New Ballsbridge apartments development €3,850 to €6,000 / month

Ronaldinho

Graham wrote: »

Are you genuinely suggesting buying some of the most expensive land in the country would be a good use of very limited affordable housing resources?

Agree in principal. But.. in the case of a similar development - Landsdowne Place, 50 odd luxury units there were substituted for 50 odd social housing units in Ringsend at much lower cost to the developer. What sort of negotiation was that by DCC? https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/developer-not-providing-social-housing-at-ballsbridge-site-1.3335690

Zenify

Zenify wrote: »

A grand a day is 500 after tax, 2,500 per week... roughly 10k per month. 6k in rent would be 60% of their pay which would be very steep particularly with that sort of a wage.

If there was 2 people on that wage sharing an apartment I could understand, then its 30%. But people here are saying it's short term people using them not young families.... obviously someone will be paying it or it wouldn't be up. I'm just curious to know as I cant figure out who would afford it.

It’s a lot more than €500 after tax if your entity and its finances are properly structured and managed. There’s a good reason why some people can’t contract and it’s usually because they think like the average PAYE employee.

€4-6k a month is not outrageous for many.

smelly sock

Moonjet wrote: »

http://www.98fm.com/Ballsbridge-Apartments-To-Set-New-Rental-High




I understand there are wealthy CEOs/etc of multinationals who may not live here permanently. But for others (e.g. people on high salaries who live here permanently), why wouldn't you just buy property instead of paying up to €48,000/year in rent? Will they be used by consulates? AirBNB? I just can't see the market for these.

9000 homeless. This is a disgrace. The government would rather rich landlords than people housed.

Ronaldinho

smelly sock wrote: »

9000 homeless. This is a disgrace. The government would rather rich landlords than people housed.

Is there not going to be anyone living / housed in those gaffs?

Amirani

Heebie wrote: »

It's part of every Irish person's "job" as an Irish person to make sure that every Irish person has what we need at a minimum.

Sorry, but no it isn't. Individual people have zero direct obligation to you, regardless of whether you're Irish or not.

smelly sock

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Is there not going to be anyone living / housed in those gaffs?

Houses for rich people. Not for people who need them.

Ronaldinho

smelly sock wrote: »

Houses for rich people. Not for people who need them.

Rich people need a house too do they not?

smelly sock

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Rich people need a house too do they not?

Rich people will always have s house.

runawaybishop

smelly sock wrote: »

9000 homeless. This is a disgrace. The government would rather rich landlords than people housed.

The government built these did they?

Ronaldinho

smelly sock wrote: »

Rich people will always have s house.

Not if YOU want to kick them out and make them homeless. Shame on you.

Heebie

I make well over "the average wage" and there's no way in hell I'd ever consider paying € 48,000-72,000/year in rent. I wouldn't pay that much on a mortgage, either. That amount is absolutely outrageous for all but a very small few. "Not outrageous for many" is just nonsense.
The only drive for them to be so expensive is greed, and that is inexcusable when there are so many people homeless, and so many more in inadequate housing.

Heebie

Amirani wrote:

Sorry, but no it isn't. Individual people have zero direct obligation to you, regardless of whether you're Irish or not.

Have you ever read Bunreacht Eireann?

Heebie

Ronaldinho wrote:

Rich people need a house too do they not?

Not generally. They usually already have several.

4ensic15

Heebie wrote: »

Have you ever read Bunreacht Eireann?

You clearly haven't, you can't even get the title right.

Heebie

Heebie wrote: »

I make well over "the average wage" and there's no way in hell I'd ever consider paying € 48,000-72,000/year in rent. I wouldn't pay that much on a mortgage, either. That amount is absolutely outrageous for all but a very small few. "Not outrageous for many" is just nonsense.
The only drive for them to be so expensive is greed, and that is inexcusable when there are so many people homeless, and so many more in inadequate housing.

Nonsense? There are a great many people living and working in Dublin City Centre who can easily afford to spend €4000-6000 a month on housing. Many. Easily.

It’s ridiculous to believe otherwise to be honest. How much do you think it costs each year in interest alone to service a €1m+ home mortgage for property around Ballsbridge/D4?

NSAman

Heebie wrote: »

I make well over "the average wage" and there's no way in hell I'd ever consider paying € 48,000-72,000/year in rent. I wouldn't pay that much on a mortgage, either. That amount is absolutely outrageous for all but a very small few. "Not outrageous for many" is just nonsense.
The only drive for them to be so expensive is greed, and that is inexcusable when there are so many people homeless, and so many more in inadequate housing.

You DO realise that most apartments in the city center are renting for between 3 and 5 thousand a month for a 2 bed ????

Cyrus

This thread is hilarious, developer builds high end office space and apartments on one of if not the premier site in Dublin

Instead of selling the apartments for 2-8m a piece like the developers next door they are setting up a high end corporate let arrangement something Dublin is missing and will no doubt prove popular with google and Facebook who are very proximate

And the thread has descended into the usual socialist horse sh!t about housing for the poor , Jesus wept

Ray Palmer

NSAman wrote: »

The Irish don't don;t have the culture of corporate lets. Property is for buying. In many other countries property is let on short-term corporate lets for Executives flying in for a brief period of time, it is an apartment but with hotel amenities.

Must go back in time and tell my father he wasn't doing a corporate let for 20 years from the 80s. It has always existed just not a huge section of the market.

nim1bdeh38l2cw

Zenify wrote: »

A grand a day is 500 after tax, 2,500 per week... roughly 10k per month. 6k in rent would be 60% of their pay which would be very steep particularly with that sort of a wage.

If there was 2 people on that wage sharing an apartment I could understand, then its 30%. But people here are saying it's short term people using them not young families.... obviously someone will be paying it or it wouldn't be up. I'm just curious to know as I cant figure out who would afford it.

Retention is approx 60-65% as a contractor. First 3 months rent can be expensed if relocating, etc etc etc

mkdon

incentsitive wrote: »

If we build more, and higher, then the value of these will reduce.

why can't we build higher what's height restriction n where?

Heebie

NSAman wrote:

You DO realise that most apartments in the city center are renting for between 3 and 5 thousand a month for a 2 bed ????

I do, and it's criminal

Assetbacked

Cyrus wrote: »

This thread is hilarious, developer builds high end office space and apartments on one of if not the premier site in Dublin

Instead of selling the apartments for 2-8m a piece like the developers next door they are setting up a high end corporate let arrangement something Dublin is missing and will no doubt prove popular with google and Facebook who are very proximate

And the thread has descended into the usual socialist horse sh!t about housing for the poor , Jesus wept

It is not sustainable to base, not just our tax revenue, but also our housing needs on Google and Facebook. When these companies go through the typical shrinking that occurs with tech companies (i.e. a better version comes along, as is always the case), we will be left with idle apartment blocks, destitute villages due to the impermanent nature of allowing for this type of housing only being built in the area. The important point is that short-term lets are the only housing being built in Dublin 2 and 4 - it is astounding how this is still allowed.

pc7

But this developer gave/sold 53 apartments to the council in Ringsend to not give them on this site, so its mute that 'poor' people weren't housed. They still got pretty central accommodation.

lawred2

Assetbacked wrote: »

It is not sustainable to base, not just our tax revenue, but also our housing needs on Google and Facebook. When these companies go through the typical shrinking that occurs with tech companies (i.e. a better version comes along, as is always the case), we will be left with idle apartment blocks, destitute villages due to the impermanent nature of allowing for this type of housing only being built in the area. The important point is that short-term lets are the only housing being built in Dublin 2 and 4 - it is astounding how this is still allowed.

tell me - how many recessions and economic collapses has Ballsbridge seen?

but the next one will be the one to leave it destitute?

you're talking crap - it's a handful of apartments being constructed by a privately funded developer.. This has nothing to do with affordable government funded housing for those that can't look after their own affairs.

These apartments are unlikely to ever cost the taxpayer a cent - focus on that aspect maybe.

NSAman

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Must go back in time and tell my father he wasn't doing a corporate let for 20 years from the 80s. It has always existed just not a huge section of the market.

I think the clue was the wording "don't have a culture" which gave the hint away.

Graham

Assetbacked wrote: »

The important point is that short-term lets are the only housing being built in Dublin 2 and 4 - it is astounding how this is still allowed.

Does this development have planning permission for short-term lets?

Rew

Everything built adds to the pool of available housing, building these frees other stock and so on down the chain benefiting everyone. As others have said people being brought in get accommodation for a month or 2, the people staying long term contribute a lot of money to the economy in tax. Also this isn't just happening at the CEO/Consultant level. Plenty of factory workers are being brought in and housed for the first 3 months in the same way.

Cyrus

Assetbacked wrote: »

It is not sustainable to base, not just our tax revenue, but also our housing needs on Google and Facebook. When these companies go through the typical shrinking that occurs with tech companies (i.e. a better version comes along, as is always the case), we will be left with idle apartment blocks, destitute villages due to the impermanent nature of allowing for this type of housing only being built in the area. The important point is that short-term lets are the only housing being built in Dublin 2 and 4 - it is astounding how this is still allowed.

facebook have just taken bank centre, so they will be around for the next decade id guess with increasing staff no's.

ballsbridge will probably always be one of our most coveted suburbs, addresses, it wont ever be destitute.

and shore term are lets arent the only types of houses being built in D2 and D4, you are making that up.

Andycap8

pc7 wrote: »

But this developer gave/sold 53 apartments to the council in Ringsend to not give them on this site, so its mute that 'poor' people weren't housed. They still got pretty central accommodation.

Was that not the Lansdowne Place development? One Ballsbridge is a separate development.

Andycap8

These apartments look great.

They make Kennedy Wilson's Capital Dock look cheap (internal finish wise, not from a cost perspective).