If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

More housing objections by the opposition and Boyd Barrett.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,339 ✭✭✭✭ Potential-Monke

    "Don't ever change what we have!!!"

    "Nothing ever changes around here, they're ignoring us!!!"

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ zell12

    How will this negatively affect the value of my house? More housing anywhere means less scarcity of housing, the less valuable existing property becomes, the more objections arise

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,437 ✭✭✭ rolling boh

    Any new developments will always cause concern for existing homeowners nearby their number one concern will be the value of their homes that trumps everything else .

  • Registered Users Posts: 22,991 ✭✭✭✭ blanch152

    I know the location well. It is a good location for a signature building, one of height and size. No reason to object because of the height or density.

    However, I haven't seen the detailed plans, so I hope that it is of sufficient architectural merit.

  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,089 Mod ✭✭✭✭ riffmongous

    And Mary Lou objected about the 1600 apartments getting built near Croker.

    It appears the objection was that they are 'for rent' and young Johnny and Mary who grew up in the area won't be able to afford to live there.

    Many people can't afford to live where they grew up, me included. That's life.

    Do you not see the issue there?

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭ whippet

    How close do you need to be to mammy .. a couple of miles north and you'd be in finglas / ballymun and much more affordable

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,249 ✭✭✭ Allinall

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭ whippet

    That's where to votes are ... keeps him in a job / comfortable and safe in the knowledge that he will never have to bring any of his populist ideas to fruition

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,991 ✭✭✭ Jinglejangle69


    You can't always get what you want.

    Good song that, and very true.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,249 ✭✭✭ Allinall

    Think you're agreeing with me.

    Poster I was responding to seemed to think there was an issue with people not being able to afford to live where they grew up.

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,138 ✭✭✭✭ maccored

    "A local campaign group, Stop Holy Cross College, said the development of rental-only apartments could lead to rent and house price inflation, lower living standards and “a return to absentee landlords”.

    Architects Rob Curley and Alfonso Bonilla, who are members of the group, said the scale of build-to-rent in this proposal was “completely inappropriate”.

    In a joint submission to the board, they said the lower space standards allowed under the build-to-rent system, which permits smaller apartments than those in developments intended for sale, were “designed to profit and investment class” and could have a “massive and essentially irreversible impact on the spatial quality of the apartments and the apartment buildings”."

    "However, in a strident objection against the apartments, Ms McDonald stated that ‘build to rent’ schemes are driven by investors seeking to exploit the high demand for housing and apartments in urban centres.

    She states: “As a consequence, these developments drive up the cost of that land, making standard residential development for Dublin even more unaffordable.”

    She pointed out that 70pc of the units are one-beds and studios. “This does not meet the housing needs of Dublin Central,” she argues.

    Dublin City planning officer with An Taisce, Kevin Duff, states that An Taisce has serious concern over the scale of the scheme and argues that build-to-rent militates against the fostering and nurturing of the longer term community in the area.

    Maynooth academic and housing expert Rory Hearne states that “this mega build-to-rent scheme would essentially be a private enclave set apart from the local area, owned by overseas institutional investors”.

    He said: “This is a reversion of 100 years in social progress of land ownership."

    Mr Hearne further claims that the development “is part of a race to the bottom in the Irish housing system” and if approved will give the green light to others to pursue similar type developments.

    Requesting an oral hearing into the scheme, Mr Hearne also states that there are insufficient units for families in the development."

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Yep, being in opposition is their raison d'être - no way could they actually make good on what they insist should materialise.

  • Registered Users Posts: 29,705 ✭✭✭✭ NIMAN

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭ Brucie Bonus

    'If you can't afford to live were you are from tough ****'? If only we had politicians looking out for us.

    If these ones will be unaffordable, they are not fot for purpose.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭ Brucie Bonus

    What if people can't afford them and the tax payer has to subsidise? The tax payer can't be endlessly milked to keep rents and profits high.

    Maybe you could link to a situation where rent fell in an area with new build to rents? Rent doesn't have to fall when the tax payer fills the gap.

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 16,379 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Weepsie

    It still doesn't solve th issue of couples , families who are also living with ethe reality of housing of any sort that is suitable being attainable.

    We should have far higher standards for both design and building than the cookie cooker, bare minimum box **** that we have. We need 1,2,3,4 bed apartments. We need it to be seems as an actual nlovable option, done away with parking spaces for all but come with storage and loads of light.

    I'd object to loads of these because they just shift the issue

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,626 ✭✭✭✭ Podge_irl

    More apartments = more supply = lower price. New 1/2 bed apartments being built will reduce the pressure on flatshares in larger homes and thus free them up for families. Nothing will fix the problem except rampant building of dwellings.

    The objections are nonsensical. The apartments aren't cheap enough? so not building them will somehow make living there more affordable?

    The reality is that those who live there don't want more people, and especially students, in the neighbourhood.

    Boyd Barrett has told the appeals board that local residents will be heavily impacted “by the inappropriate height of the development”.

    He said: “While IADT are in need of student accommodation, we fear this accommodation will be too expensive for most to afford and therefore not fit for purpose.”

    Boyd Barrett stated: “It is much too large and will be very much out of character with the landscape, in an area with two-storey houses and Ashbury Nursing Home.”

    God help us all.

    It's too large = he is clearly not committed to building enough homes

    Its too expensive = there is a shortage of accommodation allowing them to charge high rents which you are just propagating.

    So he wants what? Smaller buildings, with bigger individual apartments and all cheaper. Ludicrous.

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,794 ✭✭✭✭ markodaly

    That is the Mary-Lou, SF shtick for a while though... falsely claiming that building apartments means prices go UP. Which of course means that knocking down apartments should mean that prices go DOWN.... LOL

    David McWilliams has had many a thing to say about SF and their Trump-like economic policies that fly in the face of reality.

    Mary Lou and SF just want to make the housing situation worse so that they can put bums on seats in the next election.

    Think about this for a minute or two, SF and co. would rather people end up homeless and make the housing issue worse, by selling out young people so long as SF get some extra few of their goons elected.

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,531 ✭✭✭✭ padd b1975

    If they are unaffordable they'll remain empty.

  • Registered Users Posts: 22,991 ✭✭✭✭ blanch152

    Student accommodation isn't meant to solve the issue of couples, but indirectly it helps. If students are living in PBSA, then they aren't sharing a four-bed semi near their college, and that house is freed up for couples.

    This is simple stuff, easy to understand, but idiots like Boyd-Barrett and SF have somehow convinced people that the opposite is the case.

  • Registered Users Posts: 22,991 ✭✭✭✭ blanch152

    This is complete and utter nonsense in relation to this thread. Complete garbage, unbelievable stuff.

    This is student accommodation beside a college that the developer wants to build. So it should be 1-beds and 2-beds. The taxpayer doesn't fill the gap, because the taxpayer doesn't pay student rents!!!

    Because students move into this accommodation from local houses, the rent for the local houses should fall as more come onto the market. It would be kind to say that the objections from Boyd-Barrett are birdbrained.

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,138 ✭✭✭✭ maccored

    lets see what happens. students can barely afford to pay college fees nevermind exorbitant rents.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭ Brucie Bonus

    No they won't. The state and LA's use tax payer money to rent unaffordable housing all the time.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭ Brucie Bonus

    So you've nothing to back up your claim new rentals reduce rents.

    If they are unaffordable they are not fit for purpose.

    We have had student specific accommodation rented out to other non-students.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,328 ✭✭✭✭ Geuze

    Extra supply may not lead to an immediate fall in rents, as the demand is so large.


    demand = 100

    current supply = 60

    price = 200 euro

    New supply = 80, but demand still exceeds supply

    Demand sets the price, so the price doesn't fall.