Planning permission granted for 2nd Tallest building in Dublin

marieholmfan

Effects wrote: »

Have you forgotten our history? You can't just evict people and destroy their homes like that.
Is there not plenty of commercial space that could be used, and they relocate further out of the city.

They'd get better homes.


CPO the huge houses at Sydney Parade then.

James Brown

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I understand why they're buying the stock, what I don't understand is why they're being let buy stock when they sold off all their old stock for a steal to their tenants.

I posted this in the Eoghan Murphy confidence vote thread:

There are approx 253,000 council houses/flat in Ireland, with the vast majority in Dublin. They represent approx 15% of all dwellings in Ireland.
Last year local authorities got approx €350M in rent for these, meaning on average people in these units paid approx €115.28 per month
This data is skewed a little however as the total arrears last year countrywide for council housing was €73.6M
To add to this, there are approx 86,000 waiting for social housing. (The majority of which have been offered a council house, but it's in Letrim/Sligo/Roscommon/Not in Dublin)

In addition to this, there are another 60,000 units being rented which is supplemented via HAP. In these circumstances tenants pay approx €20/50 per week themselves and the rest is paid by the council. Again the vast majority of these are in Dublin.

So to summarise, 18.5% (nearly 1 in 5) of all house holds in the country are paying on average less than €38 a week for rent, with the bulk on tenants living in Dublin.

We have a situation where nearly a fifth of the people are paying around €165 a month for rent and the other four fifths are paying nearly €2,000.
And most of that one fifth don't work, yet occupy a dwelling in place that people who do work need.

So in my opinion the demand is superficial, it's literally being created by the governments and councils giving out way to much.

They also demolished 100% social housing estates under the guise of 'regeneration' and sold off the public lands to private interests for a percentage of builds.
Don't begrudge those worse off getting a dig out.
It's not superficial to you living back home unable to buy. But yes they are feeding the problem for sure.

Dytalus

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Like vultures. It doesn't mater if the money goes to the Legion of Mary.
The term vulture is used because they feed off the crisis making things worse for the public.

Is there any type of landlord who rents out accomodation that won't draw condemnation?

If we want rentable accomodation, someone has to own the properties to rent them. This can either be individual landlords (which draw condemnation for being leeches), or it can be REITs and other large investment organisations which fuel pensions (or local authorities, but they're not building anything right now and people don't like them buying privately built properties either).

There's a huge pension bomb crawling up on us as our country's age ratio shifts towards pensioners, and if it can be sustained through people paying rent rather than people's taxes then surely that's an improvement? Where exactly do you expect rentable accomodation to come from if you disapprove of landlords existing?

Tacitus Kilgore

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I understand why they're buying the stock, what I don't understand is why they're being let buy stock when they sold off all their old stock for a steal to their tenants.

I posted this in the Eoghan Murphy confidence vote thread:

There are approx 253,000 council houses/flat in Ireland, with the vast majority in Dublin. They represent approx 15% of all dwellings in Ireland.
Last year local authorities got approx €350M in rent for these, meaning on average people in these units paid approx €115.28 per month
This data is skewed a little however as the total arrears last year countrywide for council housing was €73.6M
To add to this, there are approx 86,000 waiting for social housing. (The majority of which have been offered a council house, but it's in Letrim/Sligo/Roscommon/Not in Dublin)

In addition to this, there are another 60,000 units being rented which is supplemented via HAP. In these circumstances tenants pay approx €20/50 per week themselves and the rest is paid by the council. Again the vast majority of these are in Dublin.

So to summarise, 18.5% (nearly 1 in 5) of all house holds in the country are paying on average less than €38 a week for rent, with the bulk on tenants living in Dublin.

We have a situation where nearly a fifth of the people are paying around €165 a month for rent and the other four fifths are paying nearly €2,000.
And most of that one fifth don't work yet occupy a dwelling in place that people who do work need.

So in my opinion the demand is superficial, it's literally being created by the governments and councils giving out way to much.

Fine. I don't disagree that the current situation is less than ideal, but, it cannot be fixed overnight - if it can even be fixed that is.


Regardless of past failings and silly policies - there's still a shortage of housing right now. One can rant and rave at government policies til the cows come home but the end result is the same, more houses need to be built, by anyone who's willing to build them in the absence of a government who won't/can't.

James Brown

Dytalus wrote: »

Is there any type of landlord who rents out accomodation that won't draw condemnation?

If we want rentable accomodation, someone has to own the properties to rent them. This can either be individual landlords (which draw condemnation for being leeches), or it can be REITs and other large investment organisations which fuel pensions (or local authorities, but they're not building anything right now and people don't like them buying privately built properties either).

There's a huge pension bomb crawling up on us as our country's age ratio shifts towards pensioners, and if it can be sustained through people paying rent rather than people's taxes then surely that's an improvement? Where exactly do you expect rentable accomodation to come from if you disapprove of landlords existing?

The scale is the problem and the state is an enabler. Buying up blocks of property to rent to the LA/state is common business practice. Somebody renting out an investment property is generally not a big problem in that regard. If a company or fund buys up so much that it makes it difficult for tax payers to buy or rent, then we need look at it, not welcome them in and charge them low taxes.
Fueling pensions sounds great but what about the workers spending large amounts on rent who retire with little to no savings and no asset of a house?
It's becoming the case that the vulture funds and other speculators will own most of the property and the state will be leasing/renting off them for cash strapped tax payers to live in. It can't go on forever like that.

Beta Ray Bill

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Fine. I don't disagree that the current situation is less than ideal, but, it cannot be fixed overnight - if it can even be fixed that is.

Completely agree.
The problem is literally 30 years in the making.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Like vultures. It doesn't mater if the money goes to the Legion of Mary.
The term vulture is used because they feed off the crisis making things worse for the public, aided and abetted by the state. It's industrial level property speculation.

Nonsense. The term is an invented one to label and dehumanise, in the same way that some people label people that disagree with them e.g. calling them FG shills.

Some members of the public - pensioners or those paying into pension funds - are made better off by the actions of REITs and similar funds, some members of the public - those paying market rent - are made worse off. This country has badly needed an influx of professional landlords in the form of REITs and also in the form of those you call cuckoo funds.

It has become clear over the discussion on social housing over various threads is that the two main issues are the absence of a decent local household property tax to fund social housing in local authorities and the failure of local authorities to collect rents from tenants. Implementing both of these measures would free up sufficient funds to kick-start a social housing building programme, yet the same people that cry and whinge and moan about the government not building enough social housing will also cry and whinge and moan about household property taxes and will defend the tenants who won't pay their rent. That type of hypocrisy needs to be constantly exposed whenever it appears.

Beta Ray Bill

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They also demolished 100% social housing estates under the guise of 'regeneration' and sold off the public lands to private interests for a percentage of builds.
Don't begrudge those worse off getting a dig out.
It's not superficial to you living back home unable to buy. But yes they are feeding the problem for sure.

I do genuinely believe in social policies that help those that fall upon hard times.

We do need the net to catch people when they fall, but only to catch them. (IE they cannot stay in the net, they have to climb out of it)

If someone wants a council house that has no intention of working, then give it to them somewhere rural/cheap

Tacitus Kilgore

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Completely agree.
The problem is literally 30 years in the making.

Exactly, so we can deduce that objecting to new housing being built is simply adding to 30 years of faliure.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Nonsense. The term is an invented one to label and dehumanise, in the same way that some people label people that disagree with them e.g. calling them FG shills.

Some members of the public - pensioners or those paying into pension funds - are made better off by the actions of REITs and similar funds, some members of the public - those paying market rent - are made worse off. This country has badly needed an influx of professional landlords in the form of REITs and also in the form of those you call cuckoo funds.

It has become clear over the discussion on social housing over various threads is that the two main issues are the absence of a decent local household property tax to fund social housing in local authorities and the failure of local authorities to collect rents from tenants. Implementing both of these measures would free up sufficient funds to kick-start a social housing building programme, yet the same people that cry and whinge and moan about the government not building enough social housing will also cry and whinge and moan about household property taxes and will defend the tenants who won't pay their rent. That type of hypocrisy needs to be constantly exposed whenever it appears.

It explains what they are quite well IMO, in both cases.

True, so what? I don't use the term Cuckoo, they are all vulture funds to me.
These pension funds with the assistance of government, are making profits off the misery of tax payers enduring the housing crisis.
It's the influx of professional landlords that has us in crisis.

No, maybe to you. Rent arrears is used as a stick to excuse the **** show that is FG housing policy. The arrears have zero bearing on the housing crisis and the policies that exacerbate it. Again, the same people who are in arrears would be in arrears be they in a state built or vulture fund leased flat/house. So that argument is just diversion. Yes they should collect the arrears and use the monies for social housing builds, if you believe that's were any money would go. More diversion. Show one person ever in the history of mankind that supported tenants not paying their due rent? So zero hypocrisy there.

Building up is good once the people have access to food and such.

Colonel Claptrap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's becoming the case that the vulture funds and other speculators will own most of the property and the state will be leasing/renting off them for cash strapped tax payers to live in. It can't go on forever like that.

This is beyond hysterical.

Institutional landlords account for just 4.6% of all tenancies nationwide.

Get a grip man.

Beta Ray Bill

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Exactly, so we can deduce that objecting to new housing being built is simply adding to 30 years of faliure.

I'm objecting to where it's being built as opposed to whats being built.
I'm also objecting on the basis that I'm fairly certain that a large proportion of what will be rented will be via the HAP.

It's my opinion that we need to build UP. But starting in the centre and working our way out.

Someone mentioned earlier that because Dublin is old that this is not possible to build high rise apartment blocks in the city centre.
However recent(ish) developments at the top of Harcourt St out towards that Canal, The IFSC/Sheriff St, Grand Canal Dock, Ongoing Developments up the Quays and into Eastwall and the fact that the crane count in Dublin in April was 117 show that this is just not true.

I suppose it's a case of starting as we mean to continue.

Colonel Claptrap

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I'm objecting to where it's being built as opposed to whats being built.
I'm also objecting on the basis that I'm fairly certain that a large proportion of what will be rented will be via the HAP.

What should be built in it's place in your opinion?

Should it be left as wasteland?

MrAbyss

Marcos wrote: »

Do Dublin Fire Brigade even have a tender that can reach that high to rescue people if needed?

If they don't, then the developers should be levied to pay for one and for training for fire brigade members to use it. This should apply to all sky scraper developers in the city IMO and should be a condition of planning IMO.

you mean like the ones that reach the top of the Empire State Building?

lawred2

MrAbyss wrote: »

you mean like the ones that reach the of the Empire State Building?

you should see the fire engines that can reach the top of the Burj Khalifa

Beta Ray Bill

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

What should be built in it's place in your opinion?

Should it be left as wasteland?

It'd be a a perfect place for a new Depot for Irish Rail.
Out of the City.
Would free up all the wasted space in Fairview and around Connolly station
They could build the High rise apartment blocks their then!
(they could even expand Connolly Station with the space saved)

lawred2

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

It'd be a a perfect place for a new Depot for Irish Rail.
Out of the City.
Would free up all the wasted space in Fairview and around Connolly station
They could build the High rise apartment blocks their then!
(they could even expand Connolly Station with the space saved)

https://theconnollyquartershd1.ie/

sdanseo

High rise is not the problem, social housing just needs to be sustainably integrated into society.

If anything location wise, on paper Clongriffin is perfect for this. It's connected by rail with a station equipped with additional platforms for short running, high frequency bus, will be busconnects hub, QBC all the way to the city and mooted for 24hr service soon.

Sorting the gurriers out is a bigger but seperate problem and shouldn't stop development, although care needs to be taken that the whole thing isn't occupied by more of the same. They also need to plan the layout carefully, in typical Dublin fashion the streets built so far are too narrow and all over the place and DCC should be doing better at preventing this. Connecting the area to the Baydoyle side of the railway and making at least one street a throughway (why the main street wasn't built to allow this will always confuse me, it just dead ends at the car park) will greatly help this, at the moment it's essentially a massive cul de sac which doesn't help to deter crime and criminals who feel pleasantly isolated in there.

blanch152

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

This is beyond hysterical.

Institutional landlords account for just 4.6% of all tenancies nationwide.

Get a grip man.

Tenancies only account for around one-third of all household property. That means institutional landlords are responsible for 1.5% of all household property, a tiny amount.

Therefore, when you see posters bandy around phrases like "it's the influx of professional landlords that has us in crisis", you realise that rationality has been thrown out the window and been replaced by nonsensical populist hysteria. The last year or so has seen the rise of mythical-based opinions to replace fact-based opinions and this is as clear an example of any.

blanch152

lawred2 wrote: »

https://theconnollyquartershd1.ie/

Fantastic looking development, the type of thing that Dublin has needed for decades.

Dytalus

blanch152 wrote: »

Fantastic looking development, the type of thing that Dublin has needed for decades.

As much as I loathe this whole "Quarter" brand style naming, I agree. Looks like a solid bit of development and if it looks anything like the drawings it'll be gorgeous too.

Also a big fan of all the documents being easily found on the website so the public can see exactly what's being done, rather than flooding the website with carefully prepared marketing prose.

Big thumbs up.

MrAbyss

does anyone have a picture of the development?

Beta Ray Bill

blanch152 wrote: »

Fantastic looking development, the type of thing that Dublin has needed for decades.

This is the point I'm trying to make.
These kinds of apartment blocks should be built in town,close to the city centre.

MrAbyss wrote: »

does anyone have a picture of the development?

See attached

blanch152

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

This is the point I'm trying to make.
These kinds of apartment blocks should be built in town,close to the city centre.

That is being built beside a railway line, same as Clongriffin, same as Cherrywood etc.

Tacitus Kilgore

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

This is the point I'm trying to make.
These kinds of apartment blocks should be built in town,close to the city centre.

Why not both?

Sweet.Science

It wont affect public transport . The people who are given these wont be working

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Tenancies only account for around one-third of all household property. That means institutional landlords are responsible for 1.5% of all household property, a tiny amount.

Therefore, when you see posters bandy around phrases like "it's the influx of professional landlords that has us in crisis", you realise that rationality has been thrown out the window and been replaced by nonsensical populist hysteria. The last year or so has seen the rise of mythical-based opinions to replace fact-based opinions and this is as clear an example of any.

Very selective numbers there lads.
Are you saying one third of the house holds in Ireland are tenancies? If so what percentage of that is owned by vulture funds?
You are fudging things here, be honest.
'Bandy around', would that be not supplying links for 'facts' that don't match the actual discussion points?

60% of all assets sold by the IBRC were bought by a single vulture fund, the Texas-based Lone Star Capital, whereas 90% of assets sold by NAMA went to US firms.
https://www.financialjustice.ie/campaigns/debtcampaign/vulture-funds-in-ireland.html

Ah the little pensioners bless...

Goldman ‘vulture funds’ collect €465m from distressed Irish loans
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/goldman-vulture-funds-collect-465m-from-distressed-irish-loans-1.3664476

This is usually the point where you dismiss the UN and run away for a few days.

Government helping vulture funds push citizens out of homes - UN
The United Nations has condemned Ireland for allowing multinational vulture funds to buy up vast swathes of properties and then rent them out at sky-high costs.

The international body hit out at what it called the "egregious" business practices of the giant private equity and investment firms.

It said they were scooping up low-income and affordable homes, upgrading them, and substantially raising rents - forcing tenants out of their own homes.

In the past 12 months alone, hundreds of new apartments distributed across several schemes have been acquired by institutional investors here with a view to offering them to the rental market.

Massive US-backed fund Blackstone has bought and sold rental properties here, including the Elysian tower in Cork.

Canada-backed Ires Reit is the biggest landlord in Ireland, with more than 3,000 houses and apartments.

Los Angeles-based Kennedy Wilson is already a big landlord which recently said it has billions of euro to buy more rental properties. US fund Starwood has put together a consortium to spend €1bn on rental properties.

In the larger cities, the rental market has already been transformed by the presence of cash-rich funds buying up entire apartment blocks and housing estates.

Some of these enjoy extraordinarily low tax bills on rental incomes.

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/government-helping-vulture-funds-push-citizens-out-of-homes-un-37955106.html

Sorry, I'll take the UN over a pair of Fine Gael apologists any day.

Fine Gael doing what they do...Noonan's pals get a mention..

Vulture fund adviser: Ireland is the gift that keeps giving
Link Group, which manages thousands of distressed mortgages for Cerberus Capital Management and other so-called vulture funds, has described Ireland as “the gift that keeps giving” and predicts that banks here could be forced to offload as many as eight more loan books over the next 18 months.

In a presentation for investors last week, the Australian-owned outsourcing specialist said Irish lenders had lined up three loan portfolios with par values of €4.5bn-€5bn each for sale before the end of this year.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vulture-fund-adviser-ireland-is-the-gift-that-keeps-giving-jdxjhcvj0

Look, this is common knowledge. Let's get back to hi-rise.

blanch152

MrAbyss wrote: »

does anyone have a picture of the development?

Obviously, it isn't built yet, so how could you have pictures, but this part of the Connolly website shows before and after from various vantage points.

https://theconnollyquartershd1.ie/photomontages/

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Very selective numbers there lads.
Are you saying one third of the house holds in Ireland are tenancies? If so what percentage of that is owned by vulture funds?
You are fudging things here, be honest.
'Bandy around', would that be not supplying links for 'facts' that don't match the actual discussion points?

Ah the little pensioners bless...

This is usually the point where you dismiss the UN and run away for a few days.

Sorry, I'll take the UN over a pair of Fine Gael apologists any day.

Fine Gael doing what they do...Noonan's pals get a mention..

Look, this is common knowledge. Let's get back to hi-rise.

This is exactly what I mean by mythical-based opinion.

Firstly, you don't have a clue yourself as to what proportion of tenancies are owned by vulture funds. All of your opinions on the subject are immediately discredited if you don't have any knowledge of the facts. Glad you admitted that you don't know.

Secondly, you don't realise that this question had already been answered on the thread - see below.

Thirdly, in an effort to cover up the absence of factual information from your opinion you resort firstly to the default of FG apologists (what happened to your normal usage of shill to describe any opinions different to yours?), secondly to blaming Noonan/Kenny/Varadkar/Murphy/O'Donohoe (delete as appropriate) and finally to shutting down the discussion to hide your embarrassment.

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

This is beyond hysterical.

Institutional landlords account for just 4.6% of all tenancies nationwide.

Get a grip man.

As for the various links re UN and others, let's just go back to where Colonel Claptrap got his figures - the Department of Finance:

https://assets.gov.ie/6348/140219142846-5a166a1ec85f4237935fb5c21dd666cb.pdf

"Ownership of rental properties by large scale landlords – those that own more than 100 rental units — is similarly minimal in the context of the wider market. Such firms hold 4.6 per cent of all tenancies nationally"

So less of the hysterical newspaper articles, less of the lobby group bull**** and more of the actual hard facts.

Dytalus

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sorry, I'll take the UN over a pair of Fine Gael apologists any day.

Lord I hope you're not including me as an FG apologist - I completely agree they've ballsed up the housing problem. And if they are offering low tax rates to REITs for rental (lower than the regualr rate anyway) then it only proves they're in the pockets of businesses and not taxpayers.

My point is only that, inherently there's nothing wrong with REITS. I'd prefer if they were Irish-owned but whatever.

The landlords and REITs of Ireland get away with offering sky-high rents because it's a seller's market atm. Other countries have REITs too - they're a fundamental part of pensions plans - but ours charge high rents because renters have no choice. Anything short of at-cost (ie, social) renting is going to be equally sky high because of course private enterprises (and I'm including individual landlords in this) look to make as big an ROI as possible.

Hating on "vulture funds" is a distraction at best. The Government needs to build more, it really is that simple. Every report I can find says the same - we're building maybe two-thirds of what we need every year, which only means that next year the necessary amount jumps higher. We need 34,000 or so every year for the next 5 years. We're building I think about 18,000. Which means next year instead of 34k, we need over 50k to make up the backlog.

Should REITs own all the rental property? Probably not. Should they own all of it on the private market? That I have nothing against. What I am against is FG's over reliance on the private market for construction, and supply is the foundation on which every other problem with our markets (high rent, high sales cost, homelessness).

I will never not hold FG accountable for that. They may not have started the problem, but their useless policies have definitely not even started to fix it. Please don't call me an apologist for not letting myself take the easy route of blaming private industry for doing what is in its own interest. It's not private industry's job to look out for people, it is our Governments.

And in that they've failed.