Co-living..Shared kitchen for 42 ?

Graces7

Caranica wrote: »

The room has a mini fridge and a sink. Neither a kettle or a microwave makes it a kitchenette. That's if there was even room for them. Have you even looked at the architectural report on the website? These rooms are smaller than a disabled parking space!

As I said, you can choose to bring in a kettle and a microwave to prepare food and drinks. what is wrong with that? Does it have to be a formal placement? sink, fridge, add kettle and microwave; great.

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

As I said, you can choose to bring in a kettle and a microwave to prepare food and drinks. what is wrong with that? Does it have to be a formal placement? sink, fridge, add kettle and microwave; great.

Please don’t take offense, but I think it’s a generational thing. I feel that you and I are graduates of the old bedsits! I know that I’ve very happy memories of those days (if I overlook the shared bathroom on the landing). I didn’t have a fridge. A sink and a camp gas ring. I became a master of one pot meals.

Graces7

Deleted User wrote: »

Please don’t take offense, but I think it’s a generational thing. I feel that you and I are graduates of the old bedsits! I know that I’ve very happy memories of those days (if I overlook the shared bathroom on the landing). I didn’t have a fridge. A sink and a camp gas ring. I became a master of one pot meals.

I am far from offended; just seeing the generational thing as you are doing. Like you I spent many happy years in bedsits ...sink and cooker or a shared kitchen. I know what you mean re the shared bathroom :eek: And putting a shilling in to heat the water and finding some ***** had got there and stolen it..dettol by the bottle before you bathed..

washbasin in the room though

But these places now are far from those days. So many communal facilities . The Killarney one looks excellent ; early days there though.

and far better than some of the rentals I have endured in ireland.

tvjunki

I bet you this type of rental will not come under RTB remit.

Old diesel

2ndcoming wrote: »

C3PO wrote: »

That's my understanding too.
I really don't get all the outrage. I would much prefer to live in a co-living type arrangement than sharing an apartment with someone. My guess is that it will do well!

As others have pointed out the price is offensive.

But I'm just trying to follow the logic. You would rather live in a property where you have your own bedroom but all other mod cons are shared with 41 other people over a property where you have your own bedroom but all other mod cons are shared with one other person? For less money.

Prison is a cheaper way to achieve the former.

This......

We know that conventional house sharing can run into issues.

But I'd rather share an apartment with my friend i know and trust - rather then share with random people.

And even if you do have to share with a stranger - one to two of them is more agreeable then 41.

This is about selling "a community living experience" and fancy things like on site Gym for a premium rate.

It's like Audi in the car world offering you lots of options because people will opt for them and those options are part of Audis profit.

These guys give you nice extras but those make up part of its profit.

Varik

Think overall it's fine, more kitchen space would be better. If they provided or allowed a combination oven in the rooms it'd be suit me better than any house shares I've done (except 1).

The_Conductor

Seems akin to many of the better hostels on the continent.
Fine for a night, or even a few nights- but certainly not for longer stays.
The manner in which they are suggesting stays of between 2 and 12 months for those incarcerated in here- at the prices they are charging- is staggering to me.
If it were student accommodation- you'd still have people up in arms over the out of way location, the price- and the manner in which the living room and kitchen aren't particularly good for swinging cats.

I can see that there is the potential to have a few of these units as a component of our accommodation bank- however, in my opinion this should be strictly on a short term basis- and the manner in which they're suggesting stays of up to a year upfront- is mind boggling in my opinion.

Also- while I accept DunLaoghaire is on the DART- its hardly the most salubrious of locations- I just don't get how the suggested price point is considered fair or reasonable? Am I missing something?

I stayed in Bedsits too- I had both good and bad experiences. However- the whole pulldown bed - just doesn't cut it- even a sofabed would be preferable in my eyes.

I'm staggered that we're back at this position again- I accept that it was inevitable when all the bedsits were yanked from the sector without anything to replace them- however, this is taking the biscuit.

Eric Cartman

I think this only looks 'awful' because of the price, and our current crisis.

This type of living is perfect for single graduates fresh out of college , travelling workers that just need somewhere to be a few days of the month, foreign workers on fixed contracts who'll return home after theyre done or foreign workers coming over to work hard for a few years and return home.

I think the idea of 42 people (2x people per room) occupying a kitchen at the same time isnt the reality at all, theres probably going to be a lot of apartments just occupied by one person and different working hours will mean the chances of 42 people in that room at the same time is pretty much 0.

the upsides as a whole are that this should empty out some current one bed apartments and house shares into this style living, freeing up those properties for couples and families looking for housing.

I think 1300 is a bit insane but its seaside south dublin we're talking here, if it was in say cabra and 800 a month it would seem a lot more reasonable. Its likely all bills included, with a 'dont take the piss' clause on electricity and house rules banning things like 2kw electric heaters etc..

Look at this as part of our future solution that makes providing other housing types more effective.

The_Conductor

That the intention is 2-12 month licenses- may work for some people- however, for others, in the absence of a viable option to move elsewhere to more suitable accommodation- its simply an indefinite stay in a a quasi-bedroom that doesn't even have a formal bed- a sitting room the size of a regular sitting room for 42 people- and kitchen facilities suitable for 7 at a time- of which 2 can be cooking.........

At least the old bedsits didn't pretend they were short-term solutions for people- this is taking the defacto role of a bedsit, charging top dollar- and dolling it up as a purse made from pigs ears.......

Yes- accommodation like this has a viable place in our accommodation offerings- however, dressing it up as a solution- and a damn expensive solution at that- is staggering in nature. Its a short term bedroom- and it shouldn't be viewed by anyone as anything other than that- however, by the developer's own admission- they see this as being medium to longer term accommodation for people..........

I despair.

The_Conductor

The_Conductor wrote: »

That the intention is 2-12 month licenses- may work for some people- however, for others, in the absence of a viable option to move elsewhere to more suitable accommodation- its simply an indefinite stay in a a quasi-bedroom that doesn't even have a formal bed- a sitting room the size of a regular sitting room for 42 people- and kitchen facilities suitable for 7 at a time- of which 2 can be cooking.........

At least the old bedsits didn't pretend they were short-term solutions for people- this is taking the defacto role of a bedsit, charging top dollar- and dolling it up as a purse made from pigs ears.......

Yes- accommodation like this has a viable place in our accommodation offerings- however, dressing it up as a solution- and a damn expensive solution at that- is staggering in nature. Its a short term bedroom- and it shouldn't be viewed by anyone as anything other than that- however, by the developer's own admission- they see this as being medium to longer term accommodation for people..........

I despair.

I don’t think anyone is dressing it up as a solution. Another option, yes. People need to open their minds and accept alternative lifestyles. There are many of us who have fond memories of the old bedsits. They served a purpose. Although the suggested price, even though it covers utilities, is a bit steep.

the_syco

Graces7 wrote: »

I have lived in bedsits that size. No worries. and really the room is only for sleeping in? Not living 24/7 in. Not a cell as not locked in!

Were you paying €1,300 for said bedsit?

The_Conductor wrote: »

Also- while I accept DunLaoghaire is on the DART- its hardly the most salubrious of locations- I just don't get how the suggested price point is considered fair or reasonable? Am I missing something?

It's bad pricing for it's location. Perhaps if it were situated between North/South Circular Roads, but it's not.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think the idea of 42 people (2x people per room) occupying a kitchen at the same time isnt the reality at all, theres probably going to be a lot of apartments just occupied by one person and different working hours will mean the chances of 42 people in that room at the same time is pretty much 0.

Agreed. Also, the possibility of all the people on the one floor knowing how to cook would drop this number down further.

the_syco wrote: »

Lower Ground Floor
Ground Floor
1st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
4th Floor
5th Floor

Seven floors.
10+26+40+42+40+38+12=208
208 rooms. So if full, the occupancy will be between 208 and 416 people.

Caranica

the_syco wrote: »

Seven floors.
10+26+40+42+40+38+12=208
208 rooms. So if full, the occupancy will be between 208 and 416 people.

Application states single occupancy bedspaces

Mrs OBumble

The_Conductor wrote: »

Seems akin to many of the better hostels on the continent.

There are people staying for months at a time in Irish backpacker hostels now: six to a bedroom. This is a lot better.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don’t think anyone is dressing it up as a solution. Another option, yes. People need to open their minds and accept alternative lifestyles.

This plus lots. Middle class luvvies seem to struggle with the idea that not everyone wants to live like them.

Old diesel

Deleted User wrote: »

The_Conductor wrote: »

That the intention is 2-12 month licenses- may work for some people- however, for others, in the absence of a viable option to move elsewhere to more suitable accommodation- its simply an indefinite stay in a a quasi-bedroom that doesn't even have a formal bed- a sitting room the size of a regular sitting room for 42 people- and kitchen facilities suitable for 7 at a time- of which 2 can be cooking.........

At least the old bedsits didn't pretend they were short-term solutions for people- this is taking the defacto role of a bedsit, charging top dollar- and dolling it up as a purse made from pigs ears.......

Yes- accommodation like this has a viable place in our accommodation offerings- however, dressing it up as a solution- and a damn expensive solution at that- is staggering in nature. Its a short term bedroom- and it shouldn't be viewed by anyone as anything other than that- however, by the developer's own admission- they see this as being medium to longer term accommodation for people..........

I despair.

I don’t think anyone is dressing it up as a solution. Another option, yes. People need to open their minds and accept alternative lifestyles. There are many of us who have fond memories of the old bedsits. They served a purpose. Although the suggested price, even though it covers utilities, is a bit steep.

"Accept alternative lifestyles" should deliver at least ONE of the following.....

1) reduced cost - ie you get a place to live cheaper.....

2) be better/nicer

3) failing 1 or 2 - at least have long term cool factor for you.*

This proposal seems to fail at all three

*living in a cob house for example if you like that sort of thing. Ditto living in an eco village if that floats your boat.

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Also- while I accept DunLaoghaire is on the DART- its hardly the most salubrious of locations- I just don't get how the suggested price point is considered fair or reasonable? Am I missing something?

I stayed in Bedsits too- I had both good and bad experiences. However- the whole pulldown bed - just doesn't cut it- even a sofabed would be preferable in my eyes.

I'm staggered that we're back at this position again- I accept that it was inevitable when all the bedsits were yanked from the sector without anything to replace them- however, this is taking the biscuit.

I think you are being a bit harsh on Dun L.

As regards the pull down bed, a quality pull down bed will have sprung slats and s quality mattress, ie a proper bed, and a world apart from even the best sofa bed.

I assume that, after the opening of The Node in Pembroke St/Fitzwilliam Sq, that they have established an interest for this type of accommodation. No one will be forced to live in them.

s7ryf3925pivug

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/0510/1048638-dublin-housing/

Private tenants get no privacy, share with strangers as prices force economy of scale - this being an extreme example. Social housing is given to family units. It's all backwards.

the_syco

Marcusm wrote: »

I think you are being a bit harsh on Dun L.

It's not a bad location, but it's not really a €1,300 location.

Marcusm wrote: »

I assume that, after the opening of The Node in Pembroke St/Fitzwilliam Sq, that they have established an interest for this type of accommodation. No one will be forced to live in them.

The Node is at an excellent location. Is everything built on between the Docklands train station & the 3Arena? That would be a great location for this sort of thing.

Always Tired

This will become very much the norm in various forms, communal living will make a comeback.

Considering Canary Wharf is a posh place, 1300 all bills included isn't ridiculous. And it could be a great way to meet people.

Ultimately how good any scheme would be would depend on the residents and owners being on the same page in terms of how things should be done and I can't see that being easy. Would likely be a lot of disagreements between residents and between residents and the management and what not.

Id say it could be a gold mine for a drug dealer who gets in (literally) on the ground floor!

Mrs OBumble

Old diesel wrote: »

"Accept alternative lifestyles" should deliver at least ONE of the following.....

1) reduced cost - ie you get a place to live cheaper.....

2) be better/nicer

3) failing 1 or 2 - at least have long term cool factor for you.*

This proposal seems to fail at all three

*living in a cob house for example if you like that sort of thing. Ditto living in an eco village if that floats your boat.

Or

4) Be more attuned to your personal ethos.
(Having a whole 2 or 3br house allocated to one single occupant is incredibly wasteful: the kitchen and bathroom are idle for 23 hours of each day, and one bedroom is almost never used)

5) Offer convenience, eg not being tied to a long lease or having to set up your own utiliites.

... and probably some more options too.

Lumen

This is like something out of Black Mirror. Or a Radiohead song. Fitter, happier, more productive. Like a pig, in a cage, on antibiotics.

Bedsits have always been ****. Just because you endured something in the past doesn't mean it is acceptable now. We used to endure polio, smallpox and the Catholic church.

Graces7

Lumen wrote: »

This is like something out of Black Mirror. Or a Radiohead song. Fitter, happier, more productive. Like a pig, in a cage, on antibiotics.

Bedsits have always been ****. Just because you endured something in the past doesn't mean it is acceptable now. We used to endure polio, smallpox and the Catholic church.

:rolleyes:

Graces7

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There are people staying for months at a time in Irish backpacker hostels now: six to a bedroom. This is a lot better.




This plus lots. Middle class luvvies seem to struggle with the idea that not everyone wants to live like them.

spot on. Thank you. I enjoyed bedsits greatly. we all did. we had good neighbours and all we needed. But that was in the UK where we are and were more openminded and practical about these things.

The way some are talking here you would think it was this

http://digg.com/video/hong-kong-cage-homes

B0jangles

Yeah bedsits were a pretty good solution in their own way - my grandmother used to rent out loads of them.

They were a low-cost form of accomodation that suited single people who either preferred to live compactly or couldn't afford to pay for a bigger space.

They cost about 50 quid a week, and that was in the '90s.

Compare to 325 euro a week now.

Have wages increased by 500% in the last 30 years?

edit: just looked at the CSO site and adjusted for inflation, average industrial weekly wages have increased from 490.31 euro in 1990 to 677.80 euro - so a 38% increase in average wage versus a 500% increase in a rental cost. But the problem is whiny renters who just aren't as tough as you were!

For those of you extolling the glorious days of bedsit life back in the old days - could you afford to pay 1300 a month out of your current income and still afford to eat?

Topgear on Dave

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There are people staying for months at a time in Irish backpacker hostels now: six to a bedroom. This is a lot better.

I did that for a few months in Edinburgh when I was young and penniless.
It was cheap and that was all that mattered to me.

Topgear on Dave

B0jangles wrote: »

Yeah bedsits were a pretty good solution in their own way - my grandmother used to rent out loads of them.

....

For those of you extolling the glorious days of bedsit life back in the old days - could you afford to pay 1300 a month out of your current income and still afford to eat?

"What is rare is valuable"

You hit the nail on the head there at the beginning. she used to rent out loads of them

Well now they have been banned or severely restricted, but they are still needed.... so they are expensive.

I shared one of those big old houses in the North Circular in Dublin back in the early '00s. I think there were 19 beds in it with one large kitchen and one large sitting room.

I was young and uncaring, the location was ideal and the rent was cheap.

The whole thing would be condemned now of course.

Old diesel

Old diesel wrote: »

"Accept alternative lifestyles" should deliver at least ONE of the following.....

1) reduced cost - ie you get a place to live cheaper.....

2) be better/nicer

3) failing 1 or 2 - at least have long term cool factor for you.*

This proposal seems to fail at all three

*living in a cob house for example if you like that sort of thing. Ditto living in an eco village if that floats your boat.

As I said, people need to open their minds.

Many are willing to accept overcrowded situations short term in order to achieve their aim of a foreva home.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said, people need to open their minds.

Many are willing to accept overcrowded situations short term in order to achieve their aim of a foreva home.

It's not their minds, it's their wallets they are expected to open - to have every cent hoovered out by a grossly overpriced rental market.
At that price, their chances of ever saving enough to own their own homes are extremely slim.

Blaming renters for being coddled and not as hardy as the posters who appear to have grown up in the Dublin tenements of the 1860's and who are somehow still here to post about how great it was - 'we may have all had cholera - but it was community cholera' is just tiresome.

Eric Cartman

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

"What is rare is valuable"

You hit the nail on the head there at the beginning. she used to rent out loads of them

Well now they have been banned or severely restricted, but they are still needed.... so they are expensive.

I shared one of those big old houses in the North Circular in Dublin back in the early '00s. I think there were 19 beds in it with one large kitchen and one large sitting room.

I was young and uncaring, the location was ideal and the rent was cheap.

The whole thing would be condemned now of course.

it seems anything thats not endless rows of 3 bed semi's just outside the M50 is 'tenement slums' 'lowering expectations' 'barbaric' 'disgusting' these days.

Removing bedsits dislodged a lot of people who are now putting massive pressure on the rental sector for sharing / 1 bed apartments.

Lumen

Eric Cartman wrote: »

it seems anything thats not endless rows of 3 bed semi's just outside the M50 is 'tenement slums' 'lowering expectations' 'barbaric' 'disgusting' these days.

False dichotomy.

Why not simply apply normal DCC requirements for apartments (e.g. minimum floor areas, aspect, natural lighting, ventilation and sunlight penetration). I recognise that DL is under different council, but simply as an example? Is it not economic to do so?

Why not enforce proper tenant protections, rather than allowing the development to exploit the licensing loophole? Is it not economic to do so?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Removing bedsits dislodged a lot of people who are now putting massive pressure on the rental sector for sharing / 1 bed apartments.

Sure, there's nothing wrong in principle with self-contained housing units. It's an issue of quality.

Eric Cartman

Lumen wrote: »

False dichotomy.

Why not simply apply normal DCC requirements for apartments (e.g. minimum floor areas, aspect, natural lighting, ventilation and sunlight penetration). I recognise that DL is under different council, but simply as an example? Is it not economic to do so?

Why not enforce proper tenant protections, rather than allowing the development to exploit the licensing loophole? Is it not economic to do so?



Sure, there's nothing wrong in principle with self-contained housing units. It's an issue of quality.

Tenant protections on evictions are too much here. It makes letting property like unsecured lending at this point. You never think you'd end up in a position where a group has 'too many rights' but in terms of tenants and being evicted for not paying rent, tenants have too many rights here.

The councils requirements for space and dual aspects and all that craic are too large and too broad for most, nobody is saying have no standards but saying that everyone needs a minimum 25 sq meters or whatever it is and just outright banning of buildings that don't meet a checklist standard is madness.