The Housing Agency wants smaller apartments built!

Greenmachine

The_Conductor wrote: »

They are lovely- but look at the prices they're charging- the cheapest units are probably around 500-600- going all the way up to almost 2k a month (not sure how this is justifiable?)

The issue is in an Irish context- its thought these small units are a replacement for bedsits......... Obviously they're not- but its the mindset in those who are meddling in the market.



Big time. No one can deny that. However- aside from anything else- we need to totally rewrite the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act- before we go down that road here.



I agree. The meddling in the market here- has been monumental- and has totally destroyed the fabric of society- and will do for decades to come.

I don't understand our reticence towards higher density living- or indeed- or love affair with the semi-d, that everyone seems to imagine they have some inherent right to.......

We need a sea-change in our mindsets........

My place in Dublin is smaller than these Berlin flats and sets me back €700 p/m. If the landlord told me he wanted to increase the rent, he would be told where to stick it.

Daith

Greenmachine wrote: »

My place in Dublin is smaller than these Berlin flats and sets me back €700 p/m. If the landlord told me he wanted to increase the rent, he would be told where to stick it.

Exactly. I'd say these micro-apartments would be a similar price or maybe €500-€700.

Micro apartments would simply be the new one bed and similar prices.

Qualitymark

If councils started building houses and apartments, and did it properly, the prices would settle into something more reasonable. But with a Dail full of landlords, it's unlikely to happen - until politics change.

hfallada

Qualitymark wrote: »

If councils started building houses and apartments, and did it properly, the prices would settle into something more reasonable. But with a Dail full of landlords, it's unlikely to happen - until politics change.

Why should city councils have to be building houses and apartments? Social housing should only be temporary accommodation. But our poorly structured welfare system, makes council housing something passed down from Generation to Generation. No one should be entitled to cheap housing just because they "cant find a job" and "werent able to find a job in full employment".This entitlement for a house because you want one and dont choose to work is ridiculous. Why should someone have to work 9 to 5 and spend 10 hours commuting a week? While there is tens of thosands living in social housing in the city center, that never worked a day in their life

The only thing stopping houses/apartments being built is our banking system. Its not possible to get a loan from the bank to build a block of apartments. If we had a functioning banking system, we would have a more normal housing market.

18MonthsaSlave

Housing Departments and Housing Schemes have an remarkable talent for spending huge amounts of money delivering very few houses.

Gatling

hfallada wrote: »

Why should city councils have to be building houses and apartments? Social housing should only be temporary accommodation. But our poorly structured welfare system, makes council housing something passed down from Generation to Generation.

That doesn't happen anymore they're pretty strict on the idea of trying to hand houses down .
My mate and his sister lost both the parents in the space of a 12 week period few years back they were all living in a 3 bed local authority house 2 weeks after the 2nd funeral sdcc sent them a letter telling them to vacate the property within a certain amount of time as they weren't entitled to hold on to the property they lived in for 25 years.

In other cases adult children move back in to look after a sick or elderly parent you have to sign a document stating you have no legal right to claim the property or the tenancy

Mrs OBumble

hfallada wrote: »

Why should city councils have to be building houses and apartments? Social housing should only be temporary accommodation.

To make up for the properties that were sold on tenant-purchase schemes, and thus removed from the pool.

Personally I totally agree that social housing should be a hand-up, not a lifetime right. But current law/philosophy in Ireland is that it's tenancy-for-life. This can make for more-stable communities, but comes with the price of entrenched welfarism: some children who grow up in council housing genuinely believe that getting a house from the council is the only way that housing works.

Oh - and people don't get allocated social houses just because they don't have a job. They get them because they are too poor to buy a house: there are plenty of council tenants who are working.

Gatling

Doesn't matter where you go it's the same social housing is a life long tenancy unless you move up the property ladder and buy your own or you get evicted or die .

This is how social housing works it's not an irish phenomenon by a long shot .

It's not a free house either it's subsidised rents the more you earn the more you pay .

The amount of myths surrounding social housing is unreal

Mrs OBumble

Gatling wrote: »

Doesn't matter where you go it's the same social housing is a life long tenancy unless you move up the property ladder and buy your own or you get evicted or die .

This is how social housing works it's not an irish phenomenon by a long shot .

It may not be exclusively Irish, but it's certainly not world-wide.

There is information about tenancy reviews in a country very similar to that is a very similar size to Ireland here: http://www.hnzc.co.nz/info-for-tenants/reviewable-tenancies A key point:

"The full review process will be done over a number of months and involves working on a plan with tenants to help them move if they are no longer eligible for social housing."

The material on that page makes it look like it's a new policy. But it's not - there were similar things happening 20 years ago, even though I don't have links for them. And there were also policies that forced people to move from larger family homes, which they no longer needed, to smaller units more in tune with their current needs.

And here's another example, from another country/state: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/Living+in+Public+Housing/Changing+Renewing+or+Ending+a+Tenancy/
Key quote:

"most new tenants entering public housing are offered a fixed term lease of 2, 5 or 10 years. Housing NSW reviews fixed term leases before they end to decide if a tenant is eligible for a lease extension, and if eligible ..."

hfallada

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Oh - and people don't get allocated social houses just because they don't have a job. They get them because they are too poor to buy a house: there are plenty of council tenants who are working.

Thats one of the flaws of it. That people feel they can only buy and not rent. In NYC, rent controlled apartments are given to working people on low income. A luxury development gives x amount of its apartments to NYC, for rent to low income people. The developers do this in return for being allowed to build higher apartment blocks( not going to happen in Ireland) and tax breaks( cant see that happen again for a while, considering sections basically ghettoised huge amount of the city, as there was hundreds of apartment blocks with no owner occupiers).

Any social housing built by DCC in the boom was literally replacing an old building. Like Smithfieldm square which has high density apartments built by private developers and on the other side of the square. There is 3 storey houses built by DCC. Whats the logic in that? There isnt and most of DCC social housing is low density

Victor

hfallada wrote: »

There isnt and most of DCC social housing is low density

Actually, no. While the estates build from about 1920-1970 often had a combination of two-storey, semi-detached houses, over-sized gardens, sometimes excess green space and under-used institutional space, since the 1980s properties have generally been built with three-storey terraces, no front garden and only a small rear garden. Pocket parks and existing shared spaces have been used instead of vast expanses of grassland.

Gatling

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It may not be exclusively Irish, but it's certainly not world-wide.

There is information about tenancy reviews in a country very similar to that is a very similar size to Ireland here: http://www.hnzc.co.nz/info-for-tenants/reviewable-tenancies A key point:


The material on that page makes it look like it's a new policy. But it's not - there were similar things happening 20 years ago, even though I don't have links for them. And there were also policies that forced people to move from larger family homes, which they no longer needed, to smaller units more in tune with their current needs.

And here's another example, from another country/state: http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/Living+in+Public+Housing/Changing+Renewing+or+Ending+a+Tenancy/
Key quote:

It's similar here you can do mutual transfers between properties there a section on Gumtree that specifically deals with transfers and swaps in social housing.

For instance in the UK private housing associations once they took over local authorities housing lists literally started knocking on doors to find out how many properties were under occupied and those who were found living in 3/4/5 beds to one person would tried to be persuaded to move to a smaller house , flat, apartments.
It doesn't always work but it has in many cases freed up 3-5 bed properties for young families who need the rooms .
Australian or New Zealand is slightly different case's they don't have 100,000+ waiting to be housed with another 5000+ living on the streets

Frank Lee Midere

Who ever got the impression that council
Housing was designed to be temporary? The UK Labour Party built millions of houses to end slums and many - most - went to workers. Not to the unemployed. They were fairly good properties too. Some of the privatised houses are selling for £500k+.

Labour did that ( and FF here) precisely because the market couldn't and wouldn't supply enough housing for workers. If it's true that housing can only be expected to begin in Ireland at about 300k retail on average that's as true now as it was in the 19th and early 20th century.

Qualitymark

Exactly. Social housing is housing built by councils; it's available for rent apposite to your income, and goes by preference to those who need it most, but there's no reason that it shouldn't be open to everyone, once that basic need has been filled.
There's absolutely no reason that it should be temporary. Plenty of good solid communities are built around social housing; these are working people who pay market-level rents.
If the councils were building and maintaining social housing now, it would take the strain off the market and lower demand, and stop rents being so astronomically out of whack with salaries.

hfallada

Victor wrote: »

Actually, no. While the estates build from about 1920-1970 often had a combination of two-storey, semi-detached houses, over-sized gardens, sometimes excess green space and under-used institutional space, since the 1980s properties have generally been built with three-storey terraces, no front garden and only a small rear garden. Pocket parks and existing shared spaces have been used instead of vast expanses of grassland.

But compare a 3 storey house to 8 storey apartments blocks, there is a huge difference in density. There is tons of these generic low density DCC houses in Dublin city, like Pearse St.

Skatedude

NZ_2014 wrote: »

Some people just want a bed, a TV, a bathroom and maybe a small desk.

Check out pictures of yotel..mini hotels in some airports.. I could see a demand for this type of thing from people who just need a bed in a good location.

Also height restrictions definitely should be lifted.

For short term, yes, but would you want to live there for 20 years paying of a mortgage on one? not even mentioning future kids or spouse?

MouseTail

Skatedude wrote: »

For short term, yes, but would you want to live there for 20 years paying of a mortgage on one? not even mentioning future kids or spouse?

That articulates a very problematic mindset which is a byproduct of the economic collapse. Everyone wants to futureproof their housing needs, and have a 3 bed property. That is totally abnormal in a functioning housing market.

Victor

hfallada wrote: »

But compare a 3 storey house to 8 storey apartments blocks, there is a huge difference in density. There is tons of these generic low density DCC houses in Dublin city, like Pearse St.

You forget to mention that with 8 storey apartments blocks you need to provide enhanced open space.

gaius c

Shoeboxes are actually fine for singles or couples looking to save on rent, especially since the bedsit ban.
Sharing a 2 bed with a stranger (and sometimes even a friend, is crap).

The reasoning behind the size restrictions was the misguided notion that families should live in apartments wholesale, which is patent bollocks. If more apartments were available where they were required (city centre) and they were cheaper, then young professionals would live in them instead of housesharing & competing with families for limited housing stock.

Mrs OBumble

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Who ever got the impression that council
Housing was designed to be temporary? The UK Labour Party built millions of houses to end slums and many - most - went to workers. Not to the unemployed. They were fairly good properties too. Some of the privatised houses are selling for £500k+.

Some people (including me) believe that social housing should be contingent on need: if a person's circumstances improve so that they don't need housing assistance any more, then they no longer qualify for it. We have this belief for various reasons, mine are based on the personal moral hazzard associated with the state providing something that people can do for themselves, ie that it keeps people dependent when they don't need to be.

In the areas where I have worked (across several councils in Ireland), rents are purely income-related with a cap, not market-related. So even people paying maximum rent were often paying vastly less than market rent for their area. Except if they lived in areas with low market rents, in which case they were sometimes asked to pay more for social housing than they would pay for equivalent private-sector housing.

Qualitymark

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Some people (including me) believe that social housing should be contingent on need: if a person's circumstances improve so that they don't need housing assistance any more, then they no longer qualify for it. We have this belief for various reasons, mine are based on the personal moral hazzard associated with the state providing something that people can do for themselves, ie that it keeps people dependent when they don't need to be.

In the areas where I have worked (across several councils in Ireland), rents are purely income-related with a cap, not market-related. So even people paying maximum rent were often paying vastly less than market rent for their area. Except if they lived in areas with low market rents, in which case they were sometimes asked to pay more for social housing than they would pay for equivalent private-sector housing.

But providing housing with income-related rents allows people to have a decent place to live, which they can afford - and also drags down the "market" rents to a realistic level for all renters.

I'm not worried personally about moral hazard to others. I've never noticed that those friends who live in council housing are more immoral than those who rent or buy, than the bankers in Killiney or the politicians in the Dáil…

Eric Cartman

Red Alert wrote: »

What we need to do, roughly, to make high quality apartments for families and single people is to mandate the following:

Put a base limit on floor size to approx 90 m2 for 2-bed units.
Force architects to include some degree of reconfigurability - e.g. 2nd bedroom could be made part of open plan living space by avoiding things like curved or triangular-shaped rooms.
Every apartment needs a utility room.
Ban the construction of apartments with electric storage heating. The only acceptable electric heating is reverse-cycle air conditioners.
Every apartment needs a "front door" and also a "back door" with access to a large goods lift, and where meters for gas and ESB can be easily accessed without recourse to building staff.
Underground car park must have the number of spaces as bedrooms per apartment.
Mandated requirements for open phone and TV line access.
All apartments must have access to a balcony with minimum dimensions in the living room.

+ minimum soundproofing requirements that ensure nobody can hear anybody do any standard household task , talking on the phone, hoovering, putting on the washing machine, watching tv / listening to music, walking on wooden floors etc.. from another apartment.

+ tanked floors so no leaks drip down to other apartments

MouseTail

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Some people (including me) believe that social housing should be contingent on need: if a person's circumstances improve so that they don't need housing assistance any more, then they no longer qualify for it. .........
In the areas where I have worked (across several councils in Ireland), rents are purely income-related with a cap, not market-related. So even people paying maximum rent were often paying vastly less than market rent for their area. Except if they lived in areas with low market rents, in which case they were sometimes asked to pay more for social housing than they would pay for equivalent private-sector housing.

But this model creates a welfare/poverty trap, far better imo to allow people to continue to live in Social Housing, even if they should find work and improve their circumstances, but remove the rent cap.