Lack of good gaffs in Dublin

ruffy

Ok, here I am in the middle of my 14th move in 10 years (don't ask). Being, I like to think, a connesseur of rented accommodation in various european countries, am I just too snobbish to deal with the Irish market?

I find myself complaining about the lack of what I think are essentials, particularly for people in their late 20s/early 30s who would probably be relatively stable tenants. And then I see places that friends are living in, and I go to view a handful of places that are on offer, and I'm (silently) aghast at what people will put up with.

The things I'm talking about are:
Space - ok, at a premium in the city, but surely there's an argument for having more than 1 foot between your bed and the wall?
Light - this is actually, i'm finding, more and more of a luxury. What a joke.
A new or recent paint job - why do landlords think you'll want to stay in something that they haven't even been bothered to clean up?
New or recent beds - and never, never folding beds with foam matresses.
Laundry facilities - and why do new apartment blocks have no communal laundry space, at least for drying? So either you end up drying your clothes in your living space (not good for your heath) or you use a tumble dryer (not good for our planet's health).
Storage - small apartment fine; nowhere to put my books/cleaning products/towels, not fine.
Central heating - still remarkably rare to find a reasonably priced old flat/house that has good heating and isn't damp. Why Why Why?

Places without these "essentials" are livable if you're a student and/or plan to move out after at max a year, but for any of us working in less well paid jobs in the capital, who want to live somewhere for a few years at least and who don't have the option of buying, a crap gaff just doesn't work.

And in all these new apartment blocks where are the communal areas? No yard for bikes, no communal laundry/drying facility, no basement with storage etc etc etc. When do you ever get to see your neighbours? WHY DO THERE SEEM TO BE NO BUILDING STANDARDS FOR NEW APARTMENT BLOCKS??? AARGGHH.

Ok enough rant. If I'm not careful, I'll get on to estate agents soon.

Anyway, I just would love to hear if people think I'm being too picky. Should we put up with what there is? Is it ok to have a choice of old and cold, new and tiny or refurbished and expensive? (I'm generalising, but you get my drift...)

Thanks for listening. Sorry for shouting.

jester77

It seems to be fairly common for Dublin, I get the same comments from friends and family that are living there. I haven't lived in Ireland for 4-5 years but when I did I was living in Galway I didn't come across any of the problems that you mentioned above so it's either a Dublin problem or a recent, last 4-5 years, general problem?? Anyone expand?

Don't mean to get off topic but what is the average price per sq. meter in Dublin now for renting?

tHE vAGGABOND

the building regulations have been updated a few times in the past number of years as far as I know..

The problem is that in the 80's and most of the 90's developers we allowed to do what they liked, which means a fair amount of apartments in town are tiny between 500-600 sq ft - for 2 beds] and full of horrible/cheap fixtures and fittings...

More modern developments, as you move away from town [killmainham, some in inchicore etc] will generally have more space [650-700+ sq ft - again 2 beds], some form of balcony for each place etc etc etc

..but the places down the quays and around christchurch, for example, are generally tiny and yucky [at least the 10-15 2 bed places in town which I have viewed over last few months]

the_syco

If you want a decent place, you'll need to get somewhere on a dart of luas line. 20 journey out should be ok.

johnnyskeleton

It's because house prices were so expensive, that people became less fussy about where they bought (especially if they were an investor) and consequently apartments sprang up with as many in a building as could be squeezed in.

It was a situation more akin to post war emergency accomodation than economic boom developments. Some people made a ton of money, while others had to live in squalid conditions. Hopefully, in the next 6 months to a year rents will drop (which will hopefully mean more choice).

Some of the older areas for appartments seem to be ok, e.g. Ranelagh, but the city centre is a bit ridiculous. You can get a decent sized apartment, but what I imgaine to be a normal living space in a lot of other countries is considered to be a "luxury apartment" or a "corporate let" here.

One question that I've often wondered about: is it economically feasable to rent an apartment on your own in other European capitals? In Dublin city centre, for €300 you can sleep on someone's couch, for €350 you can share a room with someone, and for €400/450 or thereabouts you can get your own room in a house. The minimum I've seen for a one bed apartment (not one of those kitchen/bedroom/toilet cubicles but a real, if small apartment) is €900 on daft.ie which I suppose is fine for a couple, but I don't think many (if any) young single people could afford to live on their own.

aaronquigley

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Some of the older areas for appartments seem to be ok, e.g. Ranelagh, but the city centre is a bit ridiculous. You can get a decent sized apartment, but what I imgaine to be a normal living space in a lot of other countries is considered to be a "luxury apartment" or a "corporate let" here.

This is very true. What is described as luxury in Dublin is often far from it. In other places I've lived people keep a list of good apartment buildings that are well finished with good facilities etc. Has anyone ever put together such a list on boards for Dublin?

I live in The George Charlotte Quay. The building isn't too bad its now 7 years old and still looks good. The finish isn't great (cheapish paint) and our carpets are not top notch. The place is always kept clean (corridors) but the underground parking is a bit messy (bins etc). I've seen 1br/2br and penthouse 2brs in the building and they are mostly a good size. The main issue are the small kitchens and poor finish in the bathrooms. 2beds €1300 - €1700

(O and a gust of wind blew the roof off one of my neighbours apartments 2 years ago as it wasn't nailed down by the builder! My apartment is currently up for sale, sufficed to say I'm not buying it)

One of our friends lives in Castleforbes Square. Nice finish on the main area and the apartments. Bedrooms are a little small but living/kitchen/balconies are nice. Room rent €600

Another friend lives in the Dockmills Apartment Barrow St. Very Very nice... The corridors etc. don't have a great finish but inside the bedrooms and kitchen have really very well done! A great place to live from what I can see. Room rent €750

We looked in Longboat Quay last weekend.. very very nice but €2000+ for an apartment... I couldn't pay that sort of money but if you could the places are very fancy and all the ones we saw are well fitted out (boutique is the word I think).

Aaron.

rusalka

www.flatrate.ie

Zambia

Cedar and Rowan Hall in Milltown Dublin 6 will fit your requirements.

I dont know if there is any for rent or price.. would be a wee bit more expensive

whizzbang

rusalka wrote:

www.flatrate.ie

thanks for the plug Rusalka! This is exactly why I set the site up to help people find this stuff out!

Calina

johnnyskeleton wrote:

One question that I've often wondered about: is it economically feasable to rent an apartment on your own in other European capitals? In Dublin city centre, for €300 you can sleep on someone's couch, for €350 you can share a room with someone, and for €400/450 or thereabouts you can get your own room in a house. The minimum I've seen for a one bed apartment (not one of those kitchen/bedroom/toilet cubicles but a real, if small apartment) is €900 on daft.ie which I suppose is fine for a couple, but I don't think many (if any) young single people could afford to live on their own.

It's feasible to live on your own both in Paris and Brussels although the accommodation can be fairly tiny in Paris depending on your financial situation. I think also in Berlin but I wouldn't swear to it. I doubt it in London.

jdivision

Interesting how things change. Most of the apartments on the quays and Christchurch were developed by the same person - Liam Carroll. And you'll never guess who developed Castleforbes Square. Amazing what stronger building regulations in relation to size etc can do.

shoegirl

Having lived and rented in Dublin, Cork, London and Germany I can't help but agree. What iritates me most is that the nicest and best value for money places I had were from tax dodging landlords who were not registered with the PTRB, while the most overpriced and poorest quality were all from landlords who were registered, and all above board. What seems to be the problem is that the standards that do exist are very very basic indeed, and only a tiny proportion of flats ever get inspected to meet these extremely basic standards.

The biggest problem I find in Ireland compared to other countries is how slow it is to get repairs done, and the poor standard of workmanship in plumbing and electrics. Also many landlords put in the cheapest and poorest quality appliances that don't work effectively and frequently break down. Thats not to mention the other common practice of putting in 10 year old furntiture that worn out if not broken.

Damp is a major problem in many older conversions, and also in badly built newer houses (of which there are many). It might be useful if properties had to be inspected as soon as they were registered and more heavy penalties were introduced (and enforced) for those who flaunt the standards as at present all that happens is that inspector makes recommendations that they may not even turn up on a second visit to check up on. If landlords knew there were heavy penalties for abusing the law, or if it was required to have a standards certificate in order to rent the place out at all, it would establish better standards.

Of course another big problem is that landlords expect so much profit from properties that they tend not to plough back profits into the properties, which often results in properties becoming very delapidated very quickly indeed. This is despite every imaginable tax relief being made available to those landlords who did make improvements at some time or another. The problem I see all too often is that landlords tend to forget that tenants who live in rented accomodation because they cannot afford to pay 1000 a month to buy such an apartment are not going to be able to pay 1000 in rent for the same thing either.

My own solution (as is many peoples) is to share accomodation. I find that this does open up cheaper and larger properties that are vetter value for money. Its also enabled me to be able to save towards buying a place of my own at some time in the hopefully not too distant future.

rsta

OP,

I totally agree with your point on laundry facilities.

Its ridiculous that new apartment blocks do not have facilities such as a room / area with communal washers / dryers / lines. Like where do they expect the residents to wash and dry their clothes?

And it looks just so awful to see clothes hanging on a clothes-horse on a tiny balcony...

And so many of my friends who have apartments end up hanging their clothes to dry in the bathroom or kitchen.

Its awful really..

antoinolachtnai

shoegirl wrote:

Having lived and rented in Dublin, Cork, London and Germany I can't help but agree. What iritates me most is that the nicest and best value for money places I had were from tax dodging landlords who were not registered with the PTRB, while the most overpriced and poorest quality were all from landlords who were registered, and all above board.

Why are you surprised that someone who was avoiding paying all his bills was able to offer something cheaper and better than someone that was paying? It's like buying a cheap dvd recorder in the pub.

What seems to be the problem is that the standards that do exist are very very basic indeed, and only a tiny proportion of flats ever get inspected to meet these extremely basic standards.

Who would inspect them other than the people who rent them? There are practically no inspections.

Damp is a major problem in many older conversions, and also in badly built newer houses (of which there are many). It might be useful if properties had to be inspected as soon as they were registered and more heavy penalties were introduced (and enforced) for those who flaunt the standards as at present all that happens is that inspector makes recommendations that they may not even turn up on a second visit to check up on. If landlords knew there were heavy penalties for abusing the law, or if it was required to have a standards certificate in order to rent the place out at all, it would establish better standards.

why would a tenant rent a place that is damp?

Of course another big problem is that landlords expect so much profit from properties that they tend not to plough back profits into the properties, which often results in properties becoming very delapidated very quickly indeed. This is despite every imaginable tax relief being made available to those landlords who did make improvements at some time or another.

What profit? What tax relief? There might be a bit of profit on paper, but renting houses does not generate cash. Whatever cash you make comes at the back end, if/when you sell.

The problem I see all too often is that landlords tend to forget that tenants who live in rented accomodation because they cannot afford to pay 1000 a month to buy such an apartment are not going to be able to pay 1000 in rent for the same thing either.

The landlord never forgets that. But for him, renting a house is a business. It's not a social service. Maybe it should be but it isn't. No point in blaming landlords for being forgetful.

The issue is really to do with two things: supply, and structure of the marketplace. There are a lot of crap properties being built, not as bad as they were, but not great. There aren't enough properties coming on-stream arguably. (although in a lot of the country, there is plenty of rental accommodation available). There is little incentive to build apartment blocks to much more than the minimum standards of size and finish.

On structure of the marketplace, maybe things would work better if we had large, corporate landlords. They would have easier access to cash to make improvements. This could have a lot of negative effects too, though.

Raskolnikov

antoinolachtnai wrote:

why would a tenant rent a place that is damp?

Indeed. But it's easily possible for a tenant to do so unwittingly. My first rented accomodation was a supposedly newly renovated apartment near Dublin. My lease started late Summer. There wasn't a problem until we got bad weather in the Autumn. The dampness was in the walls and seemed to seep within every pore of the apartment into all the fixtures and fittings.

As Shoegirl made mention, my landlord was one of those chaps; snapping up property at a rate of one a month using the equity and rental income from his existing stock to draw out further mortgages. He worked in a bank, so maybe he got preferential treatment as well. Ironically, he got done by revenue for under-declaration of income, awhile after I left his lodgings. I did quite roffle when I read that.

antoinolachtnai

If it's a newish apartment, it really comes down to general building standards. The problem is that once the landlord has bought the bloody thing, he has to rent it, come what may, to pay the mortgage and the tax.

If it's an apartment, in many cases there just isn't any way for the individual landlord to remedy the damp. It's basically beyond his control. It's hard to believe, but there is almost nothing he can do. He is at the mercy of the builder and the management company. Unlike the tenant, he can't just walk away.

The landlord suffers in these situations too. The tenants are going to turn over a lot more often, which means a lot more void periods. Void periods completely wreck the profitability of the whole thing.