Is building up the solution to the housing crisis?

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yet some people think with the click of a finger anyone who wants a house right now should have one...

We could be arguing or discussing all night about this.

The issue to me is that those who are working and paying for their own accommodation by renting, will find it impossible to buy anything now.

But those who do not have any work are given accommodation from the State within the m50 even though they do not work or contribute much.

Sorry for being so despondent.

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

Yet some people think with the click of a finger anyone who wants a house right now should have one...

Not a click of fingers exactly. FG have ignored the housing shortage since 2012. They were very slow to see what everyone else could see. They reacted at a snails pace. This is the first year with any real building.

This hasn't been linked to in the thread so far. Has this actually happened yet?

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/death-of-the-semid-as-height-limits-scrapped-37606251.html

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We could be arguing or discussing all night about this.

The issue to me is that those who are working and paying for their own accommodation by renting, will find it impossible to buy anything now.

But those who do not have any work are given accommodation from the State within the m50 even though they do not work or contribute much.

Sorry for being so despondent.

I 100% agree with you.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not a click of fingers exactly. FG have ignored the housing shortage since 2012. They were very slow to see what everyone else could see. They reacted at a snails pace. This is the first year with any real building.

I forgot we had loads of money in 2012...

Seriously you need to get a junior cert economics book and start there.

I’ve never talked to anyone as clueless as yourself when it comes to government finances, taxation etc.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This hasn't been linked to in the thread so far. Has this actually happened yet?

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/death-of-the-semid-as-height-limits-scrapped-37606251.html

Of course not, it’s s positive thing, that doesn’t get reported here.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

But it does not matter if the government builds it. The building cost is still too great. It will be cheaper to build two buildings half the size than one big one. High rise isn't cheaper, its more expensive. There is no advantages in building higher. Its a myth that higher is cheaper.

City living has its price. So what if it is more expensive? More people are accommodated where they work and contribute.

Those not working or contributing need to be assessed for a move outside the city limits though imv.

Can you imagine that happening, where their counterparts are commuting for hours to support and pay for them?

Something has to give sooner or later about this anomaly.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

City living has its price. So what if it is more expensive? More people are accommodated where they work and contribute.

Those not working or contributing need to be assessed for a move outside the city limits though imv.

Can you imagine that happening, where their counterparts are commuting for hours to support and pay for them?

Something has to give sooner or later about this anomaly.

You are correct but you won’t find it here.

We can keep building and building 500,000 apartments in town for people who don’t contribute and it will be graaaaaaaand.

What could go wrong?

Franz Von Peppercorn

hynesie08 wrote: »

The fact that the docklands area doesn't have 5-6 high rise apartment buildings (15 stories plus) is a ****ing disgrace. The argument that it would ruin the skyline holds no water since the council put their genital wart of a building right on the Liffey.

The Liffey there is at its widest. That means that large buildings won’t over shadow a narrow street or river, but will in fact look great in the reflection. However they made their decision.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We could be arguing or discussing all night about this.

The issue to me is that those who are working and paying for their own accommodation by renting, will find it impossible to buy anything now.

But those who do not have any work are given accommodation from the State within the m50 even though they do not work or contribute much.

Sorry for being so despondent.

Speaking of 'within the M50', what the f**k is a golf course such as Elmgreen doing in the area that it is currently in? Areas like this should be subject to a CPO and have space efficient housing constructed on them ASAP.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I forgot we had loads of money in 2012...

Seriously you need to get a junior cert economics book and start there.

I’ve never talked to anyone as clueless as yourself when it comes to government finances, taxation etc.

You just need to read past junior cert economics.

pablo128

mammajamma wrote: »

Instead of trying to accommodate neverending amounts of people, how about we try to live within our means instead?

There was another report just days ago that we as a country are operating over-capacity.

Building more is akin to throwing buckets of water out of a ship, while completely ignoring the cause (more and more water coming in through the hole below deck) Its not going to work because it doesn't address the fundamental problem of sustainability.

Doesn't matter if we build up, down, under water, on clouds. As long as they are being constantly filled, wheres the end-point?

You know there used to be 10 million people living in Ireland, don't you? And no high rises then either.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'd suggest leveling much of the area around the IFSC and Connolly building several new high rise towers in their place instead.

Those current residents can be offered alternative accommodation outside the core city centre area if on housing lists.

It seems crazy to me that working people have to spend hours in traffic or on public transport each day so that others who aren't working can live next door to the jobs they aren't doing.

This! I spend between 2.5 and 3 hours a day, getting to work in the IFSC. A 2 minute walk away are 1 and 2 storey buildings. Take Macken Street. On one side is the Bord Gais Energy theatre, and on the other, are some tiny houses and some single storey buildings, theres I think a gym and a mechanics in the single storey buildings.

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

I forgot we had loads of money in 2012...

Have you forgotten the white elephant called Irish Water? The money squandered on that was more than enough to kick start a building program.

Spanish Eyes wrote:

City living has its price. So what if it is more expensive? More people are accommodated where they work and contribute.

Would you not prefer to have the money to build more units? With limited money you would build less units. We have enough land.

Deleted User wrote: »

Speaking of 'within the M50', what the f**k is a golf course such as Elmgreen doing in the area that it is currently in? Areas like this should be subject to a CPO and have space efficient housing constructed on them ASAP.

No, those places are privately owned AFAIK. And anyway let them at it. The bigger issue is allowing social housing in Dublin within M50. OK I get that HAP accommodates working people too.

But I am talking about the provision of social housing which has its criteria too let it be said. And whether working or not, you can be allocated a property within the m50.

There really should be a rule that if you are not working you cannot avail of this within the M50 ring.

I don't know why this idea is so controversial. Maybe someone will elaborate.

SEPT 23 1989

We love our gardens too much

Spanish Eyes wrote:

But I am talking about the provision of social housing which has its criteria too let it be said. And whether working or not, you can be allocated a property within the m50.

If they can get the building numbers high enough the need for social housing lessens. There are a lot of homeless people who have been renting but couldn't afford the rent increase or just couldn't get a home to rent. Not all of the 10k homeless need social housing. The vast majority would come off the homeless list with more housing & lower rents

mammajamma

pablo128 wrote: »

You know there used to be 10 million people living in Ireland, don't you? And no high rises then either.

True. The country was on such a knife edge with sustainability, beholden to non-irish entities, that a mere flutter of circumstance was enough to bring Ireland to ruins, crippling the country for generations.

Very true. We should all reduce our lives back to medieval standards and pay suffrage to Non-irish everything. It's actually not a terrible comparison.

And to Spanish eyes, I agree to some extent with your thoughts on non working people. Should that particular group come before or after non nationals though? What about non-working Irish versus non-working Non-irish?

All these posters talking about how to build more stuff and essentially lower living standards, while ignoring that there are hundreds of thousands of people living here that aren't from here, huge companies that employ minority amounts of Irish people, and a never ending supply of more ready to move here too.

Taking crazy pills here! This country has all the correct priorities and efficiencies of a zumbershausendumplinkem!

Absolutely pointless without the right roads and public transport systems. Look at the state of the development they are putting in at Cherrywood. 5k homes, 5k apartments, shops, businesses etc.. and already traffic is a disaster around that area. Good luck to anyone attempting to get on the Luas headed into town at rush hour in Dundrum etc.. once it's completed.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

No, those places are privately owned AFAIK. And anyway let them at it. The bigger issue is allowing social housing in Dublin within M50. OK I get that HAP accommodates working people too.

But I am talking about the provision of social housing which has its criteria too let it be said. And whether working or not, you can be allocated a property within the m50.

There really should be a rule that if you are not working you cannot avail of this within the M50 ring.

I don't know why this idea is so controversial. Maybe someone will elaborate.

It’s controversial because it removes people who have lived in the city for generations. There’s no way it will happen.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

No, those places are privately owned AFAIK. And anyway let them at it. The bigger issue is allowing social housing in Dublin within M50. OK I get that HAP accommodates working people too.

But I am talking about the provision of social housing which has its criteria too let it be said. And whether working or not, you can be allocated a property within the m50.

There really should be a rule that if you are not working you cannot avail of this within the M50 ring.

I don't know why this idea is so controversial. Maybe someone will elaborate.

What the hell are you talking about? The majority of people in social housing are working.

alexmalalex

The problem is not just the size of the housing stock, but the composition.

People in this country stay in their house until they die, or enter a fair deal scheme. They continue to live in a four bedroom house even after their children move out. The problem is compounded by the fact that people are now living into their late 80s and even 90s.

In the US, most people will downside to a condo, or will move to a retirement community when they reach certain age. Actually, if this happened, it would take strain off our healthcare.

The problem is also greed, greed, and more fcuking greed on the part of property owners, banks, and developers. There is no incentive to fix the problem because of our legislators are property owners.

buried

Set house prices for what they actually cost to build, not where they are. Its simple, the raw materials for a house cost X amount, let the builder add their % mark-up for the work, there is the price of the product. Same as any other product. As long as homes are viewed as a chaotic fluctuating monetary piggybank property investment gambles nothing will change.

MarkHenderson wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? The majority of people in social housing are working.

OK, no worries.

The slightly bigger problem might be those who are not working.

There are lots of people in inner city flats who contribute nada.

Should be for people who are working and contributing. But most of it is hereditary tenancies.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

OK, no worries.

The slightly bigger problem might be those who are not working.

There are lots of people in inner city flats who contribute nada.

Should be for people who are working and contributing. But most of it is hereditary tenancies.

I agree if you haven't worked in years you should be moved to ballygobackwards put please let's stop with this thing that everyone in social housing is a layabout.

alexmalalex

buried wrote: »

Set house prices for what they actually cost to build, not where they are. Its simple, the raw materials for a house cost X amount, let the builder add their % mark-up for the work, there is the price of the product. Same as any other product. As long as homes are viewed as a chaotic fluctuating monetary piggybank property investment gambles nothing will change.

But this wouldn't suit the greedy property developers....

The greedy real estate agents in their 191 BMWs....

The greedy bankers and their exorbitant interest rates...

and most all the greedy and corrupt government

They have no interest or intention of solving this problem. Leo said it last night - if you can't afford to live in Dublin fcuk off outside to Laois or the midlands.

MarkHenderson wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? The majority of people in social housing are working.

Yes exactly.

In very good jobs that they could easily pay a proper mortgage instead of 40 euro a week for life.

That’s the problem!!!

They should have been moved on once their income went up instead they got to buy houses at 60% discount.

And here we are wondering why there is a housing shortage?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not a click of fingers exactly. FG have ignored the housing shortage since 2012. They were very slow to see what everyone else could see. They reacted at a snails pace. This is the first year with any real building.

FG have been in power for years now and it's obvious they have little interest in fixing the housing crisis. They pander to and are the party of the rich and well heeled and tbh i have no problem with that as that's their base but it grinds my gears when they put idiots like Eoin "roll my sleeves up" Murphy out to pretend they care. Don't insult my intelligence.

MarkHenderson wrote:

What the hell are you talking about? The majority of people in social housing are working.

Some see people in social housing as a lower class human species. They don't see them as equals or someone that should have equal rights.

Next thing someone will post how many million the council is owed in rent as if that justifies something or that it implies that everyone in socal housing is behind on rent.

It seems that the Dail bar has to write off politicians tabs on an annual basis. This doesn't mean that all politicians don't pay their bills though