Are we looking at the introduction of trailer parks in Ireland...

LordNorbury

A few months ago, I was chatting to a friend, around the time that Dublin rent prices started to really spiral, and I predicted that such was the extent of the Dublin housing crisis, that we would be seeing trailer park type solutions deployed in Ireland. I predicted that this would be ushered in, as is usually the case in Ireland, as a "temporary measure to alleviate an immediate crisis", but would become a permanent feature of Ireland within the next year or two.

Then I open the paper today to see SF advocating prefab (mobile home/trailer park), type housing solutions for those seeking housing in Dublin, as a more suitable alternative to hotel/hostel/B & B type "housing" solutions...

Just thought that this subject is worthy of discussion...

Idbatterim

well as long as those gob****es in power have no intention of putting in proper long term solutions, its probably better than nothing... 6-7 storey buildings on the quays (our version of canary wharf according to noonan) :rolleyes: there is a thread on the accommodation forum of 3 beds right beside a luas stop and M50 in leopardstown going to 500k, take a look at the low density they have permitted with that expensive infrastructure in place!!!

Silentcorner

Idbatterim wrote: »

well as long as those gob****es in power have no intention of putting in proper long term solutions, its probably better than nothing... 6-7 storey buildings on the quays (our version of canary wharf according to noonan) :rolleyes: there is a thread on the accommodation forum of 3 beds right beside a luas stop and M50 in leopardstown going to 500k, take a look at the low density they have permitted with that expensive infrastructure in place!!!

That has always been a problem, for a city it's size both the city centre and suburbs are obviously lacking high rise buildings, both in office space and domestic accommodation, and what impact does that have on pricing and infrastructure, as well as the social impact? I've been in much smaller cities abroad that have felt much bigger on account of the skyline, what was the cause of that approach?

Does the *ahem* political culture of the late 70s and 80s, as outlined in the Mahon Tribunal, have anything to do with it I wonder.

mr_seer

Silentcorner wrote: »

That has always been a problem, for a city it's size both the city centre and suburbs are obviously lacking high rise buildings, both in office space and domestic accommodation, and what impact does that have on pricing and infrastructure, as well as the social impact? I've been in much smaller cities abroad that have felt much bigger on account of the skyline, what was the cause of that approach?

Does the *ahem* political culture of the late 70s and 80s, as outlined in the Mahon Tribunal, have anything to do with it I wonder.

The so called housing crisis could be solved in the morning if the political will was there. The problem is that it would see a considerable fall in house prices and that is not something that Noonan, Kenny and Co are willing to countenance. It is crazy that young people cannot afford to buy any decent sort of property while incumbent mortgage holders are sitting pretty having not paid a bean since 2008/2009

hfallada

mr_seer wrote: »

The so called housing crisis could be solved in the morning if the political will was there. The problem is that it would see a considerable fall in house prices and that is not something that Noonan, Kenny and Co are willing to countenance. It is crazy that young people cannot afford to buy any decent sort of property while incumbent mortgage holders are sitting pretty having not paid a bean since 2008/2009

Yet you go to cities like Munich. A part of Germany that is extremely wealthy and has little corruption. But most young people struggle to afford rent and will never own an apartment. They build buildings that are a minimum of 8 storeys heigh and have dozens of rail lines running 40 km away from the city in either direction. But there is still a massive shortage of housing.

Housing is an issue that cities all across the world are trying to deal with. Everywhere from China to NYC and London. No one has the solution. But it's pretty clear having low density social housing in Dublin 1&2 is not helping the problem. Dublin needs to start building high rise. There is tons of skyscrapers that are the Georgian houses of the 21st century. I have metmore tourist shocked with our low density crumbling city centre than the beauty of Georgian houses. There is nothing nice about our low rise modern buildings.

LordNorbury

Is the housing problem a direct consequence of us having allowed what is a very basic necessity for any person or family, (a roof over their head), to become an object of complete financial speculation? Would we tolerate the same speculation in relation to other necessities that are needed for human survival in a developed economy?

For example, would we tolerate ongoing demand -vs- supply issues and general access & affordability issues, with the availability of food, or with the availability of water? If we did not know whether we would be able to buy food for the next six months, or have access to any water for the next six months, would we tolerate this? I don't think that we would, so why do we tolerate this set up in relation to housing?

L1011

Reintroduction, they were a thing in the 70s housing crisis also...

NGC999888

You might be right OP.
The cheapest accommodation is always going to be for the accommodation that the majority dont want.
Trailer parks fit the bill there.

Amazing though how many people over the last 10 years were complaining that the government ruined the economy by interfering in the housing market. And now those same people are crying for the government to interfere with the property market.

sarumite

NGC999888 wrote: »

You might be right OP.
The cheapest accommodation is always going to be for the accommodation that the majority dont want.
Trailer parks fit the bill there.

Amazing though how many people over the last 10 years were complaining that the government ruined the economy by interfering in the housing market. And now those same people are crying for the government to interfere with the property market.

I thought people were complaining that it was the governments lack of 'interference' that messed the economy. I generally read people complaining about the light touch approach to regulation that allowed the mess to grow. I haven't read too many people complaining about the governments heavy handed approach to regulation during the boom.

NGC999888

sarumite wrote: »

I thought people were complaining that it was the governments lack of 'interference' that messed the economy. I generally read people complaining about the light touch approach to regulation that allowed the mess to grow. I haven't read too many people complaining about the governments heavy handed approach to regulation during the boom.

Thats what they are complaining about now.
Rewind a few years and people and people were complaining about different things.

My opinion is they should leave alone and let the market find its own level. Keep interfering and it will be bouncing around all over the place forever.

Pete_Cavan

We need to leave behind our obsession with owning property and develop a culture of renting. Many people in most developed countries live happy and prosperous lives without ever owning the place in which they live so it is not something we should be afraid of. That means having better protection for tenants and encouraging better standards among landlords. We need to stop thinking about houses/apartments as commodities and forget about “climbing the property ladder”. This kind of short term approach to what should be a long term investment is what created the property bubble. For those who have climbed the property ladder, we need to encourage “empty nesters” to come back down the ladder and release family properties for the next generation. Going forward, we will see more professional landlords, probably in the form of the developer who built the houses/apartments renting them out to recoup the development costs over the long term. The arrival of large US financiers and REITs should see more developer landlords and this is the new finance model referred to. Hopefully these developers are more in tune and we will see a better quality of apartment being built which is suitable for long term living and raising a family.

We missed a big opportunity with the introduction of the property tax. Instead of implementing a system that would encourage better land use, we have a tax based on property value which punishes people for improving their property which is not good for the quality of our housing stock over the long term. A Land Value Tax would force those who own land but are not doing anything with it (be they private individuals, the state, NAMA, etc) to sell to those who can do something with it. LVT discourages speculative property deals and deters developers from speculatively building up a land bank and is proven not to distort the economy to favour any particular group. This could have released a lot of urban sites for redevelopment but instead many people who own land/property in town centres are quite happy to have it lying vacant because they can avoid paying rates and maintaining the property. Dublin, and Im sure most urban areas, has a large number of potential development and redevelopment sites, we should be looking to develop as many of these as possible. Increasing density should be done along with develop proper public transport to break the car dependency that exists here. In Dublin, the Dart Underground project is a must and higher density developments should be focused around Dart stations.

In terms of providing social housing, this problem is going to grow in Dublin and needs to be tackled now. DCC are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic by refurbishing and amalgamating flats in old blocks. The folly of these flats is that there was no social mix and creates greater class divides and even ghettoisation but the refurb plans to nothing to improve this. If DCC were serious about providing social housing they would sell off chunks of the land to private developers which would release the funds to develop their own social housing. DCC control big parcels of land in the city and should be using these effectively to provide a mix of housing, not decreasing density further. Also, creating a good social mix will lead to less social problems in the future. Continuing with exclusive social housing in certain areas will only cement stigmas and create bigger social divides and the cycle will continue.