Boarded up council houses and flats

Piriz

Hi,

When I see boarded up council houses and flats in Dublin i'm always curious as to why the council does not intervene and refurbish these dwellings...surely a refurbished flat will pay dividends economically and socially over a period of time. Is there any reason why this is not a policy of DCC?

Think of the flats next to Granby Park...a good few large flats are boarded up in a prime location in Dublin 1...its very questionable and it is common to lots of council areas in Dublin.

any thoughts?

Mr McBoatface

Cost of refurbishment, no money available in the current budget.

In some cases it is cheaper to demolish entire blocks of existing flats and rebuild new. So as tenants leave they are not replaced, the remaining tenants will eventually leave or will be offered new housing.

Not all houses/flats in council areas are owned by the council, council tenants have the option of buying them and many do. Some may be abandoned by the owners, owners may have died and it may not be clear who should inherit the house. They can be boarded up to prevent squatters.

Mrs OBumble

Some councils board up immediately someone leaves and unboard again when thy're ready for tenants (so I'm told).

the_syco

Piriz wrote: »

Think of the flats next to Granby Park...

Can't find this. Google map link, please?

Piriz

the_syco wrote: »

Can't find this. Google map link, please?

Dominick Street Lower, Granby Park was a pop up park...finished at the weekend i think

Mr McBoatface

Think it's "Granby Place" not "Park"

bilibob

Hate to be dragging up an old thread, but I can't find anything else on this issue.

I'm a student in DIT paying a fortune for rent in Inchicore. I walk past the boarded up flats on Dorset Street, and Dominic street. Here in Inchicore there is an entire low rise flat block boarded up aswell. The crazy thing is these are better designed and laid out than any of the tiny cottages we are all living in, and paying close to 2 grand to live in. Find a 2 bed apartment on Richmond road for under 1800!

These should be leased on the private market for a token sum for two years until they sort out what they are doing with them. Occupiers fix up the place. 24 grand would kit them all out with new windows and kitchens and everything.. the council gets back a renovated property.

It's not generating any income as they sit there, nor fixing the rental crisis. I know loads of people who would live in these locations. It also makes more of a social mix than ghettos of LA housing.

o1s1n

A lot of those flats seem to be ground level from what I remember seeing?

It's a bit of a dodgy spot so I just don't think anyone would be willing to live in a ground level flat there that's so exposed to the street.

bilibob

o1s1n wrote: »

A lot of those flats seem to be ground level from what I remember seeing?

It's a bit of a dodgy spot so I just don't think anyone would be willing to live in a ground level flat there that's so exposed to the street.

Are they any more exposed to the street than the houses, or private flats around them? Many of the flats are on upper levels.

Samuel T. Cogley

A few of you enterprising young men should squat for a bit. Bloody students these days no guts! :pac:

L1011

bilibob wrote: »

These should be leased on the private market for a token sum for two years until they sort out what they are doing with them. Occupiers fix up the place. 24 grand would kit them all out with new windows and kitchens and everything.. the council gets back a renovated property.

There is no legal way to do this. If they don't meet minimum rental standards they can't be rented out


Generally the long-term boarded up ones are because the entire block is being emptied for redevelopment.

bilibob

L1011 wrote: »

There is no legal way to do this. If they don't meet minimum rental standards they can't be rented out


Generally the long-term boarded up ones are because the entire block is being emptied for redevelopment.

I fully appreciate this, and I don't think my idea should stand in the way of redevelopment. However in the short term.. with average rent for a house pushing over 20,000 per year, it's senseless for people to be paying that for tiny urban cottages from the 19th century with stick on toilets and kitchens, when these flats were designed in the 50's with modern layouts, lying empty.

The fact is that if these were privately owned, not social housing, they would be sought after and bringing in the same rent as any apartment in their areas and not boarded up.

Dorset street flats have taken years to empty because the residents don't want to go! In the mean time before redevelopment surely something short-term can be sorted out to relieve the rent pressure.

Del2005

bilibob wrote: »

I fully appreciate this, and I don't think my idea should stand in the way of redevelopment. However in the short term.. with average rent for a house pushing over 20,000 per year, it's senseless for people to be paying that for tiny urban cottages from the 19th century with stick on toilets and kitchens, when these flats were designed in the 50's with modern layouts, lying empty.

The fact is that if these were privately owned, not social housing, they would be sought after and bringing in the same rent as any apartment in their areas and not boarded up.

Dorset street flats have taken years to empty because the residents don't want to go! In the mean time before redevelopment surely something short-term can be sorted out to relieve the rent pressure.

The problem is that once they have a tenant for 6 months they now have 6 years residency under Part 4 law. So the owner is trying to empty them put ends up with more tenants that they can't get rid of.

Glass fused light

Del2005 wrote: »

The problem is that once they have a tenant for 6 months they now have 6 years residency under Part 4 law. So the owner is trying to empty them put ends up with more tenants that they can't get rid of.

In addition to this, is if they are council owned, once back in service they need to be used to house people in the social housing list not for financial gain.

bilibob

And while that bureaucracy continues, the flats sit empty and become more derelict, the other occupants lose pride and become ashamed of where they live, the area becomes blighted, while in the surrounding area flats nowhere near the standard of theses flats are jam-packed with bunkbeds and language students.

Del2005

bilibob wrote: »

And while that bureaucracy continues, the flats sit empty and become more derelict, the other occupants lose pride and become ashamed of where they live, the area becomes blighted, while in the surrounding area flats nowhere near the standard of theses flats are jam-packed with bunkbeds and language students.

If the residents moved out then the council can regenerate. But the sitting tenants, who will be rehoused by the council, refuse to leave and since its a home for life they cannot be forced out. Sometimes the greater good isn't served by the homeless business, they are most likely advising the tenants not to leave therefore the whole development is being held up by the very people supposedly looking after the homeless.

the_syco

bilibob wrote: »

Hate to be dragging up an old thread, but I can't find anything else on this issue.

I'm a student in DIT paying a fortune for rent in Inchicore. I walk past the boarded up flats on Dorset Street, and Dominic street. Here in Inchicore there is an entire low rise flat block boarded up aswell.

It depends on budget, but some flats attract anti-social behaviour, so it's not financially a good idea to keep pouring money down the drain.

I say it'd be cheaper to level and rebuild, then to keep refitting flats that are no longer fir for purpose.

Or level, sell the prime land for new apartments, and build elsewhere that's cheaper.