Dublin 15 is going to get a lot more congested.

beauf

Those houses would seem idea to upgrade for retirement.
Room to add a stair lift, downstairs mobility bathroom. Room for a carer or family to stay over. Rooms big enough for mobility aids, wheelchairs, electric chairs etc.
Would make no sense to move somewhere smaller, that can't do all these things.

There are almost no smaller places suitable. When they do come up they are dang near the same price as a house, need about 80~150k refurbishment.
So you end up spending a load of money for nothing. Have to move away neighbours and area you know well. Exactly when you don't want to.

The only people this makes sense to is the people who want those houses for themselves.

beauf

Have you tried to price how much all this costs. Last time I looked at smaller places line bungalows the prices were eye watering.

Patches oHoulihan

Former Former Former wrote: »

I'd love to see some incentive to get older people to downsize.

D15 has a huge stock of 3 and 4 bed semi-detached houses, most with generous gardens, that are populated by one or two retired people. My own parents are rattling around a big house with an enormous garden. They should downsize but don't see the point. Maybe with a bit of a nudge, they would.

I don't know what such an incentive would look like but it seems that if we could get the right people in the right houses, we wouldn't need quite as many new builds.

Not limited to D15 obviously.

i was only talking to my ma about this yesterday.

she lives in D15, where i grew up and she is still in the 3 bed semi where there used to be 7 of us, Dad is dead so she is there alone.

she said she would have to be brought out in a box - thats her home. Has been for 43 years. No intention of giving it up

LorelaiG

Patches oHoulihan wrote: »

i was only talking to my ma about this yesterday.

she lives in D15, where i grew up and she is still in the 3 bed semi where there used to be 7 of us, Dad is dead so she is there alone.

she said she would have to be brought out in a box - thats her home. Has been for 43 years. No intention of giving it up

Houses like that are people's inheritance also. Maybe if there was some tax incentive to sell the house and retain most of the tax so that the sum of money could be inherited instead it would be more viable.

Former Former Former

Patches oHoulihan wrote: »

i was only talking to my ma about this yesterday.

she lives in D15, where i grew up and she is still in the 3 bed semi where there used to be 7 of us, Dad is dead so she is there alone.

she said she would have to be brought out in a box - thats her home. Has been for 43 years. No intention of giving it up

Well yeah, that's the mentality of a lot of older people and it wouldn't be easy to change that at all. It could be political suicide if some minister was seen to be throwing old people out on the street too.

Still, I think it's worth exploring.

LorelaiG wrote: »

Houses like that are people's inheritance also. Maybe if there was some tax incentive to sell the house and retain most of the tax so that the sum of money could be inherited instead it would be more viable.

You can sell the house and gift the money to your kids, it's treated the same as inheiritance. However, you then need somewhere to live.

In fact, the 'Fair Deal' scheme actually incentivises people not to sell their home. It's better to leave it vacant until the owner's death than to sell while he/she is in care, which is a bit mad. But again, politicial dynamite.

beauf

Former Former Former wrote: »

Well yeah, that's the mentality of a lot of older people ....Still, I think it's worth exploring.

Its not a mentality it makes common sense and is practical and also good financial sense for them.

Worth exploring for who exactly?

Former Former Former wrote: »

You can sell the house and gift the money to your kids, it's treated the same as inheiritance. However, you then need somewhere to live.

In fact, the 'Fair Deal' scheme actually incentivises people not to sell their home. It's better to leave it vacant until the owner's death than to sell while he/she is in care, which is a bit mad. But again, politicial dynamite.

Political issues aside. Inheritance and legal issues can tie property up for years, decades even. You are not going to fast track that ever.

It would be easier and quicker to build a new place for new buyers than trying to asset strip the elderly and vulnerable. The reality there is nowhere better for them to go.

Come back when you've incentivised this, built the retirement homes and assisted living housing...and no nursing homes are not the same thing.

Home care has shown to be cheaper than institutional care, with improved patient outcomes.

Nijmegen

Former Former Former wrote: »

Well yeah, that's the mentality of a lot of older people and it wouldn't be easy to change that at all. It could be political suicide if some minister was seen to be throwing old people out on the street too.

Still, I think it's worth exploring.

Ha, good luck. Any proposal that smells of putting someone out of their home...

I remember chatting to a councilor down in a south co Dublin ward, telling me that she had gotten an ear full off a retired and widowed chap who claimed he was working part time partially to cover the cost of his property tax. He was living alone in a massive house on a massive plot on a highly desirable road, the type where someone would buy the house and probably knock it and build something new for the times or extend it massively. He claimed to have a property tax bill north of €5k to pay annually and his pension brought him above the income threshold to defer or not pay it.

The reason he was still in the house and working a job to pay his property tax was because he inherited the house from his parents after growing up in it himself. Hard to tell him he's actually a multi millionaire who could live on easy street if only he let that house go.

Same could be said for a widow living in a 3-bed semi. The emotional tug is really strong, even though from an "efficiency" point of view you'd rather see them living in 1-bedroom colonies somewhere with medical facilities nearby, maybe out in the sun.

beauf

Nijmegen wrote: »

....
Same could be said for a widow living in a 3-bed semi. The emotional tug is really strong, even though from an "efficiency" point of view you'd rather see them living in 1-bedroom colonies somewhere with medical facilities nearby, maybe out in the sun.

It interesting how on the property thread people are complaining about the lack of supply especially for people first timer, or singles who don't want a house. Rarer than hens teeth was one comment. Eye watering prices. But when it comes to downsizing supply (or price) doesn't seem to any issue at all. They seem to plentiful, in ideal locations, with medical facilities on tap. Whereas everyone else can't even get a place in a GP.

Former Former Former

Nijmegen wrote: »

Ha, good luck. Any proposal that smells of putting someone out of their home...

I remember chatting to a councilor down in a south co Dublin ward, telling me that she had gotten an ear full off a retired and widowed chap who claimed he was working part time partially to cover the cost of his property tax. He was living alone in a massive house on a massive plot on a highly desirable road, the type where someone would buy the house and probably knock it and build something new for the times or extend it massively. He claimed to have a property tax bill north of €5k to pay annually and his pension brought him above the income threshold to defer or not pay it.

The reason he was still in the house and working a job to pay his property tax was because he inherited the house from his parents after growing up in it himself. Hard to tell him he's actually a multi millionaire who could live on easy street if only he let that house go.

Same could be said for a widow living in a 3-bed semi. The emotional tug is really strong, even though from an "efficiency" point of view you'd rather see them living in 1-bedroom colonies somewhere with medical facilities nearby, maybe out in the sun.

I'm not talking about retirement communities, I was thinking more about the apartments that are going up everywhere. They're all designed to be wheelchair accessible from day one, they don't come with gardens that need maintenance, get an apartment with a lift and you never have to worry about stairs again.

I'm just thinking out loud, Irish people have such a visceral connection with home ownership that it's probably never going to happen, but we give first-time buyers a tax break on buying a new build, why not give downsizers something similar to encourage it?

As it stands, all these apartments will be bought either by large landlords, or by first time buyers who live there a few years to get on the ladder then rent it out. Neither is a great outcome for any sort of sustainable community.

Pat Dunne

Former Former Former wrote: »

I'm not talking about retirement communities, I was thinking more about the apartments that are going up everywhere. They're all designed to be wheelchair accessible from day one, they don't come with gardens that need maintenance, get an apartment with a lift and you never have to worry about stairs again.

I'm just thinking out loud, Irish people have such a visceral connection with home ownership that it's probably never going to happen, but we give first-time buyers a tax break on buying a new build, why not give downsizers something similar to encourage it?

As it stands, all these apartments will be bought either by large landlords, or by first time buyers who live there a few years to get on the ladder then rent it out. Neither is a great outcome for any sort of sustainable community.

What sad black and white world you live in. Seems fairly obvious that you don’t live in a place that you call Home!
You’re not a Accountant by any chance?

Chrisam

Former Former Former wrote: »

I'm not talking about retirement communities, I was thinking more about the apartments that are going up everywhere. They're all designed to be wheelchair accessible from day one, they don't come with gardens that need maintenance, get an apartment with a lift and you never have to worry about stairs again.


Agree with you about the large landlords. Not a good policy move with 198 people with the same landlord, who is focused on managing investor interests.

My mam is 87 and wouldn't be moved from her home, garden and neighbours. Starting over/downsizing is really a discussion for the active retired, as health is such a factor in the decision.

What I would like to see is more analysis of the existing social housing stock. I read an article a couple of years ago, which said Dublin City Council had on ave 5,000 empty beds each night. For example, soneone who has raised their family, now living in the council house alone. In contrast, families living in hotels and b&bs. If private renters have to house share, then why can't council tenants be matched with accomodation which better suits their family size? That would also take the pressure off building multiple units in new builds. Probably hard to sell the idea politically.

Former Former Former

Pat Dunne wrote: »

What sad black and white world you live in. Seems fairly obvious that you don’t live in a place that you call Home!
You’re not a Accountant by any chance?

Yeah, see this is exactly the sort of reaction that any politician would get. Utterly irrational, totally missing the point and genuinely nasty. What minister would risk getting this sort of reaction from voters?

I live in a 4 bed house with my wife and kids. However, if I wanted to buy something similar tomorrow, I'd be very hard pressed to find one. That's the problem. All these apartments and duplexes are of no use to families. At the same time, we have thousands of retired people who simply don't need 1500 sq feet of house. Doesn't seem like rocket science that if there are older people who might want to move, that we could do something to encourage it.

Chrisam

Former Former Former wrote: »

Yeah, see this is exactly the sort of reaction that any politician would get. Utterly irrational, totally missing the point and genuinely nasty. What minister would risk getting this sort of reaction from voters?

I live in a 4 bed house with my wife and kids. However, if I wanted to buy something similar tomorrow, I'd be very hard pressed to find one. That's the problem. All these apartments and duplexes are of no use to families. At the same time, we have thousands of retired people who simply don't need 1500 sq feet of house. Doesn't seem like rocket science that if there are older people who might want to move, that we could do something to encourage it.

....

It seems virtually no one wants to to live in apartments (unless as a stepping stone, to the desired house), yet that's what the developers keep telling us we want. It might be what we need, but it's certainly not what the majority of people want.

beauf

Former Former Former wrote: »

....
I live in a 4 bed house with my wife and kids. However, if I wanted to buy something similar tomorrow, I'd be very hard pressed to find one. That's the problem. ...

There's a shortage of housing of every type. It's not exclusive to your situation. It's wasn't caused by people staying in their family home. It's a multi faceted problem thats been going for decades.

Pat Dunne

Former Former Former wrote: »

Yeah, see this is exactly the sort of reaction that any politician would get. Utterly irrational, totally missing the point and genuinely nasty. What minister would risk getting this sort of reaction from voters?

I live in a 4 bed house with my wife and kids. However, if I wanted to buy something similar tomorrow, I'd be very hard pressed to find one. That's the problem. All these apartments and duplexes are of no use to families. At the same time, we have thousands of retired people who simply don't need 1500 sq feet of house. Doesn't seem like rocket science that if there are older people who might want to move, that we could do something to encourage it.

Yes, indeed the associated memories, of familiarity, security, accomplishment and achievement that go with a family home are irrational. Yet, these are tangible emotions that the overwhelming majority of people experience.
As a nation, we have been poorly served by our Politicians, our Public/Civil Servants and Developers who have presided over the provision of our housing stock of the last 25 years.
Apartments in Ireland are a unattractive proposition to the majority of people in Ireland. Most are poorly constructed, just barely complying with the building standards of the day. Indeed it was put to me once, “that the minimum building regulations become the maximum standards for Developers”.
Unfortunately not since the time of TK Whitaker has this country engaged in medium to long term planning. As a society, we need to provide for an attractive Public and Private housing model for the next 3 to 4 decades.
Whereby the standards of the homes we live in is not dictated by greedy Developers driven by profit, but by the need to build a fair society.

Former Former Former

Chrisam wrote: »

....

It seems virtually no one wants to to live in apartments (unless as a stepping stone, to the desired house), yet that's what the developers keep telling us we want. It might be what we need, but it's certainly not what the majority of people want.

Well, yeah, this is the problem that we have to tackle.

A huge part of that is building decent apartments and the ones currently being planned are ridiculous. I honestly didn't realise studios were allowed again until I saw the planning for the new scheme at Windmill in Coolmine.

A studio apartment, in Coolmine? Who the hell could possibly think this is a good idea?

Making all these new builds somewhat more attractive to anyone other than landlords might be a start.
1. Build MUDs that people might actually want to call home
2. Incentivise people to downsize
3. Free up traditional family homes for families

I'm not optimistic that anything will happen but ploughing down this current path is just going to lead to a lot of problems down the line.

Nijmegen

beauf wrote: »

It interesting how on the property thread people are complaining about the lack of supply especially for people first timer, or singles who don't want a house. Rarer than hens teeth was one comment. Eye watering prices. But when it comes to downsizing supply (or price) doesn't seem to any issue at all. They seem to plentiful, in ideal locations, with medical facilities on tap. Whereas everyone else can't even get a place in a GP.

As another user has noted, even moving to apartments in the same area would free up space. But the issue runs a bit deeper than "Hey, econometrically this makes sense" as you say.

Former Former Former wrote: »

Yeah, see this is exactly the sort of reaction that any politician would get. Utterly irrational, totally missing the point and genuinely nasty. What minister would risk getting this sort of reaction from voters?

I live in a 4 bed house with my wife and kids. However, if I wanted to buy something similar tomorrow, I'd be very hard pressed to find one. That's the problem. All these apartments and duplexes are of no use to families. At the same time, we have thousands of retired people who simply don't need 1500 sq feet of house. Doesn't seem like rocket science that if there are older people who might want to move, that we could do something to encourage it.

As you say, the issue is that any proposal - even a well thought out one - would instantly be met with headlines and grey vote meetings about putting people out of their homes. And to be fair, the associated memories are not unimportant for these folks or anyone really. But there is an issue that right now, today, there are a lot of single or dual occupancy family homes (or worse, empty homes waiting for the aul Fair Deal to wash through after someone passes away). It's clearly inefficient but also clearly not something you'd want to even attempt to fix if you wanted to keep your seat as a politician.

Chrisam wrote: »

....

It seems virtually no one wants to to live in apartments (unless as a stepping stone, to the desired house), yet that's what the developers keep telling us we want. It might be what we need, but it's certainly not what the majority of people want.

I think the thesis is that we have a large, young immigrant workforce that is driven by foreign direct investment and they will live in apartments. Saying "nobody" wants apartments is untrue. But yes on the other side you probably do have developers figuring out what they can charge per square foot vs what they can build and going apartments.

Then again, if you also say that urban sprawl (Dublin's contiguous suburban landscape stopping somewhere with a view of the Curragh Racecourse, say) is something you want to prevent you got to build up. And if you propose building loads of new housing estates... Well, there's no winning.

Ideal development nobody objects to is likely to occur on an artificial island built out of sight of the existing coastline, to be honest.

Former Former Former wrote: »

Well, yeah, this is the problem that we have to tackle.

A huge part of that is building decent apartments and the ones currently being planned are ridiculous. I honestly didn't realise studios were allowed again until I saw the planning for the new scheme at Windmill in Coolmine.

A studio apartment, in Coolmine? Who the hell could possibly think this is a good idea?

Making all these new builds somewhat more attractive to anyone other than landlords might be a start.

I'm not optimistic that anything will happen but ploughing down this current path is just going to lead to a lot of problems down the line.

Funny, there's people in the city center objecting to the apartments being built there, too. An "ideal" location for apartments or new builds is... Hard to find.

Which is the crux we circle around in this thread, I suppose.

beauf

Landlords dont build houses. They don't control anything. There aren't enough politicians who are landlords to influence it either. People with more means are more likely to own property. It's simply that. The vast majority of landlords own one rental. Having one rental gives you no influence over anything.

The developers build what they can sell at a profit.

We have people complaining there's too many apartments not enough houses. We have people complaining there's too many houses not enough apartments. We need both, there's a shortage of both. Banning AirBNB didn't solve this. RPZ didn't fix that either..

Cop yourself on none of this is a grand conspiracy. It's just the market reacting to market conditions. Govt keeps shifting the goal posts for short term political gain due to public pressure (and social media).

beauf

Nijmegen wrote: »

....As you say, the issue is that any proposal - even a well thought out one - would instantly be met with headlines and grey vote meetings about putting people out of their homes. And to be fair, the associated memories are not unimportant for these folks or anyone really. But there is an issue that right now, today, there are a lot of single or dual occupancy family homes (or worse, empty homes waiting for the aul Fair Deal to wash through after someone passes away). It's clearly inefficient but also clearly not something you'd want to even attempt to fix if you wanted to keep your seat as a politician...

It not inefficient. You only think that if you only look at space as the only criteria.

Its also not a quick fix. Anyone who thinks it is, doesn't understand the complexities involved.

Nijmegen wrote: »

....
I think the thesis is that we have a large, young immigrant workforce that is driven by foreign direct investment and they will live in apartments. Saying "nobody" wants apartments is untrue. .....

There are also older immigrant, wealthy and with families. Looking for upmarket homes and living standards on par with that they are used to in other countries, which are often than much higher than we have in Ireland.

A lot of work isn't in the city. Its in the industrial and business parks in the suburbs and outskirts of the city. Thus apartments are also needed in the suburbs.

blanch152

Former Former Former wrote: »

Well, yeah, this is the problem that we have to tackle.

A huge part of that is building decent apartments and the ones currently being planned are ridiculous. I honestly didn't realise studios were allowed again until I saw the planning for the new scheme at Windmill in Coolmine.

A studio apartment, in Coolmine? Who the hell could possibly think this is a good idea?

Making all these new builds somewhat more attractive to anyone other than landlords might be a start.
1. Build MUDs that people might actually want to call home
2. Incentivise people to downsize
3. Free up traditional family homes for families

I'm not optimistic that anything will happen but ploughing down this current path is just going to lead to a lot of problems down the line.

In answer to the question in bold, my adult daughter.

Nijmegen

beauf wrote: »

It not inefficient. You only think that if you only look at space as the only criteria.

Its also not a quick fix. Anyone who thinks it is, doesn't understand the complexities involved.

There are also older immigrant, wealthy and with families. Looking for upmarket homes and living standards on par with that they are used to in other countries, which are often than much higher than we have in Ireland.

A lot of work isn't in the city. Its in the industrial and business parks in the suburbs and outskirts of the city. Thus apartments are also needed in the suburbs.

I think we are actually in violent agreement, on both counts!

A real issue with all proposed solutions to housing problems and the problems of urban development is that basically every single one will attract some form or another of objection or have a roadblock highlighted as a good reason to proceed. Many of the objections in isolation have merit, even if only from a narrow perspective.

So you have that offset against real need, and prices rise and nobody is happy. The engine eternal, as they'd say in Snowpiercer.

beauf

I was kinda expanding on your comment.

We are kinda in limbo with the lockdown when it comes to congestion and housing.

It's very uncertain what will happen afterwards.

Namer

Another Strategic Housing Development for Dublin 15 http://www.clonsillashd.ie/
The construction of a residential development of 198 no. Build to Rent apartment units (120 no. one beds, 59 no. two beds and 19 no. three beds) in 8 no. blocks (ranging in height from four/five to seven storeys in height)

Praetorian22

looks great, but will it turn out great?............. hopefully but high-rises? similar to what was done down in Ongar/Hansfield.

Only took a few months for the canal to become a dumping ground

Delighted to see the old St Mochtas school building salvaged however

BlazingSaddler

Namer wrote: »

Another Strategic Housing Development for Dublin 15 http://www.clonsillashd.ie/
The construction of a residential development of 198 no. Build to Rent apartment units (120 no. one beds, 59 no. two beds and 19 no. three beds) in 8 no. blocks (ranging in height from four/five to seven storeys in height)

Impressive video and nice to see what they plan to do with the old school but seriously how will the roads infrastructure currently available to us handle this?, remember the level crossing will be closed by the time this is built (probably) so all that extra traffic will be sent in one direction only and past St Mochta’s School.

Phil.x

They must be apartments for cyclists, 392 bicycle parking spaces.

Former Former Former

Build to rent, disaster.

198 apartments, 100 car spaces. Really?

IngazZagni

Former Former Former wrote: »

Build to rent, disaster.

198 apartments, 100 car spaces. Really?

This is the planning dilemma. Provide 300 parking spaces and it's blocked because there would be too much traffic.
This development is only a 10 minute walk to the train station. Short walk to lots of local facilities.
Modern Ireland doesn't need as many cars. That's why there are about 2 cycling spaces for each apartment.

Development looks good. Just need to get them to commit to high quality materials.

Edit: I've just been reviewing the documents. Very interesting to see that GoCar have agreed to base 8 cars in the development and this rental car can be used by all residents. Is this something we could see more of moving forward? I think it's a great idea.

Former Former Former

IngazZagni wrote: »

This is the planning dilemma. Provide 300 parking spaces and it's blocked because there would be too much traffic.
This development is only a 10 minute walk to the train station. Short walk to lots of local facilities.
Modern Ireland doesn't need as many cars. That's why there are about 2 cycling spaces for each apartment.

Development looks good. Just need to get them to commit to high quality materials.

Edit: I've just been reviewing the documents. Very interesting to see that GoCar have agreed to base 8 cars in the development and this rental car can be used by all residents. Is this something we could see more of moving forward? I think it's a great idea.

I just think the reality of life in D15 is such that you still need a car. Access to the train is great - if you want to go somewhere that is also served by the train, which isn't that many places apart from the city centre. Walking or cycling to local services is great, until you need to bring home a load of groceries, or it's raining...

I would just be worried that the roads and estates around it would end up strewn with cars which sort of defeats the purpose. But also see the logic that if we keep building car parks, people will keep filling them.

Caranica

That's national planning policy for sites near public transport now. Gone are the days of 1.5 spaces per unit with 2-3 bedrooms and 2 for 4 beds.