€30 million for 61 apartments

ThunbergsAreGo

listermint wrote: »

I'd assume to serve your arse your coffee.

No to have less people struggling to find a home, and ideally less families, for whom a 2 bed is not suitable

listermint

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

No to have less people struggling to find a home

This makes no sense what so ever.

tobefrank321

listermint wrote: »

The usual to and fro crap talk from the usual suspects

Meanwhile mixing socially provided housing with normal units is common in the continent where a lawyer living next door to a plumber in say Vienna would be fine.

But here in the Cosmopolitan Dublin the snobby gits look down on working people and claim they get everything for quite literally free.

It's boring now lads. Absolutely boring.

472k for 1 bed apartment. Nothing to do with who lives where. Or snobbery. Do you think its value for the taxpayer? It won't even accomodate a family.

Where do we draw the line? €1 million for social houses? On Killiney Hill perhaps? Just to prove we can mix the super rich with the poor? That seems to be what you are advocating.

We're broke and we are forking out 472k for a 1 bed apartment. At a time when we had one of the lowest ICU bed ratios in Europe. I know which one we should have prioritised.

Had Dublin City Council waited a year they would have got these apartments for substantially less. Instead they went in at the very top of the market.

Its completely indefensible.

tobefrank321

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

No to have less people struggling to find a home, and ideally less families, for whom a 2 bed is not suitable

Exactly. These apartments won't remove one family from the housing waiting list.

Woke Hogan

listermint wrote: »

The usual to and fro crap talk from the usual suspects

Meanwhile mixing socially provided housing with normal units is common in the continent where a lawyer living next door to a plumber in say Vienna would be fine.

But here in the Cosmopolitan Dublin the snobby gits look down on working people and claim they get everything for quite literally free.

It's boring now lads. Absolutely boring.

The idea of working and living next to poor people is completely anathema to the elites, and they must be delighted that they have so many useful idiots on the internet to be their proxy-nimbyists.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why not shunt the social elements out to the usual dumping grounds; where for the same money, the council could house 2 -3 times as many families?

For those who will immediately point out the likely ghettoization, then the answer is to kick out people with anti-social behaviour, even if it makes them homeless. Also, the savings could be used to provide a mix including low-cost affordable housing for lower-paid workers who don't qualify for direct social welfare.

What you're suggesting is that ghettoisation mistakes from the past are not only repeated but absolutely no preventative measures are taken to prevent social issues and to actually end up rendering people homeless. All so millionaires don't have to bump into working class people in Spar.

Pkiernan

It's only going to be 6 units given to Job "So Called" Seekers though?

mariaalice

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Exactly. These apartments won't remove one family from the housing waiting list.

Yes but they will remove a lot of single older people and those with special needs or disabilities from the housing list.

mariaalice

Does anyone one watch supper garden, all the gardens are being done in a small social housing development in North Dublin, normal average people what are people afraid is going to happen if DCC acquire social housing in D4.

Del2005

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

A Council tenant with their head screwed on could pick that up for 190k after ten years living there

Nice investment

The biggest mistake with our housing was selling social housing to the tenants. If they can afford to buy a property then they should buy a property not be gifted social housing at a massive discount after paying a token rent of a set percentage of their income, which isn't even paid by a lot of them.


What investment has a social housing tenant made to a property? Any work is done by the council.

WallyGUFC

listermint wrote: »

The usual to and fro crap talk from the usual suspects

Meanwhile mixing socially provided housing with normal units is common in the continent where a lawyer living next door to a plumber in say Vienna would be fine.

But here in the Cosmopolitan Dublin the snobby gits look down on working people and claim they get everything for quite literally free.

It's boring now lads. Absolutely boring.

Nobody has a problem with the plumber living beside the lawyer. I'd say the issue is with the perennially-unemployed-by-choice-with-3 sprogs-from-3-different-baby-daddies living beside the lawyer at miniscule rent. Where is the incentive to work?

tobefrank321

mariaalice wrote: »

Yes but they will remove a lot of single older people and those with special needs or disabilities from the housing list.

Do you honestly think these apartments are suitable for someone with special needs, disabilities or the elderly? Or families?
They aren't suitable for anyone.
This is a terrible deal all around.

And it has nothing to do with living in an upmarket area or not.

Its about suitable accomodation.

The taxpayer has been screwed.

We have to prioritise building houses for the homeless families living in hotel accomodation and in particular getting children out of this accomodation.

tobefrank321

mariaalice wrote: »

Does anyone one watch supper garden, all the gardens are being done in a small social housing development in North Dublin, normal average people what are people afraid is going to happen if DCC acquire social housing in D4.

That social housing model looks great and we should be encouraging the building of more houses. 1 bed apartments are not a good idea for numerous reasons. Friends, relatives or children cannot stay over. And the living space is miniscule. 472k for a 1 bed apartment is sheer lunacy, regardless of background and even bigger lunacy now that prices are heading south.

SEPT 23 1989

Del2005 wrote: »

The biggest mistake with our housing was selling social housing to the tenants. If they can afford to buy a property then they should buy a property not be gifted social housing at a massive discount after paying a token rent of a set percentage of their income, which isn't even paid by a lot of them.


What investment has a social housing tenant made to a property? Any work is done by the council.

I don't agree drive around a council estate and look at the difference between houses that tenants bought and those who didn't

you take a lot more pride in something that you own

unless you are up to date with rent and behave yourself in an area you can forget buying the house off them

is that not a good thing for society?

Thelonious Monk

I find this kind of thing really unfair, and I'm pro social housing in general. I am lucky to have a house, but all I could afford was a terrace 2 bed in a rough enough area traditionally, quiet enough now though but I actually heard gunshots one new years eve a couple of years ago when someone was gunned down at night about 200m down the road.
So why are people given social housing in the most sought after areas in the city? I could never in a million years live there and I'd love to, instead of drab suburbia.
A girl I was seeing a while back had a lovely apartment in the IFSC that she bought during the last downturn, probably worth about 600k now, but her noisiest neighbours with unruly kids running around the place got the places for free.
It's like rubbing it in our faces.

Thelonious Monk

Bowie wrote: »

I agree with some of what you say but city living shouldn't be the preserve of the wealthy IMO. Many of these fashionable spots are built over 'regenerated' council estates.

So it should be for the poor and those that don't work at all, or the really wealthy? What about someone like me or many of my friends on about 40k?

ettravel

my cousin does work for a council in DUblin.

they have bought on behalf of the authorities over 800 houses in private housing estates in the dublin area to be used as social housing units.

also purchased whole turn key developments from developers as soon as planning granted.

told me about the numerous housing associations that are and are currently buying up everything and paying crazy prices for the units.

these housing associations get the money from the state , buy the units above market value and then rent the units back to the state at current rental rents.
crazy stuff.

Kermit.de.frog

The biggest issue with this is that living in good areas should be an aspiration, something to aim for for a better life.

That aspiration appears to have been removed recently which means yet less incentive to get off your hole.

It's not a great state of affairs really. If you do things right, work hard, are responsible then you shouldn't be threatened with your life being turned upside down by a dysfunctional and out of control family being put next door.

It's morally wrong in my view.

NegativeCreep

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The biggest issue with this is that living in good areas should be an aspiration, something to aim for for a better life.

That aspiration appears to have been removed recently which means yet less incentive to get off your hole.

It's not a great state of affairs really. If you do things right, work hard, are responsible then you shouldn't be threatened with your life being turned upside down by a dysfunctional and out of control family being put next door.

It's morally wrong in my view.

People do things right and work and live all over the city, not just in D4 and areas like it. I agree with your point. No one should have to work hard to buy their own home and then have people placed beside them who worked for nothing and don’t give a damn about the area or anyone else but themselves. At least if these people are housed in affluent areas, something might be done to tackle the issue quicker.

Idbatterim

punisher5112 wrote: »

I really really shouldn't have listened to my parents and should have never bothered.....

I'd be housed, med card, fuel allowance, Christmas bonus, ft for public transport and if I were a lucky one be housed along one of the best bus routes to the city, beside a huge hospital and shops and only a short distance from the capital.....

I'm sure I've left out other perks but wow how backwards this country really is and it shows it when you can see those that never worked have at least one car out front and usually more.

Yeah paid for by you and I, and most on this thread who could never afford those apartments themselves. Many paying a marginal tax rate of fifty percent over a pitance. Their " rent" if they bother paying it, wouldn't even cover the management fee. Nobody in their right mind would rent orvlive in same block as the social housing. Hence in dundrum and now here, they are all in the same block. I hope they left all the communal areas bare concrete, no lifts etc...

They should have their own entrance into the property. You know how long you need to be on the housing lost to get housed ? Easily over a decade. I bet many of us here wish we crystal ball over a decade ago to put our names down on the list? Did you see top location, luxury apartments being handed out back then for free? No either did I, my imagination was nowhere near good enough. ! Unless you're a single mother and you can use the kids as blackmail. Just show up in the local guards station, wait for press attention and rte will do the rest for you...

Idbatterim

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The biggest issue with this is that living in good areas should be an aspiration, something to aim for for a better life.

That aspiration appears to have been removed recently which means yet less incentive to get off your hole.

It's not a great state of affairs really. If you do things right, work hard, are responsible then you shouldn't be threatened with your life being turned upside down by a dysfunctional and out of control family being put next door.

It's morally wrong in my view.

Yeah you have a serious issue on your hands. No authority will do anything about any amount of Anti social behaviour. You'll be living beside animals and totally fcuked

mariaalice

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So it should be for the poor and those that don't work at all, or the really wealthy? What about someone like me or many of my friends on about 40k?

That is a very good point, proper mixed-use housing developments would include affordable, social, and private housing, retail, small workshops, and cafes.

Kermit.de.frog

Is it true that neither the developers nor local authority confirm to new tenants or buyers which units are social housing?

Seems like Russian roulette if that's true.

Want to think long and hard before putting down that deposit!

Thelonious Monk

mariaalice wrote: »

That is a very good point, proper mixed-use housing developments would include affordable, social, and private housing, retail, small workshops, and cafes.

Yeah I also think these developments should have retail/cafes etc that are let out at heavily subsidised rates. There are places like Clongriffin which is just a bloody desert really no shops or anything for miles.
My friend has lived in Munich for years and all the apartment blocks have little cafes and restaurants underneath them, never packed but tick along nicely. It's too expensive to have these kinds of businesses in Dublin so I think they should be given tax breaks etc so humble businesses can give someone a decent living in these areas.
I can't see it happening here though as we seem to be the worst planners in Europe.

ettravel

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Is it true that neither the developers nor local authority confirm to new tenants or buyers which units are social housing?

Seems like Russian roulette if that's true.

Want to think long and hard before putting down that deposit!

the property market was slipping even before covid as prices were unaffordable to most working people.

all developedments have 10% set aside to the local authorities, in some developments I.e. where there are crazy expensive properties the council can allow the developers to off set the 10% in a different development as long as the council are getting there 10% value.

so anybody buying in a new development needs to be careful as there may be far more than 10% social in the new development .

I've seen over the last few years where a developer has a scheme of 200 houses,

they sell say 140 on the open market, but as the market has slowed they are now selling the remainder of the houses to a housing association or council.

Muahahaha

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I find this kind of thing really unfair, and I'm pro social housing in general.

yeah likewise, not against social housing but the state has to get value for money. Nearly 500k for a 1 bed apartment is not that. I suppose its a slight improvement on what went on out in Dundrum with the state taking a 30 year lease at huge rents of up to 3k and then at the end of it all the developer still owns it and will likely be given another 30 year lease. Thats fcuked up.

James Brown

tobefrank321 wrote: »

472k for 1 bed apartment. Nothing to do with who lives where. Or snobbery. Do you think its value for the taxpayer? It won't even accomodate a family.

Where do we draw the line? €1 million for social houses? On Killiney Hill perhaps? Just to prove we can mix the super rich with the poor? That seems to be what you are advocating.

We're broke and we are forking out 472k for a 1 bed apartment. At a time when we had one of the lowest ICU bed ratios in Europe. I know which one we should have prioritised.

Had Dublin City Council waited a year they would have got these apartments for substantially less. Instead they went in at the very top of the market.

Its completely indefensible.

The first thing some idiots do is lay blame on the inhabitants for being in need of a state dig out. They didn't create this.
The problem is Fine Gael (and started by Fianna Fail) policy and LA's to an extent. It's state policy to lease these apartments and builders will build where ever, they don't care where, so the D4 thing is a symptom of policy that's bad for the tax payer.
We should be building our own stock. Or we could cut our nose to spite our face and lock into 25 year apartment leases because 'forever homes' something something.

Del2005

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I don't agree drive around a council estate and look at the difference between houses that tenants bought and those who didn't

you take a lot more pride in something that you own

unless you are up to date with rent and behave yourself in an area you can forget buying the house off them

is that not a good thing for society?

Our country had hundreds of thousands of homes and now we have to put people up in hotels because the state has no homes, how is that good for society? Social housing should be to support people who can't afford to own or rent a home not sold off for nothing to the current resident when they don't need social housing any more, it should be cycled back into the system.

The problem in social housing estates wasn't the housing its our legal system which protects offenders more than the people. The vast majority of people in the worse social estates are decent hard workers let down by a small minority of trouble makers and it's the trouble makers that get all the benefits while the honest residents suffer.

major interest

Del2005 wrote: »

Our country had hundreds of thousands of homes and now we have to put people up in hotels because the state has no homes, how is that good for society? Social housing should be to support people who can't afford to own or rent a home not sold off for nothing to the current resident when they don't need social housing any more, it should be cycled back into the system.

The problem in social housing estates wasn't the housing its our legal system which protects offenders more than the people. The vast majority of people in the worse social estates are decent hard workers let down by a small minority of trouble makers and it's the trouble makers that get all the benefits while the honest residents suffer.

There’s a difficult balance to be struck. Integration of social tenants is generally considered to lead to better societal outcomes for the people involved. However, you end up getting less housing units for the same money as compared to fully social/council developments. Therefore, when there is a lack of housing supply and prices are inflated you get poor value for money as in the example here. And while it may be better for the social tenants who do get housed, there may be twice that many not currently housed who could be if dedicated social developments/estates are built. At the other extreme, not having any integration and just building fully social may address homelessness more effectively. But then social outcomes will tend to be worse down the line.

Edgware

Del2005 wrote: »

Our country had hundreds of thousands of homes and now we have to put people up in hotels because the state has no homes, how is that good for society? Social housing should be to support people who can't afford to own or rent a home not sold off for nothing to the current resident when they don't need social housing any more, it should be cycled back into the system.

The problem in social housing estates wasn't the housing its our legal system which protects offenders more than the people. The vast majority of people in the worse social estates are decent hard workers let down by a small minority of trouble makers and it's the trouble makers that get all the benefits while the honest residents suffer.

The decent hard working families in social housing are as pissed off with the dole scroungers as the rest of society.

James Brown

Edgware wrote: »

The decent hard working families in social housing are as pissed off with the dole scroungers as the rest of society.

I grew up in and around social housing. One estate near by was mixed private/social. Most went on to either buy their houses off the council or move on to ownership elsewhere. Every one of them worked. You can't buy your council house without a mortgage and you can't get one of them without a job(s).
It's handy to play ignorant on the one hand saying they don't pay rent, won't work and after a few years buy the house at a steal, handy but not genuine.
It's another argument on how we feel about tenants buying social housing.

we can't expect waiters, low level office workers, cleaning staff, anyone on a low income, who we all rely on to function, to commute a few hours a day because some feel city living should be for those more wealthy than others.
Traditionally we had social housing estates in varying sizes for people who couldn't afford to buy or rent privately. This worked. Then the state got greedy. Why rent to low/no income people, when you can sell to developers? Why, because it's your f***ing job to ensure the people are put first. Today we have a major problem being made worse. Luxury apartments in D4 is just a symptom. Selling off public land and looking to the private market has been biting us in the arse for years. Having to put people up in hotels should have set off alarm bells to 'change the way we do business'.