Would you buy a house in a new estate today?

Always number 1

Bought a 3-bed end terrace in 2008 in an almost finished new estate.
When the property market collapsed the estate was handed over to NAMA. Phase 1 was taken in charge by the local authority. Phase 2 was allocated to an Approved Housing Body. Absolute disaster. 44 units (houses and apartments) were allocated to social housing - all beside each other - all on my doorstep.
Before anyone accuses me of NIMBYism, I would like to point out that I grew up in a council estate in a different county and there was a mix of workers, lower income workers and social families and for the most part it was grand. I would have no issue with 44 units of around 75 units (in phase 2 alone) provided they are dispersed around the estate a bit.
We have had no end of trouble - antisocial behaviour, parties, our window broken, rubbish thrown around the place including into our garden, drug dealing, the guards here when they can be bothered, the Public Order Unit, ERU on 1 or 2 occasions, I could go on!!
The housing agency dont want to know, the local authority dont want to know, local representatives dont want to know and the guards dont want to know.
To add insult to injury, we cant sell our house because the estate has pyrite and we cant get the house remediated because we dont have enough signs in it to get put on the scheme. We are well and truly stuck.
Rant over - back to the point at hand, if you can buy in a settled estate or can buy a one off house with no neighbours then do it and avoid new estates like the plague

Biker79

Would be great if social workers could develop a program to get to the bottom of large scale anti-social behaviour/ cultural dysfunction.

Ireland and the UK seem to be particularly afflicted with this.

jrosen

I was reading during the week about a certain Dublin area that is having huge issues with drugs and anti social behavior. There is a combined effort from local residents, LA and guards to evict the problematic tenants. The problem with this is they are kicking the problem to another estate and other people. From what I have read the problems have been going on years getting progressively worse. Its taken such a long time for anything to be done and its the hard working decent people who suffer.

Everlong1

Biker79 wrote: »

Would be great if social workers could develop a program to get to the bottom of large scale anti-social behaviour/ cultural dysfunction.

Ireland and the UK seem to be particularly afflicted with this.

No need for that. See my post number 49 above. The solution is not social workers. We need a culture shift in how we view welfare. What is it supposed to achieve, and who should get it. We need to start getting serious about getting people back to work, retraining people and generally ensuring that anyone on welfare is contributing in some way to society. The idea that you have no responsibility to your community and that you can live off welfare without giving anything back is why we have anti-social behaviour. No amount of social workers is going to change that. In fact the growth of the social care model has contributed to the problem. We've spent too many decades making excuses for, and rewarding, bad lifestyle choices. People need to be told bluntly: if you don't contribute, you starve. Simple as.

tayto lover

There’s a lad after buying 3 houses in the same estate 😁😛😁

Everlong1

tayto lover wrote: »

I voted for an Independent I know. Probably a wasted vote I know.
I couldn’t vote for FG on that occasion after what was promised and not delivered. I expect promises to be kept.

An understandable reaction, but did it occur to you at all to drop an email to a few Fine Gaelers -perhaps your local TD, cc'ed to party HQ - explaining why you no longer felt you could vote for them? If enough people give them that kind of feedback they'll soon learn. It won't happen overnight of course, but nothing worthwhile ever does.

Ikozma

I grew up in a council estate and I thought it was the best thing ever, lovely neighbours with some crazy ones dotted about, I actually wish my own kids had grown up in a similar environment

Ikozma

I grew up in a council estate and I thought it was the best thing ever, lovely neighbours with some crazy ones dotted about, I actually wish my own kids had grown up in a similar environment

Danno

Everlong1 wrote: »

No need for that. See my post number 49 above. The solution is not social workers. We need a culture shift in how we view welfare. What is it supposed to achieve, and who should get it. We need to start getting serious about getting people back to work, retraining people and generally ensuring that anyone on welfare is contributing in some way to society. The idea that you have no responsibility to your community and that you can live off welfare without giving anything back is why we have anti-social behaviour. No amount of social workers is going to change that. In fact the growth of the social care model has contributed to the problem. We've spent too many decades making excuses for, and rewarding, bad lifestyle choices. People need to be told bluntly: if you don't contribute, you starve. Simple as.

All jobseekers should have a compulsory clause that kicks in after 3 months that you're on a 19hr week community employment scheme, no ifs, no buts, you're cut to food stamps otherwise.
All council rented housing should have an inspection every three months, if the place is not up to standard, your rent increases dramatically. There is no excuse for not keeping an almost free house up to scratch.
Finally, any anti-social issues should be dealt with hefty fines and draconian curfews. It's time for a section of society to be whipped into shape.

Muahahaha

nullzero wrote: »

I think another issue worthy of consideration is that of car parking.

I've heard of some developments allocating 1.25 spaces per housing unit, meaning you're fighting with four other households for the use of a shared space forever.

yeah Ive heard a lot of new apartment developments are going to be only 1.25 spaces per unit when many households have two cars. Developers are doing it to save space and when the problems begin they are long gone.

1.25 spaces per unit is a ticking time bomb for huge arguments amongst neighbours, in fact it has already happened earlier this year with a woman in Citywest stabbing a man to death at 8 in the morning in an argument about a car park space. Thats obviously the extreme end of things but it goes to show the type of arguments between neighbours that are going to break out because there isnt enough car spaces to begin with.

Ubbquittious

No only thing I'd buy is a nice cottage in the countryside with a stack of turf and logs outside and a decent size shed, few acres of land.

Car99

Muahahaha wrote: »

yeah Ive heard a lot of new apartment developments are going to be only 1.25 spaces per unit when many households have two cars. Developers are doing it to save space and when the problems begin they are long gone.

1.25 spaces per unit is a ticking time bomb for huge arguments amongst neighbours, in fact it has already happened earlier this year with a woman in Citywest stabbing a man to death at 8 in the morning in an argument about a car park space. Thats obviously the extreme end of things but it goes to show the type of arguments between neighbours that are going to break out because there isnt enough car spaces to begin with.

Social housing, two cars per household . Seems odd to see the two used in the same sentence .

SEPT 23 1989

Don't have a issue with it but if you cause any problems for neighbours you are out

Biker79

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Don't have a issue with it but if you cause any problems for neighbours you are out

The problem is that there are so many troublemakers, you would need a designated town to put them all.

Irish_rat

New estates can be just as bad, pretentious, kids making racket and social housing can still be put in but only a small %. Also the sound proofing can be rubbish especially on timber frame and cheap water pumps audible when toilets are flushed.

Buy detached if you can.

Mrs OBumble

Everlong1 wrote: »

We've spent too many decades making excuses for, and rewarding, bad lifestyle choices. People need to be told bluntly: if you don't contribute, you starve. Simple as.

I don't disagree with your analysis.

But the solution - if only it was that simple. If kids starve because their parents are drug-dealing Jacinta and absent-Anto, then how are they going to learn to be responsible, contributing citizens? If they're sent to live in BallyScummerville, then how are they going to learn that any other life is possible?

Biker79

Biker79 wrote: »

The problem is that there are so many troublemakers, you would need a designated town to put them all.

What do you do when the troublemaker is a private owner? No packing them off anywhere else.

Posters on boards like to focus on anti-social behaviour in social housing a lot but rarely address the issue of what can be done when the asshole making your life hell is an owner.

I'd be more worried about buying beside someone like that, who you have literally no comeback against.

jrosen

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I don't disagree with your analysis.

But the solution - if only it was that simple. If kids starve because their parents are drug-dealing Jacinta and absent-Anto, then how are they going to learn to be responsible, contributing citizens? If they're sent to live in BallyScummerville, then how are they going to learn that any other life is possible?

I see the logic, one side of me believes in early intervention, integrations and supports for those who need it. But the other side of me thinks feck that, people work really hard and make huge sacrifices to buy their home and raise their families. Why should they have to suffer?
No one comes to give the homeowner money to be able to move on and get out.

the purple tin

If you are end of terrace there is a good chance that you will be getting a football booted against your wall at all hours.

AndrewJRenko

Muahahaha wrote: »

yeah Ive heard a lot of new apartment developments are going to be only 1.25 spaces per unit when many households have two cars. Developers are doing it to save space and when the problems begin they are long gone.

1.25 spaces per unit is a ticking time bomb for huge arguments amongst neighbours, in fact it has already happened earlier this year with a woman in Citywest stabbing a man to death at 8 in the morning in an argument about a car park space. Thats obviously the extreme end of things but it goes to show the type of arguments between neighbours that are going to break out because there isnt enough car spaces to begin with.

Or maybe buyers will make plans to live with just one car, which can indeed be possible.

GarIT wrote: »

There are houses going for €150k in Tallaght. They can live next door to me.

Eh, no, there are not. There's a couple of one-bed apartments all right;
https://www.daft.ie/dublin-city/property-for-sale/tallaght/?s%5Bmxp%5D=150000
Not much use for a couple with 2 or 3 kids.

For lad who wanted others to come up with "statistical proof" and who said "Anecdotal evidence isn't really revlevant (sic)" you seem to be very fond of putting out claims with no actual evidence yourself.

GarIT wrote: »

To live outside Dublin and commute like so many others.

How do you commute to shift work, with no car and no public transport available for those working outside 9-5 jobs?

Eric Cartman

absolutely not. Why would I want to pay a boat tonne of money to live beside what is a 63% chance of a family who do not work.

housing estates are all becoming quite poorly designed too, less detached houses, terrible sound proofing, tiny gardens and not even enough space to park 2-3 cars.

wolfyboy555

Eric Cartman wrote: »

housing estates are all becoming quite poorly designed too, less detached houses, tiny gardens and not even enough space to park 2-3 cars.

Fully agree here. Wouldn't mind a new build but they are all so cramped with very little space downstairs. Living room and kitchen diner and that's it usually. The show houses look well done up but once kids come along then it would be in bits. They have gotten rid of the side office / playroom that was on older builds. Ironic considering the increased WFH.

wolfyboy555

Eric Cartman wrote: »

housing estates are all becoming quite poorly designed too, less detached houses, terrible sound proofing, tiny gardens and not even enough space to park 2-3 cars.

Fully agree here. Wouldn't mind a new build but they are all so cramped with very little space downstairs. Living room and kitchen diner and that's it usually. The show houses look well done up but once kids come along then it would be in bits. They have gotten rid of the side office / playroom that was on older builds. Ironic considering the increased WFH.

Eric Cartman

wolfyboy555 wrote: »

Fully agree here. Wouldn't mind a new build but they are all so cramped with very little space downstairs. Living room and kitchen diner and that's it usually. The show houses look well done up but once kids come along then it would be in bits. They have gotten rid of the side office / playroom that was on older builds. Ironic considering the increased WFH.

and the back gardens are getting too small to even install a decent sized office etc... planning rules state 25sq meters of space has to be left, a lot of these gardens are under 50sq meters.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and the back gardens are getting too small to even install a decent sized office etc... planning rules state 25sq meters of space has to be left, a lot of these gardens are under 50sq meters.

wolfyboy555 wrote: »

Fully agree here. Wouldn't mind a new build but they are all so cramped with very little space downstairs. Living room and kitchen diner and that's it usually. The show houses look well done up but once kids come along then it would be in bits. They have gotten rid of the side office / playroom that was on older builds. Ironic considering the increased WFH.

Yes, ironic that houses that were designed 3-5 years ago and built mostly last year don't meet the needs of the pandemic that no-one knew about 9 months ago. :rolleyes:

jrosen

Eric Cartman wrote: »

absolutely not. Why would I want to pay a boat tonne of money to live beside what is a 63% chance of a family who do not work.

housing estates are all becoming quite poorly designed too, less detached houses, terrible sound proofing, tiny gardens and not even enough space to park 2-3 cars.

I agree with you, the land plots are getting smaller and smaller, houses going up. Gardens getting small, poor parking, less green spaces.

RonanG86

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

A friend of mine paid 420k for a beautiful house in a new estate.

Cluid moved Scummy McNackerhead in next door and he made their life a living hell. There were threats made to my friend and his family, abuse roared at them every time they went outside, cigarette butts flicked into the front and back gardens, gardai called on 3 occasions etc.

After less than a year they had enough and put the house up for sale. Covid didn't help and it sold for 40k less than they paid for it.
They're now renting and looking to buy another, cheaper home - but have vowed not to buy in a new estate again.

Also, Cluid ignored their emails and didn't take their complaints or garda reports seriously.

Kinda surprised at this (not doubting it per se, just surprised), the AHBs are supposed to be better at estate management than the Councils. A lot of developers prefer to meet their Part V requirements through the AHBs cos of this reason.

rom wrote: »

If a estate is too expensive for the council then the builder puts money into a fund instead. You might be able to get a list of this from the council.

Developers can't pay off the Part V requirement anymore. (I think it applies to permissions issued after 2015 - would have to double check) They can offer developable land elsewhere or houses in another estate if they're a larger developer with multiple projects, though.

I'm in a small private estate. The house beside me is Sale Agreed (will probably take an age to complete though cos the seller is the same receiver I bought from who took forever with me), and I have no guarantee that it won't be bought by someone looking to make a few quid who'll rent it without being picky about his tenants. Or someone who might live in it themselves but be a shower of twats.

You get no guarantees about your neighbours no matter where you live.

oceanman

thats the way it is...you pay your money and you take your chance.

jimmycrackcorm

I've posted it before and I'll say it again. This impostion of the 10% rulebig for social housing is ridiculous. The blatant example is if a developer builds a small estate of 10 luxury houses to sell at 1 million Euro each, that one lucky social housing recipient gets to win the lottery. How is that fair to anyone?

I'm not sure that I agree with the concept that mixed developments are inherently good. That somehow having a majority of decent familes will reduce the possiblity of growing anti-social behaviour but it only takes one bad family to ruin a whole estate for everyone. That problem could be solved if there was a social contract that if your kids get involved in crime or anti-social behaviour while you are gifted a council house, that you lose that.

Instead of trying to allocate and pay for the 10% expensive private development social allocation, (remember the council could build 2 houses elsewhere for the cost of paying for 1 x 450k privately developed house), let the councils become developers ad undertake house building programmes where they build social homes and allocate a proportion for private sale at cost and a proportion for affordable housing. That way they get to fulfill their social gousing obligation and anyone willing to take the chance to gamble on buying into such an estate at a good price is able to.

It's one thing to be annoyed about social tenantes getting a home effectively for near free, another to pay hard earned money for your mortgage next to a social housing tenant that can disturb your life with no comeback.

dcfc91

Car99 wrote: »

How bad is it in that Emly estate now? Are all the houses occupied or have families had to move out because of trouble?

To my knowledge there are close to 90 houses there and about 20 are occupied. Have heard that most of the houses that aren’t occupied have been ruined by then stealing the copper out of them and not bothering to turn the water off. One or two houses have been burnt as well.