Dublin docklands towers

handlemaster

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2021/0521/1223037-dublin-towers-ronan/



I don't see the issue here. I think Dublin needs to go up . Its the perfect place for two such towers and in my opinion they look really nice.

Missed opportunity big time I think.
Projects like this are the only solution to our 'forever home' entitlement crisis.

Panic Stations

Absolute joke.

The government should be encouraging as much building of apartments and houses given the current climate.

These are actually perfect too given the fact that they don't take up a significant amount of space.

handlemaster

It would really set that side of the city off. I know they mention apartments. but imagine a restaurant on the top floor would do great business.

Panic Stations

handlemaster wrote: »

It would really set that side of the city off. I know they mention apartments. but imagine a restaurant on the top floor would do great business.

Our government would probably look a taxing the restaurant because of it's elevation.

Would probably have to start paying altitude taxes.

hmmm

That's 1000 apartments shot down. A 1000.

Those thousand people will now compete for housing elsewhere in the city.

Kewreeuss

Sad that we don’t have any high rise buildings in Dublin, no iconic areas, nothing that gives an air of modernity. If not the docklands, then where?
And then we have that sore finger of an apartment block where Tyrconnel road meets the Canal, just plonked down, It’s been there years and has not improved with time.

Crazy nonsense. That looks good and has no effect on our paltry Georgian areas. Cities with more architectural style, like London and Paris have tall buildings, in London they are dead centre. This is out by the sea.

It also opens up a view Dublin bay, which is impressive, to people who travel to the centre of Dublin. Dublin is too flat, outside of Howth and Killiney, to see the beautiful bay.

Fred Cryton

The real scandal here is all the media focus has been on investment funds, who lets remember are at least actually helping us to build stuff with their money.....while no-one is looking at the real culprit who are preventing homes getting built - Dublin City Council.

Off the top of my head - they've refused 1000 homes here in this development. They refused 150 extra homes at Spencer Dock due to "height". Refused another 100 homes on Townsend Street (again 11 floors too tall it seems). These list would go on and on.

It's outrageous how these semi-literate councilors just do whatever they want ignoring national policy.

handlemaster

hmmm wrote: »

That's 1000 apartments shot down. A 1000.

Those thousand people will now compete for housing elsewhere in the city.

I would think at least 2000 people if you look at just 2 per appartment on average.

CollyFlower

handlemaster wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2021/0521/1223037-dublin-towers-ronan/



I don't see the issue here. I think Dublin needs to go up . Its the perfect place for two such towers and in my opinion they look really nice.

I agree, I think it looks really amazing!

Murph85

There is so much pressure mounting, all Ronan has to do, is wait it out, he will get his towers ... maybe not 45 floors, but 30 ish... dcc are costing this city and have cost ot thousands of homes and stopped billions of investment, complain about airbnb while they block hotel development etc left right and centre...

Smouse156

Murph85 wrote: »

There is so much pressure mounting, all Ronan has to do, is wait it out, he will get his towers ... maybe not 45 floors, but 30 ish... dcc are costing this city and have cost ot thousands of homes and stopped billions of investment, complain about airbnb while they block hotel development etc left right and centre...

1000 apartments in the docklands are no real use without a vacant unit tax. 1000 new empty apartments with rents set way above market, hoping for a council bailout is a huge waste of construction resources!

We don’t need more capital docks/quayside quarters/One Ballsbridge etc unless they’re actually rented out. It takes construction resources away from developments people actually live in.

FYI I’ve nothing against high rise and would advocate going even higher…just think ghost buildings are useless & wasteful

usernamegoes

Smouse156 wrote: »

1000 apartments in the docklands are no real use without a vacant unit tax. 1000 new empty apartments with rents set way above market, hoping for a council bailout is a huge waste of construction resources!

We don’t need more capital docks/quayside quarters/One Ballsbridge etc unless they’re actually rented out. It takes construction resources away from developments people actually live in.

FYI I’ve nothing against high rise and would advocate going even higher…just think ghost buildings are useless & wasteful

So your view is that someone is going to spend tens of millions of euro to build something and never rent it out or sell it? To what end?

Sheeps

1000 apartments that wont be built now, and the site will remain derelict. If the apartments were built and remain vacant, at least with supply the price will eventually fall. Prices could further be encouraged downwards with a vacant apartment levy. Now none of that will happen. It's pathetic. I don't understand how the left wing parties in this country have left leaning voters swayed by the idea that tall buildings are bad. Opposition to tall buildings is a socially conservative policy. It's mental. I was going to vote for Sinn Féin next election until I saw Eoin O'Broin gleefully tweeting that the scheme had been quashed earlier on Twitter. Nobody who holds ideology over pragmatic solutions is going to solve the housing crisis.

Ramasun

It's crazy that every politician seems to jump on the housing crisis bandwagon but some will then turn around and block developments.

Sheeps

Ramasun wrote: »

It's crazy that every politician seems to jump on the housing crisis bandwagon but some will then turn around and block developments.

It's across the board too, but for some reason it seems to be more so on the left. Labour are notorious for it, Sinn Féinn are always at it. The Greens too.

ted1

hmmm wrote: »

That's 1000 apartments shot down. A 1000.

Those thousand people will now compete for housing elsewhere in the city.

The site won’t stay empty, they’ll get 500 on the site. And people in the surrounding area will not be living in a constant shadow. Unfortunately in Ireland we get a lot of low sun which results in large buildings having long shadows

listermint

These won't get people in them. They will be too expensive for anyone to buy. Be owned by foreign investors and probably have a 20% capacity occupation at any point. Expensive air b n bs most likely.

The notion this type of development will provide 1000 homes is amusing . It's almost as if people don't know of the other high rises down the docks with no one in them.

Yes it looks nice but don't be blinded to reality.

Smouse156

usernamegoes wrote: »

So your view is that someone is going to spend tens of millions of euro to build something and never rent it out or sell it? To what end?

Well if you look at comparable schemes they’re all virtually empty. The vulture funds set rents way above market rents to mark down on paper what the building is worth. They then hope to sell it on to a pension fund long term or they’re happy to wait years until it fills up.

While of course it would be great to see supply of 1000 new homes built if they were utilised, given comparable buildings they’ve added very little to supply as prices set well above market. If a vacant unit tax were added then these would be economically forced to rent at market rents I think it would be a great development!

Sadly given the lack of a vacant unit tax it’s about as useful/wasteful as a builder building a 20,000sqft home for a Monaco based millionaire rather than building twenty 1000sqft houses for people that will actually live in them.

As we have a lack of construction workers, I think it’s important to use them were they improve supply.

handlemaster

listermint wrote: »

These won't get people in them. They will be too expensive for anyone to buy. Be owned by foreign investors and probably have a 20% capacity occupation at any point. Expensive air b n bs most likely.

The notion this type of development will provide 1000 homes is amusing . It's almost as if people don't know of the other high rises down the docks with no one in them.

Yes it looks nice but don't be blinded to reality.

This is just nonsense talk. No one would build to that. Build a 1000 apts and have 800 empty.

hmmm

ted1 wrote: »

The site won’t stay empty, they’ll get 500 on the site. And people in the surrounding area will not be living in a constant shadow. Unfortunately in Ireland we get a lot of low sun which results in large buildings having long shadows

Let's look back on this thread in 10 years time and wonder what ever happened the 500 apartments we were promised as an alternative. I'd say it'll end up as yet another office building.

As for people living in a city centre thinking they it is reasonable to avoid "shadows" :rolleyes:

usernamegoes

Smouse156 wrote: »

Well if you look at comparable schemes they’re all virtually empty. The vulture funds set rents way above market rents to mark down on paper what the building is worth. They then hope to sell it on to a pension fund long term or they’re happy to wait years until it fills up.

While of course it would be great to see supply of 1000 new homes built if they were utilised, given comparable buildings they’ve added very little to supply as prices set well above market. If a vacant unit tax were added then these would be economically forced to rent at market rents I think it would be a great development!

Sadly given the lack of a vacant unit tax it’s about as useful/wasteful as a builder building a 20,000sqft home for a Monaco based millionaire rather than building twenty 1000sqft houses for people that will actually live in them.

As we have a lack of construction workers, I think it’s important to use them were they improve supply.

I think this is a bit of a cock and bull story. No one is going to deliberately spend tens of millions of euro with the plan to leave it empty for years. Any fund risk manager would be screaming at them that there is likely going to be some kind of vacancy tax soon and the risk would be too great.

There are a small number of vacant buildings around Dublin. You've no evidence that this is going to be the case in this instance.

Your argument should be to have a vacancy tax not to just not build them.

Smouse156

usernamegoes wrote: »

I think this is a bit of a cock and bull story. No one is going to deliberately spend tens of millions of euro with the plan to leave it empty for years. Any fund risk manager would be screaming at them that there is likely going to be some kind of vacancy tax soon and the risk would be too great.

There are a small number of vacant buildings around Dublin. You've no evidence that this is going to be the case in this instance.

Your argument should be to have a vacancy tax not to just not build them.

This is not a cock & bull story! It’s widely accepted!

https://www.98fm.com/news/hundreds-of-high-rent-luxury-dublin-apartments-lying-empty-971988

https://www.newstalk.com/news/leaving-dublin-luxury-apartments-vacant-doesnt-break-competition-rules-review-finds-1188114

There is logic behind it although I feel it’s not the smartest strategy from these funds but that’s my opinion. These units should not be build UNTIL there is a vacant unit tax as the construction workers could build estates etc instead, homes that that people will actually live in.

I think you need to research why these buildings ARE empty before you advocate building yet another ghost building in the Docklands.

It’s only worthwhile with a vacant unit tax. If this comes in, then yes, I’d let Johnny build it 100 stories high but otherwise it’s just a glorified shell.

usernamegoes

Smouse156 wrote: »

This is not a cock & bull story! It’s widely accepted!

https://www.98fm.com/news/hundreds-of-high-rent-luxury-dublin-apartments-lying-empty-971988

https://www.newstalk.com/news/leaving-dublin-luxury-apartments-vacant-doesnt-break-competition-rules-review-finds-1188114

There is logic behind it although I feel it’s not the smartest strategy from these funds but that’s my opinion. These units should not be build UNTIL there is a vacant unit tax as the construction workers could build estates etc instead, homes that that people will actually live in.

I think you need to research why these buildings ARE empty before you advocate building yet another ghost building in the Docklands.

It’s only worthwhile with a vacant unit tax. If this comes in, then yes, I’d let Johnny build it 100 stories high but otherwise it’s just a glorified shell.

You have no evidence that these apartments will be left empty. You have speculated as to why you think a small number of apartments are left empty by some funds.

I think you should provide some evidence as to why you would not allow 1000 homes to be built because you think someone is going to spend millions upon millions of euros for no return. If you're right, the fund will go insolvent and the liquidator/receiver will take control of the asset and sell them.

These funds want to make money, a very small number are left empty and you are extrapolating that as an excuse to deny 1000 new homes. Which ironically would put more pressure on capital dock to realise that cutting their rents may be the only feasible path forward, particularly in-light of the risk of an imminent vacant unit levy.

If you believe that leaving properties vacant is a money-making strategy for funds then the onus is on you to explain why this practice isn't so rampant that the CCPC would actually intervene instead of saying its too small to affect the market. It seems to be a niche issue and you have not provided any evidence that it would have affected these homes.

Whereas the logical view is that investors expect to see a these apartments sold. And if they are bought by a fund it would have to be a very high-risk fund that would buy apartments knowing they are going to be left empty (which is very different from a situation where they already owned them and where biding their time) Either way, investors aren't going to accept no rent rolls on quarterly reports for very long.

Smouse156

usernamegoes wrote: »

You have no evidence that these apartments will be left empty. You have speculated as to why you think a small number of apartments are left empty by some funds.

I think you should provide some evidence as to why you would not allow 1000 homes to be built because you think someone is going to spend millions upon millions of euros for no return. If you're right, the fund will go insolvent and the liquidator/receiver will take control of the asset and sell them.

These funds want to make money, a very small number are left empty and you are extrapolating that as an excuse to deny 1000 new homes. Which ironically would put more pressure on capital dock to realise that cutting their rents may be the only feasible path forward, particularly in-light of the risk of an imminent vacant unit levy.

If you believe that leaving properties vacant is a money-making strategy for funds then the onus is on you to explain why this practice isn't so rampant that the CCPC would actually intervene instead of saying its too small to affect the market. It seems to be a niche issue and you have not provided any evidence that it would have affected these homes.

Whereas the logical view is that investors expect to see a these apartments sold. And if they are bought by a fund it would have to be a very high-risk fund that would buy apartments knowing they are going to be left empty (which is very different from a situation where they already owned them and where biding their time) Either way, investors aren't going to accept no rent rolls on quarterly reports for very long.

Look, as someone that works in a Hedge fund that invests in property (not in Ireland), I’ll explain it to you.

1) The building is valued as a multiple of its rent roll. The higher the rent, the higher the sales value.
2) The primary reason the buildings are mostly left empty is due to RPZs limiting rent increases to 4% annually. If these weren’t present then they would take market rent instead of setting it well above.
3) The second reason to leave them empty is they they expect higher rents in future due to terrible supply (multiple reasons for that). They believe they can get higher rent than today’s market value +4% annually (personally I question this assumption but this is why they’re virtually empty)

Take capital dock (190 apartments) which was under 50% occupied before the pandemic hit (probably 90% empty now). They set rents way above market at €3500+ as they believe someday those rents will be paid and can sell on the building to a pension fund as a multiple of the rent roll. The building doesn’t have to be fully occupied although it would have to be mostly occupied to get the high sales price.

They’re essentially betting that the government will fail as they have done for the past decade to provide supply to the market and demand will keep driving rents higher & higher. It’s a bet on government housing policy failure…a bet that’s been correct for years. There is risk for them but they have the cash flow and funds to maintain this strategy. It won’t work forever and they might get it wrong…but with FFFG in power, they (the vulture funds) will probably get it right.

Edit: I’m a first time buyer, recently started renting and I’m definitely on the side of the renter/home buyers. I just want to see construction resources used effectively as we have a shortage of construction workers. That’s why it’s important they build properties that will contribute to rental supply or housing supply and not ghost supply. Unless these units come to market at market rates (which is unlikely from similar buildings) it will do little to help the people looking to rent in Dublin.

usernamegoes

Smouse156 wrote: »

Look, as someone that works in a Hedge fund that invests in property (not in Ireland), I’ll explain it to you.

1) The building is valued as a multiple of its rent roll. The higher the rent, the higher the sales value.
2) The primary reason the buildings are mostly left empty is due to RPZs limiting rent increases to 4% annually. If these weren’t present then they would take market rent instead of setting it well above.
3) The second reason to leave them empty is they they expect higher rents in future due to terrible supply (multiple reasons for that). They believe they can get higher rent than today’s market value +4% annually (personally I question this assumption but this is why they’re virtually empty)

Take capital dock (190 apartments) which was under 50% occupied before the pandemic hit (probably 90% empty now). They set rents way above market at €3500+ as they believe someday those rents will be paid and can sell on the building to a pension fund as a multiple of the rent roll. The building doesn’t have to be fully occupied although it would have to be mostly occupied to get the high sales price.

They’re essentially betting that the government will fail as they have done for the past decade to provide supply to the market and demand will keep driving rents higher & higher. It’s a bet on government housing policy failure…a bet that’s been correct for years. There is risk for them but they have the cash flow and funds to maintain this strategy. It won’t work forever and they might get it wrong…but with FFFG in power, they (the vulture funds) will probably get it right.

Edit: I’m a first time buyer, recently started renting and I’m definitely on the side of the renter/home buyers. I just want to see construction resources used effectively as we have a shortage of construction workers. That’s why it’s important they build properties that will contribute to rental supply or housing supply and not ghost supply. Unless these units come to market at market rates (which is unlikely from similar buildings) it will do little to help the people looking to rent in Dublin.

Look, when you get any evidence, I look forward to you explaining that to me. Ha!! :rolleyes:


You have no evidence that these apartments are not worth what they rent would be for them and therefore would not attract the rent requested (which seems to the issue in capitol dock,). You don't even know spec of the apartments relative to capitol dock which may be much lower spec and therefore not worth the rent being demanded. You don't know what the rent would be compared to capitol dock.
Do you have evidence that they are build to rent or that a fund would buy them considering the issue with renting luxury apartments it seems.

I worked in the risk and compliance function of a very large Private Equity fund managing non- and sub- performing loans and their underlying property for many years and in these funds the risk of investing millions upon millions on the on the basis that "FFFG stays in power for the foreseeable future" (when the dogs on the street know it's extremely likely SF will be in some form of government in the next election and a vacant unit tax is being openly talked about by all parties), would ring alarm bells in the US offices and the asset manager wouldn't last very long.

What ever about a small number of funds managing the emergent risk due to circumstances for a short period when they already own assets, but to deliberately invest tens of millions on this basis is honestly laughable! It's not realistic.

IF you're theory was correct, it would be rampant, but the CCPC found the opposite. Because it's a unique situation that a small number of funds have found themselves in for a small amount of their portfolio and likely only a short period of time.

Yellow_Fern

Some apartment towers might be empty now but these buildings last a very long time. Very short sighted to assume its representative.

handlemaster

1000 apartements on that plot. Dont see any issue with it. Even if as one poster says they will be left empty however unlikely thst is. They will be occupied as some stage. Built now 1000 or build 100 when there is a big shortage of accommodation in the city.

Smouse156

usernamegoes wrote: »

Look, when you get any evidence, I look forward to you explaining that to me. Ha!! :rolleyes:


You have no evidence that these apartments are not worth what they rent would be for them and therefore would not attract the rent requested (which seems to the issue in capitol dock,). You don't even know spec of the apartments relative to capitol dock which may be much lower spec and therefore not worth the rent being demanded. You don't know what the rent would be compared to capitol dock.
Do you have evidence that they are build to rent or that a fund would buy them considering the issue with renting luxury apartments it seems.

I worked in the risk and compliance function of a very large Private Equity fund managing non- and sub- performing loans and their underlying property for many years and in these funds the risk of investing millions upon millions on the on the basis that "FFFG stays in power for the foreseeable future" (when the dogs on the street know it's extremely likely SF will be in some form of government in the next election and a vacant unit tax is being openly talked about by all parties), would ring alarm bells in the US offices and the asset manager wouldn't last very long.

What ever about a small number of funds managing the emergent risk due to circumstances for a short period when they already own assets, but to deliberately invest tens of millions on this basis is honestly laughable! It's not realistic.

IF you're theory was correct, it would be rampant, but the CCPC found the opposite. Because it's a unique situation that a small number of funds have found themselves in for a small amount of their portfolio and likely only a short period of time.

Look I’m only referencing what is currently available in the market. I also don’t agree that it’s the smartest strategy but you can pretty much assume that capital dock, quayside quarter etc are empty for a reason, years after they’ve been built.

You must remember what these apartments are going to sell for (700k plus, likely higher for average 2-beds) and what rent would be sought to justify the investment. Evidence: Johnny puts €660k average on the council portion which is supposed to be a discount:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ronan-plans-to-sell-960-000-apartment-to-council-for-social-housing-1.4476385

Given the high price, what rental yield do you think an investor would need? Minimum 5% gross, likely more. We’d likely be looking at rents of over €3000/month for two beds to justify the investment.

Craysfort Capital paid €800k on average (terrible buy IMO) for quayside quarter and now can’t rent them. It will probably take 3 more years for them to fill up. How long would Johnny’s tower take to fill at rents >€3000/month.

There is truth that the more of them that are built, the more pressure it puts on the other empty ones. Either way it’s not going to be built now which in the short term is a good thing as we have limited workers and these workers would be better utilised building more affordable homes elsewhere. I think most would agree with this point! The tower can come later.

In the long run, I do hope Johnny gets his tower as this country badly needs supply.

Yellow_Fern

Smouse156 wrote: »

Look I’m only referencing what is currently available in the market. I also don’t agree that it’s the smartest strategy but you can pretty much assume that capital dock, quayside quarter etc are empty for a reason, years after they’ve been built.

You must remember what these apartments are going to sell for (700k plus for average 2-beds) and what rent would be sought to justify the investment. Craysfort Capital paid €800k on average (terrible buy IMO) for quayside quarter and now can’t rent them. It will probably take 3 more years for them to fill up. How long would Johnny’s tower take to fill?

There is truth that the more of them that are built, the more pressure it puts on the other empty ones. Either way it’s not going to be built now which in the short term is a good thing as we have limited workers and these workers would be better utilised building more affordable homes elsewhere. I think most would agree with this point! The tower can come later.

In the long run, I do hope Johnny gets his tower as this country badly needs supply.

Maybe because business travel is paused? Maybe the claim it s empty is just a rumour? There is very little hard data on empty apartments.