Co-living..Shared kitchen for 42 ?

hmmm

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.

So what's your point? If your thinking is correct the developer will go bust - what difference does that make to you?

There isn't exactly a queue of developers willing to build dual aspect 75 square metre apartments and sell them for half nothing.

It's time to build stuff, we can't forever be waiting until the NIMBYs and the know-it-alls give their approval.

hmmm

terrydel wrote: »

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.

What would you prefer - nothing to be built? We had high minimum spec apartment regulations a few years ago, and practically none were built because it was costing 300k a unit to build them - a large part of which is land costs and lots of taxes.

Now the government has dropped those requirements because people were complaining about a housing shortage, we have another group of complainers saying we should go back to the original regulations.

Personally I think the housing shortage should be a reason to over-ride most complaints. We need to build various types of housing (and we are), and people can choose where they want to live and rent.

InTheShadows

Deleted User wrote: »

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

It's aimed at bleeding these idiots for all they are worth. FG 101.

Graces7

terrydel wrote: »

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.

co-living is a fairly new concept and is in many cities in many countries and very popular . Maybe the newness is what is causing the issues folk are seeing? It is like no other accommodation we have and has unique features.
co means community. Not like other apartments etc

Of course it is profitable!

The one in Killarney seems to be doing well.

FishOnABike

Graces7 wrote: »

co-living is a fairly new concept and is in many cities in many countries and very popular . Maybe the newness is what is causing the issues folk are seeing? It is like no other accommodation we have and has unique features.
co means community. Not like other apartments etc

Of course it is profitable!

The one in Killarney seems to be doing well.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/co
co- prefix

Definition of co- (Entry 5 of 5)
1 : with : together : joint : jointly

putting people together with other random strangers in minimally functional shoeboxes does not make a community.

[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.

The occupiers will be licences, not owner occupiers or long term tenants with the protection of the RTA.

I can't see how a sense of community will develop with largely short term, transient "young people setting out" in what they view as a "base for them to find their feet" with not many at home every night.

With occupants having no long term stake in the property or in the area it is difficult to see how a sense of community would develop.

However the developers try to dress it up with minimally sized open areas and little happy groups of strangers making meals for each other rather than the chaos of forty two individuals trying to cook in undersized facilities at the same time a collection of solitary single occupancy shoeboxes does not make a community.

Indeed such single occupancy 'private realms' are arguably more isolating and lonely than the traditional house share.

The units may be intended as short term starter bases but at the same time comprehensive economic, social, planning and housing policies need to be implemented that ensure these units remain as short term accommodation only and there is more suitable mid to long term accommodation for occupants to move on to. Otherwise these units will by default become unsuitable long term accommodation.

Graces7

FishOnABike wrote: »

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/co
co- prefix

Definition of co- (Entry 5 of 5)
1 : with : together : joint : jointly

putting people together with other random strangers in minimally functional does not make a community.



The occupiers will be licences, not owner occupiers or long term tenants with the protection of the RTA.

I can't see how a sense of community will develop with largely short term, transient "young people setting out" in what they view as a "base for them to find their feet" with not many at home every night.

With occupants having no long term stake in the property or in the area it is difficult to see how a sense of community would develop.

However the developers try to dress it up with minimally sized open areas and little happy groups of strangers making meals for each other rather than the chaos of forty two individuals trying to cook in undersized facilities at the same time a collection of solitary single occupancy shoeboxes does not make a community.

Indeed such single occupancy 'private realms' are arguably more isolating and lonely than the traditional house share.

The units may be intended as short term starter bases but at the same time comprehensive economic, social, planning and housing policies need to be implemented that ensure these units remain as short term accommodation only and there is more suitable mid to long term accommodation for occupants to move on to. Otherwise these units will by default become unsuitable long term accommodation.

will you stop with the shoebox exaggeration! It weakens your argument

And read the reality... the shared areas, the gym etc. The rooms are not all they have. Nothing unsuitable about it.

The_Conductor

Graces7 wrote: »

will you stop with the shoebox exaggeration! It weakens your argument

And read the reality... the shared areas, the gym etc. The rooms are not all they have. Nothing unsuitable about it.

The poster you quoted did allude to the improbably small bedrooms and personal space- and while I and others mentioned 'shoeboxes' elsewhere in the thread- the poster did not.

The provision of a gym and a communal hall for eating- doesn't make this an acceptable medium term solution for, well, anything really. The developer is on the record suggesting people might live here for a year or two- thats not supposition or hypothesis on the part of posters on the thread.

This is a glorified hostel. If they provided meals- you might call it a hotel. As it stands, its a hostel. There is nothing wrong with hostels- and I've stayed in far less salubrious hostels than this one- but it is being disingenuous trying to suggest its anything other than a hostel.

Caranica

Graces7 wrote: »

co-living is a fairly new concept and is in many cities in many countries and very popular . Maybe the newness is what is causing the issues folk are seeing? It is like no other accommodation we have and has unique features.
co means community. Not like other apartments etc

Of course it is profitable!

The one in Killarney seems to be doing well.

You keep harping back to the one in Killarney. It has been pointed out numerous times that the one in Killarney has bigger rooms with better facilities. Apples and oranges!

Gee. They damnef if they do and damned if they don't. There seems to be a demand for this type of accommodation so I don't see a problem. The occupants will choose whether or not they will live there. After all, it'll be their own money they'll be spending

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

Gee. They damnef if they do and damned if they don't. There seems to be a demand for this type of accommodation so I don't see a problem. The occupants will choose whether or not they will live there. After all, it'll be their own money they'll be spending

Thats not the whole story.
This development is displacing 92 1 and 2 bed apartments.
The developer wants to proceed with his hostel- because there is more money in it, plain and simple. The occupants won't necessarily choose whether or not they live there- they may not have alternate options- not assisted by the removal of 92 apartments from the locality. As to it being 'their money'- if 'they' are students who have just graduated or indeed the suggested nurses, teachers and Gardai that the developer himself referred to- its entirely plausible that Mommy and Daddy may have subsidise their children to 'live' in these units- as they're unaffordable for normal workers (at the suggested price point).

The biggest bugbear I personally have with this development- is the price- however, its myopic to discuss it without acknowledging that it is to be built instead of 92 apartments. If the developer decided to go ahead with the 92 apartments- we'd be lauding him/her- for putting up high density housing units in the locale- and, the aforementioned Garda, teacher or nurse- would actually be able to rent their own dwelling- instead of just getting a short term room..........

People are making out that this is something to aspired towards- I'd argue on the contrary- this is a place of last resort for people who are unable to secure more appropriate accommodation- and the various ploys to try and sell it- suggesting it will mitigate lonliness for example- are really scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses to try and make this 'choice' a more palatable option for people who quite simply don't have any other options.

The fact that this is displacing 92 apartments- seems to be glossed over by all the flagbearers for this scheme. We need those apartments- more critically- than we need a hostel in Dunlaoghaire.

InTheShadows

Deleted User wrote: »

Gee. They damnef if they do and damned if they don't. There seems to be a demand for this type of accommodation so I don't see a problem. The occupants will choose whether or not they will live there. After all, it'll be their own money they'll be spending

They'll have no bleeding choice because FG have designed it that way. You think people WANT to spend this insane type of money on these shoe boxes. What you think because Eoghan "roll my sleeves up" Murphy calls them boutique living spaces people are going to be happy living there? It's BS and pure gouging from vulture funds all encouraged by the worst government this country has ever had.

mariaalice

They may well be a good idea in certain areas and circumstance but this one does not sound great for a start its in Dun Laoghaire nothing against the place lovely costal area and good public transport, however, this sort of development need to be in or around the city center beside a very large amount of socialising eating and entertaining and shopping options beside it, its not suitable for a suburb.

The Docks or Smithfield is the place for somewhere like this. The rooms are far too small they do not need to be large not as small as this. The shared areas would need to be superb.

To make it work it would need to have a hight end Marks and Spencer food outlet open till 10pm beside it, a state of the art gym, nonchain restaurants, a microbrewery, bars and the like

I can see this one turning in to a bit of dump if the developers are not careful.

Graham

Mod Note

InTheShadows, quit the political soapboxing.

If you'd like to discuss politics there are other more appropriate forums.

Caranica

The_Conductor wrote: »

Thats not the whole story.
This development is displacing 92 1 and 2 bed apartments.

D16A/0548/PL 06D.248770 gave permission for 59 apartments? That's the only other valid permission I can see, though there was an application in 2006 for a mixed use development including 71 apartments but that permission has long since expired.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

They may well be a good idea in certain areas and circumstance but this one does not sound great for a start its in Dun Laoghaire nothing against the place lovely costal area and good public transport, however, this sort of development need to be in or around the city center beside a very large amount of socialising eating and entertaining and shopping options beside it, its not suitable for a suburb.

The Docks or Smithfield is the place for somewhere like this. The rooms are far too small they do not need to be large not as small as this. The shared areas would need to be superb.

To make it work it would need to have a hight end Marks and Spencer food outlet open till 10pm beside it, a state of the art gym, nonchain restaurants, a microbrewery, bars and the like

I can see this one turning in to a bit of dump if the developers are not careful.

There are at least two shopping centers nearby, as are numerous restaurants. Not sure about bars. There is a gym onsite. In addition to the communal kitchen areas, there are other communal areas for relaxing, socializing etc.

lola85

As I said as a nation we really need to grow up.

Stop with the massive chip on the shoulder the world owes me what I want attitude.

mariaalice

Deleted User wrote: »

There are at least two shopping centers nearby, as are numerous restaurants. Not sure about bars. There is a gym onsite. In addition to the communal kitchen areas, there are other communal areas for relaxing, socializing etc.

I know the area yes there are suburban shopping centers near by that is not what the issue is alone, the areas is a suburb of Dublin and dose not have the energy of and faclities of a city center location where a development like this could be entirely suitable. The residents are not going to spend time in their rooms so, therefore, there has to city center type facilities and entertainment besides the development. A suburban Tesco and a few pubs and restaurants dose not make a vibrant night-time/post work culture which a co-living space needs to be Succesful.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

I know the area yes there are suburban shopping centers near by that is not what the issue is alone, the areas is a suburb of Dublin and dose not have the energy of and faclities of a city center location where a development like this could be entirely suitable. The residents are not going to spend time in their rooms so, therefore, there has to city center type facilities and entertainment besides the development. A suburban Tesco and a few pubs and restaurants dose not make a vibrant night-time/post work culture which a co-living space needs to be Succesful.

I get your point, but what do you think the chances of a development like this being built in the city center?

Star Lord

There's a big empty lot in Smithfield for years, could have been good for something like this.

Personally, I think these are a great idea, but should be a bit bigger than the shoe-box rooms that they are currently, and less than the ridiculous €1300 p/m that's being touted. All the costs of a 1 bed apartment with none of the benefits... it's absurd. Wonder if Eoghan Murphy would be as quick to spout about how great and 'boutique' they are if he had to live in such a space for a year?

As it stands, it's like a jail, without the security.

BaZmO*

Graces7 wrote: »

will you stop with the shoebox exaggeration! It weakens your argument

LOL. They have fold down beds!

TSQ

mariaalice wrote: »

I know the area yes there are suburban shopping centers near by that is not what the issue is alone, the areas is a suburb of Dublin and dose not have the energy of and faclities of a city center location where a development like this could be entirely suitable. The residents are not going to spend time in their rooms so, therefore, there has to city center type facilities and entertainment besides the development. A suburban Tesco and a few pubs and restaurants dose not make a vibrant night-time/post work culture which a co-living space needs to be Succesful.

At those rents, the residents are not going to be out every night living it up . I would say the location has good transport links, and sufficient bars and restaurants. In fact, it should be a big boost for local business.

BaZmO*

lola85 wrote: »

As I said as a nation we really need to grow up.

Stop with the massive chip on the shoulder the world owes me what I want attitude.

I don't think anybody has a chip on their shoulder and thinks the world owes them anything. Personally I just would like a functioning houseing market. If you work hard and have a full time job you should be able to afford to own your own house. That's not too much to ask is it?

With regards to this particular project most people have a problem with the location. This type of development would be totally suited to being located in the city centre or somewhere near the big tech companies. It's priced at housing people on high wages on short contracts. From a planning pov it doesn't make sense to dump this type of density on an already conjested DART line.

lola85

BaZmO* wrote: »

I don't think anybody has a chip on their shoulder and thinks the world owes them anything. Personally I just would like a functioning houseing market. If you work hard and have a full time job you should be able to afford to own your own house. That's not too much to ask is it?

With regards to this particular project most people have a problem with the location. This type of development would be totally suited to being located in the city centre or somewhere near the big tech companies. It's priced at housing people on high wages on short contracts. From a planning pov it doesn't make sense to dump this type of density on an already conjested DART line.

Why does working entitle you to own a house?

BaZmO*

lola85 wrote: »

Why does working entitle you to own a house?

You're the one that keeps using the work "entitled" which makes me think that you're the one that's got the chip.

I simply said, "If you work hard and have a full time job you should be able to afford to own your own house." In any functioning economy this should be the case.

TSQ

BaZmO* wrote: »

I don't think anybody has a chip on their shoulder and thinks the world owes them anything. Personally I just would like a functioning houseing market. If you work hard and have a full time job you should be able to afford to own your own house. That's not too much to ask is it?

With regards to this particular project most people have a problem with the location. This type of development would be totally suited to being located in the city centre or somewhere near the big tech companies. It's priced at housing people on high wages on short contracts. From a planning pov it doesn't make sense to dump this type of density on an already conjested DART line.

I just checked the location of the proposed development.. it is right in the heart of the “town” of Dun Laoghaire and minutes from Dart and bus stops, tons of shops, bars and restaurants nearby. Whatever about the pros and cons of the concept itself, the location appears to me to be ideal for the kind of young, single, possibly foreign, mobile worker for whom it is designed. Dun Laoghaire is a town you know, not some place with one main road and a pub, which is what you would think from some of the comments here, and the town center could badly do with an influx of employed young people. Renting a room in a shared apartment close by would cost upwards of €1,300 plus a share of running costs, and probably not include an ensuite, and definitely not include a cleaner for the shared spaces. You do realise this is a very desirable area now, hence all the fancy new apartments, and would be out of reach for any low income family or individual. I imagine lots of young people will jump at the chance to rent there.

NuttyMcNutty

I hope they like the smell of their own farts:D

lola85

BaZmO* wrote: »

You're the one that keeps using the work "entitled" which makes me think that you're the one that's got the chip.

I simply said, "If you work hard and have a full time job you should be able to afford to own your own house." In any functioning economy this should be the case.

Yet 60% of Germans, Swedes etc who we are told have a functioning economy rent.

Star Lord

lola85 wrote: »

Yet 60% of Germans, Swedes etc who we are told have a functioning economy rent.

You can't compare European rentals to here, as they typically have long term leases.

Stark

The lack of long term leases is the primary reason I'm trying to get out of the renting market at the moment and looking to buy my own place. Sure, the RTB is trying to bring in longer term leases here but given most of the supply here is owned by private landlords, that doesn't protect you from having the landlord sell the house or "reclaim it for family" or whatever. Having to move home every other year is no way to live.

BaZmO*

lola85 wrote: »

Yet 60% of Germans, Swedes etc who we are told have a functioning economy rent.

Ah now, c'mon lola you're better than that. We're not comparing apples with apples here. Not even in the general renting market, and certainly not in this case.