Co-living..Shared kitchen for 42 ?

InTheShadows

Graham wrote: »

Mod Note

InTheShadows, quit the political soapboxing.

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

I'm sorry but it's impossible to discuss the issue without referring to the government of the day. They've been in charge since 2011 and things have just gotten worse. If i'm not allowed discuss the issue openly i'll step aside and leave it to others to discuss as it's pointless.

Old diesel

Part of the problem with proposal is that it sets an excessive rate for what should be "the entry level" option.

A tiny room with absolutely no security of tenure should be the entry level option.

It's a mess because it's better to design housin solutions that can adapt to various needs.

So for example if you have various flat types in your apartment blocks.

I've been in hotel rooms (I love it when you get an upgrade lol) bigger then what these rooms are going to be.

Bear in mind it isn't actually intended that you live in a hotel room - yes too many homeless families do - but they aren't meant to be lived in.

Something is messed up when the hotel room you stay in for 3 days is actually BETTER then what we are asking people to LIVE in.

Housing should meet the needs of all not just a niche market of people on high pay who just want a place to lay their head and are willing to throw money at it.

Graham

Mod Note

InTheShadows wrote: »

If i'm not allowed discuss the issue openly i'll step aside and leave it to others to discuss

Based on your most recent posts, that would be a good idea.


If you'd like to discuss specific parts of government policy/actions that are relevant to the discussion of co-living rather than just meaningless party bashing you are welcome to continue to participate.

Do not reply to this post.

TSQ

NuttyMcNutty wrote: »

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

At least it wont be other peoples farts. Know lots of incomers sharing rooms, even some sharing with strangers.

lola85

BaZmO* wrote: »

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.

Ok so you now change your opinion to full time workers in Ireland should be able to own their own house to they should have access to long term rentals.

That we can agree on,

Stark

They both should be attractive depending on your wants/needs/priorities:

Renting: Being able to move easily as your lifestyle circumstances change. Not owning your home at the end of a term is offset by having the cost of upkeep and maintenance over the years included in the rent.
Buying: Paying a lot over a term but then paying much reduced costs after the term. Being able to customize the home as you see fit. Having an asset you can leave to dependents.

The latter shouldn't be a privilege available only to the very wealthy or those with inherited capital. Being forced into one or the other due to a dysfunctional market isn't good.

lainey_d_123

Star Lord wrote: »

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

Exactly. They have long term leases, they can paint and customise their home, they generally come unfurnished so you can bring your own furniture and make it yours. And most importantly, they don't cost over half your salary to rent.

BaZmO*

lola85 wrote: »

Ok so you now change your opinion to full time workers in Ireland should be able to own their own house to they should have access to long term rentals.

That we can agree on,

Huh? I didn’t change my mind.

punisher5112

This type of unit based housing is such a terrible idea and going to cause even more mental health issues and other health issues.

How is it council houses back in the day were actual homes now there just cubes.

Edgware

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Exactly. They have long term leases, they can paint and customise their home, they generally come unfurnished so you can bring your own furniture and make it yours. And most importantly, they don't cost over half your salary to rent.

And tenants obey their leases, pay their rent on time instead of whinging that their wages didnt come through on time

usernamegoes

punisher5112 wrote: »

This type of unit based housing is such a terrible idea and going to cause even more mental health issues and other health issues.

How is it council houses back in the day were actual homes now there just cubes.

It will certainly help those dealing with loneliness and isolation. I think, for the right people, this will be great for their mental health.

punisher5112

punisher5112 wrote: »

This type of unit based housing is such a terrible idea and going to cause even more mental health issues and other health issues.

How is it council houses back in the day were actual homes now there just cubes.

How do you reach those conclusions?

The_Conductor

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Exactly. They have long term leases, they can paint and customise their home, they generally come unfurnished so you can bring your own furniture and make it yours. And most importantly, they don't cost over half your salary to rent.

However...... the norm is 3 months deposit + the first month's rent upfront. This is actually the law in Switzerland- and simply the norm in lots of other places. In some places with an excess of rental property- the deposit may be lower to 2 month's rent to attract a tenant. The deposit *is* lodged into escrow- aka it is not given directly to the landlord- however, it is 3 months- not the Irish 1 month..........

hmmm

Old diesel wrote: »

Part of the problem with proposal is that it sets an excessive rate for what should be "the entry level" option.

The only reason these prices are being quoted is because we lack supply. We've been faffing around as a country for 10 years debating what would we should do, and listening to endless arguments from all sides. It's time to start building something, and as supply increases rents will come down.

punisher5112

usernamegoes wrote: »

It will certainly help those dealing with loneliness and isolation. I think, for the right people, this will be great for their mental health.

No it won't as they will stay in their rooms more as there are many that can't deal with numbers etc ...

It's a terrible idea even if it's for say students it's so bad....

Imagine living in a box for 4 years or more having to share a kitchen and living room....

Terrible terrible idea....

Look at how other countries do it and people have adequate space and a home....

Caranica

punisher5112 wrote: »

No it won't as they will stay in their rooms more as there are many that can't deal with numbers etc ...

It's a terrible idea even if it's for say students it's so bad....

Imagine living in a box for 4 years or more having to share a kitchen and living room....

Terrible terrible idea....

Look at how other countries do it and people have adequate space and a home....

Also they won't be allowed overnight guests as rooms are single occupancy.

usernamegoes

punisher5112 wrote: »

No it won't as they will stay in their rooms more as there are many that can't deal with numbers etc ...

It's a terrible idea even if it's for say students it's so bad....

Imagine living in a box for 4 years or more having to share a kitchen and living room....

Terrible terrible idea....

Look at how other countries do it and people have adequate space and a home....

So because some people with mental health issues don't like being around lots of other people you think those who have mental health issues from being lonely and isolated should also be stopped from living in these kind of homes. That's pretty warped logic!

This psychologist disagrees with you, I know who I'd listen to on these matters. https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/co-living-could-help-tackle-loneliness-psychologist-says-as-petition-launched-against-development-940635.html

Graham

Caranica wrote: »

Also they won't be allowed overnight guests as rooms are single occupancy.

Are you sure? Other co-living developments allow overnight guests.

punisher5112

usernamegoes wrote: »

So because some people with mental health issues don't like being around lots of other people you think those who have mental health issues from being lonely and isolated should also be stopped from living in these kind of homes. That's pretty warped logic!

This psychologist disagrees with you, I know who I'd listen to on these matters. https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/co-living-could-help-tackle-loneliness-psychologist-says-as-petition-launched-against-development-940635.html

They ain't no home. Create proper homes with greens nothing to big but enough for kids to play safe and the community get together.

Hubs like this will not work but if you're happy that people will have no other choice and also have to pay extortionate rates then carry on.

usernamegoes

Caranica wrote: »

Also they won't be allowed overnight guests as rooms are single occupancy.

Can you point to a source to say the overnight guests won't be allowed. Can't find that anywhere. Not saying it's not true just want to check.

Topgear on Dave

punisher5112 wrote: »

No it won't as they will stay in their rooms more as there are many that can't deal with numbers etc ...

It's a terrible idea even if it's for say students it's so bad....

Imagine living in a box for 4 years or more having to share a kitchen and living room....

Terrible terrible idea....

Look at how other countries do it and people have adequate space and a home....

I rented for quite a number of years sharing kitchens and living rooms. Its no big deal, Id do it all again.

And I had a few bedrooms smaller than what they are going to build here. Its the price that is outrageous here, not particularly the conditions.

The_Conductor

usernamegoes wrote: »

So because some people with mental health issues don't like being around lots of other people you think those who have mental health issues from being lonely and isolated should also be stopped from living in these kind of homes. That's pretty warped logic!

This psychologist disagrees with you, I know who I'd listen to on these matters. https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/co-living-could-help-tackle-loneliness-psychologist-says-as-petition-launched-against-development-940635.html

The psychologist (Alison Keating) is also on the record stating that people need sufficient personal space, and she has concerns that this is not being addressed in the current co-living proposals. She suggested that the current proposal could be detrimentally compromising on the clinical need for personal space.

MOD NOTE:
Debating the relative merits and psychology of lonliness and mental health issues- is far removed from the remit of this forum. If people really want to discuss such topics- I'm going to have to ask that it be taken elsewhere.

usernamegoes

punisher5112 wrote: »

They ain't no home. Create proper homes with greens nothing to big but enough for kids to play safe and the community get together.

Hubs like this will not work but if you're happy that people will have no other choice and also have to pay extortionate rates then carry on.

What kids! Not everyone has kids or wants to live with kids! I think this is the problem; you have a very narrow focus on how people live their lives. Not everyone is like you.

These people have every other choice! These homes are not very cheap. Anyone living in one could afford to live elsewhere, but choose to live there.

It would be a different story if they where being built to house refugees with children. Those people have no choice and they aren't suitable for families.

We need options and we let people decide.

usernamegoes

The_Conductor wrote: »

The psychologist (Alison Keating) is also on the record stating that people need sufficient personal space, and she has concerns that this is not being addressed in the current co-living proposals. She suggested that the current proposal could be detrimentally compromising on the clinical need for personal space.

MOD NOTE:
Debating the relative merits and psychology of lonliness and mental health issues- is far removed from the remit of this forum. If people really want to discuss such topics- I'm going to have to ask that it be taken elsewhere.

Not sure if it's fair that you post an argument and then tell me I can't respond.

The_Conductor

usernamegoes wrote: »

Not sure if it's fair that you post an argument and then tell me I can't respond.

I'm not arguing- if you look at the article being quoted by you- it contains a flavour of what Ms Keating has said elsewhere:

Chartered Psychologist, Alison Keating, says there could be benefits to renting in a co-living building if it is done properly.

"If it was rolled out really well I think it could - conceptually - work for a diverse group where we could actually look at combatting loneliness which is quite a silent epidemic," said Ms Keating.

"My concern is that obviously you need enough personal space as well.

"That is really important and I don't think there is any need to compromise on that."

She has gone further elsewhere (Newstalk).

Debating psychological issues is not within my own personal repertoire - and is not an avenue I wish this thread to get derailed on.

Marcusm

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.

The London equivalent, The Collective at Old Oak Common, is in no more a central area than DL. It is interesting that this is not in Sandyford, however.

Marcusm

BaZmO* wrote: »

LOL. They have fold down beds!

OMG, they provide a facility where the bed does not take up a significant amount of the floor space when not being used. Is that a drawback?

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

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.

It’s not displacing 92 apartments; the landowner has chosen to adopt this plan of building the co-living space and not 92 apartments. There is no shortage of building land in Dublin. Just as there is no shortage of politicians seeking to object to proposed developments (500 units in Raheny, hundreds more at Griffith Avenue/Malahide Road). I find it incongruous that this small development should garner such greater publicity than the NIMBY opposition to much greater developments.

usernamegoes

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'm not arguing- if you look at the article being quoted by you- it contains a flavour of what Ms Keating has said elsewhere:



She has gone further elsewhere (Newstalk).

Debating psychological issues is not within my own personal repertoire - and is not an avenue I wish this thread to get derailed on.

Grand so. I was responding to someone who said they'd be bad for mental health with an expert who says largely they'd be good. I suppose you're right, I'm not an expert and I assume neither is the other poster. We should rely on the expert I posted whose largely in favour of the mental health benefits.

Caranica

usernamegoes wrote: »

Can you point to a source to say the overnight guests won't be allowed. Can't find that anywhere. Not saying it's not true just want to check.

If you go through all the planning documents the justification of the small space is that these rooms are all single occupancy only. The ABP report wasn't available when I checked yesterday but I doubt that has changed.