Co-living..Shared kitchen for 42 ?

Lumen

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

But that has nothing to do with this development. Are you arguing that all tenants should be licensees, or only those in developments owned by foreign funds, or what?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

I can easily argue that 25sqm is perfectly reasonable. Do you want to live in less space than that? If we can't have what we want, then concrete, evidence-based arguments should be presented.

Let's pull some numbers out of the air. Let's say that apartments cost 5k/sqm to build, all in (am welcome to re-run the numbers if someone can provide alternatives). A 25sqm apartment would therefore cost 125k to build. Gross rental income of 10k/year, that's 8% gross yield.

Cost of capital for a large fund is a fraction of that. So what's the problem? It would probably still wash its face at 40sqm.

Why do we need to be building tiny boxes with flip down beds and no proper cooking facilities?

Mrs OBumble

Lumen wrote: »

Why do we need to be building tiny boxes with flip down beds and no proper cooking facilities?

Equally why do we NEED to force everyone into bigger places. Some people, at some life stages, just don't need the same levels of space etc.

It's really wasteful to force everyone into medium or more sized boxes when some only want small.

Eric Cartman

Lumen wrote: »

But that has nothing to do with this development. Are you arguing that all tenants should be licensees, or only those in developments owned by foreign funds, or what?


I can easily argue that 25sqm is perfectly reasonable. Do you want to live in less space than that? If we can't have what we want, then concrete, evidence-based arguments should be presented.

Let's pull some numbers out of the air. Let's say that apartments cost 5k/sqm to build, all in (am welcome to re-run the numbers if someone can provide alternatives). A 25sqm apartment would therefore cost 125k to build. Gross rental income of 10k/year, that's 8% gross yield.

Cost of capital for a large fund is a fraction of that. So what's the problem? It would probably still wash its face at 40sqm.

Why do we need to be building tiny boxes with flip down beds and no proper cooking facilities?

I think until the laws governing evictions are updated to such that a delinquent tenant can be kicked out by force in 90 days then in order to attract investment and protect investment, making them licencees is a much more sensible option and I agree with why they do it.

But lets say the bedsit example like talked about before, lets say you have the basement of a georgian building in rathmines , converted to 4 bedsits , each has an en-suite and share two showers and a kitchen only, two of the bedsits might be 26 sq meters, two of them 21 sq meters , are they small - yeah, are they unbelievably small - no , but there was a time where there was hundreds of scenarios like that accross the city and each of those 'bedsits' was affordable for single professionals, now with these checkbox requirements, properties that might be perfectly fine but 'dont quite' meet the rules arent available, cutting the housing stock.

B0jangles

Just wanted to add that the bedsits I'm familiar with, the ones that were rented out for in or around 50 euro pounds a week were the size of a reception room in a victorian house - so maybe 40sqm? All had a small built-in kitchen with hob/oven/fridge/electric kettle/ (microwave when they became standard) and access to a shared bathroom. They were plain but they were clean, safe and quiet.

What people are expected to accept in this case is a much smaller space, far fewer facilities and all at a hugely increased cost. Pretending that the cost increase is down to people demanding more facilities and features is just plain false.

Eric Cartman

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Equally why do we NEED to force everyone into bigger places. Some people, at some life stages, just don't need the same levels of space etc.

It's really wasteful to force everyone into medium or more sized boxes when some only want small.

The policy is set out under the basis of 'what if every inhabitant of a 1 bed apartment was a couple, both in wheelchairs who like cooking a full roast dinner, own a bike that needs storage and absolutely need to have the sun beaming in the apartment for 12 hours a day' which is silly.

there are plenty of people who would gladly live in a single aspect, 2 ring hob, 20sq meter apartment up 2 flights of stairs in the city.

Guy:Incognito

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Equally why do we NEED to force everyone into bigger places. Some people, at some life stages, just don't need the same levels of space etc.

It's really wasteful to force everyone into medium or more sized boxes when some only want small.

When you were loving life in your bedsit, if someone said you could have a full house for a couple of quid more , would you have said no?


A bedsit is not supposed to cost the same as the full house.

Guy:Incognito

Eric Cartman wrote: »

there are plenty of people who would gladly live in a single aspect, 2 ring hob, 20sq meter apartment up 2 flights of stairs in the city.

Theres also plenty who wouldnt, but have to because thats all that they can find and/or afford. Raising the standards across the board is no bad thing. Building them in the numbers required to stop the prices skyrocketing is needed though.

Old diesel

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Equally why do we NEED to force everyone into bigger places. Some people, at some life stages, just don't need the same levels of space etc.

It's really wasteful to force everyone into medium or more sized boxes when some only want small.

The policy is set out under the basis of 'what if every inhabitant of a 1 bed apartment was a couple, both in wheelchairs who like cooking a full roast dinner, own a bike that needs storage and absolutely need to have the sun beaming in the apartment for 12 hours a day' which is silly.

there are plenty of people who would gladly live in a single aspect, 2 ring hob, 20sq meter apartment up 2 flights of stairs in the city.

What developers and landlords would probably like is the following......

Developers.....

Deliver the smaller apartment but deliver it at same cost as what a bigger one. This is partially because more apartments on the same site means that the idiots will pay more for the land.

We lock ourselves into an excessively high price for something not great.

Landlords......

Tenants "should buy the house for me" by covering all costs - even if the house cost far too much to buy originally.

But god dammit there isn't a hope that I'm giving a tenant the proper respect that buying the property for me might merit.

Hence we need regulations.....

Eric Cartman

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Theres also plenty who wouldnt, but have to because thats all that they can find and/or afford. Raising the standards across the board is no bad thing. Building them in the numbers required to stop the prices skyrocketing is needed though.

but introducing these type properties at a cheaper price would free up the larger ones for the people who want them. Its all about choice , We can't make any more space, we need to build up and be able to convert current space like georgian basements etc.. into living spaces to allow more freedom of choice and availability in our cities.

its not about a developer or landlord charging the same for a smaller unit , its about being able to build and provide the widest choice of units.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

Just wanted to add that the bedsits I'm familiar with, the ones that were rented out for in or around 50 euro a week were the size of a reception room in a victorian house - so maybe 40sqm? All had a small built-in kitchen with hob/oven/fridge/electric kettle/ (microwave when they became standard) and access to a shared bathroom. They were plain but they were clean, safe and quiet.

What people are expected to accept in this case is a much smaller space, far fewer facilities and all at a hugely increased cost. Pretending that the cost increase is down to people demanding more facilities and features is just plain false.

What year were people paying €50 per room? What was included in the price? I don't think that you're comparing like with like

Topgear on Dave

Old diesel wrote: »

What developers and landlords would probably like is the following......

Landlords......

Tenants "should buy the house for me" by covering all costs - even if the house cost far too much to buy originally.

But god dammit there isn't a hope that I'm giving a tenant the proper respect that buying the property for me might merit.

Hence we need regulations.....

This hating on landlords is stupid and counterproductive.

I rented for years in several different towns and countries as I moved about for work.

I rarely ever saw the landlord. I paid the rent. They provided the gaff.

Im glad I paid rent rather than pay every last cent to "get on the ladder" of the highly risky and leveraged pump and dump scheme of the irish property market.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

What year were people paying €50 per room? What was included in the price? I don't think that you're comparing like with like

The post you just quoted tells you exactly what was included in the price?


and as to when

B0jangles wrote: »

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?

Old diesel

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

What developers and landlords would probably like is the following......

Landlords......

Tenants "should buy the house for me" by covering all costs - even if the house cost far too much to buy originally.

But god dammit there isn't a hope that I'm giving a tenant the proper respect that buying the property for me might merit.

Hence we need regulations.....

This hating on landlords is stupid and counterproductive.

I rented for years in several different towns and countries as I moved about for work.

I rarely ever saw the landlord. I paid the rent. They provided the gaff.

Im glad I paid rent rather than pay every last cent to "get on the ladder" of the highly risky and leveraged pump and dump scheme of the irish property market.

I don't hate landlords as individuals but the old traditional landlord model has had its day.

The basic idea that the rent should cover mortgage etc was fine when property prices weren't silly.

But now they are.

What you need in 2019 is cost transparency so you can see why rent *needs to be* 2 k a month.

If you want someone to pay you 60 percent of wages each month then the question of what you offer in return needs addressing

Old diesel

As for 50 euro a week.....

I was paying that for a room in Kerry in the 03 to 07 type era.

Youd get......

Room, plus full use of shared facilities - Kitchen, lIving room, bathroom.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

The post you just quoted tells you exactly what was included in the price?


and as to when

You misunderstood me. Did they have to pay for electricity gas etc on top? I know that I did.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

You misunderstood me. Did they have to pay for electricity gas etc on top? I know that I did.

Ah I get you now - gas was individually metered, I don't think electricity was.

Lumen

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Equally why do we NEED to force everyone into bigger places. Some people, at some life stages, just don't need the same levels of space etc.

It's really wasteful to force everyone into medium or more sized boxes when some only want small.

Nobody wants to live in a tiny box. They may want to live in a self-contained unit, or want the rent to be affordable, but unless you can demonstrate clearly why they must sacrifice the space to get those things, your argument is weak.

Eric Cartman

Lumen wrote: »

Nobody wants to live in a tiny box. They may want to live in a self-contained unit, or want the rent to be affordable, but unless you can demonstrate clearly why they must sacrifice the space to get those things, your argument is weak.

Well its very location dependant. Its really easy to make the case that the closer to the city centre you get, the more expensive land gets. You cant have cheap, spacious and in dublin.

Lumen

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well its very location dependant. Its really easy to make the case that the closer to the city centre you get, the more expensive land gets. You can't have cheap, spacious and in dublin.

That's an unevidence assertion. We had cheap, spacious and in central Dublin a few years ago. Now we don't. So it's not "location dependent", there are several factors at play.

Land price is what's left over after development costs are subtracted from what the market will bear. It's not some immutable law of geometry or physics. As long as the asset price is more than the development costs, the land will have some value.

the_syco

Always Tired wrote: »

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

Would Canary Wharf be equal to D3 in terms of average rental price, or Dun Laoghaire?

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said, people need to open their minds.

...and their wallets. Mainly their wallets, as instead of 4 people sharing the one living room, you'd now have 42 people sharing the living room. Or possibly 150 if everyone pops into one living room if someone was a DJ. Or 200 if friends were brought around. And unlike some other countries that these buildings exist in, the Irish really like to party.

Lumen wrote: »

I can easily argue that 25sqm is perfectly reasonable. Do you want to live in less space than that? If we can't have what we want, then concrete, evidence-based arguments should be presented.

If you can afford it, no.
No, I wouldn't want to live in less space than that.
However, in a "that or homeless" scenario due its low rent, living in a showbox has its appeal.
But shoebox space at house price loses its appeal.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Theres also plenty who wouldnt, but have to because thats all that they can find and/or afford. Raising the standards across the board is no bad thing. Building them in the numbers required to stop the prices skyrocketing is needed though.

Raising the standards is good, but eliminating 100's of places without replacing them with suitable replacements is bad. It's also what we now have.

The government thought eliminating the bedsits would force change, but instead it found that it doesn't work that way. How would people living hand to mouth in the cheapest places possible be able to afford new 1 bed apartments that meet the new standards?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well its very location dependant. Its really easy to make the case that the closer to the city centre you get, the more expensive land gets. You cant have cheap, spacious and in dublin.

This place;
Not Cheap
Not in Dublin City
Not spacious.

Eric Cartman

Lumen wrote: »

That's an unevidence assertion. We had cheap, spacious and in central Dublin a few years ago. Now we don't. So it's not "location dependent", there are several factors at play.

Land price is what's left over after development costs are subtracted from what the market will bear. It's not some immutable law of geometry or physics. As long as the asset price is more than the development costs, the land will have some value.

We had bedsits in dublin a few years ago too, might it have eased pressure to allow these three factors to brew.

I would also argue the cheap part though, I remember looking at a room to rent in ranelagh in 2013, it was bills all in and a nice place but they were still asking 800 a month which was madness, and that wasnt out of line with what properties around there were asking.

Mrs OBumble

Lumen wrote: »

Nobody wants to live in a tiny box. They may want to live in a self-contained unit, or want the rent to be affordable, but unless you can demonstrate clearly why they must sacrifice the space to get those things, your argument is weak.

I guess you're not familiar with the tiny-house movement. People have various reasons, including ecological consciousness, for wanting to minimise their space use.

Wanting to save money is another valid reason. And anyone who's ever built knows that the price of building is proportional to the size built. Building smaller is cheaper.

Agree that the proposed pricing in this development is crazy. But if the market won't stand it, then the price will go down.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

When you were loving life in your bedsit, if someone said you could have a full house for a couple of quid more , would you have said no?

You're confused, I never did bed-sit days.

But I did spend many years living in a relatively run-down, cheap house with lots of housemates. One housemate's sister found out what I was earning and was horrified that I was there instead of in the D4-equivalent which I could afford. Meh. I was choosing to live cheaply so I would spend my earnings on travel (which I valued) over flash surroundings (which I didn't.)

Graces7

Lumen wrote: »

Nobody wants to live in a tiny box. They may want to live in a self-contained unit, or want the rent to be affordable, but unless you can demonstrate clearly why they must sacrifice the space to get those things, your argument is weak.

Will you stop with the "tiny box" exaggeration please.. and "sacrifice"? Clearly a bedsit is not your choice, but this IS about choice and many are choosing eg "tiny houses"
so out with the "nobody wants" please

You are being subjective; no one is asking YOU to live in a bedsit, or a "tiny home" but for others it is grand. It was for me and many others.

the Dublin planned place is way OTT cost wise but looking at the Killarney ABODE the concept is excellent

https://www.killarneytoday.com/killarneys-not-humble-abode/

So re the dublin manifestation? Concept good; overpriced in spades.

The idea is one that is world wide and Ireland needs to catch up

Lumen

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I guess you're not familiar with the tiny-house movement.

OK, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "nobody". I am quite familiar with the tiny house movement.

Note though, that there isn't AFAIK a "tiny apartment" movement as such, though I am also familiar with the minimalism enthusiasts e.g. 57 things man.

But it's difficult to separate out genuine choices from people adapting to brutal necessity unless you look for revealed preferences.

Outside of cities where land prices are much lower, it seems to me (from hanging around on self-build forums) that Irish people tend to choose 200sqm or more for a family dwelling. Now there might be some selection bias there, and also planning issues (I don't know whether tiny houses will get approval or even meet building regs).

But I think it's safe to say that almost nobody prefers to live in a room so small that it requires a flip-down bed to be habitable.

The_Conductor

The argument though is that this is not a 'choice' for people- insofar as they don't have any other options available to them.
They are paying top dollar for this- because of a lack of alternate, more favourable, options.
Certainly there are some people out there- who would jump at the opportunity to live in such accommodation- however, for the vast majority of people it would be classified as their 'least-worst' option- rather than something they would actively strive towards.

We *need* large numbers of high density apartment dwellings in urban settings. We do also need units such as this- however, this is alongside the aforementioned high density apartment units- not instead of them.

There will always be a cohort who it suits to stay in accommodation like this- however in the current context of a growing shortage of rental accommodation- the likes of this will rapidly become people's only option- rather than a choice they will actively aspire to.

Graces7

The_Conductor wrote: »

The argument though is that this is not a 'choice' for people- insofar as they don't have any other options available to them.
They are paying top dollar for this- because of a lack of alternate, more favourable, options.
Certainly there are some people out there- who would jump at the opportunity to live in such accommodation- however, for the vast majority of people it would be classified as their 'least-worst' option- rather than something they would actively strive towards.

We *need* large numbers of high density apartment dwellings in urban settings. We do also need units such as this- however, this is alongside the aforementioned high density apartment units- not instead of them.

There will always be a cohort who it suits to stay in accommodation like this- however in the current context of a growing shortage of rental accommodation- the likes of this will rapidly become people's only option- rather than a choice they will actively aspire to.

See bold. dreams are just that. The need now is for immediate accommodation, rather than focussing on what should be there etc but isn;t and that is what especially the Killarney ABODE does and this one at a shocking cost

Idealism is lovely; and I mean that sincerely and with no sarcasms but it has to be tempered with an earthy realism .. private renting in ireland now is a nightmare as many of us out here know too well. This wll fulfil a very real immediate need which folk deserve to have fulfilled. NB the Killarney one says between 6 and 12 months stay. A stepping stone. Which will cater for seasonal workers and leave more space for others?

Caranica

What's the obsession on this thread about the place in Killarney? It's palatial compared to what's proposed for Dun Laoghaire. The decision on planning permission for the application in Dun Laoghaire has the potential to shape development policy for the future. I so hope it's refused. The same developer has planning permission to build 48 apartments on that very site, the only problem being that an apartment will rent for about the same as they're looking for for each of these cells

voluntary

A perfect option when you're selling a house. You can sell, move to such temp accomodation until you buy a new one. Or when you don't want to be spending 2k+ for a 2 bed apartment when you only need a 1-bed and such are not really available to rent at the moment or very rare.
The prices are high, but market dictates pricing. Whenever (if) the supply kicks in and/or demand weakens, the prices for such accomodation will go down as otherwise nobody will want to live there. Pure market forces or supply and demand.

Old diesel

Caranica wrote: »

What's the obsession on this thread about the place in Killarney? It's palatial compared to what's proposed for Dun Laoghaire. The decision on planning permission for the application in Dun Laoghaire has the potential to shape development policy for the future. I so hope it's refused. The same developer has planning permission to build 48 apartments on that very site, the only problem being that an apartment will rent for about the same as they're looking for for each of these cells

I thought the Killarney points were about showing how this same model can be done better and cheaper.

The_Conductor

Old diesel wrote: »

I thought the Killarney points were about showing how this same model can be done better and cheaper.

I'm not so sure- its almost like it being used to try and sell the proposed Dunlaoghaire development as a positive- instead of the 48 apartments that already have planning for the site?

The current proposal is a binary proposal- this 'hub' or 48 apartments. I'd argue the apartments are what is actually needed. Yes- hubs are part of the solution- however, at present, in the current environment- they shouldn't be displacing apartments.