nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why there are so many junkies (chavs/knackers)in Dublin?

eduzzino5

Please don't get me wrong - I don't want to offend or to insult anyone.
I don't even know the right word to use (knackers/chavs/scumbags/junkies). I moved from Boston to Dublin last year and it seems to me there are so many knackers in the city.

Just wanted to understand if there is a reason (bad welfare? high level of drugs? low police enforcement?) of why there are so many knackers in Dublin (especially in the city center)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dr Brown

Part of the reason there is so many scumbags in Dublin city centre is because there is never any Gardas around especially at night.

Contrast that to when the Queen came over and we had many thousands of Gardas in the city centre.

The Garda resources are there they are just not being used.

Dr Brown

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I'd like to add I think O'Connell st looks fantastic now around the Spire and GPO, they've done a great job, it's gleaming.

The spire is an eyesore that should be taking down.

It makes O'Connell St look like an even bigger kip than it already is.

MadYaker

BillyBobBS wrote: »

I have plenty of friends who live in social housing as i once did years ago and the majority of them work. But sure go on with your stereotyping of people in social housing. Let's knock them all down and rehouse them to make for the Latte sipping brigade.

So you why do you think it is the case that areas with high concentrations of social housing also have higher crime rates and higher levels of drug and alcohol addiction? Compared to most other european capitals the centre of Dublin is a filthy mess and the methedone clinics and social housing are part of the reason.

BillyBobBS

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Because they are deprived blocks of social accom right in the city centre. Generations of people who don't work. Just look at the people and listen to them, who would employ them? Ok they're not all like that but it seems to be most of them are. This is coming from someone who has spent a long time over the years in the North Inner City and had schoolfriends from Sherrif St. I remember my mate from Sherrifer's 3 sisters all had kids by the time they were 21. I think they all got gafs in the surrounding areas.
F*ck them out beyond the M50 if they're not going to contribute. I'm sick of these parasites.

I have plenty of friends who live in social housing as i once did years ago and the majority of them work. But sure go on with your stereotyping of people in social housing. Let's knock them all down and rehouse them to make for the Latte sipping brigade.

alastair

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

personally I think all the social housing in the inner city should be redeveloped and turned into affordable housing for working people, and maybe keep 10% of it for the non working classes (0% if I had my way but for some reason they think certain types should get everything free). The rest should be moved to less expensive real estate elsewhere. It would really reinvigorate the city with new life.

You do realise that most local authority tenants aren't unemployed, and nobody gets a 'free gaff'? And that local authority housing makes up a small percentage of inner city residential stock. Local authority housing comprised 20.4% of Dublin's inner city housing stock in 2006, and, if anything, it's lower now. In the same year inner city unemployment figures stood at 14.1% for men, and 10.8% for women. Those figures were during the celtic tiger years, so they'd be higher now, but it puts the lie to the notion that the inner city is jammed full of idle benefit scroungers. Most people are gainfully employed - even if they're not rich.

Dr Crayfish

personally I think all the social housing in the inner city should be redeveloped and turned into affordable housing for working people, and maybe keep 10% of it for the non working classes (0% if I had my way but for some reason they think certain types should get everything free). The rest should be moved to less expensive real estate elsewhere. It would really reinvigorate the city with new life.

But let's face it. Will never change. Imagine Paul Murphy and Sinn Fein etc going nuts if you tried to change anything for these people.

Pointless worrying about it. If I were a woman though from the inner city, and finishing school I'd seriously consider knocking a few kids out to get a free gaf, with the way the housing market is now.

wakka12

Lux23 wrote: »

I think that is what they're doing in St Teresa Gardens and O'Devaney Gardens and that is exactly what I think should be happening everywhere. But I am not entirely convinced that knocking down perfectly good housing is the way to go in the middle of a homelessness crisis. Maybe block by block but it would take a long time.

Our country is in a good place economically. There will always be an excuse not to not knock it down, always some crisis, countries economies will grow as will the population, housing will always be in shortage to some extent to keep markets competitive. Knock it down now, its important that cities look nice. For mental health of citizens, this is seriously under considered part of urban planning.
I don't know what blocks you're talking about, some are modern and don't need redevelopment, but for instance the ones I posted look like they're from the 80's and they could certainly do with modernisation and improvement. Just because they're not falling down doesn't mean they're 'perfectly good' and shouldn't be knocked down and modernised, especially when they look like utter ****. Their interior of many council apartments looks overly cramped and dark also.

ger_r

Purple Mountain wrote: »

You picked up the lingo fairly quickly!

Not really. None of those words mean a drug user except junkie.

Lux23

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

Why not knock it down though and rebuild it with better housing(example) 20% social 30% affordable and 50% open market. That would be a fair enough blend, if good enough for housing estates it should be the same for the city centre.

If they keep the rules consistent it could work out.

I think that is what they're doing in St Teresa Gardens and O'Devaney Gardens and that is exactly what I think should be happening everywhere. But I am not entirely convinced that knocking down perfectly good housing is the way to go in the middle of a homelessness crisis. Maybe block by block but it would take a long time.

Dublin Spur

wakka12 wrote: »

I agree. But 100% social housing blocks should not be practically filling the city centre.
Social housing off stephens green, st patricks cathedral, charlemont, should be for the reserve of people who can afford such valuable space. Those least contributing to society should not be occupying the most important land in the city.

yep, it should be a privilege to live in these areas, a reward for hard work. If this happened there would be huge improvements in crime and cleanliness.

Generally speaking, if you pay a lot for some thing you tend to look after it.
If you pay little or nothing, or get it for free you have less regard for it. And that's part of the reason why certain sections of the city are much more desirable than others.

That said, I do agree that a % of all developments should be set aside for affordable housing.

Dr Crayfish

I'd like to add I think O'Connell st looks fantastic now around the Spire and GPO, they've done a great job, it's gleaming.

Dr Crayfish

BillyBobBS wrote: »

What's social housing got to do with it?

Because they are deprived blocks of social accom right in the city centre. Generations of people who don't work. Just look at the people and listen to them, who would employ them? Ok they're not all like that but it seems to be most of them are. This is coming from someone who has spent a long time over the years in the North Inner City and had schoolfriends from Sherrif St. I remember my mate from Sherrifer's 3 sisters all had kids by the time they were 21. I think they all got gafs in the surrounding areas.
F*ck them out beyond the M50 if they're not going to contribute. I'm sick of these parasites.

wakka12

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3383872,-6.2652003,180m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
But look at how inefficient the use of space is? Look at all the wasted space in between each block and how they are set back from the street? It leaves these awkward patches of dead space between each block that is large enough to be a big waste of space but too small to be used for any recreation or leisure.
You could build a nice street front with shops, you could build a story higher, you could fill in the entire block more densely.
Overall you could fit twice as many people living in that area off stephens green, if 20% was social housing then many of the people from that area would still get to stay and live in upgraded far superior modern development.

And again, can we just talk about how ugly the blocks are? Ruins the end of camden /aungier street. Its like they tried to make the blocks as ugly and oppressive as possible

MartyMcFly84

But it is there already? Are you saying we knock it all down? As time goes on and they age, then yes I think they should be sold off to the highest bidder but with the proviso that a certain percentage is for affordable housing, not necessarily social housing, but affordable. I don't want Dublin turning into a place where only the rich can live, f*** that.

Why not knock it down though and rebuild it with better housing(example) 20% social 30% affordable and 50% open market. That would be a fair enough blend, if good enough for housing estates it should be the same for the city centre.

If they keep the rules consistent it could work out.

wakka12

Lux23 wrote: »

But it is there already? Are you saying we knock it all down? As time goes on and they age, then yes I think they should be sold off to the highest bidder but with the proviso that a certain percentage is for affordable housing, not necessarily social housing, but affordable. I don't want Dublin turning into a place where only the rich can live, f*** that.

Yes knock it down, many council social developments do not efficiently use site density anyway. They are already aged buildings and look absolutely manky and destroy the look of the city centre anyway. Id have no problem with the redevelopment being partly social/affordable housing, but 100% social housing blocks off our most important squares, thoroughfares and business areas is ridiculously stupid

Lux23

wakka12 wrote: »

I agree. But 100% social housing blocks should not be practically filling the city centre.
Social housing off stephens green, st patricks cathedral, charlemont, should be for the reserve of people who can afford such valuable space. Those least contributing to society should not be occupying the most important land in the city. Social housing should, as you say be part of a mixed income development, in areas outside the CBD but with good transport connections. Areas of similar distance to phisborough, rathmines, harolds cross, are ideal areas for social housing

But it is there already? Are you saying we knock it all down? As time goes on and they age, then yes I think they should be sold off to the highest bidder but with the proviso that a certain percentage is for affordable housing, not necessarily social housing, but affordable. I don't want Dublin turning into a place where only the rich can live, f*** that.

BillyBobBS

strandroad wrote: »

Lots of social housing and methadone clinics located in the city centre in comparison to other cities.

What's social housing got to do with it?

wakka12

Lux23 wrote: »

I am in that exact same situation, Marty but at the same time, I firmly believe social housing should be a part of every new estate so we don't create pockets of poorly resourced areas where the social ills of poverty become the norm. I am an example of someone who grew up in a council-owned house in a private estate when we first moved in some of our neighbours turned their noses up at us and had the same silly attitude as you do. But both my parents worked, they just didn't earn enough to buy their own home and they certainly weren't living for free! Thirty years later, I wish this option was available for me.

So Marty, why not write to your local representatives and ask them when there will be an affordable housing option for you in your area? Because believe me, moaning about those living in council houses is exactly what politicians want to hear because it takes the onus off them to get off their asses and do something about the housing crisis that is affecting you just like those on the streets.

I agree. But 100% social housing blocks should not be practically filling the city centre.
Social housing off stephens green, st patricks cathedral, charlemont, should be for the reserve of people who can afford such valuable space. Those least contributing to society should not be occupying the most important land in the city. Social housing should, as you say be part of a mixed income development, in areas outside the CBD but with good transport connections. Areas of similar distance to phisborough, rathmines, harolds cross, are ideal areas for social housing

Lux23

I am in that exact same situation, Marty but at the same time, I firmly believe social housing should be a part of every new estate so we don't create pockets of poorly resourced areas where the social ills of poverty become the norm. I am an example of someone who grew up in a council-owned house in a private estate when we first moved in some of our neighbours turned their noses up at us and had the same silly attitude as you do. But both my parents worked, they just didn't earn enough to buy their own home and they certainly weren't living for free! Thirty years later, I wish this option was available for me.

So Marty, why not write to your local representatives and ask them when there will be an affordable housing option for you in your area? Because believe me, moaning about those living in council houses is exactly what politicians want to hear because it takes the onus off them to get off their asses and do something about the housing crisis that is affecting you just like those on the streets.

MartyMcFly84

I am struggling big time to find anything near the city centre where I work that I can possible afford, or even get a mortgage that would give me a realistic chance to bid. Property in Dublin goes for normally way above asking price and its just draining. Renting is worse again as its way over a monthly mortgage payment.

I work full time and study at night, and currently commute 1.5 hrs into the city centre then again at night after night school normally get home at 11pm. I would love to be able to afford something in the city centre. It would add 3 hours at least to my day. Its hard to see so many people living for free where others cannot dream of affording. I count myself lucky that I have some savings for a deposit. Many people working in Dublin are paying half their net wages on rent alone.

I have been looking at places 2 hours outside Dublin at new builds, the developer said 10% has to be public housing but this is set to rise to 20%. I could be in a situation where I have worked hard, saved,commuted, studied put myself in debt for 30 years and the person beside me can get his house for free. I am normally not a jealous kind of person but cant help but feeling resentment.

There has to be a different way to deal with this. People need to be incentivised to work. Many of the issues around social welfare, is that many of these people are better off not working than if they worked full time in a lower paid job. Why should they bother? When they dont have to do anything and will get a houses, medical cards, subsides for bills, and the dole. I would guess that many would have as much disposable income as someone on the average wage in Ireland or not far off after rent, and bills are paid for.

I have heard people turning down jobs out of fear of loosing their benefits.

alastair

Dublin Spur wrote: »

You don't find the same squalor beside Oxford Street as you do beside O'Connell St. I'm pretty sure there were slums in the Oxford Street area once upon a time but they sorted it out because it was the right thing to do for the city.

Nope, the two streets have completely different heritages. Dublin was always much more compact than London, and a combination of limited new building, and the influx from the famine, essentially packed most of the northside’s Georgian housing stock with tenement occupation. London’s west end, and Oxford Street in particular, was planned and built with a new affluent Londoner in mind, while the poor were primarily corralled into the older stock in the east end. London grew, while Dublin essentially stayed within the same geographic territory until well after the Free State was established. There is at least a two hundred year record of low income residential housing right in the city centre, and that’s the reality of the city. If ‘sorting it’ involves the mass deportation of long established families, then that’s been done - with mixed success, to a point where the residential figures for the inner city are a fraction of what they once were. Just look at the numbers of people who lived on Gardiner Street and Summerhill, right up the the 70’s, compared to today. The entire north-east inner city area has a population of a mere 18,000, according to the Mulvey Report, and that would include the boosted ‘non-national’ population of the last 10/15 years. That’s actually a pretty low density for capital city living.

wakka12

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I've no real problem with that, its always going to be a factor of society to some extent. I just have an issue with it being so close to the country's main thoroughfare. Move the problem away from the tourists and shoppers and clean up the area. It would be amazing to see the area for fill it's full potential. Living so close to O'Connell St should be a privilege, like living beside Oxford St in London is.

You don't find the same squalor beside Oxford Street as you do beside O'Connell St. I'm pretty sure there were slums in the Oxford Street area once upon a time but they sorted it out because it was the right thing to do for the city. We have never tackled this issue in Dublin and it doesn't look like we are close to doing so any time soon.

I guess we just have to put up with it and occasionally moan about it on internet message boards

Is oconell street really our 'main thoroughfare'
Maybe in the past..
Dame street is much more like a main street for Dublin than O connell street is or ever has been for several decades now

Tony EH

MysticMonk wrote: »

The net result of inter-generational welfare dependency and "social" housing..and still the various governments and campaigners want to give them more free money and more free houses.

So, if we get rid of welfare and social housing, then we will get rid of crime.

Genius.

Thank christ you're not in any position to make any real decisions on the matter so.

Dublin Spur

MysticMonk wrote: »

The net result of inter-generational welfare dependency and "social" housing..

I've no real problem with that, its always going to be a factor of society to some extent. I just have an issue with it being so close to the country's main thoroughfare. Move the problem away from the tourists and shoppers and clean up the area. It would be amazing to see the area for fill it's full potential. Living so close to O'Connell St should be a privilege, like living beside Oxford St in London is.

You don't find the same squalor beside Oxford Street as you do beside O'Connell St. I'm pretty sure there were slums in the Oxford Street area once upon a time but they sorted it out because it was the right thing to do for the city. We have never tackled this issue in Dublin and it doesn't look like we are close to doing so any time soon.

I guess we just have to put up with it and occasionally moan about it on internet message boards

MysticMonk

Ste- wrote: »

Not with litter but with the miscreants of society it is.

The net result of inter-generational welfare dependency and "social" housing..and still the various governments and campaigners want to give them more free money and more free houses.

Ste-

alastair wrote: »

O‘Connell street isn't even particularly littered, let alone 'filthy'.

Not with litter but with the miscreants of society it is.

italodisco

I live in north inner city and I'll be confident enough to say there's no hope for it.

They haven't only started trying to fix the area, this is going on years now.

It's an absolute kip.

Take it from a local, it's a waste of taxpayers money trying to do anything with the place.

blue_blue

North Inner City is being worked on. Not sure if you guys follow current affairs or read newspapers but the plans are contained in the Mulvey Report that was published earlier this year. https://merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/ImageLibrary/20170218MulveyReport.pdf

alastair

O‘Connell street isn't even particularly littered, let alone 'filthy'.

Tony EH

I understand your point.

However, "Cleaner" isn't everything. That's the point I'm making.