Co-living..Shared kitchen for 42 ?

Graham

Mod Note

feel free to continue the mental health discussions elsewhere.

usernamegoes

Caranica wrote: »

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.

My dorm in college had planning for single occupancy too. This is permanent occupancy. I was allowed overnight guests just not consistently. Does the planning for these say differently?

Caranica

usernamegoes wrote: »

My dorm in college had planning for single occupancy too. This is permanent occupancy. I was allowed overnight guests just not consistently. Does the planning for these say differently?

I'd need to go through the stuff again and I'm not in a position to do that for 2 weeks now but I remember it being strongly worded.

pinkyeye

hmmm wrote: »

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.

I agree with you on the bedsit thing, they suited a lot of people, particularly older single people but this accommodation doesn't solve that problem. ##

No way anyone who previously lived in a bedsit could afford these boxes.

usernamegoes

pinkyeye wrote: »

I agree with you on the bedsit thing, they suited a lot of people, particularly older single people but this accommodation doesn't solve that problem. ##

No way anyone who previously lived in a bedsit could afford these boxes.

Maybe because they're in DL and built to a spec that high earners expect and are willing to pay for. If these were built in Tallaght they'd be a lot cheaper and then loads of people would be moaning about poor people being forced to live in them.

Damned if you do and...

Topgear on Dave

pinkyeye wrote: »

I agree with you on the bedsit thing, they suited a lot of people, particularly older single people but this accommodation doesn't solve that problem. ##

Looky here, nobody gives a sh*t about THEM. I had a great chat on twitter one night with a local labour politico type and the ban is regarded as a great victory over the landlord class. :pac:

I doubt the same fella ever rented in his life. :rolleyes:

BaZmO*

Marcusm wrote: »

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?

Absolutely not, but read my comment in the correct context to which I replied.

pinkyeye

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Looky here, nobody gives a sh*t about THEM. I had a great chat on twitter one night with a local labour politico type and the ban is regarded as a great victory over the landlord class. :pac:

I doubt the same fella ever rented in his life. :rolleyes:

I'm confused by what you mean here?

punisher5112

In my opinion if this is the new norm and how housing is going.... It's going to be another serious issue later on in the years ...

And on the comments about kids I never stated everyone wants them but living in a cube isn't what I see as the future....

I understand 3 bed semi might not be possible as Dublin centre has been built on in most cases but in a city apartments work well but they also have or should have adequate services and facilities around.

Topgear on Dave

pinkyeye wrote: »

I'm confused by what you mean here?

Sorry. I guess what I was trying to say was that this political party member was much more concerned with an "ideological win" (over landlords) than my own more practical concerns. (cheap, available housing)

lola85

punisher5112 wrote: »

In my opinion if this is the new norm and how housing is going.... It's going to be another serious issue later on in the years ...

And on the comments about kids I never stated everyone wants them but living in a cube isn't what I see as the future....

I understand 3 bed semi might not be possible as Dublin centre has been built on in most cases but in a city apartments work well but they also have or should have adequate services and facilities around.

But most cities have this model,



We are not above anyone else that we deserve better.

The world is over populated, we need to start thinking of different ways for people to live and of someone is happy with this arrangement then leave them to it.

I’m sure it’s better than some ****ty box room
In a 3 bed on the outskirts of the city with no WiFi or basic needs for 700 euro a month.

lainey_d_123

The_Conductor wrote: »

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..........

...so? This is a small price to pay when you have the option of renting a place securely for multiple years. Would rather that than have to pay a new deposit every single year and incur moving costs/agency costs.

usernamegoes

punisher5112 wrote: »

In my opinion if this is the new norm and how housing is going.... It's going to be another serious issue later on in the years ...

And on the comments about kids I never stated everyone wants them but living in a cube isn't what I see as the future....

I understand 3 bed semi might not be possible as Dublin centre has been built on in most cases but in a city apartments work well but they also have or should have adequate services and facilities around.

I have good news. This is not the norm. This is a niche property for specific needs of a small number of people. We need to accept that other people have different needs at different time in their lives. This is one part of it.

Graces7

usernamegoes wrote: »

I have good news. This is not the norm. This is a niche property for specific needs of a small number of people. We need to accept that other people have different needs at different time in their lives. This is one part of it.

Excellent summing up; perfect. I keep an eye on the Killarney co-living place as I used to live thereabouts and it is going well. They specified 3 - 6 month stays..

See link in my earlier posts..

Some of the issues folk have will be cleared up when more details are available.

FishOnABike

Graces7 wrote: »

Excellent summing up; perfect. I keep an eye on the Killarney co-living place as I used to live thereabouts and it is going well. They specified 3 - 6 month stays..

See link in my earlier posts..

Some of the issues folk have will be cleared up when more details are available.

If this is rigorously adhered to they might be more fit for purpose albeit at a high price.

Such a transient occupation is inconsistent with developing any sense of community. It is essentially an upmarket, short stay hostel.

There is a valid concern that the intended short stay occupancy will, by default, be extended indefinitely resulting in a lowering in housing standards and an increase in rental costs.

There is a very limited valid requirement for such transient accommodation. Any planning granted should be strictly matched to proven quantitive need for such temporary, transient accommodation. It should not set a precedent for more and more of these type of developments to the detrement of more suitable and balanced accommodation. Planning should set people's needs first, not the maximising of developer profits.

Caranica

Graces7 wrote: »

Excellent summing up; perfect. I keep an eye on the Killarney co-living place as I used to live thereabouts and it is going well. They specified 3 - 6 month stays..

See link in my earlier posts..

Some of the issues folk have will be cleared up when more details are available.

This thread is about Dun Laoghaire, not Killarney. Smaller rooms, fold up beds, poorer facilities. Not all co-living is of the same standard so just because Killarney is working out does not mean Dun Laoghaire will.

Mrs OBumble

FishOnABike wrote: »

There is a very limited valid requirement for such transient accommodation.

There is a constant stream of people coming to Ireland short term for temporary work. There are also people working in seasonal industries who sometimes need temporary accommodation.

lola85

lola85 wrote: »

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

Even Germany which is a total outlier due to WW2 has home ownership of 51% so as usual these “facts” about renting in Europe are totally exaggerated. Sweden has 65% ownership (I.e. 35% renting which is half your claim) and even Sweden is on the low side. Contrary to what some appear to believe or certainly like to claim to suit agendas most of Europe has home ownership similar or even higher than Ireland, 70%+ ownership is the norm and over 1/3 of Europe has 80%+ ownership.

vriesmays

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There is a constant stream of people coming to Ireland short term for temporary work. There are also people working in seasonal industries who sometimes need temporary accommodation.

If you sign up to these things you can stay a week in Dublin and the next week in London as long as you've paid the rent you can move around.

terrydel

InTheShadows wrote: »

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.

Well said, avoiding the political aspect is doing the subject an injustice and is highly disingenuous at best.

Caranica

terrydel wrote: »

Well said, avoiding the political aspect is doing the subject an injustice and is highly disingenuous at best.

This is a greedy developer. Nothing to do with the government, the developer has planning permission for apartments on this site but sees a chance for more money.

That's 3 high profile wins for this developer in recent weeks in and around Dun Laoghaire with An Bord Pleanala, this one, the one beside Pat Kenny and the crazy permission at Bulloch Harbour. An Bord Pleanala overruled the recommendations to refuse by their planning inspectors in at least 2/3 of these, haven't seen the report on the co-living site yet. ABP are the problem here, see space, approve crazy developments and to hell with the consequences.

terrydel

Caranica wrote: »

This is a greedy developer. Nothing to do with the government, the developer has planning permission for apartments on this site but sees a chance for more money.

That's 3 high profile wins for this developer in recent weeks in and around Dun Laoghaire with An Bord Pleanala, this one, the one beside Pat Kenny and the crazy permission at Bulloch Harbour. An Bord Pleanala overruled the recommendations to refuse by their planning inspectors in at least 2/3 of these, haven't seen the report on the co-living site yet. ABP are the problem here, see space, approve crazy developments and to hell with the consequences.

Government set policy, they could legislate to prevent the possibility of developers producing this type of greed driven 'home' if they so wished. They are happy to sing it's praises at every opportunity, they allow institutional investment funds to take over our property market and pay no tax for the privilege. How can you seriously say it's nothing to do with government.

Caranica

terrydel wrote: »

Government set policy, they could legislate to prevent the possibility of developers producing this type of greed driven 'home' if they so wished. They are happy to sing it's praises at every opportunity, they allow institutional investment funds to take over our property market and pay no tax for the privilege. How can you seriously say it's nothing to do with government.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to draft legislation and bring it through both houses of the Oireachtas? These are new types of developments, give them a chance.

I'm totally against this development in Dun Laoghaire and I've studied it in detail. I'm not against the notion of co-living and can see merit in it, but this development is terrible.

I blame the developers but more than anyone the board of ABP. They've approved some ridiculous applications lately.

Marcusm

Caranica wrote: »

This is a greedy developer. Nothing to do with the government, the developer has planning permission for apartments on this site but sees a chance for more money.

That's 3 high profile wins for this developer in recent weeks in and around Dun Laoghaire with An Bord Pleanala, this one, the one beside Pat Kenny and the crazy permission at Bulloch Harbour. An Bord Pleanala overruled the recommendations to refuse by their planning inspectors in at least 2/3 of these, haven't seen the report on the co-living site yet. ABP are the problem here, see space, approve crazy developments and to hell with the consequences.

What’s so crazy about the Bulloch harbour permission. It’s for 3 very large houses facing the sea and a couple of apartments. It’s certainly not over development and the adjacent properties consist in the main of detached houses and the Bailey and Pilot View apartment complexes which were similarly exclusive when built. There are some small cottages in the harbour. The land is a commercial unit. It could simply be reused for commercial purposes generating significantly more traffic and noise nuisance than a small number of houses. Or else you think it’s insufficiently dense, ie a larger number of smaller units should be built?

Caranica

Marcusm wrote: »

What’s so crazy about the Bulloch harbour permission. It’s for 3 very large houses facing the sea and a couple of apartments. It’s certainly not over development and the adjacent properties consist in the main of detached houses and the Bailey and Pilot View apartment complexes which were similarly exclusive when built. There are some small cottages in the harbour. The land is a commercial unit. It could simply be reused for commercial purposes generating significantly more traffic and noise nuisance than a small number of houses. Or else you think it’s insufficiently dense, ie a larger number of smaller units should be built?

What's so crazy is the topping of waves over the site in a storm. The videos are terrifying. It's dangerous development and those houses will be uninsurable.

https://inshore-ireland.com/appeals-board-ignores-safety-issues-flagged-in-heritage-harbour-development-plan/

terrydel

Caranica wrote: »

Do you have any idea how long it takes to draft legislation and bring it through both houses of the Oireachtas? These are new types of developments, give them a chance.

I'm totally against this development in Dun Laoghaire and I've studied it in detail. I'm not against the notion of co-living and can see merit in it, but this development is terrible.

I blame the developers but more than anyone the board of ABP. They've approved some ridiculous applications lately.

Yes, of course I have an idea. FG are in power 7-8 years now, thats ample time.
My argument is that people abdicating government of responsibility here are talking out their hoop.
Private enterprise will always operate within the boundaries set by the government.
Stevie Wonder can see that our housing crisis is a result of policy and ideology more than anything else. There is simply no denying that.

usernamegoes

terrydel wrote: »

Yes, of course I have an idea. FG are in power 7-8 years now, thats ample time.
My argument is that people abdicating government of responsibility here are talking out their hoop.
Private enterprise will always operate within the boundaries set by the government.
Stevie Wonder can see that our housing crisis is a result of policy and ideology more than anything else. There is simply no denying that.

What is the policy and ideology exactly that your opposed to? What about it would you change?

Marcusm

Caranica wrote: »

What's so crazy is the topping of waves over the site in a storm. The videos are terrifying. It's dangerous development and those houses will be uninsurable.

https://inshore-ireland.com/appeals-board-ignores-safety-issues-flagged-in-heritage-harbour-development-plan/

I doubt that it is “dangerous”; the site is already fully developed with commercial buildings. Given the likely selling prices of these large houses in a desirable coastal location, I would expect the specialised construction to take account of the requirements of the location. Bartra is basically Richard Barrett; he has a reputation to maintain.

Idbatterim

These will obviously be built if they are more lucrative than typical apartments. They should be allowed , but say 20 sq m and max rent of 1000 month in my opinion ...

The_Conductor

Idbatterim wrote: »

These will obviously be built if they are more lucrative than typical apartments. They should be allowed , but say 20 sq m and max rent of 1000 month in my opinion ...

Price matched at the same price as the smallest 1 bed apartment, but built at 3 times the density.