Why so much dead land in Dublin city centre?

eeguy

I was walking around the city recently and noticed a large amount of vacant lots right in the centre of the city.
A few around the Jervis Centre, around the Four Courts and some around Parnell St.
Just acres of prime land with nothing happening.

There also seems to be a huge amount of abandoned and derelic buildings on the north inner city, particularly around the Parnell St, Mountjoy St area.

Why is nothing being done to keep these buildings habitable, or even knocking them and rebuilding?
Why would anyone be content with owning a crumbling, boarded up building?

For all the estates built in greenfield sites around the M50, you'd think people would be building on top of each other in Dublin.

MarkAnthony

There are other issues at play but the one I specifically ran up against was listed buildings.

Absolute B******* in many cases.

Sleepy

Who'd want to live there?

It's a shocking waste of what should be prime real estate and a site-tax would no doubt see much of it being developed as commercial property, but I think it's unlikely you'd find many prepared to pay the 400/500k that a developer would be looking for to live in an apartment there, cheek by jowl with the "colourful" locals.

MarkAnthony

Sleepy wrote: »

Who'd want to live there?

It's a shocking waste of what should be prime real estate and a site-tax would no doubt see much of it being developed as commercial property, but I think it's unlikely you'd find many prepared to pay the 400/500k that a developer would be looking for to live in an apartment there, cheek by jowl with the "colourful" locals.

Plenty of people would want to live in the CC.

eeguy

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Plenty of people would want to live in the CC.

Exactly, I live near Parnell St. and I love it. 5 mins walk to shopping centres, 10 mins walk to work and 15 mins walk to public transport that'll take me anywhere in the country.

Just seems a sad waste that so many homes are abandoned. The ground floor row of flats on Dominic St are all boarded up, with an acre of scrubland across the road.
There's a block of flats at the top on Dorset St. that are nearly all boarded up.
The new Luas is driving right up that street, so I'd say you'd have no trouble shifting those flats if they were done up.

I know what you mean about "colourful", but there's a lot to be said about gentrification and a proper renewal would do wonders for the area.

eeguy

Here's a few choice buildings that I see on a daily basis:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3538613,-6.2673062,3a,75y,152.48h,92.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8GMlKI9eDd2CdjGX_JBM-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3549327,-6.2684414,3a,75y,56.22h,100.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snV11aIWzG6hXOdQMDNOMpQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.351571,-6.2658965,3a,75y,221.37h,79.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVXCIgoiwdwthDD4NSqN-dA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

MarkAnthony

I suspect two of those are listed. Not hard to work out which two

the_syco

eeguy wrote: »

Here's a few choice buildings that I see on a daily basis:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3538613,-6.2673062,3a,75y,152.48h,92.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8GMlKI9eDd2CdjGX_JBM-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

http://www.infomatique.org/pubs-and-restaurants/dublin-restaurants-photographed-by-infomatique/page191/

According to Wikipedia: “Playwright, Westminster Parliament member, and son of Thomas, Richard Brinsley Sheridan was born on this street at number 12 in 1751; Brinsley Sheridan's works include The Critics and The School for Scandal”.

Time has not been good to the house on the right. Here's what it looked like in 1969; http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000049469

eeguy wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3549327,-6.2684414,3a,75y,56.22h,100.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snV11aIWzG6hXOdQMDNOMpQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

From; http://www.whai.ie/company/brooklawn-enterprises-limited-46370/

Registered as 46370, Brooklawn Enterprises Limited is an Irish company that’s been in the business since 28 February 1974. It is currently located at 14 Mountjoy Street, Dublin 7. and its status is dissolved.

So I'm guessing someone still owns it. Can't find anything saying it's listed, however.

eeguy wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.351571,-6.2658965,3a,75y,221.37h,79.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVXCIgoiwdwthDD4NSqN-dA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

They're refurbing the houses, but it takes time and money. And the money can be spent better elsewhere.

syklops

Sleepy wrote: »

Who'd want to live there?
.

I'd love to live in the city centre in a somewhat affordable apartment.

the_syco

eeguy wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.351571,-6.2658965,3a,75y,221.37h,79.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVXCIgoiwdwthDD4NSqN-dA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Actually, look at the road 5 years earlier

2009; https://goo.gl/maps/dPDjRkjZHMG2

2014; https://goo.gl/maps/vQSPVy2pX872

Seems the boarding up is either a recent thing, or a cycle that the flats on the ground floor goes through due to anti-social behaviour?

=-=

Have a look at http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/YourCouncil/CouncilPublications/Documents/dominickst_signedoffdec%20-%20Lo%20Res.pdf and you'll see much of the "unsightly poor people" have been gotten rid of already the area being regenerated... :pac:

CIARAN_BOYLE

Sleepy wrote: »

Who'd want to live there?

It's a shocking waste of what should be prime real estate and a site-tax would no doubt see much of it being developed as commercial property, but I think it's unlikely you'd find many prepared to pay the 400/500k that a developer would be looking for to live in an apartment there, cheek by jowl with the "colourful" locals.

I'd say developers are holding for an urban renewal tax credit or capital allowance scheme. One will come sometime.

Sleepy

markanthony wrote:

Plenty of people would want to live in the CC.

syklops wrote: »

I'd love to live in the city centre in a somewhat affordable apartment.

And what are the demographics of these people? How many of them can afford the mortgage for a circa 500k 2-bed apartment?
And how many of those who can afford a mortgage of that level would be prepared to live in a bad area while waiting for it to gentrify?

Given the price such land would fetch for commercial development, I can't see how it could be profitably developed into anything other than luxury apartments and I just can't see there being enough of those who can afford such apartments being prepared to live in an area they'd consider a ghetto.

eeguy wrote: »

Exactly, I live near Parnell St. and I love it. 5 mins walk to shopping centres, 10 mins walk to work and 15 mins walk to public transport that'll take me anywhere in the country.

Just seems a sad waste that so many homes are abandoned. The ground floor row of flats on Dominic St are all boarded up, with an acre of scrubland across the road.
There's a block of flats at the top on Dorset St. that are nearly all boarded up.
The new Luas is driving right up that street, so I'd say you'd have no trouble shifting those flats if they were done up.

I know what you mean about "colourful", but there's a lot to be said about gentrification and a proper renewal would do wonders for the area.

I think you under-estimate the trouble "shifting those flats" would cause. We've a fairly chronic shortage of council housing stock and if the flats haven't been done up before now, it's for a reason. Could it be that waiting list applicants have been refusing offers of these properties? It's entirely possible that there's a strategy in place to move on the existing tenants, raize the building and develop something new but if you can remember the trouble DCC (or Dublin Corporation as they were then) had trying to vacate the Hollyfield Buildings?

Gentrification of the North Inner City would involve the re-housing of hundreds, if not thousands, of council tenants and the sale of that housing stock. While I believe it would be the right thing to do, I just can't see it happening as the current residents would kick up stink as we've seen every other time in the past when council tenants have been offered better accommodation outside of the community they grew up in.

seamus

Yeah, listed buildings are a big problem across the country. The owner has an obligation to maintain them. If they fail, the council can take them to court (if they're even bothered), the owner plays the poor mouth and the council buy the building off them. Then the council have no interest in throwing money at it, so the property falls into ruin.

It's the same with ramshackle run-down cottages in the middle of nowhere.

Ultimately the intention is that these should be places with significant culture or heritage benefit. Which is a social/tourist pursuit. So the state should be coughing up the bulk of the cash for this. At the very least all external and structural work should be paid for by the state with the homeowner given free reign to do what they want with the internals.

If this was the case, you'd find a lot more people willing to buy/refurb listed buildings because you can then make functional homes out of them. As it stands, the cost of maintenance simply makes it not worth it.

In terms of the large vacant lots between Phoenix Park and Mary St, that's all down to anti-social issues, 100%. Smithfield is a good example of the fact that regeneration can and does work, and Phibsboro is increasingly popular with young middle-class renters now.

But while you still have the likes of O'Devaney Gardens in the area, it's going to be impossible to build and sell luxury apartments for €500k+. So developers won't bother their arse.

PMBC

Apart from the 'waste' and non-development of those sites, there seems to be a few big issues. Derelict Sites, Protected Structures and Dangerous Buildings. It may be that the conditions have not been helped by lack of action by the City Council. Something tells me that the legislation is not very useful and has a lot of downsides; but Id have to read up on that. Probably everybody agrees, except the owners, that the sites should be developed.

12Phase

Dublin has always been like that for as long as I remember and for as long as my parents remember, it's always been dilapidated and run down in large areas. It's spun as "quirky and interesting" but it's just a failure of local and national government. No city should be on that state for that long.

loyatemu

site value tax - city centre sites are worth money, people wouldn't sit on them for years if they had to pay a substantial annual tax.

PMBC

I agree strongly. While they own the site/building/land they are destroying the visual amenity that people are entitled to. It doesn't bother them when they are sitting on money - leprechauns. Its probable that the interests of the property owners are more strongly expressed to gov./local authorities than the citizens and that's part of the reason why thee is little or no action.

TeaBagMania

the_syco wrote: »

http://www.infomatique.org/pubs-and-restaurants/dublin-restaurants-photographed-by-infomatique/page191/

Time has not been good to the house on the right. Here's what it looked like in 1969; http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000049469

So The Moy bar and lounge has been around since before 1969? Gotta stop there next time in Dublin

Icepick

A lot of projects are currently in the pipeline and some are already under construction


A good comprehensive list of Dublin centre projects here - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1823305

LionelNashe

eeguy wrote: »

I was walking around the city recently and noticed a large amount of vacant lots right in the centre of the city.
A few around the Jervis Centre, around the Four Courts and some around Parnell St.
Just acres of prime land with nothing happening.

There also seems to be a huge amount of abandoned and derelic buildings on the north inner city, particularly around the Parnell St, Mountjoy St area.

Why is nothing being done to keep these buildings habitable, or even knocking them and rebuilding?
Why would anyone be content with owning a crumbling, boarded up building?

For all the estates built in greenfield sites around the M50, you'd think people would be building on top of each other in Dublin.

Dublin 1 declined after the act of union in 1800, when the Georgian residences stopped being town houses and were turned into tenements. It just goes to show you how long it can take for an area to recover from being run down. It's recovering slowly though. 30/35 years ago, Parnell Street was outdoor car parks and stalls selling Doc Martens and Levi jeans. Now you have Tesco, Chapters, Aldi, Cineworld, and lots of apartments.

I only know what Gardiner Street & Summerhill were like from reputation but most of it got rebuilt during the last few decades.

Mountjoy Square was used in the 1980s to film scenes from the Blitz, but now a lot of the buildings have been refurbished/rebuilt and there are 1000 people living on the square. The apartments don't cost anything like 500k either. There's a lot for under €200k. Dublin 1 is still dirt cheap compared to other areas.

I'd say that the reason that sites are left vacant is that people have the wrong idea of what it's like to live in certain areas, because the reputation of an area can take decades or even longer to repair itself. This keeps the prices down, and then the profits for the builders aren't there.

newacc2015

loyatemu wrote: »

site value tax - city centre sites are worth money, people wouldn't sit on them for years if they had to pay a substantial annual tax.

Which sounds great on paper until you realise who is the biggest hoarder of land in the city, which is DCC and other state bodies like the OPW. Remember how the Government wanted to introduce a car space tax in Dublin City. Then they realised most car spaces in the city were owned by the state.

We should pressuring people to stop hoarding land when the state stops doing it too. Eg the OPW has had a vacant site on Church St for over 15 years. Is that in NAMA people would be pissed. Since the state owns it no one cares

the_syco

newacc2015 wrote: »

Eg the OPW has had a vacant site on Church St for over 15 years. Is that in NAMA people would be pissed. Since the state owns it no one cares

I'm assuming that's the viking house that was found in 2010?

riclad

Go To any council apartment block,
theres at least 2 per cent of units ,empty .
The council has limited maintenance staff ,
each unit must refurbished when a tenant leaves .
Theres 1000,s of empty council units all over the country.
The council can take over any house thats left empty or derelict after 10 years .
There,s always been lots of empty buildings in the city centre .
Maybe the owner is waiting for prices to rise to sell it or modernise it.
They are spending 200k on each modular housing unit ,
meanwhile there,s 100,s of empty council flats in dublin.
Would it not be cheaper to employ another 100 staff to repair some of the
empty council apartments .
builders say its not economic to build in dublin,
except for certain up market area,s .
Under new laws from 2014
it costs 30k to pay for the inspection of 1 new apartment
to say its safe and up to building regulations ,
that,s before a builder pays vat and other taxes and pays for the site .

It would cost around 15million to employ new council inspectors
to inspect all new houses , apartments and reduce the cost of building for everyone .

i think its a bit extreme to say lets move all social housing out of the city
centre so some people can feel better about living in a certain area .
No one forces you to buy a house in an area ,you can buy a house
anywhere you wish .
Its a free market .

Sleepy

riclad, I think you're greatly over-estimating the level of voids. My experience in this area would be with one of the other councils but generally, the units are turned around within a matter of weeks of being vacated, even when extensive refurbishment is required because the previous tenants behaved like animals. There are exceptions of course, but these tend to be in the estates where even those in emergency temporary accommodation refuse for fear of their personal safety.