The Housing Agency wants smaller apartments built!

moxin

Thought I was reading something from the 90s but its from todays piece in the Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/housing-agency-calls-for-smaller-apartments-in-dublin-1.1951580

John O’Connor, chief executive of the agency set up to advise the Government on housing policy and help local authorities provide housing, is urging the council to reduce permitted sizes of one-, two- and three- bedroom apartments to restart construction and make homes more affordable.

He is also seeking the introduction of a category of rental apartments that could be 40sq m – more than 27 per cent smaller than the smallest one-bed apartments allowed by the council, and similar to the lowest sizes allowed in the late 1990s. The average floor area of an apartment granted permission in the first quarter of this year was 96.9sq m. The smaller units would suit a “young mobile workforce”, Mr O’Connor said.
In 2007, the council increased minimum permissible sizes to 55sq m for a one-bedroom apartment, 80sq m for a two-bed, and 100sq m for a three-bed.

There is no shortage of land to build on in Dublin, there is still a lot of vacant sites in the inner city and beyond the canals in 2014. I wonder has the gentleman thought of this first?
And families will not live in 1990's apts and neither will single people who want better accommodation in life(his proposal will promote transient occupiers), what's wrong with building bigger apts? Profit affected?!

In another piece quoting a planner and an architect. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/more-than-10-per-cent-of-dublin-inner-city-homes-have-just-one-room-1.1951707

Tiny dwellings Between 1999 and 2004, the period of the greatest apartment output, Dublin City Council allowed apartments of 38sq m and allowed blocks where 50 per cent of the apartments had just one bedroom.

“These were probably the smallest new homes mass-built since the foundation of the State,” said Mr Kearns.

In their recently published assessment of Dublin housing, Beyond Pebbledash, Mr Kearns and Mr Ruimy argue that apartments are viewed as undesirable family homes because, for too long, what was built was low quality and too small.

Reaction to this here http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/council-sees-no-reason-to-change-standards-1.1951687 Hopefully the council sticks by the present standards.

ted1

So he is advising to build shoe boxes which will create construction jobs. But has failed to realise that people don't want shoe boxes and no one would want to purchase one.

In my opinion his comments are idiotic.

dudara

Apartments need to be a viable living option when compared to houses. They need to be bigger, not smaller, and be of higher quality.

Gatling

dudara wrote: »

Apartments need to be a viable living option when compared to houses. They need to be bigger, not smaller, and be of higher quality.

Exactly there is no room for family options in an apartment

Red Alert

What we need to do, roughly, to make high quality apartments for families and single people is to mandate the following:

Put a base limit on floor size to approx 90 m2 for 2-bed units.
Force architects to include some degree of reconfigurability - e.g. 2nd bedroom could be made part of open plan living space by avoiding things like curved or triangular-shaped rooms.
Every apartment needs a utility room.
Ban the construction of apartments with electric storage heating. The only acceptable electric heating is reverse-cycle air conditioners.
Every apartment needs a "front door" and also a "back door" with access to a large goods lift, and where meters for gas and ESB can be easily accessed without recourse to building staff.
Underground car park must have the number of spaces as bedrooms per apartment.
Mandated requirements for open phone and TV line access.
All apartments must have access to a balcony with minimum dimensions in the living room.

Gatling

Red Alert wrote: »

What we need to do, roughly, to make high quality apartments for families and single people is to mandate the following:

Put a base limit on floor size to approx 90 m2 for 2-bed units.
Force architects to include some degree of reconfigurability - e.g. 2nd bedroom could be made part of open plan living space by avoiding things like curved or triangular-shaped rooms.
Every apartment needs a utility room.
Ban the construction of apartments with electric storage heating. The only acceptable electric heating is reverse-cycle air conditioners.
Every apartment needs a "front door" and also a "back door" with access to a large goods lift, and where meters for gas and ESB can be easily accessed without recourse to building staff.
Underground car park must have the number of spaces as bedrooms per apartment.
Mandated requirements for open phone and TV line access.
All apartments must have access to a balcony with minimum dimensions in the living room.

Have you thought about getting into politics

quadrifoglio verde

For apartments to be viable alternatives to the coveted semi-d, they need to be the same size, not tiny shoe boxes. In order for that to be viable, the height restrictions need to be relaxed. There is nothing wrong with tall buildings, it's an efficient use of the land. Build an apartment block on half an acre that can house 30 families, not one that can house 30 single people. I'd have no problem living in an apartment block, where I'm not living on top of someone else.

The_Conductor

Red Alert wrote: »

What we need to do, roughly, to make high quality apartments for families and single people is to mandate the following:

Put a base limit on floor size to approx 90 m2 for 2-bed units.
Force architects to include some degree of reconfigurability - e.g. 2nd bedroom could be made part of open plan living space by avoiding things like curved or triangular-shaped rooms.
Every apartment needs a utility room.
Ban the construction of apartments with electric storage heating. The only acceptable electric heating is reverse-cycle air conditioners.
Every apartment needs a "front door" and also a "back door" with access to a large goods lift, and where meters for gas and ESB can be easily accessed without recourse to building staff.
Underground car park must have the number of spaces as bedrooms per apartment.
Mandated requirements for open phone and TV line access.
All apartments must have access to a balcony with minimum dimensions in the living room.

Laudable- however, when you price the type of configuration you've just described- you'd be shocked at the cost of it.......

If you want to make apartment living a viable option- you need to have specs akin to yours- however, the Irish psyche is hardwired to look for a semi-d with front and rear garden- and even after the boom and bust- this has not been dented.........

I'd add an addendum to your wish list- whereby property tax would be based solely on the size of the property- not on its location or market value. This would stop the discrimination against Dublin property- and would put reasonable sized apartment type dwellings on a reasonable footing vis-a-vis other dwelling types.

I'd also insist all apartments be on at very least 1 public transport route (ideally several).

Victor

I think the discussion needs to be wider than just unit size. It also needs to take in things like shared space (laundry room, common room, play areas) and mix of property-type, size, ownership & ownership models.

For example, a 20-something couple with no children could use a 1- or 2-bed apartment and trade up to a 3- or 4-bed only when they have children. In the current ownership models, that largely means selling the property and moving elsewhere. Why not have it such that people own shares in a development that relates to the development, not a specific property. That might work much better for social cohesiveness and community building.

We often end up with developments that are full of only one age cohort - new areas have couples and young families and older areas have older people and empty nests. This means that the local population becomes too cyclical / tidal with shifts between no properties available and too many properties available.

I grew up in Ballyphehane in Cork. While 80% council-built housing, it never become a ghetto and didn't have quite the same problems as many other such areas, even through the 1980s recession, which hurt a lot of people hard. It probably lacked balance in green space.

* There was a proportion of private housing.
* There is a mix of property type - 1-bed flats, 1-bed bungalows, 2- and 3-bed houses and 3-bed duplexes, often on the same or adjacent streets.
* There are few cul de sacs or lanes.
* While public transport is available, it is still practical to walk to the city centre and other employment and services.
* The number of corner shops has reduced, but they were unsustainable anyway. Other retail has improved.

Admittedly, the population and housing stock has aged and a proportion of properties lack a sense of pride. Avoid the pubs though - not dangerous, just a bit cheap.

hfallada

Studio apartments are the norm in a lot of cities. A lot of people in German cities live in studio apartments. They same in cities like NYC, where NYC are trying to increase the amount of studios, in the form of micro-apartments

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/city-unveils-winner-of-tiny-apartment-competition/?hp

The fact is most people dont need the usual one bed apartment layout of small bathroom, small bedroom and small kitchen/living room area. Most young people never use a dining table and need for a living room is slowly disappearing, with everyone using laptops for watching tv rather than an actual TV.

More and more people are going to be living on their own. They dont really large one bedroom apartments with a dining area they wont use or a load of storage for stuff they dont have(an Irish home is far more minimal than what it was 20 years ago). Its far more important to have people living in the city, than in some ****ty commuter town with no public transport links to Dublin city.

18MonthsaSlave

hfallada speaks sense.

if you are living in shared accomodation or a dank musty ex-tenement and that is a huge proportion of the renting population then you'd gladly live in your own clean compact studio apartment for 300 euro a month and that is the sort of money that these studio aparatments go for in Germany with Kellar below for storing stuff and dedicated parking space.

moxin

I've lived in apartments big and small before I bought my house. In the apartment complexes i've been in, there were hardly any kids. In my first ever rental which was small, there was just 2 kids out playing in the communal courtyard over the year I was there, never noticed any other kids among the 100 or so apartments. Up it to 4 kids in another complex I was in for big apartments. I've lived in rented accommodation in houses and yes kids were everywhere. I can see why Irish parents would not raise kids in an Irish apt complex, they are simply just too small.

shruikan2553

There needs to be a mix. A compact apartment for a single person or couple would be nice, but there is compact and then there's "move the bed so I can get into the fridge". Seeing some of the bedsits in this country I'm afraid of what they would look like if they were any smaller.

Bigger apartments are also needed for families though.

18MonthsaSlave

Nobody is forcing families to live in these type apartments and if there are these type apartments then it will be easier to find a semi-d to rent as they'll be released from being accomodation sharing and return to being family homes where families can invest in the property rather than it being run in to ground by a landlord seeking to maximise return.

Mrs OBumble

Red Alert wrote: »

What we need to do, roughly, to make high quality apartments for families and single people is to mandate the following:

Put a base limit on floor size to approx 90 m2 for 2-bed units.
Force architects to include some degree of reconfigurability - e.g. 2nd bedroom could be made part of open plan living space by avoiding things like curved or triangular-shaped rooms.
Every apartment needs a utility room.
Ban the construction of apartments with electric storage heating. The only acceptable electric heating is reverse-cycle air conditioners.
Every apartment needs a "front door" and also a "back door" with access to a large goods lift, and where meters for gas and ESB can be easily accessed without recourse to building staff.
Underground car park must have the number of spaces as bedrooms per apartment.
Mandated requirements for open phone and TV line access.
All apartments must have access to a balcony with minimum dimensions in the living room.

Sorry, but I could not disagree more strongly.

Certainly SOME apartments need to be like this.

But many people who were happy enough living in bedsits but have now been forced out of them would regard the above as total overkill.

I've lived very happily with two housemates (ie 3 people in total) in a well-designed 3brm townhouse of 89sqm: each brm took a double bed and other furniture, and there is a separate utility room, hotpress, bathroom with bath, downstairs toilet, and large open-plan living area. 90sqm for 2brms is vastly overkill.

Underground carparking? Not a very clever idea in some areas - I know folks in Salthill who are currently paying a lot to deal with the fact that utilities were based underground and got flooded.

Required one carpark per bedroom? Why should people who don't drive should have to pay more for property just to meet this requirement that they'll never use.

Phone and TV line access? Who puts a phone line into an new build these days, when every woman and her cat have a cellphone? TV cabling I can sympathise with - but just the cabling, not a forced service.

I do agree that every dwelling needs a utility room, and that balcony space is ideal - but I think sunlight hours on this are far more important than size. And I agree re access to lifts in new buildings of more than three stories, and ready access to ESB etc meters.

I'm curious to know what you think is a better option that electric storage heating, in a complex environment?


And the things that I think are really important, you've totally left out:
Soundproofing
Secure mailboxes
Walkable access to neighbourhood facilities and public transport
Outdoor clothes drying facilities
Remote control front-door monitor and release.
Bookable common-room / party-room / meeting-room
Landscaped shared outdoor space which has recreation facilities (eg bookable BBQ, seating, garden plots)
Secure out-of-apartment storage for bicycles, garden tools etc.

Apartments are absolutely not one-size-fits all: what's needed for students is vastly different from single-mid-life adults, and older adults.

ted1

Red Alert wrote: »

What we need to do, roughly, to make high quality apartments for families and single people is to mandate the following:

Put a base limit on floor size to approx 90 m2 for 2-bed units.
Force architects to include some degree of reconfigurability - e.g. 2nd bedroom could be made part of open plan living space by avoiding things like curved or triangular-shaped rooms.
Every apartment needs a utility room.
Ban the construction of apartments with electric storage heating. The only acceptable electric heating is reverse-cycle air conditioners.
Every apartment needs a "front door" and also a "back door" with access to a large goods lift, and where meters for gas and ESB can be easily accessed without recourse to building staff.
Underground car park must have the number of spaces as bedrooms per apartment.
Mandated requirements for open phone and TV line access.
All apartments must have access to a balcony with minimum dimensions in the living room.

You where doing so well until the bit about car park spaces. And the heating. A CHP or some form of district heating would be better

NZ_2014

Some people just want a bed, a TV, a bathroom and maybe a small desk.

Check out pictures of yotel..mini hotels in some airports.. I could see a demand for this type of thing from people who just need a bed in a good location.

Also height restrictions definitely should be lifted.

MouseTail

Since the removal of substandard bedsits from the market, there has been a void for small entry level units. I think the proposal is to address that market need. No one is suggesting families should live in such units. I would imagine they would mostly be inhabited by young single professionals, mature students, professionals needing a bolthole in the city etc.

hfallada

Like look at modern day student accomdation. It's literally a 6 bed apartment. All bed rooms are quite large with an ensuite and there is a small kitchen/ dining area. Which is generally rarely used as young people don't really sit down to watch TV anymore. House shares are common amoung people who are often up 40 in Germany. Apartments are big enough that it works.

The problem with Irish apartments is that the bedrooms are way too small. I have been to apartments that the bathroom is nearly bigger than the bedroom but yet the living room/kitchen is massive. There is no proper proportions in Irish apartments.

Greenmachine

There are already too many small one bedroom units going for lubricious money, with a serious lack of facilities. Not sure I agree that most people living in bedsits were happy with them. They were the last bastion of the desperate and any of the ones I have seen were deplorable.

Mrs OBumble

Greenmachine wrote: »

Not sure I agree that most people living in bedsits were happy with them. They were the last bastion of the desperate and any of the ones I have seen were deplorable.

They weren't necessarily happy with the accommodation - but they were happy with the rent.

The_Conductor

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They weren't necessarily happy with the accommodation - but they were happy with the rent.

Exactly.
The rent was cheap- the cost of ownership non-existent- and as long as everyone was cognisant of the fact that it was entry level accommodation for those who simply couldn't afford anything better- all was fine.

My fear is that a prescription such as is being suggested- would be held up as a new low standard that investors could make a mint from.........

If there was a similar prescription that these were for low level accommodation- at a rent of not more than 40% of the rent of unemployment assistance- so people did not view them as a get-rich quick scheme- then perhaps they may work..........

Also- I would argue- that percentages be brought in. Aka- only 30% of new build units could be of 1 bed developments, at least 40% of 2 bed units- and the remainder of 3 or larger........ We don't want 20k 1 bed shoeboxes- and nothing else built.......???

18MonthsaSlave

20k shoeboxes would free up maybe 5k to 8k other houses for retasking as family homes and put downward pressure on rents.

The_Conductor

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

20k shoeboxes would free up maybe 5k to 8k other houses for retasking as family homes and put downward pressure on rents.

I honestly- and genuinely- don't think 20k bedsits would magically add 5-8k other properties to the rental market. We have massive demand in all rental sectors- and we do not tend to accommodate people in 1 bed units......

If you added 20k 1 bed units to the market- you would free up places in our hostels, and give many people living on the streets- their own place- which is a laudable aim. Its not going to get people who are renting larger units to downsize into these shoeboxes though- I wish you were right- but I really don't see how it would happen........

We do not have a history of placing those in need of accommodation- in these type units. Cluid- and some of the housing associations- have a very good record with these type units- but not as a mechanism for freeing up other accommodation- more as an emergency mechanism to forestall homelessness, or to help people who are successfully combating addictions, or single people who have recently lost jobs and are unable to support themselves etc etc.........

There is a massive role for this type property- as a mechanism to assist with ameliorating homelessness and to assist those who are slipping through the cracks- but not as a housing standard of choice- as an emergency standard to help those who are unable to help themselves...........

18MonthsaSlave

Stop stigmatising these properties as ones used only by the lowest social classes. In other cities in Europe they are used by twentysomethings who are starting out and want to live close to the city centre.

Victor

Oh, one important thing. While one might rent to tenants, one gets people - with all the good and bad that comes with them.

murphaph

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

Stop stigmatising these properties as ones used only by the lowest social classes. In other cities in Europe they are used by twentysomethings who are starting out and want to live close to the city centre.

Yup. As soon as I read this thread I thought of Q216 here in Berlin. They took a derelict former office block in East Berlin and converted it into 435 40m² studios for students, young professionals etc. In fact they reject anyone on the dole who applies.

The amount of threads on here by students, postgrads and young professionals just looking for a SMALL clean, quiet space to live in close proximity to the city is proof that there's demand for such studios.

The market should really decide the size of apartments. The only thing the state need to do is abolish the stupidly low maximum heights generally currently allowed. There is lots of space in Dublin to build but it's in the air above our heads. The market here decides how big apartments should be. You get a good mix from 30m² studios to 200m² maisonettes over 2 or 3 floors!

The_Conductor

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

Stop stigmatising these properties as ones used only by the lowest social classes. In other cities in Europe they are used by twentysomethings who are starting out and want to live close to the city centre.

I'm not necessarily stigmatising the small 40m2 property class- I am pointing out that it has traditionally been used in an Irish context to accommodate those who were incapable of affording more spacious accommodation..........

If you look to Germany- or any of our continental cousins- they have 1 bed apartments in the 48-50m2 category- which tend to be fitted to a very high standard- however, they also have high prices and rents associated with them. 1 beds in Berlin- start out at around 600 per month- and go all the way up to over 2k a month- plus fees, for pretty ordinary units.

The stated aim of developing 40m2 units particularly in the Dublin area- is the replace the bedsits which were removed from the supply chain, and which had no comparable units replace them- which in turn displaced their occupants, onto the streets- and according to the various organisations- thousands into dormitory type care. Dublin City Council have been lambasted for seeking permission to erect temporary accommodation to deal with the exploding problem- and have stated that one of the big issues is a lack of the availability of affordable 1 bed units on the rental market..........

I did not intend to denigrate the 1 bed apartment sector with my comments- even now we have some remarkably well spec'ed units on the market that are highly desireable- the aim of this initiative is not to make these a new standard though- its to try and come up with a replacement for all the bedsits that were removed from the market at the stroke of a pen..........

Some well meaning meddling has had unintended consequences- and some more well meaning meddling is attempting to fix those issues- however, the laws of unintended consequence suggest we're going to open up whole new issues.........

The_Conductor

murphaph wrote: »

Yup. As soon as I read this thread I thought of Q216 here in Berlin. They took a derelict former office block in East Berlin and converted it into 435 40m² studios for students, young professionals etc. In fact they reject anyone on the dole who applies.

They are lovely- but look at the prices they're charging- the cheapest units are probably around 500-600- going all the way up to almost 2k a month (not sure how this is justifiable?)

The issue is in an Irish context- its thought these small units are a replacement for bedsits......... Obviously they're not- but its the mindset in those who are meddling in the market.

murphaph wrote: »

The amount of threads on here by students, postgrads and young professionals just looking for a SMALL clean, quiet space to live in close proximity to the city is proof that there's demand for such studios.

Big time. No one can deny that. However- aside from anything else- we need to totally rewrite the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act- before we go down that road here.

murphaph wrote: »

The market should really decide the size of apartments. The only thing the state need to do is abolish the stupidly low maximum heights generally currently allowed. There is lots of space in Dublin to build but it's in the air above our heads. The market here decides how big apartments should be. You get a good mix from 30m² studios to 200m² maisonettes over 2 or 3 floors!

I agree. The meddling in the market here- has been monumental- and has totally destroyed the fabric of society- and will do for decades to come.

I don't understand our reticence towards higher density living- or indeed- or love affair with the semi-d, that everyone seems to imagine they have some inherent right to.......

We need a sea-change in our mindsets........

Qualitymark

We need a sea-change in one particular mindset: that social classes should live apart.
Ballymun was well-built, with nice apartments, but was badly maintained, I suspect because it was housing for the poor. If a proportion of the apartments had been rented from the start to students and professionals, would this have been different?
The blocks became a misery because they were badly planned as family accommodation, with nowhere for children to play safely, no green walks and parks for people to have pleasurable outings - and they were badly maintained, the lifts often broken and seldom mended, so people had to haul their groceries up flight after flight of concrete steps. And because of the lack of play space and the lack of maintenance, those stairways became ad hoc public toilets for non-housetrained youth. The place, which could have been lovely, became a nightmare.
Simple, human solutions often work.
Fatima Mansions at one stage had hordes of children racing around, terrifying everyone - I remember my car being covered with kids as I drove through like something out of Lord of the Flies, until I was rescued by the Rialto Peace Corps.
The solution was to build walls between the different flat blocks, so the kids would have to walk a couple of hundred yards each way if they wanted to meet in a big group. End of the roaming hordes within days.
Corporation flat blocks - which should be open to everyone - often become effectively ghettoes not just for one social group but for one extended family group, with outsiders forced out so that a desirable apartment will go to a cousin's or sister's family.
A solution to this problem is beginning to appear with the growth of housing associations, which rent apartments both privately and through the councils. But housing association blocks are also being built without realistic green space and play space and shop space. We really need a proper plan and minimum standards.

18MonthsaSlave

The_Conductor wrote: »

If you look to Germany- or any of our continental cousins- they have 1 bed apartments in the 48-50m2 category- which tend to be fitted to a very high standard- however, they also have high prices and rents associated with them. 1 beds in Berlin- start out at around 600 per month- and go all the way up to over 2k a month- plus fees, for pretty ordinary units.

This is simply not correct. Go to immobilienscout24.de and you'll see apartments in Berlin or Frankfurt start from under 300 euro cold and then go upwards. Also, the term "1 bed apartment" is not used. They filter their apartments based on Quadrat metres and the number of distinct rooms within the apartment e.g. 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 usw.

Greenmachine

The_Conductor wrote: »

They are lovely- but look at the prices they're charging- the cheapest units are probably around 500-600- going all the way up to almost 2k a month (not sure how this is justifiable?)

The issue is in an Irish context- its thought these small units are a replacement for bedsits......... Obviously they're not- but its the mindset in those who are meddling in the market.



Big time. No one can deny that. However- aside from anything else- we need to totally rewrite the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act- before we go down that road here.



I agree. The meddling in the market here- has been monumental- and has totally destroyed the fabric of society- and will do for decades to come.

I don't understand our reticence towards higher density living- or indeed- or love affair with the semi-d, that everyone seems to imagine they have some inherent right to.......

We need a sea-change in our mindsets........

My place in Dublin is smaller than these Berlin flats and sets me back €700 p/m. If the landlord told me he wanted to increase the rent, he would be told where to stick it.

Daith

Greenmachine wrote: »

My place in Dublin is smaller than these Berlin flats and sets me back €700 p/m. If the landlord told me he wanted to increase the rent, he would be told where to stick it.

Exactly. I'd say these micro-apartments would be a similar price or maybe €500-€700.

Micro apartments would simply be the new one bed and similar prices.

Qualitymark

If councils started building houses and apartments, and did it properly, the prices would settle into something more reasonable. But with a Dail full of landlords, it's unlikely to happen - until politics change.

hfallada

Qualitymark wrote: »

If councils started building houses and apartments, and did it properly, the prices would settle into something more reasonable. But with a Dail full of landlords, it's unlikely to happen - until politics change.

Why should city councils have to be building houses and apartments? Social housing should only be temporary accommodation. But our poorly structured welfare system, makes council housing something passed down from Generation to Generation. No one should be entitled to cheap housing just because they "cant find a job" and "werent able to find a job in full employment".This entitlement for a house because you want one and dont choose to work is ridiculous. Why should someone have to work 9 to 5 and spend 10 hours commuting a week? While there is tens of thosands living in social housing in the city center, that never worked a day in their life

The only thing stopping houses/apartments being built is our banking system. Its not possible to get a loan from the bank to build a block of apartments. If we had a functioning banking system, we would have a more normal housing market.

18MonthsaSlave

Housing Departments and Housing Schemes have an remarkable talent for spending huge amounts of money delivering very few houses.

Gatling

hfallada wrote: »

Why should city councils have to be building houses and apartments? Social housing should only be temporary accommodation. But our poorly structured welfare system, makes council housing something passed down from Generation to Generation.

That doesn't happen anymore they're pretty strict on the idea of trying to hand houses down .
My mate and his sister lost both the parents in the space of a 12 week period few years back they were all living in a 3 bed local authority house 2 weeks after the 2nd funeral sdcc sent them a letter telling them to vacate the property within a certain amount of time as they weren't entitled to hold on to the property they lived in for 25 years.

In other cases adult children move back in to look after a sick or elderly parent you have to sign a document stating you have no legal right to claim the property or the tenancy

Mrs OBumble

hfallada wrote: »

Why should city councils have to be building houses and apartments? Social housing should only be temporary accommodation.

To make up for the properties that were sold on tenant-purchase schemes, and thus removed from the pool.

Personally I totally agree that social housing should be a hand-up, not a lifetime right. But current law/philosophy in Ireland is that it's tenancy-for-life. This can make for more-stable communities, but comes with the price of entrenched welfarism: some children who grow up in council housing genuinely believe that getting a house from the council is the only way that housing works.

Oh - and people don't get allocated social houses just because they don't have a job. They get them because they are too poor to buy a house: there are plenty of council tenants who are working.

Gatling

Doesn't matter where you go it's the same social housing is a life long tenancy unless you move up the property ladder and buy your own or you get evicted or die .

This is how social housing works it's not an irish phenomenon by a long shot .

It's not a free house either it's subsidised rents the more you earn the more you pay .

The amount of myths surrounding social housing is unreal

Mrs OBumble

Gatling wrote: »

Doesn't matter where you go it's the same social housing is a life long tenancy unless you move up the property ladder and buy your own or you get evicted or die .

This is how social housing works it's not an irish phenomenon by a long shot .

It may not be exclusively Irish, but it's certainly not world-wide.

There is information about tenancy reviews in a country very similar to that is a very similar size to Ireland here: http://www.hnzc.co.nz/info-for-tenants/reviewable-tenancies A key point:

"The full review process will be done over a number of months and involves working on a plan with tenants to help them move if they are no longer eligible for social housing."

The material on that page makes it look like it's a new policy. But it's not - there were similar things happening 20 years ago, even though I don't have links for them. And there were also policies that forced people to move from larger family homes, which they no longer needed, to smaller units more in tune with their current needs.

And here's another example, from another country/state: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/Living+in+Public+Housing/Changing+Renewing+or+Ending+a+Tenancy/
Key quote:

"most new tenants entering public housing are offered a fixed term lease of 2, 5 or 10 years. Housing NSW reviews fixed term leases before they end to decide if a tenant is eligible for a lease extension, and if eligible ..."

hfallada

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Oh - and people don't get allocated social houses just because they don't have a job. They get them because they are too poor to buy a house: there are plenty of council tenants who are working.

Thats one of the flaws of it. That people feel they can only buy and not rent. In NYC, rent controlled apartments are given to working people on low income. A luxury development gives x amount of its apartments to NYC, for rent to low income people. The developers do this in return for being allowed to build higher apartment blocks( not going to happen in Ireland) and tax breaks( cant see that happen again for a while, considering sections basically ghettoised huge amount of the city, as there was hundreds of apartment blocks with no owner occupiers).

Any social housing built by DCC in the boom was literally replacing an old building. Like Smithfieldm square which has high density apartments built by private developers and on the other side of the square. There is 3 storey houses built by DCC. Whats the logic in that? There isnt and most of DCC social housing is low density

Victor

hfallada wrote: »

There isnt and most of DCC social housing is low density

Actually, no. While the estates build from about 1920-1970 often had a combination of two-storey, semi-detached houses, over-sized gardens, sometimes excess green space and under-used institutional space, since the 1980s properties have generally been built with three-storey terraces, no front garden and only a small rear garden. Pocket parks and existing shared spaces have been used instead of vast expanses of grassland.

Gatling

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It may not be exclusively Irish, but it's certainly not world-wide.

There is information about tenancy reviews in a country very similar to that is a very similar size to Ireland here: http://www.hnzc.co.nz/info-for-tenants/reviewable-tenancies A key point:


The material on that page makes it look like it's a new policy. But it's not - there were similar things happening 20 years ago, even though I don't have links for them. And there were also policies that forced people to move from larger family homes, which they no longer needed, to smaller units more in tune with their current needs.

And here's another example, from another country/state: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/Living+in+Public+Housing/Changing+Renewing+or+Ending+a+Tenancy/
Key quote:

It's similar here you can do mutual transfers between properties there a section on Gumtree that specifically deals with transfers and swaps in social housing.

For instance in the UK private housing associations once they took over local authorities housing lists literally started knocking on doors to find out how many properties were under occupied and those who were found living in 3/4/5 beds to one person would tried to be persuaded to move to a smaller house , flat, apartments.
It doesn't always work but it has in many cases freed up 3-5 bed properties for young families who need the rooms .
Australian or New Zealand is slightly different case's they don't have 100,000+ waiting to be housed with another 5000+ living on the streets

Frank Lee Midere

Who ever got the impression that council
Housing was designed to be temporary? The UK Labour Party built millions of houses to end slums and many - most - went to workers. Not to the unemployed. They were fairly good properties too. Some of the privatised houses are selling for £500k+.

Labour did that ( and FF here) precisely because the market couldn't and wouldn't supply enough housing for workers. If it's true that housing can only be expected to begin in Ireland at about 300k retail on average that's as true now as it was in the 19th and early 20th century.

Qualitymark

Exactly. Social housing is housing built by councils; it's available for rent apposite to your income, and goes by preference to those who need it most, but there's no reason that it shouldn't be open to everyone, once that basic need has been filled.
There's absolutely no reason that it should be temporary. Plenty of good solid communities are built around social housing; these are working people who pay market-level rents.
If the councils were building and maintaining social housing now, it would take the strain off the market and lower demand, and stop rents being so astronomically out of whack with salaries.

hfallada

Victor wrote: »

Actually, no. While the estates build from about 1920-1970 often had a combination of two-storey, semi-detached houses, over-sized gardens, sometimes excess green space and under-used institutional space, since the 1980s properties have generally been built with three-storey terraces, no front garden and only a small rear garden. Pocket parks and existing shared spaces have been used instead of vast expanses of grassland.

But compare a 3 storey house to 8 storey apartments blocks, there is a huge difference in density. There is tons of these generic low density DCC houses in Dublin city, like Pearse St.

Skatedude

NZ_2014 wrote: »

Some people just want a bed, a TV, a bathroom and maybe a small desk.

Check out pictures of yotel..mini hotels in some airports.. I could see a demand for this type of thing from people who just need a bed in a good location.

Also height restrictions definitely should be lifted.

For short term, yes, but would you want to live there for 20 years paying of a mortgage on one? not even mentioning future kids or spouse?

MouseTail

Skatedude wrote: »

For short term, yes, but would you want to live there for 20 years paying of a mortgage on one? not even mentioning future kids or spouse?

That articulates a very problematic mindset which is a byproduct of the economic collapse. Everyone wants to futureproof their housing needs, and have a 3 bed property. That is totally abnormal in a functioning housing market.

Victor

hfallada wrote: »

But compare a 3 storey house to 8 storey apartments blocks, there is a huge difference in density. There is tons of these generic low density DCC houses in Dublin city, like Pearse St.

You forget to mention that with 8 storey apartments blocks you need to provide enhanced open space.

gaius c

Shoeboxes are actually fine for singles or couples looking to save on rent, especially since the bedsit ban.
Sharing a 2 bed with a stranger (and sometimes even a friend, is crap).

The reasoning behind the size restrictions was the misguided notion that families should live in apartments wholesale, which is patent bollocks. If more apartments were available where they were required (city centre) and they were cheaper, then young professionals would live in them instead of housesharing & competing with families for limited housing stock.

Mrs OBumble

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Who ever got the impression that council
Housing was designed to be temporary? The UK Labour Party built millions of houses to end slums and many - most - went to workers. Not to the unemployed. They were fairly good properties too. Some of the privatised houses are selling for £500k+.

Some people (including me) believe that social housing should be contingent on need: if a person's circumstances improve so that they don't need housing assistance any more, then they no longer qualify for it. We have this belief for various reasons, mine are based on the personal moral hazzard associated with the state providing something that people can do for themselves, ie that it keeps people dependent when they don't need to be.

In the areas where I have worked (across several councils in Ireland), rents are purely income-related with a cap, not market-related. So even people paying maximum rent were often paying vastly less than market rent for their area. Except if they lived in areas with low market rents, in which case they were sometimes asked to pay more for social housing than they would pay for equivalent private-sector housing.