Dublin City Council proposing to relax minimum apartment standards

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:

Irish apartments will be the slums of the future. The majority built so far are simply too small for anything other than transient living.

Icepick

gaius c wrote: »

Exactly. Irish apartments are ridiculously expensive

they are not compared to similar cities

The problem is there are too few

the_syco

Qualitymark wrote: »

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

Ah. 25a Pembroke Gardens. From looking at this, I see why it's not being rented to anyone; too much hassle.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

valuable city space

It comes down to this. Certain dole for life people expect the government to supply them with a house near their family.

Daith wrote: »

They need to priced exactly right otherwise they're going to be left empty or have couples move in instead.

People commuting from Maynooth, Clane, Naas, Swords, Malahide, Dunboyne may disagree.

Idbatterim wrote: »

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.

Maybe not Heuston; west of Christchurch is generally a no-go area after dark if you're a woman.
Also, they build apartments near Heuston, but don't think many bought them?

Greenmachine wrote: »

Dreaded 404 Error:mad:

Take out the ) at the end.

=-=

Move the people in council paid houses to houses outside the M50. If they want to pick their location, they can pay like everyone else.

I'm sorry, but someone who gets a house for free (and/or heavily subsidised) in Dublin forcing those who do pay, to live outside of Dublin, doesn't seem right.

MouseTail

Daith wrote: »

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

exactly, and part of that mix is entry level housing. The outlawing of bed sits put pressure on all housing types and exasperated the crisis. Small studios provide affordable housing either to renters or buyers. Our demographics show single person households are likely to grow, and this is a response to that.

Supercell

Greenmachine wrote: »

Dreaded 404 Error:mad:

Sorry, I fixed the link now, the corrected version should be - http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-the-151738

Qualitymark

the_syco wrote: »

Move the people in council paid houses to houses outside the M50. If they want to pick their location, they can pay like everyone else.

I'm sorry, but someone who gets a house for free (and/or heavily subsidised) in Dublin forcing those who do pay, to live outside of Dublin, doesn't seem right.

<Mod snip>

(Mod snip: I was joking! But no problem with snippage if it didn't come across that way.)

Council tenants don't get their houses for free, or, normally, heavily subsidised. Local authority rents are based on a system called 'differential rents'. Rent is based on ability to pay: if household income is low, your rent will be low; and if income increases, so will rent.

At the moment 42,000 people are on the waiting list; there are 21,500 applicants (families or single people), of which 1,368 have been waiting for over 10 years.

The lead story in tomorrow's Examiner says that 93% of rented homes fail living standard inspections.

Greenmachine

You really have to pay for a larger place. No idea of the exact floor space of my little place.
It is one of 3 above a shop. Another on the first floor and there is a studio in the attic. I checked the length of the external wall from the hall and the width from my bedroom. I have all of 26.25 sq m less whatever the kitchen counter, internal walls and chimney stacks take. I guess you can knock off at least 2 sq meters there.
I saw another place not too far away a 2 bed in this case, going for €1700 when I saw it was 5 times the size of my place it made sense. This place was small development with about 60 apartments. Allowing smaller places on sales market would only suit the developers. But may be suitable integrated within a development with apartment with some more generous apartments.

Daith

the_syco wrote: »

People commuting from Maynooth, Clane, Naas, Swords, Malahide, Dunboyne may disagree.

These are all single people who can't afford to rent closer (which these apartments are aimed at)? I'd be surprised tbh.

I'm in agreement that these smaller apts are needed I'm just unsure it's going to have much of an affect outside non-Irish coming over for work/study and late 20s ppl already renting/house sharing in Dublin. I hope I'm wrong though.

Qualitymark

I'm worried by the idea expressed by some here that the poor should be excluded into housing away from others. This kind of ghettoisation has been a disaster, for instance in the US with its 'projects'. Mixed housing, with people of different incomes living in a mixed society, is a better social plan.

It's also not a good idea to build a huge chunk of housing and introduce huge numbers new people into an established neighbourhood - especially one without facilities such as shops, library, recreational facilities, green space.

The planners seem to have no idea of this, instead imagining many people neatly stacked in dormitories. Current plans in some suburbs, for instance Harold's Cross, envisage several thousand new inhabitants in apartments and 'aparthotels' in what have hitherto been pleasant, quiet areas. The introduction of many new people without facilities invariably results in breaking of social networks with bad results.

Getting back for a moment to the question of derelict houses, in the boom years these were routinely bought, unboarded, cleaned and painted - they rarely needed more than this, but occasionally needed a bit of plumbing and wiring help - and re-sold, and became someone's prized family home.

Where I live I walk daily past many empty houses, as I've said. One is a tall early Victorian redbrick on a gracious square, which has been empty for over 25 years. Several others are former Corporation houses bought by their tenants, whose offspring have left them empty on their parents' deaths. Another is a former convent. There's a whole terrace of houses boarded up; they were briefly for sale recently. Another is an artisan cottage, empty and boarded-up, dampening the house next door. And so on.

This caused much indignation for a while, and a tax on derelict sites was instituted. But like many Irish laws that may not be convenient for some, it was enthusiastically pursued for a little while and then fell into disuse.

I can only assume that these empty houses are being used to stash money that might otherwise be taxed…

gaius c

Icepick wrote: »

they are not compared to similar cities

The problem is there are too few

Got some comparisons with similar cities handy?