More housing objections by the opposition and Boyd Barrett.

"Don't ever change what we have!!!"

"Nothing ever changes around here, they're ignoring us!!!"

And Mary Lou objected about the 1600 apartments getting built near Croker.

It appears the objection was that they are 'for rent' and young Johnny and Mary who grew up in the area won't be able to afford to live there.

Many people can't afford to live where they grew up, me included. That's life.

All I heard on the radio was anti this development, probably cos it's a US fund that owns the 1600 apts. Only desenting voice was Ian Guider from the Sunday Business Post when he was on with Matt Cooper. He welcomed them and put up a good argument for them being built, basically as they are aimed at single people coming into Dublin to work for the big tech companies, and they might only stay 5 years or so, and 1 bed apts suit their needs. Id much rather see apts built for workers like this, than using the same space to build may be 100 or 150 3 beds for lazy buggers on the housing list who contribute little to society, yet they want a house in central Dublin next to mummy.

How close do you need to be to mammy .. a couple of miles north and you'd be in finglas / ballymun and much more affordable

I don't see an issue.

Is there one?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/drumcondra-residents-oppose-build-to-rent-scheme-1.4649597

"A local campaign group, Stop Holy Cross College, said the development of rental-only apartments could lead to rent and house price inflation, lower living standards and “a return to absentee landlords”.

Architects Rob Curley and Alfonso Bonilla, who are members of the group, said the scale of build-to-rent in this proposal was “completely inappropriate”.

In a joint submission to the board, they said the lower space standards allowed under the build-to-rent system, which permits smaller apartments than those in developments intended for sale, were “designed to profit and investment class” and could have a “massive and essentially irreversible impact on the spatial quality of the apartments and the apartment buildings”."

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/dublin/northside/mary-lou-mcdonald-among-objectors-to-1600-apartment-build-to-rent-development-in-her-dublin-constituency-40802647.html

"However, in a strident objection against the apartments, Ms McDonald stated that ‘build to rent’ schemes are driven by investors seeking to exploit the high demand for housing and apartments in urban centres.

She states: “As a consequence, these developments drive up the cost of that land, making standard residential development for Dublin even more unaffordable.”

She pointed out that 70pc of the units are one-beds and studios. “This does not meet the housing needs of Dublin Central,” she argues.

Dublin City planning officer with An Taisce, Kevin Duff, states that An Taisce has serious concern over the scale of the scheme and argues that build-to-rent militates against the fostering and nurturing of the longer term community in the area.

Maynooth academic and housing expert Rory Hearne states that “this mega build-to-rent scheme would essentially be a private enclave set apart from the local area, owned by overseas institutional investors”.

He said: “This is a reversion of 100 years in social progress of land ownership."

Mr Hearne further claims that the development “is part of a race to the bottom in the Irish housing system” and if approved will give the green light to others to pursue similar type developments.

Requesting an oral hearing into the scheme, Mr Hearne also states that there are insufficient units for families in the development."

That is the Mary-Lou, SF shtick for a while though... falsely claiming that building apartments means prices go UP. Which of course means that knocking down apartments should mean that prices go DOWN.... LOL

David McWilliams has had many a thing to say about SF and their Trump-like economic policies that fly in the face of reality.

Mary Lou and SF just want to make the housing situation worse so that they can put bums on seats in the next election.

Think about this for a minute or two, SF and co. would rather people end up homeless and make the housing issue worse, by selling out young people so long as SF get some extra few of their goons elected.

If they are unaffordable they'll remain empty.

This is complete and utter nonsense in relation to this thread. Complete garbage, unbelievable stuff.

This is student accommodation beside a college that the developer wants to build. So it should be 1-beds and 2-beds. The taxpayer doesn't fill the gap, because the taxpayer doesn't pay student rents!!!

Because students move into this accommodation from local houses, the rent for the local houses should fall as more come onto the market. It would be kind to say that the objections from Boyd-Barrett are birdbrained.

Extra supply may not lead to an immediate fall in rents, as the demand is so large.

Example:

demand = 100

current supply = 60

price = 200 euro

New supply = 80, but demand still exceeds supply

Demand sets the price, so the price doesn't fall.

If students move out of accommodation to move into PBSA, what happens the houses they leave?

Very unlikely, imo, that increase in supply would lead to increases in rent.

One of the problems is that councils are dumb enough to believe this kind of thing.