Property Market 2019

kippy

IAmTheReign wrote: »

The idea that tall buildings are not conducive to sustaining communities is just not true. I spent a year living in Singapore and almost every apartment complex had communal facilities like swimming pools, public bbqs and common rooms, squash and tennis courts, gyms, etc. and there was multiple sports and social clubs. It was a far more social environment than any housing estate I've lived in in Ireland

Yes, that's a very fair point.
Do you see any forward planning in any of the apartment blocks in this country that "allow" for those facilities to be part of the development though?

Cryptopagan

IAmTheReign wrote: »

The idea that tall buildings are not conducive to sustaining communities is just not true. I spent a year living in Singapore and almost every apartment complex had communal facilities like swimming pools, public bbqs and common rooms, squash and tennis courts, gyms, etc. and there was multiple sports and social clubs. It was a far more social environment than any housing estate I've lived in in Ireland

Putting a high rise apartment block in the middle of a community full of traditional low rise terraces will not be good for social cohesion within that community. You can put all the amenities and common spaces in the block of course, but that will only tend to isolate its residents further from the surrounding community.

I don’t think apartment blocks are bad in themselves.

Bluefoam

IAmTheReign wrote: »

The idea that tall buildings are not conducive to sustaining communities is just not true. I spent a year living in Singapore and almost every apartment complex had communal facilities like swimming pools, public bbqs and common rooms, squash and tennis courts, gyms, etc. and there was multiple sports and social clubs. It was a far more social environment than any housing estate I've lived in in Ireland

Can't agree with you there... I lived in Dubai in a similar situation. I lived in various tower blocks over the years & never once knew a neighbour. You'd pass people at the pool and they wouldn't aknowledge you. Your neighbours would communicate with you through the security staff.

I've also done business in Singapore and I'd agree that there are loads of clubs, but they are there to deal with the fact that there is a lack of natural community.

I'm not against high rise, but not taken in by the agruement that they are equal to traditional housing, they are a compomise at the very least.

Mickiemcfist

If you want to live in a place with a great community, move to a nice suburban community, not to the city centre of a capital city. We are frighteningly unwilling to change in this country it's honestly bewildering.

We need to build upwards. We don't have the transport system to build outwards. When young free & single I lived in the city & couldn't have given a flying fork about talking to my neighbors, I went to the pub with my friends 4 times a week. Now less young, less free & even less single I'm buying a house in the 'burbs. Where that type of thing is more relevant to my lifestyle.

IAmTheReign

Bluefoam wrote: »

Can't agree with you there... I lived in Dubai in a similar situation. I lived in various tower blocks over the years & never once knew a neighbour. You'd pass people at the pool and they wouldn't aknowledge you. Your neighbours would communicate with you through the security staff.

I've also done business in Singapore and I'd agree that there are loads of clubs, but they are there to deal with the fact that there is a lack of natural community.

I'm not against high rise, but not taken in by the agruement that they are equal to traditional housing, they are a compomise at the very least.

I can't say I ever had the issues you did in Dubai. Everyone in the development I lived in was very friendly. Maybe it was a cultural thing? And from my experience there's very little in terms of natural community in most housing estates in Ireland so I don't by the idea that by building loads of semi-ds it's more sociable.

It's fine if your opinion is that high rise is a compromise to traditional housing, you don't have to live in them if you don't want to. I personally have no interest in buying a house in the suburbs. I live on my own, have no time to maintain a house or a garden and I travel a lot and would worry that a house would be too easy to rob. I've looked and apartments that I would be interested in purchasing in Dublin are few and far between.

Assetbacked

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Putting a high rise apartment block in the middle of a community full of traditional low rise terraces will not be good for social cohesion within that community. You can put all the amenities and common spaces in the block of course, but that will only tend to isolate its residents further from the surrounding community.

I don’t think apartment blocks are bad in themselves.

Well, the alternative is then to start imposing higher property taxes on landowners as land becomes more valuable and those contributing income tax to the State are paying more and more rent, which would be fair as it would share the burden of the housing crisis. There is no alternative so long as this stubborn attitude persists that we should not build high rise yet somehow houses can be built in Dublin.

Bluefoam

Theres plenty of places where high rise could be implemented strategically, without smothering the city & still provide much greater density... while servivcing places where there high density of employment....

Some that stand out are: Sandyford, East Wall, Cherrywood, parts of Inchicore...

snotboogie

Bluefoam wrote: »

Can't agree with you there... I lived in Dubai in a similar situation. I lived in various tower blocks over the years & never once knew a neighbour. You'd pass people at the pool and they wouldn't aknowledge you. Your neighbours would communicate with you through the security staff.

I've also done business in Singapore and I'd agree that there are loads of clubs, but they are there to deal with the fact that there is a lack of natural community.

I'm not against high rise, but not taken in by the agruement that they are equal to traditional housing, they are a compomise at the very least.

Couldn't disagree more on Singapore, walk through any residential area like Jurong and you'll see hundreds of auld fellas in the communal spaces playing mahjong or chess or using those exercise machines together. Their apartments are a far more communal environment, even in working class areas and especially among the elderly who need that social interaction the most.

IAmTheReign

Meanwhile in Dalkey ABP have granted planning permission for luxury 3 storey mansions with roof gardens on the waterfront despite 100s of objections and the area being prone to flooding. Funny how concerns about developments not being in keeping with the area are ignored when the developer is building luxury housing. https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/plans-mansions-bulloch-harbour-given-16520367

Bluefoam

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Meanwhile in Dalkey ABP have granted planning permission for luxury 3 storey mansions with roof gardens on the waterfront despite 100s of objections and the area being prone to flooding. Funny how concerns about developments not being in keeping with the area are ignored when the developer is building luxury housing. https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/plans-mansions-bulloch-harbour-given-16520367

Thats in no way comparable to the Irish model. While they have built up in Jurong they have done so in a way that does not attempt to fit in with any existing infrastructure. It is built on a new site, with broad open green, public and forested areas, roads are broad and there is plenty of space. I am familiar with the concept and it was developed around community and is not primarly focused on density... This is very far from what is proposed in Ireland. To build in existing irish localities, you would need to remove historic buildings and infrastructure, tower over existing houses, make use of narrow roads etc... That kind of highrise is not applicable to Ireland without bulldozing our cities and towns and starting again.

theballz

Prices are starting to come down by the looks of it

SozBbz

Bluefoam wrote: »

Theres plenty of places where high rise could be implemented strategically, without smothering the city & still provide much greater density... while servivcing places where there high density of employment....

Some that stand out are: Sandyford, East Wall, Cherrywood, parts of Inchicore...

Really wish they'd finish the half built highrise in Sandyford thats been lying dormant for over a decade. Its an absolute eyesore. Surely the market has recovered enough for it to be worth someones while finishing it?

Cuddlesworth

SozBbz wrote: »

Really wish they'd finish the half built highrise in Sandyford thats been lying dormant for over a decade. Its an absolute eyesore. Surely the market has recovered enough for it to be worth someones while finishing it?

I had it explained to me before that with buildings left like that its cheaper to just build a new building on a empty site and leave it there.

Its been exposed to the elements for years, where it wasn't supposed to be. The damage can be significant but also hidden.
It's original design probably no longer meets current building regulations.
Plus a bunch of other problems.

Bluefoam

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I had it explained to me before that with buildings left like that its cheaper to just build a new building on a empty site and leave it there.

Its been exposed to the elements for years, where it wasn't supposed to be. The damage can be significant but also hidden.
It's original design probably no longer meets current building regulations.
Plus a bunch of other problems.

Yep, too expensive to knock down and rebuild... Nama should foot the bill for demolition and bring the land back into use... they've made enough money at this stage.

Bbborris

theballz wrote: »

Prices are starting to come down by the looks of it

Yes I agree. West Dublin most definitely

heebusjeebus

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I had it explained to me before that with buildings left like that its cheaper to just build a new building on a empty site and leave it there.

Its been exposed to the elements for years, where it wasn't supposed to be. The damage can be significant but also hidden.
It's original design probably no longer meets current building regulations.
Plus a bunch of other problems.

It should be left as a reminder of the crash.
It's there so long now, it's part of the industrial estate.

JJJackal

Bluefoam wrote: »

Yep, too expensive to knock down and rebuild... Nama should foot the bill for demolition and bring the land back into use... they've made enough money at this stage.

So the irish tax payer should foot the bill?

Bluefoam

JJJackal wrote: »

So the irish tax payer should foot the bill?

Nama now own the building... They own the dept. They are unable to sell the buidling under the current conditions... this is causing expense to Nama.

If they prepare the site for sale & sell the building, they will recouperate their cost and stop the current costs... Try to think of the implications before shouting out the first thing that comes to mind... If we all did that we'd all be in a better position...

Unfortunately Nama are attempting to maximise their profits without any investment & are basically forcing up the price of property at the cost of the tax payer...

JJJackal

Bluefoam wrote: »

Nama now own the building... They own the dept. They are unable to sell the buidling under the current conditions... this is causing expense to Nama.

If they prepare the site for sale & sell the building, they will recouperate their cost and stop the current costs... Try to think of the implications before shouting out the first thing that comes to mind... If we all did that we'd all be in a better position...

I was unaware that NAMA owned the building - thanks for info

L1011

JJJackal wrote: »

I was unaware that NAMA owned the building - thanks for info

They don't. The Comers bought it some time ago (2011!) and have plans but they've not done anything with it yet.

JJJackal

L1011 wrote: »

They don't. The Comers bought it some time ago (2011!) and have plans but they've not done anything with it yet.

In which case the Irish taxpayer ie NAMA should not foot the bill

el Fenomeno

L1011 wrote: »

They don't. The Comers bought it some time ago (2011!) and have plans but they've not done anything with it yet.

They sold it last year, no?

Edit: Disregard, thinking of another site.

Graham

Mod Note

Some off topic posts deleted.

Blueshoe / rightmove, take it to PM.

L1011

JJJackal wrote: »

In which case the Irish taxpayer ie NAMA should not foot the bill

They're not going to - they sold it. Comer are entirely responsible for its future development.

The poster suggesting NAMA knock it is misinformed and believed they owned it.

Blueshoe

Graham wrote: »

Mod Note

Some off topic posts deleted.

Blueshoe / rightmove, take it to PM.

What is "PM"?

kippy

Blueshoe wrote: »

What is "PM"?

Private Message
Click on the username and you can send them a private message on the topic.

el Fenomeno

Blueshoe wrote: »

What is "PM"?

It's short for "poster meetup"

Boards sanctions these meetings where posters meet up and settle their differences in person, often in a combat setting.

Accomodation and food expenses are covered by the admins, but you pay for your own travel. That's how they get you.

Graham

Mod Note

Blueshoe, do not post in this thread again.

ifElseThen

airportgirl83 wrote: »

Many Poles that I know living in Dublin are cashing in selling their properties atm and moving back home, some will still continue working for foreign companies but from Warsaw, Cracow etc while at the same time enjoying mortgage free lifestyle.

We've had 2 Polish guy do this in our place. One, on 85k was paying 1600 for a 3 bed house in Monastery in Clondalkin. He moved back to Warsaw, still works for us. Has a 3 bed apartment in centre of Warsaw for 700. Well worth their while for any of the lads/lasses in tech to move back but continue to be paid through Irish companies.

SozBbz

L1011 wrote: »

They don't. The Comers bought it some time ago (2011!) and have plans but they've not done anything with it yet.

Is there not something (like the vacent sites levy?) that could compel them or at least make it nonviable for them to leave it as it is indefinitely?

Surely they got it for a song in 2011 and would have known that they'd have to knock, clear the site and start again so would have priced that in.

It actually makes no sense to me that such a pruchaser should be allowed to just sit on it. I could somewhat understand if it was still the origional owner trying to hang on to in and was thus short of funds or in protracted legal wrangling etc. But under new ownership, theres no reason for it to be sitting there like a massive horizontal ghost ship in the middle of a prime location.

From 2017;

I live in the area and nothing has happened.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/abandoned-sandyford-eyesore-to-be-turned-into-offices-with-beds-1.3269036