Dublin City Council proposing to relax minimum apartment standards

Taboola

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0727/717556-proposal-to-relax-minimum-apartment-stanards/

Having seen some of the absolute dives on Daft.ie I don't think this is the right move at all.

A new studio apartment classification with a smaller minimum area of 45 square metres will be allowed in private rental schemes and in converted upper floors of city centre buildings.

That would be nearly 20% smaller than the existing minimum.

The proposals from council planners would also reduce the 'dual aspect' requirement - that apartments have windows on two different walls - from 85% of units in any scheme to 50%.

There had been a ban on single aspect units being north facing but this would be allowed if the unit overlooks a body of water or designated green space.

Single aspect east facing units would now be allowed.

The number of single units permitted in a scheme would be increased from 20% to 30% with a quarter of these allowed to be studios if the scheme has been purpose built for private rental.

It is also proposing to increase the maximum number of floors in a most standard residential schemes from 7 to 8 to make it the same as commercial developments.

But the existing minimum size of standard new apartments in Dublin will remain at 55 square metres for a one bedroom unit compared to the Government minimum of 45 square metres with similar higher space for two and three bedroom units.

There are also no major changes proposed for the strategy on tall buildings.

In the draft development plan 2016 to 2022 sent to councillors, Chief Executive Owen Keegan states that the provision of housing is the single most important objective of the plan.

Cllr Keegan says the plan would allow the council to fufill its commitment to provide 4,200 homes each year totalling 29,500 by 2022.

The Government's Housing Agency had publicly urged the council to bring in a provision for smaller rental units.

The Royal Society of Architects in Ireland and the Construction Industry Federation had also urged relaxation of apartment standards.

Architects had argued that the 85% dual aspect requirement in particular had a disproportionate effect on decreasing the amount of apartments that could be built per floor.

It is up to elected councillors to agree on a new development plan they will now be given until 14 August to submit motions followed by a special meeting on 16 September.

charlietheminxx

I viewed an apartment a few weeks ago that will haunt me forever, and it met the existing standards. I dread to think of the miserable little dark holes people will end up stuck living in I understand there's a rental crisis, but dropping the standards of what's acceptable is NOT a way to resolve it.

the groutch

sounds like it's to better facilitate the conversion of office/commercial space into apartments for corporate rentals.

The_Conductor

I'm not in favour of allowing a reduction in apartment sizes- if anything- I'd argue that we urgently need larger apartments- as we have thousands of people trying to bring up children in grossly unsuitable accommodation, as is.

With respect of having to have windows with two aspects in apartments- I genuinely think a well insulated apartment with a good energy rating- is more critical, than getting hung up over dual aspects.

If the aim of this is to facilitate the conversion of pre-existing buildings into apartments- fine- but lets not reduce sizes and/or other specs- just to shoehorn apartments into existing buildings.

Improving public transport- and building where people have access to the facilities and amenities they need- should be to the fore- not trying to accommodate the owners of existing buildings. If this means- condemning existing buildings and replacing them with more appropriate modern constructions- so be it. However- you have to balance this with ensuring that any buildings of significance- especially Georgian Dublin- are preserved, as they should be.

TheDoc

Jesus, they can't even interpret their own data correctly.

The problem, and massive housing shortage is being caused by unsuitable accomodation and property for young families(young couples with young children). This is obviously in an effort to try meet the social housing backlog that is backed up beyond belief, but none of these are appropriate for those in emergency accommodation waiting on the government to pull the finger out.

So what are they going to do? Go back to the 1940's tenements that were a sesspool for disease and death and made for a poverty standard of living, or are they going to priorities single people, cause that is all these new regulations are good for,

Teyla Emmagan

If this is to allow people "live above the shop" then I am all for it.

Daith

TheDoc wrote: »

The problem, and massive housing shortage is being caused by unsuitable accomodation and property for young families(young couples with young children). This is obviously in an effort to try meet the social housing backlog that is backed up beyond belief, but none of these are appropriate for those in emergency accommodation waiting on the government to pull the finger out.

Ideally if we had a better crop of 1 bed apartments then you'd find many people who houseshare would instead rent a 1 bed. This would free up the 2/3 beds for actual families.

Ideally single people or couples without children renting 1 beds. The problem is that studios aren't suitable for couples (esp if they make them smaller!) and the price difference between a studio and house share (with bills etc) won't be that much in Dublin.

Mr. Incognito

http://www.newstalk.com/Why-are-Dublin-City-planners-looking-to-allow-smaller-darker-apartments

http://www.labour.ie/andrewmontague/

Heard him on the Radio this morning.

Andrew,

I am one of the many working thirty somethings saving for a home with my girlfriend.

We live in a North facing two bed room apartment in Rathmines.

I was appalled to hear you advocating for smaller apartments.

Dublin needs proper planning. It needs Social and Affordable housing lists to decline.

Dublin needs an end to flats which turn into squats and drive anti-social behaviour.

I was driven to email you as a result of your interview. I know that you are a hard working public represenatiative advocating for quality housing but a shoe box is a shoe box no matter how brightly you paint it.

The simpliest answers are not always the that simple.

More constructive ideas are

1. The release of a portion of NAMA developments for social and affordable housing.
2. A private public partnership where developers could finish unfinished developments in return for a portion given over to social and affordable housing.
3. Local Authorities not taking financial contributions in lieu of statutory affordable housing.

http://www.labour.ie/andrewmontague/

Until recently I would have voted Labour. When I hear a Labour councellor advocating on behalf of slum landlords I know that the party has seriously lost its way.

You really are abondoning your roots for short sighted soundbites. People are not stupid.

I shall not be supporting you or your party based on your representations.

Regards,

Emailed him from my personal email. I would encourage people to do the same if you want things to change.

Qualitymark

MouseTail wrote: »

But this model creates a welfare/poverty trap, far better imo to allow people to continue to live in Social Housing, even if they should find work and improve their circumstances, but remove the rent cap.

What rent cap? Friends who live in council housing and have work are paying quite high rents.

There are many, many nice houses empty and unused in Dublin - look at the lovely 1890s example here 53.333817, -6.237843 - that surely should either be brought compulsorily into use, or taxed so that the money could go into the councils' housing fund.

Gumbo

The Apartment size guideines have not changed, only to allow Studio type apartments is what i make of it.

gaius c

TheDoc wrote: »

Jesus, they can't even interpret their own data correctly.

The problem, and massive housing shortage is being caused by unsuitable accomodation and property for young families(young couples with young children). This is obviously in an effort to try meet the social housing backlog that is backed up beyond belief, but none of these are appropriate for those in emergency accommodation waiting on the government to pull the finger out.

So what are they going to do? Go back to the 1940's tenements that were a sesspool for disease and death and made for a poverty standard of living, or are they going to priorities single people, cause that is all these new regulations are good for,

It will help because right now, those people invariably houseshare in properties that would be more suitable for family use.

Daith

gaius c wrote: »

It will help because right now, those people invariably houseshare in properties that would be more suitable for family use.

Yup so these studios would have to represent better value than house sharing (and splitting bills). I'm not entirely convinced this will happen.

loyatemu

Daith wrote: »

Yup so these studios would have to represent better value than house sharing (and splitting bills). I'm not entirely convinced this will happen.

they will have to price them competitively, otherwise they'll sit empty. Given the choice a lot of people would rather have their own place, or share a 2-bed rather than share living space with 3 or more other people.

Daith

loyatemu wrote: »

they will have to price them competitively, otherwise they'll sit empty. Given the choice a lot of people would rather have their own place, or share a 2-bed rather than share living space with 3 or more other people.

And who doesn't want to have their fridge, shower and bed all in the one room :P

Be interesting to see exactly what happens.

gaius c

Daith wrote: »

Yup so these studios would have to represent better value than house sharing (and splitting bills). I'm not entirely convinced this will happen.

Exactly. Irish apartments are ridiculously expensive and prohibitive to them being used by the very people who should be living in them.

P.S. Also badly located. I marvel at that 8 storey block in Stepaside. What lunatic approved that!

The_Conductor

Qualitymark wrote: »

There are many, many nice houses empty and unused in Dublin

There aren't though- thats the problem.
There are always a small number of vacant (and indeed some derelict) properties in Dublin (or any other locale). The councils do buy properties like this (eventually)- typically after the 12 year window has passed- and normally only if there are difficulties contacting the owner and serving orders on them.

If you look- you will find the odd house here or there- some in good condition- vacant. However, its a very very small number- and in the overall context of the number of properties needed in the greater Dublin- wholly inconsequential.

At present- significant numbers of landlords are trying to get vacant possession of properties- in order to dispose of them. On average- where the property was previously tenanted- it is now taking just under 6 months to sell it. These also feature on your- nice but vacant list.

Current government policy- is to discourage small scale landlords from letting property- through draconian taxation policies. This is driving the shortage in the rental sector- as clearly as almost any other thing.

the_syco

Qualitymark wrote: »

There are many, many nice houses empty and unused in Dublin - look at the lovely 1890s example here 53.333817, -6.237843

I'm unsure what you're looking at?

The_Conductor wrote: »

Current government policy- is to discourage small scale landlords from letting property- through draconian taxation policies. This is driving the shortage in the rental sector- as clearly as almost any other thing.

The government really has lit both sides of the candle on this one; at one end, taxing them, but at the other end giving them so little rights, that if someone were to stop paying rent, it would take a sheriff to remove them, after many months of court.

Eric Cartman

dublin does not need more social housing, social housing tenants should not be put in accommodation in areas that most private buyers can only dream of affording.

Supercell

The problem here is that you can't build up in Ireland - 8 stories is a skyscraper in our planners minds. So we end up with urban sprawl and tiny apartments.
Alternatively we could have 80 story buildings near the city - say by the docks , with 100 sq m 2 beds etc and a thriving city center community for the same money.
Dublin is a low rise city, so say the planners that seem to wish we still had the horse and cart.

Qualitymark

the_syco wrote: »

I'm unsure what you're looking at?

It's behind ya. Turn the view around in a circle. Bungalow on the corner.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

dublin does not need more social housing, social housing tenants should not be put in accommodation in areas that most private buyers can only dream of affording.

More social housing will take the pressure off the market and let the prices settle.

As for Ireland and building upwards, our problem is that we know how to build tall - look at Ballymun - but we change the plans when the building is done, so the planned facilities - playgrounds, good shops, libraries, cinemas, clubs, cycle tracks - are never built, and we don't maintain the buildings; people who lived in Ballymun were constantly having to haul their groceries up many floors because the lifts weren't maintained, and they didn't have good, safe places for kids to play, or other facilities.

Idbatterim

ok, pretty much everyone I know in Dublin, would like to live alone, but are prohibited from doing so, by the sky high rents. They wont do anything about the cost of building, if I could live on my own, in a 35 sq metre apartment, I would jump at the chance, if 35 sq m is the cost of me being able to live alone, I would jump at it. The people making these decisions sure as hell wont be living in them. Give people the choice... Yes there do need to be bigger family friendly apartments, but IMO, there also needs to be much smaller one bed apartments permitted...

I was looking at what is permitted in Leeds earlier, as I am over there often enough, there are new builds, with very compact one bedroom apartments, so the councils deem it ok over there, with their much better system and actual accountability, yet our clowns reckon they know best. In my opinion and from what I have seen, if the councils are only thinking about existing residents and being re-elected, government needs to step in and act, withdraw the power from them if possible.

They wont put in a decent transport system, allow for realistic densities, the docklands 5-6 storey rubbish is a criminal waste of prime space...

The problem here is that you can't build up in Ireland - 8 stories is a skyscraper in our planners minds. So we end up with urban sprawl and tiny apartments.
Alternatively we could have 80 story buildings near the city - say by the docks , with 100 sq m 2 beds etc and a thriving city center community for the same money.
Dublin is a low rise city, so say the planners that seem to wish we still had the horse and cart.

the PD's proposed this, which I think was an excellent idea, give it another few years, when we are back at crisis point and then land values are totally insane again...

https://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/from-2006-a-new-heart-for-dublin-progressive-democrat-proposals-for-a-new-high-rise-quarter-where-dublin-port-was-with-great-pics/

Daith

Idbatterim wrote: »

if I could live on my own, in a 35 sq metre apartment, I would jump at the chance, if 35 sq m is the cost of me being able to live alone, I would jump at it. The people making these decisions sure as hell wont be living in them. Give people the choice... Yes there do need to be bigger family friendly apartments, but IMO, there also needs to be much smaller one bed apartments permitted...

A small 1 bed apt with separate bathroom, kitchen, bed? Sure. I don't think that's what we are getting though. It's a smaller studio. There's nothing wrong with studios but I don't think they'll have the same effect.

Cuddlesworth

I think there is a serious demand for hotel room sized single person accommodation in the city center. Rooms that would normally fit twice into the current 1 bed standards. They can have a separate kitchenette and toilet on the inside, with a single large balcony window leading into a shared bedroom/sitting room.

Qualitymark

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I think there is a serious demand for hotel room sized single person accommodation in the city center. Rooms that would normally fit twice into the current 1 bed standards. They can have a separate kitchenette and toilet on the inside, with a single large balcony window leading into a shared bedroom/sitting room.

That's fine if you're going to use it as a base for a temporary student life interrupted by regular trips home to the mammy with the washing. But to base our planning for family accommodation on poky little flats is not a good social model.

Eric Cartman

I think if dublin city council sold all the land currently used for social housing in dublin 1,2,4,6,6w & 8 , they could afford to build new social housing much further out of the valuable city space and provide development land for the much needed private developments inside the city.

gaius c

Qualitymark wrote: »

That's fine if you're going to use it as a base for a temporary student life interrupted by regular trips home to the mammy with the washing. But to base our planning for family accommodation on poky little flats is not a good social model.

What does your post have to do with Cuddlesworth's?
He's clearly talking about "single person accommodation in the city center".

Qualitymark

Will it be legally protected as only for single people? No? Thought not.

kupus

Looks like a money making scheme. Turn a single apartment into two. Then you have two properties to sell instead of one.

Figures just for example purposes....... One apartment 100,000 euro. Split it into two you can get 60-75 thousand and an easier sell.

Greenmachine

Would be okay with smaller well designed apartments being built for the rental market, provided their were rental controls and your rent was dictated by the market with restriction on large rent increases.

Cuddlesworth

Qualitymark wrote: »

That's fine if you're going to use it as a base for a temporary student life interrupted by regular trips home to the mammy with the washing. But to base our planning for family accommodation on poky little flats is not a good social model.

I've been renting for 10 years. Any person I have met would have moved into such a room if the rent was the equivalent of their current living situation, including me. And all of them lived in "family homes". This makes the actual families that want to rent be in competition with 2+ childless mid tier earners with no responsibilities.

Qualitymark

The_Conductor wrote: »

There aren't though- thats the problem.
There are always a small number of vacant (and indeed some derelict) properties in Dublin (or any other locale). The councils do buy properties like this (eventually)- typically after the 12 year window has passed- and normally only if there are difficulties contacting the owner and serving orders on them.

I walk my dog around my local area in a nice, not particularly wealthy suburb. I see many empty houses with grass knee-height and ragged lace curtains or blocked-up windows. In theory, there's a tax of 3% of the value per year chargeable on these. In practice, only something like 30 sites in Dublin are being charged this - there's a list online.

I was canvassing during the recent referendum and similarly saw many houses and apartments empty and unused - the houses often with padlocked gates, the apartments boarded up.

This is, of course, only one person's experience and observation.

Idbatterim

Looks like a money making scheme. Turn a single apartment into two. Then you have two properties to sell instead of one.

Figures just for example purposes....... One apartment 100,000 euro. Split it into two you can get 60-75 thousand and an easier sell.

yeah but a lot of builders are not building at the moment, as margins are too low. If they start building again and I can get my own place, great. I am far more concerned about being able to rent my own place, than if it is 45 or 55 sq m :rolleyes: These planners are totally and utterly out of touch with reality! Its no wonder we have this massive sprawl, crap transport system, water and waste water infrastructure etc, all thanks to our "worldclass" planners!

I've been renting for 10 years. Any person I have met would have moved into such a room if the rent was the equivalent of their current living situation, including me. And all of them lived in "family homes". This makes the actual families that want to rent be in competition with 2+ childless mid tier earners with no responsibilities.

absolutely, I know loads of people renting and absolutely everyone, would far prefer to live alone, even paying more than they are now, but the premium at the moment is too much.

Look, do these planners, give a toss about the appalling build quality that they permit? do they care about the massive cost on multiple front on the low density rubbish they permit? If the answer is no and it certainly appears that way, why have this total irrational obsession with minimum square metre?

Daith

Idbatterim wrote: »

absolutely, I know loads of people renting and absolutely everyone, would far prefer to live alone, even paying more than they are now, but the premium at the moment is too much.

How much is too much? That's what the primary issue is going to be. They need to priced exactly right otherwise they're going to be left empty or have couples move in instead.

Idbatterim

I think it it outrageous to be dictating to people where they should and should not live. Them doing nothing is ok and being largely responsible for the current crisis seems to be accepable, yet now allowing smaller unites, which people would be CHOOSING to live in, is not? On one hand, I could understand getting away with any minimum requirements. People then have a choice, have a ridiculous commute, pay a fortune in your salary to live alone in a current one or two bed apartment, share with others, move back home if an option.If the planners wont sort the issues, its time central government got on their back, big time!

Something has to give, either get away with the low blocks currently allowed or allow smaller units, my opinion, would be to do both... As in income increases or circumstances change, you can always "upgrade"... The "choice" at the moment is appalling for people...

There was a good article on this issue a few weeks back in the indo, I will try find the link...

gaius c

Qualitymark wrote: »

Will it be legally protected as only for single people? No? Thought not.

More accommodation is needed. Give single people the option to not houseshare and it will free up houses for families.

Daith

gaius c wrote: »

More accommodation is needed. Give single people the option to not houseshare and it will free up houses for families.

I don't think this will free up actual houses. 2/3 bed apts maybe.

Idbatterim

More accommodation is needed. Give single people the option to not houseshare and it will free up houses for families.

good point...

there needs to be large amounts built in multiple location on good transport links, docklands, sandyford business park, maybe around heuston etc. Get Nama involved if needs be.

gaius c

Daith wrote: »

I don't think this will free up actual houses. 2/3 bed apts maybe.

We have the lowest population density in western Europe. There is absolutely no necessity to house family units in apartments. What we do need to do is reduce the sprawl and increase the density in the urban centres. Less people living in city centres near work means more people competing for limited stock in suburbs, putting pressure on facilities there.

We don't have to go skyscraper high but there shouldn't be a building under 4 stories between the canals in Dublin.

The concept of sharing a suburban house distant from work and social life is completely alien to European twentysomethings.

Daith

gaius c wrote: »

The concept of sharing a suburban house distant from work and social life is completely alien to European twentysomethings.

Dublin is tiny. If you're sharing a house in Drumcondra that's nothing to the city center, college or your social life. Never mind that suburban houses mostly come with parking.

These smaller apartments are going to be for people in late 20s who want their own space or non Irish coming over for work.

Suburban houses are going to be rented out by college goers, people starting work until then.

loyatemu

student accommodation is also a big factor - lots of students living in shared semis; proper student residences around the city would free up the houses they currently rent.

Supercell

Dublin is tiny by international standards but so is our transportation system, our gridlock is truely international in standard, its not good enough to make comparisons by distance unless you have wings.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/growing-gridlock-in-dublin-a-threat-to-economic-recovery-31242631.html

Business chiefs have warned that congestion in Dublin is a threat to economic recovery after the capital was ranked the ninth worst city in Europe for traffic.
The annual congestion index from satnav maker Tom Tom claimed that the city was worse than both London and Paris.

Its downright upsetting to read that the solution being put forward is to build even smaller apartments (which are almost the smallest in the world as it is - http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-the-151738. People don't want to live in tiny places if they are given a choice and to suggest otherwise is inaccurate in my opinion.

I'm sure many many irish have lived in apartments abroad at one stage or another in skyscraper and we didn't all huddle in the corner in a fetal position with the horror of it. Personally I've loved staying 50 stories up in an apartment in Guangzhou last time I was there with amazing views over the city. They don't need to be ghettos like Ballymun if there is a mixture of social and non social housing, people who have to pay for their accommodation at market rates from their own earnings tend to look after the place better it's just a fact of life.

Daith

loyatemu wrote: »

student accommodation is also a big factor - lots of students living in shared semis; proper student residences around the city would free up the houses they currently rent.

Yeah I think a mix of different types of accommodation is needed.

Idbatterim

We don't have to go skyscraper high but there shouldn't be a building under 4 stories between the canals in Dublin.

if they have such an aversion to skyscrapers. Why not go from simply 5-6 - 10-12 floors, low - medium rise and would negate need for skyscrapers. I am talking about the docklands here...

Daith

Idbatterim wrote: »

if they have such an aversion to skyscrapers. Why not go from simply 5-6 - 10-12 floors, low - medium rise and would negate need for skyscrapers. I am talking about the docklands here...

Taller not smaller! Vote Daith #1 #GE16!

gaius c

Daith wrote: »

Dublin is tiny. If you're sharing a house in Drumcondra that's nothing to the city center, college or your social life. Never mind that suburban houses mostly come with parking.

These smaller apartments are going to be for people in late 20s who want their own space or non Irish coming over for work.

Suburban houses are going to be rented out by college goers, people starting work until then.

Drumcondra is just outside the canals. It is in the city centre or as near as. I'm on about suburbs like Clonsilla, Swords, Ballycullen, Firhouse, Rathfarnham and Clondalkin. Dublin isn't so tiny when you're trying to get the bus in from Ongar or Firhouse.

Twentysomethings should not be taking up housing stock in such areas simply because we've failed to provide them with reasonably affordable stock closer to their place of work and social life.

gaius c

Idbatterim wrote: »

if they have such an aversion to skyscrapers. Why not go from simply 5-6 - 10-12 floors, low - medium rise and would negate need for skyscrapers. I am talking about the docklands here...

Even eliminating the two-storey buildings and bungalows from inside the canals would help significantly.

Daith

gaius c wrote: »

Drumcondra is just outside the canals. It is in the city centre or as near as. I'm on about suburbs like Clonsilla, Swords, Ballycullen, Firhouse, Rathfarnham and Clondalkin. Dublin isn't so tiny when you're trying to get the bus in from Ongar or Firhouse.

Are you saying there's pent up demand for families to move to these areas but they can't because of renters/house shares?

gaius c wrote: »

Twentysomethings should not be taking up housing stock in such areas simply because we've failed to provide them with reasonably affordable stock closer to their place of work and social life.

I'd be surprised if a lot of people renting in the areas you mentioned (or house sharing) and commuting to the city center will be able to afford these new 1 beds closer to the city tbh. I guess that's the sweet spot that the price needs to be though.

Qualitymark

gaius c wrote: »

Even eliminating the two-storey buildings and bungalows from inside the canals would help significantly.

All those 18th- and 19th-century classics like the houses along Heytesbury Street? Good luck with that!

gaius c

Qualitymark wrote: »

All those 18th- and 19th-century classics like the houses along Heytesbury Street? Good luck with that!

Fair point. I kind of had the bungalows of Stoneybatter in mind for some kangohammering or the derelict buildings on Camden st that have stayed stubbornly undeveloped right through the bubble and bust..

gaius c

Daith wrote: »

Are you saying there's pent up demand for families to move to these areas but they can't because of renters/house shares?

Supply is tight across the board and D15 is awash with family homes being let out to houseshares, especially the newer houses around Ongar & Littlepace. I know because I lived in a few of them for about three years.

I'd be surprised if a lot of people renting in the areas you mentioned (or house sharing) and commuting to the city center will be able to afford these new 1 beds closer to the city tbh. I guess that's the sweet spot that the price needs to be though.

And that's kind of the nub of the issue. Irish accommodation is too expensive and restrictive forcing all sorts of ridiculous compromises that are completely alien to our continental neighbours. Apartments are priced as if they were boutique Greenwich living spaces when really they should be priced as the functional living units they are. So we need more of them and they need to be a lot cheaper.

Greenmachine

Supercell wrote: »

Dublin is tiny by international standards but so is our transportation system, our gridlock is truely international in standard, its not good enough to make comparisons by distance unless you have wings.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/growing-gridlock-in-dublin-a-threat-to-economic-recovery-31242631.html


Its downright upsetting to read that the solution being put forward is to build even smaller apartments (which are almost the smallest in the world as it is - http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-the-151738). People don't want to live in tiny places if they are given a choice and to suggest otherwise is inaccurate in my opinion.

I'm sure many many irish have lived in apartments abroad at one stage or another in skyscraper and we didn't all huddle in the corner in a fetal position with the horror of it. Personally I've loved staying 50 stories up in an apartment in Guangzhou last time I was there with amazing views over the city. They don't need to be ghettos like Ballymun if there is a mixture of social and non social housing, people who have to pay for their accommodation at market rates from their own earnings tend to look after the place better it's just a fact of life.

Dreaded 404 Error:mad: