Inner City Social Housing

pctosh

What is it about the large amount of social housing / flats peppered around Dublin city center? I've been looking for my own place to rent for 6 months and finding it almost impossible finding good quality accommodation within my budget. What is the reasoning putting people with no jobs in prime city center locations. They've no jobs to go to, no money to spend in high streets, no decent parks, fields for their sprogs to play. You can't go anywhere in this city without having to encounter them.[/SIZE][/FONT]

gmisk

I am not really sure where to start with that statement.......

I think a lot of social housing/flats, were built a long time ago and were in areas that werent considered particularly diserable at the time
e.g. O'Devaney gardens in stoneybatter.
I think these are slowing being knocked down though.

the_syco

pctosh wrote: »

What is it about the large amount of social housing / flats peppered around Dublin city center?

They were generally built on the outside of the city centre, but due to urban sprawl, they are no longer on the outskirts.

Scortho

the_syco wrote: »

They were generally built on the outside of the city centre, but due to urban sprawl, they are no longer on the outskirts.

Pearse street isn't exactly outside the city. Either is sheriff st.
He has a point that some prime residential locations are being used by those funded by the state.

valleyoftheunos

pctosh wrote: »

What is it about the large amount of social housing / flats peppered around Dublin city center? I've been looking for my own place to rent for 6 months and finding it almost impossible finding good quality accommodation within my budget. What is the reasoning putting people with no jobs in prime city center locations. They've no jobs to go to, no money to spend in high streets, no decent parks, fields for their sprogs to play. You can't go anywhere in this city without having to encounter them.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Not everyone in social housing is unemployed.

You might be happier if all social housing was moved out to the suburbs somewhere so you don't have to "Encounter them" but it is well established that doing that results in failed communities, the Projects outside Paris and our very own Ballymun being prime examples.

pctosh

I would be happier if they moved them out to the likes of Kildare. There is and has never been any community, they're attacking each other. They own the city and things really have to change.

valleyoftheunos

pctosh wrote: »

I would be happier if they moved them out to the likes of Kildare. There is and has never been any community, they're attacking each other. They own the city and things really have to change.

Bravo, fantastic social planning.

Muahahaha

I don't have a problem with social housing that allows people cheap rent for a couple of years while they get back on their feet due to health problems, redundancy, drug or alcohol addiction, etc.

What I do have a problem with is the permanency of social housing in Ireland- it seems to me that once you get it then you have it for life, even if you are earning well above the average salary.

The social housing policy of successive governments has encouraged people to apply for council houses, get them and then aspire to no more than that. This is because residents can then work in the black or grey economy (note how many taxis you see parked in council flats- tons) and under declare their revenue so they pay less rent.

So long as people in those flat complexes kept voting Fianna Fail their permanent cheap housing would continue. I haven't heard any noises from FG since they got into power about changing the status quo so don't expect anything new anytime soon.

reprazant

Scortho wrote: »

Pearse street isn't exactly outside the city. Either is sheriff st.
He has a point that some prime residential locations are being used by those funded by the state.

They were not prime locations when they were built. In fact, up until not that long ago, people were not too keen on walking down Pearse St, let along live there. But now the middle classes want to live in these places, it is all move the riff-raff away from me.

I think people who are too poor to live in the city on their own, such as the OP, should live in places that suit their price range, such as Tallaght or Finglas.

John Mason

reprazant wrote: »

They were not prime locations when they were built. In fact, up until not that long ago, people were not too keen on walking down Pearse St, let along live there. But now the middle classes want to live in these places, it is all move the riff-raff away from me.

I think people who are too poor to live in the city on their own, such as the OP, should live in places that suit their price range, such as Tallaght or Finglas.

one.


err............what now?? i live in finglas, and i sure you i am not poor. tbh if you cant afford to live in the city centre, you are the poor one.

i suggest you should look at renting somewhere in Kildare.

Scortho

reprazant wrote: »

They were not prime locations when they were built. In fact, up until not that long ago, people were not too keen on walking down Pearse St, let along live there. But now the middle classes want to live in these places, it is all move the riff-raff away from me.

I think people who are too poor to live in the city on their own, such as the OP, should live in places that suit their price range, such as Tallaght or Finglas.

So we have 2 people.
One renting privately paying 1000 for a studio on pearse st.
Or the second renting of the state paying a nominal amount towards the rent with the state picking up most of the bill (I doubt there's many council tenants who are paying 1000 monthly for a studio on pearse st.)
Surely the person who can pay the most should get the best location.
Oh yeah that's how property would work in the free market

murphaph

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Not everyone in social housing is unemployed.

You might be happier if all social housing was moved out to the suburbs somewhere so you don't have to "Encounter them" but it is well established that doing that results in failed communities, the Projects outside Paris and our very own Ballymun being prime examples.

Whilst Sheriff Street, Sean McDermott Street and Buckingham Street flats are all examples of what we should aspire to? Ballymun failed because it was never finished and the public transport connections to the employment centres were never established (sh!tty bus services don't count). Ballymun isn't even that far from Dublin city centre (about 5 miles!) it was just never well enough connected to it.

The OP has a point. Dublin is a weird place. From the very heart of the city centre you can be in a really rough spot in a matter of minutes on foot. That is pretty rare for any other capital I have visited. It is questionable as to whether or not it's fair that working people in Dublin have to commute in to the city centre whilst large swathes of those that live there are indirectly subsidised through social housing by those same working people.

I personally don't believe the state should be in the business of building and maintaining housing-the private sector (with regulation) can do this much more efficiently, but if it must, then it should not use the most expensive land in the country to do it on.

foggy_lad

Scortho wrote: »

Pearse street isn't exactly outside the city. Either is sheriff st.
He has a point that some prime residential locations are being used by those funded by the state.

Many of the areas were built up with flats around the time that the filthy overcrowded tenements were being torn down, Also many Guinness's, dock workers and Railway workers were living in flats in the city centre. With changes like the end of steam age on the railway and mechanisation in the docks and Guinness's using lorrys for deliveries instead of horses these areas became unemployment hotspots practically overnight and at times when there was not the social welfare assistance that is available today!

hfallada

A lot of them replaced crumbling tenements like church st, Dublin 7( there is not a single period house on the street. The wealthy all fled the city and town was full tenements and disease. So they flattened most of the building and replaced some of it with social housing and moved alot of people to Ballymun, Finglas etc.

However instead of people living there will they were in between jobs, council housing is now passed down from generation to generation like a family home that most people buy.I remember seeing on RTE news about a council housing regeneration scheme some man saying I always told my wife I would get her a new home and here it is, which shows everything wrong with council housing. That you can live in it your whole life paid for by the tax payer as there is no incentive to work and get mortgage like most people.

It weird walking from Georges street to Rathmines to see nothing but council housing behind all of the shops and restaurants.

reprazant

John Mason wrote: »

one.


err............what now?? i live in finglas, and i sure you i am not poor. tbh if you cant afford to live in the city centre, you are the poor one.

i suggest you should look at renting somewhere in Kildare.

I can afford to as I live there.

The OP wants to live there, cannot afford to wants all the social housing removed so that he can afford to.

I was quite obviously being sarcastic.

murphaph

Not exactly social housing but currently in Berlin rents in previously undesirable areas like Neukölln are shooting up as these areas gentrify. There's a load of debate about the rights and wrongs but ultimately people have to earn enough to choose where they want to live. I don't earn enough to say I want to live on Shrewsbury Road (or wherever) even though I might like to. It is simply a sliding scale. I can't afford what the jet set can afford and Mr. x who's unemployed can't afford to live where I live. The left here in Berlin like to march and protest (in reality many of them are more champagne socialists from other well to do parts of German, who are as guilty as anyone of gentrifying the place) about the increasing rents which undoubtedly are forcing welfare recipients out to high rise blocks on the fringes of the city as the rent supplement doesn't cover their flat in the city centre areas any more.

Emme

John Mason wrote: »

one.


err............what now?? i live in finglas, and i sure you i am not poor. tbh if you cant afford to live in the city centre, you are the poor one.

i suggest you should look at renting somewhere in Kildare.

Renting in Kildare is not cheap when you add on the cost of commuting. I live in Kildare and my annual commuter ticket is €3,000 (before taxsaver reduction). Also everything tends to be more expensive in the country than in Dublin including petrol and diesel.

Perhaps the OP should consider a house share in the part of Dublin he wants to live.

Eric Cartman

pctosh wrote: »

What is it about the large amount of social housing / flats peppered around Dublin city center? I've been looking for my own place to rent for 6 months and finding it almost impossible finding good quality accommodation within my budget. What is the reasoning putting people with no jobs in prime city center locations. They've no jobs to go to, no money to spend in high streets, no decent parks, fields for their sprogs to play. You can't go anywhere in this city without having to encounter them.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Inner city dublin effectivley became slums when people started moving towards the suburban 3 bed semi in the 70s + so a lot of these apartments could be built, the government also had a lot of land available to them to use for these projects. But now considering how things have turned and with all the social problems that 'social housing' creates , I think its time for the government to start emptying and selling inner city land and move all the long term unemployed out to places like athy and wicklow and louth where its cheaper for the government to contain them and having less of a negative impact on our capitol.

reprazant

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Inner city dublin effectivley became slums when people started moving towards the suburban 3 bed semi in the 70s + so a lot of these apartments could be built, the government also had a lot of land available to them to use for these projects. But now considering how things have turned and with all the social problems that 'social housing' creates , I think its time for the government to start emptying and selling inner city land and move all the long term unemployed out to places like athy and wicklow and louth where its cheaper for the government to contain them and having less of a negative impact on our capitol.

Pretty sure that the inner city contain many slums a long long long time before the 1970s. As in, actual slums, not social housing.

valleyoftheunos

I'm really enjoying this thread;

Poster is offended by sight of underprivileged and poor people, also can't afford to live beside Grafton Street, blames said underprivileged and poor people for this.

Develops simple solution, move all poor and underprivileged people where he cannot see them, "somewhere like Kildare." now no poor people to offend him and also room for him to move closer to Grafton street.

Other posters ignore economics, legal, natural and constitutional rights of everyone involved, simple facts of the situation and all reasonable thought then say original poster "has a point."

Seriously I couldn't make it up, its probably the funniest stuff I've read in months, definitely the funniest threat I've ever read on boards.ie, Thank God it's just a a few satirical posters having a laugh! right? right????

Emme

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Inner city dublin effectivley became slums when people started moving towards the suburban 3 bed semi in the 70s + so a lot of these apartments could be built, the government also had a lot of land available to them to use for these projects. But now considering how things have turned and with all the social problems that 'social housing' creates , I think its time for the government to start emptying and selling inner city land and move all the long term unemployed out to places like athy and wicklow and louth where its cheaper for the government to contain them and having less of a negative impact on our capitol.

Eric, you propose imposing apartheid and ethnic cleansing on lower socio-economic groups. Your ideas echo those of Cromwell when he drove Catholics west of the Shannon.

I'm sure the people of Athy, Wicklow and Louth would be horrified at your proposals. Not to mention the people you want to turf out of Dublin - most of the people living in the inner city are Dublin born and bred and go back to the Vikings if not further. Their entire family lives in and around the city.

The rural towns you mention already have massive unemployment and crime problems. Why do you want to exacerbate these problems? Why should rural Ireland be a dumping ground for Dublin's unemployed? Do you want to segregate Dublin off from the rest of the country and create a Pale again? You would have to deploy a garrison army around Dublin to keep the people who were moved out from breaking back in again. Perhaps you could look to Cromwell's tactics for ideas on how to implement that.

Muahahaha

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I'm really enjoying this thread;

Poster is offended by sight of underprivileged and poor people, also can't afford to live beside Grafton Street, blames said underprivileged and poor people for this.

Develops simple solution, move all poor and underprivileged people where he cannot see them, "somewhere like Kildare." now no poor people to offend him and also room for him to move closer to Grafton street.

Other posters ignore economics, legal, natural and constitutional rights of everyone involved, simple facts of the situation and all reasonable thought then say original poster "has a point."

Seriously I couldn't make it up, its probably the funniest stuff I've read in months, definitely the funniest threat I've ever read on boards.ie, Thank God it's just a a few satirical posters having a laugh! right? right????

I've no desire to 'move people out to Kildare'. However I am a believer in the idea that society should be a meritocracy, the simple belief that people who work hard and become successful in their chosen field should be able to access the rewards they desire for their efforts. A central part of that is having a good standard of living and for many people this means the convenience of living in the city centre and not having to commute from outer suburbs where rent is cheaper.

I believe that society should have a safety net, without one crime would spiral out of control. However I also believe that it should be no more advantageous for those who need to use the safety net that for those who don't. But that is not what happens with social housing in the city centre. Take a look at York Street where there are a number of flat complexes literally a stone's throw away from St.Stephen's Green & Grafton Steet. Do you think it is fair that people whose living is subsidised should get to live in a more desirable location than those who are contributing the most to the economy ? Because it sounds to me like you're getting into some sort of warped socialism if you're going down the road of trying to justify why people who contribute less to society should get a larger slice of the pie.

As I said in a previous post I am not against giving people a helping hand with housing for 2 or ever 3 years while they get back on their feet after health problems, redundancy, alcoholism, drug addiction. 2 or 3 years is enough of a time frame for them to get back on their feet and be able to afford to rent in the private sector like the rest of society has to. But this never occurs- once you get a council house you get it for life. And then you pass it onto your kids who pass it on to their kids and the circle goes on and on. If you were living in a flat complex just a stone's throw from Grafton Street what incentive do you ever have to enter the private rental market ? None whatsoever, because you know well you won't be able to afford a better location than next door to Grafton Street and you would end up living in the sticks like the rest of us. So there is literally zero incentive for the people who live there to work their way out of the situation they are in.

In any case this debate happens because government policy in decades past was to build these huge flat complexes which were never fit for purpose to begin with. Because of this many of these flat complexes have become ghettoes that are crime and drug hot spots in the city centre and end up degenerating everybody's standard of living. Govt. policy has since shifted and they now prefer to use a mixed model whereby 20% of new developments are designated as social and affordable housing. The RAS scheme also places council tenants into private accomodation rather than the councils undertaking to build more social housing. The model makes more sense- rather than ghettoising council tenants they integrate them.

Marcusm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Inner city dublin effectivley became slums when people started moving towards the suburban 3 bed semi in the 70s + so a lot of these apartments could be built, the government also had a lot of land available to them to use for these projects. But now considering how things have turned and with all the social problems that 'social housing' creates , I think its time for the government to start emptying and selling inner city land and move all the long term unemployed out to places like athy and wicklow and louth where its cheaper for the government to contain them and having less of a negative impact on our capitol.

You need to look back another 170 years! Inner city Dublin began to turn to tenements when many of the grand houses were vacated following the Act of Union and the abolition of the parliament in Dublin. For the gentry, Dublin then became an entry point for their country estates rather than a city in which they maintained large townhouses (such as those on Mountjoy Square). Larger numbers of people were attracted to Dublin to work in the growing industrial concerns (incl Guinness) and these became slums - read Strumpet City for an example of life there 100 years ago. The building of social housing in the inner city was to give some more humane conditions for these essential workers to live in. A lack of ongoing investment followed by loss of employment opprtunities has led to the circumstances prevailing today.

valleyoftheunos

Muahahaha wrote: »

I've no desire to 'move people out to Kildare'. However I am a believer in the idea that society should be a meritocracy, the simple belief that people who work hard and become successful in their chosen field should be able to access the rewards they desire for their efforts. A central part of that is having a good standard of living and for many people this means the convenience of living in the city centre and not having to commute from outer suburbs where rent is cheaper.

I believe that society should have a safety net, without one crime would spiral out of control. However I also believe that it should be no more advantageous for those who need to use the safety net that for those who don't. But that is not what happens with social housing in the city centre. Take a look at York Street where there are a number of flat complexes literally a stone's throw away from St.Stephen's Green & Grafton Steet. Do you think it is fair that people whose living is subsidised should get to live in a more desirable location than those who are contributing the most to the economy ? Because it sounds to me like you're getting into some sort of warped socialism if you're going down the road of trying to justify why people who contribute less to society should get a larger slice of the pie.

As I said in a previous post I am not against giving people a helping hand with housing for 2 or ever 3 years while they get back on their feet after health problems, redundancy, alcoholism, drug addiction. 2 or 3 years is enough of a time frame for them to get back on their feet and be able to afford to rent in the private sector like the rest of society has to. But this never occurs- once you get a council house you get it for life. And then you pass it onto your kids who pass it on to their kids and the circle goes on and on. If you were living in a flat complex just a stone's throw from Grafton Street what incentive do you ever have to enter the private rental market ? None whatsoever, because you know well you won't be able to afford a better location than next door to Grafton Street and you would end up living in the sticks like the rest of us. So there is literally zero incentive for the people who live there to work their way out of the situation they are in.

In any case this debate happens because government policy in decades past was to build these huge flat complexes which were never fit for purpose to begin with. Because of this many of these flat complexes have become ghettoes that are crime and drug hot spots in the city centre and end up degenerating everybody's standard of living. Govt. policy has since shifted and they now prefer to use a mixed model whereby 20% of new developments are designated as social and affordable housing. The RAS scheme also places council tenants into private accomodation rather than the councils undertaking to build more social housing. The model makes more sense- rather than ghettoising council tenants they integrate them.

It isn't any type of socialism, warped or otherwise to say that it is wrong for someone to be thrown out of their home simply because someone with more money would like to live there instead.

Also you have a unusual view of the world and peculiar priorities if you think that limited educational opportunities, shortened life expectancy and social alienation can somehow amount to a "bigger slice of the pie" simply becuase someone happens to live in the vicinity of Yorke Street.

jimmycrackcorm

I think, OP that if you were to look a bit more into it that there are equally as much social housing out in many suburbs. Equally some people, with day young families, that the plethora of suburban housing goes against their efforts to find suitable housing in their target market.

gurramok

Thats from the clearance of the slums many years ago jimmy. The ones who were not cleared are the descendants who live in said flat complexes now.

What the OP has a problem with and I would agree to an extent is that social housing in an Irish context has been abused by generations of scam artists instead of catering for those in real need. Will it change? I doubt it.

A PAYE worker will have to pay a fortune to live within a couple of miles of the city centre. Those scammers who have never worked do not have to. Ain't fair at all.

fussyonion

I think a lot of the anger and frustration here is not being vented at the right people.
As much as you think it's unfair, it's not the fault of the council-house tenant.

Eric Cartman

fussyonion wrote: »

I think a lot of the anger and frustration here is not being vented at the right people.
As much as you think it's unfair, it's not the fault of the council-house tenant.

its their fault as to how they carry on though , you look at any council estate in this country and its full of malnourished animals roaming loose, litter everywhere, skid and donut marks from cars on the roads, grafiti everywhere , people do not respect 'free' housing ,and I dont see why our capital city should be tarnished by having these bad elements around.

* I am not saying everyone in a council house is a bad person but there is a considerable chunk of them that do not care about anything.

Emme

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its their fault as to how they carry on though , you look at any council estate in this country and its full of malnourished animals roaming loose, litter everywhere, skid and donut marks from cars on the roads, grafiti everywhere , people do not respect 'free' housing ,and I dont see why our capital city should be tarnished by having these bad elements around.

* I am not saying everyone in a council house is a bad person but there is a considerable chunk of them that do not care about anything.

It's ok to tarnish the countryside with these bad elements though :rolleyes:

fussyonion

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its their fault as to how they carry on though , you look at any council estate in this country and its full of malnourished animals roaming loose, litter everywhere, skid and donut marks from cars on the roads, grafiti everywhere , people do not respect 'free' housing ,and I dont see why our capital city should be tarnished by having these bad elements around.

* I am not saying everyone in a council house is a bad person but there is a considerable chunk of them that do not care about anything.

No I do agree with you to some extent there.

You go to most council estates and you'll see the things you described. Most, not all, as I grew up in a certain estate that was actually pretty quiet and respectable.

And yes there ARE some people in council homes who don't respect their property, but believe me when I say, most people are respectful and grateful.

I'm in my council home almost a year now, after being on the housing list 10 years. I never thought the day would come and I will never stop being thankful and grateful that I have a roof over my head.

I was able to better myself by finding work and I'm so proud that I can pay my own way and I don't behave in the manner described above, I can assure you.

To summarise though, it's not the council tenants who are to blame.
Blame the system if you have to.

gurramok

fussyonion wrote: »

To summarise though, it's not the council tenants who are to blame.
Blame the system if you have to.

That system is the councils themselves. They keep putting bad tenants among good tenants\homeowners and the area goes downhill. Good tenants\homeowners move out and the area becomes a hellhole.

Eric Cartman

gurramok wrote: »

That system is the councils themselves. They keep putting bad tenants among good tenants\homeowners and the area goes downhill. Good tenants\homeowners move out and the area becomes a hellhole.

+1 we see this over and over again , most of the time the good tenants find work and rent privatley just to escape the trap, which unfortunatly sometimes leads to old / disabled people who are unable to work being surrounded by the scum of the earth intimidating them. I think the real solution is no more council estates / flat blocks, the ability to take houses off troublesome tennants , sparse social housing in private estates (not just one back corner or the front row of houses etc..) and decentralising the issue and spreading out the longterm unemployed accross the province theyre in , instead of ending up with concentrated slums.