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

doublejobbing 2

Deleted User wrote: »

'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.

50 years ago people thought Blanch, Tallaght, Clondalkin were quaint little villages and that building estates as far as the eye could see would ruin their character.

The locals had to adapt.

Don't like infill schemes on your estate? Too bad. Some gobshiet 20 years ago didn't want your house being built. Some eejit 60 years ago didn't want the house you grew up in being built.

AndrewJRenko

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

50 years ago people thought Blanch, Tallaght, Clondalkin were quaint little villages and that building estates as far as the eye could see would ruin their character.

It would be hard to find three worse examples of the negative outcomes of bad planning.

You're not doing yourself much good here.

walshb

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.

Yes,

And one could argue that there will always be excuses..

But, bud, but

NIMBY is human nature..

doublejobbing 2

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It would be hard to find three worse examples of the negative outcomes of bad planning.

You're not doing yourself much good here.

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Exactly what is so bad about the planning of these areas?

AndrewJRenko

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Exactly what is so bad about the planning of these areas?

Did you try talking to the people who lived there in the 70s and 80s? No facilities, poor transport, no Garda station, no sports or social facilities, poor school facilities.

Textbook cases of how NOT to design urban communities.

James Brown

If they've a legit concern or reason for objecting they can and should.
This would not include, IMO, people concerned about their property value. Quality of life or health reasons, sure.

I would object to this if I had the house beside it.

It's about planning. Throwing up dog boxes anywhere isn't a good idea, nor was building outside the cities with no amenities or little infrastructure.

markodaly

The OP is right to raise this as an issue.
We keep hearing about a housing crisis, yet anytime housing is proposed there is often people out against it.

David McWilliams coined the term, BANANA ( Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything ) to describe the Irish attitude to development, and he is dead right. We have some quaint ideas about how to approach development and things usually get bogged down in the courts for years, if it gets to that stage.

Idbatterim

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

The dublin skyline as if its Rome etc ! Lol!

Idbatterim

On another note , the " standards" of apartment building insisted on by dcc etc putting prices out of reach of average incomes is a farce. I'd love to see costings for single aspect with reduced lift ratio and all the bells and whistled...

dubrov

Idbatterim wrote: »

On another note , the " standards" of apartment building insisted on by dcc etc putting prices out of reach of average incomes is a farce. I'd love to see costings for single aspect with reduced lift ratio and all the bells and whistled...

I am afraid that the market sets the price, not the builder. If you lowered standards, you would probably just end up with bigger profits for builders and a poorer product.

You could argue the large profits would encourage more building and ultimately bring the price down. However, history shows property prices just adjust. So the builder ends up with the same profit and it is the landowners who really benefit.

jimmycrackcorm

Yamanoto wrote: »

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.

Whatever they're doing here is not causing a housing problem. They're renting rooms and sharing existing accommodation. They're not competing in the new rental/purchase markets.

beauf

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

50 years ago people thought Blanch, Tallaght, Clondalkin were quaint little villages and that building estates as far as the eye could see would ruin their character.....

They were mostly right...

OneEightSeven

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Did you try talking to the people who lived there in the 70s and 80s? No facilities, poor transport, no Garda station, no sports or social facilities, poor school facilities.

Textbook cases of how NOT to design urban communities.

Blanch and Clondalkin were ideal locations for development. Both have rail lines running through the area. As the population grew, there was enough demand to build/refurbish the train stations in those areas.

Population comes first, facilities later. You need enough people living in an area to justify the operational costs. The Limerick to Ballybrophy line is so underused, it costs €761 per passenger journey.

beauf

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Blanch and Clondalkin were ideal locations for development. Both have rail lines running through the area. As the population grew, there was enough demand to build/refurbish the train stations in those areas.

Population comes first, facilities later. You need enough people living in an area to justify the operational costs. The Limerick to Ballybrophy line is so underused, it costs €761 per passenger journey.

Makes perfect sense to compare a chronically underused line with one thats always been overcrowded and under resourced for decades.

Yamanoto

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Whatever they're doing here is not causing a housing problem. They're renting rooms and sharing existing accommodation. They're not competing in the new rental/purchase markets.

There's an incontrovertible cost and capacity issue in the Dublin rental market. To say they're not a contributing factor in any sense is frankly odd.

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

On another note , the " standards" of apartment building insisted on by dcc etc putting prices out of reach of average incomes is a farce. I'd love to see costings for single aspect with reduced lift ratio and all the bells and whistled...

Developers shot themselves in the foot. Years of putting out substandard, shoddy, paper thin apartments to maximise profit came back to haunt them when the likes of Priory Hall and a few others came to light.

One of the major parts of the new regulations meant that an individual had to sign off, personally, on the plans at design stage and another again at the build stage. Note that this 'signing off' had previously been done, but it was done by the building/construction company, instead of a named person. The likes of Gerry Gannon and Tom McFeely, who should never have been allowed near a building site after the crap they got up to, circumvented this process by establishing brand new companies for each build, then dissolving the company once the construction was complete........."Pyrite in your apartment block?....You'd better take that up with Priory Hall Construction Co Ltd, which doesn't exist anymore and used to consist of me and my family".

As soon as the new BCAR were implemented there was uproar over the requirement to certify personally. Note that there was zero difference between the new rules and the old, bar the fact that if you did something like, say, forgot to put any fire proofing in the cavities of your block, the purchasers could chase these people down through the courts, if required.

For some reason, construction costs exploded overnight. Imagine that, when the prospect of actually having consequences to your actions becomes real, all of a sudden, everything is more expensive because you have to comply with the rules or face bankruptcy.

A NIMBY-ist on with Pat Kenny now.

Sunny Disposition

markodaly wrote: »

The OP is right to raise this as an issue.
We keep hearing about a housing crisis, yet anytime housing is proposed there is often people out against it.

David McWilliams coined the term, BANANA ( Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything ) to describe the Irish attitude to development, and he is dead right. We have some quaint ideas about how to approach development and things usually get bogged down in the courts for years, if it gets to that stage.

They almost never go to court, ludicrous statement to say that developments usually get bogged down in the courts for years, that's clearly not true! It's horse****!

Having built dozens of large scale developments here and in the UK I'm in a position to say its far easier to negotiate planning here. Any honest developer will tell you that.

We've built disastrous developments in all of our major cities and in recent years many of our villages in the west have been ruined, with hardly a word about it. Yet somehow people who want to even TEST planning applications are seen as problematic.

McWilliams hasn't a notion, hasn't built a thing in his life, he's from a particularly nice area, has no lived experience about the impact of poor planning. Very easy to be a smart alec and demean people, much harder to have the balls and the civic concern to raise issues before they emerge, rather than complain about them afterwards.

Poor planning, and corruption in the process which is now far less prevalent, has been a massive factor in many of Ireland's worst social problems.

Sunny Disposition

Deleted User wrote: »

Developers shot themselves in the foot. Years of putting out substandard, shoddy, paper thin apartments to maximise profit came back to haunt them when the likes of Priory Hall and a few others came to light.

One of the major parts of the new regulations meant that an individual had to sign off, personally, on the plans at design stage and another again at the build stage. Note that this 'signing off' had previously been done, but it was done by the building/construction company, instead of a named person. The likes of Gerry Gannon and Tom McFeely, who should never have been allowed near a building site after the crap they got up to, circumvented this process by establishing brand new companies for each build, then dissolving the company once the construction was complete........."Pyrite in your apartment block?....You'd better take that up with Priory Hall Construction Co Ltd, which doesn't exist anymore and used to consist of me and my family".

As soon as the new BCAR were implemented there was uproar over the requirement to certify personally. Note that there was zero difference between the new rules and the old, bar the fact that if you did something like, say, forgot to put any fire proofing in the cavities of your block, the purchasers could chase these people down through the courts, if required.

For some reason, construction costs exploded overnight. Imagine that, when the prospect of actually having consequences to your actions becomes real, all of a sudden, everything is more expensive because you have to comply with the rules or face bankruptcy.

Self certification on fire regulations was insane, couldn't believe it was acceptable when I got going back in this country.
Again, another example of the deification of developers in this country, for some reason the State and many of the public believe builders should be let do what they like. IMO it resulted in a number of gangsters rising to the very top of the industry for years, before the recession cut them down. It was far harder and more expensive to build quality, when you could get away with ****e here.

AndrewJRenko

Idbatterim wrote: »

On another note , the " standards" of apartment building insisted on by dcc etc putting prices out of reach of average incomes is a farce. I'd love to see costings for single aspect with reduced lift ratio and all the bells and whistled...

What particular bells and whistles are you referring to?

Sunny Disposition

beauf wrote: »

They were mostly right...

No doubt the jackasses were dismissing anyone who raised concerns about the direction of the development of Tallaght, Ballymun et al, while FF and the developers performed oral sex on each other.

AndrewJRenko

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Blanch and Clondalkin were ideal locations for development. Both have rail lines running through the area. As the population grew, there was enough demand to build/refurbish the train stations in those areas.

Population comes first, facilities later. You need enough people living in an area to justify the operational costs. The Limerick to Ballybrophy line is so underused, it costs €761 per passenger journey.

"Facilities later" doesn't work. You get one chance at childhood. You don't get to try it a second time when the facilities have come along.

We did Adamstown right, with schools and transport links done at the same time as housing.

I had two older siblings who moved to two of those three areas in the 70s, so I'm very familiar with how things worked or didn't work there.

Sunny Disposition

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

"Facilities later" doesn't work. You get one chance at childhood. You don't get to try it a second time when the facilities have come along.

We did Adamstown right, with schools and transport links done at the same time as housing.

I had two older siblings who moved to two of those three areas in the 70s, so I'm very familiar with how things worked or didn't work there.

This is the bolloxology you're dealing with, 'facilities later'. The developer pockets the money from the sales, the local authorities pocket the money from the contributions, and the facilities don't come, because the money is spent in established areas or fixing roads.
Ireland is dotted with poorly planned areas that developed during the boom times, both rural and urban.
The Irish planning system is utterly septic.

Sunny Disposition

Idbatterim wrote: »

On another note , the " standards" of apartment building insisted on by dcc etc putting prices out of reach of average incomes is a farce. I'd love to see costings for single aspect with reduced lift ratio and all the bells and whistled...

More propaganda swallowed by the general public. The standards are in no way excessive, the money in construction, at the top particularly, is why the costs are so high. It's a brilliant industry to be in if you go out on your own, as I did as a young man, and it makes a lot of people rich beyond their expectations starting out. The money swirling around the industry is the reason property is expensive, it certainly is not done to excessive requirements on Irish builders. Most of them would get heart failure if they had to comply with German requirements.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

A NIMBY-ist on with Pat Kenny now.

Is Pat talking to himself?

blanch152

James Brown wrote: »

If they've a legit concern or reason for objecting they can and should.
This would not include, IMO, people concerned about their property value. Quality of life or health reasons, sure.

I would object to this if I had the house beside it.

It's about planning. Throwing up dog boxes anywhere isn't a good idea, nor was building outside the cities with no amenities or little infrastructure.

That sort of development is exactly what is needed in-between the canals. If anything, the heights on those buildings are too low and there should be another few storeys on top. Walking distance of the city centre should see even more intensification of development.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Is Pat talking to himself?

Very good!

Actually it is rare I disagree with Pat but he was agreeing with the objector's every point. Meanwhile I was hurling profanity at the radio.

Again mentions of transient workers. I've been a transient worker for 18 years. Despite the crash Ive never claimed one cent of dole. Us transient workers are people too. I'd give anything to swap my small apartment in Dublin 18 for a small apartment in Dublin 8.

hatrickpatrick

Why does nobody talk about style? If there were more buildings planned whose style wasn't butt-ugly or intentionally garish and sore thumb - esque, people would be far less likely to object.

The majority of people don't like the kind of "glass brutalism" which is popular today, nor do they like the kind of "architectural narcissism" which also abounds - think buildings such as the Lexicon in DLR, buildings designed explicitly to be the centre of attention rather than blending in with the existing surrounds. Weird angles, out of place colour schemes, peculiar shapes, etc all for the purpose of saying "look at me, I'm the most unique building around!"

Nobody apart from the art critics of the architecture world actually wants to look at that sh!te. Obviously what constitutes a nice looking building is going to differ from person to person, but I'd argue that if you brought back the Georgian or Victorian style, or even the Art Deco of the early 20th century, people would be a lot less likely to object to buildings than the current trend of building bland slabs of concrete interspersed with glass and metal.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

Is Pat talking to himself?

Actual screenshot of Pat Kenny and the NIMBYist in studio:

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why does nobody talk about style? If there were more buildings planned whose style wasn't butt-ugly or intentionally garish and sore thumb - esque, people would be far less likely to object.

The majority of people don't like the kind of "glass brutalism" which is popular today, nor do they like the kind of "architectural narcissism" which also abounds - think buildings such as the Lexicon in DLR, buildings designed explicitly to be the centre of attention rather than blending in with the existing surrounds. Weird angles, out of place colour schemes, peculiar shapes, etc all for the purpose of saying "look at me, I'm the most unique building around!"

Nobody apart from the art critics of the architecture world actually wants to look at that sh!te. Obviously what constitutes a nice looking building is going to differ from person to person, but I'd argue that if you brought back the Georgian or Victorian style, or even the Art Deco of the early 20th century, people would be a lot less likely to object to buildings than the current trend of building bland slabs of concrete interspersed with glass and metal.

One of the early albums of the band Blur, was called Modern Life is Rubbish, and the album cover had a painting of if I remember correctly a Mallard 75 steam train. A grand, majestic looking train. They have a point. The Georgian sense of style was wonderful. The attention to detail for things to look nice. Modern trains, modern buildings by comparison are often ugly and functional looking. Often almost utilitarian looking.

However, what has been done to many of the Georgian houses in Dublin is an even greater travesty. I was in a friends bedsit in one of the georgian houses in the area of Dublin 8. There was this sort of recess in the wall and I asked him what was it. He said "About 50 years ago it was a fireplace". He went onto explain that his room was half of the sitting room of the original house. The owner had split the room in half right down the middle of the fireplace and turned it into 2 bedsits. It wasn't a particularly nice living space but 10 minute walk to Grafton Street and it was cheap. If the original owners of the building could see it now they would weep. Many if not most of the Georgian houses in D8 around the SCR have gotten similar treatment.