Do NIMBY's have a right to complain about housing crisis?

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/horrendously-out-of-proportion-residents-set-against-19-storey-apartments-1.4468465

Seems like every application for housing these days ends up like this.

But the question is do these people have a right to even mention homelessness and lack of housing while simultaneously seeking to block development?

Dublin has to build up or we just can't accommodate what we need to accommodate.

Anyone living near or in the city center should surely accept this as a reality of living where they live?

One eyed Jack

It’s not actually NIMBYism though if they have a legitimate complaint. The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment. For that reason alone I can understand why residents would object to the development, aside from the point that it effectively blocks out daylight from the residents homes in it’s shadow.

grassylawn

People with back yards generally aren't affected by a housing crisis, outside of the value of their property and rental income being driven up.

Personally I wouldn't mind if they put a housing estate in the field behind my back garden. It would encourage the development of local infrastructure, and there wouldn't be the issue with flies when the cows are there in the summer. If they put one in the field across the road in front I'd be pissed off though because that would spoil my view.

Am I doing this right?

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment

Correct

dubrov

One eyed Jack wrote:

It’s not actually NIMBYism though if they have a legitimate complaint. The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment. For that reason alone I can understand why residents would object to the development, aside from the point that it effectively blocks out daylight from the residents homes in it’s shadow.

Accommodating transient employment does contribute to addressing the housing crisis.

MarkR

NIMBY is not in my backyard, if you're not up on your acronyms. I wasn't. ☺️

Wanderer78

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

But the question is do these people have a right to even mention homelessness and lack of housing while simultaneously seeking to block development?

Of course they do, odd question

Thinkingaboutit

They surely have a right to complain, but it is a different matter as to whether anyone will listen. There'd be far less noise in the public realm if people kept quiet so as not to seem hypocrites. I read some who say apartments or houses here or there are wrong because infrastructure is overloaded. It is overloaded in any place where people want to live.

tigger123

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not actually NIMBYism though if they have a legitimate complaint. The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment. For that reason alone I can understand why residents would object to the development, aside from the point that it effectively blocks out daylight from the residents homes in it’s shadow.

But they're always 'legitimate complaints', and its generally bull$hit. Those complaining then make disingenuous arguments saying its the wrong kind of development for the area.

People just don't want their localities to be developed. Pulling the ladder up after themselves, and everyone else should go live in Kildare.

MOH

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/horrendously-out-of-proportion-residents-set-against-19-storey-apartments-1.4468465

Seems like every application for housing these days ends up like this.

But the question is do these people have a right to even mention homelessness and lack of housing while simultaneously seeking to block development?

The question is do people who don't live anywhere near the area have a right to judge those who might have legitimate concerns about oversize developments. You clearly don't, since ....

Anyone living near or in the city center should surely accept this as a reality of living where they live?

This is neither in nor near the city centre.

I don't live anywhere near it, but I know the area as I used to pass by a lot, and the proposed development is ludicrous from a height point of view.

Also, none of these will be for sale. It's all build-to-let. Most of it's not suitable for families, it's shared living, studios, or 1-bed apartments.

It's a pure cash grab for the developer, who are the only ones who'll get any long term benefit out of it.

Pete_Cavan

MOH wrote: »

This is neither in nor near the city centre.

This absolutely is in the city centre. Even taking a conservative view of what amounts to the city centre would definitely see this site as immediately adjacent to it.

Donald Trump

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not actually NIMBYism though if they have a legitimate complaint. The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment. For that reason alone I can understand why residents would object to the development, aside from the point that it effectively blocks out daylight from the residents homes in it’s shadow.

It is NIMBYism if they wouldn't be bothered about it being put up 5 miles away on the other side of the city

Snotty

tigger123 wrote: »

But they're always 'legitimate complaints', and its generally bull$hit. Those complaining then make disingenuous arguments saying its the wrong kind of development for the area.

Reminds me of the Croke park development (concert?) objections and the guy spearheading it lived over a mile away, not to mention the complains coming in from people living nowhere near Croke Park.

El Tarangu

MOH wrote: »

Also, none of these will be for sale. It's all build-to-let. Most of it's not suitable for families, it's shared living, studios, or 1-bed apartments.

I'm not really sure why you think that this would mean that it is a "bad" development - if these aren't built, it will mean an extra 732+ people competing with families for the existing housing stock.

osarusan

19 storeys does seem a lot.

But definitely, Dublin (and other Irish cities to a lesser extent) need more apartments - but not the kind mentioned in the OP - proper apartments that a family can live in.

I just did a search for a 3-bed apartment in Limerick, and there were 15, 6 of which were dedicated student accommodation (so you would only buy to rent to students).

In Dublin there were 21, with the cheapest priced at €465,000.

We need more apartments that families can live in long term. We need it to become the norm in cities.

But the kind of development mentioned in the OP:

Almost 80 per cent of the apartments will be studios, one-bed apartments, or co-living rooms. None of the apartments will be available for sale, with 492 build-to-rent apartments planned, in addition to 240 co-living units.

is the kind of cuckoo fund development that is not what should be the priority right now.

Donald Trump

osarusan wrote: »

19 storeys does seem a lot.

But definitely, Dublin (and other Irish cities to a lesser extent) need more apartments - but not the kind mentioned in the OP - proper apartments that a family can live in.

I just did a search for a 3-bed apartment in Limerick, and there were 15, 6 of which were dedicated student accommodation (so you would only buy to rent to students).

In Dublin there were 21, with the cheapest priced at €465,000.

We need more apartments that families can live in long term. We need it to become the norm in cities.

But the kind of development mentioned in the OP:


is the kind of cuckoo fund development that is not what should be the priority right now.

730 people housed in this?


I think it is the very kind of pressure release development needed.


Get the pressure off and then start building whatever they decide the ideal is.

blanch152

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not actually NIMBYism though if they have a legitimate complaint. The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment. For that reason alone I can understand why residents would object to the development, aside from the point that it effectively blocks out daylight from the residents homes in it’s shadow.

Are you saying that people in transient employment don't deserve housing?

You are speaking nonsense.

The same arguments are used against co-living and student accommodation. If young workers and students are not living in specialised accommodation designed for their needs, they will be renting in the local area instead, pushing up rents and taking space from families that need it.

It is a no-brainer to do things like this.

Yamanoto

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Dublin has to build up or we just can't accommodate what we need to accommodate.

Anyone living near or in the city center should surely accept this as a reality of living where they live?

You don't require high-rise construction to deliver high-density housing.

The current problem lies in the fact that
our developmentt guidelines and regulations make a very definite distinction between houses and apartments - ignoring the fact that residential dwellers essentially seek the same things - privacy, space, comfort and calm and considered open areas.

This prevents the development of courtyard or terraced housing or other hybrid schemes, where tightly-grained networks of units densely occupy space in a city.

As for co-living, it maximises yield per square foot in a way houses and apartments cannot, serving only to feed into inflating the cost of land. I'm no lefty, but it'd be a mighty sh1tty legacy to have our people mined in perpetuity by international pension funds.

Folks are dead right to object to these developments.

Donald Trump

Yamanoto wrote: »

You don't require high-rise construction to deliver high-density housing.

The current problem lies in the fact that
our developmentt guidelines and regulations make a very definite distinction between houses and apartments - ignoring the fact that residential dwellers essentially seek the same things - privacy, space, comfort and calm and considered open areas.

This prevents the development of courtyard or terraced housing or other hybrid schemes, where tightly-grained networks of units densely occupy space in a city.

As for co-living, it maximises yield per square foot in a way houses and apartments cannot, serving only to feed into inflating the cost of land. I'm no lefty, but it'd be a mighty sh1tty legacy to have our people mined in perpetuity by international pension funds.

Folks are dead right to object to these developments.

If I'm a student or a minimum wage worker coming to Dublin to learn English, I'm probably not that attracted to the idea of getting a 3-bed semi-detached with small back garden 60 minutes from the city centre on a bus.



I'm probably more concerned about getting out of the hostel or the house share when I have the top bunk from 9pm-7am when Pavel comes in from the night shift and needs it

Snotty

Very short sighted view here, these 700+ people wont just appear when this development is completed, they are already occupying accommodation.

Like standing on the deck of the sinking Titanic arguing over which music should be played.

Heart Break Kid

Almost 80 per cent of the apartments will be studios, one-bed apartments, or co-living rooms. None of the apartments will be available for sale, with 492 build-to-rent apartments planned, in addition to 240 co-living units.

This won't help solve the housing crisis, no issue with building up but this isn't what we need. developer should be told where to go.

Pete_Cavan

Yamanoto wrote: »

You don't require high-rise construction to deliver high-density housing.

The current problem lies in the fact that
our developmentt guidelines and regulations make a very definite distinction between houses and apartments - ignoring the fact that residential dwellers essentially seek the same things - privacy, space, comfort and calm and considered open areas.

This prevents the development of courtyard or terraced housing or other hybrid schemes, where tightly-grained networks of units densely occupy space in a city.

So dont bother with the public open spaces being created by this development, blanket the whole place with buildings which will give more privacy, space, comfort and calm instead? Site layout plan;

https://planningapplication.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/1037/documents/PL0003%20Site%20Layout%20Plan%20-%20Proposed.pdf

El Tarangu

Heart Break Kid wrote: »

This won't help solve the housing crisis, no issue with building up but this isn't what we need. developer should be told where to go.

In basically every rich country, the number of single-person households have grown exponentially over the past 50 years - do these people not need somewhere to live as well?

Pete_Cavan

Donald Trump wrote: »

730 people housed in this?

No, far more. There are a total of 1,639 bed spaces in the development.

Heart Break Kid

Heart Break Kid wrote: »

This won't help solve the housing crisis, no issue with building up but this isn't what we need. developer should be told where to go.

How would removing 1500+ competitors from the market not help towards solving the housing crisis?

Gatling

Come to citywest and see the amount of apartment blocks being built ,
Several getting permission for 9 - 15 storeys which tower over the new small housing estates they are being built beside

doublejobbing 2

Planning permission should only be allowed to be objected to on three grounds.

- obscene waste of public money. Putting 10 social housing units, or a halting site, in, say, Ballsbridge, is a criminal waste of money. If social housing is going to cost 800k per unit, five units per one could be built on waste ground in the outer suburbs if the councils set up a building firm to do it for cost price.

- spoiling an area of scenic beauty. The crazy plan for a visitor centre at the Hellfire Club come to mind

- ruining architecture of cultural merit. Georgian buildings for example.

Anybody living in a home in a town built post 1940 should be told to phuck off. Nobody gives a shiet about the traffic, or the dust, or the effect on the price of your house. If you're so worried about the effect on your house price, up sticks and move before the development starts. You won't be missed.

Snotty

Gatling wrote: »

Several getting permission for 9 - 15 storeys which tower over the new small housing estates they are being built beside

and what exactly....?

there should never be any advancement, whatever was there beforehand should set all future planning?

blanch152

Gatling wrote: »

Come to citywest and see the amount of apartment blocks being built ,
Several getting permission for 9 - 15 storeys which tower over the new small housing estates they are being built beside

And the problem with this necessary densification is?

Would you prefer the alternative of the housing estates being demolished and people turfed out of their existing homes for higher density housing?

piplip87

We need apartments to be built for rental too an increase in supply will lead to a drop in prices. Although since the rent pressure zones have been introduced it may slow down the decrease considerably.

There is far too much ideology when it come to to building.

SF & the left generally against building any kind of private housing. This can be seen from their topping the list of local authority objections to development. During the last boom we had a surplus of supply of housing as can be seen from the ghost estate phenomen after the last boom.

FF&FG are placing too much faith in private developers to build social housing.

Can we just leave out the political point scoring on housing.

Let developers build for those willing to buy, let the councils get social houses built for those who cant buy.

All of this will get people out of rentals, reduce the HAP bill and lower prices for those who wish to rent

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not actually NIMBYism though if they have a legitimate complaint. The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment. For that reason alone I can understand why residents would object to the development, aside from the point that it effectively blocks out daylight from the residents homes in it’s shadow.

If they didn't lodge complaints about the big tower blocks planned for Coolock or Santry or any of the other large developments going up around the city, then they are NIMBYs by definition. They don't care about height and scale of developments, unless it affects them personally. They don't give a damn where this development is built, as long as it's "not in my back yard".

piplip87

piplip87 wrote: »

SF & the left generally against building any kind of private housing. This can be seen from their topping the list of local authority objections to development. During the last boom we had a surplus of supply of housing as can be seen from the ghost estate phenomen after the last boom.

What?

SF are top of the list of objectors because their entire MO is populism. Objecting to large developments.......It's the Dublin city equivalent of Danny and Michael showing up to a Kerry farmer's funeral. They don't care about who builds what or how big the development is or even who owns it. They do care about the voters who live nearby, though, and will support any auld cause to try win a few votes.

Pete_Cavan

piplip87 wrote: »

Let developers build for those willing to buy, let the councils get social houses built for those who cant buy.

All of this will get people out of rentals, reduce the HAP bill and lower prices for those who wish to rent

This is nonsense. For many people renting is the logical solution to their housing needs, do you think everyone should take out a mortgage to buy a three bed semi as soon as they move out of their parents house? Renting is a normal part of any functioning property market. It is actually a much larger part of better functioning property markets than here. Its a lovely idea that social homes should be built for everyone who cant buy but it is not realistic.

Building apartments is too expensive for them to be sold. Very few would get a mortgage to cover the full cost of constructing a new apartment in the city centre. The only way to achieve the increased density required is built to rent apartments but with that must come proper protection for renters, particularly rolling leases with minimal rent increases so people have the security to live there for as long as they need without rents spiraling.

Gatling

blanch152 wrote: »

And the problem with this necessary densification is?

Would you prefer the alternative of the housing estates being demolished and people turfed out of their existing homes for higher density housing?

I think it should be controlled , if an estate exists of two storey Houses build more house in that area ,but building 9 storey plus Blocks on top of them isn't the way to go ,I've no problem with going high rise if it's done right the helps and area ,
Leave existing estates as they are and build high in Greenfield sites as proper controlled developments ,I've no problems with families living in apartments ,we live in a two bed ,but unless there is propert managements of these estates they become **** holes ,
Citywest hotel is a prime example they want to indoor arena for events and concerts that's s no,no but building a thousand apartments in the area is fine .

El Tarangu

Kara Lively Munchies wrote: »

Is it not the case in Dublin with most of these developments that they aren't actually for those looking to buy? and are built to rent at extortionate rents

Rents are extortionate because of a chronic shortage of properties for rent. The construction of these rental properties will go some small way to addressing this undersupply.

El Tarangu

Gatling wrote: »

I think it should be controlled , if an estate exists of two storey Houses build more house in that area ,but building 9 storey plus Blocks on top of them isn't the way to go ,I've no problem with going high rise if it's done right the helps and area ,
Leave existing estates as they are and build high in Greenfield sites as proper controlled developments ,I've no problems with families living in apartments ,we live in a two bed ,but unless there is propert managements of these estates they become **** holes ,
Citywest hotel is a prime example they want to indoor arena for events and concerts that's s no,no but building a thousand apartments in the area is fine .

You haven't really adequately explained why building some taller buildings close to some smaller buildings is a problem, per se.

Gatling

El Tarangu wrote: »

Rents are extortionate because of a chronic shortage of properties for rent. The construction of these rental properties will go some small way to addressing this undersupply.

But it won't reduce rents if anything it will likely lead to increases current landlords will see the new better fitted out apartments going for 3k per month and follow suit by saying well my two bed mouldy apartment is in the same area with the new shiny 3k per month apartments , meaning more and more people and families will be soley reliant on social welfare to pay their rents

Amirani

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not actually NIMBYism though if they have a legitimate complaint. The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment.

So if you don't have a long-term stable job then we don't want you in our area. That's somehow a fine attitude to have?

St James's Hospital is a couple of minutes down the road from this. Junior Doctors switch jobs/hospitals every 6 months so they are the very definition of transient employment. But it's fine that they struggle to get somewhere to live?

El Tarangu

Gatling wrote: »

But it won't reduce rents if anything it will likely lead to increases current landlords will see the new better fitted out apartments going for 3k per month and follow suit by saying well my two bed mouldy apartment is in the same area with the new shiny 3k per month apartments , meaning more and more people and families will be soley reliant on social welfare to pay their rents

Landlords don't set prices, demand does. If someone is willing to pay €3k for a luxury apartment currently, but there are none available to rent, they will end up living on in some of the €2k per month housing stock, making it more expensive for anyone else looking to rent an apartment in this price range.

Kara Lively Munchies wrote: »

Really? considering there are apparently quite a lot of these high priced units lying empty atm as nobody wants to/can pay for them?

https://www.businesspost.ie/houses/hundreds-of-luxury-apartments-controlled-by-us-fund-lie-vacant-in-capital-7993e066

This I find more difficult to explain - one thought that occurs to me is that landlords might be unwilling to reduce rents to ensure full occupancy, as the RPZ rules mean that these reduced rents are written in stone for the next number of years. In general, I don't think that developers would be building apartments without the expectation of being able to rent them out, it wouldn't really make sense.

AndrewJRenko

osarusan wrote: »

In Dublin there were 21, with the cheapest priced at €465,000.

We need more apartments that families can live in long term. We need it to become the norm in cities. .

There are 86 apartments with 3 beds or more in Dublin on myhome today, starting from €220k

Yamanoto

Donald Trump wrote: »

If I'm a student or a minimum wage worker coming to Dublin to learn English, I'm probably not that attracted to the idea of getting a 3-bed semi-detached with small back garden 60 minutes from the city centre on a bus.



I'm probably more concerned about getting out of the hostel or the house share when I have the top bunk from 9pm-7am when Pavel comes in from the night shift and needs it

A 'minimum wage worker coming to Dublin to learn English' is allowed work 20hrs per week for most of the year as per their visa conditions. As such, set ups such as this development are way beyond their means.

osarusan

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There are 86 apartments with 3 beds or more in Dublin on myhome today, starting from €220k

Dublin city centre, not just Dublin. I should have specified that.

21 on Daft this morning.

EDIT: But even at 86, that's a tiny amount for a city of what, 1.2 million?

osarusan

Donald Trump wrote: »

I think it is the very kind of pressure release development needed.

I disagree, what's needed is the kind of dwellings there is a shortage of in the first place.


There's a place for such shared living, but the priority should be on what there is a long-term shortage of.



Companies like the one behind this development couldn't care less about relieving pressure (and why should they) they are building what brings in the most income.

blanch152

Gatling wrote: »

I think it should be controlled , if an estate exists of two storey Houses build more house in that area ,but building 9 storey plus Blocks on top of them isn't the way to go ,I've no problem with going high rise if it's done right the helps and area ,
Leave existing estates as they are and build high in Greenfield sites as proper controlled developments ,I've no problems with families living in apartments ,we live in a two bed ,but unless there is propert managements of these estates they become **** holes ,
Citywest hotel is a prime example they want to indoor arena for events and concerts that's s no,no but building a thousand apartments in the area is fine .

Good planning doesn't have high-rise in the middle of nowhere. Good planning has high-rise in centre of cities and along public transport corridors.

Between the canals and along the Dart line are the correct places for high-rise in Dublin. For other reasons, these aren't practical, but high-rise should be the default.

Top areas where it is practical are brownfield sites like the one in the OP.

Donald Trump

Yamanoto wrote: »

A 'minimum wage worker coming to Dublin to learn English' is allowed work 20hrs per week for most of the year as per their visa conditions. As such, set ups such as this development are way beyond their means.

Not every student coming to Dublin to learn English is broke. They may however be limited to minimum wage jobs.

In the same way that I have known people who moved to cities for relatively short term (and sometimes unpaid) internships.

Every anti-NIMBYist as soon as they get a
toe on the property ladder, in an area they like and desire, dollars for doughnuts, they won't want to see that area ruined, and begone the very thing they decried a few years ago.


I'm breaking my hole working, mortgaged up, to provide a home for my family in a nice, safe desirable area. I maintain my property as do we all.

Do I want a tenement of social housing built beside me? With no green area or parking?
Do I fcuk.

Big difference between being anti everything and being in favour of sustainable appropriate development.


Does it make me a NIMBY?
Couldn't give two fux.

Sunny Disposition

NIMBY is not an appropriate phrase, anyone has and should have the right to test the merits of a planning application, especially here where our planning is so bad.
We could do with more people making submissions, not fewer.
Certain politicians have tried to pass off their failures on housing as being due to an overly cumbersome planning process, but it just isn't true. You put your plans to the local authority, there's a fair amount of time for people to make a submission, and you get a decision. If you're unfortunate it goes to An Bord Pleanála and in a few months you've got an answer one way or another.
I say this as someone who has been behind numerous large residential developments.
For some reason in Ireland there's always people advocating a laissez faire approach, be it to planning, banking, farming. Then you get the consequences like ghettoes, a savage recession and pollution, but some people can't see the links.

Yamanoto

Donald Trump wrote: »

Not every student coming to Dublin to learn English is broke. They may however be limited to minimum wage jobs.

Not every student coming to Dublin to learn English is actually coming to Dublin to learn English. That in itself is a cause of significant housing pressures that shut people out of accessing quality affordable accommodation.

Gatling

blanch152 wrote: »

Between the canals and along the Dart line are the correct places for high-rise in Dublin. For other reasons, these aren't practical, but high-rise should be the default.

Top areas where it is practical are brownfield sites like the one in the OP.

This is what I mean , rather than throwing up apartment blocks on every bit of grass put them where they will be most effective ,
I don't mean build in the middle of nowhere but don't build on top of small housing estates where there little or no recreation space or the tiny areas for baby's to play to suit planning requirements

Sunny Disposition

Gatling wrote: »

This is what I mean , rather than throwing up apartment blocks on every bit of grass put them where they will be most effective ,
I don't mean build in the middle of nowhere but don't build on top of small housing estates where there little or no recreation space or the tiny areas for baby's to play to suit planning requirements

Exactly, and without people to make these arguments unfettered, poorly planned development continues. But still some people want to label those who make the arguments in a perfectly legal manner.

'Dublin skyline is great, we can't touch it by building high-rise'.

But sure stick a 19 storey block into a housing estate. Be grand.