€300M Investment into Waterford City

engiweirdo

Road-Hog wrote: »

You paint too simplistic a view. Mechanism of obtaining funding is far more complex than you portray it. I don’t think Mr Walsh can merely ring up the bearded housing minister and ask for €10m and he will get it a few days later......? Since the crash there has been numerous factors at play that are well documented with regards to reasons for so little housing units of any type in any place being constructed. What evidence do you have that the local council hasn’t been putting in the effort, dragging its heels etc. unless of course you are an employee of council or have a partner who is..?

Abject lack of results. The evidence is stark and visible all over the city.

engiweirdo

WillieMason wrote: »

No such thing as a free lunch.

Excepting the rentier class of course.

Road-Hog

engiweirdo wrote: »

Abject lack of results. The evidence is stark and visible all over the city.

I Don’t think the ‘abject lack of results’ as you put it is confined to Waterford council.

engiweirdo

Road-Hog wrote: »

I Don’t think the ‘abject lack of results’ as you put it is confined to Waterford council.

Now that there is money in the pot so to speak, where are the fanciful plans for housing in line with the money allocated to retail development. Ignoring in this instance the NQ, the money devoted to the Apple market and re-paving Arundel Square, Michael Street absolutely dwarves any investment in housing by some margin. It's just not good enough and as the "boss" he should well have to answer for it.

SOPHIE THE DOG

engiweirdo wrote: »

Where are the submissions from Waterford Council to government seeking funding for housing for even a tenth of the value of this investment? On already owned land €10m would provide a lot of units if not procured wastefully/using only "friendly" developers.

I have seen some fantastical projections for population and economic growth in line with this project but not a single solid plan to accommodate all these new people never mind the existing population. And yes I know there will be residential units as part of the development, but what else? Where will the workers building these units live? And if they secure accomodation, whi else will they push out of the market given the finite and not increasing in line with even current demand, never mind potential future increases, housing stock.

More questions, more accountability. Less backslapping. Mr Walsh receives quite a healthy salary from the public purse and should not be let off the hook so easily for fulfilling only part of his remit.

EUR10 million = 50 houses

engiweirdo

SOPHIE THE DOG wrote: »

engiweirdo wrote: »

Where are the submissions from Waterford Council to government seeking funding for housing for even a tenth of the value of this investment? On already owned land €10m would provide a lot of units if not procured wastefully/using only "friendly" developers.

I have seen some fantastical projections for population and economic growth in line with this project but not a single solid plan to accommodate all these new people never mind the existing population. And yes I know there will be residential units as part of the development, but what else? Where will the workers building these units live? And if they secure accomodation, whi else will they push out of the market given the finite and not increasing in line with even current demand, never mind potential future increases, housing stock.

More questions, more accountability. Less backslapping. Mr Walsh receives quite a healthy salary from the public purse and should not be let off the hook so easily for fulfilling only part of his remit.

EUR10 million = 50 houses

€200k per unit on land you already own? I know the common trick is to include cost of land but rhats an accounting practice not a real cost.

Road-Hog

SOPHIE THE DOG wrote: »

EUR10 million = 50 houses[/quote

Government policy for decades was to have private sector Provide the vast majority of housing was it not....?

Road-Hog

engiweirdo wrote: »

Now that there is money in the pot so to speak, where are the fanciful plans for housing in line with the money allocated to retail development. Ignoring in this instance the NQ, the money devoted to the Apple market and re-paving Arundel Square, Michael Street absolutely dwarves any investment in housing by some margin. It's just not good enough and as the "boss" he should well have to answer for it.

I would guess that the housing section of council is going through the convoluted bureaucratic processes that is required and that is dictated by central government and the local manager has little influence over......100% direct built council housing construction has been fairly poor in the last 20 years as it was central government policy

In any case the ‘housing crisis’ is off topic to this thread is it not....?

azimuth17

probably not worth the effort to tell engiweirdo that the funding for the Applemarket and Arundel Square paving came from a specific european funding stream and could not be spent on housing. Juvenile comments based on economic 101 are really meaningless.

rekdtangle

engiweirdo wrote: »

€200k per unit on land you already own? I know the common trick is to include cost of land but rhats an accounting practice not a real cost.

About 85k to build a 3 bed on land you own, excluding services.

Muttley79

rekdtangle wrote: »

About 85k to build a 3 bed on land you own, excluding services.

If you can build me a 3 bedroom house for 85k right now you can come build me a house in the morning haha

engiweirdo

Muttley79 wrote: »

If you can build me a 3 bedroom house for 85k right now you can come build me a house in the morning haha

Could knock up a rake of modular structures for sub €50k each if the will was there to actually provide housing. Open to all, no income cut off. Set % of income be that €10k or €100k pa. Would be completely self funding in a few years.

To do so would involve dropping the ideological opposition to social housing that's become prevalent in this country. I mean I get it, who wants to turn into a socialist hellhole like Austria right?

It would also mean admitting the great GDP scam, we aren't seeing any of this cash the multi-nationals are washing through the state and are still precariously balancing our entire economy on house prices. Supply must remain squeezed as the income isn't there to create a natural bidding war.

tbayers

Why would they publish plans on housing against a "proposed" development? All well and good saying that where will all these people live but don't forget nothing has been signed yet, be foolish on anybody's part to build something based on a proposal. If they did the same people would be calling them foolish. Can't win with folk like this. 
And there has also been 2 new residential estates built in Tramore recently. Majority of these were being sold for less than 200,000 euro for a semi detached 3 bedroom. If that isn't affordable what is? Plenty of houses being built in Waterford at the moment but because some people have a sense of entitlement to own a house it isn't good enough for them. As someone mentioned previously, work hard to buy a house. There 44 listings on daft at the moment for houses to rent in Waterford at a range of prices also. Has anybody got any figures for the "dire" homelessness crisis in Waterford?

In relation to the proposed development, if it goes ahead it will be a game changer for Waterford. I know for a fact developers still are sitting on a lot of land. If they see a development of this size coming to the town and surrounding area they will build without hesitation as people will want to come to Waterford to live/work etc. Same with the rental market, they will build to rent. And I personally can't wait for next election because it sounds like some local TD's were very silent on this proposal, to their own detriment it seems.

robcass78

Road-Hog wrote: »

I would guess that the housing section of council is going through the convoluted bureaucratic processes that is required and that is dictated by central government and the local manager has little influence over......100% direct built council housing construction has been fairly poor in the last 20 years as it was central government policy

In any case the ‘housing crisis’ is off topic to this thread is it not....?

Zero social homes built locally in 6 months. Not a central issue. Other counties building.

This is miles off topic. Any moderator on the board?

robcass78

tbayers wrote: »

Why would they publish plans on housing against a "proposed" development? All well and good saying that where will all these people live but don't forget nothing has been signed yet, be foolish on anybody's part to build something based on a proposal. If they did the same people would be calling them foolish. Can't win with folk like this. 
And there has also been 2 new residential estates built in Tramore recently. Majority of these were being sold for less than 200,000 euro for a semi detached 3 bedroom. If that isn't affordable what is? Plenty of houses being built in Waterford at the moment but because some people have a sense of entitlement to own a house it isn't good enough for them. As someone mentioned previously, work hard to buy a house. There 44 listings on daft at the moment for houses to rent in Waterford at a range of prices also. Has anybody got any figures for the "dire" homelessness crisis in Waterford?

In relation to the proposed development, if it goes ahead it will be a game changer for Waterford. I know for a fact developers still are sitting on a lot of land. If they see a development of this size coming to the town and surrounding area they will build without hesitation as people will want to come to Waterford to live/work etc. Same with the rental market, they will build to rent. And I personally can't wait for next election because it sounds like some local TD's were very silent on this proposal, to their own detriment it seems.

Specifically, there is 3,700 homes coming to market within 10 minutes of North Quays within next 2 years. 200-350k price point.

That's a far bigger economic impact than North Quays, as it's 851m.

Queue the derision and disbelief on that too until they are built but they will be unlocked as soon as government confirms funding.

Would be faster build rate, as there's a 16,000 shortage in the whole of the South East, but Irish banks don't finance new build construction; they financed about 600m a year when 8bn is required. Biggest root cause of our housing crisis. And it's very profitable lending too; 8-12% p.a.

Homeless? About 1,100 in Waterford.

Social build rate in last 6 months? Zero.

engiweirdo

robcass78 wrote: »

tbayers wrote: »

Why would they publish plans on housing against a "proposed" development? All well and good saying that where will all these people live but don't forget nothing has been signed yet, be foolish on anybody's part to build something based on a proposal. If they did the same people would be calling them foolish. Can't win with folk like this. 
And there has also been 2 new residential estates built in Tramore recently. Majority of these were being sold for less than 200,000 euro for a semi detached 3 bedroom. If that isn't affordable what is? Plenty of houses being built in Waterford at the moment but because some people have a sense of entitlement to own a house it isn't good enough for them. As someone mentioned previously, work hard to buy a house. There 44 listings on daft at the moment for houses to rent in Waterford at a range of prices also. Has anybody got any figures for the "dire" homelessness crisis in Waterford?

In relation to the proposed development, if it goes ahead it will be a game changer for Waterford. I know for a fact developers still are sitting on a lot of land. If they see a development of this size coming to the town and surrounding area they will build without hesitation as people will want to come to Waterford to live/work etc. Same with the rental market, they will build to rent. And I personally can't wait for next election because it sounds like some local TD's were very silent on this proposal, to their own detriment it seems.

Specifically, there is 3,700 homes coming to market within 10 minutes of North Quays within next 2 years. 200-350k price point.

That's a far bigger economic impact than North Quays, as it's 851m.

Queue the derision and disbelief on that too until they are built but they will be unlocked as soon as government confirms funding.

Would be faster build rate, as there's a 16,000 shortage in the whole of the South East, but Irish banks don't finance new build construction; they financed about 600m a year when 8bn is required. Biggest root cause of our housing crisis. And it's very profitable lending too; 8-12% p.a.

Homeless? About 1,100 in Waterford.

Social build rate in last 6 months? Zero.

While that is indeed good news, that price point would be out of reach of a significant percentage of the city population. There will always be a need for social/subsidised/affordable housing. I dare say the retail businesses eventually moving in to NQ will be heavily dependent on workers from an income bracket who will require subsidised housing.

Council development needs to happen independently from market not beg/demand private developers to do their job for them.

Even lower end of the range €200k needs €50k pa household income and €25k deposit. That's still a unattainable number for a lot of households in Waterford. Thats the councils market and as pointed out by yourself, zero delivery thus far this year(or last).

invara

Great to see NQs pushing along. Housing tends to follow jobs and jobs follow capital investment. Except for the NQs I do not see any capital investment of scale in the SE.


It is worth looking at this post from the Cork-econ-o-sphere
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057862889&page=56
...... on second thoughts, don't, it will only depress you. Cork is rocking, as is Limerick and Galway.

robtri

robcass78 wrote: »

Homeless? About 1,100 in Waterford.

Social build rate in last 6 months? Zero.

have you links to these claims??


i know its 2017 but 2018 numbers can't find
interesting read

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_housing_planning_community_and_local_government/submissions/2017/2017-07-13_opening-statement-waterford-city-council_en.pdf

Muttley79

invara wrote: »

Great to see NQs pushing along. Housing tends to follow jobs and jobs follow capital investment. Except for the NQs I do not see any capital investment of scale in the SE.


It is worth looking at this post from the Cork-econ-o-sphere
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057862889&page=56
...... on second thoughts, don't, it will only depress you. Cork is rocking, as is Limerick and Galway.

That post really opens up your eyes into how far Waterford is behind the other cities in Ireland,we really are neglected in the south east,wexford Kilkenny and Carlow all rely on dublin,we are the only Munster county in the south east region,it’s not until the south east region all come together properly and fight tooth and nail for investment will then we be heard

robcass78

robtri wrote: »

have you links to these claims??


i know its 2017 but 2018 numbers can't find
interesting read

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_housing_planning_community_and_local_government/submissions/2017/2017-07-13_opening-statement-waterford-city-council_en.pdf

I get both housing and homeless figures from Dept of Housing & CSO. Monthly.

robcass78

Muttley79 wrote: »

That post really opens up your eyes into how far Waterford is behind the other cities in Ireland,we really are neglected in the south east,wexford Kilkenny and Carlow all rely on dublin,we are the only Munster county in the south east region,it’s not until the south east region all come together properly and fight tooth and nail for investment will then we be heard

Cork city centre: 190,000 m2 of office space with planning approval for the city centre. Which implies about 12,000 jobs. Then the jobs need apartments/homes of about 12,000.

Limerick: 36,000 m2.

Galway: 60,000 m2.

Waterford: (blank). None with planning approved right now.

All the regional cities city centre population are between 26k (Galway) to 38k (Cork).

Now who could fill in the (blank) and which state or TD could, as office jobs drive other jobs, drives home builds and drives population growth. Also drives pipeline for universities to populate with talent. Which drives student housing demand and spend.

All all the jobs drives spend for businesses in the city. Which is more jobs.

No office planned = no jobs planned = no jobs = no growth right?

Harry Palmr

Why is it blank? Who is sleeping on the job - the usual suspects? We're led by donkeys.

Gavlor

robtri wrote: »

have you links to these claims??


i know its 2017 but 2018 numbers can't find
interesting read

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_housing_planning_community_and_local_government/submissions/2017/2017-07-13_opening-statement-waterford-city-council_en.pdf

The housing numbers are readily available on request from dept. Believe it or not, there is still a world outside google

Wanderer78

robcass78 wrote: »

Cork city centre: 190,000 m2 of office space with planning approval for the city centre. Which implies about 12,000 jobs. Then the jobs need apartments/homes of about 12,000.

Limerick: 36,000 m2.

Galway: 60,000 m2.

Waterford: (blank). None with planning approved right now.

All the regional cities city centre population are between 26k (Galway) to 38k (Cork).

Now who could fill in the (blank) and which state or TD could, as office jobs drive other jobs, drives home builds and drives population growth. Also drives pipeline for universities to populate with talent. Which drives student housing demand and spend.

All all the jobs drives spend for businesses in the city. Which is more jobs.

No office planned = no jobs planned = no jobs = no growth right?

again, this is an age old plan, of jobs jobs jobs, conveniently omitting wealth extraction from such activities. we re in desperate need of capturing some of the wealth created from such ventures in the form of taxes such as 'land value taxes', we cannot keep taxing labour and ignoring these processes of wealth extraction. its also important to realise the negative effects of 'asset price inflation', in particular housing prices in the region from such developments, this in turn makes it difficult for individuals who dont have homes, even more difficult to be able to do so.

https://makewealthhistory.org/2018/01/31/wealth-creation-and-wealth-extraction/

Gavlor

Wanderer78 wrote: »

again, this is an age old plan, of jobs jobs jobs, conveniently omitting wealth extraction from such activities. we re in desperate need of capturing some of the wealth created from such ventures in the form of taxes such as 'land value taxes', we cannot keep taxing labour and ignoring these processes of wealth extraction. its also important to realise the negative effects of 'asset price inflation', in particular housing prices in the region from such developments, this in turn makes it difficult for individuals who dont have homes, even more difficult to be able to do so.

https://makewealthhistory.org/2018/01/31/wealth-creation-and-wealth-extraction/

Pity the face palm feature doesn’t work on boards. Increased labour = increased income = increased spending = increased capital investment = increased labour and so the wheels turn.

Over taxing business ventures stops the whole cycle before it gets going. Fortunately we don’t and hopefully never will live in a socialist society

Kilkenny36

Gavlor wrote: »

Pity the face palm feature doesn’t work on boards. Increased labour = increased income = increased spending = increased capital investment = increased labour and so the wheels turn.

Over taxing business ventures stops the whole cycle before it gets going. Fortunately we don’t and hopefully never will live in a socialist society

Yeah true. I never want to live in a socialist hell hole like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands. God awful places.

Wanderer78

Gavlor wrote:

Over taxing business ventures stops the whole cycle before it gets going. Fortunately we don’t and hopefully never will live in a socialist society

Socialist, really! I'd imagine very few 'socialist' believe capatalism is fact one of the greatest things created by mankind, truly liberating and advancing our species. Even 'socialists' such as David mcwilliams and ronon Lyons advocate for methods of wealth capture such as 'land value taxes' and also the use of 'sovereign wealth funds' to do so. Face palm, I think not! There's a reason why we re currently experiencing a rapid rise in inequality, and not just in this country, and how are we reacting to this, by lurching to the right at the ballot boxes, be prepared for weird ****!

tbayers

engiweirdo wrote: »

robcass78 wrote: »

tbayers wrote: »

Why would they publish plans on housing against a "proposed" development? All well and good saying that where will all these people live but don't forget nothing has been signed yet, be foolish on anybody's part to build something based on a proposal. If they did the same people would be calling them foolish. Can't win with folk like this. 
And there has also been 2 new residential estates built in Tramore recently. Majority of these were being sold for less than 200,000 euro for a semi detached 3 bedroom. If that isn't affordable what is? Plenty of houses being built in Waterford at the moment but because some people have a sense of entitlement to own a house it isn't good enough for them. As someone mentioned previously, work hard to buy a house. There 44 listings on daft at the moment for houses to rent in Waterford at a range of prices also. Has anybody got any figures for the "dire" homelessness crisis in Waterford?

In relation to the proposed development, if it goes ahead it will be a game changer for Waterford. I know for a fact developers still are sitting on a lot of land. If they see a development of this size coming to the town and surrounding area they will build without hesitation as people will want to come to Waterford to live/work etc. Same with the rental market, they will build to rent. And I personally can't wait for next election because it sounds like some local TD's were very silent on this proposal, to their own detriment it seems.

Specifically, there is 3,700 homes coming to market within 10 minutes of North Quays within next 2 years. 200-350k price point.

That's a far bigger economic impact than North Quays, as it's 851m.

Queue the derision and disbelief on that too until they are built but they will be unlocked as soon as government confirms funding.

Would be faster build rate, as there's a 16,000 shortage in the whole of the South East, but Irish banks don't finance new build construction; they financed about 600m a year when 8bn is required. Biggest root cause of our housing crisis. And it's very profitable lending too; 8-12% p.a.

Homeless? About 1,100 in Waterford.

Social build rate in last 6 months? Zero.

While that is indeed good news, that price point would be out of reach of a significant percentage of the city population. There will always be a need for social/subsidised/affordable housing. I dare say the retail businesses eventually moving in to NQ will be heavily dependent on workers from an income bracket who will require subsidised housing.

Council development needs to happen independently from market not beg/demand private developers to do their job for them.

Even lower end of the range €200k needs €50k pa household income and €25k deposit. That's still a unattainable number for a lot of households in Waterford. Thats the councils market and as pointed out by yourself, zero delivery thus far this year(or last).

Social housing isn't off topic when your development plans to increase the population of the South East and grow it by a considerable amount. Also, don't all private developments have to put aside a certain amount to social housing so your development will have to have social housing too. Or can money get around this issue??
And how is 200k not affordable. If you are on a joint wage less than 50,000 how in gods name should you be aloud own a house in the first place?

Harry Palmr

Kilkenny36 wrote: »

Yeah true. I never want to live in a socialist hell hole like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands. God awful places.

Ah now plenty of Swedes are deeply unhappy with their state these days. Norway can't be compared to any other country such is it's wealth fund. The Dutch are people who built a country out of the sea - they know what they are doing. Not much to do with socialism - more to do with circumstances and the nature of the population.

Anyway this is getting wildly off topic

engiweirdo

tbayers wrote: »

engiweirdo wrote: »

robcass78 wrote: »

tbayers wrote: »

Why would they publish plans on housing against a "proposed" development? All well and good saying that where will all these people live but don't forget nothing has been signed yet, be foolish on anybody's part to build something based on a proposal. If they did the same people would be calling them foolish. Can't win with folk like this. 
And there has also been 2 new residential estates built in Tramore recently. Majority of these were being sold for less than 200,000 euro for a semi detached 3 bedroom. If that isn't affordable what is? Plenty of houses being built in Waterford at the moment but because some people have a sense of entitlement to own a house it isn't good enough for them. As someone mentioned previously, work hard to buy a house. There 44 listings on daft at the moment for houses to rent in Waterford at a range of prices also. Has anybody got any figures for the "dire" homelessness crisis in Waterford?

In relation to the proposed development, if it goes ahead it will be a game changer for Waterford. I know for a fact developers still are sitting on a lot of land. If they see a development of this size coming to the town and surrounding area they will build without hesitation as people will want to come to Waterford to live/work etc. Same with the rental market, they will build to rent. And I personally can't wait for next election because it sounds like some local TD's were very silent on this proposal, to their own detriment it seems.

Specifically, there is 3,700 homes coming to market within 10 minutes of North Quays within next 2 years. 200-350k price point.

That's a far bigger economic impact than North Quays, as it's 851m.

Queue the derision and disbelief on that too until they are built but they will be unlocked as soon as government confirms funding.

Would be faster build rate, as there's a 16,000 shortage in the whole of the South East, but Irish banks don't finance new build construction; they financed about 600m a year when 8bn is required. Biggest root cause of our housing crisis. And it's very profitable lending too; 8-12% p.a.

Homeless? About 1,100 in Waterford.

Social build rate in last 6 months? Zero.

While that is indeed good news, that price point would be out of reach of a significant percentage of the city population. There will always be a need for social/subsidised/affordable housing. I dare say the retail businesses eventually moving in to NQ will be heavily dependent on workers from an income bracket who will require subsidised housing.

Council development needs to happen independently from market not beg/demand private developers to do their job for them.

Even lower end of the range €200k needs €50k pa household income and €25k deposit. That's still a unattainable number for a lot of households in Waterford. Thats the councils market and as pointed out by yourself, zero delivery thus far this year(or last).

Social housing isn't off topic when your development plans to increase the population of the South East and grow it by a considerable amount. Also, don't all private developments have to put aside a certain amount to social housing so your development will have to have social housing too. Or can money get around this issue??
And how is 200k not affordable. If you are on a joint wage less than 50,000 how in gods name should you be aloud own a house in the first place?

There isnt a requirement to "own" a house in this income bracket. But these people do still need somewhere to live, would suffer severe unneccesary financial hardship paying market rate rent and are priced out of acquiring private housing.

The market as has been proven time and time again is not an appropriate method of delivery of public housing. This is best funded and constructed directly by state bodies on a decent scale in order to be cost effective.