Co-living..Shared kitchen for 42 ?

Graces7

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/co-living-needs-to-be-part-of-solution-to-solve-housing-crisis-says-minister-924967.html

There ye go!

exactly what some of us are saying..

Graces7

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its not a freedom to choose though- if you have no other options.
The current proposal is this hostel- or 42 apartments.
They already have the planning for the apartments- but would rather go with the hostel option instead- as aside from any other reason- its an incredible income stream- and the residents do not have any protections whatsoever under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Its a no brainer for the developer- its all about the money.

Because it provides more accommodation faster. which is what is needed urgently now. Maybe as one who was within a hair's breadth of having to live in my car i see this differently from someone in secure accommodation.

This is an emergency situation . Most of us choose a roof and a bed, period,

The_Conductor

Graces7 wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/co-living-needs-to-be-part-of-solution-to-solve-housing-crisis-says-minister-924967.html

There ye go!

exactly what some of us are saying..

No-one is arguing with this.

We are stating that the developer *has* planning permission for 42 apartments. He has come back and stated that, actually, he'd rather build the hostel. In this case there is a binary choice- build the 42 apartments that he has been granted planning permission for- or evaluate his new request for an alternate structure for a short term accommodation hostel.

Yes- we *need* some solutions such as the development that we're discussing in Dublin- however, not at the cost of displacing large numbers of apartments or other dwellings- for either the rental or ownership markets.

Simply pointing your fingers and suggesting its a good idea- is missing the point entirely- this is a binary either/or choice- with consequences for proper accommodation in the area concerned, one way or the other.

I'd also suggest that accommodation such as is being discussed- is best in a central location where the residents don't need to spend time traveling to and from where-ever it is they have to be on a daily basis- Dunlaoighaire isn't exactly the sticks- but its inevitable that a large proportion of the residents of a dwelling such as this- will be forced to commute elsewhere. That is wrong.

The whole point of this development- instead of the apartment block- is the developer makes more money and doesn't have to deal with pesky tenants who would have rights under the Residential Tenancies Act- the residents in this glorified hostel will have zero rights.

The_Conductor

Graces7 wrote: »

Because it provides more accommodation faster. which is what is needed urgently now. Maybe as one who was within a hair's breadth of having to live in my car i see this differently from someone in secure accommodation.

This is an emergency situation . Most of us choose a roof and a bed, period,

There is no indication that this accommodation would come on stream any faster than the apartments that he does have permission to build on the site- on the contrary- its possible it could take considerably longer to deliver this proposal (keeping in mind its Dunlaoghaire- and the history of planning appeals in DLR). The apartment complex- has already cleared all those hurdles.

As for your personal situation- and how you almost ended up living in a car- while I'm sorry you ended up in that situation- its not relevant to the current discussion.

We *need* short term accommodation *and* apartments urgently in Dublin. The site in question being discussed here- has planning permission for 42 apartments- of which 12 were to be 'affordable' (whatever that means in the context of Dunlaoghaire).

If there is an emergency situation in Dunlaoghaire- the fastest way to get units built and occupied- is to build the apartments. The most profitable outcome for the builder- is to build the hostel (which doesn't necessitate any 'affordable' units for anyone).

They are good to go- to build an apartment block- and have satisfied all the planning objections etc. This rabbit being pulled from the hat- would be wildly profitable for the developer- but there would be no security of tenure for the residents nor any other rights under the RTA- and the planning objections from locals could potentially scupper it or change it beyond any recognition.

Supply is key- and supply in different sectors- however, going back to the starting blocks with this project- when they already have full planning for 42 units- is going to delay any new accommodation on site- possibly for years.

Mrs OBumble

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its not a freedom to choose though- if you have no other options.
The current proposal is this hostel- or 42 apartments.
They already have the planning for the apartments- but would rather go with the hostel option instead- as aside from any other reason- its an incredible income stream- and the residents do not have any protections whatsoever under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Its a no brainer for the developer- its all about the money.

I'm not very familiar with DL.

But am guessing that right now there already lots of apartments (not enough, of course, but still lots), and zero co-living complexes.

The_Conductor

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm not very familiar with DL.

But am guessing that right now there already lots of apartments (not enough, of course, but still lots), and zero co-living complexes.

Its a mature seaside town south of Dublin- with mostly Georgian accommodation- very limited in supply of new accommodation, period. It needs more units- but the residents, who tend to be of an older demographic than in most urban areas, are quite voiciferous in their appeals against any new planning or developments in the area. The local authority itself- is reknowned for being one of the stickiest to deal with- to the extent that a lot of people avoid the place altogether- as its a nightmare to even get around as a pedestrian. It is on the DART line, however, and they are doing up some of the old facilities (such as the baths- which closed down at some stage in the 1980s).

It looks a bit like an old British seaside town- that was caught in some sort of a time loop.........

It is doing its best to try and reinvent itself to attract day tourists- and has some nice shops and restaurants- but its heritage as a ferry port/seaside town- is hard to shake (despite the ferries no longer docking there).

It has a very snobby yacht club- and is wildly popular with the sort of people who like their yachts...........

Get the idea?

LotharIngum

Co-Living. What a joke.
A good portion of these places are going to end up rented by councils and housing charities on behalf of junkies, alchos, ex-prisoners etc.

You and maybe 10 others on the floor will be normal people paying €1300 per month for your little cubbyhole, the other 30 will be total undesirables and you will be afraid to go to your kitchen because at least 30 of the 42 you are sharing it with will stink, be out of it all the time or they will want to rob you or beat you up.

This is Ireland. You can 100% guarantee it will go this way.

These type of places are not good enough for people already living in hubs. But they want others to pay €1300 a month to live in an even worse hub?
Think about it. Its a government sponsored race to the bottom.

Graces7

LotharIngum wrote: »

Co-Living. What a joke.
A good portion of these places are going to end up rented by councils and housing charities on behalf of junkies, alchos, ex-prisoners etc.

You and maybe 10 others on the floor will be normal people paying €1300 per month for your little cubbyhole, the other 30 will be total undesirables and you will be afraid to go to your kitchen because at least 30 of the 42 you are sharing it with will stink, be out of it all the time or they will want to rob you or beat you up.

This is Ireland. You can 100% guarantee it will go this way.

These type of places are not good enough for people already living in hubs. But they want others to pay €1300 a month to live in an even worse hub?
Think about it.

:rolleyes:

Graces7

The_Conductor wrote: »

There is no indication that this accommodation would come on stream any faster than the apartments that he does have permission to build on the site- on the contrary- its possible it could take considerably longer to deliver this proposal (keeping in mind its Dunlaoghaire- and the history of planning appeals in DLR). The apartment complex- has already cleared all those hurdles.

As for your personal situation- and how you almost ended up living in a car- while I'm sorry you ended up in that situation- its not relevant to the current discussion.

We *need* short term accommodation *and* apartments urgently in Dublin. The site in question being discussed here- has planning permission for 42 apartments- of which 12 were to be 'affordable' (whatever that means in the context of Dunlaoghaire).

If there is an emergency situation in Dunlaoghaire- the fastest way to get units built and occupied- is to build the apartments. The most profitable outcome for the builder- is to build the hostel (which doesn't necessitate any 'affordable' units for anyone).

They are good to go- to build an apartment block- and have satisfied all the planning objections etc. This rabbit being pulled from the hat- would be wildly profitable for the developer- but there would be no security of tenure for the residents nor any other rights under the RTA- and the planning objections from locals could potentially scupper it or change it beyond any recognition.

Supply is key- and supply in different sectors- however, going back to the starting blocks with this project- when they already have full planning for 42 units- is going to delay any new accommodation on site- possibly for years.

You have a fixed idea that I do not have. That co-living is somehow inferior? That everyone needs/desires a certain kind of housing?
Maryanne and I have tried to get this across on several occasions to no avail?
The wider the range of accommodation the better and with young professionals in co-living more flats etc will be there for others.

The co-living place is adding to available accommodation. which surely is what is needed?

But we are at different places on this. and the point I am making is that we have different perceptions of what is good accommodation. What I have bolded is very relevant indeed as what matters to most of us is a safe roof. Not some perfect flat or semi.

LotharIngum

LotharIngum wrote: »

Co-Living. What a joke.
A good portion of these places are going to end up rented by councils and housing charities on behalf of junkies, alchos, ex-prisoners etc.

You and maybe 10 others on the floor will be normal people paying €1300 per month for your little cubbyhole, the other 30 will be total undesirables and you will be afraid to go to your kitchen because at least 30 of the 42 you are sharing it with will stink, be out of it all the time or they will want to rob you or beat you up.

This is Ireland. You can 100% guarantee it will go this way.

These type of places are not good enough for people already living in hubs. But they want others to pay €1300 a month to live in an even worse hub?
Think about it.

Aren’t hubs for families? These are single occupancy rooms

LotharIngum

Deleted User wrote: »

Aren’t hubs for families? These are single occupancy rooms

Id say that's the only difference between them. Oh, and €1300 per person per month

LotharIngum

LotharIngum wrote: »

Id say that's the only difference between them. Oh, and €1300 per person per month

Do you know what? I despair of ever seeing the end of this so called crisis. People need to think outside the box. Accept alternatives. Lower expectations and make the most of what they’ve got, just like we used do in the good old days. And stop expecting others to look after them. There’s great satisfaction to be gotten from reaching your goals by your own efforts.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know what? I despair of ever seeing the end of this so called crisis. People need to think outside the box. Accept alternatives. Lower expectations and make the most of what they’ve got, just like we used do in the good old days. And stop expecting others to look after them. There’s great satisfaction to be gotten from reaching your goals by your own efforts.

When you were making the best of things, toughing it out back in the good old days, approximately what % of a typical fulltime salary was your rent?

Graces7

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know what? I despair of ever seeing the end of this so called crisis. People need to think outside the box. Accept alternatives. Lower expectations and make the most of what they’ve got, just like we used do in the good old days. And stop expecting others to look after them. There’s great satisfaction to be gotten from reaching your goals by your own efforts.

amen to that.

When I was seeking any safe roof rather than my car, I went round local shops and agents, knocked on doors, sought actively, and found my current home .
A place long empty. Not what I had thought of but sound enough. Safe.

I have family in Canada and they are amazed and appalled that here the govt are expected to house everyone. Not the case there or in many other countries.

The Yorkshire term for what is needed is "grit and gumption".

Graces7

B0jangles wrote: »

When you were making the best of things, toughing it out back in the good old days, approximately what % of a typical fulltime salary was your rent?

Not sure what your point is?
NB it was not "toughing it out"; it was accepting what we had; we never lacked for what we needed.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

When you were making the best of things, toughing it out back in the good old days, approximately what % of a typical fulltime salary was your rent?

Only rented during the 70’s. Bedsit, flat and house all took around 50%. Women weren’t paid same as men back then. Don’t remember toughing it out. We all did the same. Life was good. As it is now.

Graces7

Deleted User wrote: »

There are actually 100’s of bedrooms available for rent in the Dublin area at a much smaller rent. Crisis? What crisis?

Is that true? :eek:

B0jangles

Not your salary - I'm asking what proportion of 'a typical fulltime salary' of the period your rent was. No need to give any personal information of course.

B0jangles

Graces7 wrote: »

Not sure what your point is?
NB it was not "toughing it out"; it was accepting what we had; we never lacked for what we needed.

Because Grace, getting paid a pound a week sounds terrible but if your rent is tuppence it's probably not really so bad.

Similarly, getting paid 10,000 a week sounds great unless you have to pay 9,950 a week to live in a literal shoebox.

Rents are rising much faster than salaries - that is pretty much my entire point.

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

Is that true? :eek:

According to this, over 450 single rooms in Dublin alone. https://www.rent.ie/rooms-to-rent/renting_dublin/room-type_single/

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

Not your salary - I'm asking what proportion of 'a typical fulltime salary' of the period your rent was. No need to give any personal information of course.

Mine was a typical full time salary for my education, ability, industry and gender at that time.

Through life lessons and determination, I improved my lot. Me. Myself. I. A single mother of 2.

Nowadays, I’d be expected to sit back and get a home handed to me. Along with the means of living without the bother of getting up at 6 in the morning.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

Mine was a typical full time salary for my education, ability, industry and gender at that time.

Through life lessons and determination, I improved my lot. Me. Myself. I. A single mother of 2.

Nowadays, I’d be expected to sit back and get a home handed to me. Along with the means of living without the bother of getting up at 6 in the morning.

So on an ordinary salary, with no government supports you were able to raise two children, pay rent and continue with further education/professional qualifications?
That's a great achievement, no question. It's also almost impossible to emulate now because rents keep skyrocketing while salaries stagnate.

Also, who here is talking about getting 'a home handed' to them and a 'means of living without the bother of getting up at 6 in the morning'?

Graces7

B0jangles wrote: »

Because Grace, getting paid a pound a week sounds terrible but if your rent is tuppence it's probably not really so bad.

Similarly, getting paid 10,000 a week sounds great unless you have to pay 9,950 a week to live in a literal shoebox.

Rents are rising much faster than salaries - that is pretty much my entire point.

will you stop with the hyperbole please!! on all counts. It does not help your argument.

Graces7

Deleted User wrote: »

Mine was a typical full time salary for my education, ability, industry and gender at that time.

Through life lessons and determination, I improved my lot. Me. Myself. I. A single mother of 2.

Nowadays, I’d be expected to sit back and get a home handed to me. Along with the means of living without the bother of getting up at 6 in the morning.

As someone who was on disability many years, you may well slate me! But until a year ago I rented privately and for many years without RS/A. Sure I get help as my pension, UK is small. But I live in very simple accommodation and carefully

What folk think are essentials today are what we never saw. The roof over your head is the most vital thing you pay for.

Graces7

apologies for offthread. still averring that the co-living idea is a sound one and time Ireland caught up with what is an established trend in the UK etc . we had bedsits and that helped the need of accommodation. co living is an important resource

Graces7

Deleted User wrote: »

According to this, over 450 single rooms in Dublin alone. https://www.rent.ie/rooms-to-rent/renting_dublin/room-type_single/

gobsmacked....so they want ?

johnnyskeleton

I think the idea of communal living has many positives, if done properly. An apartment block with its own gym, clothes washing/drying area, broadband etc has many advantages.

Sharing a kitchen is a little trickier. I'd say its probably fine for someone who eats take aways and ready meals and only cooks rarely, but it would be a bit annoying to have 42 people (or more, for couples, guests etc) all moving around each other trying to cook their meals in or around the same time. Then who cleans it etc?

Similar with the living room. The most common complaint I hear from people who share a 3/4 bed gaff is hogging the sitting room. Theres usually one guy watching every single football match all day saturday (and, to a certain extent, why shouldnt he?). Or if people want to have a chat while watching a movie but others like to listen intetly. Again, who cleans up? Even if there is a contract cleaner, if some people are up all night drinking, the cleaner wont be around on sunday morning to clean up for the early riser who wants to read their book in the common area. I guess people can have a tv in their room or read a book there, but its not good to be in one room all the time.

So it seems to me that this only works if you have people, as said by many othet posters, who dont really cook or spend much time at home.

Now, as regards the political point being made, Ive no problem with a private company spending money on wahtever whacky business venture they want, within reason. If there is a market for this, fair play to them. It in no way adversely affects the existing housing stock and while some people would like them to build family homes etc, it isnt a question of them being asked to build something different - its a question of are they allowed build this, yes or no. If no, the land may be left empty or turned into a non residential development, and so the housing crisis continues.

the_syco

Graces7 wrote: »

amen to that.

Are you not in a council house?

Graces7 wrote: »

I have family in Canada and they are amazed and appalled that here the govt are expected to house everyone. Not the case there or in many other countries.

I lived in Toronto for a while. There are plenty of people there that expect the government to house them.

Deleted User wrote: »

According to this, over 450 single rooms in Dublin alone. https://www.rent.ie/rooms-to-rent/renting_dublin/room-type_single/

1st three ads are of the same room which is being let by an Owner Occupier.
Flicked through them. Quite a few of them are owner occupier, where you have no rights.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Sharing a kitchen is a little trickier. I'd say its probably fine for someone who eats take aways and ready meals and only cooks rarely, but it would be a bit annoying to have 42 people (or more, for couples, guests etc) all moving around each other trying to cook their meals in or around the same time. Then who cleans it etc?

To add to that; what's to stop people going to one of the six other floors to cook?

Guy:Incognito

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

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.)

The point wasnt that you could spend more to get somewhere nicer because you could afford to the point is that you're paying the higher price for the lesser living experience in this place. You're paying house money for a bed sit.

Old diesel

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

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.)

The point wasnt that you could spend more to get somewhere nicer because you could afford to the point is that you're paying the higher price for the lesser living experience in this place. You're paying house money for a bed sit.

Exactly and the price of the nicer place - the house, the apartment will be pushed up further.