Housing Crisis being created on purpose!

Idbatterim

Take a read of this, then ask yourself, why when builders wont or cant build due to funding issues or not enough margin and many buyers cant buy in dublin at current prices! (I think it is safe to assume a lot more could afford to buy, if new build apartment price was 180k instead of 250k etc. Why is there no focus on this issue? Could it be because government are interested in increasing housing prices?

When we choose not to do, what the rest of the developed world does i.e. not permit even medium rise buildings and have over the top buildings standards that make it uneconomic or not economic enough for developers to build and prospective buyers from buying (dual aspect, want a dual aspect apartment, go and buy a current apartment or a newly constructed dual aspect, there are a huge amount that would gladly take lower rent or mortgage, a majority and I am one of them, Ehrlich himself also pointed this out) how about actually doing something I would value far more, like actually ensuring you cant hear your neighbors piss in your half a million apartment or the one you are renting for E1700 for a 2 bed in dundrum, like I was a year ago!

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/at-some-point-you-have-to-get-out-and-build-that-is-the-only-solution-34824730.html

'At some point you have to get out and build - that is the only solution'
Since setting up in 2014, IRES Reit has become the biggest private residential landlord in the country, and its chief executive says he wants to help fix the national housing crisis, writes Peter Flanagan

For a man who is arguably the most powerful man in the Irish property business, David Ehrlich does not come across as a Master of the Universe.
SHARE
The soft-spoken head of IRES Reit resembles more the man who works in the background - the "guy behind the guy".
Considering he has been one of the pre-eminent property lawyers in Canada for years, and a top advisor to the ceo of Canada's gigantic landlord CapReit, that perception is not surprising.

However, since 2014, Mr Ehrlich has very much been 'The Guy'. As chief executive of IRES, Mr Ehrlich runs a company that in the space of barely two years has become the biggest residential landlord in the country.
The scale of IRES is hard to grasp. It controls 2,288 apartments around Dublin, and plans to double in size in the years to come. While it has assembled its portfolio largely by buying in bulk from the likes of Nama and other banks trying offload assets, it is now planning to build several hundred apartments at developments it owns in the likes of Sandyford in south Dublin. And if that isn't enough, IRES has the firepower to spend around another €150m on future deals even without raising more cash.

Those sort of figures make Mr Ehrlich one of the elite few who can move the Irish property market with a single decision.
IRES is backed by CapReit, which controls upwards of 27,000 homes across Canada. It was there that the Toronto native made his name as a lawyer immersed in the property sector - so much so that he became known as the "grandfather of the Reit".

While the Reits have been hugely successful in Canada, the UK and elsewhere, it was not until 2013 that the business model became possible in Ireland.
A Reit - short for Real Estate Investment Trust - has emerged as one of the most popular ways to invest in the property market. Traditionally an investor bought a property outright, earned an annual return through renting it out, and then sold it for a profit. That is the plan anyway. However, when the market turns it can be impossible to sell.

The Reit model allows for a listed company, or trust, to buy property. An investor can buy shares in the Reit which can then be sold on with relative ease. The model, which is tax efficient, also requires the trust to payout most of its profits through dividends.
The 2013 Budget passed legislation allowing for Reits in Ireland and it was then that Mr Ehrlich and his team saw their opportunity here.

CapReit believed Ireland was on the rise so it bought 338 units here. However, as a Canadian-focused Reit, there was a limit to how much capital it could put into this country.
"So CapReit was the sponsor of the IRES flotation in April 21014, set up an office here supported by its team in Toronto and people are back and forth constantly from both sides of this business," he says.

IRES has been one of many big players from overseas buying up Irish property, but unlike some others, Mr Ehrlich is at pains to point out that his firm is in Ireland for the long term.
"We are the exact opposite of vulture funds," he claims.

"In terms of outlook, we take an infinite view of apartments. That is what CapReit has done for almost 20 years and the same policy is in place here.
"The quick flip is not our business," he says.

IRES set up at a good time. With a completely dysfunctional housing market, there is scope for big profits. IRES has done well. It made €30.8m last year and has increased rents across its portfolio. It could probably increase rents even more, but that is not what Mr Ehrlich wants.

"In a way, the best thing for us would be to continue to have supply-and-demand imbalance because that avoids competition and keeps occupancy high and rents high, but here is a housing crisis and we want to be part of that solution.
"The only solution is more supply, but it has to be financially viable in order to attract the capital and so forth but with our access to capital and debt, we don't need a fund from the Government. We can move quickly."

"Grand statements about building so many homes are fine, but at some point you have to get out and build," he adds.

By now it is pretty clear that Mr Ehrlich's preferred topic for today is the housing crisis and what IRES can do to help fix it. As a player focused entirely on the rental market, he believes his firm can build a lot of apartments quickly, but makes clear they will be different from what it has bought here so far.
The cheapest way to build a lot of apartments quickly is to build a single block with corridors. That is impossible under current regulations though, which require at least 50pc of apartments to have two sides with windows - known as dual aspect. That, along with other requirements, needs to change, he believes. "We are in a crisis here. And a crisis calls for really looking at the situation from the ground up. It's nice to have grand statements but the reality is you have to start from the bottom.

"The reality is the economics really don't work to build right now. So it has to make economic sense and the most efficient way to build is with a long corridor.

"Our condos in Toronto are built like that. People pay millions of dollars for those apartments and the corridor is like a hotel.
"The cheapest thing to do is build a rectangle with one elevator core in the middle, and the savings are very, very significant.

"Elevator core is a major factor in costs. When you start having cores all over the place you need a lobby to service each of them so its not as grand an entrance as when you put all the lobbies together which tenants like. The real problem is the dual aspect and that has to be looked at. With the requirement of 50pc dual aspect I think there is an admission that it's okay for half the people not to have dual aspect, so it is clearly not required for everybody if that is the case.

"What it means is instead of being able to build a rectangle you have to have all kinds of angles and offshoots to make the dual aspect.
"It is a highly inefficient way of building. Compared to just going straight across. There also has to be space between the buildings so it's not a very good use of land either," he believes.

Housing minister Patrick Coveney is taking submissions on the housing market, but Mr Ehrlich would like to se a working group created to that every aspect of the market can be assessed and brought together. Indeed Mr Ehrlich has met the minister on the problem.

It isn't just building regulations though. There are other ways the system can be improved.
"We have been working with planners in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Co Council about building in Sandyford. The planning team is understaffed. Something as small as hiring more planners there would make a significant difference. It's similar with the way compliance with fire regulations is managed - perhaps more staff there could speed up that process. There are a number of small things that together can help quicken the planning and building process, without compromising on quality."

IRES is has plans to build apartments in Dublin at Rockbrook, Bakers' Yard and Beacon South Quarter in Sandyford. That will help get the company up to its target of owning between 4,500 and 5,000 apartments in Ireland. Most of those future purchases though will come from Nama portfolios and private equity sales - something Mr Ehrlich is keen on.

The advantage of coming into a market like Ireland after the Crash is the outsider's perspective. The 65-year-old is clearly staggered at what went on here. He trails off when he thinks of "the money that was lost building some of these complexes".
"I've never seen anything like the building that went on in the Celtic Tiger. We bought units at Elm Park. That development is so overbuilt - that reflects what rent you would have had to get.

"The planners wanted retail everywhere, much of which will never be rented. Developers probably knew that but were making so much on apartments they didn't care. What's unusual to me about the Celtic Tiger is that the builders went really overboard not so much on the apartments themselves but other elements and just assumed house prices would go up and up and up."

another article below with David Ehrlich, from the below article "I feel sorry for the Irish people" and “What you really need to do is get right down into the costs, design something that can be more affordable, and then you build the regulations around that.”
"Pointing out that Sandyford has a 14-storey building height limit, he wonders would anybody notice the difference if it was 18 storeys – “but it would change the cost significantly”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/ireland-s-biggest-landlord-i-feel-bad-for-the-irish-people-1.2870230

So I am wondering when the solutions are so simple to this allegedly "complex" issue, nothing is being done, by our highly remunerated gombeens in government!

Are they A) Morons Dont give a **** C) privately its government policy to drive up prices...

Coveney that probably well intentioned, but spineless spoofer needs to take action, remove building heights etc from Councillors remit, they get voted in, imagine them looking for votes saying "we will double the scale of that development over your back wall"! Ridiculous and the potential cost reductions in apartments should be looked at, to see what savings can be achieved, by simply going up in floors and by potentially going single aspect only etc... Then we can begin having an informed debate!

You dont want to live in one of these apartments? great, sure isnt the new supply suppressing prices for the pad of your dreams anyway?!

Sam Russell

NAMA should be building these new apartments and houses - they have the money, they have the land - they could if instructed to by the Gov.

Dublin City Council should be building new housing schemes like they have done in the past - why not now?

It could all be done quite quickly but they cannot even build lego houses - those modular houses that were to be occupied before last Christmas. How many have been built by this Christmas?

Money can be got from the EU for this at minuscule interest rates.

newacc2015

The housing crisis wasnt being created on purpose. We had our banking system crumble. How are you supposed to finance building an apartment block or housing development when you can't get money to finance it?


REITs can borrow at ridiculously low rates. Some are getting 2% loans from the banks eg Green REIT from BOI. Yet they are still choosing to buy NAMA properties as they are cheaper than new builds.

IMO even though property funds will pay more than private individuals for apartments/house, the state should stop selling them to them unless they can prove they arent using section 110 companies. There is no point selling an apartment to dodgy fund for marginally more than a private individual, if the capital gain in 3/4 year is tax free. I imagine if IRES had no more cheap NAMA properties to buy tomorrow, they would probably use their bed of ultra cheap money to start building with or without the current building rules

The people with money are not building, as they better off buying the cheap properties still coming on stream. If they have no access to cheap properties I imagine they will have no choice but to build

nordydan

Disgrace that the government do not build housed directly. Think of the full time employment that could generate. Plus the economy of scale of building thousands of unit at the one time. They could do it in the USSR in the 1960s, it is astonishing that they cannot do it in modern Ireland.

Atlantic Dawn

The economy will collapse unless cheap houses are built.

LeinsterDub

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" sums it up

Zebra3

No shortage of landlords in Dáil Éireann.

Idbatterim

lads what do you reckon on my primary point though, that housing primarily apartments which are desperately needed, are costing way more to construct, than needs be the case. If they allowed higher density and cost was lowered, there is so much scope to sort this problem out way easier in my opinion...

I am totally opposed to the current situation, which doesnt offer me as a renter or prospective purchaser what I want and also doesnt make it viable or profitable enough for builders to start building apartments building en masse, due to no or not enough profit in many cases, at present...

Sam Russell

Local authorities used to be major builders of houses and apartments. They made no profit and built fine, if basic, houses. Many are now changing hands for massive money.

Get the LAs back building.

Bray Head

Sam Russell wrote: »

NAMA should be building these new apartments and houses - they have the money, they have the land - they could if instructed to by the Gov.  

Dublin City Council should be building new housing schemes like they have done in the past - why not now?  

It is a bit silly to expect Nama to suddenly start building houses for social purposes. It is not their mandate, not their expertise, would require new legislation, and would take years to get going.

On the other hand there are 30 institutions called local authorities with the legal powers, staffing and funding already in place to build new social houses.houses. This is where the bottleneck is.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

It is a bit silly to expect Nama to suddenly start building houses for social purposes. It is not their mandate, not their expertise, would require new legislation, and would take years to get going.

On the other hand there are 30 institutions called local authorities with the legal powers, staffing and funding already in place to build new social houses.houses. This is where the bottleneck is.

Nama have the assets. They have access to land and finance. They can help LAs with both and can get things going. New legislation can be got overnight if it is necessary.

No-one considers social housing should be built on its own these days as it gives rise to ghetto syndrome so mixed development is the order of the day. We need more houses in Dublin - just more - any more.

With LA doing the actual construction, profit does not come into it and prices can be lower - particularly if development levies are left out of it.

hi5

Yes, we are in a rigged market, if more properties are built then prices will drop, this will not be good for the majority of the property owning voting population, it will not be good for NAMA and it will not be good for the banks.
And that's why you have the current housing crises and subsequent inaction.
There was always going to be a price to pay for not letting the free market run its course after the crash of 2008.
Bailed out bondholders, no repossessions, socialised banks, pampered developers, active REIT's and Vulture funds are all contributing to the mess.
The price of a property should be directly related to the ability of the average person to pay for it whether it be rent or purchase. The fact that its not and it has been like this for years now shows that the powers that be have no interest in changing things.
A heavy tax on vacant sites and land hoarding, also slashing all government contributions and levies to near zero would go a long way towards sorting the problem.

lucernarian

A yearly tax on any derelict site that's zoned residential. Should have been done a couple of years ago.

Smarter planning laws, don't provide 100% mandatory parking spaces in the DCC area that are within 1km of train stations. Higher building limits in specific zones.

Stronger noiseproofing reqs, and a finer granularity over apartment sizes. 5% of all apartments could be built with floor area a good bit below current limits. Short term stays, single people on contract placements in Ireland. It doesn't have to be like Hong Kong.

And something to be done about the high prices for management companies. It eats into return on investment and owner occupiers' incomes alike. Not sure what can be done there but more specific rules on building longevitity would work wonders. Many Irish apartment buildings are pretty little things but a 60s era German or Dutch apartment is far more comfortable to actually live in.

Walter2016

Quality of new houses is far too good. An electrician I use says the cost of wiring a standard 3bed newbuild is about 30% higher than it used to be due to excessive legislation.

He doesn't mind, but says its overkill on everything in newbuilds.

Sometimes, a more basic and still safe structure is better for the market

Harry Palmr

We need a move to pre-fab house construction, cheaper and quicker. If it's perfectly acceptable for commercial premises why not domestic?

lucernarian

Walter2016 wrote: »

Quality of new houses is far too good. An electrician I use says the cost of wiring a standard 3bed newbuild is about 30% higher than it used to be due to excessive legislation.

He doesn't mind, but says its overkill on everything in newbuilds.

Sometimes, a more basic and still safe structure is better for the market

More lopsided than simply good. Plumbing issues and the noise of floors etc, all features of new houses I lived in. Electrical standards are given much higher prominence when fitting out a house than other things are.

I don't know what new houses you've lived in but there's something very particular with any I've been or lived in in Ireland. Doors with dodgy locks after a few years use, unreliable central heating, flaking plaster and upstairs flooring that would wake the dead.

Sam Russell

lucernarian wrote: »

Doors with dodgy locks after a few years use.

Try oiling the locks. Lack of oil makes the locks wear quickly - a squirt of WD40 or oil spay eases the locks and they work much better. Applies to most locks including Yale types, car doors, mortice locks - all of them.

Ban airbandb tomorrow and the property situation would be fixed over night.

A few months back I was looking for something to rent, there were a handful of places available on daft etc. Took a look on airbandb and over 300 properties matching my requirements were found.

I find it difficult to understand why everyone has ignored the impact of airbandb on the market and why nothing is being done to resolve it.

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

Ban airbandb tomorrow and the property situation would be fixed over night.

A few months back I was looking for something to rent, there were a handful of places available on daft etc. Took a look on airbandb and over 300 properties matching my requirements were found.

I find it difficult to understand why everyone has ignored the impact of airbandb on the market and why nothing is being done to resolve it.

Close to all airbnb properties are visible at one time

Only a tiny fraction of all rental properties are. 300 is a drop in the ocean. It'd also push hotel prices up further making it even harder for the corpo to use that as emergency accommodation - nothing you can do here has no further impact.

Gumbo

Walter2016 wrote: »

Quality of new houses is far too good. An electrician I use says the cost of wiring a standard 3bed newbuild is about 30% higher than it used to be due to excessive legislation.

He doesn't mind, but says its overkill on everything in newbuilds.

Sometimes, a more basic and still safe structure is better for the market

I wonder what he considers overkill and what he would cut back on?
Material prices could easily account for the 30% increase here.

Spanish Eyes

Height restrictions in a capital city are ridiculous. As the man Erlich says would anyone notice 18 storeys over 14 or whatever the max is.

Docklands and the periphery should have well constructed, sound proofed high rise apartment buildings with STORAGE per apartment and a laundry room in the basement. That's what they do on mainland Europe. They manage fine.

There are so many people saying the same thing that it does strike me as odd that things are not happening at all really, either private or LA builds.

I am not a conspiracy theorist either, but it makes you wonder all the same.

Gumbo

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Height restrictions in a capital city are ridiculous. As the man Erlich says would anyone notice 18 storeys over 14 or whatever the max is.

Docklands and the periphery should have well constructed, sound proofed high rise apartment buildings with STORAGE per apartment and a laundry room in the basement. That's what they do on mainland Europe. They manage fine.

There are so many people saying the same thing that it does strike me as odd that things are not happening at all really, either private or LA builds.

I am not a conspiracy theorist either, but it makes you wonder all the same.

The LA's don't have the funding.
I heard a comment a few months back, but I'm not a financial expert so can't confirm "if the government give the LA money to build, it goes on our external debt sheet, but if they give it to a housing agency, it stays on our internal debt sheet"

Now it lends some weight as the big housing agencies are all building, cluath, Tuath, Peter Mc Verry, and a lot are on ex council lands that were giving at large discounted rates on the pretence that social or affordable housing was to be built for example, Beaumont Woods, An Riasc in Finglas, poppintree site.

Spanish Eyes

kceire wrote: »

The LA's don't have the funding.
I heard a comment a few months back, but I'm not a financial expert so can't confirm "if the government give the LA money to build, it goes on our external debt sheet, but if they give it to a housing agency, it stays on our internal debt sheet"

Now it lends some weight as the big housing agencies are all building, cluath, Tuath, Peter Mc Verry, and a lot are on ex council lands that were giving at large discounted rates on the pretence that social or affordable housing was to be built for example, Beaumont Woods, An Riasc in Finglas, poppintree site.

Well then that's good. So surely all the money should go to the housing agencies who are after all acting on behalf of the Councils or are they? To whom do they allocate the housing they build, I don't know!

It's the lack of private building that is concerning. Not everyone is in the market for a housing agency build.

UP UP and UP is the only way. I don't know why this is not happening.

Gumbo

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Well then that's good. So surely all the money should go to the housing agencies who are after all acting on behalf of the Councils or are they? To whom do they allocate the housing they build, I don't know!

It's the lack of private building that is concerning. Not everyone is in the market for a housing agency build.

UP UP and UP is the only way. I don't know why this is not happening.

The housing agencies have their own lists. But as part of the deal they give a proportion to the council list.

Idbatterim

a thread has started on after hours titled with a strong hint of sarcasm, "the government has solved the housing crisis" a poster living in berlin, posted the below, so once again I want to know, why our visionaries in planning wont allow this here, they obviously know better than German planners! there is another statement of sarcasm overload in case it isn't obvious!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101953822&postcount=40

BrokenArrows

1. House prices will continue to be high unless supply is met.

2. If supply is met/exceeded then existing house prices crash resulting is massive equity loss.

3. If cheap houses are built to good standards then this will drag down the price of existing properties resulting in equity loss.

So who does the government protect. Existing owners or first time buyers?

I think the government should protect first time buyers. Buying a house should not ever be a guaranteed profit, but just a place to live.

Sam Russell

BrokenArrows wrote: »

1. House prices will continue to be high unless supply is met.

2. If supply is met/exceeded then existing house prices crash resulting is massive equity loss.

3. If cheap houses are built to good standards then this will drag down the price of existing properties resulting in equity loss.

So who does the government protect. Existing owners or first time buyers?

I think the government should protect first time buyers. Buying a house should not ever be a guaranteed profit, but just a place to live.

The difficulty can be solved by:

1. Building homes to be permanently rented (as Corpo houses used to be).

2. Building the rented houses close to the city centre so travelling costs are low.

3. Build homes in a variety of sizes to suit a full cross-section. That is 1, 2, 3, and 4 bed units - and apartments, town houses, and semi-detached. All homes need storage, so apartments need separate storage.

Equity in homes should not be an issue. Homes are for living in - not investing in. The 'property ladder' is a concept from the UK. People here do not move houses every few years - they tend to buy and stay put if they can buy a decent home.

Currently, that has been impossible because of the dysfunctional market. A return to a sane market might sort that out - and a return to a sane market requires a huge building programme to remove the pent up demand. If the Corpo could get building the new Ballymun* type development we would be getting some where.

*Ballymun was a huge success in its time. It failed because the Corpo cut out the caretakers who kept everything in good order - and then the 'good' tenants moved out and were replaced with the dysfunctional types and the place deteriorated. Eventually, only knocking the towers appeared the only solution.

BrokenArrows

Sam Russell wrote: »

*Ballymun was a huge success in its time. It failed because the Corpo cut out the caretakers who kept everything in good order - and then the 'good' tenants moved out and were replaced with the dysfunctional types and the place deteriorated. Eventually, only knocking the towers appeared the only solution.

I agree with this.

Regardless of how cheap and "affordable" an apartment building is designed to be skipping out on good quality caretakers causes an exponential downward spiral of the property and an attitude of "ah whats the point in fixing that when the rest of the place is a kip".

I live in london and its not housing related but in certain areas of the city the councils dont spend any time/money on cleaning the streets and footpaths because they are purely industrial areas. Its gotten so bad that the footpaths are just full of broken glass and dust and trash pilled up from years of neglect.

So what would be a very basic and easy job to maintain those areas with cleaning them once a week, or even once a month is now a monumental cleanup task which noone is willing to pay for.

All these "ballymun" style builds for cheap and affordable housing should take into account the ease of maintenance. Or any builds for that matter.

1. The outside of the buildings should not require regular cleaning/painting and should not spread the building decay. You see countless buildings where material is rusting and this rusty water is dropping down the side of buildings turning everything below it a dirty orange. Looks terrible.

2. The internals of the building should be easy to clean and should be capable of lasting 75+ years without the need for major repairs.

3. Balconies and the front side of the building. Every building looks great on paper and when its empty. But once those balconies start filling with peoples **** for the whole world to see the place looks like a kip. Dont put in balconies in affordable housing unless you have and enforce rules about what people can store on them.

Sam Russell

The Ballymun caretakers kept the place and made everyone else keep the rules. Once they were axed no one was there to keep the place and no one kept the rules.

It is a matter of instilling pride in the place, and keeping people proud of there place. Little oiks of 10 years old try to make mischief soon learn that the caretaker sorts them out through their parents etc.

Of course, that would not work so well because little 10 year old oiks 'know my rights' and refuse to behave with any level of decency. They are generally supported by the parent who also 'know my rights' and also refuse to behave with any level of decency.

I think a modern 'Ballymun' would have to be a mixed development with severe rules of occupancy, enforced with evictions for those that do not comply. Anti-social behaviour is hard to counteract once it gets hold.

The impact of airbandb on the situation is finally recognised in the Dail

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2017/01/18/1564-properties-available-for-rent-6225-units-on-airbnb/?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=web&utm_content=related_posts

“In Dublin there are currently 6,225 Airbnb listings. According to data available on Inside Airbnb 2,847 or 45.4% of these listings are for entire homes and apartments. Furthermore 44.5% of the hosts have multiple listings which can indicate that it’s more likely they are running a business.

“Today, according to Daft.ie there are only 1,564 properties available to rent in the capital. With the homeless figures for November showing that 6,985 people were accessing emergency accommodation, including 2549 children

man98

Say what you want, but calling our building standards excessive is just wrong - they were absolutely lackluster throughout the boom. The reason they exist is to prevent another Priory Hall. There's plenty of derelict land in Dublin, Cork, any city. What's holding up construction is limits on building height, lack of willingness on behalf of councils and a lack of funds to an extent. Councils do not and will not build social housing right now and they're holding the waiting lists hostage. It's plain wrong. Limiting buildings to 5 storeys in Dublin's centre is sending people by the busload out to the suburbs. More cars on the road, less children in empty city schools, more commuting time wasted - an infrastructural nightmare.

Middle Man

man98 wrote: »

Say what you want, but calling our building standards excessive is just wrong - they were absolutely lackluster throughout the boom. The reason they exist is to prevent another Priory Hall. There's plenty of derelict land in Dublin, Cork, any city. What's holding up construction is limits on building height, lack of willingness on behalf of councils and a lack of funds to an extent. Councils do not and will not build social housing right now and they're holding the waiting lists hostage. It's plain wrong. Limiting buildings to 5 storeys in Dublin's centre is sending people by the busload out to the suburbs. More cars on the road, less children in empty city schools, more commuting time wasted - an infrastructural nightmare.

Not to mention another form of Leprechaun Economics - property values including land prices in this country are pure make believe. Time to scrap zoning and bring in town planning orders (like motorway orders) with CPOs at agricultural prices + 25%. Time to get rid of our inefficient economy and drive competition in sectors like construction - cost of building materials would be a start.

man98

Middle Man wrote: »

Not to mention another form of Leprechaun Economics - property values including land prices in this country are pure make believe. Time to scrap zoning and bring in town planning orders (like motorway orders) with CPOs at agricultural prices + 25%. Time to get rid of our inefficient economy and drive competition in sectors like construction - cost of building materials would be a start.

Zoning is beggar's belief however I can't imagine putting more power in council hands will change anything. Look at the likes of Portlaoise, there's a massive development on the old dump a few km outside of the town. There's the N80(?) running through it but other than that it's an awful place for transport, there's next to no amenities (there might be a Paddy Power there nowadays actually :pac: ) and it's a council approved nightmarish development. Inflating land values (See: Irish Glass Bottle Plant) leads to these out of town, miles away from anywhere, built on a dump developments. The problem? The councils are only too happy to facilitate it.

hi5

Middle Man wrote: »

Not to mention another form of Leprechaun Economics - property values including land prices in this country are pure make believe. Time to scrap zoning and bring in town planning orders (like motorway orders) with CPOs at agricultural prices + 25%. Time to get rid of our inefficient economy and drive competition in sectors like construction - cost of building materials would be a start.

The Kenny report from the early 70's... never happened:rolleyes:
€1500 for an eight of an acre plot on the edge of town? it would crash existing values... we can't be having that now.

spacetweek

Idbatterim wrote: »

a thread has started on after hours titled with a strong hint of sarcasm, "the government has solved the housing crisis" a poster living in berlin, posted the below, so once again I want to know, why our visionaries in planning wont allow this here, they obviously know better than German planners! there is another statement of sarcasm overload in case it isn't obvious!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101953822&postcount=40

That is the most ludicrously kippy little studio I've ever seen. Dublin is only 1 million people, there is plenty of space for decent sized apts. This isn't Hong Kong.

All through the boom people repeatedly complained that sizes were too small and standards not high enough. Sizes and standards were raised and now some people want them lowered again.

Another objective is to get families living centrally again in apartments, how will that kip achieve that?

lucernarian

It's not easy to convince families to settle in apartments and own a home where management fees can be >2% of the cost of the apartment.

Not everyone wants or needs an apartment that has lots of space as would suit a family. It would be so much better to have a wider variety of apartment sizes, with 4 bed apartments mandated and e.g. 10% or less of apartments in a development built as special studio designs with less floor space.

So much housing demand in Dublin and to a certain extent Cork and Galway is coming from younger single professionals in IT from other European countries. A growing student population doesn't help. I think better noise insulation and bigger kitchen appliances would do more for liveability than more living room space tbh.

Lowering limits in a crude fashion would only help greedy developers though. And I think there are far bigger issues constraining supply, like landowners sitting on brownfield sites and sloppy use and planning of what meagre infrastructure we do have.

Idbatterim

All through the boom people repeatedly complained that sizes were too small and standards not high enough. Sizes and standards were raised and now some people want them lowered again.

Another objective is to get families living centrally again in apartments, how will that kip achieve that?

I dont think under current regs that apartments are too small... Talking of standards, the noise issue is massive thats the bloody one they need to address! They wont address building costs!

One big issue with apartments in my opinion, whether sharing or with a family. There is no room away from the kitchen / dining / living room! That is a massive problem in my opinion!

Money could be way better spent on eliminating dual aspect and lift core ratio and use some of the savings towards other areas that in my opinion, would be money far better spent.