If we did high rise, would rents go down or even stabilise?

veryangryman

Just something i thought about.

When we look at other countries that build skyscrapers and even moderately tall buildings (10 stories plus), the rents are still as high as ever.

It may sort out the supply issue to a point, but we'd still be rode ragged to live in or near the city

Apiarist

It depends on the supply and demand balance. Until there is a surplus of apartments that renters would find attractive, rents won't fall.

deandean

The higher the rise, the more expensive the construction cost.
So high rise apartments will supply more apartments; but not cheaper apartments.

LeinsterDub

veryangryman wrote: »

Just something i thought about.

When we look at other countries that build skyscrapers and even moderately tall buildings (10 stories plus), the rents are still as high as ever.

It may sort out the supply issue to a point, but we'd still be rode ragged to live in or near the city

We've thousands of empty and under developed units. These should be taxed at 150% so they are made available.

Thelonious Monk

I would imagine the more properties become available, high rise or not, the less landlords would be able to charge. Supply and demand.

MrAbyss

even if rents were the same - people would save lots of money on car/commuting expenses.

riddlinrussell

deandean wrote: »

The higher the rise, the more expensive the construction cost.
So high rise apartments will supply more apartments; but not cheaper apartments.

The idea would be, at present the high paying renters are in 10 similarly priced places, 'Property Type X' with 10 units, someone builds 'Property Type Y' with 200 units enticing to these High paying renters, 200 high paying renters move to this new property, now 10 type x properties need to get in 10 people each, assuming you've now built 'enough' properties the demand will be lower than it was before 'Property type Y' was built so landlords in type x will have to charge less to get people in.

MrAbyss

I am assuming now that they build the high rise between the canals. Knowing this is Ireland they will probably be built in a field outside Tullamore.

Idbatterim

deandean wrote: »

The higher the rise, the more expensive the construction cost.
So high rise apartments will supply more apartments; but not cheaper apartments.

they could well decrease prices elsewhere, in less desirable areas...

going higher costs a little more , yeah. But so what, if people can pay it and want to live there. How much does need road, parks and infrastructure cost to keep on developing greenfield, miles away from where people want to be. The "building higher" costs more, is a very simplistic , misleading analysis!

Zebra3

Going up in central Dublin can relieve pressure on public transport.

Stan27

Zebra3 wrote: »

Going up in central Dublin can relieve pressure on public transport.

100%.
Build them in the city center for the young people who work in the city center.

MrAbyss

Stan27 wrote: »

100%.
Build them in the city center for the young people who work in the city center.

For all people. I am in my 50s and would love a nice flat in the city centre. Be ideal actually.

Thelonious Monk

MrAbyss wrote: »

For all people. I am in my 50s and would love a nice flat in the city centre. Be ideal actually.

Same here, I had to buy a family home house in the boring suburbs to live by myself because anywhere closer to town is totally unaffordable. I'd swap my house for a smaller decent flat in Dublin 1 or 2 tomorrow if I could.

caff

High density is more important than specifically high rise. Only need to go to six stories really. After that you run into issues with fire escapes and more lifts. Also maintainence costs increase making it more expensive still.

Neworder79

In theory yes if supply side causes market rates to collapse. However in rising market new shoebox apartments will continue be marketed as 'luxury living' and command top of market rents as people have no alternative.

I'm happy to see more high-rise, density around transport and city nodes. However if the current national policy of encouraging build to rent / vulture fund owned developments dominates all development then there is no option for local ownership, no diversity of rents and a virtual cartel controlling rent rates.

Depressing to see 1,300 new apartments coming on the market in Cherrywood, with planned services and transport link, but US fund owned and not one available to local community to buy from day one. A monoculture only top teach workers will be able to afford.

whisky_galore

caff wrote: »

High density is more important than specifically high rise. Only need to go to six stories really. After that you run into issues with fire escapes and more lifts. Also maintainence costs increase making it more expensive still.

Plenty European cities have this.

From discussions on here, you would think there were two and only two options, pseudo Manhattan dick waving "signature buildings" or nothing at all, because people don't want another Ballymun.

Peregrinus

But caff is right that the issue is not fundamentally whether housing design is high-rise or something else. The issue is the number of housing units coming on to the market. If we had more high-rise housing developments then there might be more housing units coming onto the market. On the other hand, there might not. But if you think it more likely that there would be (and I can see reasons why people would think that) then, yeah, permitting high-rise housing developments should tend to increase the supply of housing units coming on to the market and so lead to a fall in prices.

bk

Peregrinus wrote: »

But caff is right that the issue is not fundamentally whether housing design is high-rise or something else. The issue is the number of housing units coming on to the market. If we had more high-rise housing developments then there might be more housing units coming onto the market. On the other hand, there might not. But if you think it more likely that there would be (and I can see reasons why people would think that) then, yeah, permitting high-rise housing developments should tend to increase the supply of housing units coming on to the market and so lead to a fall in prices.

It is not just about housing supply, it is also about sustainability and the need for other infrastructure.

Build high rise apartment buildings in the docks, just across the road from equally high rise office buildings, then the people working in those offices can opt to live just across the road and can walk to work in just a few minutes. Walk/cycle to work, walk/cycle to town. No need for a car, no need to build extra roads/parking/train lines, etc. to support thousands of new jobs going into the city.

Similar idea with building high rise within walking distance of rail/metro/tram stations outside the city. Not as ideal as city center highrise, as you need to ensure the rail/metro, etc. has sufficient capacity and upgrade as needed, but still far better then a sea of semi'd's stretching across West Dublin.

Of course, we should also be building mid-rise (6 to 8 storeys) throughout the whole city center and even out as far as the M50, but that requires demolishing lots of well to do peoples homes, realistically unlikely to happen for the forseeable future.

GreeBo

deandean wrote: »

The higher the rise, the more expensive the construction cost.
So high rise apartments will supply more apartments; but not cheaper apartments.

Less land to be bought though

Geuze

MrAbyss wrote: »

I am assuming now that they build the high rise between the canals. Knowing this is Ireland they will probably be built in a field outside Tullamore.

What we need is 6-8 stories within the canals.

I would not call that High-rise.

I don't think we should use the phrase high-rise, as that encourages opposition to higher densities.

What about mid-rise?

Idbatterim

Geuze wrote: »

What we need is 6-8 stories within the canals.

I would not call that High-rise.

I don't think we should use the phrase high-rise, as that encourages opposition to higher densities.

What about mid-rise?

reclaim the tolka estuary (as proposed by harry crosbie recently) move dublin port as has been proposed and done in other cities, flatten east point business park and redevelop it, that with the irish glass bottle site could provide housing for several hundred thousand. And release a collossal amount of money for the state, from the sale of the land...

Markcheese

Is a shortage of land the reason for high accomadation prices in Dublin ( and cork ) ,
Once you start going high rise ,the costs start going higher ...
Theres probably a "sweet spot "( depending on site costs ,) of 6 to 10 storeys for apartments ...
But ... Do people want to buy or long term rent apartments ?

Zebra3

I think there are plenty of well off people who would pay extra to live in high quality high rise apartments in the centre of Dublin.

This would relieve pressure on the suburbs, especially on family sized homes that are being used by a few singles.

Idbatterim

you can actually even see that the councils, actively try to minimise supply...

ncounties

Idbatterim wrote: »

reclaim the tolka estuary (as proposed by harry crosbie recently) move dublin port as has been proposed and done in other cities, flatten east point business park and redevelop it, that with the irish glass bottle site could provide housing for several hundred thousand. And release a collossal amount of money for the state, from the sale of the land...

Allow me to lose the run of myself just a minute - but the redevelopment of East Point sounds great. Image if we made our very own Merwede (the upcoming car free neighbourhood in Utrecht). With further development of the North and South side of docks, and Poolbeg, there would definitely need to be some additional high quality infrastructure. Dare I say, those kind of volumes would help support the eastern half of a circular metro line...

bk

East Point Business Park was built on reclaimed land, it was a former landfill and builders rubble, they continue to actively mange the off gassing from the landfill! As a result I don't think you can build residential there and I don't think it has the foundations for tall buildings unfortunately.

BTW some of the buildings have been completely gutted and gotten major renovations over the last two years.

Personally I think it is only a matter of time before Dublin Port is moved and the land reused and the development of the entire area.

Peregrinus

bk wrote: »

. . . Of course, we should also be building mid-rise (6 to 8 storeys) throughout the whole city center and even out as far as the M50, but that requires demolishing lots of well to do peoples homes, realistically unlikely to happen for the forseeable future.

If planning laws and building codes are changed so that inner suburbs can be redeveloped in this way, a great deal of property currently developed as single homes suddenly becomes hugely more valuable as potential redevelopment land. While it wouldn't be sold instantly for redevelopment, I suspect it would happen fairly quickly. Current owners would have an incentive to sell, and few buyers looking to buy single homes could outbid the developers.