Co-living..Shared kitchen for 42 ?

.......

Deleted User wrote: »

As said before, this is an option that is worthy of consideration. Rule nothing out. It wouldn’t suit the 60odd year old me, but would have been ok for the 20 something me. Horses for courses, as the saying goes.

20 something you would have been able to afford 1300 per month for shared facilities with 42?

Would you not rather have been paying that amount for a 1 bed apartment to yourself?

Springfields

....... wrote: »

20 something you would have been able to afford 1300 per month for shared facilities with 42?

Would you not rather have been paying that amount for a 1 bed apartment to yourself?

Of course you would prefer that...but there are very few 1 bed apts to rent...isn't that the problem ?

.......

Springfields wrote: »

Of course you would prefer that...but there are very few 1 bed apts to rent...isn't that the problem ?

These have been priced to be similar to 1 beds in the area. Sure, there are not many 1 beds available, but probably more than 42, countywide.

There are plenty of house shares for far less money sharing with far less people.

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

No one expects these to be foreva homes. They would be perfect for a temporary base or a first time away from home person.

Erica Flemming has a lot to answer for with her 'Foreva' home campaign.
Few normal people have a 'foreva' home anymore- indeed, the whole premise of building small dwellings with no storage space- is to keep people moving around. However- if/when downturns do happen- they become trapped in their shoeboxes- because they can't afford to move, or can't find anywhere to move to.

I do get what you're saying about a temporary base- or having someone who is away from home for the first time- use these as an accommodation option. However, the fact of the matter is- the developer is on the record stating these are longer term solutions for new teachers or nurses- so they don't have to commute for hours for work. He, the developer, has stated this. He also has them priced at a level that sucks up just under 70% of the net pay of a new nurse on the first point of the salary scale. Admittedly- they will in time earn more- however, both your and the developer's argument- is that this is for when they first graduate- or move from home.

What I am saying is quite simply- someone setting out for the first time- does not have 1,300 a month to drop on a room. Comparing it to a personal 1 bed apartment and pricing it as such- is comparing apples with bananas- yes, they are both fruit- but they are not the same- and using the price of a 1 bed apartment to price these units- is using a wholly inappropriate yardstick for someone who is just setting out- to say nothing of the simple fact- that the examples that the developer used- do not earn the net salary that he claims 1,300 a month is 40% of........

If 1,300 a month is 40% of your net pay- this infers a total net pay of 3,250.
For a public sector employee- which was the example used by the developer after all- this infers a gross salary of approximately 55,000 per annum- to fit into the 40% of net pay that the developer is suggesting- and his example of a nurse or a teacher. I assure you- new teachers and nurses most certaintly do not make 55k per annum- according to the INTO payscles here - a teacher will not be on this salary until they reach point 17 of their salary scale- which normally is in their late 30s early 40s. A full time staff nurse- will *never* reach this salary point link here.

The examples given by the developer to justify the staggeringly high charges- do not add up- plain and simple.

Just to reiterate- we do need this type of accommodation as a component of our response to our housing crisis- however, trying to doll it up as some sort of super duper hostel- and suggest that it would suit people away from home for the first time- or new teachers or nurses (as per the developer)- quite simply does not add up.

It is quite simply far too expensive- and the developer is being deliberately tone deaf to this- in suggesting it would be suitable for new teachers or nurses- it might suit someone- but definitely not the aforementioned teachers or nurses.

It must be bloody brilliant to be able to command this price.

Shelga

Deleted User wrote: »

No one expects these to be foreva homes. They would be perfect for a temporary base or a first time away from home person.

@Shelga; I don’t see what Eoghan Murphys background or education has to do with it other than smelling of sour grapes.

Because I can’t see someone who grew up in the real world saying people should be excited to live in this place, and pay €1300 for the privilege.

Lumen

The_Conductor wrote: »

It is quite simply far too expensive- and the developer is being deliberately tone deaf to this- in suggesting it would be suitable for new teachers or nurses- it might suit someone- but definitely not the aforementioned teachers or nurses.

The obvious answer is that it's a deliberate lie, and the target market is actually....tourists.

Apologies if that has been suggested already; I thought I read that the developer had originally wanted to build a hotel.

lainey_d_123

Shelga wrote: »

Because I can’t see someone who grew up in the real world saying people should be excited to live in this place, and pay €1300 for the privilege.

Exactly. This fella is a rich, overprivileged D4 head who has never struggled a day in his life and probably genuinely thinks that 1300 euro is a modest enough amount of money to spend on housing. He's on another planet. Yes, 1300 is the going rate for a one-bed in the area, but how many newly qualified teachers and nurses can afford to live alone? That's a luxury not many people can afford in their twenties and even thirties. The norm is renting a room in a house or a flatshare for less than half that amount. You could argue that some people would pay a bit more for their own space, but most young people simply don't HAVE 1300 euros to spend on housing. That would have been about 80% or 90% of my net pay when I was in my early to mid twenties.

ncounties

http://bartraeblanashd.com/drawings/architectural-drawings/

Can't believe this has just been approved. 42 rooms sharing 3 hobs! We had two hobs for 8 people when I was a student, and it still wasn't enough! Surprised Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown would approve such a thing!

AlmightyCushion

ncounties wrote: »

http://bartraeblanashd.com/drawings/architectural-drawings/

Can't believe this has just been approved. 42 rooms sharing 3 hobs! We had two hobs for 8 people when I was a student, and it still wasn't enough! Surprised Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown would approve such a thing!

The story on RTE says each room will have its own cooking facilities. It doesn't go into details of what those facilities are though.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0730/1066058-co-living-dun-laoghaire/

Still €1300 for a room with a pull down bed is really shít.

riclad

This is worse than the old bedsits, the old bedsits would usually have
a cooker, small fridge, a tv , a single bed .
there would be 1 or 2 bathrooms on each floor .
And they were 60-80 euro per week.
This co living plan, means you will have less privacy if you want to cook .
I dont think i,d bother trying to cook anything ,if i have to share a kitchen with 42 people .I,d
go to mcdonalds or get a pizza.
I think maybe this is aimed at nonnationals or people who can,t find any other place to rent .
The only advantage i can see is if people could rent a room for 1 or 2 months as short term accomodation.
The government banned bedsits ,so now we have a situation
where single people will have to pay more for a room with
basic cooking faciltys .
It would be better to just have larger rooms for everyone , and
not have a gym.
Not everyone is a big fitness fanatic or wants to use a gym.
there were 1000,s of single people who lived in bedsits for years
and they were very happy to live there .

Assetbacked

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The story on RTE says each room will have its own cooking facilities. It doesn't go into details of what those facilities are though.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0730/1066058-co-living-dun-laoghaire/

Still €1300 for a room with a pull down bed is really shít.

I think the aim of renting should be to pay no more than 30% of your after tax salary on rent. Earning €70k is what is required to pay 33% of after tax salary on rent for a €1300 unit in these developments.

€70k is not a starting salary for the young people this is aimed at. People are more likely to be a few years in their job and close to 30 to be on that salary. How depressing to be a 30 year old living in basically a hostel.

This is gouging the market to the max and the problem I have with it is that this sort of accommodation will have bigger margins so will be the type of accommodation we see more of at the expense of 1,2,3 bedroom apartments. It shuts even more younger people out of the ownership market and leaves them floating in the out of control and unsustainable rental market. This will be catastrophic to society's wellbeing as people can't afford to settle down well into their 30s so kids will be had later etc and people will be more stressed.

As a separate point, to me it looks like property prices are going to keep decreasing in the medium term as the pool of first time buyers gets smaller and those looking to move to their second homes have no one to take their first house off them. We are in a healthy economy now yet workers struggle to save meaningful amounts, so medium term property price decreases are based on the assumption that the economy won't go tits up. If we are exposed by the global recession we are entering in a significant way, property prices will drop even faster.

These units are aimed at short term lets. Someone moving to the city to start work would be happy to avail of these.

Lantus

The fruits of a super octane regulated market where the wealthy can create pits for the poor and they will still pay their wage and half their partners to live there.

Just allow lodges in gardens and homelessness will be solved within 6 to 12 months. Rents will drop and the market will need to compete to succeed.

Caranica

[Deleted User] wrote: »

These units are aimed at short term lets. Someone moving to the city to start work would be happy to avail of these.

1 year leases for the ones in Dun Laoghaire. I've studied the plans in detail and reckon that within a month I'd have mental health issues, particularly in winter. The rooms are tiny

Graces7

Caranica wrote: »

1 year leases for the ones in Dun Laoghaire. I've studied the plans in detail and reckon that within a month I'd have mental health issues, particularly in winter. The rooms are tiny

But that is you. I would be fine with that. My accommodation here is very small indeed and no issues. After all we and they are not locked in

Caranica

Graces7 wrote: »

But that is you. I would be fine with that. My accommodation here is very small indeed and no issues. After all we and they are not locked in

From your postings on here, you live a very different life from most people.

After a long stressful day at work (remember rent is 1300 a month) to come back to a room that is smaller than a disabled parking space where you have to pull your bed out of the wall and have to queue to use the cooking facilities... That's not living.

Ush1

Caranica wrote: »

From your postings on here, you live a very different life from most people.

After a long stressful day at work (remember rent is 1300 a month) to come back to a room that is smaller than a disabled parking space where you have to pull your bed out of the wall and have to queue to use the cooking facilities... That's not living.

These would be aimed at wealthy students/professionals who are young and single and not considered long term.

They would be eating out, going to the gym, out for drinks etc... They're not aimed at people who like to stay in all the time.

whisky_galore

Overpriced for what it is. Probably living in a capsule hotel will be next.

Wonder if the developer or our minister for homelessness would be happy to live in one?
If you're not happy living in the shîtty things you build yourself... fcuk off.

atticu

Caranica wrote: »

remember rent is 1300 a month

Just want to know where posters are getting this price.

Have these units been advertised?

Or is this just a price that someone mentioned, and now everyone is supposed to believe that this is the price. This building hasn’t even been built yet, and posters seem to know what the exact monthly rental will be.

The_Conductor

atticu wrote: »

Just want to know where posters are getting this price.

Have these units been advertised?

Or is this just a price that someone mentioned, and now everyone is supposed to believe that this is the price. This building hasn’t even been built yet, and posters seem to know what the exact monthly rental will be.

The developer stated this was his target price as it was competitive with one bed apartments while being interviewed by RTE on the scheme earlier this year. This figure is the one being bandied about by the developer.

listermint

Ush1 wrote: »

These would be aimed at wealthy students/professionals who are young and single and not considered long term.

They would be eating out, going to the gym, out for drinks etc... They're not aimed at people who like to stay in all the time.

The more of this nonsense that is allowed the less developers will feel the need to make actual 'real life' accommodation. If they can make tidy profits of this utter crap house.

We can all use as much marketing speak as we like but its a 1300pm hostel.

These types of developments need to be stopped in their tracks they arent solving a need they are about making as much money as physically possible within the dimensions the developer can fit.

The_Conductor

These are not 'real life accommodation'. They are hotel scale accommodation- in locations where the developer would not get permission to build a hotel. The developer is also on the record stating 'I'm not denying that the ability to get around having to supply Part V social housing obligations is a massive inducement to look at alternate accommodation types, and enhances the value of the development as a whole'.........

The developer had permission for a large scale, high density, apartment scheme (of primarily 1 and 2 bed apartments). He is fitting over 5 times as many units on the site as he would have done had he been held to building the apartment block- but still gets to charge the same price as 1 bed apartments make in the area (presuming people will pay it of course).

If this is a component of our accommodation supply- there should be commensurate rules protecting this supply from the short-term/hotel style letting arrangements. Its all well and good to rent one for a weekend as a get-away- albeit an expensive 'hostel' arrangement- however, if that is allowed become the norm- its simply a method of circumventing the planning regulations and building a defacto hotel.

Ush1

listermint wrote: »

The more of this nonsense that is allowed the less developers will feel the need to make actual 'real life' accommodation. If they can make tidy profits of this utter crap house.

We can all use as much marketing speak as we like but its a 1300pm hostel.

These types of developments need to be stopped in their tracks they arent solving a need they are about making as much money as physically possible within the dimensions the developer can fit.

I don't think it's nonsense, I think it's fulfilling a need. I'd prefer to live there rather than a house share way out somewhere if I was younger and single.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

The more of this nonsense that is allowed the less developers will feel the need to make actual 'real life' accommodation. If they can make tidy profits of this utter crap house.

We can all use as much marketing speak as we like but its a 1300pm hostel.

These types of developments need to be stopped in their tracks they arent solving a need they are about making as much money as physically possible within the dimensions the developer can fit.

Nobody is forcing people to rent there. It’s their choice.

cgcsb

These would be fine as an option if there was an overall functional housing system that offered alternative options. The situation we're in now is that the councils and government are ideologically opposed to social housing and charities like cluid have taken over the social hosing function because government, to whom we pay taxes for such services, is not interested.

Hector Savage

One room is expected to rent for €1,300 per month.

WTAF ?

race to the bottom, what future is there for Irish kids ?
depressing...

alexjp

Ireland is a capitalist market.
If the developers build that kind of apratments and people are happy to ocuppy and pay for them, who are we to say they can't?
Nobody is forcing you to live in them. You can always rent a lovely 2 bedroom attached house in Dublin 24 for 2300 a month.

Pyr0

This is madness, utter madness.

You'd swear Dublin had the density and space limitations of somewhere like Tokyo or Mumbai by the way this country is approaching the housing crises.

BaZmO*

http://bartraeblanashd.com/gallery/

Lots of pictures of the outside of the building. Even a fly through of the communal spaces but other than general floor plans there's no pics/details of the holding pens, sorry "rooms"

€500-600 a month and it would make sense. €1300 is just scandalous.

Graces7

Caranica wrote: »

From your postings on here, you live a very different life from most people.

After a long stressful day at work (remember rent is 1300 a month) to come back to a room that is smaller than a disabled parking space where you have to pull your bed out of the wall and have to queue to use the cooking facilities... That's not living.

I do live that different life now, but I lived decades in city centre bedsitters in the UK .... shared kitchen and shared bathroom and a small room was standard. After a full day teaching and after school activities. Not a real issue