Not viable to build affortable apartments?

antoinolachtnai

This thing with using space above shops has been tried in various ways over a long period. I don't think the promoters really understand how modern retail works. It is just not practical in many instances to use the space above the shop as living accommodation as a large proportion of it is required for stock, offices and various other business accommodation.

The idea that FF seem to have is that having a stronger enforcement of fire regulations, there would result in more people living above shops and in subdivided houses. On the face of it this is nonsense. More stringent regulations, on the whole, will make it less attractive to have people living above shops.

There are strong reasons to improve regulation and there are strong reasons to get more accommodation into circulation. But the idea that the first will result in the latter is just unintelligible

jimmycrackcorm

Pixel Eater wrote:

And while I'm at it; this proposal from Fianna Fail to open up spaces above shops and other commercial buildings. While it's a welcome development I just wonder why it needs the Government to sanction it, surely it should be the Council's job?

A specific urban regeneration scheme could help this but I also think it's impractical for many aspects from business disruption to more likely suitable use as office space.

I think many Irish people dislike apartment purchases because of the negatives of having management companies. You could pay off your mortgage and sell have to pay management fees that an equivalent house owner wouldn't have, and you'd get short shrift for hanging out washing to dry or putting up a satellite dish.

flaneur

The prejudice is justified because of the history of poor regulation, poor construction controls and poor management of apartments in Ireland.

You’ve had everything from Ballymun - which was just let go feral without any management infrastructure, community councils etc etc, Priory Hall with construction issues and everyone’s had experiences of rip off management companies, poor levels of service, locked in TV and broadband systems, ridiculous parking arrangements, etc etc etc

Basically the reason that Irish people don’t trust apartments is because they’ve always been done quite badly, there’s no regulatory framework and they would rather have control of their own building because they can’t guarantee that they’ll be able to rely on shared services.

If you want to have apartments like other parts of Northern Europe, you have to stop benchmarking against low UK standards (they do this as badly as we do) and start coming up with proper, workable regulatory frameworks and legal structures to make this possible and pleasant

Wringing our hands and saying it’s “cultural” isn’t an acceptable answer. It’s cultural because of decades of regulatory failure and ripping off.

__..__

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

A specific urban regeneration scheme could help this but I also think it's impractical for many aspects from business disruption to more likely suitable use as office space.

I think many Irish people dislike apartment purchases because of the negatives of having management companies. You could pay off your mortgage and sell have to pay management fees that an equivalent house owner wouldn't have, and you'd get short shrift for hanging out washing to dry or putting up a satellite dish.

Ive bought apartments in the past and one of the first things i have checked out were management fees.
For example ive seen 1 bed apartments in dublin with fees in excess of €1500.
Straight away they were knocked off my list, as was anything over 1000.
I have just sold a 1 bed apartment in DUblin and the management fee on it is €640 per annum. I currently still own one one bed and the management fee is €710. These are proper management fees.
Its criminal how much management fees are in a lot of places. People should not even be considering apartments that have management fees that are too high now.

Mrs OBumble

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

A specific urban regeneration scheme could help this but I also think it's impractical for many aspects from business disruption to more likely suitable use as office space.

I live above a shop.

Lots of people do in inner city Galway due to planning requirements when lots of the city was revamped.

It's far from impractical, and we provide very handy out of hours security for the business community.

We do need to be aware of noise during the day. But my heating bills are very low.

antoinolachtnai

The issue is about density tho'. If you build a fairly dense development which is serviced by one road and has 300 apartments and 300 parking spaces, you have to plan for up to 300 car movements to and from the building each rush hour. If the road is already very busy and only has two or four lanes, then you are going to overwhelm the road and cause a giant traffic jam. You won't get planning permission for this for obvious reasons.

If there are fewer cars, then you can build with a higher density. Higher density won't make construction of units cheaper, but it will change the character of the city and reduce pressure on building land.

Pixel Eater

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

This thing with using space above shops has been tried in various ways over a long period. I don't think the promoters really understand how modern retail works. It is just not practical in many instances to use the space above the shop as living accommodation as a large proportion of it is required for stock, offices and various other business accommodation.

The idea that FF seem to have is that having a stronger enforcement of fire regulations, there would result in more people living above shops and in subdivided houses. On the face of it this is nonsense. More stringent regulations, on the whole, will make it less attractive to have people living above shops.

There are strong reasons to improve regulation and there are strong reasons to get more accommodation into circulation. But the idea that the first will result in the latter is just unintelligible

Well I'm sure that's true of many spaces over shops but Dublin Council estimate that there is over 4000 of there vacant spaces. Even if a third of these were turned into living accommodation it would contribute to the housing stock.

antoinolachtnai

There is an article about it here. Andrew Montague reckons there are considerably fewer than 4000 vacant spaces.

https://www.dublininquirer.com/2017/04/04/above-shops-thousands-of-apartments-are-still-sitting-vacant/

But it could well be. It's also the case that there are reckoned to be 32,000 vacant housing units in Dublin. If even a tenth of those were turned into living accommodation it would also be a significant contribution. DCC itself also has units lying vacant. It's all a question of where you put the priority really. It sometimes seems like everybody thinks everybody else should solve the housing crisis.

Pixel Eater

So we know why the Irish in general haven't taken to apartment living (poor built standards/poor management/ high fees etc.)
And we mostly hear about the bad examples (of which there is numerous unfortunately) however I'm sure there must be a few good examples;
anyone have any good examples where has been done right?

PhoenixParker

Pixel Eater wrote: »

So we know why the Irish in general haven't taken to apartment living (poor built standards/poor management/ high fees etc.)
And we mostly hear about the bad examples (of which there is numerous unfortunately) however I'm sure there must be a few good examples;
anyone have any good examples where has been done right?

Since the new building regs came out any apartments built have been far more livable then was previously the case. First the updates at the tail end of the boom and i think there have been improved again since.There are many families living in apartments near me in Ashtown for instance.

https://touch.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-sale/ashtown/40-cassian-court-south-royal-canal-park-ashtown-dublin-1468363

Like this for instance. Big enough for one or two kids. Opens onto a safe internal courtyard. Shop, cafe, playground and creche within 250m. Schools within 15 min walk.

wordofwarning

flaneur wrote: »

The prejudice is justified because of the history of poor regulation, poor construction controls and poor management of apartments in Ireland.

You’ve had everything from Ballymun - which was just let go feral without any management infrastructure, community councils etc etc, Priory Hall with construction issues and everyone’s had experiences of rip off management companies, poor levels of service, locked in TV and broadband systems, ridiculous parking arrangements, etc etc etc

Ballymun failed due to the residents. No politician has the balls to say that. The state basically took the least educated, poorest and disadvantaged individuals of the city and put them in a single area. I know there is always the whole, they didn't have services etc etc. Very few of the residents of the private housing literally almost touching the flats, did not end up massive social issues.

Social housing in the UK eventually started to fail, as initially it only housed educated people with jobs. When the calibre of tenant started to decline, the massive social issues started to emerge. I think it is quite ironic, that all of Ballymuns problems were done to lacks of jobs and services etc. Yet when flats literally in the middle of the city had the same social problems, despite no shortage of jobs or services. People have no comment on why they failed...

flaneur wrote: »

Basically the reason that Irish people don’t trust apartments is because they’ve always been done quite badly, there’s no regulatory framework and they would rather have control of their own building because they can’t guarantee that they’ll be able to rely on shared services.

You can replace a management company if you wish. I know of at least 3 developments that friends have apartments in, where they replaced the management agent with their own picking/own company. People are indifferent about apartments, as a majority are investor owned. As an investor why would you care about the services, when at the end of the day you want costs as low as possible to maximise your return? I know of an apartment block in Dublin City that had about 90 apartments. Not a single one was owner occupied

flaneur wrote: »

If you want to have apartments like other parts of Northern Europe, you have to stop benchmarking against low UK standards (they do this as badly as we do) and start coming up with proper, workable regulatory frameworks and legal structures to make this possible and pleasant

Wringing our hands and saying it’s “cultural” isn’t an acceptable answer. It’s cultural because of decades of regulatory failure and ripping off.

We can't have apartments like Northern Europe. Planners have decided that every apartment even in the IFSC really needs a car space, dual aspect, a ton of lifts etc. Developers are going to cut corners, when planners tell them to put in things people don't want and have to pay for

We are bench marking to UK standards, we have created unique standards that make no sense.

the_syco

LirW wrote: »

People are buying off-plan all the time in various developments in Dublin. Why not apartments too?

Ballymun Flats and Priory Hall are why not apartments.

Priory Hall were lucky; it could've been the Irish version of Grenfell Tower!

Ballymun flats is what happens if there is no management company that looks after the flats, no sink fund, no money to pay maintenance. The place starts to go down the drain, and no-one but the people living there will care, but as they were on SW, they wouldn't have had the funds to pay for it to be fixed.

=-=

Make 24 floors the new max height of apartments, and have the external walls and floors made out of reinforced concrete. No sound from above, below, or the sides. Most of the apartments that I've been to in Dublin had issues of sound travelling all too easily between apartments.

Pixel Eater

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1024/914732-scsi_apartment_costs/

Another report to confirm that apartments are indeed much more expensive to build. Maybe we need to reduce levies for high densities developments in certain locations?

antoinolachtnai

The problem with reducing levies is that you take income away from the local authority. The local authority really needs that money to build infrastructure to serve a growing population. Levies aren't just a get-rich-quick scheme.

I think a grant per satisfactory completion would be a better way to do it. Government should also guarantee to buy these apartments for a predetermined price. The more you complete, the more money you get, and the sooner you complete, the sooner you get it.

The building cost is certainly too high, and it will take a few years of actual construction to drive it down.

oppenheimer1

Reducing levies won't reduce prices. Prices will stay the same because people are buying at the prices advertised at the moment. All that will happen is profits for people involved in the construction industry will rise.

Prices are set by the market, with a price floor due to build cost. Only a massive increase in building will make prices fall towards the price floor. If at that point apartments still won't sell because developers won't sell below cost, then you should look at changing taxes.

antoinolachtnai

We definitely do need to get a lot of apartments built to make much impact on price.

The problem is that few builders will build as things stand. It is just too risky. If the costs were lower, or even if there was a guaranteed buyer it would reduce the risk.

flaneur

You need to increase supply to reduce the prices.
I think the problem is the state is still exposed to the housing market until NAMA is cleared down and while it still owns the majority of the Irish banks.

It basically has been put into a situation where it has a vested interest in keeping a floor under property prices.

Idbatterim

you see when you buy a house you do not have to pay an annual fee. The amount of it can scare many people off. Because it only goes one way and that's up!

hang on, many estates that have houses now , also have management fees, it isnt just apartments...

noise is a massive issue I have had to endure in apartments, as a few of you have mentioned! the dividing walls between properties should be concrete...

Pixel Eater

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The problem with reducing levies is that you take income away from the local authority. The local authority really needs that money to build infrastructure to serve a growing population. Levies aren't just a get-rich-quick scheme.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Reducing levies won't reduce prices. Prices will stay the same because people are buying at the prices advertised at the moment. All that will happen is profits for people involved in the construction industry will rise.

Prices are set by the market, with a price floor due to build cost. Only a massive increase in building will make prices fall towards the price floor. If at that point apartments still won't sell because developers won't sell below cost, then you should look at changing taxes.

I see what you're saying about levies but if nothing is being built then no levies are collected in any case and if it's not profitable to build nothing will be built. Presuming these higher density units would be built in central location where the infrastructure would be somewhat already well developed therefore less levies would be required. In any case since there would be far more units per acre - compared to a suburban development - even if the levies were reduced for individual units the amount would still exceed the amount from a low density estate.

Even reduce levies (or tax) for a temporary time to kick-start construction.

antoinolachtnai

Not really, you really need the levies! New development brings population growth and you need infrastructure and services to meet it.

But something does have to move. I would suggest a grant from central government rather than a reduction in levies

Pixel Eater

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Not really, you really need the levies! New development brings population growth and you need infrastructure and services to meet it.

But something does have to move. I would suggest a grant from central government rather than a reduction in levies

I'm not suggesting abolishing levies just reducing them, even temporarily. And I don't see how a grant from central government could be better; that would be taking money from an already tight budget. And giving it to developers could be a hard pitch to sell. Surly cutting levies or charges would be a more straight forward approach?

knipex

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The problem with reducing levies is that you take income away from the local authority. The local authority really needs that money to build infrastructure to serve a growing population. Levies aren't just a get-rich-quick scheme.

Which is why they are so quick (not universally but in general) to cut LPT..

Idbatterim

The problem with reducing levies is that you take income away from the local authority. The local authority really needs that money to build infrastructure to serve a growing population. Levies aren't just a get-rich-quick scheme.

I think a grant per satisfactory completion would be a better way to do it. Government should also guarantee to buy these apartments for a predetermined price. The more you complete, the more money you get, and the sooner you complete, the sooner you get it.

The building cost is certainly too high, and it will take a few years of actual construction to drive it down.

yeah, which is why I proposed hiking the LPT... the councils, who claim to be broke, cut it as much as they can , its due for a hike in 2019... cut the levies and actually charge a level of LPT that isnt a farce...

antoinolachtnai

The theory of the thing is that development levies should cover new infrastructure, and yearly charges should cover maintenance and renewal.

The rate reductions for LPT are as much reflective of the urban-rural divide as anything else. There may well be a case for increasing it, but I would say it’s a separate issue. Hiking LPT would have political implications certainly and it would not make investing in property more attractive.

I just think this problem is a lot bigger than local authorities. It needs central funding.

Idbatterim

The theory of the thing is that development levies should cover new infrastructure, and yearly charges should cover maintenance and renewal.

The rate reductions for LPT are as much reflective of the urban-rural divide as anything else. There may well be a case for increasing it, but I would say it’s a separate issue. Hiking LPT would have political implications certainly and it would not make investing in property more attractive.

I just think this problem is a lot bigger than local authorities. It needs central funding.

i wouldnt hike the rate, property inflation will naturally hike it... far easier politically, also I am not sure if I would let the local authorities drop the rate by 15% or whatever percent they have lee way over, the

antoinolachtnai

Well as it is, people in cities are paying a lot toward their local services. People who live in a place where property is less valuable pay a lot less.

A hike is a hike! It won’t go down well. Urban voters won’t just take whatever is thrown at them.

There are good reasons to give local authorities some power to set taxation.

It would be better to give extra tax money to people who actually develop property rather than to local authorities who may or may not use the money to facilitate new housing.