Bunch of boarded up houses at St Mary's Terrace, Phibsborough - story?

hatrickpatrick

Was walking home from a pub in Phisborough the other night and I came across St Mary's Terrace on my way home. Something seemed odd about it but I couldn't quite put my finger on it, until I had a look on Street View later and it suddenly hit me - not only are all the houses boarded up, but there's also a big fence surrounding the entire terrace to keep people out. As in, the fence surrounds the terrace from a few yards out, so unless one blatantly trespasses and breaks in, the whole terrace is completely inaccessible to pedestrians.

Obviously this means that they are deliberately derelict, so I presumed they were going to be demolished to make room for something else - but I can't find any info online, and unlike most such sites, there were no planning applications or developer logos to be seen.

Quite curious about this now, anyone know what the story is here? Physically they look in good condition, seems bizarre to have an entire terrace fenced off like this in the absence of some kind of intention to renovate or demolish.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3542777,-6.2684372,3a,75y,155.02h,81.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syeOV6ZgtDo2Y5gO6jWrLOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

As you can see if you use the time slider, in 2009 it was completely occupied.

They may be council houses, they're sandwiched between two large blocks of older apartments built in a style unique to DCC, and the two-storey house style with an outdoor mezzanine often is DCC-built in the city, although around where I live in Glasthule there are plenty in the same style which are entirely private so it's hard to say. If indeed they are council houses, and there's no plan in place for renovation, it seems rather absurd to have them derelict like this while there's such a housing shortage?

neris

They would have been council houses at some stage, i think those kind of buidlings were generally for older resiedents and not young families. They arent far from the dominic street area which was meant to be getting redeveloped so they could have been vacated for demolition but when the crash happened they were left to that state

power pants

to be demolished, the other houses there already have been. Were for oaps

NyOmnishambles

I assume they were planned for redevelopment along with the flats on lower Dominick street

The levelled the flats on one side of Lower Dominick Street but the funds weren't there to complete the job so the site now lies vacant and the flats on the other side of Dominick street Lower are still occupied, though most of the ground level appears to be boarded up

Maybe one day they will get completed, the plans for Lower Dominick street were ambitious enough, not sure what they had planned for St Mary's but they are in definite need of a facelift

hatrickpatrick

The ground floors of council flats always tend to go first, presumably because they tend to be much smaller (ground floors are single storey, upper floors are duplexes). Is it not a bit mad to leave them standing empty in the meantime though, with all the homelessness and the housing crisis? If the regeneration project is stalled, couldn't they at least use what they have as emergency accommodation for the time being?

(I have my own opinions about the alleged "lack of funds" for these projects but that's a discussion more suited to the Politics Cafe)

newacc2015

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The ground floors of council flats always tend to go first, presumably because they tend to be much smaller (ground floors are single storey, upper floors are duplexes). Is it not a bit mad to leave them standing empty in the meantime though, with all the homelessness and the housing crisis? If the regeneration project is stalled, couldn't they at least use what they have as emergency accommodation for the time being?

(I have my own opinions about the alleged "lack of funds" for these projects but that's a discussion more suited to the Politics Cafe)

I imagine the ground floor is not as secure is one of the reason why tend to go first. If you by the flat on constitution hill. People often live in the ground floor flats, but their balconey are barred up.

They cost too much to renovate. DCC wont ask for an exemption from the housing code. As a result when you renovate these flats, you have to put in the very best heating and energy efficient appliances etc. It is a ridiculous amount of amount to renovate these apartments. IMO they should be flatted. A 2 storey building that close to city has no place and should be at least 5 - 8 storeys.

DCC has no funds for anything. Even 20% of all DCC LPT is going to rural CoCos.

Pete_Cavan

[font=Verdana, sans-serif]The levelled site at Lower Dominick Street was to be a PPP scheme involving DCC and Bernard McNamara building new apartments on the site. I dont think the blocks the OP is talking about was to be used for such a project but O'Devaney Gardens and one or two others were. All these projects collapsed with the crash. [/font][font=Verdana, sans-serif]What to do with these council flat sites is a thorny issue. DCC don t have the money to maintain existing blocks, never mind redeveloping them. [/font]

[font=Verdana, sans-serif]DCC have struck a deal with a developer for a site on Charlemont Street ([/font][font=Verdana, sans-serif]http://www.mcorm.com/Charlemont-Street[/font][font=Verdana, sans-serif]), it would be great to see something similar done with this site at Dominick Street (and others). With the Luas extension passing it would be a desirable location. As I said, it is a thorny issue, people don t like private developers getting involved with council owned lands but without the money private developers bring, prime sites which could rejuvenate an area are left to rot. Personally, I think selling portions of such sites unlocks the funds to see them developed to the benefit of the city as a whole. It would be interesting to see how many modern apartments could be developed here and what the split between social and private would be to make it viable.[/font]

FreudianSlippers

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

[font=Verdana, sans-serif]The levelled site at Lower Dominick Street was to be a PPP scheme involving DCC and Bernard McNamara building new apartments on the site. I dont think the blocks the OP is talking about was to be used for such a project but O'Devaney Gardens and one or two others were. All these projects collapsed with the crash. [/font][font=Verdana, sans-serif]What to do with these council flat sites is a thorny issue. DCC don t have the money to maintain existing blocks, never mind redeveloping them. [/font]

[font=Verdana, sans-serif]DCC have struck a deal with a developer for a site on Charlemont Street ([/font][font=Verdana, sans-serif]http://www.mcorm.com/Charlemont-Street[/font][font=Verdana, sans-serif]), it would be great to see something similar done with this site at Dominick Street (and others). With the Luas extension passing it would be a desirable location. As I said, it is a thorny issue, people don t like private developers getting involved with council owned lands but without the money private developers bring, prime sites which could rejuvenate an area are left to rot. Personally, I think selling portions of such sites unlocks the funds to see them developed to the benefit of the city as a whole. It would be interesting to see how many modern apartments could be developed here and what the split between social and private would be to make it viable.[/font]

You also, unfortunately, need private developers to bring any coherent plan to the site (eg the Charlemont Street proposal to which you linked). If left to the muppets at DCC, they'd throw up any old low-density nonsense.