Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2010 Morgan Kelly Article- Ireland is finished

Options
1…567911

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,300 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    The state CPOs land to build motorways.

    Why not CPO land for homes?

    Surely the latter is more of a priority?

    It does CPO land for motorways. In mostly rural locations.


  • Options
    #243
    Fred_Johnson
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Fred_Johnson


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    The state CPOs land to build motorways.

    Why not CPO land for homes?

    Surely the latter is more of a priority?

    The government is welcome to buy sites around Dublin anytime it likes at the market rate.

    The key issue is the lack of high rise. Only with high rise does the maths make sense for developers. You're not going to pay tens of millions for a site, only to find out due to planning all you'll get is 5 storey residential. You'll take a massive loss, so you simply won't do it. You'll build commercial, or hotels instead. Which is exactly what's happening. And if you do build residential, as we've seen in D2 developments, you will expect to sell 2 bed apartments for over 500k. That's the only way to make it viable, given the insanity of enforced low rise.


  • Options
    #244
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Fred_Johnson wrote: »
    The government is welcome to buy sites around Dublin anytime it likes at the market rate.

    The key issue is the lack of high rise. Only with high rise does the maths make sense for developers. You're not going to pay tens of millions for a site, only to find out due to planning all you'll get is 5 storey residential. You'll take a massive loss, so you simply won't do it. You'll build commercial, or hotels instead. Which is exactly what's happening. And if you do build residential, as we've seen in D2 developments, you will expect to sell 2 bed apartments for over 500k. That's the only way to make it viable, given the insanity of enforced low rise.

    Agreed, it's a pathetic stone-age approach to planning. They can still keep Dublin city center a flat city, and have regional high rise areas in places like Grand Canal Dock and the like.


  • Options
    #245
    Cina
    Registered Users Posts: 2,387 ✭✭✭Cina


    Sheeps wrote: »
    Agreed, it's a pathetic stone-age approach to planning. They can still keep Dublin city center a flat city, and have regional high rise areas in places like Grand Canal Dock and the like.

    Forgive me if I'm wrong but... isn't that the case? They're building the tallest building in Ireland at the docks.

    As far as I'm aware the rule does indeed only apply to the city center.


  • Options
    #246
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,300 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Cina wrote: »
    Forgive me if I'm wrong but... isn't that the case? They're building the tallest building in Ireland at the docks.

    As far as I'm aware the rule does indeed only apply to the city center.

    The IFSC not 'city centre' no?

    It's classed as a SDZ I believe which means developments can reach up to 22 floors. I don't think this development will even reach that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,300 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    KyussBeeshop wrote: »
    Just stop replying to me and stop pretending your post has any relevance to mine - you clearly started out with an attempt to distract from what I said in my post, with a completely facile/trite irrelevant comment - I'm not interested in giving you a hand with that.

    Yes of course - entirely irrelevant.


  • Options
    #248
    Sheeps
    Registered Users Posts: 2,762 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Cina wrote: »
    Forgive me if I'm wrong but... isn't that the case? They're building the tallest building in Ireland at the docks.

    As far as I'm aware the rule does indeed only apply to the city center.

    There are different planning zones, but you're correct they are currently building the tallest building, if not the tallest building down in GCD. It is however still not that tall (as far as cities go). Dublin City Council can still keep Dublin relatively low by expanding to the ceiling to the lower end of the high rise spectrum to 40 stories. It wouldn't change the skyline that much.

    We're happy enough to give the Poolbeg chimneys a protected status and for it to sit there as part of the Dublin skyline at 64 stories tall (given average of 3.1m per story for residential buildings). Why not more buildings at the mouth of the liffey?


  • Options
    #249
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    Upon flying in to Dublin last week on a clear day, after being in densely populated Malta, it was amazing to see how lo-rise and spread out our housing is, even really really close to the very city centre. We HAVE to build up, but it's not going to happen is it? It's the only viable solution I can think of. Can someone tell me what the problem is with high rise? We can't be a modern city society yet refuse to have tall buildings. This will cost us dearly, we'll lose out on jobs from Brexit etc, purely because there's nowhere for anyone to live.
    I'm lucky I bought a house in December 2015 near the city, it seemed to be the last affordable house at 165k, but to be honest if it wasn't for my parents helping me with a deposit I'd still be renting now. Not all people have this privilege.


  • Options
    #250
    catbear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭catbear


    Dr Crayfish wrote: »
    Upon flying in to Dublin last week on a clear day, after being in densely populated Malta, it was amazing to see how lo-rise and spread out our housing is, even really really close to the very city centre. We HAVE to build up, but it's not going to happen is it? It's the only viable solution I can think of. Can someone tell me what the problem is with high rise? We can't be a modern city society yet refuse to have tall buildings. This will cost us dearly, we'll lose out on jobs from Brexit etc, purely because there's nowhere for anyone to live.
    I'm lucky I bought a house in December 2015 near the city, it seemed to be the last affordable house at 165k, but to be honest if it wasn't for my parents helping me with a deposit I'd still be renting now. Not all people have this privilege.
    I wonder if the disaster that was the ballymun high rises created a stigma that's only facing a real rethink now.


  • Options
    #251
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    ChikiChiki wrote: »
    Should a reasonably priced apartment in Dublin City Centre or at least inside the M50 be possible for many? We need to be building skyscraper apartment blocks to meet the demands of city workers given our growth opportunities.

    Forcing people to commute from Mullingar, Portlaoise because of a lack of affordable property is ridiculous.

    I'm in Sydney at the moment. 1/4 of my monthly wage including bills goes on rent to an apartment 3km South of the CBD and 1 stop away from Central station. I'm at my desk in 18 mins from leaving my apartment. In Dublin it was 1/3 of my monthly pay not including bills for a place that took 1hr and 15 mins to get to via train.

    And yes this Government have proved they are ****ing useless in most matters. They do nothing, absolutely nothing to help reduce the cost of living for those who contribute the most to society

    You do know it's Dublin city council who are responsible for housing in Dublin?

    Of which the majority are sinn fein and the left.

    They refuse high rise, planning etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    catbear wrote: »
    I wonder if the disaster that was the ballymun high rises created a stigma that's only facing a real rethink now.

    Yeah and they weren't even that high at all. And the blocks were very spread out. My uncle lived in one at one stage and they were actually quite spacious and his one was nice. It wasn't the design that was the problem in Ballymun, there were other reasons as to why it failed.


  • Options
    #253
    Cee-Jay-Cee
    Registered Users Posts: 12,235 ✭✭✭✭Cee-Jay-Cee


    Dr Crayfish wrote: »
    Upon flying in to Dublin last week on a clear day, after being in densely populated Malta, it was amazing to see how lo-rise and spread out our housing is, even really really close to the very city centre. We HAVE to build up, but it's not going to happen is it? It's the only viable solution I can think of. Can someone tell me what the problem is with high rise? We can't be a modern city society yet refuse to have tall buildings. This will cost us dearly, we'll lose out on jobs from Brexit etc, purely because there's nowhere for anyone to live.
    I'm lucky I bought a house in December 2015 near the city, it seemed to be the last affordable house at 165k, but to be honest if it wasn't for my parents helping me with a deposit I'd still be renting now. Not all people have this privilege.

    Because someone might fall off and get killed or worse and we can't have that in little ole Oirlind.


  • Options
    #254
    Pure tashte
    Registered Users Posts: 103 ✭✭Pure tashte


    Dr Crayfish wrote: »
    Upon flying in to Dublin last week on a clear day, after being in densely populated Malta, it was amazing to see how lo-rise and spread out our housing is, even really really close to the very city centre. We HAVE to build up, but it's not going to happen is it? It's the only viable solution I can think of. Can someone tell me what the problem is with high rise?

    The argument is that the would ruin the character of the city. It's an argument that seems to be used by Joycean scholars and the like, the fact that some of the ugliest building you are ever likely to see are already in the city centre seems to be completely lost on them.


  • Options
    #255
    catbear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭catbear


    Pure tashte wrote: »
    The argument is that the would ruin the character of the city. It's an argument that seems to be used by Joycean scholars and the like, the fact that some of the ugliest building you are ever likely to see are already in the city centre seems to be completely lost on them.
    If you're thinking of all the pre-Woodquay protests then yes, a lot a crap buildings in the centre.


  • Options
    #256
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Patww79 wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Hey, you're the one that wants to take the same level of rights as you enjoy off anyone who emigrated and returned, so how do you think I'm supposed to live? Presumably I can't get a job in your strange world, so do you think I'm going to go into stasis until you've decided we traitors can live in Ireland again? :P


  • Options
    #257
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    The issue is that somehow the "city centre" according to some people now covers an area greater than all of Dublin was a few short decades ago.

    Yeh. Anywhere within the M50.


  • Options
    #258
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    Is If we do create more jobs and expand the economy can Dublin actually sustain any more people? What's the point in bringing Brexit banks here etc if there's nowhere for people to live? Even if we built skyscraper apartment blocks around the M50 how do these people get to work with our awful public transport? The place is congested enough, more dwellings means more traffic. I think we're doing it all wrong.


  • Options
    #259
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Dr Crayfish wrote: »
    Yeah and they weren't even that high at all. And the blocks were very spread out. My uncle lived in one at one stage and they were actually quite spacious and his one was nice. It wasn't the design that was the problem in Ballymun, there were other reasons as to why it failed.

    The flats were fine - it was the cúnts living in them was the problem.

    Edit - Some of them obviously - Should go without saying, but these days you still have to say it!


  • Options
    #260
    Dr Crayfish
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭Dr Crayfish


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    The flats were fine - it was the cúnts living in them was the problem.

    Edit - Some of them obviously - Should go without saying, but these days you still have to say it!

    Poor uncle Alan was a gent!


  • Options
    #261
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    The flats were fine - it was the cúnts living in them was the problem.

    Edit - Some of them obviously - Should go without saying, but these days you still have to say it!

    That's the thing though.

    There is a fair amount of scum that just ruin things for everyone else in this country.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    That's the thing though.

    There is a fair amount of scum that just ruin things for everyone else in this country.


    It's a minefield to say the least, but when you give someone something for free (or close to free anyway), fix it for free when they break it, up grade it periodically of course for free again - are they really going to respect it!

    I'm not saying people should be forced to live in shít holes, but if you break something it should be your responsibility to fix it.

    You get way too much for nothing in this country and fleeced way too much to pay for it all if you do bother your arse to work.


  • Options
    #263
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    It's a minefield to say the least, but when you give someone something for free (or close to free anyway), fix it for free when they break it, up grade it periodically of course for free again - are they really going to respect it!

    I'm not saying people should be forced to live in shít holes, but if you break something it should be your responsibility to fix it.

    You get way too much for nothing in this country and fleeced way too much to pay for it all if you do bother your arse to work.

    Agreed.

    People slate the government that it doesn't look after the vulnerable rabble rabble.

    Bullsh1t they are more looked after than the poor ****er slaving away each day just to keep up mortgage payments.


  • Options
    #264
    Pure tashte
    Registered Users Posts: 103 ✭✭Pure tashte


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    That's the thing though.

    There is a fair amount of scum that just ruin things for everyone else in this country.

    You'd be hoping no one would use the Ballymun flats as an argument against building high rise!

    The circumstances are completely different. Any high rise flats built now would be to accommodate young professionals working in the city centre, which would free up more houses in the suburbs for young families.


  • Options
    #265
    catbear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭catbear


    Pure tashte wrote: »
    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    That's the thing though.

    There is a fair amount of scum that just ruin things for everyone else in this country.

    You'd be hoping no one would use the Ballymun flats as an argument against building high rise!

    The circumstances are completely different. Any high rise flats built now would be to accommodate young professionals working in the city centre, which would free up more houses in the suburbs for young families.
    Its the centre where the high rises should be! That's the double daftness of the ballymun argument against high rise. They were built where there wasnt a demand!


  • Options
    #266
    Fred_Johnson
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Fred_Johnson


    Pure tashte wrote: »
    You'd be hoping no one would use the Ballymun flats as an argument against building high rise!

    The circumstances are completely different. Any high rise flats built now would be to accommodate young professionals working in the city centre, which would free up more houses in the suburbs for young families.

    Exactly. Irish people have this weird fear of being "forced" to living in tall buildings. Probably because in their heads when they think of tall apartment blocks they think of social housing. The reality is we're talking about well built tall private accommodation. No-one would be forced to live there! On the contrary, one would have to stump up 2 grand a month at least for the privilege. When i lived in London i was on the 26th floor and it was fantastic, the apartment was modern, everyone was working and paying the rent or else owned their place. All good.


  • Options
    #267
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Fred_Johnson wrote: »
    Exactly. Irish people have this weird fear of being "forced" to living in tall buildings. Probably because in their heads when they think of tall apartment blocks they think of social housing. The reality is we're talking about well built tall private accommodation. No-one would be forced to live there! On the contrary, one would have to stump up 2 grand a month at least for the privilege. When i lived in London i was on the 26th floor and it was fantastic, the apartment was modern, everyone was working and paying the rent or else owned their place. All good.
    Yeah but here they would throw in 20% council and it would lead to problems no doubt.


  • Options
    #268
    Fred_Johnson
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Fred_Johnson


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    Yeah but here they would throw in 20% council and it would lead to problems no doubt.

    This is why i disagree with Coveney. He believes in integration. I want complete and utter segregation.


  • Options
    #269
    Arcade_Tryer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Arcade_Tryer


    Fred_Johnson wrote: »
    This is why i disagree with Coveney. He believes in integration. I want complete and utter segregation.
    Probably why Coveney is in charge of policy and you're posting on boards.


  • Options
    #270
    catbear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭catbear


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    Yeah but here they would throw in 20% council and it would lead to problems no doubt.
    Well if you actuate your view you'll be segregated from society with a stay in mountjoy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    ChikiChiki
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭ChikiChiki


    Fred_Johnson wrote: »
    This is why i disagree with Coveney. He believes in integration. I want complete and utter segregation.

    In fairness I think many on the internet predicted what would happen when Merkel made her open door statement and have been proven correct.


Advertisement