They are elected, what's your point and how is it relevant?
Donegal County Council are elected? By Donegal people? Never have guessed.
Lowers the tone to new depths of trolling.
User name %100 correct.
So the government have set aside €40m for this for next year, although they may raid the €4bn budget contingency too to fund this.
It also looks like there will be revenue raising measures to pay for the revised scheme - I would bet a block levy. So yay, more cost for home buyers.
So yay.hopefully the homeowners can get their lives back. More fitting a levy- than I'm paying for an insurance company.
I hope they can too. Hopefully the government can create a scheme that doesn't unduly burden the rest of us, one that offers fairness to taxpayers and safe homes for those impacted.
And, just to be clear, this isn't just the old package offered again?
https://www.donegaldaily.com/2020/01/31/government-announces-e40m-redress-scheme-for-mica-and-pyrite-homes/
You do realize that the walls of a house are a tiny fraction of the cost under the best of circumstances? Electrics, plumbing, solar panels, water treatment, insulation, foundations, heating, MHRV, development levies, consultant fees make up a very large amount.
Yes there is a fair chance my house has Mica. I have not had any testing done yet and my cracks are very minimal at present, for a 20yr old house. But I suspect that I might just have lower Mica content and they are slower to fail. But if I was a betting man, I'd say yes I am affected.
As for the campaign, I do think it was run brilliantly for the last 6 months. It really brought it to the attention of the country, well at least to those who watch the news and take an interest as to what is happening in their country. Those who thought there was simply a GAA match on in Dublin last week, well there is no helping those folk!
What I do not agree with is talk of bringing major disruption to Dublin. I think that doesn't help the cause at all and will lose the campaign support.
Yet many want it to be used to fix the Mica crisis.
I knew all about mica 4 and 5 years ago. I had the same feelings then as I do now.
Some people should be helped but not with any figure imaginable.
These protests and the actions of various posters over various threads have sullied my attitude towards government assistance and I've no problem making it known to my TDs. 100 percent redress is a nonsense and there is a purposeful antagonistic tone to the debate now. The people who are suffering here need to abandon and get better representatives. I think public opinion will have no problems looking after principal private residences to a certain value. Nothing more.
And the so called ramped up campaign may even impact that feeling too.
Major adjustments needed in attitude.
I've only seen one person mention 3d printing as a technical solution. That one person was here. I personally don't think 3d printing, as the technology currently stands would provide a fit solution, as it's very much experimental at this point. I'm not aware of even a demo build in Ireland.
I do think however there is a role for well established building technologies, like modular and timber frame, to form part of the solution.
Would modular or timber frame have much of an impact on the rebuild costs that those affected want covered by a 100% redress scheme?
This is the UK market and is aimed at low volume so there is a bit of give/take. The unfinished price (weathertight frame) of the 5 bed home with conservatory was £48,000. In a project that involves thousands of houses, you could double that to include the basic finish and the materials inflation. I'm not a QS, but that seems reasonable to me.
In a well organised build you could have a two month turnaround from closing the door behind you to moving back in.
It's much more affordable for the state, is faster, and would result in better quality homes (the current proposal is to rebuild to the standard at the time of construction - no betterment)
I dont know how to delete a post, sorry.
3D house printing has been around for approx 7 years, and before the first 3D printed house, some structures were built using the technology. The city of Dubai forecasts that by 2030, 30% of all their new builds will be done using 3D printing. The Germans, the Dutch, the Americans and the Chinese have embraced it. It is the future of building, but it raises one or two difficult questions.
3d house printing will cut the cost of building a house by over 50%, it is claimed. 3D printed houses are going on the market in the US for less than half the price of similarly sized houses in the same location. Automation will greatly reduce the cost of building.
A person in Donegal/Mayo has taken out a mortgage on a house for €200,000, only to find that their house is riddled with mica and has to come down. They are told that in it's place, a new 3D printed house will be built, the quality of which will equal their original house. The only difference being, that it's market value will be 50% less than their original house, because the main structure has been built by a robot, not a person. But they are stuck repaying the mortgage amount based on the original build.
It is a bad situation.
Should the taxpayer make sure this persons net worth is maintained?
Do you think your house should be tumbled and a new one built for you, considering its showing minimal damage and it's almost half way through its design life?
So you think 40 years is the life span of a house? I
Must be some seriously bad building in your neck of the woods.
50 years is the design life of most structures. That doesn't mean that they won't last longer.
Homebond state the average life span of a traditionally built house (blocks & mortar) is 70 years.
Have you a source for your 40/50 year assertion?
I do. EN1990. And it's 50 years.
That's not for domestic dwellings though.
anyhow that's for a different topic in another forum.
It sounds like your argument is that we should only buuld houses the traditional/expensive way, otherwise the resale value of traditional houses will fall below their market value as modern/efficient building techniques can produce a higher quality house at 1/2 the cost.
If we accept that improved building techniques can reduce the cost of building a new house by up to 50%, then that asset you're currently living in is going to be under huge competitive pressure if you ever want to sell it. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that a proportion of houses bought before 3d printing, or whatever, is widespread will likely sell for less than the owner bought them for. How can an old house built to lower standards compete with a modern home built to higher standards at 1/2 the cost?
If we can replace mica houses at 1/2 the cost, then great! It's a win for everyone, including the home owner.
It's for building structures and other common structures. Houses fall under that, there is no specific category for dwellings.
Point still stands that a 20 year house is almost halfway through its design life.
Nah, you're away of the mark. The topic is about mica in concrete blocks.
For mortgages banks give the roof of a house 40 years. Its specific in contract's that it is inspected as part of mortgage. So yes there is lifespans on houses and aspects of them for lending purposes.
"EN 1990 design working life: assumed period for which a structure or part of it is to be used for its intended purpose with anticipated maintenance but without major repair being necessary"
So he has another 30 years for his house to require "major repair" according to your source. If his house is starting to crack now that will be plenty of time. Thanks Mr Musician.
So we can expect to see all the houses built pre 1980 coming to the end of their useful existence.
This thread is just plain bizarre at times.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0b9a43cca122fb9538e56a7ad3e3fae2.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/956510afe3751bbf9325083610fe2d47.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eb07fc20aca46548304333eb5c52b232.svg)
