Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Social Housing in Dublin City Centre

24567…10

Comments

  • #32
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    If you owned you would think differently.

    Not really. My life would have been the exact same living here whether I rented or owned.


  • #33
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    If you owned you would think differently.

    I thought you learned yesterday not to try and assume/claim what others think....


  • #34
    Just a little Samba
    Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Just a little Samba


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    If you owned you would think differently.

    The only thing that affected the value of my property was the popping of the housing bubble.

    I bought the flat when I was 20, which was before everything went mental price wise, and the flat is worth about the same as I paid for it now a little over a decade later. The girl under me moved in about 3 years ago and my property value has raised since. Hasn't been affected at all.


  • #35
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    qwerty1991 wrote: »
    What I am trying to get across is as one person stated above, Dublin city center real estate is prime and people are desperately trying to find somewhere to live. I know no one that commutes 4 hours by choice bar one older man who has wife and kids and has chosen not to relocate them.

    I dont understand how spreading social housing across such a broad area of bordering counties and towns would create ghettos, would it not do the opposite, if lets say 30% of housing in one estate was social and the other 70% is private?

    I just personally dont understand, and my friends last night the same: If there is social housing available in suburbs, that is commutable to Dublin, then why are prime City centre locations being used as social housing when there is a private renting crisis? Why is it a persons right to have social housing in the city centre when there is probably better accommodation available an hour away.

    I am not advocating kicking people out of there homes. I am also not advocating creating ghettos, I dont understand how that would happen unless you just shoved all social housing into one or 2 towns which isnt what Im saying.

    But many social housing tenants have jobs so would that commute just be foisted on them instead?

    People seem to focus on state subsidized housing for low incomes but never seem to mind the other raft of tax funded subsidies to themselves: interest reliefs, subsidized University education, grants etc.


  • #36
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    anncoates wrote: »
    Then qualify for social housing and make sure and tell the local authority you won't consider anything outside Dublin 1 and 2 for lifestyle reasons.

    You'd have to have some balls to demand free discounted housing but only if its in the city.



    Suburbs ... but I'd have to commute.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    sabat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,895 ✭✭✭sabat


    Just a little Samba wrote: »
    The parts of Dublin that are like ghettos now, Coolock, Tallaght, Finglas, Ballymum etc, were created by exactly the same process you want to repeat now.

    People were moved out of the city centre into housing estates with no amenities of supports.

    It's a stupid idea that we tried already and failed spectacularly.

    But it worked very well in the 30s, 40s and 50s when people were moved to areas like Marino, Cabra and Crumlin because those people had some pride, self-respect and a work ethic. I grew up in a Dublin suburb about the same distance from the city as those areas you mentioned, with probably the same (probably a lot fewer actually) facilities yet almost everyone went on to 3rd level and didn't end up as criminals. The fact is that the "working" classes have become a bunch of aggressive, self-entitled, lazy pricks.


  • #38
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    The issue with City Centre housing here is that with notable exceptions like the Artisan Dwelings in Stoneybatter (the Coronation Street style yellow brick stuff) we've an awful track record of producing architecture that causes social problems.

    If we are going to do city centre social housing it's going to have to be mixed with non social housing and it's going to have to be high quality and have on the ground management in the form of a caretaker or building superintended, proper secure access and probably even a manned reception desk.

    We've tended to just build big things like Ballymun and let them rot. You have to actually lay the foundations for a city centre community not just build apartments.


  • #39
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,651 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    If you owned you would think differently.

    I own but would have no problem with a social tenant living next door.

    It's a lot easier to get something done on the off chance that a social tenant is being anti-social than if you had a scumbag that actually owned the house.


  • #40
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,370 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Aard wrote: »
    Not really. My life would have been the exact same living here whether I rented or owned.

    There is NO ONE who owns or is a mortgage holder that would have, out of choice, social housing next to them. No one. There is several reasons for this already outlined.

    There is a couple of reasons developers did not adhere to the 20% social housing in every estate. Firstly it was stupid and secondly no one would buy such properties.

    This mix of social classes does not work. Never has, never will.


  • #41
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    You'd have to have some balls to demand free discounted housing but only if its in the city.



    Suburbs ... but I'd have to commute.

    If those central places were private accommodation, they'd be market level rents which would probably be out of the reach of most of these virtuous, hard pressed working people.

    So then the moaning would be about a 'fair market finding its level', that is, I want this place and I want it at the price I demand.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    This mix of social classes does not work. Never has, never will.

    So you just don't like poor people


  • #43
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,651 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    There is NO ONE who owns or is a mortgage holder that would have, out of choice, social housing next to them. No one. There is several reasons for this already outlined.

    Except for me.


  • #44
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    DocQismyJesus wrote: »
    Don't think OP is saying that- maybe questioning why generations of non working families continue to be given the most prime real estate in Ireland for free.

    They're not 'given' anything.

    The housing is a local authority asset with most tenants paying rent, albeit at subsidized levels


  • #45
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    So you just don't like poor people

    Thats the issue he had yesterday aswell. I'd have no problem "common/poor" people beside me.


  • #46
    macnug
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭macnug


    Your forgetting one thing op, what if the counties you mentioned don't want more unemployed? They probably don't as they have more than Dublin as it is. What if the people who work and pay taxes in Kildare etc. Don't want to live beside Dublins unemployed. You cant expect surrounding counties to solve your problems for you.


  • #47
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,370 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    A lot of people are also choosing to not mention the scumbag problem in Dublin City Center. A lot of this has to do with the ring of social housing just inside the canals. Dublin needs to follow London's example of gentrification - this means moving them out. London has been doing this for 20 years and it's been very successful in terms of making the city more attractive and actually getting yield from prime market locations.


  • #48
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    macnug wrote: »
    Your forgetting one thing op, what if the counties you mentioned don't want more unemployed? They probably don't as they have more than Dublin as it is. What if the people who work and pay taxes in Kildare etc. Don't want to live beside Dublins unemployed. You cant expect surrounding counties to solve your problems for you.

    yeah but if they are out of Dublin then its not Dublins problem. Let the recieving county deal with it.


  • #49
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    sabat wrote: »
    ...
    The fact is that the "working" classes have become a bunch of aggressive, self-entitled, lazy pricks.
    What in the fúck? Jesus the welfare/poor-bashing snobs on Boards are getting all the less tactful and more galling lately.

    I'd rather live beside one of these 'working' class people, even welfare-dependent ones - which there can be any number of perfectly good reasons for, given a high-unemployment economy like this - than someone with that kind of snobbish attitude.


  • #50
    Just a little Samba
    Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Just a little Samba


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    There is NO ONE who owns or is a mortgage holder that would have, out of choice, social housing next to them. No one. There is several reasons for this already outlined.

    I bought my flat in the knowledge that the flat below it and the house beside it were both owned by the local authority and used as social housing.

    I had enough money to buy a flat in any estate in the town I lived in but I chose to buy it where I did.

    So you're assertion is plainly false.


  • #51
    qwerty1991
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 137 ✭✭qwerty1991


    anncoates wrote: »
    But many social housing tenants have jobs so would that commute just be foisted on them instead?

    People seem to focus on state subsidized housing for low incomes but never seem to mind the other raft of tax funded subsidies to themselves: interest reliefs, subsidized University education, grants etc.

    No, I stated in the first post for people not working. Obviously I have no issue with people working and getting government assistance with housing. If it came across differently, apologies. And also, once again I am not advocating kicking people out of their houses either.

    I am talking about people who are unemployed and who have been for the last 10 years with no intention of working ever. Why are these people entitled to prime city center social housing?

    I still dont see how ghettos are created if you create 4 social houses in an estate of 20 in Leixlip for example? And instead allow private renters to rent the city centre apartments?

    BTW i dont need a city centre apartment so it is not a personal thing for me, it just slightly annoys me that it is fine for someone to work fulltime and exhaust themselves with huge commutes due to unavailability of city centre accommodation and then there is a percentage of social housing dwellers who never worked and have no intention of working taking up prime city centre properties.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I actually think there's a good reason for looking at the old funding models.

    You setup a company like DAD (Dublin Artisan Dwellings). This sought shareholders (subscribers) who had an interest in improving Dublin (similar happened in Cork too) and it also got local big business involved at the time too by asking them to invest.

    They built actual communities and rented houses to tenants at moderate rents and actually interviewed people who wanted to live there.

    The later versions of these companies also developed middle class homes for purchase too. They we're basically community property developers and there were links to be early building societies and that all changed when the commercial developer and mortgage approach appeared after WWII

    The likes of DAD gave a return of about 5% to their investors and they were profitable entities. They did provide a very solid social service though and transformed Dublin in the worst part of the 19th and early 20th century.

    I'm sure if we though a bit harder about this we could move towards some kind of public / private setup that was even more socially focused and modern that could have a similar profound effect.

    Why do we need to ensure maximum profits for speculators who are building poor quality housing and causing social problems by pushing people out of the cities to far flung places?

    If we put structures in place to provide an an alternative way of doing commercial property development, encouraging long term investment by pension funds, by the state itself, by investors ... Maybe ... Just maybe we might avoid this boom bust crash boom system we seem so wedded to?!

    Why is making a very small % of the population obscenely wealthy and sucking all our disposable income into mortgages which largely benefit overseas stakeholders in banks a good thing?!


  • #53
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    anncoates wrote: »
    If those central places were private accommodation, they'd be market level rents which would probably be out of the reach of most of these virtuous, hard pressed working people.

    So then the moaning would be about a 'fair market finding its level', that is, I want this place and I want it at the price I demand.

    Yeah, most.

    Not all.

    They're doing this in London presently. Converting social housing in prime areas into private accommodation and selling it, putting money back into the exchequer to fund other things like healthcare.

    The main protests against it are that hey thats my house, nobody should have to commute, living anywhere thats not in the city is inhumane, I deserve this location more than the other people who commute everyday, ... sht, ehh, community something something boo hoo you're being mean.


  • #54
    macnug
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭macnug


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    yeah but if they are out of Dublin then its not Dublins problem. Let the recieving county deal with it.

    But my point is why should they? Anyway the social housing schemes are organized by local authorities. Kildare, meath louth etc coco's wont agree to it so it would never happen.


  • #55
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

    This mix of social classes does not work. Never has, never will.
    You've got to be kidding me. The most expensive housing (ie desirable) in the state is Central Dublin -- also the highest mix of social classes in the country! People pay a premium to live in mixed-class neighbourhoods.


  • #56
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I actually think there's a good reason for looking at the old funding models.

    You setup a company like DAD (Dublin Artisan Dwellings). This sought shareholders (subscribers) who had an interest in improving Dublin (similar happened in Cork too) and it also got local big business involved at the time too by asking them to invest.

    They built actual communities and rented houses to tenants at moderate rents and actually interviewed people who wanted to live there.

    The later versions of these companies also developed middle class homes for purchase too. They we're basically community property developers and there were links to be early building societies and that all changed when the commercial developer and mortgage approach appeared after WWII

    The likes of DAD gave a return of about 5% to their investors and they were profitable entities. They did provide a very solid social service though and transformed Dublin in the worst part of the 19th and early 20th century.

    I'm sure if we though a bit harder about this we could move towards some kind of public / private setup that was even more socially focused and modern that could have a similar profound effect.

    Why do we need to ensure maximum profits for speculators who are building poor quality housing and causing social problems by pushing people out of the cities to far flung places?

    If we put structures in place to provide an an alternative way of doing commercial property development, encouraging long term investment by pension funds, by the state itself, by investors ... Maybe ... Just maybe we might avoid this boom bust crash boom system we seem so wedded to?!

    Why is making a very small % of the population obscenely wealthy and sucking all our disposable income into mortgages which largely benefit overseas stakeholders in banks a good thing?!
    Ya, that'd be a good template - there is also the option of funding Housing Co-operatives (which I did a thread over on A&P there), which would be community owned and the perfect template for both social housing (indeed, it's most frequently used for that), as well as for regular homeowners - which should be completely immune to boom and bust, and thus better for our economy than the standard model.

    It's silly how the premise of the thread, seems to miss the blindingly obvious fact, that the solution to a shortage of houses and places to rent, is to build more houses and places to rent.


  • #57
    Just a little Samba
    Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Just a little Samba


    Aard wrote: »
    You've got to be kidding me. The most expensive housing (ie desirable) in the state is Central Dublin -- also the highest mix of social classes in the country! People pay a premium to live in mixed-class neighbourhoods.

    The "google ghetto" area of Dublin is a massive testament to this.
    Tech kids paying through the nose to live in modern flats surrounded by Dublin city council owned buildings.


  • #58
    kneemos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,606 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Yeah, most.

    Not all.

    They're doing this in London presently. Converting social housing in prime areas into private accommodation and selling it, putting money back into the exchequer to fund other things like healthcare.

    The main protests against it are that hey thats my house, nobody should have to commute, living anywhere thats not in the city is inhumane, I deserve this location more than the other people who commute everyday, ... sht, ehh, community something something boo hoo you're being mean.

    Thought the problem with London city property was foreign investors pricing everybody out of the market.
    A lot of these properties aren't even rented out,or kept as holiday accommodation. Those that are rented are massively expensive.
    Either way your still have the problem of ordinary workers not able to afford city centre accommodation.


  • #59
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    macnug wrote: »
    But my point is why should they? Anyway the social housing schemes are organized by local authorities. Kildare, meath louth etc coco's wont agree to it so it would never happen.
    Oh no I get that and agree I was just saying that thats the prevalent attitude. They dont know, understand or care of consequences once the common/poor folk aren't near them they dont care where they are or who deals with them.


  • #60
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    qwerty1991 wrote: »

    I am talking about people who are unemployed and who have been for the last 10 years with no intention of working ever. Why are these people entitled to prime city center social housing?
    Just how many adults do you think there are who are long term unemployed and living in free/subsidised accommodation in Central Dublin? How much "prime real estate" are they actually occupying? And how much has that really contributed to city centre rent inflation?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    beyondbelief67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 550 ✭✭✭beyondbelief67


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    There is NO ONE who owns or is a mortgage holder that would have, out of choice, social housing next to them. No one. There is several reasons for this already outlined.

    There is a couple of reasons developers did not adhere to the 20% social housing in every estate. Firstly it was stupid and secondly no one would buy such properties.

    This mix of social classes does not work. Never has, never will.
    Ok, so someone better tell that to the neighbours on either side of me, its a row of terraced houses, the houses on either side of me were bought and sold over the years, the rest are still council.
    So it's not like the buyers didn't know when buying as its a council estate !
    But I'm guessing they didn't get your notification that no one will buy or take out a mortgage to do that the way they did, just because you wouldn't don't assume others wouldn't either.


Advertisement
Advertisement