Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

State Provision of Housing

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    PropQueries
    Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭PropQueries


    Hubertj wrote: »
    Again, if only it were that simple. It’s not despite what the bombers and other socialists tell the public.

    Public services pi*s away enough of my money as it is. I would like them to demonstrate they can deliver at scale on a phased basis before I believe they have the competence.

    I do agree with you on that one. The children's hospital appears to be a good example. But the Irish Times analysis did show that they can build social housing in a cost effective way if the will is there.

    Maybe all the backlash against their handling of the housing crisis over the past 5 years is finally pushing them to get their act together regarding delivery and cost?


  • Options
    #33
    fliball123
    Registered Users Posts: 7,445 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Hubertj wrote: »
    Again, if only it were that simple. It’s not despite what the bombers and other socialists tell the public.

    Public services pi*s away enough of my money as it is. I would like them to demonstrate they can deliver at scale on a phased basis before I believe they have the competence.

    You only have to look at the children's hospital as a very recent example of this and Props if they phucked up the costs on one building to build imagine them trying to sort out thousands.


  • Options
    #34
    Pelezico
    Registered Users Posts: 681 ✭✭✭Pelezico


    PropQueries wrote: »
    I do agree with you on that one. The children's hospital appears to be a good example. But the Irish Times analysis did show that they can build social housing in a cost effective way if the will is there.

    Maybe all the backlash against their handling of the housing crisis over the past 5 years is finally pushing them to get their act together regarding delivery and cost?

    Public sector are incapable of building houses. They dontbemploy any specialist trades. House building is a very competitive field.


  • Options
    #35
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,066 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Pelezico wrote: »
    Public sector are incapable of building houses. They dontbemploy any specialist trades. House building is a very competitive field.

    I don't think anybody is suggesting that local councils become building contractors?

    I think what is suggested is that local councils lead developments, and hire building contractors.


  • Options
    #36
    Pelezico
    Registered Users Posts: 681 ✭✭✭Pelezico


    Geuze wrote: »
    I don't think anybody is suggesting that local councils become building contractors?

    I think what is suggested is that local councils lead developments, and hire building contractors.

    They do not have the skill set. Project management of construction sites is a very tough profession.

    Leave it to the professionals.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    brisan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭brisan


    Pelezico wrote: »
    They do not have the skill set. Project management of construction sites is a very tough profession.

    Leave it to the professionals.

    That’s the general idea
    The LA hire the professionals and met them do the job


  • Options
    #38
    Pelezico
    Registered Users Posts: 681 ✭✭✭Pelezico


    brisan wrote: »
    That’s the general idea
    The LA hire the professionals and met them do the job

    Just buy the finished product. By the way it wont be left to the professionals. Payment and procurement processes would be slow and the audit procedures would be by necessity painful and costly.

    It wont happen so there is little point in hoping for it.


  • Options
    #39
    PropQueries
    Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭PropQueries


    Pelezico wrote: »
    Just buy the finished product. By the way it wont be left to the professionals. Payment and procurement processes would be slow and the audit procedures would be by necessity painful and costly.

    It wont happen so there is little point in hoping for it.

    Maybe we should consider poaching some of the executives currently working for the UK building companies?


  • Options
    #40
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users Posts: 18,159 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Geuze wrote: »
    I don't think anybody is suggesting that local councils become building contractors?

    I think what is suggested is that local councils lead developments, and hire building contractors.

    What would lead developments mean. One of the biggest decisions over the last twenty years was to more or less abolish sole social housing projects as these were leading to gettoization. That is why the PPP housing project was disappointing in Dublin. Unless you have mixed housing projects you have the risk of future Ballymun's, Knocknaheen'ies and Moyross'es being developed in the future.

    It also means that these is often more support and a better chance of social inclusion if housing projects are integrated. Mixed projects of social , affordable and commercial private housing is the ideal way forward.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Options
    #41
    Pelezico
    Registered Users Posts: 681 ✭✭✭Pelezico


    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    What would lead developments mean. One of the biggest decisions over the last twenty years was to more or less abolish sole social housing projects as these were leading to gettoization. That is why the PPP housing project was disappointing in Dublin. Unless you have mixed housing projects you have the risk of future Ballymun's, Knocknaheen'ies and Moyross'es being developed in the future.

    It also means that these is often more support and a better chance of social inclusion if housing projects are integrated. Mixed projects of social , affordable and commercial private housing is the ideal way forward.



    He has no idea what..lead developments means. The premise is that by puttinga lead in there, somehow the councils will save loads of money. This is a myth.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,492 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Hubertj wrote:
    Public services pi*s away enough of my money as it is. I would like them to demonstrate they can deliver at scale on a phased basis before I believe they have the competence.

    They have demonstrated competence, average build cost in DLR @ 205k per unit. That is the most expensive area of the country. What would it cost to buy in the private market. How much of your money was saved by pursuing a self build

    You are basically saying I'm happy for public service to pursue a policy of wasting my money, despite they showing they can deliver at half the cost using a different approach

    Hubertj wrote:
    Again, if only it were that simple. It’s not despite what the bombers and other socialists tell the public.

    The Taoiseach's response to the Oscar tray or road development is telling

    "Micheál Martin said the country needed to put ideological arguments about housing to one side and at some point just “start building houses in some shape or formâ€.

    That was the attitude that got us the Children's hospital debacle as the government at the time thought it would be a great legacy project for them. As a consequence decisions were rushed and concerns ignored

    Quiet an apt legacy indeed mirroring the dysfunctional property market

    The people in charge and their attitude make a big difference to the results

    Clearly we have people capable of delivering and not delivering


  • Options
    #43
    Hubertj
    Registered Users Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    Villa05 wrote: »
    They have demonstrated competence, average build cost in DLR @ 205k per unit. That is the most expensive area of the country. What would it cost to buy in the private market. How much of your money was saved by pursuing a self build

    You are basically saying I'm happy for public service to pursue a policy of wasting my money, despite they showing they can deliver at half the cost using a different approach




    The Taoiseach's response to the Oscar tray or road development is telling

    "Micheál Martin said the country needed to put ideological arguments about housing to one side and at some point just “start building houses in some shape or formâ€.

    That was the attitude that got us the Children's hospital debacle as the government at the time thought it would be a great legacy project for them. As a consequence decisions were rushed and concerns ignored

    Quiet an apt legacy indeed mirroring the dysfunctional property market

    The people in charge and their attitude make a big difference to the results

    Clearly we have people capable of delivering and not delivering


    Regarding the childrens hospital, i'm fairly sure that the cause of the mess is the inability of our public servants to effectively manage such a large scale project. Contractor is submitting claims based on CRs. Added to that building started before spec was finalised.
    I had similar challenges through my job in dealing with Irish Water a few years ago.
    It is naive in the extreme to think it is so easy to scale large projects. Unless of course it suits you to do so


  • Options
    #44
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Villa05 wrote: »
    They have demonstrated competence, average build cost in DLR @ 205k per unit. That is the most expensive area of the country. What would it cost to buy in the private market. How much of your money was saved by pursuing a self build

    You are comparing the cost of delivering a house to the cost of constructing a house. There is a lot more to delivering a house than the bare construction cost.

    I expect the private sector could do the bare construction for the same cost, maybe a little less or a little more depending on things like control, scale and financing.

    In particular you are having no regard for value of the land, and levies.

    There is a lot more to building a new community than throwing up a few units (as was done in Tallaght and Ballymun).


  • Options
    #45
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,066 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    What would lead developments mean. One of the biggest decisions over the last twenty years was to more or less abolish sole social housing projects as these were leading to gettoization. That is why the PPP housing project was disappointing in Dublin. Unless you have mixed housing projects you have the risk of future Ballymun's, Knocknaheen'ies and Moyross'es being developed in the future.

    It also means that these is often more support and a better chance of social inclusion if housing projects are integrated. Mixed projects of social , affordable and commercial private housing is the ideal way forward.

    By lead the development, I do not mean 100% social housing.

    LA own the land - do not sell the land
    LA get loans from the HFA, as they already do, this already happens, nothing new here.
    Or else LA gets loans from the EIB, again this already happens, although not as much as HFA lending

    LA uses its own architect, or hires one, to develop a masterplan
    LA brings services/utilities onto the site - LA Roads and Housing divisions should already have some experience here

    LA hires QS and project managers, or maybe uses its own engineers

    LA tenders for building contractor

    A mix of units:
    (1) sell some at market price, this helps repay some debt / cashflow
    (2) sell some as "affordable housing"
    (3) cost-rental
    (4) social housing
    (5) commercial units

    Inside the canals in Dublin only workers eligible
    Strict rules against anti-social behaviour.


    Advantages:
    eliminate developer profit margin (15%)
    massively reduce finance cost (this is 20,000 per unit according to SCSI)


  • Options
    #46
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    Geuze wrote: »
    By lead the development, I do not mean 100% social housing.

    LA own the land - do not sell the land
    LA get loans from the HFA, as they already do, this already happens, nothing new here.
    Or else LA gets loans from the EIB, again this already happens, although not as much as HFA lending

    LA uses its own architect, or hires one, to develop a masterplan
    LA brings services/utilities onto the site - LA Roads and Housing divisions should already have some experience here

    LA hires QS and project managers, or maybe uses its own engineers

    LA tenders for building contractor

    A mix of units:
    (1) sell some at market price, this helps repay some debt / cashflow
    (2) sell some as "affordable housing"
    (3) cost-rental
    (4) social housing
    (5) commercial units

    Inside the canals in Dublin only workers eligible
    Strict rules against anti-social behaviour.


    Advantages:
    eliminate developer profit margin (15%)
    massively reduce finance cost (this is 20,000 per unit according to SCSI)

    Singapore gets housing right. While they do allow private builds, it's almost all public housing where you can find a millionaire living in the same building as someone unemployed.

    "Public housing in Singapore is managed by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) under a 99-year lease. The majority of the residential housing developments in Singapore are publicly governed and developed, and home to approximately 78.7% of the resident population. These flats are located in housing estates, which are self-contained satellite towns with well-maintained schools, supermarkets, malls, community hospitals, clinics, hawker centres (food court) and sports and recreational facilities. Every housing estate includes MRT stations and bus stops that link residents to other parts of the city-state. Some estates are also complemented by smaller LRT stations which act as a feeder service to the MRT.

    There is a large variety of flat types and layouts which cater to various housing budgets. HDB flats were built primarily to provide affordable housing and their purchase can be financially aided by the Central Provident Fund. Due to changing demands, HDB introduced the Design, Build and Sell Scheme to produce up-market public housing developments.

    New public housing flats are strictly only eligible for purchase towards Singaporean citizens. The housing schemes and grants available to finance the purchase of a flat are also only extended to households owned by Singaporeans, while permanent residents do not get any housing grants or subsidies from the Singaporean government and could only purchase resale flats from the secondary market at a market price. Such policies have helped Singapore reach a home-ownership rate of 91%, one of the highest in the world. In 2008, Singapore was lauded by the United Nations Habitat's State of the World's Cities report as the only slum-free city in the world. "

    With NAMA largely finished with its original purpose, it would seem ideally placed to engage in large scale housing projects that could provide a mix of social/affordable and private housing and outsource the actual building to developers. Although "developers" is a bad word in Irish eyes, they have the expertise but the NAMA driven model could be changed from profit-driven to cost-driven.

    The state could actually make a profit from building housing if it managed the process correctly. It's ok and desirable to still have private only development, but that should be at a premium that is heavily taxed by the government. This would get rid of the land hoarding problem as it wouldn't enable land prices to be pushed up speculatively as the market for that will be so small for those who can afford it - effectively a few private estates for millionaires.

    For the rest of us, it would mean housing that is affordable and plentiful.


  • Options
    #47
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,670 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Councils used to sell houses at time of construction. My mother grew up in such a development, a group of higher spec houses built at the end of a road of standard terraces and sold

    The thing that wouldn't be allowed now was they were only sold to couples and this set in particular were only sold to public servants! Pre-arranged ICS mortgages


  • Options
    #48
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,365 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Geuze wrote: »
    By lead the development, I do not mean 100% social housing.

    LA own the land - do not sell the land
    LA get loans from the HFA, as they already do, this already happens, nothing new here.
    Or else LA gets loans from the EIB, again this already happens, although not as much as HFA lending

    LA uses its own architect, or hires one, to develop a masterplan
    LA brings services/utilities onto the site - LA Roads and Housing divisions should already have some experience here

    LA hires QS and project managers, or maybe uses its own engineers

    LA tenders for building contractor

    A mix of units:
    (1) sell some at market price, this helps repay some debt / cashflow
    (2) sell some as "affordable housing"
    (3) cost-rental
    (4) social housing
    (5) commercial units

    Inside the canals in Dublin only workers eligible
    Strict rules against anti-social behaviour.


    Advantages:
    eliminate developer profit margin (15%)
    massively reduce finance cost (this is 20,000 per unit according to SCSI)

    It does not work like that, the children's hospital and the NPHDB being an example.


  • Options
    #49
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    Geuze wrote: »
    By lead the development, I do not mean 100% social housing.

    LA own the land - do not sell the land
    LA get loans from the HFA, as they already do, this already happens, nothing new here.
    Or else LA gets loans from the EIB, again this already happens, although not as much as HFA lending

    LA uses its own architect, or hires one, to develop a masterplan
    LA brings services/utilities onto the site - LA Roads and Housing divisions should already have some experience here

    LA hires QS and project managers, or maybe uses its own engineers

    LA tenders for building contractor

    A mix of units:
    (1) sell some at market price, this helps repay some debt / cashflow
    (2) sell some as "affordable housing"
    (3) cost-rental
    (4) social housing
    (5) commercial units

    Inside the canals in Dublin only workers eligible
    Strict rules against anti-social behaviour.


    Advantages:
    eliminate developer profit margin (15%)
    massively reduce finance cost (this is 20,000 per unit according to SCSI)



    Just on this - are you saying some people pay 400k and others pay 200k for the same house in the same area ?


  • Options
    #50
    brisan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭brisan


    Sweet.Science wrote: »
    Just on this - are you saying some people pay 400k and others pay 200k for the same house in the same area ?

    That is the way it works
    If your earnings are below a certain level you get to buy it cheaper
    However there are normally clauses that state you cannot sell for a number of years and if you do the state takes a portion of the profit


  • Options
    #51
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,492 ✭✭✭Villa05


    mariaalice wrote:
    It does not work like that, the children's hospital and the NPHDB being an example.


    It does work like that, political interference prevents it from working. Who needs a politician to build anything? What you need is for them to keep out of the way


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,492 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Geuze wrote:
    Advantages: eliminate developer profit margin (15%) massively reduce finance cost (this is 20,000 per unit according to SCSI)


    Just to add to the advantages
    Property is built where it is needed not a 2 hour commute from where it is needed
    Eliminating/reducing commutes reduces the spend required on transportation in infrastructure and subsidies
    Reduced commutes help the nation meet its carbon targets
    Managed properly these schemes will be revenue positive for the state, current housing policy is costing the state 1 billion per year and rising
    Improved quality of life for citizens as they spend less time in traffic jams


  • Options
    #53
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,066 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    In a perfect world, the market would provide affordable homes for all.

    I support capitalism, and innovation, and competition.

    I support State intervention, when justified, due to market failure.

    It is clear that the market can't provide affordable houses.

    This is because costs are too high.

    I support State intervention to reduce costs, so that all houses built/owned by any type of developer, drop.


    I start with costs data in Dublin from recent SCSI:

    https://twitter.com/karldeeter/status/1326104578895605763

    Site = 60,800
    Finance = 16,700
    Developer margin = 42,600


  • Options
    #54
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,066 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Site = 60,800
    Finance = 16,700
    Developer margin = 42,600


    That is 120,000 costs that we could work to reduce.

    I feel these costs could be halved, by an alternative model of construction.

    Take out the risk, to reduce the developer margin, for a start.


  • Options
    #55
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,980 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    Singapore gets housing right.

    Singapore is probably one of the most unique country's in the world and what they do is not really applicable elsewhere. If you want to make a comparison, maybe pick something comparable.


  • Options
    #56
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,492 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Cuddlesworth wrote:
    Singapore is probably one of the most unique country's in the world and what they do is not really applicable elsewhere. If you want to make a comparison, maybe pick something comparable.


    Singapore is far more densely populated than Ireland. Achieving what they have done would be much easier here. Your argument is illogical


  • Options
    #57
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,365 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Villa05 wrote: »
    Singapore is far more densely populated than Ireland. Achieving what they have done would be much easier here. Your argument is illogical

    It's also not a full democracy which helps as well.


  • Options
    #58
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,492 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Sweet.Science wrote:
    Just on this - are you saying some people pay 400k and others pay 200k for the same house in the same area ?

    I have heard proposals that affordable homes purchased stay within an affordable homes structure eg if you purchase at a x% below market, should you sell that percentage is reclaimed


  • Options
    #59
    Topgear on Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 4,522 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    Villa05 wrote: »
    Singapore is far more densely populated than Ireland. Achieving what they have done would be much easier here. Your argument is illogical

    I don't think Irish people would stand for their "strong style of government".

    Ireland position on democracy index = 7 (full democracy)
    Singapore position on democracy index = 75 (flawed democracy)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

    We have to deal with an enormous chunk of voters who do not care that rents are high or are delighted that house prices are rising, or do not want to see social housing in their area, or who want to buy their social housing cheaply, or live in city centres and do not want high rise etc etc.
    Irish politics has a lot of agendas to take care of with the voters.


  • Options
    #60
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Council should be able to zone new housing lands based on what you can do with the houses in area X.
    i.e. Owner-occupied only estates, rental only or a mix, or free for all anything goes - people will moan about property rights etc, but its not retrospective and you have the right not to buy a house in such a development.

    It would help stop REITs & AHBs from buying up all the property in new estates - and also would stop property speculators from buying homes and leaving them empty.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,492 ✭✭✭Villa05


    mariaalice wrote:
    It's also not a full democracy which helps as well.

    Topgear on Dave wrote:
    We have to deal with an enormous chunk of voters who do not care that rents are high or are delighted that house prices are rising, or do not want to see social housing in their area, or who want to buy their social housing cheaply, or live in city centres and do not want high rise etc etc. Irish politics has a lot of agendas to take care of with the voters.


    Irish Gov policy appears to be achieve a social mix ie x% of social affordable

    The choice is do we do it a maximum cost or maximum efficiency

    How much does the degree of democracy impact that choice?


Advertisement