Off Topic Thread 4.0

CatFromHue wrote: »

when you look at the planning process and how many stages it takes to get something built it's not really surprising we have a housing problem.

Yes and no, yes it stops rapid developments and causes delays in supplying housing when we're in a shortage, but it also stops cowboy developers from doing what they did in the boom and throwing up sub standard housing like Priory Hall. And we shouldn't be just throwing apartment blocks up in every open spot without taking into account the effect it'll have on what's around it.

The one thing I'd love to see is to drop the whole refusal on high rise in town.

troyzer wrote: »

There's a middle ground between allowing basic safety violations like Priory Hall and some ****er objecting to his neighbours extension and blocking it for years.

An Taisce are the ones who consistently fight any high rise development.

Yeah we've gone from little regulation to extreme regulation, there should definitely be a review on planning applications depending on the need for housing.

Public appeals are great for situations like dregin's, where the development is just a nightmare and will have a massive impact on the area, but when it's a NIMBY complaint because they think it won't look as pretty it becomes a hindrance

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Public appeals are great for situations like dregin's, where the development is just a nightmare and will have a massive impact on the area, but when it's a NIMBY complaint because they think it won't look as pretty it becomes a hindrance

Part of the issue is that what you may see as a legitimate objection might be seen as complete NIMBYism by many others which is where the whole process is required.

For example, I've seen a significant amount of online criticism of the blocking of the development in St. Anne's Park which is near me. But the local community have been hugely active in blocking it for a number of reasons (personally, I think a development should be allowed proceed with certain amendments).

Something has to give in our development practices, the obvious contributory solution being designated high rise locations where we can go up 15-20 floors. It's baffling why these are still completely disallowed.

thomond2006 wrote: »

Whereabouts in St Anne's Buer? I go there sometimes on parkruns, it's a brilliant facility.

It's not even St. Anne's Park technically. It's St. Paul's playing pitches which is owned by a religious order....or was until they sold it to a private developer several years ago.

If you're on the main avenue, it's the area blocked off by the 8ft green fence near the top of the avenue (Sybil Hill/Vernon Avenue end).

troyzer wrote: »

It's hard not to look at the St. Anne's Park one and not be disgusted by the blantantly self interested motivations behind its rejection.

At the end of the day, Clontarf is one of the wealthiest parts of the country and what the residents want, they get. Sure didn't they sucessfully get the council to spend a fortune to lower the sea wall that they initially called for so they could get better views of the bay? It's insane. They'll also be the first ones with their hand out if there's a storm and their houses are flooded.
.

This is part of the issue. People see an address, not the issue at hand (and the land is in Raheny). I think the St. Anne's development should be allowed proceed in some guise but the objections from locals are fair and reasonable for the most part.

The existing pitches are heavily used by multiple sporting organisations currently. There are significant environmental impacts to unique fauna (I believe it was this objection that was upheld). There is going to be a massive increase in traffic onto one of the main arteries into the city. This is all aside from the whole concept that it will damage the aesthetics or attractiveness of the park etc. which I have limited time for. But there are genuine issues which need to be addressed and worked through before approval is given for a development of hundreds of units. I believe it needs to be done to some extent and properties are required desperately which is more important.

The sea wall was a mess but, again, people aren't clued in on it and just repeat what some outlets tell them. It should have stayed once up. It was handled badly but it wasn't worth getting upset over or spending any additional money on. It was embarrassing that these idiots were even entertained.

But, to highlight, the wall is on a road across from St. Annes Park for a significant stretch i.e. no houses. This "sea" in this area is a saltwater marsh so even at high tide, it is never more than a few feet deep and is sheltered by Bull Island. Most of the time there's little or no water in it. It does not flood. It never has. Nobody will have their hand out as there will be no need. I have no idea why the wall was built to begin with unless they expect the sea levels to rise a few feet in the next 20 years. It was a waste from start to finish.

troyzer wrote: »

So to sum up, the entire process is ridiculous. I'm not disputing that some locals might lose out due to development but there is never any consideration given to the people like me who can't get onto the ladder because of the incompetence of previous generations.

No, the process for the sea wall (which has no real place in this conversation) was ridiculous.

The planning process for the St. Anne's development was completely understandable based on what I've already highlighted. It just needs to be sped up significantly but that is unlikely to happen.

Squidgy Black wrote: »

The St Anne's development was a mess. I live fairly local to it, the land wasn't zoned for housing development, there was a major impact on birds in the park and the fauna. The site where the development was planned was essentially in the park, the pitches at the rear of the school are a fair bit back from the entrance on the road, and encroach right on top of park. And the traffic situation on the Howth Road is a disaster as it is, and the development would've been right on top of a busy junction.

But all of this ignores the point that when those houses already there were first built, the local birds and fauna were impacted. They also would have reduced the amount of green space.

And the traffic is already awful with the current amount of houses.

So basically, all of the reasons used to shoot down this development were equally valid when their own houses were built. The difference is that now it's acceptable to pull up the drawbridge and shaft the kids.

Things have definitely improved for the better and I'm not arguing that we should go back to the old days of basically no planning system. But people in that area need to accept that they have it pretty good with very valuable, suburb type houses a stone throws away from the city centre. Those houses would never be built nowadays and younger people are suffering because of mistakes made in the past.

There doesn't seem to be any compromise. It's either **** off to an overpriced hovel in Naas or emigrate because I'll ring every TD and councillor in the country if there's even a hint of an apartment block going up near me.

Squidgy Black wrote: »

There's no houses even close to the park though, all houses are on the other side of the road. They didn't build any of them backing onto the park like the development was planned.

In fairness, the price of the units proposed was absolutely ridiculous anyways. One bedroom units were to be priced at 380-420k, two beds 450-520k and then three beds 650k+, and 4 beds 750k+.

There's actually been a lot of development done around Clontarf and other 'affluent' areas like Drumcondra recently.

In my opinion, the problem is developers going for the big buck developments. We need more mid-level housing. The 250-350k range specifically.

Mid-level housing simply isn't profitable though.

I dunno, the whole system is a mess. I take your point as well that a lot of these developments which failed likely weren't going to cater for the likes of me and my girlfriend anyway. Between the both of us, we have salaries of around the €70k mark. Slightly below average of a couple in Ireland. The most we could ever borrow is €240k. When was the last time a new development was built for €240k?

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I'm in a similar boat, bit younger but facing paying 1000 euro to rent a room in an apartment if I want to move out of the parents house, or get a mortgage for 200k on my single salary.

The mid-level developments aren't just about getting us into them though. Older couples won't want to downsize if it's going to cost them, they want to make a bit of a surplus to be able to sell off their 3/4 bed ex-council house and move into a newer apartment or townhouse. My granny did it a few years ago at the tail end of the boom, sold the 3 bed council house in D5 and moved into a two bed new build apartment down the road. Made a few quid to put away for stuff like the granda's nursing home fees and to top up her pension etc.

We can't force people to downsize unless it's council provided housing, it's their home at the end of the day. You need to incentivise it, and make it worth their while.

You must be in the 1% of under 25s though if you're in a position to get a €200k mortgage on your own. You'd have to be doing pretty well.

If you get partnered up, you'll be grand.

I take all of your other points though. Like I said already, my grandparents are trapped in a massive house and would love to downsize to something smaller in the area. There's nothing available.

Buer wrote: »

They really weren't. Many people didn't even own a car when a lot of those houses were built. Half of the area was fields.

Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have cars then? I dunno.

The point is that they effectively have an incumbent's advantage. One apartment in the block in St. Anne's was going to have less of an impact on all of these issues than one house across the road that was already there.

Squidgy Black wrote: »

The St Anne's development was a mess. I live fairly local to it, the land wasn't zoned for housing development, there was a major impact on birds in the park and the fauna. The site where the development was planned was essentially in the park, the pitches at the rear of the school are a fair bit back from the entrance on the road, and encroach right on top of park. And the traffic situation on the Howth Road is a disaster as it is, and the development would've been right on top of a busy junction.

I could use elements of this argument to craft a decent planning objection for any project withing a 10-15km radius of Dublin City Centre.

Zzippy wrote: »

It's an additional impact though. The schools, shops, services in the area all developed to service the houses that were built. If the only additional land in the area is used to build high-density housing and not additional services, it increases the population without any improvement in capacity of local services to cope. Just because communities were badly planned in the past does not mean we should repeat those mistakes. Increasing the demand for services in an area without planning to improve those services is not good planning.
As you say, these high-price developments were never going to be in your budget anyway. Your anger should be with government who are not doing enough to develop housing options for the ordinary person, and planning new communities to provide all the infrastructure these new housing developments will need. Not with people concerned about their own area and overloading the capacity there.

So what's the solution? **** it, it's too late to fix it? It should also be noted that residents often object to commercial and government premises as well. The extension at my local secondary school has been blocked for years by a lad who lives in the estate next door because he reckons the classroom window will be looking over his back garden. He's citing privacy concerns.

There will always be a semi-legitimate reason to block ANY development and they're simply given too much heed.

I am annoyed at the government but to be fair to them and any future government, the damage has already been done. Short of knocking down low rise housing in Clontarf/Raheny and replacing them with high rise apartments there's no real way to add any more housing. There's no room for the services, infrastructure and amenity that we both agree need to accompany any more development. This applies to most places within the M50.

Which leads to the current situation that with rare exceptions, Dublin can only move outwards. This isn't sustainable either.

Zzippy wrote: »

We are left with a mess from the last 50 years of unplanned development and sprawl. It is what it is. Moving outward is an option if the planning is there to provide high speed high capacity transport links, and communities are planned to integrate services, schools, parks, shopping areas etc with housing. But that takes long-term planning by government, and as we've seen over and over, Irish political parties only think as far ahead as the next election.
I feel your pain, but maybe don't be in such a rush to get "onto the ladder". I'm still in negative equity on a house bought in 2006. I understand the desperation to get your own place, but if I could go back in time I would have been better off renting for those years. Careful what you wish for I suppose...

I'm not particularly desperate to get onto the ladder. I'm desperate for the opportunity to decide whether or not I want to get onto the ladder.

I work in a specialist industry which is very small in Ireland and most of my career to date has been overseas. I'm back in the country at the moment but I'll probably have to move on again at some point. So buying a house isn't a priority for me at the moment.

The reason why I'm frustrated is because there's no actual pathway to getting there. The few people I do know my age who are buying are almost exclusively getting help from their parents.