Planning permission granted for 471 apartments at former Chivers site

Sweet.Science

L1011 wrote: »

There is nothing to even base an assumption that it'll be mostly HAP tenants off.

Just look up the road at Larch Hill . I wouldnt even think about buying or renting privately in some of those blocks

Qrt

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I just remembered my uncle had one at one stage in the 80s, and I was in it a few times, they were actually quite spacious and nice on the inside.

Ballymun and the British designs the towers were based off are well known for their spacious sizing.

L1011

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Just look up the road at Larch Hill . I wouldnt even think about buying or renting privately in some of those blocks

An entirely different development a surprisingly large definition of "up the road" away isn't relevant.

Thelonious Monk

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Just look up the road at Larch Hill . I wouldnt even think about buying or renting privately in some of those blocks

I know someone who owns one and its fine? Are there problems there?

Qrt

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I know someone who owns one and its fine? Are there problems there?

A fair chunk of people think that the presence of a few HAP families soon makes a place look like Beirut.

Fan of Netflix

Qrt wrote: »

A fair chunk of people think that the presence of a few HAP families soon makes a place look like Beirut.

Beirut is a much nicer city than any of these places. Beautiful place and people. Think you are about 20 years out of date with that reference!

Fan of Netflix

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

They aren't building everywhere just Dublin and nearby commuter areas. Large swathes of the country have no building going on.

Have you not seen the current development plans for Cork Docklands??

El Tarangu

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

We over built up to 2008 and we'll over build again. And it will do nothing to solve a homeless crisis. This is not about providing affordable homes. None of these are even being sold as homes.

What? - are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't live in an owner-occupied semi-D is homeless??

JDigweed

Ballymun is now low rise with some of the best amenities in the city and ample employment opportunities yet it still has the same social problems. Height and density doesn't equal crime.
If the city centre was high rise an argument could be made to keep suburbs low rise but the fact is that the City Council, An Taisce etc have ensured that the Docklands land was wasted on 7 floor cubes......Hence the need for these developments.

Varta

mrslancaster wrote: »

Looking at the picture here it looks very similar to how Ballymun looked before the towers were demolished.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/anger-as-planning-permission-granted-for-471-apartments-at-former-chivers-site-946479.html

This doesn't affect me by the way so no NIMBYism here before anyone jumps in but imo it looks so wrong in an area that has mostly low rise buildings.

Surely it would be better if the government insisted that affordable homes were built by this developer? Even if part of the development was built-to-rent I could understand that but the entire 471..seems crazy imo.

Building another Ballymun-like estate is just pure greed on their part and they do not give a rats about the existing properties or people who live in the area. They could have built a mix of 4/5/6 stories and typical terraced and semi houses that would have blended in better with the surroundings.

Is this latest trend of all new apartment developments being built-to-rent instead of being offered for sale a good idea? Well obviously for the greedy developers but long-term it can't be good for people who will face rent increases every year and who wants to still be paying rent to a private LL when they reach retirement age?

There are places in the Paris suburbs where low rise and high rise are beautifully combined. Both actually complement each other. Proper professional landlord companies with large scale apartments have been needed here for a long time. I had an uncle who live in an upmarket part of NY for over fifty years paying very low rent because it was rent controlled. That's what we need here, so that people can rent indefinitely instead of having to buy in order to have security.

Varta

Sheeps wrote: »

Hopefully with a few more of these across South Dublin we could finally see the the possibility for an underground system into the area due to the increased density they require to make it worthwhile. Clear out a few of the massive gardens and gold courses within the m50 to make it happen.

This isn't necessary and is the kind of language that builds hostility. There is an almost unlimited supply of land occupied by crumbling, half empty, industrial units within the M50. This is a scandalous waste of space.

Varta

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It looks gorgeous to me.
There's no other way of saying this - Ballymun was a failure because it was full of knackers, this wont be by the sounds of things.

That's mainly true. It was also a very ugly windswept ***hole. Hideous design and terrible planning.

Varta

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well there is another way of saying that. Ballymun needed more than just apartments, it needed lots of social services and facilities for it not to turn into a ghetto.
I just remembered my uncle had one at one stage in the 80s, and I was in it a few times, they were actually quite spacious and nice on the inside.

It probably had more social services than the rest of the city combined. And there's that word 'facilities' again. A lack of parental responsibility is what makes a delinquent not a 'perceived' lack of facilities. And a high number of delinquents is what makes a neighbourhood a dump.

Varta

mrslancaster wrote: »

That is an outrageous slur on the people who lived in the Ballymun estate. Just because a handful of people living in an area may be badly behaved does not mean everyone should be tarred with the same brush.

You obviously never had reason to visit the Ballymun tower blocks.

Thelonious Monk

Varta wrote: »

You obviously never had reason to visit the Ballymun tower blocks.

Well, my uncle was a good guy and worked but the few good ones were outnumbered in that kip. We just seem to have a large minority (that sounds Trumpesque) of just absolutely rough as f*ck people who keep having kids without improvement. So I don't know what the solution is to that, they can ruin areas for everyone.

Sweet.Science

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well, my uncle was a good guy and worked but the few good ones were outnumbered in that kip. We just seem to have a large minority (that sounds Trumpesque) of just absolutely rough as f*ck people who keep having kids without improvement. So I don't know what the solution is to that, they can ruin areas for everyone.

Yeah i knew a family living they and they were all salt of the earth. However it was a dive there. And the do-gooders blamed the towers and 'lack of facilities . Once the towers were destroyed they thought that was the end of the problems . Its not as bad as it was but its still a hole in a few parts

Birdie Num Num

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Yeah i knew a family living they and they were all salt of the earth. However it was a dive there. And the do-gooders blamed the towers and 'lack of facilities . Once the towers were destroyed they thought that was the end of the problems . Its not as bad as it was but its still a hole in a few parts

Sounds like if you build them they will come.

The building of them and the planning of the area was the ingredients for the social problems that took hold. Largely lovely people that lived there and started off there and I'm sure some bad apples. But what's that saying; one bad apple... Still lots of wonderful people lived there.

The environment was ripe for contagion of social issues.

Sweet.Science

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Sounds like if you build them they will come.

The building of them and the planning of the area was the ingredients for the social problems that took hold. Largely lovely people that lived there and started off there and I'm sure some bad apples. But what's that saying; one bad apple... Still lots of wonderful people lived there.

The environment was ripe for contagion of social issues.

I agree . It was a recipe for disaster. a few thousand people taken from the slums of the inner city in the 60s and placed in the flats
No hope of a job
No healthy social welfare system like we have now
No distraction of tv/internet
And then the herion came
Passed down from generation to generation.

The residents in the Kilmore flats are waiting to be rehoused at the moment
Every few weeks there are incidents there
A 20 person brawl involving men and women months ago
A petrol bomb into a flat a few weeks ago
They will be moved into this new place in no time

blanch152

mrslancaster wrote: »

Looking at the picture here it looks very similar to how Ballymun looked before the towers were demolished.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/anger-as-planning-permission-granted-for-471-apartments-at-former-chivers-site-946479.html

This doesn't affect me by the way so no NIMBYism here before anyone jumps in but imo it looks so wrong in an area that has mostly low rise buildings.

Surely it would be better if the government insisted that affordable homes were built by this developer? Even if part of the development was built-to-rent I could understand that but the entire 471..seems crazy imo.

Building another Ballymun-like estate is just pure greed on their part and they do not give a rats about the existing properties or people who live in the area. They could have built a mix of 4/5/6 stories and typical terraced and semi houses that would have blended in better with the surroundings.

Is this latest trend of all new apartment developments being built-to-rent instead of being offered for sale a good idea? Well obviously for the greedy developers but long-term it can't be good for people who will face rent increases every year and who wants to still be paying rent to a private LL when they reach retirement age?

This is the kind of thinking that holds Dublin back.

We have only a few options to provide housing in Dublin.

(1) Build high-density and high-rise apartments in suitable locations such as this one, particularly old brownfield industrial estates.

(2) Keep building semi-ds until Dublin joins up with Galway and we have the worst urban sprawl in the world

(3) Bulldoze the existing semi-d estates all over Dublin and replace with four-storey duplexes and apartments.

Only (1) is possible and sustainable.

Also the silly thinking that the government should insist that affordable homes should be built in such locations, who will decide who gets those affordable homes? And which set of taxpayers will pay the extra cost?

tom1ie

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I disagree, Coolock, Tallaght and Finglas are the lowest price areas in Dublin.
They are also the areas with the most social issues in Dublin.

So the idea of dumping another 1000-1500 people in to an already struggling area doesn't make sense to me at all.



Not really, not 10 stories high
Maybe, Tallaght and Parkwest (Lovely places btw ) they are about 6km out.
The exception is Dundrum which has a lot of privately owned apartments, for obvious reasons.

You do realize Tallaght is the largest suburb in Dublin which is the largest city in Ireland yeah? To question the standard of living in “Tallaght” is to question the standard of living of a huge amount of people, almost 80k people. Don’t be so quick to judge such a large amount of people.

Electric Sheep

mrslancaster wrote: »

Looking at the picture here it looks very similar to how Ballymun looked before the towers were demolished.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/anger-as-planning-permission-granted-for-471-apartments-at-former-chivers-site-946479.html

This doesn't affect me by the way so no NIMBYism here before anyone jumps in but imo it looks so wrong in an area that has mostly low rise buildings.

Surely it would be better if the government insisted that affordable homes were built by this developer? Even if part of the development was built-to-rent I could understand that but the entire 471..seems crazy imo.

Building another Ballymun-like estate is just pure greed on their part and they do not give a rats about the existing properties or people who live in the area. They could have built a mix of 4/5/6 stories and typical terraced and semi houses that would have blended in better with the surroundings.

Is this latest trend of all new apartment developments being built-to-rent instead of being offered for sale a good idea? Well obviously for the greedy developers but long-term it can't be good for people who will face rent increases every year and who wants to still be paying rent to a private LL when they reach retirement age?

It actually IS a good idea. There will be proper management and maintenance. In my experience, this type of rental is far better than a private landlord. It will be run as a business, not as a cowboy sideline.

Thelonious Monk

Sweet.Science wrote: »

The residents in the Kilmore flats are waiting to be rehoused at the moment

Are they doing this? Knocking them down or what? They always looked nice to me and I've never seen trouble around there. I used to buy hash there in the 90s

mrslancaster

Electric Sheep wrote: »

It actually IS a good idea. There will be proper management and maintenance. In my experience, this type of rental is far better than a private landlord. It will be run as a business, not as a cowboy sideline.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that then.

I don't think it's good to have to pay rent for your whole life especially for older people when they retire. I don't know how council tenancies work and if they are based on income and adjusted down at retirement age then that's a different matter. Afaik, private tenants pay rent that is set by the market rates. Also, I am not a LL but I don't believe all landlords operate as cowboys.

I also dont believe that developers or large REITS who are building large amounts of build-to-rent apartments are doing it for any socially minded reasons - they are only interested in profits for themselves and their shareholders.

I read that the owners of the Chivers site development lobbied extensively to change the zoning from industrial to residential to provide 250 units and that has now doubled. It seems they are in negotiations to lease the lot to the council on long term leases at 85% of market rate so the council will pay millions of taxpayers money to the owners over the lifetime of the leases but will not own anything at the end of it.

mrslancaster

mrslancaster wrote: »

I don't think it's good to have to pay rent for your whole life especially for older people when they retire.

I seen you mention this earlier. I don't know why you keep talking about paying rent for your whole life.

Some folks will, but I think most folks will rent for a few years at some point in their life.

I rented for fifteen years as I moved around for work, Nothing wrong with that. Rents can go down as well as up too.


Also of course landlords and REITs dont rent for social reasons, its all for profit. Like shops or dentists or anyone else.

blanch152

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I seen you mention this earlier. I don't know why you keep talking about paying rent for your whole life.

Some folks will, but I think most folks will rent for a few years at some point in their life.

I rented for fifteen years as I moved around for work, Nothing wrong with that. Rents can go down as well as up too.

I rented at the start of my working life, I also intend to rent in retirement, instead of selling and trading down.

mrslancaster

mrslancaster wrote: »

It seems they are in negotiations to lease the lot to the council on long term leases at 85% of market rate so the council will pay millions of taxpayers money to the owners over the lifetime of the leases but will not own anything at the end of it.

Havent they been selling off the council housing to the residents for buttons for years anyway. This might workout cheaper. :pac:

Qrt

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Are they doing this? Knocking them down or what? They always looked nice to me and I've never seen trouble around there. I used to buy hash there in the 90s

Pretty sure they’re on the verge of falling down. There’s a Facebook page “Kilmore flats fight back”, mould left right and centre and structural supports in the stairwells. Subsidence too apparently. They could be so nice had they been designed right.

mariaalice

mrslancaster wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree on that then.

I don't think it's good to have to pay rent for your whole life especially for older people when they retire. I don't know how council tenancies work and if they are based on income and adjusted down at retirement age then that's a different matter. Afaik, private tenants pay rent that is set by the market rates. Also, I am not a LL but I don't believe all landlords operate as cowboys.

I also dont believe that developers or large REITS who are building large amounts of build-to-rent apartments are doing it for any socially minded reasons - they are only interested in profits for themselves and their shareholders.

I read that the owners of the Chivers site development lobbied extensively to change the zoning from industrial to residential to provide 250 units and that has now doubled. It seems they are in negotiations to lease the lot to the council on long term leases at 85% of market rate so the council will pay millions of taxpayers money to the owners over the lifetime of the leases but will not own anything at the end of it.

However, all of the maintenance costs will stay with the property provider and i guarantee it will be maintained to the highest standard leases will be very stringent and rents will be collected its a win for the council. What happenes to tenants who have antisocial behavior or cause trouble is the real issue?

jay1988

Qrt wrote: »

Pretty sure they’re on the verge of falling down. There’s a Facebook page “Kilmore flats fight back”, mould left right and centre and structural supports in the stairwells. Subsidence too apparently. They could be so nice had they been designed right.

Like a lot of council flats built at the time they're beautiful on the inside, very spacious with constant hot water, unfortunately they've had one block where the stairs were separating from the rest of the building, which involved the residents having to move out while it was fixed and some of the other block seem to be going the same way.

Socially things have been getting worse and worse in there for years now.

Spanish Eyes

I hope all the apartments have storage in a basement, places to put your Christmas tree, your suitcases and all the detritus of life that you may not need on a daily basis. And a severely safe bike park too!

A place to dry your washing without the apartment turning into mould city almighty would be great too like making the balconys cement or brick surround and airers cannot peep above the parapet. Good soundproofing etc.

And a bit of open space for children to get some fresh air.

Our Continental cousins with or without kids seem to manage fine in large apartment blocks, but the infrastructure is there as above.

If this development could start off great with all that, others will follow.