Increase in population renting... ticking time bomb?

Graces7

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I will agree, herding old people together wouldn't work for all, but probably should be considered, it's upsetting to hear stories of loneliness and unhappiness of elderly people

Loneliness etc would be worse if uprooted. Trust me on that. And YOU can help.

professore

I recently saw this video on Facebook. Most of the comments were "Why don't her children take her in" etc. I was thinking that if my mother lived there, she would be just like her, and no way in hell she would move. She would have to be carried out. So not sure shipping everyone off to retirement villages is going to work with the current generation. I'd suspect Graces7 is like this lady.

I wouldn't have any problem myself living in a self contained unit as described as long as I had my independence. I do find even now with my mum going to the doctor or hospital that it's all very intrusive and you are on a treadmill of appointments and checkups. I'd hate this to the nth degree if it were the case in a retirement village.

https://www.rferl.org/embed/player/0/29029946.html?type=video

doolox

With planned retirement villages there is always the risk of bankruptcy and cessation of promised services which can be a disaster if the clients have given up their existing family homes and put the resulting proceeds into the place in the retirement village.

Being mostly physical and intellectually vulnerable people the operation of such schemes would need very careful and transparent supervision.

From disasters and debacles in the past, it seems that we cannot trust even government level oversight and supervision of any project.

The provision of elder care, childcare, healthcare, education, justice etc have all come under fire lately for abject abuses and malfeasance and downright misery caused to many 100's of thousands of people since the foundation of the State.

We could be in for a repeat of this if old people are in any way forced or induced to leave their family home and go into a housing unit in a development over which they have little or no control.

Mrs OBumble

Graces7 wrote: »

A great lady who knows her mind.

But who is in denial about how things will work as her body wears out.

Smart people move to older-person-friendly housing long begore they need it.

Wanderer78

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But who is in denial about how things will work as her body wears out.

Smart people move to older-person-friendly housing long begore they need it.

so if people cant afford to do this, are they not smart?

professore

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But who is in denial about how things will work as her body wears out.

Smart people move to older-person-friendly housing long begore they need it.

I've tried to have that discussion several times. Doesn't want to acknowledge it. Refuses to have the conversation. She always taught us to be honest with ourselves - but she isn't being honest with herself now. The worst thing is when my Dad got sick and needed full time care, we went through this process already. In the end he died in hospital before it was needed.

What will probably happen is she will end up in a nursing home not of her choosing. And blame us for putting her in there.

My brother and I both live in small semi detached houses in cities - would need to build a downstairs extension to accommodate her, since she can't get up stairs easily even now, which needs time, money and planning. None of which we will have if the time comes. It's a non starter for either of us to move to the middle of nowhere where she lives with our families who have their own lives to live.

To be blunt for her the best thing would be for her to drift off in her sleep in her own bed at some time in the future. That way she would be at home where she loves the most and none of the above nightmare scenarios happen.

professore

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so if people cant afford to do this, are they not smart?

They are not smart if they own their own house, as a huge amount of Irish elderly do, because they will end up in a retirement home, with chunks of their house being used to pay for it. At least if they bought something else more suitable and sold up they would have control of the process.

Wanderer78

professore wrote: »

They are not smart if they own their own house, as a huge amount of Irish elderly do, because they will end up in a retirement home, with chunks of their house being used to pay for it. At least if they bought something else more suitable and sold up they would have control of the process.

maybe these elderly are just normal irrational human beings, we seem to forget the emotional connection of such a simply object as a home, moving isnt as easy as people think, particularly if good memories exist such as raising a family and the creation of community relationships etc

Old diesel

The Hugh Brennan model looks good.

Council supplys the land - Hugh gets his developer following Tender to build houses @ 170 k or there abouts a home to the buyer.

Residents pay 850 a month mortgage for an A2 BER rated home.

Rather then pay a private landlord 1500 euros a month.

Very nice solotion.

He's looking at developing rental solutions too.

Is it perfect - no.

But it's 650 a month TAX FREE in the bank each month for the buyer.

Co op model - need more of it.

professore

Wanderer78 wrote: »

maybe these elderly are just normal irrational human beings, we seem to forget the emotional connection of such a simply object as a home, moving isnt as easy as people think, particularly if good memories exist such as raising a family and the creation of community relationships etc

I get all that. Moving voluntarily is better than having others do it for you when you can't do it yourself any longer. People can be irrational all they want - but there is a cost associated with that.

Wanderer78

Old diesel wrote: »

The Hugh Brennan model looks good.

Council supplys the land - Hugh gets his developer following Tender to build houses @ 170 k or there abouts a home to the buyer.

Residents pay 850 a month mortgage for an A2 BER rated home.

Rather then pay a private landlord 1500 euros a month.

Very nice solotion.

He's looking at developing rental solutions too.

Is it perfect - no.

But it's 650 a month TAX FREE in the bank each month for the buyer.

Co op model - need more of it.

yea i think co op building needs to be seriously looked at, my own parents home was such a development back in the 70's

Wanderer78

professore wrote: »

I get all that. Moving voluntarily is better than having others do it for you when you can't do it yourself any longer. People can be irrational all they want - but there is a cost associated with that.

like most other housing issues, this to is complicated, with no clear solutions. should the real 'cost' be our overall well being?

tom1ie

Old diesel wrote: »

The Hugh Brennan model looks good.

Council supplys the land - Hugh gets his developer following Tender to build houses @ 170 k or there abouts a home to the buyer.

Residents pay 850 a month mortgage for an A2 BER rated home.

Rather then pay a private landlord 1500 euros a month.

Very nice solotion.

He's looking at developing rental solutions too.

Is it perfect - no.

But it's 650 a month TAX FREE in the bank each month for the buyer.

Co op model - need more of it.

But is there a builder that will say they can build an a2 rated home for 170k? Personally if enough houses are built on the one site, the land is for free, and the government drop vat for these specific houses plus buy materials in bulk from processing manufacturers as opposed to builders suppliers yards, then I think it can be done for less than 170k while still paying good wages to tradespeople.

seamus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so if people cant afford to do this, are they not smart?

They shouldn't have to afford it.

It should be provided by the state with appropriate provisions made where the state performs a clawback/buyback of the individual's estate upon their passing. Equal access for all regardless of circumstances.

Wanderer78

seamus wrote: »

They shouldn't have to afford it.

It should be provided by the state with appropriate provisions made where the state performs a clawback/buyback of the individual's estate upon their passing. Equal access for all regardless of circumstances.

then theres the dreaded, how the hell do we afford all this?

seamus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

then theres the dreaded, how the hell do we afford all this?

Facilities are constructed and maintained by the local authorities and staffed and regulated by the HSE.

Both already have budgets for construction of housing and care in the community, so this nothing new really. There'd no doubt be some short-term jump in costs, but over time the actual cost should be significantly less as the local authorities no longer have to modify or build one-off social houses with disabled access and the health service instead of having to make provision for 100 elderly people in a 3km radius, has those 100 people all living in the same 5 acres.

Edit:
I would like to point out that while I'm apparently flippant about it, I am aware that it's a big undertaking. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Elderly care is going to be a huge issue in the future, and it's ignored at our peril. Depending on the rest of society to voluntarily help, either through the goodness of their hearts or through charity donations, will fall short. It always does. The state has a responsibility to ensure everyone is provided for.

Old diesel

tom1ie wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

The Hugh Brennan model looks good.

Council supplys the land - Hugh gets his developer following Tender to build houses @ 170 k or there abouts a home to the buyer.

Residents pay 850 a month mortgage for an A2 BER rated home.

Rather then pay a private landlord 1500 euros a month.

Very nice solotion.

He's looking at developing rental solutions too.

Is it perfect - no.

But it's 650 a month TAX FREE in the bank each month for the buyer.

Co op model - need more of it.

But is there a builder that will say they can build an a2 rated home for 170k? Personally if enough houses are built on the one site, the land is for free, and the government drop vat for these specific houses plus buy materials in bulk from processing manufacturers as opposed to builders suppliers yards, then I think it can be done for less than 170k while still paying good wages to tradespeople.

1) Hes already built houses under this model at that price.

2) re wider cost in Wexford another builder - Michael Bennett delivered 3 bed passive house for 190 k a unit.

I forgot to mention that part of Hugh Brennans agreement with the local authority is that the development levies are much lower then normal. This is the local authority covering Ballymun (DCC???) - which also allows the price to be lower.

tom1ie

Old diesel wrote: »

1) Hes already built houses under this model at that price.

2) re wider cost in Wexford another builder - Michael Bennett delivered 3 bed passive house for 190 k a unit.

I forgot to mention that part of Hugh Brennans agreement with the local authority is that the development levies are much lower then normal. This is the local authority covering Ballymun (DCC???) - which also allows the price to be lower.

That’s fairly impressive. So if that house is going to be sold as an affordable house by the council, what price would it go for?

awec

Old diesel wrote: »

The Hugh Brennan model looks good.

Council supplys the land - Hugh gets his developer following Tender to build houses @ 170 k or there abouts a home to the buyer.

Residents pay 850 a month mortgage for an A2 BER rated home.

Rather then pay a private landlord 1500 euros a month.

Very nice solotion.

He's looking at developing rental solutions too.

Is it perfect - no.

But it's 650 a month TAX FREE in the bank each month for the buyer.

Co op model - need more of it.

How does the council supply the land? Where do they get it from? If it’s prime land for development it’ll be cost a fortune, councils would be bidding against private developers.

Old diesel

tom1ie wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

1) Hes already built houses under this model at that price.

2) re wider cost in Wexford another builder - Michael Bennett delivered 3 bed passive house for 190 k a unit.

I forgot to mention that part of Hugh Brennans agreement with the local authority is that the development levies are much lower then normal. This is the local authority covering Ballymun (DCC???) - which also allows the price to be lower.

That’s fairly impressive. So if that house is going to be sold as an affordable house by the council, what price would it go for?

I'm not sure what the council would end up selling it for.

The 170 k from Hugh Brennan is an actual cost to buy the home for the buyer

Wanderer78

awec wrote: »

How does the council supply the land? Where do they get it from? If it’s prime land for development it’ll be cost a fortune, councils would be bidding against private developers.

could cpo's be issued if need be?

tom1ie

awec wrote: »

How does the council supply the land? Where do they get it from? If it’s prime land for development it’ll be cost a fortune, councils would be bidding against private developers.

But that’s the thing. If the government are serious about affordable housing they should use prime Nama land and even cpo land, give it to the council and get the houses built for less than 170k and then sell it on, at no profit, to working people who can’t afford the ridiculous mortgages that are needed at the moment.

awec

I could be wrong, but a CPO does not mean the government can buy the land on the cheap. The land owner would have to get the market rate.

Someone subject to a CPO, to the best of my knowledge, cannot come out of it worse off financially. So if they own land worth 1 million, the government cannot CPO it for less than this.

Wanderer78

awec wrote: »

I could be wrong, but a CPO does not mean the government can buy the land on the cheap. The land owner would have to get the market rate.

Someone subject to a CPO, to the best of my knowledge, cannot come out of it worse off financially. So if they own land worth 1 million, the government cannot CPO it for less than this.

i believe you are correct

tom1ie

awec wrote: »

I could be wrong, but a CPO does not mean the government can buy the land on the cheap. The land owner would have to get the market rate.

Someone subject to a CPO, to the best of my knowledge, cannot come out of it worse off financially. So if they own land worth 1 million, the government cannot CPO it for less than this.

What if the land is a state asset or owned by cie or Nama etc? Could the land then be given to the council for free?

4068ac1elhodqr

tom1ie wrote: »

What if the land is a state asset or owned by cie or Nama etc? Could the land then be given to the council for free?

Then just send in the robots to avoid pricey tradesfolk.
3D-printed public housing unveiled in France

Still requires a single supervisor to make sure 'BatiPrint3D' doesn't take any long oil/tea-breaks, or develop sentience and philosophy on the meaning of life and fabric of existence.

One report suggest it was built by a 'bot in 54hrs, other report is 18days.



Technically it's the first house built in situ for human habitation using a robot 3D-printer. Insulaiton good for 100yrs, self-automated/regulated.

Authorities in Nantes are planning further 3D-printed building projects, including a housing estate.

Cupatae

Graces7 wrote: »

Wish folk would stop with the "free house " thing. IF they applied the going rent, they would have to raise eg pensions and welfare allowances. So yes, "free" and "free" many other things if that it your way of thinking,

So they d have to pay them more free money, to pay for their free house.. its pretty much the same thing, lol Its boarding on free, whats wrong with that..why are you offended by me stating the obvious?

tom1ie

Lamar Icy Gill wrote: »

Then just send in the robots to avoid pricey tradesfolk.
3D-printed public housing unveiled in France

Still requires a single supervisor to make sure 'BatiPrint3D' doesn't take any long oil/tea-breaks, or develop sentience and philosophy on the meaning of life and fabric of existence.

One report suggest it was built by a 'bot in 54hrs, other report is 18days.



Technically it's the first house built in situ for human habitation using a robot 3D-printer. Insulaiton good for 100yrs, self-automated/regulated.

Authorities in Nantes are planning further 3D-printed building projects, including a housing estate.

Eh well I agree with this once you can make food clothes and everything else for free and then people won’t have to earn a living.

Tradespeople and laborers etc can still earn a good wage if the state were to:
give land
Get rid of vat for specific state House building projects
Reduce material costs by buying in bulk from materials manufacturers.

In other words run a parallel house building project to the private developers, except the state one would be not for profit. People buying state built homes would still have to get a mortgage, albeit much more affordable.
Hence affordable housing.

4068ac1elhodqr

tom1ie wrote: »

Eh well I agree with this once you can make food clothes and everything else for free and then people won’t have to earn a living.

Eh??

Never said give away stuff for free. Point was 'BatiPrint3D' may be able to build housing cheaper, better and faster than current labour intensive methods.

Worth watching how the French develop this if they're getting their Robot to build an entire estate. Obviously they'll still need roads, groundworks etc.

tom1ie

Lamar Icy Gill wrote: »

Eh??

Never said give away stuff for free. Point was 'BatiPrint3D' may be able to build housing cheaper, better and faster than current labour intensive methods.

Worth watching how the French develop this if they're getting their Robot to build an entire estate. Obviously they'll still need roads, groundworks etc.

Yes but if you get robots to build a house you put tradespeople out of work who cant earn a living to take out a reasonable mortgage to buy a house. If no mortgages are taken out banks don’t make money.
It’s a fine balance but at the moment we are too far over the profit for banks and builders end of the see saw.