Foley Street, Dublin 1

adlerhn

Hi,

I am considering renting an apartment in Foley Street, D1. I know, everybody says that D1 is bad. But there are of course better and worse areas.

Is Foley Street considered unsafe? I have seen some posts from 2009 saying so, but 6 years are a long way. Is it still considered unsafe? If so, how unsafe is it? Sheriff Street or Summerhill unsafe?

I'd love to see crime statistics per area/street, if that information is available anywhere.

usernamegoes

adlerhn wrote: »

Hi,

I am considering renting an apartment in Foley Street, D1. I know, everybody says that D1 is bad. But there are of course better and worse areas.

Is Foley Street considered unsafe? I have seen some posts from 2009 saying so, but 6 years are a long way. Is it still considered unsafe? If so, how unsafe is it? Sheriff Street or Summerhill unsafe?

I'd love to see crime statistics per area/street, if that information is available anywhere.

I was mugged, beaten up by two lads and a girl on Foley St about 5 years ago. All the apartments on and around Foley St are like fortresses for a reason.

Turtle_

When people say there are worse places... The worse places they're thinking of are the likes of Foley Street...

LilyShame

I lived very near there (1-bed apt around the corner) and walked home from my job every evening from 2006-2012 and never once had a problem. But maybe I was just lucky...

johnnyskeleton

It's a place steeped in history. It used to be called Montgomery Street or "Monto" and was one of the largest red light districts in Europe.

It isn't the worst part of the city centre but you are close to Sean MacDermott Street and the whole area around it is a bit shabby. As with everything if you get somewhere for a good price it may be worth it, but on the other hand the lower price reflects the lack of demand for it!

myshirt

Mate lived in The Steelworks for 3 years, no problems. All depends how you handle yourself also.

foggy_lad

myshirt wrote: »

Mate lived in The Steelworks for 3 years, no problems. All depends how you handle yourself also.

You shouldn't have to "handle! yourself to be able to live in certain areas.

Explosive_Cornflake

I lived in the steelworks also.
It's certinaly got character.
If it were me I wouldn't go back, once was enough.

cson

I'd be familiar with it, bit of a kip but the Steelworks seem like nice enough apartments. You're smack bang in the middle of town though & have the DART and Red Line Luas literally 5 mins walk away so that's something to take into consideration.

It's a rough area no doubt, but will you get into bother? Same with anywhere if you're sensible you should be fine. Though on the balance of probabilities you'd have to say there's a higher chance of something happening in that area than say Clontarf 5 miles out the road.

Turtle_

myshirt wrote: »

Mate lived in The Steelworks for 3 years, no problems. All depends how you handle yourself also.

Friends of mine parked there and got out of the car. No sooner than they had locked it than two gardai pulled up beside them to tell them they needed to get back in the car and drive away. Seemingly a couple of very predatory scumbags had been watching them and the gardai reckoned there was enough of a threat to them to tell them to get the hell away from there.

Handle yourself my eye.. The area is about as dangerous and unsavoury as areas in the city centre get.

Bob24

adlerhn wrote: »

I am considering renting an apartment in Foley Street, D1. I know, everybody says that D1 is bad. But there are of course better and worse areas.

I'd have to agree with some other posters in saying Foley Street is one of those worse areas.

You probably noticed that compared to other places which are just a stone's throw away (pun intended) the rent is cheaper for the same type of property ... there is a reason for that.

Friends of mine were going to buy an apartment there and on the way to meet their surveyor there they walked past a guy who was breaking into a car in from of them, when he saw they were looking at him he kept going and made it clear it was his territory and not theirs. They asked the Garda station about the place and were politely told to think twice before buying (Gardee said they are called for incidents on that specific street every single day).

I myself cross it once in a while as it is on the shortest path between to locations I go to for work. I have also seen a few dodgy things and been shot at with toy weapons. Employer has recommended for the staff not to use that route.

In short: if you are a single male who looks strong enough and doesn't mind witnessing some dodgy things once in a while you'd probably be fine and will get a cheaper rent. But otherwise I wouldn't recommend it.

Muahahaha

A mate got mugged on Foley St a few years back, about 50m from the Steelworks. IMO its dodgy and hasn't got any better, avoid.

I know the area quite well.

Don't do it. It's horrible.

I've lived in er, "colourful" places all over the world so I'm not a delicate flower, but that part of town is grim. I would never choose to live there.

adlerhn

Thanks everybody for your pieces of advice.

This evening I have passed by that street at 7:30 or so, and have seen two guys in a corner who were almost certainly selling drugs to each other.

So yeah, I don't think it has improved much since 2009. I'll avoid it.

Eric Cartman

I work on talbot street and have to walk down foley street to my car at night. I think it would be considered a UN human rights violation to force anybody to walk down that street at night. Broken glass, open heroin use, a bunch of cars were burned out on halloween week one street over.

Id rather live in chernobyl

Bob24

adlerhn wrote: »

Thanks everybody for your pieces of advice.

This evening I have passed by that street at 7:30 or so, and have seen two guys in a corner who were almost certainly selling drugs to each other.

So yeah, I don't think it has improved much since 2009. I'll avoid it.

Wise decision.

myshirt

Christ, that bad?
Where else are you gents saying to avoid?

Eric Cartman

myshirt wrote: »

Christ, that bad?
Where else are you gents saying to avoid?

in the attached picture the road on the very left is oconnel street and the river is the very south of the picture. With the exception of the apartments directly around the chq building , there is nowhere decently safe I can think of to live on this map.

markpb

A friend of mine works for a company in the area. The staff are mugged so often that they have a mandatory personal safety briefing by Gardai on their first week. They're not allowed leave the building unaccompanied after 6:30. The gardai wouldn't walk into the area in groups of less than 5 at Halloween.

Between the druggies waiting for the meth clinic to open in the mornings and the locals there the rest of the time, it's an unpleasant place to be.

Bob24

Eric Cartman wrote: »

in the attached picture the road on the very left is oconnel street and the river is the very south of the picture. With the exception of the apartments directly around the chq building , there is nowhere decently safe I can think of to live on this map.

There are some appartements on Talbot Street which I would say are fine as long as you're not raising a child there. You'd still come across some "interesting" characters but safety would be less of a concern as it is a much busier street than most others in the area (and certainly than Foley Street).

But agreed with you, I would myself avoid the whole area you pictured except the very south east part, and actually if you go just slightly further (mayor square) it becomes much better - and also more expensive.

jathclare

I used to work near the Foley street flats and had my phone pulled out of my hand (my fault for being an easy target) and the little goon ran into the Foley street flats before I could catch him. I told the Gardai and they gave me a lecture for following the little scumbag in there in the first place and I quote "even if you had caught him, the locals would have been after you like a pack of jackels".

I think I even posted my experience onto Boards. So no, I wouldnt recommend living there!

Saipanne

adlerhn wrote: »

Hi,

I am considering renting an apartment in Foley Street, D1. I know, everybody says that D1 is bad. But there are of course better and worse areas.

Is Foley Street considered unsafe? I have seen some posts from 2009 saying so, but 6 years are a long way. Is it still considered unsafe? If so, how unsafe is it? Sheriff Street or Summerhill unsafe?

I'd love to see crime statistics per area/street, if that information is available anywhere.

Foley Street is Dublins "Skid Row".

Caliden

I've lived a very sheltered life.

I opened this thread thinking most replies would be 'it's not the best' / 'safe is you take care of yourself' but every reply is 'stay away'.


Didn't realise it was that bad in that area.

Cuddlesworth

Caliden wrote: »

I've lived a very sheltered life.

I opened this thread thinking most replies would be 'it's not the best' / 'safe is you take care of yourself' but every reply is 'stay away'.


Didn't realise it was that bad in that area.

Combining inner city council housing with a methadone clinic has some interesting effects on a area. Its spreads into Talbot street and connolly station too. It's kinda funny, the local Garda station is a 2 min walk away. Not many places that can claim to be "unsafe" on the doorstep of the authorities.

Daisy78

I work just off Foley St. You couldn't pay me to live there. Even if you were fortunate enough not to get mugged the area in general is very unpleasant. The fact of the matter is that it is a haven for junkies and winos. You are constantly watching your bag, phone, etc and you certainly wouldn't park your car there. There are some nice looking apartment blocks around there but it doesn't outweigh the problems of the area.

Bob24

Daisy78 wrote: »

I work just off Foley St. You couldn't pay me to live there. Even if you were fortunate enough not to get mugged the area in general is very unpleasant. The fact of the matter is that it is a haven for junkies and winos. You are constantly watching your bag, phone, etc and you certainly wouldn't park your car there. There are some nice looking apartment blocks around there but it doesn't outweigh the problems of the area.

Yeah, one improvement in the past few years though is that there seem to be some type of language school opened beside the Steelworks and also an art center/school at the other end of the street. It does bring in more pleasant people during the day. I have sometimes seen people looking for these and looking at a map or at their phone - didn't want to start talking to them out of nowhere and give them a warning as it might seem a bit strange, but kind of wondered whether I should have done it as they clearly looked like easy targets.

Sleepy

The Irish Water offices at the end of Foley Street are covered in posters reminding staff and visitors not to use their phones outside / to make sure to watch their laptop cases etc. A colleague commented that they'd spent half an hour of their induction their being briefed on watching out for themselves on the way to / from work.

It really proves how council housing policies are preventing the inner city from being gentrified. It's location should make Foley Street a prime residential area rather than a no-go kip.

Saipanne

Sleepy wrote: »

The Irish Water offices at the end of Foley Street are covered in posters reminding staff and visitors not to use their phones outside / to make sure to watch their laptop cases etc. A colleague commented that they'd spent half an hour of their induction their being briefed on watching out for themselves on the way to / from work.

It really proves how council housing policies are preventing the inner city from being gentrified. It's location should make Foley Street a prime residential area rather than a no-go kip.

Agreed. Talbot Street could be a great spot if it was cleaned up/out a bit.

Bob24

Sleepy wrote: »

It really proves how council housing policies are preventing the inner city from being gentrified. It's location should make Foley Street a prime residential area rather than a no-go kip.

I'd say yes and no - if the state was doing its duty and enforcing the law rather than being lenient to avoid making waves, council housing itself wouldn't be an issue for the area. What private residents want to avoid as neighbours is not council tenants, it is rather drug dealers and muggers.

But anyway - kind of drifting from then original topic :-)

Sleepy

Using what should be prime real estate to house those unable/unprepared to provide for themselves is a massive waste of state resources. Should these "communities" of social housing tenants be moved to cheaper housing in the suburbs, a fortune could be returned to the exchequer by redeveloping much of the inner city. Some of that money could then be used to fund education, back-to-work schemes etc. to help break the cycle of welfare dependency, drug addiction and crime that is so prevalent in these areas.

But that would involve long-term, brave decision making which we all know is a pipe-dream in this country!

alastair

Sleepy wrote: »

Using what should be prime real estate to house those unable/unprepared to provide for themselves is a massive waste of state resources. Should these "communities" of social housing tenants be moved to cheaper housing in the suburbs, a fortune could be returned to the exchequer by redeveloping much of the inner city. Some of that money could then be used to fund education, back-to-work schemes etc. to help break the cycle of welfare dependency, drug addiction and crime that is so prevalent in these areas.

But that would involve long-term, brave decision making which we all know is a pipe-dream in this country!

Yeah, the previous attempts at wholesale clearing out of inner city communities (no scare quotes needed) to Ballymun, Finglas, Tallaght etc proved to be extremely successful, and a real economic spur to inner city development - not. Honestly, the notion that public housing has no place in the city centre is pretty idiotic. Dublin's problems really aren't anything to do with the numbers of working class, or even welfare-dependent people living in the city. There's ample room and opportunity for all sorts of gentrification in the city as it stands - no need for class cleansing of people out from their homes as a consequence. The Foley street problem is one of crime, not welfare.

Sleepy

The previous attempts to make better use of city centre real estate were done in a typically Irish, half-assed, brown envelopes to the lads fashion. It could further be argued that given the funding that was poured into Ballymun, Finglas and Tallaght, the problem was less the locations and more to do with the members of those "communities". I use the inverted commas not as a scare tactic but one of derision for the label being applied to the residents of such areas: a culture of violence, omerta and fear does not represent a community imo.

Foley Street wouldn't have a crime problem if it wasn't surrounded by social housing and a methadone clinic.

Finally, what is idiotic about the suggestion that prime real estate shouldn't be used for public housing? Land values in the centre of any capital city will be multiples that of land outside of it. Why should those who contribute least to society expect to be housed in more attractive locations than those who pay for that housing?

Cuddlesworth

Sleepy wrote: »

The previous attempts to make better use of city centre real estate were done in a typically Irish, half-assed, brown envelopes to the lads fashion. It could further be argued that given the funding that was poured into Ballymun, Finglas and Tallaght, the problem was less the locations and more to do with the members of those "communities". I use the inverted commas not as a scare tactic but one of derision for the label being applied to the residents of such areas: a culture of violence, omerta and fear does not represent a community imo.

When I was really young, my family moved into a council house in Jobstown in Tallaght. My only real memory is on the week we moved out my father was talking about a few of our neighbors. He said that you could tell who would be there in 20 years and who wouldn't(maybe not in those words). Coming up on 3 decades later, he was pretty spot on in his predictions.

From my family's experience the problem with large scale council housing is that after a decade or two, there is only going to be a high percentage of lifetime council tenants left in the estate. And within that, there is going to be a high percentage of assholes. Which leads to those social issues that are prevalent. Moving them as a group to another location will simply move the problem. That's one of the reason I really like the current policy of integrated council housing into normal estates. It gives the children a chance to avoid those hotspots that currently exist.

Bob24

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

From my family's experience the problem with large scale council housing is that after a decade or two, there is only going to be a high percentage of lifetime council tenants left in the estate. And within that, there is going to be a high percentage of assholes.

Yes and then in the long term you have an evil circle whereby some decent people who would qualify for social housing will avoid it because of antisocial behaviour there. Making the issue worse and worse.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Which leads to those social issues that are prevalent. Moving them as a group to another location will simply move the problem. That's one of the reason I really like the current policy of integrated council housing into normal estates. It gives the children a chance to avoid those hotspots that currently exist.

I would have a caveat there: people benefiting from these schemes should be hand-picked to ensure they do want something better and do show respect to people who potentially paid big money and got a mortgage for their property. And there should be a zero tolerance policy if they are found to misbehave or do things like causing damage to common areas which will reflect in everyone's management fees. If this is not done the policy is just hiding the problem by making it more diffuse (and passing it to private owners) rather than solving it.

alastair

Sleepy wrote: »

Finally, what is idiotic about the suggestion that prime real estate shouldn't be used for public housing? Land values in the centre of any capital city will be multiples that of land outside of it. Why should those who contribute least to society expect to be housed in more attractive locations than those who pay for that housing?

Bingo! There's the idiocy.

Public housing tenancy has absolutely zilch correlation with contributing to society or otherwise. Society is no more or no less likely to benefit from the contributions of a local authority tenant than a private tenant or homeowner. And why exactly do you believe that public housing should be anything less than attractive? I have to admit I don't often encounter such eager advocates for ghettoisation.

Sleepy

alastair wrote: »

Public housing tenancy has absolutely zilch correlation with contributing to society or otherwise. Society is no more or no less likely to benefit from the contributions of a local authority tenant than a private tenant or homeowner. And why exactly do you believe that public housing should be anything less than attractive? I have to admit I don't often encounter such eager advocates for ghettoisation.

You can't see the difference between someone who contributes to the exchequer and someone who's a drain on it? OK then.

Given the price premium of city centre real estate evident in other European cities that aren't blighted by such a high proportion of social housing as Dublin's city centre, there's no reason why the development of Dublin City Centre real estate currently being under-utilised as social housing couldn't fund the development of more, higher quality, social housing units across the city's suburbs. There's no reason for public housing to be a terrible place to live but I also don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that it shouldn't be so attractive that it encourages parasitic behaviour.

Advocating for ghettoisation? I'm arguing against it. Most of the north inner-city already is a ghetto.

alastair

Sleepy wrote: »

You can't see the difference between someone who contributes to the exchequer and someone who's a drain on it? OK then.

Given the price premium of city centre real estate evident in other European cities that aren't blighted by such a high proportion of social housing as Dublin's city centre, there's no reason why the development of Dublin City Centre real estate currently being under-utilised as social housing couldn't fund the development of more, higher quality, social housing units across the city's suburbs. There's no reason for public housing to be a terrible place to live but I also don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that it shouldn't be so attractive that it encourages parasitic behaviour.

Advocating for ghettoisation? I'm arguing against it. Most of the north inner-city already is a ghetto.

Society is not the exchequer, and there are plenty public housing tenants who are net contributors to the exchequer.

Your attitude is clear enough. You believe in the notion of second class citizens. Public housing, to your mind, is equated with that second class citizenry. And there's the core idiocy at play. The city centre contains, whether you like it or not, a community, and suggesting that people be uprooted and moved elsewhere (less attractive no less) simply because they live in public housing rather than private accomodation is nothing cleverer than rank snobbery.

Bob24

This is not an easy question.

In many large European cities, it has became so expensive to live within the central areas of the city that the only people who can raise families in there are the rich and the poor who are entitled to social housing (by raising a family I mean being able to afford a decent sized accommodation).

This means the middle class (hopefully a majority of the population) is getting kicked out of the cities. I am not sure Dublin is fully there yet, but it is not far at all and if I had to name a place I know where that process is fully completed I would mention Paris.

I am very much in favour of pushing for some level of social mix within the city. But on the other end it is completely unreasonable to expect the middle class which is funding it through its taxes not to have a sentiment of injustice seing they are effectively paying for someone's accommodation in a prime location while they are themselves commuting for hours every day because they can't afford to live any closer to the city.

I don't have any great solution for it, but I definitely think this is a problem.

alastair

Bob24 wrote: »

This is not an easy question.

In many large European cities, it has became so expensive to live within the central areas of the city that the only people who can raise families in there are the rich and the poor who are entitled to social housing (by raising a family I mean being able to afford a decent sized accommodation).

This means the middle class (hopefully a majority of the population) is getting kicked out of the cities. I am not sure Dublin is fully there yet, but it is not far at all and if I had to name a place I know where that process is fully completed I would mention Paris.

I am very much in favour of pushing for some level of social mix within the city. But on the other end it is completely unreasonable to expect the middle class which is funding it through its taxes not to have a sentiment of injustice seing they are effectively paying for someone's accommodation in a prime location while they are themselves commuting for hours every day because they can't afford to live any closer to the city.

I don't have any great solution for it, but I definitely think this is a problem.

What's entirely unreasonable is to ignore the fact that only 20% of inner city Dublin's housing stock is public housing. That's 80% of stock in the private sector, and yes - there's lots of middle class people living in the inner city. You don't have to be rich to afford living in the city. Raising a family in the inner city is more of a challenge, but not because of prohibitive costs - it's more to do with choice of schools.

Bob24

alastair wrote: »

What's entirely unreasonable is to ignore the fact that only 20% of inner city Dublin's housing stock is public housing. That's 80% of stock in the private sector, and yes - there's lots of middle class people living in the inner city. You don't have to be rich to afford living in the city. Raising a family in the inner city is more of a challenge, but not because of prohibitive costs - it's more to do with choice of schools.

I specifically mentioned raising a family. Of course people without kids can afford to rend a small apartment, but you would hope Ireland can offer its middle class the opportunity to have kids and suitable home to raise them.

And it is not just the inner city. There are not many areas in co. Dublin where a lower middle class couple on lets say 50k per year can afford to raise a family in (aside from maybe the ones where you think it would be cruelty to send more public tenants). Yet that couple is funding social housing through taxation.

alastair

Bob24 wrote: »

I specifically mentioned raising a family. Of course people without kids can afford to rend a small apartment, but you would hope Ireland can offer its middle class the opportunity to have kids and suitable home to raise them.

And it is not just the inner city. There are not many areas in co. Dublin where a lower middle class couple on lets say 50k per year can afford to raise a family in (aside from maybe the ones where you think it would be cruelty to send more public tenants). Yet that couple is funding social housing through taxation.

Plenty of tax payers in public housing too.

Clearly there are many 50k income families in Dublin. The median household income for the city is not much more than that. You aren't limited to small apartments in the inner city either. There's lots of houses at prices that compare well with other European capital cities. You can still pick up an affordable family house in East Wall for instance. Obviously there's a premium for capital city living, but it's not particularly exaggerated in Dublin.

Sleepy

alastair wrote: »

Society is not the exchequer, and there are plenty public housing tenants who are net contributors to the exchequer.

Really? If the amount you pay in tax is equal to the value of the social housing you're being provided with, how the hell are you entitled to it?

Your attitude is clear enough. You believe in the notion of second class citizens.

Yes, tbh, I do. While we should always strive to ensure our social and legal systems treat us equitably, it's a fool who genuinely believes that all men are created equal. I don't judge that class is defined by an accent or the place you grew up though, I judge it on actions and, frankly, anyone who expects the taxpayer to house them for their lifetime is a second class citizen imo. They're a drain on, rather than a contributor to, society.

And on East Wall, being married to a woman who grew up there and still has family living there, unless you grew up in the area, you're not going to enjoy living there tbh. A friend and his girlfriend are renting there the past 9 months or so. He recently had to sell his pride and joy because some begrudging bastard couldn't bear to see someone own an Alfa GT and keyed it while it was parked in his own driveway.

listermint

A tad weirded out by this,

I am interested as to where Sleepy wants the people that sweep his streets, deliver is Deliveroo work in his mc donalds , wash his windows, sell his newspapers, hand him cigarettes in the newsagents, serve him coffee or tea.
where he wants these people to be swept off to ?


Perhaps Carlow i mean its cheaper down there, right ?

Sure we can get all these office dwellers (myself included) to serve you coffee right ?


Sure there is no place for people on lower wages in the citys lets wipe it clean fill them with 6 figures.


Awesome plan.

Saipanne

listermint wrote: »

A tad weirded out by this,

I am interested as to where Sleepy wants the people that sweep his streets, deliver is Deliveroo work in his mc donalds , wash his windows, sell his newspapers, hand him cigarettes in the newsagents, serve him coffee or tea.
where he wants these people to be swept off to ?


Perhaps Carlow i mean its cheaper down there, right ?

Sure we can get all these office dwellers (myself included) to serve you coffee right ?


Sure there is no place for people on lower wages in the citys lets wipe it clean fill them with 6 figures.


Awesome plan.

He specifically said people who don't contribute. So I really don't get your point here.

Mrs OBumble

alastair wrote: »

Society is not the exchequer, and there are plenty public housing tenants who are net contributors to the exchequer.

Contributors, yes.

But nett contributors, I would seriously doubt.

They had to be poor in order to get into the house in the first place. If their luck or circumstances have changed to much since then that they are paying for the cost of the house, then I'd guess they will have moved elsewhere.

Eric Cartman

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Contributors, yes.

But nett contributors, I would seriously doubt.

They had to be poor in order to get into the house in the first place. If their luck or circumstances have changed to much since then that they are paying for the cost of the house, then I'd guess they will have moved elsewhere.

+1 even for the house. Lets say 200k for the house which is conservative at best , 45 year working life lets say. That would mean that they'd have to contribute 4.4k every year from 20-65 in tax to be a contributor and pay for the house (assuming taxes aren't used for other things)

In order to get to that point your talking about somebody being on 25k a year just to pay that in tax on income.

find me anyone in social housing who has a consistent 25 years of 25k + work and id be amazed, and thats as a single person, the second you add in an unemployed spouse or any kids , the payback amount to become a net contributor is even higher (yet again assuming taxes pay for nothing else. which we know isn't true)

alastair

Eric Cartman wrote: »

+1 even for the house. Lets say 200k for the house which is conservative at best , 45 year working life lets say. That would mean that they'd have to contribute 4.4k every year from 20-65 in tax to be a contributor and pay for the house (assuming taxes aren't used for other things)

In order to get to that point your talking about somebody being on 25k a year just to pay that in tax on income.

find me anyone in social housing who has a consistent 25 years of 25k + work and id be amazed, and thats as a single person, the second you add in an unemployed spouse or any kids , the payback amount to become a net contributor is even higher (yet again assuming taxes pay for nothing else. which we know isn't true)

You seem to miss the pertinent point of the property not having a lifetime restricted to the tenant. Most social housing stock will have multiple, sequential, tenancies, so it makes no sense to assign it's build/purchase cost to a single tenancy lifetime. A 15% of income rent model will certainly result in net contribution over a number of tenancies.

Eric Cartman

alastair wrote: »

You seem to miss the pertinent point of the property not having a lifetime restricted to the tenant. Most social housing stock will have multiple, sequential, tenancies, so it makes no sense to assign it's build cost to a single tenancy lifetime. A 15% of income rent model will certainly result in net contribution over a number of tenancies.

until you factor in ongoing maintenance , re-wiring, fixing damage, modernisation after the tenant has left. The reoccurring cost every time a tenant changes can easily hit 70k

but if you want to go rental model I'm sure they still end up net detractors, but ill have to work out the exact figures.

alastair

Eric Cartman wrote: »

until you factor in ongoing maintenance , re-wiring, fixing damage, modernisation after the tenant has left. The reoccurring cost every time a tenant changes can easily hit 70k

but if you want to go rental model I'm sure they still end up net detractors, but ill have to work out the exact figures.

Ongoing maintenance on DCC properties currently runs at an average of €2000 per annum - including all tenancy changeovers, modernisation etc. I really don't see where change of tenancy typically requires rewiring. Neither is it plausible that a cost of €70k on tenancy changeover is anything but atypical.

The rental model is essentially the only social housing model in town, other than those limited shared ownership schemes on the go.

athtrasna

Mod note Folks this thread has gone MASSIVELY off topic. If you want to discuss social housing please do it elsewhere. The OP was asking about Foley Street and does not deserve their thread to be derailed in this way.

Varatha

Hi Folks, Reopening this topic exactly after 7 years (last post on 16/11/15).

I am looking to buy a 2bed 2bath in foley st for investment purpose. Its a nice spatious apartment 85 sq.m listed for 345K. Do you guys know if the area has improved in terms of 'safety' in the last 7 years? Would you recommend to purchase a property here?

Appreciate your advise

https://www.daft.ie/for-sale/apartment-21-montgomery-court-foley-street-dublin-1/3681865