Property Market 2019

L1011 wrote: »

Why?

To name just two reasons - inner city is already rough enough, but primarily - much cheaper to buy in suburbs. Why have them in a high cost apartment when you can afford to house two families in the suburbs/commuter towns. I'm sure selling that land would pay for it.

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

To name just two reasons - inner city is already rough enough, but primarily - much cheaper to buy in suburbs. Why have them in a high cost apartment when you can afford to house two families in the suburbs/commuter towns. I'm sure selling that land would pay for it.

Neither of those outweigh the problems of putting all the social housing in to outer locations - the services are in the city centre, the transport links, the existing housing stock, etc.

The site in question here is being described on this thread as if its some highly valuable landbank in the core of Temple Bar. It isn't. Its a derelict shop on a side street opposite the City Council HQ.

The council have attempted to sell it only to not get offered enough to justify it - they may now consider that option again as there have now been two failed plans for housing on it. They previously offered the site FOC for a collaborative multi family build, which is something they've done once or twice before.

Pussyhands wrote: »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/citi-ceo-let%E2%80%99s-not-talk-ourselves-into-a-recession/ar-BBSfjFH

B-b-but I thought economies don't work like that :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You were already warned about posting style this week. Read the Forum Charter before posting again and expect some time off if you continue like this.

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

To name just two reasons - inner city is already rough enough, but primarily - much cheaper to buy in suburbs. Why have them in a high cost apartment when you can afford to house two families in the suburbs/commuter towns. I'm sure selling that land would pay for it.

And you think minimum wage workers are going to travel for up to an hour in and out of the city to serve coffees and clean toilets and brush the streets and sell clothes and make hotel beds for under 10 euro an hour..Nope, the dole would be an easier option. Social housing in city centres is built for the people that do these jobs, without them, there would no one to make your coffee in the morning. They are built as a 'help up' rather than a handout. The govt needs to crack down on the people that abuse the system.

AlmightyCushion

Pussyhands wrote: »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/citi-ceo-let%E2%80%99s-not-talk-ourselves-into-a-recession/ar-BBSfjFH

You're more of an expert than Citi CEO?

He's actually agreeing with what I was saying and disagreeing with what you are saying.

Ush1

Kidkinobe wrote: »

And you think minimum wage workers are going to travel for up to an hour in and out of the city to serve coffees and clean toilets and brush the streets and sell clothes and make hotel beds for under 10 euro an hour..Nope, the dole would be an easier option. Social housing in city centres is built for the people that do these jobs, without them, there would no one to make your coffee in the morning. They are built as a 'help up' rather than a handout. The govt needs to crack down on the people that abuse the system.

:pac:

L1011 wrote: »

Neither of those outweigh the problems of putting all the social housing in to outer locations - the services are in the city centre, the transport links, the existing housing stock, etc.

The site in question here is being described on this thread as if its some highly valuable landbank in the core of Temple Bar. It isn't. Its a derelict shop on a side street opposite the City Council HQ.

The council have attempted to sell it only to not get offered enough to justify it - they may now consider that option again as there have now been two failed plans for housing on it. They previously offered the site FOC for a collaborative multi family build, which is something they've done once or twice before.

Em the existing housing stock is in the suburbs? Donabate, Balbriggan, Cherrywood soon to name just a few.

Re: services & transport links, presume everyone who doesn't live in temple bar somehow manages? It's nuts.

Kidkinobe wrote: »

They are built as a 'help up' rather than a handout.

So what you're saying is that after a year or two they'll be removed from the house after saving a deposit for somewhere else? That's the way it should work, but it won't. That's a house for life once they're in there.

Kidkinobe wrote: »

And you think minimum wage workers are going to travel for up to an hour in and out of the city to serve coffees and clean toilets and brush the streets and sell clothes and make hotel beds for under 10 euro an hour..Nope, the dole would be an easier option. Social housing in city centres is built for the people that do these jobs

If they want to get somewhere in life, yes they will. Like I did for years. Plenty of free evening courses if they wanted them too. If they're happy to be on the dole, fine, but I'd rather they didn't live in D2 on my taxes. Additionally, there's service jobs in the suburbs too.

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Em the existing housing stock is in the suburbs? Donabate, Balbriggan, Cherrywood soon to name just a few.

Re: services & transport links, presume everyone who doesn't live in temple bar somehow manages? It's nuts.

There is significant existing social housing stock within the SCR/NCR. We had a poster making the patently bonkers suggestion that there shouldn't be any at all in that area, which they have not yet come back to justify.

Experience from the previous times we moved large quantities of social housing outside the city centre en masse basically shows its an awful idea.

Plenty of people living further outside the city are barely, or not coping at all with the services provided and commute times. And the site in question is in "Temple Bar" only to lazy journalists, basically. I've linked to where it is - its a derelict shop between existing apartment blocks on a side street nowhere near what people imagine when Temple Bar is mentioned.

tigger123

L1011 wrote: »

There is significant existing social housing stock within the SCR/NCR. We had a poster making the patently bonkers suggestion that there shouldn't be any at all in that area, which they have not yet come back to justify.

Experience from the previous times we moved large quantities of social housing outside the city centre en masse basically shows its an awful idea.

Plenty of people living further outside the city are barely, or not coping at all with the services provided and commute times. And the site in question is in "Temple Bar" only to lazy journalists, basically. I've linked to where it is - its a derelict shop between existing apartment blocks on a side street nowhere near what people imagine when Temple Bar is mentioned.

It may not be the "fun" side of Temple Bar, but it's still a pretty great location. I know a multitude of people that would bite your hand off for an apartment in that location.

I can definitely see why social housing going in there would rub people up a bit.

L1011 wrote: »

There is significant existing social housing stock within the SCR/NCR. We had a poster making the patently bonkers suggestion that there shouldn't be any at all in that area, which they have not yet come back to justify.

Experience from the previous times we moved large quantities of social housing outside the city centre en masse basically shows its an awful idea.

Plenty of people living further outside the city are barely, or not coping at all with the services provided and commute times. And the site in question is in "Temple Bar" only to lazy journalists, basically. I've linked to where it is - its a derelict shop between existing apartment blocks on a side street nowhere near what people imagine when Temple Bar is mentioned.

I agree there shouldn't be any in that area at all. Prime location on the island & we have social welfare recipients living there. However I agree you can't move them out en masse, however rather than building new ones I'd just mix any new social housing in with private housing as they're currently doing elsewhere. Break it down to one block of flats with 100 families in there, should each of their 4 children get another flat/apartment/house in town once they grow up? That's 5 flats in the space of two generations. Should we start knocking down private dwellings in the city so they can live where they want? Consequences for not working do not exist in this country once you're in that system.

Ok Temple bar/Christchurch/Whatever you want to call it. Doesn't change the fact that you'd get 2x the amount of houses on a greenfield site.

My main point is, why, if people who are working hard & earning their own living are struggling with commutes & lack of services, are people who are on social welfare treated preferably? Why should they get that city centre, commute free lifestyle?

The majority of people in social housing are not social welfare recipients. If you're going to base your argument on mistaken beliefs you're not really going to make a coherent argument.

tigger123

L1011 wrote: »

The majority of people in social housing are not social welfare recipients. If you're going to base your argument on mistaken beliefs you're not really going to make a coherent argument.

It's not that their social welfare recipients, it's that the State is going above and beyond* in providing housing for certain people while others struggle.

If there were adequate, appropriate, affordable, well serviced properties available elsewhere it probably would be less of an issue. But there isn't, and the State is doing sweet f*ck all about it.

*when I say above and beyond, I mean building in Dublin 2.

Subutai

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

I agree there shouldn't be any in that area at all. Prime location on the island & we have social welfare recipients living there. However I agree you can't move them out en masse, however rather than building new ones I'd just mix any new social housing in with private housing as they're currently doing elsewhere. Break it down to one block of flats with 100 families in there, should each of their 4 children get another flat/apartment/house in town once they grow up? That's 5 flats in the space of two generations. Should we start knocking down private dwellings in the city so they can live where they want? Consequences for not working do not exist in this country once you're in that system.

Ok Temple bar/Christchurch/Whatever you want to call it. Doesn't change the fact that you'd get 2x the amount of houses on a greenfield site.

My main point is, why, if people who are working hard & earning their own living are struggling with commutes & lack of services, are people who are on social welfare treated preferably? Why should they get that city centre, commute free lifestyle?

Based on Revenue's individualised income data (and applying the simplifying assumption of taking everyone as a single person with no kids), over three quarters of income earners would fall below the threshold for social housing in DCC (net income below €35k)

tigger123 wrote: »

It's not that their social welfare recipients, it's that the State is going above and beyond* in providing housing for certain people while others struggle.

If there were adequate, appropriate, affordable, well serviced properties available elsewhere it probably would be less of an issue. But there isn't, and the State is doing sweet f*ck all about it.

*when I say above and beyond, I mean building in Dublin 2.

They were intending to use a long-derelict site of limited commercial value. They have decided not to due to the costs involved.

One way to improve the quantity and quality of properties available for lower rents is to significantly increase the volume of social housing. This was an attempt to somewhat increase the volume of social housing.

If you want to get incensed about specific social housing provisions, the two story houses built in D2 in the 1980s and three story in significant volumes in D1/2 up in to the 1990s (Gregory Deal stuff) are where people should start. These need to be replaced with significantly higher densities.

L1011 wrote: »

The majority of people in social housing are not social welfare recipients. If you're going to base your argument on mistaken beliefs you're not really going to make a coherent argument.

If you're going to avoid answering an entire post based on a slight statistical misnomer, not much point arguing with yourself either.

FYI - I grew up in what would be categorised as social housing. In *Shock horror* the suburbs.

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

If you're going to avoid answering an entire post based on a slight statistical misnomer, not much point arguing with yourself either.

FYI - I grew up in what would be categorised as social housing. In *Shock horror* the suburbs.

You made repeated references to welfare and non working. Bit more than "slight". It made your entire post rather easy to answer as it was nearly entirely based on an inaccuracy. I pointed out the inaccuracy - post answered.

There needs to be social housing provision in all communities, so I'm not sure what your second point is.

Pussyhands

<SNIP>

L1011 wrote: »

You made repeated references to welfare and non working. Bit more than "slight". It made your entire post rather easy to answer as it was nearly entirely based on an inaccuracy. I pointed out the inaccuracy - post answered.

There needs to be social housing provision in all communities, so I'm not sure what your second point is.

Just because it's not all, doesn't mean it doesn't occur. I was highlighting the ones I have particular issue with.

However, I don't think social housing should be in all communities, they should be in cheap places to build, surrounded by private houses. Plus I think the suburbs are a better place to bring up children.

rosmoke

Sorry, this thread it's just too funny

)
Can't believe people honestly believe it's fair to build social houses in capital, nevermind city centre.

There are loads of working people thinking about emigrating to make ends meet and yet we come with arguments who is gonna make your coffee .. cause that's the issue we face now, not the fact that we pay for crappy built houses at least 5 times their real value, not the fact that we have an incompetent government that tries really hard to keep house prices up through violating EU laws (ie. local needs), not building enough, and the list goes on.

What's the point working anymore now?

Samuel T. Cogley

rosmoke wrote: »

What's the point working anymore now?

So you don't end up in social housing in the city centre.

BBFAN

This argument about not having social housing in the city centre always makes me laugh. Maybe most posters on here are too young to remember but it was once the case that the poorest of the poor lived in the city centre because no-one else wanted to live there.

Anyone with money wanted the 4 bed semi with large gardens. When I did an Anco course back in the day the "townies" were always considered a lower class.

Now that it's trendy to live in an apartment in the city centre people want all the "poor" people gone. Unreal. :rolleyes:

rosmoke wrote: »

Sorry, this thread it's just too funny )
Can't believe people honestly believe it's fair to build social houses in capital, nevermind city centre.

There are loads of working people thinking about emigrating to make ends meet and yet we come with arguments who is gonna make your coffee .. cause that's the issue we face now, not the fact that we pay for crappy built houses at least 5 times their real value, not the fact that we have an incompetent government that tries really hard to keep house prices up through violating EU laws (ie. local needs), not building enough, and the list goes on.

What's the point working anymore now?

it may not sound fair but every city in every first world country provides social housing in city centres for the people that provide the mimimum wage services...If min age workers could not afford to live in city centres , the cost of getting a cup of coffee would increase three fold because getting staff to serve coffee would mean increasing their wages three fold so they could afford the accommodation close to their place of work.
You can see how this works in many exclusive tourist hotspots around the world, coffees are twice the price because the staff that serve them get twice the wage and becuase these tourist hot spots don't have social housing, staff need the wage to be able to afford to live in the area. Social housing also serves as a mechanism to prevent city centres prices getting out of control.

Subutai

Kidkinobe wrote: »

it may not sound fair but every city in every first world country provides social housing in city centres for the people that provide the mimimum wage services...If min age workers could not afford to live in city centres , the cost of getting a cup of coffee would increase three fold because getting staff to serve coffee would mean increasing their wages three fold so they could afford the accommodation close to their place of work.
You can see how this works in many exclusive tourist hotspots around the world, coffees are twice the price because the staff that serve them get twice the wage and becuase these tourist hot spots don't have social housing, staff need the wage to be able to afford to live in the area. Social housing also serves as a mechanism to prevent city centres prices getting out of control.

You can qualify for social housing in DCC with a net income of 35k. That's nowhere near minimum wage. It's in the top 25% of income earners.

Subutai wrote: »

You can qualify for social housing in DCC with a net income of 35k. That's nowhere near minimum wage. It's in the top 25% of income earners.

And how many people do you know that can afford anything within 10ks of the city centre that can buy a house on 35k, or even rent one for that matter. Even a couple on 70 K. would only be allowed a mortgage of 240 K.

Subutai

Kidkinobe wrote: »

And how many people do you know that can afford anything within 10ks of the city centre that can buy a house on 35k, or even rent one for that matter. Even a couple on 70 K. would only be allowed a mortgage of 240 K.

That's my point.

It's not just people on minimum wage, you could easily have professionals like nurses and teachers who qualify for social housing and have little other option.

Pussyhands

Kidkinobe wrote: »

it may not sound fair but every city in every first world country provides social housing in city centres for the people that provide the mimimum wage services...If min age workers could not afford to live in city centres , the cost of getting a cup of coffee would increase three fold because getting staff to serve coffee would mean increasing their wages three fold so they could afford the accommodation close to their place of work.
You can see how this works in many exclusive tourist hotspots around the world, coffees are twice the price because the staff that serve them get twice the wage and becuase these tourist hot spots don't have social housing, staff need the wage to be able to afford to live in the area. Social housing also serves as a mechanism to prevent city centres prices getting out of control.

I'd say most people commute to work in citycentre no matter what wage they earn.

You'd have a good argument as well to say someone on 10 euro an hour and a new free house in the city centre is better off than someone on 40k having to buy their own house. A big motivation for me to be working is so I don't have to share a rented house with others for the rest of my life.