Is building up the solution to the housing crisis?

Feckitll

As above.


State-of-the-art fireproof ultra-modern high-rise buildings 80-200m tall in areas such as Ballymun, Tallaght etc. Some areas e.g fields in northeast Kildare and north Wicklow could also be developed for this.

Affordable, and AGS could put resources into stopping crime spreading.

It could help lower the number of homeless people as well.

Atlantic Dawn

It's a solution but without proper public transport serving these new builds the area will just become a massive bottlekneck of traffic, perhaps have them built with zero parking available would be a plus

I only see them as a solution in built up areas, no point building them in rural locations.

_Kaiser_

Feckitll wrote: »

As above.


State-of-the-art fireproof ultra-modern high-rise buildings 80-200m tall in areas such as Ballymun, Tallaght etc. Some areas e.g fields in northeast Kildare and north Wicklow could also be developed for this.

Affordable, and AGS could put resources into stopping crime spreading.

It could help lower the number of homeless people as well.

We had towers in Ballymun before and they were magnets for anti-social behaviour.

Besides, that's not where these are needed as it's not where the employees of the likes of Facebook, Google etc want to be. These need to be built in the city centre, close to amenities and transport (which, while not great, at least do mostly exist).

This would in turn free up housing in the suburbs for families looking to settle down with kids rather than forcing them into Kildare, Meath and beyond.

The notion that our city centre skyline is some fantastic vista that must be "protected" from modern high-rise is something that needs to stop.

hynesie08

The fact that the docklands area doesn't have 5-6 high rise apartment buildings (15 stories plus) is a ****ing disgrace. The argument that it would ruin the skyline holds no water since the council put their genital wart of a building right on the Liffey.

biko

10 years since the last housing crisis/bubble/burst

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Feckitll wrote: »

Heavy community policing also.

Armed, I suppose. Any preference for the handguns?

ArchXStanton

High Rise doesn't tend to do too well here or in the UK..

jamo2oo9

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

We had towers in Ballymun before and they were magnets for anti-social behaviour.

Besides, that's not where these are needed as it's not where the employees of the likes of Facebook, Google etc want to be. These need to be built in the city centre, close to amenities and transport (which, while not great, at least do mostly exist).

This would in turn free up housing in the suburbs for families looking to settle down with kids rather than forcing them into Kildare, Meath and beyond.

The notion that our city centre skyline is some fantastic vista that must be "protected" from modern high-rise is something that needs to stop.

Ballymun was a special case. Those apartments in the Ballymun towers was mainly for the homeless and those on social housing lists.

John Sacrimoni

Tower blocks can work, the Ballymun experimet went wrong not because they were tower blocks but because of incompetent policing and lack of ameneties.

Most countries in Europe have tower blocks it makes no sense for us to ignore them, especially in the current crisis.

John Sacrimoni

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

Tower blocks can work, the Ballymun experimet went wrong not because they were tower blocks but because of incompetent policing and lack of ameneties.

Most countries in Europe have tower blocks it makes no sense for us to ignore them, especially in the current crisis.

Edit: Dublin Corporation deserve some blame also regarding Ballymun.

DS86DS

The problem with housing in Ireland is that we refuse to produce a cohesive and long term strategy to solve the nation's housing problem. That combined the with ridiculous planning system, which places all kinds of burdens on new builds. We have a system which is not only drowned in red tape....but that delays often straight forward building strategies for years on end.

We also have to get over the notion that an acre of grazing pasture suddenly becomes 1000% more in worth because it has been earmarked for development. Given our banking system, and crazy planning laws...........it is no wonder that people are commuting all the way from Wexford with long journeys, and even then having to have two household incomes to pay the mortgage.

The whole system has become ridiculous. My grandfather, on a baker's salary could afford a 3 bedroom house within minutes of the City Centre. Today, to get such a modest house on a single salary, you'd need to be a bloody CEO.

nim1bdeh38l2cw

Finnegan Swift Map wrote: »

Armed, I suppose. Any preference for the handguns?

Whatever Tom had the other day in Longford seemed to do the trick

troyzer

We need to start building high rise buildings in places like Inchicore and East Wall, not the countryside

kneemos

biko wrote: »

10 years since the last housing crisis/bubble/burst

The advice then was to keep building,but of course development became a dirty word.

Graniteville

A lot of the higher buildings will be on brownfield sites especially old industrial areas such as Dublin ind eat Glasnevin, areas beside the naas road erc

ToddyDoody

"No dig UP stupid"

mammajamma

Instead of trying to accommodate neverending amounts of people, how about we try to live within our means instead?

There was another report just days ago that we as a country are operating over-capacity.

Building more is akin to throwing buckets of water out of a ship, while completely ignoring the cause (more and more water coming in through the hole below deck) Its not going to work because it doesn't address the fundamental problem of sustainability.

Doesn't matter if we build up, down, under water, on clouds. As long as they are being constantly filled, wheres the end-point?

troyzer

mammajamma wrote: »

Instead of trying to accommodate neverending amounts of people, how about we try to live within our means instead?

There was another report just days ago that we as a country are operating over-capacity.

Building more is akin to throwing buckets of water out of a ship, while completely ignoring the cause (more and more water coming in through the hole below deck) Its not going to work because it doesn't address the fundamental problem of sustainability.

Doesn't matter if we build up, down, under water, on clouds. As long as they are being constantly filled, wheres the end-point?

Yeah, see the problem with that is younger people like me have nowhere to live?

Spanish Eyes

First thing to do is look at high rise apartment living in Continental Europe. Take some lessons.

Is there a basement storage area for the buggies, a couple of bikes, the Christmas tree, the suitcases etc?

Is there a place to dry your washing anywhere and if not is there a washer dryer?

Is there a place for your kids to play out safely?

Is there a shop/doctor/school/public transport etc. nearby?

Basic stuff for this kind of initiative.

_Kaiser_

troyzer wrote: »

We need to start building high rise buildings in places like Inchicore and East Wall, not the countryside

I'd suggest leveling much of the area around the IFSC and Connolly building several new high rise towers in their place instead.

Those current residents can be offered alternative accommodation outside the core city centre area if on housing lists.

It seems crazy to me that working people have to spend hours in traffic or on public transport each day so that others who aren't working can live next door to the jobs they aren't doing.

imitation

Highrises in Ireland and the UK were a basic cheap solution for people living in slums, just jam them into a tower block and hope the problem went away.

If you go to the continent you apartment living doesn't have the same bad image at all. It's definitely what we need to do. The thing is buildings not the problem any more, our government like all other governments has the hidden agenda of keeping house prices high to keep the voters happy. Property has become an investment rather than a basic right at it has left the people at the mercy of high rents and market manipulation.

mammajamma

troyzer wrote: »

Yeah, see the problem with that is younger people like me have nowhere to live?

Believe me, I know plenty of people in similar situations, and its compete fookery.

Do you remember when we had a recession and there was plenty of housing to go around (even barring the stupid estates built in the middle of nowhere)?

Strange how it all filled up at the drop of a hat, isn't it?

Did you know that some of the multinationals employ as many as 70%+ non-irish people? Just one example.

Hmmmmmmmm! Maybe there is plenty of housing, but not enough housing to accommodate vast amounts of non-irish people. I cant remember where I got the number, but a couple years ago there were over 200'000 non-nationals living in Dublin? That's a big chunk (if I remember correctly)

So when someone looks around at the housing situation and feel completely dumbfounded by how it reached these proportions, there are a few join-the-dots to be considered.

Spanish Eyes

Continental high rise/apartment living has factored in the needs of families. Here, not so much, it is all predicated on the professionals it seems to me anyway.

Storage is a big thing.
So is laundry.
So is accessibility to PT
So is how kids will adapt.

So I suppose that has all been done by now. Yeah right.

_Kaiser_

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

First thing to do is look at high rise apartment living in Continental Europe. Take some lessons.

Is there a basement storage area for the buggies, a couple of bikes, the Christmas tree, the suitcases etc?

Is there a place to dry your washing anywhere and if not is there a washer dryer?

Is there a place for your kids to play out safely?

Is there a shop/doctor/school/public transport etc. nearby?

Basic stuff for this kind of initiative.

Indeed.. this isn't a new idea and not something that we can't look to others for best practises.

The Irish measure of "success" being a 3/4-bed Semi-D in the suburbs though would need to change to. Not everyone needs, or probably wants, a house.. but renting is still a disaster and see as something to endure on the road to property ownership, and apartments are undesirable as they're generally tiny, badly laid out, with paper-thin soundproofing and not as marketable from a resale perspective.

All of that needs to change.

Spanish Eyes

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Indeed.. this isn't a new idea and not something that we can't look to others for best practises.

The Irish measure of "success" being a 3/4-bed Semi-D in the suburbs though would need to change to. Not everyone needs, or probably wants, a house.. but renting is still a disaster and see as something to endure on the road to property ownership, and apartments are undesirable as they're generally tiny, badly laid out, with paper-thin soundproofing and not as marketable from a resale perspective.

All of that needs to change.

Apartment living is not looked on as a good thing for families. That is the nub of the problem now I think.

But it can be done, and is done all over the world, if the facilities are there.

Sleeper12

High Rise isn't profitable for living accommodation in Dublin. The higher up you go the higher building cost. The only floor they can make a profit on is the penthouse. If we see any high rise it'll be hotels or offices, most likely with the top floor penthouse apartments.

Spanish Eyes

The biggest measure of success for any Housing Minister, is to accommodate those who are working and contributing with housing within the M50 ring.

If they had the cojones to limit those not working outside that limit it would really help imv.

Why would someone who is not working deserve housing within that limit?

I really wish someone would explain that to me now. But anyway....

Spanish Eyes

Sleeper12 wrote: »

High Rise isn't profitable for living accommodation in Dublin. The higher up you go the higher building cost. The only floor they can make a profit on is the penthouse. If we see any high rise it'll be hotels or offices, most likely with the top floor penthouse apartments.

Does not have to be private building, if the Government wanted it. They can do it, but need to prioritise the applicants for such housing as contributors.

votecounts

With the history we have with building shoddy apartments with little or regulation in relation to health and safety. Do we really trust developers to build something that is not grenfell tower.

Wheeliebin30

biko wrote: »

10 years since the last housing crisis/bubble/burst

Yet some people think with the click of a finger anyone who wants a house right now should have one...

Sleeper12

Spanish Eyes wrote:

Does not have to be private building, if the Government wanted it. They can do it, but need to prioritise the applicants for such housing as contributors.

But it does not matter if the government builds it. The building cost is still too great. It will be cheaper to build two buildings half the size than one big one. High rise isn't cheaper, its more expensive. There is no advantages in building higher. Its a myth that higher is cheaper.

Spanish Eyes

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yet some people think with the click of a finger anyone who wants a house right now should have one...

We could be arguing or discussing all night about this.

The issue to me is that those who are working and paying for their own accommodation by renting, will find it impossible to buy anything now.

But those who do not have any work are given accommodation from the State within the m50 even though they do not work or contribute much.

Sorry for being so despondent.

Sleeper12

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

Yet some people think with the click of a finger anyone who wants a house right now should have one...

Not a click of fingers exactly. FG have ignored the housing shortage since 2012. They were very slow to see what everyone else could see. They reacted at a snails pace. This is the first year with any real building.

This hasn't been linked to in the thread so far. Has this actually happened yet?

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/death-of-the-semid-as-height-limits-scrapped-37606251.html

Wheeliebin30

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We could be arguing or discussing all night about this.

The issue to me is that those who are working and paying for their own accommodation by renting, will find it impossible to buy anything now.

But those who do not have any work are given accommodation from the State within the m50 even though they do not work or contribute much.

Sorry for being so despondent.

I 100% agree with you.

Wheeliebin30

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not a click of fingers exactly. FG have ignored the housing shortage since 2012. They were very slow to see what everyone else could see. They reacted at a snails pace. This is the first year with any real building.

I forgot we had loads of money in 2012...

Seriously you need to get a junior cert economics book and start there.

I’ve never talked to anyone as clueless as yourself when it comes to government finances, taxation etc.

Wheeliebin30

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This hasn't been linked to in the thread so far. Has this actually happened yet?

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/death-of-the-semid-as-height-limits-scrapped-37606251.html

Of course not, it’s s positive thing, that doesn’t get reported here.

Spanish Eyes

Sleeper12 wrote: »

But it does not matter if the government builds it. The building cost is still too great. It will be cheaper to build two buildings half the size than one big one. High rise isn't cheaper, its more expensive. There is no advantages in building higher. Its a myth that higher is cheaper.

City living has its price. So what if it is more expensive? More people are accommodated where they work and contribute.

Those not working or contributing need to be assessed for a move outside the city limits though imv.

Can you imagine that happening, where their counterparts are commuting for hours to support and pay for them?

Something has to give sooner or later about this anomaly.

Wheeliebin30

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

City living has its price. So what if it is more expensive? More people are accommodated where they work and contribute.

Those not working or contributing need to be assessed for a move outside the city limits though imv.

Can you imagine that happening, where their counterparts are commuting for hours to support and pay for them?

Something has to give sooner or later about this anomaly.

You are correct but you won’t find it here.

We can keep building and building 500,000 apartments in town for people who don’t contribute and it will be graaaaaaaand.

What could go wrong?

Franz Von Peppercorn

hynesie08 wrote: »

The fact that the docklands area doesn't have 5-6 high rise apartment buildings (15 stories plus) is a ****ing disgrace. The argument that it would ruin the skyline holds no water since the council put their genital wart of a building right on the Liffey.

The Liffey there is at its widest. That means that large buildings won’t over shadow a narrow street or river, but will in fact look great in the reflection. However they made their decision.

Spanish Eyes

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We could be arguing or discussing all night about this.

The issue to me is that those who are working and paying for their own accommodation by renting, will find it impossible to buy anything now.

But those who do not have any work are given accommodation from the State within the m50 even though they do not work or contribute much.

Sorry for being so despondent.

Speaking of 'within the M50', what the f**k is a golf course such as Elmgreen doing in the area that it is currently in? Areas like this should be subject to a CPO and have space efficient housing constructed on them ASAP.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I forgot we had loads of money in 2012...

Seriously you need to get a junior cert economics book and start there.

I’ve never talked to anyone as clueless as yourself when it comes to government finances, taxation etc.

You just need to read past junior cert economics.

pablo128

mammajamma wrote: »

Instead of trying to accommodate neverending amounts of people, how about we try to live within our means instead?

There was another report just days ago that we as a country are operating over-capacity.

Building more is akin to throwing buckets of water out of a ship, while completely ignoring the cause (more and more water coming in through the hole below deck) Its not going to work because it doesn't address the fundamental problem of sustainability.

Doesn't matter if we build up, down, under water, on clouds. As long as they are being constantly filled, wheres the end-point?

You know there used to be 10 million people living in Ireland, don't you? And no high rises then either.

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'd suggest leveling much of the area around the IFSC and Connolly building several new high rise towers in their place instead.

Those current residents can be offered alternative accommodation outside the core city centre area if on housing lists.

It seems crazy to me that working people have to spend hours in traffic or on public transport each day so that others who aren't working can live next door to the jobs they aren't doing.

This! I spend between 2.5 and 3 hours a day, getting to work in the IFSC. A 2 minute walk away are 1 and 2 storey buildings. Take Macken Street. On one side is the Bord Gais Energy theatre, and on the other, are some tiny houses and some single storey buildings, theres I think a gym and a mechanics in the single storey buildings.

Sleeper12

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

I forgot we had loads of money in 2012...

Have you forgotten the white elephant called Irish Water? The money squandered on that was more than enough to kick start a building program.

Spanish Eyes wrote:

City living has its price. So what if it is more expensive? More people are accommodated where they work and contribute.

Would you not prefer to have the money to build more units? With limited money you would build less units. We have enough land.

Spanish Eyes

Deleted User wrote: »

Speaking of 'within the M50', what the f**k is a golf course such as Elmgreen doing in the area that it is currently in? Areas like this should be subject to a CPO and have space efficient housing constructed on them ASAP.

No, those places are privately owned AFAIK. And anyway let them at it. The bigger issue is allowing social housing in Dublin within M50. OK I get that HAP accommodates working people too.

But I am talking about the provision of social housing which has its criteria too let it be said. And whether working or not, you can be allocated a property within the m50.

There really should be a rule that if you are not working you cannot avail of this within the M50 ring.

I don't know why this idea is so controversial. Maybe someone will elaborate.

SEPT 23 1989

We love our gardens too much

Sleeper12

Spanish Eyes wrote:

But I am talking about the provision of social housing which has its criteria too let it be said. And whether working or not, you can be allocated a property within the m50.

If they can get the building numbers high enough the need for social housing lessens. There are a lot of homeless people who have been renting but couldn't afford the rent increase or just couldn't get a home to rent. Not all of the 10k homeless need social housing. The vast majority would come off the homeless list with more housing & lower rents

mammajamma

pablo128 wrote: »

You know there used to be 10 million people living in Ireland, don't you? And no high rises then either.

True. The country was on such a knife edge with sustainability, beholden to non-irish entities, that a mere flutter of circumstance was enough to bring Ireland to ruins, crippling the country for generations.

Very true. We should all reduce our lives back to medieval standards and pay suffrage to Non-irish everything. It's actually not a terrible comparison.

And to Spanish eyes, I agree to some extent with your thoughts on non working people. Should that particular group come before or after non nationals though? What about non-working Irish versus non-working Non-irish?

All these posters talking about how to build more stuff and essentially lower living standards, while ignoring that there are hundreds of thousands of people living here that aren't from here, huge companies that employ minority amounts of Irish people, and a never ending supply of more ready to move here too.

Taking crazy pills here! This country has all the correct priorities and efficiencies of a zumbershausendumplinkem!

MarkHenderson

Absolutely pointless without the right roads and public transport systems. Look at the state of the development they are putting in at Cherrywood. 5k homes, 5k apartments, shops, businesses etc.. and already traffic is a disaster around that area. Good luck to anyone attempting to get on the Luas headed into town at rush hour in Dundrum etc.. once it's completed.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

No, those places are privately owned AFAIK. And anyway let them at it. The bigger issue is allowing social housing in Dublin within M50. OK I get that HAP accommodates working people too.

But I am talking about the provision of social housing which has its criteria too let it be said. And whether working or not, you can be allocated a property within the m50.

There really should be a rule that if you are not working you cannot avail of this within the M50 ring.

I don't know why this idea is so controversial. Maybe someone will elaborate.

It’s controversial because it removes people who have lived in the city for generations. There’s no way it will happen.