Property Market 2017

Uriel.

cnocbui wrote: »

Rents are high because of lack of supply. If being a landlord was a very profitable enterprise then there ought to be a veritable flood of rental properties onto the market, whereas arguably the reverse is occurring.

The problem is government. Use any mapping tool and take a good look at Dublin satellite imagery. Count the number of massive golf-courses you see, what is the acreage of the Botanical gardens? Is that actually an enormous working farm I see next to DCU and Griffith Park?

There is no housing problem, just a government problem.

I'm afraid I don't agree with reducing our green spaces to provide housing.

The importance of green space and biodiversity to human health and wellbeing and the ecosystems in which we live is well documented

cnocbui

Uriel. wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't agree with reducing our green spaces to provide housing.

The importance of green space and biodiversity to human health and wellbeing and the ecosystems in which we live is well documented

We need Asian-style massive apartment complexes. Get rid of private houses to provide more green space for the birds and the bees. \s

Seriously, the area of Dublin devoted to golf courses is unreal. I would be a strong advocate for decentralisation to reduce the pressure on Dublin.

LirW

How exactly do you want to decentralise though? Look what happened in Limerick when Dell closed. If an entire area is dependant on one or to big companies in the area and they decide to move on or close down you have a lot of people with mortgages that won't find jobs in the area anymore.

Also do you just want to seize Golf courses in Dublin to build? Dublin should definitely building high-rise, anything else isn't sustainable. But that makes green space even more important if you don't want a city completely dull.

Uriel.

Anyone know where you can get stats on the number of rental properties, the number of landlords and the number of properties rented out by the average LL - that kind of info? The PRTB seems to have scant info and stats on this kind of stuff (e.g. annual reports).

cnocbui

LirW wrote: »

How exactly do you want to decentralise though? Look what happened in Limerick when Dell closed. If an entire area is dependant on one or to big companies in the area and they decide to move on or close down you have a lot of people with mortgages that won't find jobs in the area anymore.

Also do you just want to seize Golf courses in Dublin to build? Dublin should definitely building high-rise, anything else isn't sustainable. But that makes green space even more important if you don't want a city completely dull.

You don't do IDA style decentralisation, which can cause the likes of the Limerick/Dell problem. I would just look at skewing the tax system to provide a significant general incentive.

I'd probably look for under-utilised church owned property in Dublin before looking at golf courses. I'd seize that with no compensation in a heart-beat. Golf courses could be acquired with compensation just as easily as land was taken from farmers to build the under-utilised motorway network.

Easing the housing shortage problem in Dublin is one of those wanting an omlet without breaking any eggs problems. Very similar to the pastime of wanting your cake and eating it too.

LirW

The difference between church owned property and golf courses is that these courses are privately owned property and running businesses. You can wipe out companies and that leaves people jobless. Golf courses usually generate a healthy profit and provide facilities that create jobs. Especially in the Dublin area. I'm by no means a friend of golf and I do question why every village needs a golf course (heck even mine has one and there are like 500 people living here).
Before starting seizing property why aren't current developments build high rise and have at least 5 storeys? I certainly don't understand how you plan huge developments in the west of Dublin of primarily family homes. This is an utter waste of space and not sustainable.
There is no point in seizing land when you whip up the same laid out developments of 3- and 4 bedroom homes up again. There lies the real problem.

OwlsZat

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is a huge issue apparently. Was told the head of bord pleanala has been the same greenparty numpty for the last 17 years (open to correction). He has wrongly been unwilling to stretch the skyline upwards throughout his tenure. This is despite the fact that there is a infinite list of more attractive cities that go well beyond our 4 story soft cap. 
He should really be openly criticized and be cited as a contributor to the overall crisis. He has gotten off Scott free despite the flat earth mentality.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

OwlsZat

Uriel. wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't agree with reducing our green spaces to provide housing. 

Leave the Greenspaces alone. Build upwards. Inside city limits fine those that can't maintain the outside of their building. So many buildings in dire shape in the city center it's untrue. Order a review of Bord Pleanala and it's planning overturns and really see if it's fit for purpose. I believe I'm correct in saying Liberty Hall is protected. That alone shows whatever planning strategy we are implementing is badly broken.

jamesthepeach

OwlsZat wrote: »

Leave the Greenspaces alone. Build upwards. Inside city limits fine those that can't maintain the outside of their building. So many buildings in dire shape in the city center it's untrue. Order a review of Bord Pleanala and it's planning overturns and really see if it's fit for purpose. I believe I'm correct in saying Liberty Hall is protected. That alone shows whatever planning strategy we are implementing is badly broken.

I like the city the way it is.
If you want to build upwards, by all means do, build a new city where you won't be destroying the character of the existing one.

Feckofff

OwlsZat wrote: »

This is a huge issue apparently. Was told the head of bord pleanala has been the same greenparty numpty for the last 17 years (open to correction). He has wrongly been unwilling to stretch the skyline upwards throughout his tenure. This is despite the fact that there is a infinite list of more attractive cities that go well beyond our 4 story soft cap. 
He should really be openly criticized and be cited as a contributor to the overall crisis. He has gotten off Scott free despite the flat earth mentality.

Going up is not so easy for builder's.
Because of fire regs etc there is no cost advantage below 7 stories. Even 7+ stories it only makes sense if you've paid a lot for the site.
This leaves a very small selection of site where high rise makes sense and again only in the most expensive areas in the city.

It will never make sense to build a lot of high rise in say Harold cross / rathmines etc.
Even though there are no doubts a huge number of people (myself included) would be delighted to live there.

Perversely if a builder has been prudent and only bought land during the bust then he maximises his profit with compact low density houses.

With the above in mind I doubt we will ever see affordable high rise in the city irrespective of planning.

OwlsZat

Feckofff wrote: »

OwlsZat wrote: »

This is a huge issue apparently. Was told the head of bord pleanala has been the same greenparty numpty for the last 17 years (open to correction). He has wrongly been unwilling to stretch the skyline upwards throughout his tenure. This is despite the fact that there is a infinite list of more attractive cities that go well beyond our 4 story soft cap. 
He should really be openly criticized and be cited as a contributor to the overall crisis. He has gotten off Scott free despite the flat earth mentality.

Going up is not so easy for builder's.
Because of fire regs etc there is no cost advantage below 7 stories. Even 7+ stories it only makes sense if you've paid a lot for the site.
This leaves a very small selection of site where high rise makes sense and again only in the most expensive areas in the city.

It will never make sense to build a lot of high rise in say Harold cross / rathmines etc.
Even though there are no doubts a huge number of people (myself included) would be delighted to live there.

Perversely if a builder has been prudent and only bought land during the bust then he maximises his profit with compact low density houses.

With the above in mind I doubt we will ever see affordable high rise in the city irrespective of planning.

We have correctly allowed high rise around Grand Canal docks. Why not make that either side of the Liffey and actually start putting a z axis profile on our city. Instead we seems to think that building them in the likes of Sandyford is a better solution?
Do we actually belief that the addition of a few extra floors on a building makes the city center so unattractive that we should risk creating another Ballymun half an hour away instead? 
I think that belief should really be challenged. The city by definition is best setup to deal with the highest number of people. Let's be honest we are being backward.

Lumen

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I like the city the way it is.
If you want to build upwards, by all means do, build a new city where you won't be destroying the character of the existing one.

The character of the city will also be destroyed if nobody except boring old rich farts can afford to live there.

cnocbui

OwlsZat wrote: »

This is a huge issue apparently. Was told the head of bord pleanala has been the same greenparty numpty for the last 17 years (open to correction). He has wrongly been unwilling to stretch the skyline upwards throughout his tenure. This is despite the fact that there is a infinite list of more attractive cities that go well beyond our 4 story soft cap. 
He should really be openly criticized and be cited as a contributor to the overall crisis. He has gotten off Scott free despite the flat earth mentality.

Them and that unelected, un-representative, self-selecting-for green mindsets mob An Taisce. These were foremost in my mind when I said the problem was basically a government one. Councils would be the third leg of that you-can't-do-that stool whose functions are the remit of government.

Feckofff

OwlsZat wrote: »

We have correctly allowed high rise around Grand Canal docks. Why not make that either side of the Liffey and actually start putting a z axis profile on our city. Instead we seems to think that building them in the likes of Sandyford is a better solution?
Do we actually belief that the addition of a few extra floors on a building makes the city center so unattractive that we should risk creating another Ballymun half an hour away instead? 
I think that belief should really be challenged. The city by definition is best setup to deal with the highest number of people. Let's be honest we are being backward.

It's all about financing, builder's can only build up where it finance allows. Most of the quays would not command the price per sqm to go 3/4 stories and that's without the sites being brown field sites.

A lot of our current high rise in Sandyford, tallaght, ballymun etc would make no financal sense today and you could argue they didn't make sense when they were built either.

jamesthepeach

Lumen wrote: »

The character of the city will also be destroyed if nobody except boring old rich farts can afford to live there.

Rubbish.
That's not all who can afford to live there.
Dublin has a huge mix of people.

Sleepy

Lumen wrote: »

The character of the city will also be destroyed if nobody except boring old rich farts can afford to live there.

What character? That of poverty, drug abuse and criminality?

Pretty much the only people who can currently afford to live in the city centre are social housing tenants.

OwlsZat

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I like the city the way it is. If you want to build upwards, by all means do, build a new city where you won't be destroying the character of the existing one.

The idea that building beyond 4 floors destroys character is a worn out myth. 

jamesthepeach

OwlsZat wrote: »

The idea that building beyond 4 floors destroys character is a worn out myth. 

Right then. Let's build Paris In Dublin. Problem solved.
Nobody said building beyond 4 storied was wrong. They said building beyond 4 stories in the current city is wrong.
Build a new city and it will work. Try growing existing Dublin city to the sky won't work.

OwlsZat

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Build a new city and it will work.  Try growing existing Dublin city to the sky won't work.

Suggesting building a new city is the same as offering no solution. Building the city upwards around it's area's of high population density is what happens in every other major city in the world. 
Instead we have daft objections to anyone that is trying to improve the city. The an Taisce objection to the new hotel on the old tax office site is a perfect example. It doesn't matter what height it is, what matters is that each building is architecturally pleasing and in keeping with the the cities history and culture.  
If we did that we would lessen the housing crisis, and clean up the awful concrete jungle we currently have. 

jamesthepeach

OwlsZat wrote: »

Suggesting building a new city is the same as offering no solution. Building the city upwards around it's area's of high population density is what happens in every other major city in the world. 
Instead we have daft objections to anyone that is trying to improve the city. The an Taisce objection to the new hotel on the old tax office site is a perfect example. It doesn't matter what height it is, what matters is that each building is architecturally pleasing and in keeping with the the cities history and culture.  
If we did that we would lessen the housing crisis, and clean up the awful concrete jungle we currently have. 

I regret to say that I think there is no solution.

Bob24

There surly are buildings with character and some streets in Dublin City centre which are worth preserving. But for a wealthy European city the quantity of ugly and dirty concrete building which rather ruin the character of of the city instead of adding to it is very large. Good planning is needed to make sure whatever replaces them is better, but I don't understand how keeping them to maintain the character of the city makes any sense.

Having said that I would agree with not putting high rises in the core city centre area or in the middle of a street with nice Georgian houses. But in a place like the docklands I don't see why there should be what seems to be a limit of 7/8 floors (aside from the new capital docks developement which seem to have on higher rise building). Large and high rise residential complexes there wouldn't ruin any character and be very useful to help in an area with crazy rents to to housing shortage.

sunrainmooncl

Build up, stupid.

There's literally nothing to lose by building up in some parts of the city. Especially in parts of the IFSC

greensheep777

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I like the city the way it is.
If you want to build upwards, by all means do, build a new city where you won't be destroying the character of the existing one.

I suppose the character of New York was destroyed when they started building skyscrapers there too.... Yep, what a boring place.

Have you ever been outside of Ireland by any chance?

The_Conductor

Guys- a reminder- feel free to partake in the debate- and argue whatever point you'd like to make.
However, trolling other posters- either with one word responses to drive home your incredulity- or with deliberately obtuse references that seem to be of increasing popularity with a small cohort- is not acceptable behaviour, and will not be tolerated.

If you disagree with another poster- refute their post- without attacking them. Its a very simple mantra- and its not particularly difficult to follow. Now do it.

robp

I am something of a heritage nut so I appreciate old Dublin more than most. But high rise is beautiful too and it can fit in too Dublin. The high rise of Sheikh Zayed road in Dubai is an example of beautiful modern high rise. Developing countries such as India or Indonesia are resourceful enough to make this happen in a big way, so we can be too.

jamesthepeach

Do peolle ha e confidence in this kind of thing being done right in Ireland?
Where did that confidence come from?

Graham

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Do peolle ha e confidence in this kind of thing being done right in Ireland?
Where did that confidence come from?

So we should do nothing just in case somebody gets it wrong?

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

So we should do nothing just in case somebody gets it wrong?

Like I said. Start on a new city.
Or we can talk on boards for the next 20 years about how we can change an already existing and established city.

Graham

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Like I said. Start on a new city.
Or we can talk on boards for the next 20 years about how we can change an already existing and established city.

You may be willing to absolve the government and local authorities of their responsibility for accommodating the growth of our capital.

There are plenty of us that are not.