Has it worked anywhere

Yurt2

The Singaporean government doesn't own all the land merely a hell of a lot of it, there is still private property in the country. Fairly quickly after independence, they instituted an aggressive CPO system, where land for critical national development would be purchased at its pre development value. Housing was regarded as critical for national development and is thought of as social infrastructure essential for national stability. So much so, that HDB housing units are featured on their currency.

The HDB system (the super agency responsible for planning and housing provision) is the most successful of its type in the world. There is a hell of a lot we can learn from Singapore, not only in how to construct housing, but why they do it and how they think about it.

We're less likely to engage on the last point unfortunately.

jam_mac_jam

The other issue is maybe we don't want to fix it. A high proportion of people and voters have a vested interest in high house prices. It's a store of wealth. Some of the ho hum we can't fix it is because we don't want to.

paddy0090

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Land holding by developers and houses which are falling down are two easy areas to tackle.

I can't really see why they aren't. I work in Grand Canal and there are derelict houses in the area which should be seized and built on. Nothing should be allowed to rot inside the canals, no wasteland, no unused houses or land at all or you pay 10% tax on it a year. The only other place I have seen this in the centre of a city in Europe is Italy. I can't really understand why it happens here or is allowed to. Its such a waste.

Also the land hoarding, if you don't build on it you loose your planning permission. You can't be sitting on it waiting for land to go up.

A land valuation tax would sort out a lot of it. But I think the utility of derelict houses/sites is often over stated because of their visibility. If you revamped every derelict house in Dublin I'm not sure it would add significantly to supply as the amount we're now developing.



When you get into the weeds on some of the sites the investment potential just isn't very good. There's often ownership issues, boundary problems and planning and building regs which make them difficult and less lucrative investments.

Kermit.de.frog

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Manchester would have a similar GDP to Dublin.

Dublin's GDP is much bigger than Manchester's

Greater Dublin area GDP €103 billion, Greater Manchester is €62 billion.

According to the 2012 Eurostat figures, GDP per capita (in euros) of Greater Manchester is = €27,500 just ahead the West-Midlands with €26,600 but only half the GDP per capita of Dublin €57,200 or London with €54,200.

smurgen

Mic 1972 wrote: »

As you perfectly stated, Tokyo isn't exactly a booming economy at the moment. Add shrinking population to that and you have a declining property market

When a city is of the mass of Tokyo it doesn't boom and bust like small cities of Dublin's size. It has a GDP of nearly 900bn and a population of 35 million.

Yurt2

A land value tax would indeed release shedloads of land for development of all sorts, and would dampen house prices in the long term.

Economists of both the left and right regard it as the 'least worst tax' that doesn't hinder growth and in fact is very good for productivity.

It makes so much sense, that it would be met with rabid irrational resistance from vested interests, and the usual suspects will be coached into parroting that it's communistic.

Yurt2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Dublin's GDP is much bigger than Manchester's

Greater Dublin area GDP €103 billion, Greater Manchester is €62 billion.

Strip out the GDP contribution of the multinationals, which the CSO does as well for it's adjusted figures for national GDP the last couple of years, and Dublin will start to look an awful like Manchester.

smurgen

So a good comparison to the U.S would be Austin that I visited last year. It's roughly the same size and GDP as Dublin. Anecdotally my friends said it's alot cheaper housing wise both to buy and rent and it seems to be true from my searches on the web . 100% plus more expensive on some websites I'm looking at.oh and salaries nearly 20/30% higher

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Ireland&city1=Dublin&country2=United+States&city2=Austin,+TX

Kermit.de.frog

Yurt! wrote: »

Strip out the GDP contribution of the multinationals, which the CSO does as well for it's adjusted figures for national GDP the last couple of years, and Dublin will start to look an awful like Manchester.

Go ahead, and strip out multinationals from Manchester too.

They are the facts.

GDP per capita in Dublin is twice that of Manchester.

Tony EH

mariaalice wrote: »

Are there any booming cities in a well of western countries or even any country with almost full employment, very embedded high tec economies that does not have high housing costs and high rents.

Watched a documentary on the cage homes of Hongkong.

Singapore can do it. Not a Western country, I know. But it's an indication of what could work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyHpkxkGALQ

Mention of Singapore at 27:48

Actually, give the entire podcast a listen. Interesting stuff on how we're at where we're at.

strandroad

jmayo wrote: »

I have said this already around here a few days ago in answer to very prominent sinn fein poster (who conveniently didn't spell out the results of the Vienna model), Vienna does have affordable housing, but it is apartments in often high rise developments.
It is not a 3/4 bed semi with garden or anything like our old corpo terraced houses in say Marino.
Also some of their developments have absolutely no parking, instead giving space to common areas.

But there is nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong is our model where (borrowing form another thread) a single mother with two children expects an entire house.

strandroad

Amsterdam and Stockholm. Amsterdam is more expensive but it uses its space extremely well for high density without high rise, the latter in designated zones only. That's the model (and Copenhagen's but I don't include it here since it doesn't have as much tech as the two above) we should follow. It's well tested.

smurgen

strandroad wrote: »

But there is nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong is our model where (borrowing form another thread) a single mother with two children expects an entire house.

So our entire housing issues is down to single mothers Jesus wept!

Ush1

smurgen wrote: »

When a city is of the mass of Tokyo it doesn't boom and bust like small cities of Dublin's size. It has a GDP of nearly 900bn and a population of 35 million.

Don't they also basically ban foreigners?

strandroad

smurgen wrote: »

So our entire housing issues is down to single mothers Jesus wept!

Read the post I was replying to. There is nothing wrong with offering apartments as affordable housing. We are building houses unnecessarily, just to have them partially occupied or split into house shares...

smurgen

Another good comparison to show how much of a rip off and out of control Dublin rents are is to compare Dublin with Zurich. As you can see they are more or less the same but go to salary and you'll see that Zurich pays almost twice as much

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Switzerland&city1=Zurich&country2=Ireland&city2=Dublin

Tony EH

smurgen wrote: »

When a city is of the mass of Tokyo it doesn't boom and bust like small cities of Dublin's size. It has a GDP of nearly 900bn and a population of 35 million.

Tokyo had a massive bust in the 80's

The difference between the Japanese and us, is that they learned from it and vowed not to let it happen again.

Our lot allowed couldn't care less. Sure, somebody's making a few bob on it, be grand.

Yurt2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Go ahead, and strip out multinationals from Manchester too.

They are the facts.

GDP per capita in Dublin is twice that of Manchester.

It's not twice Manchester's even according to your own figures.

Under the CSOs GNI* measure of GDP that strips away distortative multinational activity (they did this for a very good reason fyi) the Irish economy is about one third smaller than headline GDP. Multinationals in the UK don't get up to nearly the same amount of profit surfacing horseplay as they do in Ireland, so, we can be a bit more confident their GDP numbers are somewhere you would expect them to be.

Crudely and probably not entirely accurately, if you lopped off a third of your 102bn figure, you'd get 68bn. And knowing what I know about Dublin and Manchester, that's much closer to the truth of the situation.

Not valid, nothing's valid. Not when we want to talk about things.

Kermit.de.frog

Yurt! wrote: »

It's not twice Manchester's even according to your own figures.

Under the CSOs GNI* measure of GDP that strips away distortative multinational activity (they did this for a very good reason fyi) the Irish economy is about one third smaller than headline GDP.

Crudely and probably not entirely accurately, if you lopped off a third of your 102bn figure, you'd get 68bn. And knowing what I know about Dublin and Manchester, that's much closer to the truth of the situation.

Not valid, nothing's valid. Not when we want to talk about things.

You can't just "lob off a third" - those multinationals contribute to our economy as well. It does not matter how much you try to validate the assertion that Manchester is the equal of Dublin economically, it simply isn't.

And saying it over and over again will not change the facts.

jam_mac_jam

smurgen wrote: »

Another good comparison to show how much of a rip off and out of control Dublin rents are is to compare Dublin with Zurich. As you can see they are more or less the same but go to salary and you'll see that Zurich pays almost twice as much

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Switzerland&city1=Zurich&country2=Ireland&city2=Dublin

That's actually very interesting considering their prices of everything else. I would have guessed that the rents would be double ours.

Yurt2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You can't "lob off a third" - those multinationals contribute to our economy as well. It does not matter how much you try to validate the assertion that Manchester is the equal of Dublin economically, it simply isn't.

And saying it over and over again will not change the facts.

You're doing that thing again where you're plugging your ears to ideas and concepts that hurt your position.

And fyi the GNI* reporting only removes the economic activity that bears no relation to the Irish economy, and retains the limited activities of multinationals that do have an effect.

You should read up on it, and why it was done, instead of closing your eyes and ears.

smurgen

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

That's actually very interesting considering their prices of everything else. I would have guessed that the rents would be double ours.

Yep I am certain we are where we are by design.

James Brown

The OP presupposes the goal is to have all these things, a healthy economy, adequate housing, reasonably affordable health and education.
It's not.
It's about making as much money as fast as possible.
Social issues are an after thought.
Once their economy is going well for them that's it really.
Proof? We'd a crash. Wiped us out. We got a massive loan and continued as before.

Kermit.de.frog

Yurt! wrote: »

You're doing that thing again where you're plugging your ears to ideas and concepts that hurt your position.

I've given you the facts. There is no debate or discussion to be had unless you can provide me with your own figures - which you can't.

My position is perfect, the facts are there.

Tony EH

Bowie wrote: »

The OP presupposes the goal is to have all these things, a healthy economy, adequate housing, reasonably affordable health and education.
It's not.
It's about making as much money as fast as possible.
Social issues are an after thought.
Once their economy is going well for them that's it really.

That's only been a thing since the 80's though. It wasn't always like that.

Ush1

Who gives a rats about Manchester? They've plenty of housing problems of their own.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/05/british-cities-developers-affordable-housing-manchester-sheffield

Yurt2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I've given you the facts. There is no debate or discussion to be had unless you can provide me with your own figures - which you can't.

My position is perfect, the facts are there.

Oh give it a rest you Wikipedia search bar merchant. If you like to believe that headline GDP figures reflect the size of the economy when the CSO came up with a new way of reporting the actual economic activity that econimists can trust out of sheer embarrassment, go ahead.

Your position is actually weak, and you want to plug your ears.

Idbatterim

so we are saying that our model of building 6-7 floor cubes lining the liffey at very wide points, isnt the best idea? :rolleyes:

They are building 5-6 floors now out in cherrywood beside the luas, what the hell would have been the problem with double the height? why when problems here are identified, like density. Can we not just solve the problem, instead its endless fcuking around and going around in circles! Its absolutely pathetic!

The irish glass bottle site for example, I think 412,000,000 was paid for it in 2006. The current plans have a lot of it wasted with 4-5 floors at the perimiter, why? because there is low density housing forty meters away across the road and we should stop hundreds or thousands extra living there, for a handful of people?! Then these locals , mostly in social housing, are complaining, that their kids have nowhere to live? the irony! If you double the size of a development, they would get double the amount of social and affordable housing :rolleyes:

people starting to find out, you cant have your cake and eat it! Brilliant article below, well worth a read on this topic!

When California’s housing crisis slammed into a wealthy suburb, one public servant became a convert to a radically simple doctrine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/business/economy/housing-crisis-conor-dougherty-golden-gates.html

the morons in dublin city council are in court for the third time I believe, to stop johnny ronan increasing a building in the docklands from 9-13 floors. Meanwhile they have given permission for two buildings in the historic core, beside trinity college of 21 and 22 floors (which I have no issue with) but they want to stop a 13 floor building in the docklands? this is the madness you are up against...

strandroad

Idbatterim wrote: »

They are building 5-6 floors now out in cherrywood beside the luas, what the hell would have been the problem with double the height?

Because there is such a thing as appropriate amenities and the quality of life and all available evidence points to the medium height i.e. 6 to 8 floors giving the best balance of density vs amenities vs green space. Humans don't do so well piled high in 12 floor and up towers and you can't provide enough amenities for such numbers on one ground floor you then have.

Yurt2

Here's a rather excellent video that talks through some of.the misconceptions surrounding optimal density and height. Makes reference to the Dublin context also