Co-living..Shared kitchen for 42 ?

Varik

whisky_galore wrote: »

Co-Living, the latest hip euphemism, the kind of obfuscation that gave us "family hub" and "direct provision".

It looks ok, funky and down with the kids, might be worth half the price they're asking for. It's a hostel in all but name.

And if they don't get a decent occupancy then maybe it is only worth half what they're asking.

But they'll probably do fine.

Hector Savage

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

im not sure why people think 1300 is insane, its just over 40 quid a night and if that includes heating, water, electricity, common area cleaning etc then that strikes me as very reasonable.

That's very reasonable for short term accomodation, hotel, holiday apt. etc, it's no where near reasonable for a home considering the crappy space they have and sharing kitchen - insulting to working adults.

Hector Savage

Hector Savage wrote: »

That's very reasonable for short term accomodation, hotel, holiday apt. etc, it's no where near reasonable for a home considering the crappy space they have and sharing kitchen - insulting to working adults.

They’re not expected to be long term dwellings. Just starter bases for young people setting out. A base for them to find their feet. Not many under 35’s are sitting at home every night.
These rooms are an option that won’t suit everyone, but will be perfect for many.

FishOnABike

Depicting living in a cupboard and sharing kitchen facilities with forty two people as a valid choice is as much a valid choice as asking whether someone would prefer the electric chair or lethal injection. In reality something else would be the choice if available.

A housing market which does not offer people earning a reasonable income, reasonable accommodation at a reasonable rate is disfunctional.

hmmm

FishOnABike wrote: »

A housing market which does not offer people earning a reasonable income, reasonable accommodation at a reasonable rate is disfunctional.

That's indeed stating the obvious. This proposal increases supply (significantly increases supply) and for that it is to be welcomed.

I don't understand people who say "well I wouldn't want to live there, therefore it shouldn't be built". People are at different stages of life & careers and make different trade-offs, and did I mention it increases supply? Supply.

I suspect a bit of the opposition to this is coming from vested interests who are renting-a-room or renting properties. People who are currently renting box rooms and can be thrown out with no notice period would easily see their own co-living space as an upgrade.

And did I mention supply?

InTheShadows

The crazy thing is a lot of the young pros who will have to avail of these laughable conditions will have voted FG at the last election and this is the thanks they get.

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They’re not expected to be long term dwellings. Just starter bases for young people setting out. A base for them to find their feet. Not many under 35’s are sitting at home every night.
These rooms are an option that won’t suit everyone, but will be perfect for many.

Just starting out on 40k+ a year?

There are definitely a few industries were it works but hardly the norm.

InTheShadows

InTheShadows wrote: »

The crazy thing is a lot of the young pros who will have to avail of these laughable conditions will have voted FG at the last election and this is the thanks they get.

Increased and varied accommodation is to be welcomed. This isn’t aimed at single mothers of multiple children. It’s aimed at young singles.

FishOnABike

hmmm wrote: »

That's indeed stating the obvious. This proposal increases supply (significantly increases supply) and for that it is to be welcomed.

I don't understand people who say "well I wouldn't want to live there, therefore it shouldn't be built". People are at different stages of life & careers and make different trade-offs, and did I mention it increases supply? Supply.

I suspect a bit of the opposition to this is coming from vested interests who are renting-a-room or renting properties. People who are currently renting box rooms and can be thrown out with no notice period would easily see their own co-living space as an upgrade.

And did I mention supply?

Increasing the supply of sub-standard accommodation is not to be welcomed.

High quality fittings and decor don't make it any more than a glorified hostel.

Whatever about being positioned as an up market tourist hostel or temporary / short stay accommodation (measured in weeks) for someone moving to Dublin while they look for more suitable medium to long term accommodation, it is far short of the current standards set for an apartment.

Social and economic policy needs to provide for suitable medium to long term accommodation for the transient occupiers of these co-living spaces to move on to.

Positioning these as viable medium to long term accommodation is a failure. They are to a lower standard than most purpose built student accommodation and little more than a cynical attempt for developers to extract every cent from others misery.

Graces7

A news item today on two aspects of this. Agree re the loneliness aspect

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/co-living-could-help-tackle-loneliness-psychologist-says-as-petition-launched-against-development-940635.html

hmmm

FishOnABike wrote: »

Increasing the supply of sub-standard accommodation is not to be welcomed.

High quality fittings and decor don't make it any more than a glorified hostel.

No-one is forced to live there. If people want to continue living in rent-a-rooms, or sharing with 6 people in a semi-D they can.

We got rid of bedsits which was a disaster for lots of people on low incomes. We had the usual people bleating on about conditions and banning something, without putting any replacement in place, and these people were thrown out of their homes as a consequence.

Unless you're going to magic thousands of low-cost homes out of the air, we need supply. And there's lots of people who would prefer to be in a place like this than their current situation. In the meantime, keep pushing for more of this quality accommodation you have in mind.

Adamcp898

Ah, supply at all costs. It doesn’t say much about the quality or standard of a dwelling when the main argument in it’s favour amounts to “sure it’s a roof, isn’t it?”

hmmm

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Ah, supply at all costs. It doesn’t say much about the quality or standard of a dwelling when the main argument in it’s favour amounts to “sure it’s a roof, isn’t it?”

Who said that? Because I didn't, and I don't see any other poster saying that.

Yes supply. Because we can't wait forever while the NIMBYs and vested interests in this country oppose building apartments in the city centre. It's painful listening to people expressing outrage over co-living apartments, while simultaneously they are renting out overpriced dogboxes in their homes and calling it "rent a room".

Crock Rock

<MOD SNIP>

usernamegoes

These will be an excellent addition to the market. I am sure those who end up living there will be happy or if they don't I expect they'll move out because it's not like they're being forced to live there.

The nay-sayers always want to dictate how they think others should live their lives despite other people have different priorities and wishes. Moan and whinge about other people's decisions.

hmmm

hmmm wrote: »

Who said that? Because I didn't, and I don't see any other poster saying that.

Yes supply. Because we can't wait forever while the NIMBYs and vested interests in this country oppose building apartments in the city centre. It's painful listening to people expressing outrage over co-living apartments, while simultaneously they are renting out overpriced dogboxes in their homes and calling it "rent a room".

And if Rich Boy Barret is against it, it must be good.

usernamegoes

Crock Rock wrote: »

<MOD SNIP>

What a disgusting post. You should be ashamed of yourself for comparing the two. Regardless of what you think of co-living comparing it to this is sick.

Mrs OBumble

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Ah, supply at all costs. It doesn’t say much about the quality or standard of a dwelling when the main argument in it’s favour amounts to “sure it’s a roof, isn’t it?”

Sleep in your local park for a week, and then get back to us re whether any roof is better than it.

FishOnABike

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They’re not expected to be long term dwellings. Just starter bases for young people setting out. A base for them to find their feet. Not many under 35’s are sitting at home every night.
These rooms are an option that won’t suit everyone, but will be perfect for many.

Perfect might be an overstatement.

One of the 23 conditions in the bord pleanála decision is that the plans are revised so that each 'private realm' has its own functional kitchen.

Another condition is that the shared living room / library areas on each floor are increased in size.

The number of units will have to be reduced, their size increased and the wiring and electrical supply upgraded to meet these conditions.

Even after this, having gone through the architectural design statement document, there doesn't seem to be so as much as storage for a bicycle for any of the lucky occupants. To me the units still appear to be solitary shoeboxes for worker drones. Our country's housing policy should aspire to more than this.

hmmm

FishOnABike wrote: »

Our country's housing policy should aspire to more than this.

And it does, so what's your point? We're hearing repeatedly about the housing crisis, yet it appears to be impossible to get anything actually built because of objectors to everything. No-one is being forced to rent these.

Assetbacked

hmmm wrote: »

And it does, so what's your point? We're hearing repeatedly about the housing crisis, yet it appears to be impossible to get anything actually built because of objectors to everything. No-one is being forced to rent these.

This is incorrect. People are being forced to rent these as there is nothing available to rent. And the fact they cost almost 50% of a salary of €50k is a disgrace. These kind of developments will only work if there are other options but there are no other options. Given the margins on these, more will be built at the expense of building proper apartments.

There has been a catastrophic market with house prices at least 30% average above what they should be and barely any new apartments being built, certainly not for individuals to purchase. A crash is the only thing to help the housing situation in Ireland as the government do not have the ability to change this.

usernamegoes

Assetbacked wrote: »

This is incorrect. People are being forced to rent these as there is nothing available to rent. And the fact they cost almost 50% of a salary of €50k is a disgrace. These kind of developments will only work if there are other options but there are no other options. Given the margins on these, more will be built at the expense of building proper apartments.

There has been a catastrophic market with house prices at least 30% average above what they should be and barely any new apartments being built, certainly not for individuals to purchase. A crash is the only thing to help the housing situation in Ireland as the government do not have the ability to change this.

Anyone who can afford to rent these can afford to rent somewhere else. They will rent these for various reasons like ease of moving in and out, location suits them better, want to meet new people, etc, etc. These people are not forced to live in them, they choose to do so. These aren't cheap, these people do have options, but want to live in them even for a while.

terrydel

Adamcp898 wrote: »

When did having aspirations to have an adequate living space for oneself, to enjoy an ordinary life, become a luxury?

The young workforce in this country are being kicked from pillar to post with nary a voice to be heard fighting their corner. Go to university, get a degree, and you can enjoy a comfortable standard of living they were told - the pup, they were sold. Nobody expects to be a millionaire in their early twenties, but they should not be painted as unrealistic for thinking that maybe, they should be able to afford to have their own room and to share living spaces with a handful of like-minded others. A room to breathe and room to grow.

The crisis taught the generation of "property investors" nothing. Not only are the young carrying the can for their previous catastrophes, but they'll have to shoulder some more yet it seems. And all while paying for their care in years to come to boot.

The fruits of their labour mean little to society.

Neoliberalism is all about making the majority thankful for less and less.

usernamegoes

terrydel wrote: »

Neoliberalism is all about making the majority thankful for less and less.

As soon as I see the phrase "neoliberalism" I just know the post is going to be junk. And I haven't been let down yet.

Adamcp898

hmmm wrote: »

Who said that? Because I didn't, and I don't see any other poster saying that.

Well it wasn't directed at you, hence why your post wasn't quoted you see.

But, I have just taken a cursory look over the past couple of pages of this thread and, lo and behold, what did I read but a post written by yourself where you essentially said that very thing.

hmmm wrote: »

That's indeed stating the obvious. This proposal increases supply (significantly increases supply) and for that it is to be welcomed.

hmmm wrote: »

And did I mention supply?

See, supply isn't the simplistic numbers game you're trying to make out to be. If it isn't the correct type of supply then it has no impact on the existing demand.


The amount of posters that appear to be of the opinion that so long as the building is erected, then some poor creatur will pay to live in it and that it will be justified because it is their "choice" after all. Yet I sincerely doubt any of them would be willing to move into it themselves, or, even know somebody who is right this minute patiently waiting for the opportunity to do so.

NIMBY-ism indeed

Adamcp898

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Sleep in your local park for a week, and then get back to us re whether any roof is better than it.

Well done. Be glib. Use the example of the unfortunate person who finds themselves sleeping rough tonight to make a your little, misinformed, and unsubstantiated point. Good on you.


Instead of pontificating, perhaps it is you that could do us a favour instead and pull your head out of the sand long enough to acknowledge the fact that this development is not being built for the purpose of providing emergency housing, nor is it social housing, nor is it even going to be low-income housing. It is a purely capitalist venture designed to make as much money as possible, by packing as many bodies into a steel & concrete structure as possible, with little regard as to the welfare of the souls who may live there.

LionelNashe

Adamcp898 wrote: »

See, supply isn't the simplistic numbers game you're trying to make out to be. If it isn't the correct type of supply then it has no impact on the existing demand.

Why would it have no effect on demand? The people who eventually rent here would otherwise be competing for apartments or house-shares, and now they won't be.

Adamcp898 wrote: »

The amount of posters that appear to be of the opinion that so long as the building is erected, then some poor creatur will pay to live in it and that it will be justified because it is their "choice" after all. Yet I sincerely doubt any of them would be willing to move into it themselves, or, even know somebody who is right this minute patiently waiting for the opportunity to do so.

I've never paid the proposed €1300 for rent or mortgage in the past, but I don't see much wrong with the place other than that. The last place I rented, in the early 2000s, was a studio with kitchenette and bathroom that was probably no bigger than the rooms on offer in this Dun Laoghaire thing. (But without the common areas or the chance to meet people my own age.) I was happy there for about 2 yrs until I got tired of it and wanted something different. If co-living had been available when I was renting, at a reasonable price (and in a more central location), I would have jumped at it.

terrydel

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Well done. Be glib. Use the example of the unfortunate person who finds themselves sleeping rough tonight to make a your little, misinformed, and unsubstantiated point. Good on you.


Instead of pontificating, perhaps it is you that could do us a favour instead and pull your head out of the sand long enough to acknowledge the fact that this development is not being built for the purpose of providing emergency housing, nor is it social housing, nor is it even going to be low-income housing. It is a purely capitalist venture designed to make as much money as possible, by packing as many bodies into a steel & concrete structure as possible, with little regard as to the welfare of the souls who may live there.

Spot on, they can dress it up anyway they like, an nd they no doubt will, but it is a focused effort to lower expectations while maximising profit, and to eventually normalise what people would not have accepted only a few years ago.

Marcusm

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Well done. Be glib. Use the example of the unfortunate person who finds themselves sleeping rough tonight to make a your little, misinformed, and unsubstantiated point. Good on you.


Instead of pontificating, perhaps it is you that could do us a favour instead and pull your head out of the sand long enough to acknowledge the fact that this development is not being built for the purpose of providing emergency housing, nor is it social housing, nor is it even going to be low-income housing. It is a purely capitalist venture designed to make as much money as possible, by packing as many bodies into a steel & concrete structure as possible, with little regard as to the welfare of the souls who may live there.

Now I am going to disagree with your last statement. There is a short squeeze on property at the moment which has led to rising rents/prices. While I agree that there are capitalist motives at play, the developer cannot disregard entirely the welfare of potential tenants as it would not be in its interest vis a vis either long term retention or sale. Simply put, if there was not expected to be done demand for niche housing like this long term, it would not be built. Given that the housing shortage will, by dint of market forces or else eventual intervention, be resolved, if these were in the nature of tenements, ie dwellings of last resort, they would not have a long term value.

There are limited prospects of restructuring these units into any other form of housing, accordingly, there must be a reasonable expectation that there will be a long term market for willing residents.

4068ac1elhodqr

Actually the more of these co-living things that open, the better it would be.

i.e. The law of supply-demand=price. Thus due to competition, they'd have to offer more facilities and for less, just to compete for the customer.
The developers would of course still be able to cream a healthy profit even at half-price.