Do NIMBY's have a right to complain about housing crisis?

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/horrendously-out-of-proportion-residents-set-against-19-storey-apartments-1.4468465

Seems like every application for housing these days ends up like this.

But the question is do these people have a right to even mention homelessness and lack of housing while simultaneously seeking to block development?

Dublin has to build up or we just can't accommodate what we need to accommodate.

Anyone living near or in the city center should surely accept this as a reality of living where they live?

One eyed Jack

It’s not actually NIMBYism though if they have a legitimate complaint. The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment. For that reason alone I can understand why residents would object to the development, aside from the point that it effectively blocks out daylight from the residents homes in it’s shadow.

grassylawn

People with back yards generally aren't affected by a housing crisis, outside of the value of their property and rental income being driven up.

Personally I wouldn't mind if they put a housing estate in the field behind my back garden. It would encourage the development of local infrastructure, and there wouldn't be the issue with flies when the cows are there in the summer. If they put one in the field across the road in front I'd be pissed off though because that would spoil my view.

Am I doing this right?

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment

Correct

dubrov

One eyed Jack wrote:

It’s not actually NIMBYism though if they have a legitimate complaint. The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment. For that reason alone I can understand why residents would object to the development, aside from the point that it effectively blocks out daylight from the residents homes in it’s shadow.

Accommodating transient employment does contribute to addressing the housing crisis.

MarkR

NIMBY is not in my backyard, if you're not up on your acronyms. I wasn't. ☺️

Wanderer78

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

But the question is do these people have a right to even mention homelessness and lack of housing while simultaneously seeking to block development?

Of course they do, odd question

Thinkingaboutit

They surely have a right to complain, but it is a different matter as to whether anyone will listen. There'd be far less noise in the public realm if people kept quiet so as not to seem hypocrites. I read some who say apartments or houses here or there are wrong because infrastructure is overloaded. It is overloaded in any place where people want to live.

tigger123

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not actually NIMBYism though if they have a legitimate complaint. The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment. For that reason alone I can understand why residents would object to the development, aside from the point that it effectively blocks out daylight from the residents homes in it’s shadow.

But they're always 'legitimate complaints', and its generally bull$hit. Those complaining then make disingenuous arguments saying its the wrong kind of development for the area.

People just don't want their localities to be developed. Pulling the ladder up after themselves, and everyone else should go live in Kildare.

MOH

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/horrendously-out-of-proportion-residents-set-against-19-storey-apartments-1.4468465

Seems like every application for housing these days ends up like this.

But the question is do these people have a right to even mention homelessness and lack of housing while simultaneously seeking to block development?

The question is do people who don't live anywhere near the area have a right to judge those who might have legitimate concerns about oversize developments. You clearly don't, since ....

Anyone living near or in the city center should surely accept this as a reality of living where they live?

This is neither in nor near the city centre.

I don't live anywhere near it, but I know the area as I used to pass by a lot, and the proposed development is ludicrous from a height point of view.

Also, none of these will be for sale. It's all build-to-let. Most of it's not suitable for families, it's shared living, studios, or 1-bed apartments.

It's a pure cash grab for the developer, who are the only ones who'll get any long term benefit out of it.

Pete_Cavan

MOH wrote: »

This is neither in nor near the city centre.

This absolutely is in the city centre. Even taking a conservative view of what amounts to the city centre would definitely see this site as immediately adjacent to it.

Donald Trump

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not actually NIMBYism though if they have a legitimate complaint. The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment. For that reason alone I can understand why residents would object to the development, aside from the point that it effectively blocks out daylight from the residents homes in it’s shadow.

It is NIMBYism if they wouldn't be bothered about it being put up 5 miles away on the other side of the city

Snotty

tigger123 wrote: »

But they're always 'legitimate complaints', and its generally bull$hit. Those complaining then make disingenuous arguments saying its the wrong kind of development for the area.

Reminds me of the Croke park development (concert?) objections and the guy spearheading it lived over a mile away, not to mention the complains coming in from people living nowhere near Croke Park.

El Tarangu

MOH wrote: »

Also, none of these will be for sale. It's all build-to-let. Most of it's not suitable for families, it's shared living, studios, or 1-bed apartments.

I'm not really sure why you think that this would mean that it is a "bad" development - if these aren't built, it will mean an extra 732+ people competing with families for the existing housing stock.

osarusan

19 storeys does seem a lot.

But definitely, Dublin (and other Irish cities to a lesser extent) need more apartments - but not the kind mentioned in the OP - proper apartments that a family can live in.

I just did a search for a 3-bed apartment in Limerick, and there were 15, 6 of which were dedicated student accommodation (so you would only buy to rent to students).

In Dublin there were 21, with the cheapest priced at €465,000.

We need more apartments that families can live in long term. We need it to become the norm in cities.

But the kind of development mentioned in the OP:

Almost 80 per cent of the apartments will be studios, one-bed apartments, or co-living rooms. None of the apartments will be available for sale, with 492 build-to-rent apartments planned, in addition to 240 co-living units.

is the kind of cuckoo fund development that is not what should be the priority right now.

Donald Trump

osarusan wrote: »

19 storeys does seem a lot.

But definitely, Dublin (and other Irish cities to a lesser extent) need more apartments - but not the kind mentioned in the OP - proper apartments that a family can live in.

I just did a search for a 3-bed apartment in Limerick, and there were 15, 6 of which were dedicated student accommodation (so you would only buy to rent to students).

In Dublin there were 21, with the cheapest priced at €465,000.

We need more apartments that families can live in long term. We need it to become the norm in cities.

But the kind of development mentioned in the OP:


is the kind of cuckoo fund development that is not what should be the priority right now.

730 people housed in this?


I think it is the very kind of pressure release development needed.


Get the pressure off and then start building whatever they decide the ideal is.

blanch152

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not actually NIMBYism though if they have a legitimate complaint. The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment. For that reason alone I can understand why residents would object to the development, aside from the point that it effectively blocks out daylight from the residents homes in it’s shadow.

Are you saying that people in transient employment don't deserve housing?

You are speaking nonsense.

The same arguments are used against co-living and student accommodation. If young workers and students are not living in specialised accommodation designed for their needs, they will be renting in the local area instead, pushing up rents and taking space from families that need it.

It is a no-brainer to do things like this.

Yamanoto

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Dublin has to build up or we just can't accommodate what we need to accommodate.

Anyone living near or in the city center should surely accept this as a reality of living where they live?

You don't require high-rise construction to deliver high-density housing.

The current problem lies in the fact that
our developmentt guidelines and regulations make a very definite distinction between houses and apartments - ignoring the fact that residential dwellers essentially seek the same things - privacy, space, comfort and calm and considered open areas.

This prevents the development of courtyard or terraced housing or other hybrid schemes, where tightly-grained networks of units densely occupy space in a city.

As for co-living, it maximises yield per square foot in a way houses and apartments cannot, serving only to feed into inflating the cost of land. I'm no lefty, but it'd be a mighty sh1tty legacy to have our people mined in perpetuity by international pension funds.

Folks are dead right to object to these developments.

Donald Trump

Yamanoto wrote: »

You don't require high-rise construction to deliver high-density housing.

The current problem lies in the fact that
our developmentt guidelines and regulations make a very definite distinction between houses and apartments - ignoring the fact that residential dwellers essentially seek the same things - privacy, space, comfort and calm and considered open areas.

This prevents the development of courtyard or terraced housing or other hybrid schemes, where tightly-grained networks of units densely occupy space in a city.

As for co-living, it maximises yield per square foot in a way houses and apartments cannot, serving only to feed into inflating the cost of land. I'm no lefty, but it'd be a mighty sh1tty legacy to have our people mined in perpetuity by international pension funds.

Folks are dead right to object to these developments.

If I'm a student or a minimum wage worker coming to Dublin to learn English, I'm probably not that attracted to the idea of getting a 3-bed semi-detached with small back garden 60 minutes from the city centre on a bus.



I'm probably more concerned about getting out of the hostel or the house share when I have the top bunk from 9pm-7am when Pavel comes in from the night shift and needs it

Snotty

Very short sighted view here, these 700+ people wont just appear when this development is completed, they are already occupying accommodation.

Like standing on the deck of the sinking Titanic arguing over which music should be played.

Heart Break Kid

Almost 80 per cent of the apartments will be studios, one-bed apartments, or co-living rooms. None of the apartments will be available for sale, with 492 build-to-rent apartments planned, in addition to 240 co-living units.

This won't help solve the housing crisis, no issue with building up but this isn't what we need. developer should be told where to go.

Pete_Cavan

Yamanoto wrote: »

You don't require high-rise construction to deliver high-density housing.

The current problem lies in the fact that
our developmentt guidelines and regulations make a very definite distinction between houses and apartments - ignoring the fact that residential dwellers essentially seek the same things - privacy, space, comfort and calm and considered open areas.

This prevents the development of courtyard or terraced housing or other hybrid schemes, where tightly-grained networks of units densely occupy space in a city.

So dont bother with the public open spaces being created by this development, blanket the whole place with buildings which will give more privacy, space, comfort and calm instead? Site layout plan;

https://planningapplication.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/1037/documents/PL0003%20Site%20Layout%20Plan%20-%20Proposed.pdf

El Tarangu

Heart Break Kid wrote: »

This won't help solve the housing crisis, no issue with building up but this isn't what we need. developer should be told where to go.

In basically every rich country, the number of single-person households have grown exponentially over the past 50 years - do these people not need somewhere to live as well?

Pete_Cavan

Donald Trump wrote: »

730 people housed in this?

No, far more. There are a total of 1,639 bed spaces in the development.

Heart Break Kid

Heart Break Kid wrote: »

This won't help solve the housing crisis, no issue with building up but this isn't what we need. developer should be told where to go.

How would removing 1500+ competitors from the market not help towards solving the housing crisis?

Gatling

Come to citywest and see the amount of apartment blocks being built ,
Several getting permission for 9 - 15 storeys which tower over the new small housing estates they are being built beside

doublejobbing 2

Planning permission should only be allowed to be objected to on three grounds.

- obscene waste of public money. Putting 10 social housing units, or a halting site, in, say, Ballsbridge, is a criminal waste of money. If social housing is going to cost 800k per unit, five units per one could be built on waste ground in the outer suburbs if the councils set up a building firm to do it for cost price.

- spoiling an area of scenic beauty. The crazy plan for a visitor centre at the Hellfire Club come to mind

- ruining architecture of cultural merit. Georgian buildings for example.

Anybody living in a home in a town built post 1940 should be told to phuck off. Nobody gives a shiet about the traffic, or the dust, or the effect on the price of your house. If you're so worried about the effect on your house price, up sticks and move before the development starts. You won't be missed.

Snotty

Gatling wrote: »

Several getting permission for 9 - 15 storeys which tower over the new small housing estates they are being built beside

and what exactly....?

there should never be any advancement, whatever was there beforehand should set all future planning?

blanch152

Gatling wrote: »

Come to citywest and see the amount of apartment blocks being built ,
Several getting permission for 9 - 15 storeys which tower over the new small housing estates they are being built beside

And the problem with this necessary densification is?

Would you prefer the alternative of the housing estates being demolished and people turfed out of their existing homes for higher density housing?

piplip87

We need apartments to be built for rental too an increase in supply will lead to a drop in prices. Although since the rent pressure zones have been introduced it may slow down the decrease considerably.

There is far too much ideology when it come to to building.

SF & the left generally against building any kind of private housing. This can be seen from their topping the list of local authority objections to development. During the last boom we had a surplus of supply of housing as can be seen from the ghost estate phenomen after the last boom.

FF&FG are placing too much faith in private developers to build social housing.

Can we just leave out the political point scoring on housing.

Let developers build for those willing to buy, let the councils get social houses built for those who cant buy.

All of this will get people out of rentals, reduce the HAP bill and lower prices for those who wish to rent

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not actually NIMBYism though if they have a legitimate complaint. The proposed development is not intended to address any ‘housing crisis’ or ‘homelessness crisis’, it’s specifically intended to accommodate transient employment. For that reason alone I can understand why residents would object to the development, aside from the point that it effectively blocks out daylight from the residents homes in it’s shadow.

If they didn't lodge complaints about the big tower blocks planned for Coolock or Santry or any of the other large developments going up around the city, then they are NIMBYs by definition. They don't care about height and scale of developments, unless it affects them personally. They don't give a damn where this development is built, as long as it's "not in my back yard".