Bedsits coming back?

blackvalley

If a developer cannot make a reasonable profit why should he build ?. The issue is far more complicated than simply that developers are not building .
I now await the backlash from the usual sources who consider " Profit " to be a dirty word.

Technocentral

Bedsits are bloody awful, but a lot of 40, 50+ year olds want privacy and don't want to share with other people. I couldn't live without a separate bedroom and living space, seriously depressing.

Claw Hammer

6541 wrote: »

I am so disappointed at this news. Bedsits, third world dives owned by slum landlords. So that is where we are at in Ireland in 2017. Just get the finger out and start facking building. Jayus.

Building takes time. What about the meantime?

Claw Hammer

PhoenixParker wrote: »

By the time bedsits were banned there were very few of them left in Dublin or around the country. Census 2006 found 5405 in all of Dublin, that was of 420,429 households. Basically you're talking just over 1%.

Is that more than the number sleeping rough and in hostels?

Claw Hammer

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

Thank-you! Enough faffing about in the 'think tank' & just do it.

Bedsits might temporarily solve the lack of student accommodation, single people living on the streets, or single people on the housing list, but they are not suitable for anyone with children who make up the vast majority of the housing lists.

It would become a very slippery slope. The danger is that we'll be reverting to the tenement days, as single people from housing lists will eventually procreate & be stuck in overcrowded bedsits, resulting in poor, cramped & unhealthy living conditions. There's very little difference between the B&B accommodations presently being used and bedsits anyway.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, not one foundation has been laid.

Students often share units which could be used by families. Just because people who live in a bedsit have children doesn't meant they have to stay living in one. people can cook in bedsits unlike hotels. people have security of tenure in bedsits unlike in hotels.
A temporary short term solution is better than no solution. permitting a small number of bedsits is not a cure all or intended to be. It is a relief measure pending permanent solutions.

pilly

I don't see the difference between sharing a bathroom in a house-share or in a bedsit, both are effectively strangers to you.

Bedsits suit a lot of older people especially who do not want to share a house with others.

pilly

4ensic15 wrote: »

The price of them is irrelevant. The market will decide the price. What matters is if accommodation which is unused comes into use. Whoever moves into them will free up a bed space elsewhere in the market. That is an increase in supply which will have an effect in reducing rents. Even a slight increase in supply is more than welcome at the moment.

The price is not irrelevant at all. The reason a lot of people used to live in bedsits is because they couldn't afford anything else.

The likes of people who move into bedsits will not free up a bedspace elsewhere except in hostels.

handlemaster

I think the answer to all this is people will have a choice of low cost rental. No one will be forced to live in a bed sit

4ensic15

pilly wrote: »

The price is not irrelevant at all. The reason a lot of people used to live in bedsits is because they couldn't afford anything else.

The likes of people who move into bedsits will not free up a bedspace elsewhere except in hostels.

Bedsits were never cheaper than sharing. Most people in bedsits didn't want to share. Even if people move from hostels to bedsits it might help someone on the street get a hostel bed.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

Bedsits were never cheaper than sharing. Most people in bedsits didn't want to share. Even if people move from hostels to bedsits it might help someone on the street get a hostel bed.

Oh yes they were. Back in 2006 I was paying 700 a month for the box room in a house share and my friend was paying 300 a month for a bedsit on Haddington road. I was always jealous of him, not just for his rent but having his own corner of the world. Meanwhile there were regular arguments in the house I was sharing over minor things.

4ensic15

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh yes they were. Back in 2006 I was paying 700 a month for the box room in a house share and my friend was paying 300 a month for a bedsit on Haddington road. I was always jealous of him, not just for his rent but having his own corner of the world. Meanwhile there were regular arguments in the house I was sharing over minor things.

You are taking two instances of rent. I know of house shares which were €350 in 2006 and bedsits which were €600. Typically bedsits were dearer. In the old days a lot of landlords did not review rent until a tenant left and often left a tenant on a low rent for years.

whisky_galore

If bedsits become the new norm, it's a fair bet they will rise in rent price in line with the almighty 'market price' and become unaffordable for those they were intended to accommodate. Stroke pulling by landlords will of course make a mockery of rent pressure zones.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

If bedsits become the new norm, it's a fair bet they will rise in rent price in line with the almighty 'market price' and become unaffordable for those they were intended to accommodate. Stroke pulling by landlords will of course make a mockery of rent pressure zones.

Rent pressure zones are a far bigger "stroke" than anythung LLs do to get around them. The market should set the rent not some poorly though out populist nonsense rent control.

whisky_galore

Luka Loose Yeast wrote: »

Rent pressure zones are a far bigger "stroke" than anythung LLs do to get around them. The market should set the rent not some poorly though out populist nonsense rent control.

This 'populist nonsense' is one of the few things keeping people from shaking the dust of this kip off their feet and going elsewhere where a sane market exists.
If it was all up to 'the market' no b*stard except the high earners could tolerate the rents as they are.

pilly

4ensic15 wrote: »

You are taking two instances of rent. I know of house shares which were €350 in 2006 and bedsits which were €600. Typically bedsits were dearer. In the old days a lot of landlords did not review rent until a tenant left and often left a tenant on a low rent for years.

I know you're stubbornly trying to stick to your point 4ensic15 and I don't know how old you are but you're wrong on this issue.

Bedsits were in the old days ALWAYS the cheapest way to live.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

This 'populist nonsense' is one of the few things keeping people from shaking the dust of this kip off their feet and going elsewhere where a sane market exists.
If it was all up to 'the market' no b*stard except the high earners could tolerate the rents as they are.

First off this country is not a kip and rent is not a reason people are leaving, in fact its the opposite people are moving back since the economy has improved.

The market should set the price of rent simple as that, it will adjust to a level naturally then. High earners cannot fill every available property so if people cannot afford them the market will have to reduce to meet a level that people can afford.

Rent controls are totally unfair on LLs trying to run a business that is totally over regulated in favour of tenants. They are not charities and should be allowed conduct their business without constant rule changes making their life harder and harder and making it more and more difficult to make any money from it.

pilly wrote: »

I know you're stubbornly trying to stick to your point 4ensic15 and I don't know how old you are but you're wrong on this issue.

Bedsits were in the old days ALWAYS the cheapest way to live.

I don't know if I'd agree on that. They were the cheapest way of living alone but as a general rule there is no way a bed sit would be cheaper than a room in a houseshare and why would it? A bedsit in any half decent condition is preferable to sharing with people imo.

cinnamony

Why not build high rises? If properly built and to safety standards they can house many people in a small space. These types of buildings make sense in a city like Dublin.

I would suggest asking some companies to move from Dublin to less populated areas to free up space in Cork and Dublin but let's be real here...

John_Rambo

Luka Loose Yeast wrote: »

The market should set the price of rent simple as that, it will adjust to a level naturally then. High earners cannot fill every available property so if people cannot afford them the market will have to reduce to meet a level that people can afford.

Are you aware this is actually happening right now in the real world? (not your imaginary world where you're a massively successful landlord) And that there's a housing shortage and less well off people going homeless every day?

TresGats

At present on Daft there are 6 pre-'63 houses for sale under 2m, total beds= 50. However, all of these are already converted into 2, 1 bed and studios, so I fail to see where the housing stock is going to come from. There are policies, and then there is reality.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

You are taking two instances of rent. I know of house shares which were €350 in 2006 and bedsits which were €600. Typically bedsits were dearer. In the old days a lot of landlords did not review rent until a tenant left and often left a tenant on a low rent for years.

Im taking two instances of rents in properties that were about 500 metres from each other. I wasn't paying 700 a month in the house share because I have a penchant for breakfast bars it was the cheapest I could find at the time.

Electric Sheep

John_Rambo wrote: »

Are you aware this is actually happening right now in the real world? (not your imaginary world where you're a massively successful landlord) And that there's a housing shortage and less well off people going homeless every day?

Now now, don't be mean to poor Nox. It's hard to be in your mid 30s and not have a foot on even the lowest rung of the property ladder.

I hope that one day he fulfills his dream of owning at least the four walls around him.

4ensic15

[QUOTE=Deleted User;104689645. I wasn't paying 700 a month in the house share because I have a penchant for breakfast bars it was the cheapest I could find at the time.[/QUOTE]

I regard that as a tribute to your personality and negotiating skills. Many other people were able to secure much lower priced sharing.

Electric Sheep

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Now now, don't be mean to poor Nox. It's hard to be in your mid 30s and not have a foot on even the lowest rung of the property ladder.

I hope that one day he fulfills his dream of owning at least the four walls around him.

Ha ha if only you knew the reality

John_Rambo wrote: »

Are you aware this is actually happening right now in the real world? (not your imaginary world where you're a massively successful landlord) And that there's a housing shortage and less well off people going homeless every day?

If you can't afford you have to live else where, if an areas rent is set by high earner then so be it. I have absolutely no time whatsoever for this integrating social housing with private owners, I've see it happen in an estate where I lived for a while and it's just trouble and totally unfair on people who bought their property and want to live amoung like minded people.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

Bringing back bedsits is not going to help in the short term.

You will see a rash of apartments taken off the market while they are "refurbished", appearing back on the market split into multiple units. What was previously a two-bed for €1,600 will now be two bedsits @ €1,000 each.

I know a lot of people whinge about the outlawing of bedsits. But in this market if you want a "race to the bottom", then allowing bedsits is most definitely achieving that.

There may be merit in bedsits in a working property market. We don't have a working property market.

A bedsit is usually a larger room, more like a studio apartment without a separate toilet. Usually there is room for a bed, a living area and some cooking facilities/wash sink. They made sense to fill up large Georgian buildings that had large rooms that couldn't be subdivided easily.

If people would pay €1,000 for a bedroom in a shared apartment, then that's what the market will take at the moment. They won't pay a premium just because it is labelled a bedsit. If anything, calling it a bedsit will reduce it's perceived value.

_Dara_

Luka Loose Yeast wrote: »

If you can't afford you have to live else where, if an areas rent is set by high earner then so be it. I have absolutely no time whatsoever for this integrating social housing with private owners, I've see it happen in an estate where I lived for a while and it's just trouble and totally unfair on people who bought their property and want to live amoung like minded people.

Yeah, eeeeewwww, poor people.

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

Yeah, eeeeewwww, poor people.

More like anti social behaviour, trouble making etc. Social housing has no place in a mature established estates or areas.

I've seen it first hand and I don't think the council should be allowed to buy houses in these areas and sell them in at a fraction of the cost to people availing of social housing.

_Dara_

Luka Loose Yeast wrote: »

More like anti social behaviour, trouble making etc. Social housing has no place in a mature established estates or areas.

I've seen it first hand and I don't think the council should be allowed to buy houses in these areas and sell them in at a fraction of the cost to people availing of social housing.

Yeah, there was three council estates in my hometown. A lot of my friends came from those estates. They were non-troublemaking, sound, ambitious people. And the likes of you looked down their noses at them for the great crime of being born less fortunate. Charming. Because, make no mistake, you are looking down your nose at less fortunate folk than you. "like-minded people" - outline what you mean by this.

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

Yeah, there was three council estates in my hometown. A lot of my friends came from those estates. They were non-troublemaking, sound, ambitious people. And the likes of you looked down their noses at them for the great crime of being born less fortunate. Charming. Because, make no mistake, you are looking down your nose at less fortunate folk than you. "like-minded people" - outline what you mean by this.

Working professionals and families owning in the who have to actually pay market value for a house or young professionals paying market rate rent.

I was only renting in the estate but I would sure as hell be extremely annoyed if I was an owner knowing the neighbour got their house for 80k while people working hard and paying tax at 50% have to pay 300k for the same house. The people that moved in were also thugs and were a terrible fit for the area.

The house should have been sold at market value to a private individual and not to the council.

_Dara_

Well, at least you stand by your snobbery, that's something at least.

LirW

I live in a terrace of 10 houses in a small village, 5 privately owned and 5 are still in council's ownership.
I couldn't give a toss about the arrangements of my neighbors. Beside the elderly lady, there are solely families in the council houses, my boy is friends with all the kids. All the families have at least one working parent. Wouldn't annoy me in the slightest if one of them buys the house out of council ownership because honestly: I don't care, good for them, they're all lovely people.