly in demand by the growing families beyond serving as a first step on the property ladder. In other words, no matter how much our planners dream about building a mini-Manhattan on the Liffey, Dublin property buyers still want individual homes with own gardens. Just as they did so at the times when property prices were double their current levels.

Demographics also stack up against us in the hope of significantly expanding apartments ownership. After 6 years of depressed volume of transactions, the new generation of First-Time Buyers is older and has larger families than their predecessors in the early 2000s. The one- and two-bedroom apartments developments that we used to produce in the past are no longer suitable for them. Furthermore, the city infrastructure – schools, crèches, shopping and family amenities – that accompanies these developments is not fit for purpose in Dublin City.

....

This means that for Ireland to generate significant enough uplift in buildings supply we need to incentivise developers to build suitable apartments and for buyers to opt for these apartments.

...

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/03/632014-new-property-building-boom-for.html

Finglas Incubus · 09-04-2014 4:11pm

beauf wrote: »

I can only find old data. Can anyone find any recent data on vacancy rates and anything that indicates the main type of housing demand?

Survey data and opinion pieces (some of it conflicting) from the SCSI Annual Residential Property Review & Outlook 2014:

Planning has been granted/exists for high density
apartments in certain areas around Dublin but demand
is currently for 3 and 4 bed semi-detached family homes
of which there are constraints on supply and which is
putting more pressure on prices on the limited second
hand stock of family homes that do become available.

...

There appears to be different expectations around the
supply of semi-detached and detached houses and the
supply of apartments/townhouses. Half of chartered
surveyors do not expect the supply of 4 bed semi-
detached second hand urban houses to increase over the
next 12 months and around two fifths do not expect the
supply of 3 bed semi-detached houses or
4/5 bed detached houses to increase. On the other hand,
chartered surveyors were much more positive about
the supply of 1 bed apartments and 2 bed apartments
as around three quarters expect the supply of these
properties to increase. Six in ten expect that supply of
2 bed and 3 bed townhouses will increase.

...

“Some local authorities remain too firmly fixed
on high density residential development, even in
less central locations. Demographic changes – in
particular a sharp decline in the number of people
in their 20s - mean that the natural demand for
apartments outside the city centre and locations
close to good public transport links has diminished”

...

“The high cost of constructing apartments, make
it difficult for developers to break-even on high
density schemes in many locations. Ultimately, this
curtails much needed new construction”

murphaph · 09-04-2014 4:51pm

Barrel wrote: »

Really? when all the land is gone in D15 what then? in like 2114? i'll let you know then

Sure if there's no shortage of building land then why do you have a problem zoning land within walking distance of rail stations to higher densities?

Barrel · 09-04-2014 6:05pm

murphaph wrote: »

Sure if there's no shortage of building land then why do you have a problem zoning land within walking distance of rail stations to higher densities?

Your missing the point

There is no shortage of land, there is a shortage of new 3 - 4 bedroom homes being built in Dublin 15 at the moment, apartment blocks and high density houses are what all the ghost estates you see in Dublin 15 are

You dont see any half built 3 - 4 bedroom semi d ghost estates anywhere do you?

So why take this pocket of land that has nothing but 3 - 4 bed semi d's from power city to Allendale and stick a load of apartment and high density houses into it, when all the ghost estates are screaming to be finished?

And when the ghost estates are finished then we can start building apartments etc along side 3-4 bed houses no problems

amdublin · 09-04-2014 6:40pm

Good location.

I'd rather live here (beside mount symon and the lovely portersgate) rather then hansfield.

murphaph · 09-04-2014 8:05pm

Barrel wrote: »

Your missing the point

There is no shortage of land, there is a shortage of new 3 - 4 bedroom homes being built in Dublin 15 at the moment, apartment blocks and high density houses are what all the ghost estates you see in Dublin 15 are

You dont see any half built 3 - 4 bedroom semi d ghost estates anywhere do you?

So why take this pocket of land that has nothing but 3 - 4 bed semi d's from power city to Allendale and stick a load of apartment and high density houses into it, when all the ghost estates are screaming to be finished?

And when the ghost estates are finished then we can start building apartments etc along side 3-4 bed houses no problems

So rather than arrest the poor planning decisions that have allowed low density development adjacent to rail transport you say build some more low density and build the high(er) density "some place else".

We've done things arseways. We've built the 3 bed semis and larger up against the railway alignment and built the apartments in Tyrellstown! That doesn't mean you should keep compounding the error. This land is available now and could be developed into low rise (4 story max) apartments in a mix of sizes, making more use of public infrastructure.

I'm not anti house and pro apartment, whereas some here seem to be anti apartment and pro house. It's not about the type of property rather about the appropriate location for the type of property.

beauf · 09-04-2014 8:45pm

If that's the argument, then there should be no new development in D.15.

The infrastructure, trains, roads, schools simply can't take it.

You can't get kids into schools and its quicker to cycle the 14k into town than get the train, bus.

robertxxx · 09-04-2014 8:49pm

murphaph wrote: »

That's less than 2 minutes walk to the station isn't it? It's a waste of development land to put semis in there so close to rail transport. Should have only been given permission for higher density than that really.

But the rail at the moment is at high density levels, extra people is what's not needed.

murphaph · 09-04-2014 8:52pm

ok just build 3 bed semis everywhere.

amdublin · 09-04-2014 8:54pm

murphaph wrote: »

ok just build 3 bed semis everywhere.

Well they do tend to be popular with peoples.

robertxxx · 09-04-2014 8:55pm

No, just turn it into a park or some type of recreation.

Do you get public transport daily or do a school run?

beauf · 09-04-2014 9:08pm

murphaph wrote: »

ok just build 3 bed semis everywhere.

how about stop building in d.15 completely.

The Diabolical Monocle · 10-04-2014 3:14am

murphaph wrote: »

Why must apartments be "small"? (relative term by the way, there are tens of thousands of 20m² studio apartments in Berlin which suit students/young people on tighter budgets. Such tiny apartments are extremely rare in Dublin)

Why not build a mix of small, medium and large apartments on the same site, providing adequate housing whilst not wasting valuable building land that is a couple of minutes walk to a railway station?

There's a place for houses with gardens for sure, but not this close to rapid transit. That's my only point really.

Over here you're a full time worker, married aged 25-60 with a mid level income, 1 car and plans for 2 children or you dont exist.

beauf · 10-04-2014 7:25am

They spent 20yrs building apartments all over and you're still not happy. Before that you're options would be a grotty bedsit in decrepit old houses.

murphaph · 10-04-2014 9:52am

As I said before. It's not about building more apartments and fewer houses but rather building at higher densities close (especially within the golden 1km walking distance) to railway stations. Houses with gardens are fine further away.

beauf · 10-04-2014 10:08am

How about this, earmark that land for apartments. But don't build them.

But build the houses first (greatest demand) and build them further away. Because if you live in a house you get less priority to public transport ?.

In theory People will move from the existing apartments to the house, leaving the apartments free for your priority group. If the banks facilitate this. Which they won't.

Barrel · 10-04-2014 10:14am

Red = high density ghost estate's
Green = land ready for high density housing
Black = where we are talking about

As your obsessed with the rail line in Clonsilla im not going to mention Tyrrelstown and others

murphaph · 10-04-2014 11:17am

Reading this thread I'm starting to finally understand why Dublin has sprawling low density suburbs with sh!te public transport. And why that will never change.

beauf · 10-04-2014 11:38am

... and we're understanding how there's so many ghost estates apartment blocks that no one want,
...or that people buy then find they are unsuitable for them, but can't move out of them.

Larbre34 · 10-04-2014 11:47am

Yeah exactly, it not that people particularly covet a semi-d gaff with a grass patch, its that we have never been offered 3 or 4 bed sustainable family apartments with storage and elbow room, that weren't penthouses or trophy homes.

When Dublin began to regenerate in the City Centre the model should have been the city living apartments of the continent, but no, developer led planning and cronyism meant shoe boxes and ruined it for a generation. That said, this site isnt the City Centre so lower density family homes will work better than apartments or even a Tyrrellstown type model.

murphaph · 10-04-2014 11:53am

If you can point me at FINISHED apartments that are EMPTY and available to rent or buy I will believe you that "nobody wants to live in them".

Ghost estates (both of apartments AND houses) exist because there was a massive collapse in housing prices and developers went bust as they had put more money into the developments than they could hope to recover through sales.

People don't have to buy apartments for self use. They can rent them and buy houses (if they so choose) later in life. Purchasing is no the only way to get a roof over your head.

Once again, this whole debate is turning into hoses v apartments and it's not my core point, which is simply that mass transit corridors should be reserved for high(er) density housing. This is a standard enough principle that you'll see repeated all over the (developed) world.

It's even something you'll find 8km from Clonsilla at Adamstown as SDCC is at least doing a better job of encouraging higher densities along mass transit routes. Planning and development is a long term game (or should be) and should not be determined by the polices of banks or people trapped in negative equity or other such distractions: high capacity mass transit lines should see their corridors developed at higher densities, that is the simple truth.

beauf · 10-04-2014 12:03pm

murphaph wrote: »

If you can point me at FINISHED apartments that are EMPTY and available to rent or buy I will believe you that "nobody wants to live in them". ....

Thats a strawman argument. A search on daft shows houses and apartments to rent and buy.

Barrel · 10-04-2014 12:05pm

murphaph wrote: »

If you can point me at FINISHED apartments that are EMPTY and available to rent or buy I will believe you that "nobody wants to live in them".

Ghost estates (both of apartments AND houses) exist because there was a massive collapse in housing prices and developers went bust as they had put more money into the developments than they could hope to recover through sales.

People don't have to buy apartments for self use. They can rent them and buy houses (if they so choose) later in life. Purchasing is no the only way to get a roof over your head.

Once again, this whole debate is turning into hoses v apartments and it's not my core point, which is simply that mass transit corridors should be reserved for high(er) density housing. This is a standard enough principle that you'll see repeated all over the (developed) world.

It's even something you'll find 8km from Clonsilla at Adamstown as SDCC is at least doing a better job of encouraging higher densities along mass transit routes. Planning and development is a long term game (or should be) and should not be determined by the polices of banks or people trapped in negative equity or other such distractions: high capacity mass transit lines should see their corridors developed at higher densities, that is the simple truth.

OMG take off your blindfold will you and look at the map ... :rolleyes:

murphaph · 10-04-2014 12:27pm

Barrel wrote: »

OMG take off your blindfold will you and look at the map ... :rolleyes:

Your "annotated" map doesn't show the occupied higher density developments in D15 though. Why not? The stuff you marked are not indicative or otherwise of anyone's desire to live anywhere as they are ghost estates: not fit for habitation.

Barrel · 10-04-2014 12:50pm

murphaph wrote: »

Your "annotated" map doesn't show the occupied higher density developments in D15 though. Why not? The stuff you marked are not indicative or otherwise of anyone's desire to live anywhere as they are ghost estates: not fit for habitation.

OK feeding time over.

Finglas Incubus · 10-04-2014 1:08pm

Barrel wrote: »

Red = high density ghost estate's
Green = land ready for high density housing
Black = where we are talking about

Worth pointing out - the green space (2.5 hectares triangular plot) indicated just above the 'Google' on the map has planning permission for 143 apartments and 33 houses going back to 2009. Its a 1 minute walk from the other plot being discussed. If its developed as per than plans then its adds some balance to the high-density debate for this immediate area.

Its all not all houses around the general area either, I mean you've high density in parts of Ongar, Allendale, parts of St.Mochtas, parts of Riverwood and Woodbrook all relatively close to a train station. There is an element of balance in place albeit fragmented, we shouldn't forget that.

Larbre34 · 10-04-2014 1:22pm

That 2009 permission will expire this year on the anniversary of the granting. Can see that going back to the drawing board also

Finglas Incubus · 10-04-2014 1:33pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

That 2009 permission will expire this year on the anniversary of the granting. Can see that going back to the drawing board also

Agreed, noteworthy point in the new submission refers to this site also, owned by the same developer, take from that what you will:

The proposed Creche will serve the 124 no. dwellings the subject of this application and also the 166 no. dwellings to be constructed on the applications nearby 2.52 hectare site, which are permitted under Reg. Ref. FW09A/0019 (An Bord Pleanála Reg. Ref. PL06F.235260)

Larbre34 · 10-04-2014 4:48pm

Finglas Incubus wrote: »

Agreed, noteworthy point in the new submission refers to this site also, owned by the same developer, take from that what you will:

Well spotted, that Bord Pleanala appeal was successful with some small revised elements, and the grant date was 31/03/2010 so they have effectively 12 months left to break ground on that site.

murphaph · 10-04-2014 4:57pm

Finglas Incubus wrote: »

Its all not all houses around the general area either, I mean you've high density in parts of Ongar, Allendale, parts of St.Mochtas, parts of Riverwood and Woodbrook all relatively close to a train station. There is an element of balance in place albeit fragmented, we shouldn't forget that.

No you're wrong because according to the received wisdom on this thread nobody wants to live in any of those higher density developments. They're all empty. Any cars or people you see outside are hallucinations!

124 new homes for Clonsilla

Comments