Social Housing in Free State and onwards...or How did they do it, but we can't?

whisky_galore

Just wondering how did a near bankrupt country, just recovering from a recent Civil War and wracked by lack of investment and emigration (and afterwards Economic War and the effects of WW2 etc.) managed to replace the rotting tenements with what we call now 'social housing', many of which are still very much occupied and in use.

Are we missing a trick these days?

Peregrinus

They didn't. Or, at best, they made a modest start, but it took decades. Gardiner Street in the 1970s was not very different from Gardiner Street in the 1920s.

donaghs

Peregrinus wrote: »

They didn't. Or, at best, they made a modest start, but it took decades.

Ireland was ruined by the Civil War, but they still managed to start the Marino Scheme in 1924. http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/09/07/a-garden-city-the-dublin-corporation-housing-scheme-at-marino-1924/#.WFPAAX09q98

All over Ireland, and Dublin, on smaller scales, local authority housing continued to be built.

Very interesting to consider the size of the inner city population then, when so many families who once lived in the inner city, were able to relocate to places like Marino (1920s), Cabra (began 1930s), Crumlin (began 1930s), Finglas (1950s onwards), Ballymun (1960s) etc.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Gardiner Street in the 1970s was not very different from Gardiner Street in the 1920s.

I think the families sharing rooms in old tenements was mostly eradicated by the 1960s

pedroeibar1

whisky_galore wrote: »

Just wondering how did a near bankrupt country, just recovering from a recent Civil War and wracked by lack of investment and emigration (and afterwards Economic War and the effects of WW2 etc.) managed to replace the rotting tenements with what we call now 'social housing', many of which are still very much occupied and in use.

Are we missing a trick these days?

Interesting question on quite a complex topic. The short answer is lack of political will and ability. In the 1920’s we had bright, motivated civil servants who were hired following stiff examinations. We also had politicians on both sides that had risked their lives for their beliefs & principles and who wanted this young country to succeed. All put the State before self-interest. Dev, for all his many faults was a reasonable mathematician/numbers man and understood the art of the deal. Also, in the late ‘40’s he introduced a 25% property purchase tax on foreign buyers.

In recent decades the ‘less dynamic’ joined the Civil Service. Look at the paucity of economists & accountants in 2006 at the Dept. of Finance – being honest, the near total absence of them. In the same recent decades we have had politicians from FG / FF / L that have no idea of business. The few that did – mainly from FF – were more interested in filling their own pockets than filling the coffers of the State. As for business skills just look at the candidates in Dun L Rathdown for the 2016 election – none had any business experience or had accomplished anything outside politics or education- a bunch of teachers, (Hanafin, Mitchell-O’Connor), anti-everythings, idiots or the progeny of party hacks. And that could equally apply to what is occupying the Dail today, which is why we have no hope of economic success driven from within. They think ‘hardball’ is the name of a fancy drink!

In the 1920’s different economic circumstances were at play and while Ireland was not financially healthy, it had sovereignty and was not as bad financially as at the recent mess. It was in a lower economic position, so it was easier to ‘lift’. Cash was raised from from the markets but also from emigrant Irish (notably in the US) by bond issues. Post-crash (Lehmans et al) , we sold out our heritage on the cheap and without a fight. Our politicians were taken for a ride because they were totally out of their depth, baffled / bemused so they rolled over and were screwed. That is an indication of the abilities of those in the Dail.

Donaghs' mention of Marino is interesting - a bit of imagination and debt arbitrage helped get many houses there financed ;some were built with ‘savings’ made via use of compensation payments to departing Anglo-Irish. Insurance policies did not cover the looting & burning of the ‘big houses during the War of Ind., the Civil War and the Truce (after which latter event many burnings took place). The new State was liable for damage claims, which were investigated by the Irish courts under the terms of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923.

Significantly, there was a reference in the that Act to using any award granted for the restoration of the property. Clause 10 of the act stipulated that compensation in respect of the destruction or damage to a building would be paid by the new government only upon fulfilment of those conditions which the courts might impose, which often required the building to be wholly or partially reinstated. Full reinstatement meant that the old building would have to be rebuilt or a new building built on the same site. Partial reinstatement meant that a new building would have to be erected on a nearby site or upon one agreed by the court. One claim of c£100,000 was reduced by the courts to c£40,000 and appealed by the county council, resulting to an award of c£27,000. That was appealed by the Minister for Finance and reduced further to c£25,000 with a ‘Clause 10 partial reinstatement’ condition.

Dublin was rehousing many citizens in mixed developments of owner-occupiers and lessees. One of these was Dublin’s Marino and Croydon Park development and many had been sold on lease to occupants (at an average price of £428!) Although there was a substantial shortage of funds, the Corporation was under pressure to continue its building programme. A deal was done and approved by the courts that the ‘partial reinstatement’ of the Kerry ‘mansion’ could take place in Dublin and the burned-out victim agreed to accept the sum of £18,000. He got his cash and the Corpo took the long view, eventually getting £25 k from Government.

FWIW there also was a big German connection. The main builder at Marino was a German, Kossel, renowned for his specialisation in concrete. Kossel developed “Kossel Slag Concrete” by using leftovers from industrial production processes and adding it to concrete in order to improve its thermal insulation. He was driven to distraction by the theft of materials from the site, hundreds of yards of lead pipes being dug up, timber roof trusses stolen, etc. He also had a big union problem.

whisky_galore

Would there have been a motivation, with the bogeyman of Bolshevism of the 20's, that it would be better to re-house workers in relatively comfortable homes to stave off any potential unrest?

pedroeibar1

I doubt it, but I’m not an expert. I know about Marino due to the debt purchase element, I was researching the ‘big house’ burnings and not the social housing angle.

Jellybaby1

donaghs wrote: »

......I think the families sharing rooms in old tenements was mostly eradicated by the 1960s

Yes indeed, mostly, but not all. We were never housed by Dublin Corporation and my mother was still living in a tenement and died in the 1980's. We were told we had plenty of room (two rooms in total, shared toilet, shared sink, no bath, no running water in the flat). Finally the other two tenants vacated, one due to death and the other was given a Corporation house and my mother was left in the building alone.

Peregrinus

whisky_galore wrote: »

Would there have been a motivation, with the bogeyman of Bolshevism of the 20's, that it would be better to re-house workers in relatively comfortable homes to stave off any potential unrest?

Possibly, but it wasn't the main driver. The housing conditions in Dublin were simply appalling, and everybody agreed that change was neededl; nobody needed the spectre of bolshevism to convince themselves of this. In 1925, 25% of the population of Dublin lived in accommodation where there was one room or less per family.

I mentioned above that the Free State recovering from the Civil War didn't "manage to replace the rotting tenements"; this was largely because the problem was so huge it was going to take over a generation to address. But despite their limited financial resources, and their economic and political conservatism which prioritised keeping taxes low, the new state did put money into social housing in urban areas. But, to be honest, this didn't really kick in until the 1930s - about 7,200 social housing units were built in Ireland in the 1920s, as compared to 39,000 in the 1930s. This rose to 52,500 by the 1950s, and a high of 62,000 in the 1970s.

This wasn't directly financed by taxpayers. Local authorities issued bonds to borrrow the funds needed to build the houses; interest payments and capital repayments were financed out of the rents received from tenants.

Which meant, of course, that rents had to be relative high, and/or construction and maintenance costs relatively low, in order to keep the system solvent. This meant that a good deal of housing was small, cheap and of poor quality; it also meant that the very poorest had to have their rents subsidised by better-off tenants (rents were linked to earnings) which meant that the higher-earning tenants had an incentive to leave the system and move into private housing, where (for them) rents or even mortgage repayments might actually be lower. On the one hand this freed up social housing for poorer tenants, but on the other it undermined the financial solvency of the system, since the poorer tenants paid lower rents, and it also increased housing segregation, with sharper and sharper social and economic divisions between public housing and private estates.

tabbey

whisky_galore wrote: »

Just wondering how did a near bankrupt country, just recovering from a recent Civil War and wracked by lack of investment and emigration (and afterwards Economic War and the effects of WW2 etc.) managed to replace the rotting tenements with what we call now 'social housing', many of which are still very much occupied and in use.

Are we missing a trick these days?

The social housing builtbuilt in the 1920s and 30s, and indeed those built in the late Victorian, and Edwardian period, were built by competitive tender, on land purchased at a fair price.

Unfortunately the present and recent governments, certainly since 1997, have kept the prices up, in order to inflate house prices. With a shortage of social housing as well as private housing, prices and rents rise, to the benefit of speculators, including a lot of politicians.
In recent years, the government has used private housing and rent allowances instead of building social housing. They spend as much now in real terms as forty years ago. The difference is, that instead of putting the money into bricks and mortar, they are putting it into landlord's bank accounts.

pedroeibar1

tabbey wrote: »

The social housing builtbuilt in the 1920s and 30s, and indeed those built in the late Victorian, and Edwardian period, were built by competitive tender, on land purchased at a fair price.

Unfortunately the present and recent governments, certainly since 1997, have kept the prices up, in order to inflate house prices. With a shortage of social housing as well as private housing, prices and rents rise, to the benefit of speculators, including a lot of politicians.
In recent years, the government has used private housing and rent allowances instead of building social housing. They spend as much now in real terms as forty years ago. The difference is, that instead of putting the money into bricks and mortar, they are putting it into landlord's bank accounts.

I don’t agree with much of that Tabbey, but in debating it we would be entering into the realm of politics and economics which do not have much place in this forum.

In a nutshell, during the boom years we were building 70-90,000 houses a year (many – maybe half of them, in the wrong places) when we needed about 30k annually. In 2006/7 everything stopped, so we now are playing catch-up and there is pent-up demand, which coupled with high taxation on the end product, a land cost that is totally out of line with global norms and some greed drives up prices. Historically (in the last 50-60 years) and excluding large urban zones, the site cost in Ireland has been and is far out of line. In the USA, the norm for housing is to have a site value at max 25% of the total selling price (which is why some houses are moved, literally.) In Europe it is considerably less, with 15% being the norm in Portugal. In Ireland the site cost element is nearer to 50% and often much more, which is why we see houses being demolished to fit 2 or 3 on the same site. It also is why some developers got so rich so fast for doing nothing other than a gamble on a planning/zoning/density play. So we have high prices, driven higher by a supply shortage.

Lower down the social ladder all that is exacerbated by the hand-out mentality and a belief of entitlement, by those who expect – free of charge (or below economic cost) to be housed where, when and how they want.
Much of the social housing in the Victorian period was built by well-meaning capitalists – think of Edward Guinness and the Iveagh Buildings, or, over on the other side of the river Stoneybatter and the Dublin Artisan Dwelling Company, or the tram & rail companies dwellings built for their employees. Many of the bigger Victorian-era businesses built houses for their employees.

Social housing can be a disaster economically for any State because in general tenants do not maintain properties– far better to offload and minimise upkeep costs. I recall when I moved house back in the 80’s a council estate was built in a neighbouring townland. The build-cost of those houses was the same as what I paid. Those houses were wrecked by the tenants, now are long demolished, were replaced, many of the new ones have since been sold to tenants at a subsidised price and they are now flogging them for €200k +

Money for nothin' and chicks for free

whisky_galore

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Much of the social housing in the Victorian period was built by well-meaning capitalists – think of Edward Guinness and the Iveagh Buildings, or, over on the other side of the river Stoneybatter and the Dublin Artisan Dwelling Company, or the tram & rail companies dwellings built for their employees. Many of the bigger Victorian-era businesses built houses for their employees.

Perhaps the big tech companies might be forced to revisit this one if they are not doing it already, not out of any sense of altruism but practically, as their staff might not be able to find any place to live, esp if they are new to the country or returning emigrants, if the current situation persists.

Interesting that those dwellings had differing grades just as the class structure, large fancy ones for managers and plainer ones with outdoor privvys for workers further down the pecking order. Different grades of railway stationmaster having less or more elaborate dwellings depending on importance of their location.

pedroeibar1

whisky_galore wrote: »

Perhaps the big tech companies might be forced to revisit this one if they are not doing it already, not out of any sense of altruism but practically, as their staff might not be able to find any place to live, esp if they are new to the country or returning emigrants, if the current situation persists.

Interesting that those dwellings had differing grades just as the class structure, large fancy ones for managers and plainer ones with outdoor privvys for workers further down the pecking order. Different grades of railway stationmaster having less or more elaborate dwellings depending on importance of their location.

It was a very socially-structured era, everyone had a place and was expected to know it and remain in it, with ‘no ideas above your station’. A privy per house was a luxury unknown to many, and even the ‘grand’ houses regularly had outside ones, known as ‘thunderboxes’ and did not start to go indoors until the mid 1800’s, with chamberpots/closed-stools being used well into the 1900’s. Bathrooms were also quite late, the moveable tin bath being the norm. I recall reading about Daniel O’Connell who was an 'early adapter' writing to his wife with instructions on installing a slate bath in Derrynane House. Back then a bath more than once a week was considered excessive.

In modern Ireland several of the ‘Big 4’ accountancy firms bought apartments several years ago to use as temporary accommodation and for visiting staff. Elm Park and Simmonscourt in D4 come to mind as locations. The big IT companies already are involved in housing their employees – in the US both Google and Facebook are developing properties See here

Housing is capital intensive and far outside the core activity of all big tech companies. However, should it happen in Ireland, it would be an option of last resort, as tech employees are well-paid and can afford the high(er) rents. Firms like Google would be well aware of the housing situation here and it would be a major input on any decision to relocate addition services here. Supply is the problem in Ireland, which is why much of the talk about obtaining lots of post-Brexit jobs is waffle. We have neither the office space nor residential accommodation for them.