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

piplip87

piplip87 wrote: »

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.

What?

SF are top of the list of objectors because their entire MO is populism. Objecting to large developments.......It's the Dublin city equivalent of Danny and Michael showing up to a Kerry farmer's funeral. They don't care about who builds what or how big the development is or even who owns it. They do care about the voters who live nearby, though, and will support any auld cause to try win a few votes.

Pete_Cavan

piplip87 wrote: »

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

This is nonsense. For many people renting is the logical solution to their housing needs, do you think everyone should take out a mortgage to buy a three bed semi as soon as they move out of their parents house? Renting is a normal part of any functioning property market. It is actually a much larger part of better functioning property markets than here. Its a lovely idea that social homes should be built for everyone who cant buy but it is not realistic.

Building apartments is too expensive for them to be sold. Very few would get a mortgage to cover the full cost of constructing a new apartment in the city centre. The only way to achieve the increased density required is built to rent apartments but with that must come proper protection for renters, particularly rolling leases with minimal rent increases so people have the security to live there for as long as they need without rents spiraling.

Gatling

blanch152 wrote: »

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?

I think it should be controlled , if an estate exists of two storey Houses build more house in that area ,but building 9 storey plus Blocks on top of them isn't the way to go ,I've no problem with going high rise if it's done right the helps and area ,
Leave existing estates as they are and build high in Greenfield sites as proper controlled developments ,I've no problems with families living in apartments ,we live in a two bed ,but unless there is propert managements of these estates they become **** holes ,
Citywest hotel is a prime example they want to indoor arena for events and concerts that's s no,no but building a thousand apartments in the area is fine .

El Tarangu

Kara Lively Munchies wrote: »

Is it not the case in Dublin with most of these developments that they aren't actually for those looking to buy? and are built to rent at extortionate rents

Rents are extortionate because of a chronic shortage of properties for rent. The construction of these rental properties will go some small way to addressing this undersupply.

El Tarangu

Gatling wrote: »

I think it should be controlled , if an estate exists of two storey Houses build more house in that area ,but building 9 storey plus Blocks on top of them isn't the way to go ,I've no problem with going high rise if it's done right the helps and area ,
Leave existing estates as they are and build high in Greenfield sites as proper controlled developments ,I've no problems with families living in apartments ,we live in a two bed ,but unless there is propert managements of these estates they become **** holes ,
Citywest hotel is a prime example they want to indoor arena for events and concerts that's s no,no but building a thousand apartments in the area is fine .

You haven't really adequately explained why building some taller buildings close to some smaller buildings is a problem, per se.

Gatling

El Tarangu wrote: »

Rents are extortionate because of a chronic shortage of properties for rent. The construction of these rental properties will go some small way to addressing this undersupply.

But it won't reduce rents if anything it will likely lead to increases current landlords will see the new better fitted out apartments going for 3k per month and follow suit by saying well my two bed mouldy apartment is in the same area with the new shiny 3k per month apartments , meaning more and more people and families will be soley reliant on social welfare to pay their rents

Amirani

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.

So if you don't have a long-term stable job then we don't want you in our area. That's somehow a fine attitude to have?

St James's Hospital is a couple of minutes down the road from this. Junior Doctors switch jobs/hospitals every 6 months so they are the very definition of transient employment. But it's fine that they struggle to get somewhere to live?

El Tarangu

Gatling wrote: »

But it won't reduce rents if anything it will likely lead to increases current landlords will see the new better fitted out apartments going for 3k per month and follow suit by saying well my two bed mouldy apartment is in the same area with the new shiny 3k per month apartments , meaning more and more people and families will be soley reliant on social welfare to pay their rents

Landlords don't set prices, demand does. If someone is willing to pay €3k for a luxury apartment currently, but there are none available to rent, they will end up living on in some of the €2k per month housing stock, making it more expensive for anyone else looking to rent an apartment in this price range.

Kara Lively Munchies wrote: »

Really? considering there are apparently quite a lot of these high priced units lying empty atm as nobody wants to/can pay for them?

https://www.businesspost.ie/houses/hundreds-of-luxury-apartments-controlled-by-us-fund-lie-vacant-in-capital-7993e066

This I find more difficult to explain - one thought that occurs to me is that landlords might be unwilling to reduce rents to ensure full occupancy, as the RPZ rules mean that these reduced rents are written in stone for the next number of years. In general, I don't think that developers would be building apartments without the expectation of being able to rent them out, it wouldn't really make sense.

AndrewJRenko

osarusan wrote: »

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. .

There are 86 apartments with 3 beds or more in Dublin on myhome today, starting from €220k

Yamanoto

Donald Trump wrote: »

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

A 'minimum wage worker coming to Dublin to learn English' is allowed work 20hrs per week for most of the year as per their visa conditions. As such, set ups such as this development are way beyond their means.

osarusan

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There are 86 apartments with 3 beds or more in Dublin on myhome today, starting from €220k

Dublin city centre, not just Dublin. I should have specified that.

21 on Daft this morning.

EDIT: But even at 86, that's a tiny amount for a city of what, 1.2 million?

osarusan

Donald Trump wrote: »

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

I disagree, what's needed is the kind of dwellings there is a shortage of in the first place.


There's a place for such shared living, but the priority should be on what there is a long-term shortage of.



Companies like the one behind this development couldn't care less about relieving pressure (and why should they) they are building what brings in the most income.

blanch152

Gatling wrote: »

I think it should be controlled , if an estate exists of two storey Houses build more house in that area ,but building 9 storey plus Blocks on top of them isn't the way to go ,I've no problem with going high rise if it's done right the helps and area ,
Leave existing estates as they are and build high in Greenfield sites as proper controlled developments ,I've no problems with families living in apartments ,we live in a two bed ,but unless there is propert managements of these estates they become **** holes ,
Citywest hotel is a prime example they want to indoor arena for events and concerts that's s no,no but building a thousand apartments in the area is fine .

Good planning doesn't have high-rise in the middle of nowhere. Good planning has high-rise in centre of cities and along public transport corridors.

Between the canals and along the Dart line are the correct places for high-rise in Dublin. For other reasons, these aren't practical, but high-rise should be the default.

Top areas where it is practical are brownfield sites like the one in the OP.

Donald Trump

Yamanoto wrote: »

A 'minimum wage worker coming to Dublin to learn English' is allowed work 20hrs per week for most of the year as per their visa conditions. As such, set ups such as this development are way beyond their means.

Not every student coming to Dublin to learn English is broke. They may however be limited to minimum wage jobs.

In the same way that I have known people who moved to cities for relatively short term (and sometimes unpaid) internships.

Every anti-NIMBYist as soon as they get a
toe on the property ladder, in an area they like and desire, dollars for doughnuts, they won't want to see that area ruined, and begone the very thing they decried a few years ago.


I'm breaking my hole working, mortgaged up, to provide a home for my family in a nice, safe desirable area. I maintain my property as do we all.

Do I want a tenement of social housing built beside me? With no green area or parking?
Do I fcuk.

Big difference between being anti everything and being in favour of sustainable appropriate development.


Does it make me a NIMBY?
Couldn't give two fux.

Sunny Disposition

NIMBY is not an appropriate phrase, anyone has and should have the right to test the merits of a planning application, especially here where our planning is so bad.
We could do with more people making submissions, not fewer.
Certain politicians have tried to pass off their failures on housing as being due to an overly cumbersome planning process, but it just isn't true. You put your plans to the local authority, there's a fair amount of time for people to make a submission, and you get a decision. If you're unfortunate it goes to An Bord Pleanála and in a few months you've got an answer one way or another.
I say this as someone who has been behind numerous large residential developments.
For some reason in Ireland there's always people advocating a laissez faire approach, be it to planning, banking, farming. Then you get the consequences like ghettoes, a savage recession and pollution, but some people can't see the links.

Yamanoto

Donald Trump wrote: »

Not every student coming to Dublin to learn English is broke. They may however be limited to minimum wage jobs.

Not every student coming to Dublin to learn English is actually coming to Dublin to learn English. That in itself is a cause of significant housing pressures that shut people out of accessing quality affordable accommodation.

Gatling

blanch152 wrote: »

Between the canals and along the Dart line are the correct places for high-rise in Dublin. For other reasons, these aren't practical, but high-rise should be the default.

Top areas where it is practical are brownfield sites like the one in the OP.

This is what I mean , rather than throwing up apartment blocks on every bit of grass put them where they will be most effective ,
I don't mean build in the middle of nowhere but don't build on top of small housing estates where there little or no recreation space or the tiny areas for baby's to play to suit planning requirements

Sunny Disposition

Gatling wrote: »

This is what I mean , rather than throwing up apartment blocks on every bit of grass put them where they will be most effective ,
I don't mean build in the middle of nowhere but don't build on top of small housing estates where there little or no recreation space or the tiny areas for baby's to play to suit planning requirements

Exactly, and without people to make these arguments unfettered, poorly planned development continues. But still some people want to label those who make the arguments in a perfectly legal manner.

'Dublin skyline is great, we can't touch it by building high-rise'.

But sure stick a 19 storey block into a housing estate. Be grand.

Using the term transient employees is a bit disingenuous. Makes them sound like fly-by-night market traders. I'm a transient employee in that I move around every couple of years.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

This is what I mean , rather than throwing up apartment blocks on every bit of grass put them where they will be most effective ,
I don't mean build in the middle of nowhere but don't build on top of small housing estates where there little or no recreation space or the tiny areas for baby's to play to suit planning requirements

I live in an apartment in Dublin 18. Where I live there are green spaces and places to bring the baby in the buggy. I would love to live in Dublin 8. Walking distance to everything, and it would be closer for work. A previous employer of mine was loctated on SCR. My commute would have been about 2 minutes.

Pete_Cavan

Gatling wrote: »

This is what I mean , rather than throwing up apartment blocks on every bit of grass put them where they will be most effective ,
I don't mean build in the middle of nowhere but don't build on top of small housing estates where there little or no recreation space or the tiny areas for baby's to play to suit planning requirements

Generally that sounds fine but the site in the article in the OP is far from a bit of grass. It is a large brownfield site ideal for redevelopment. The lands are part of a strategic redevelopment area with multiple landowners, including DCC. A public park and other public open spaces, as well as community facilities are being provided. While the population will increase so will the facilities and utility of the area. I think it is important to consider specific sites on their merits.

blanch152

Gatling wrote: »

This is what I mean , rather than throwing up apartment blocks on every bit of grass put them where they will be most effective ,
I don't mean build in the middle of nowhere but don't build on top of small housing estates where there little or no recreation space or the tiny areas for baby's to play to suit planning requirements

This particular development is on a brownfield site.

El Tarangu

Yamanoto wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

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.

A 'minimum wage worker coming to Dublin to learn English' is allowed work 20hrs per week for most of the year as per their visa conditions. As such, set ups such as this development are way beyond their means.

While someone coming to Dublin to learn English is unlikely to move into a brand-new apartment, someone coming to Dublin to work for Twitter or Google might, and there are many people who fit that profile.

osarusan wrote: »

I disagree, what's needed is the kind of dwellings there is a shortage of in the first place.

There's a place for such shared living, but the priority should be on what there is a long-term shortage of.

Single person households were a rarity 100 years ago; now in parts of northern Europe, they account for almost half of all households; this is the way things are going.

osarusan wrote: »

Companies like the one behind this development couldn't care less about relieving pressure (and why should they) they are building what brings in the most income.

Well, of course they don't; that being the case, why do you think that they would build a particular type of dwelling if there was no demand for it?

Deleted User wrote: »

Dublin skyline is great, we can't touch it by building high-rise.

I disagree, I think it's really boring. In any case, I am willing to sacrifice the skyline to some degree in order that more people can live in city they are working in, rather than having to commute for hours from neighbouring counties.

Rubberchikken

I can accept legitimate complaints but tbh I wouldn't want any type of housing behind my home. Only thankful it's not possible.

Large estate bring issues but individual houses even on a rural strip can so so too.
Its people that cause the crap. Fact:)

AndrewJRenko

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

NIMBY is not an appropriate phrase, anyone has and should have the right to test the merits of a planning application, especially here where our planning is so bad.
We could do with more people making submissions, not fewer.
Certain politicians have tried to pass off their failures on housing as being due to an overly cumbersome planning process, but it just isn't true. You put your plans to the local authority, there's a fair amount of time for people to make a submission, and you get a decision. If you're unfortunate it goes to An Bord Pleanála and in a few months you've got an answer one way or another.
I say this as someone who has been behind numerous large residential developments.
For some reason in Ireland there's always people advocating a laissez faire approach, be it to planning, banking, farming. Then you get the consequences like ghettoes, a savage recession and pollution, but some people can't see the links.

Some people can't see the links between NIMBY and our housing crisis.

El Tarangu

El Tarangu wrote: »

I disagree, I think it's really boring. In any case, I am willing to sacrifice the skyline to some degree in order that more people can live in city they are working in, rather than having to commute for hours from neighbouring counties.

I was being sarcastic.


The "dublin skyline" is the reason trotted out over and over as to why we can't have tall buildings in dublin.

Galwayguy35

This fella Joe Clarke says social housing would be better, we can send up a few Wards and McDonaghs to him if he wants to live beside them instead.

He wouldn't be long changing his tune then.

hatrickpatrick

El Tarangu wrote: »

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?

They do, and they should have some space in which to do so as opposed to endless blocks of barely-studio apartments which is what all this co-living sh!te has tried to introduce. Why can't we build high rise blocks of proper one bedroom apartments where people might have a kitchen or living room to work or relax in?