The great myths of housing

C14N

sprucemoose wrote: »

if a unit had no windows im sure you could get it very cheap but thats not the point, building regs are (among many other things) about providing better quality buildings rather than economy. and as ive repeatedly explained, if something is required and becomes the market norm, then the premium on this will go away

You probably could get it made for cheaper, but I'd hazard that almost nobody would want an apartment with no windows at all, and there are real health risks associated with having no natural light at all, far more so than simply not having natural light from more than one direction.

It's kind of misleading to say there is no premium, when the cheaper alternative just isn't legal anymore. The actual cost is still there, it's just that everyone pays for it whether they like it or not.

Deeec wrote: »

Just to add to this most apartments are occupied by tenants rather than owner occupied which sometimes leads to issues - parties, anti social behaviour etc.
It is often hard to sell apartments for these reasons as they are not attractive for someone who wants to establish a proper home.

I don't agree at all with this idea that renters are intrinsically worse than owners when it comes to behaviour. I've never been an owner, and I've still always done what I can to take good care of wherever I lived. Pretty much all have been surrounded by other renters, and I've never encountered any problems with them either. I want my deposit back when I leave, and I usually don't want any hassle from the landlord trying to evict me. If I owned the places I've stayed I wouldn't really have these concerns.

I would say I think the evictions process needs to be overhauled. It's almost impossible to evict a tenant in good time in this country, espeically if they want to put up a fight about it. There's almost no recourse to solve the problem, but then again there's even less recourse for doing anything about an anti-social owner occupier.

blackbox wrote: »

What's so different about modern living compared to 40 or 50 years ago?

Older standard houses should be available and let the rental or purchase price reflect that, both for council and private houses.

This would realistically bring lots of older houses and over-shop dwellings back on the market.

And why were bed-sits banned? Sure, they weren't ideal, but they met the basic needs of lots of low paid people and students. Their abolition put huge pressure on prices.

One big difference is climate change. A lot of older houses are built to be heated with open fires that you can't legally put coal into anymore, and in accordance with international regulations, emissions from houses need to be reduced. For some houses you might get by on two jumpers but others will just need to burn a lot of fuel to keep them habitable.

Aside from that though there are still plenty of old houses on the market for sale and rental. I'm in the market to buy and I still see plenty going at G-E ratings.

Not only were bedsits banned, co-op living has been banned too. A few that had permission before the ban came in will go ahead but otherwise no more. Personally I'd rather see the end of bedsits than co-ops.

Deeec

Deeec wrote: »

I think you have been lucky. I have friends who bought expensive apartments who have had nightmare experiences due to antisocial behaviour. Yes it can also happen in estates - but it is less likely.

Ah I have friends who bought houses and had nightmares with the neighbors, it can happen anywhere.
This is the attitude that stops people living in apartments though.

sprucemoose

C14N wrote: »

You probably could get it made for cheaper, but I'd hazard that almost nobody would want an apartment with no windows at all, and there are real health risks associated with having no natural light at all, far more so than simply not having natural light from more than one direction.

.....i think youve not got the point of what i was saying. i wasnt actually suggesting to build units with no windows, i was just stating that a (hypothetical) windowless unit would be cheapest but not habitable in reality

C14N wrote: »

It's kind of misleading to say there is no premium, when the cheaper alternative just isn't legal anymore. The actual cost is still there, it's just that everyone pays for it whether they like it or not.

prices will come down once something is standard due to increased competition - you dont pay extra for seatbelts anymore for example

C14N

sprucemoose wrote: »

.....i think youve not got the point of what i was saying. i wasnt actually suggesting to build units with no windows, i was just stating that a (hypothetical) windowless unit would be cheapest but not habitable in reality

I'm well aware you weren't actually suggesting this. My point is that this hypothetetical deregulation on having any windows is fundamentally different to deregulating the dual-aspect requirements.

sprucemoose wrote: »

prices will come down once something is standard due to increased competition - you dont pay extra for seatbelts anymore for example

You don't pay "extra", because there's no alternative available anymore that doesn't include it to compare to, but you do still pay for the seatbelt in the cost of the car when you buy it. If a car-manufacturer was hypoethetically allowed to make cars and leave out seatbelts, they would most likely be able to save money compared to ones with seatbelts, just as a hypothetical windowless apartment would likely be able to be made cheaper than ones with windows.

The regulations still cost money, they aren't free, we just both agree that the price increases for things that further public safety (like seatbelts, or natural light) are ones worth paying for. What I don't agree on is regulation for things that are really just "nice-to-haves" like dual-aspect windows (or something like air-conditioning or heated seats in cars).

sprucemoose

C14N wrote: »

I'm well aware you weren't actually suggesting this.

it didnt come across like that

C14N wrote: »

You don't pay "extra", because there's no alternative available anymore that doesn't include it to compare to, but you do still pay for the seatbelt in the cost of the car when you buy it.

i should have said a premium rather than extra. when something becomes standard you generally no longer pay a premium for it

C14N wrote: »

The regulations still cost money, they aren't free, we just both agree that the price increases for things that further public safety (like seatbelts, or natural light) are ones worth paying for. What I don't agree on is regulation for things that are really just "nice-to-haves" like dual-aspect windows (or something like air-conditioning or heated seats in cars).

the cost is negligible. and as ive pointed out before, regs arent solely for technical/safety reasons, certain ones (ceiling heights etc) are just as much for improving the 'quality' of the building. i agree that the reg should probably be in relation to unit size, but as it is its okay



and as i (again) have pointed out previously, it usually only applies to one third of new units. its a non-issue

GreeBo

James Bond Junior wrote: »

I live in an apartment abroad. 2 bed with large balcony. Both bedrooms are bigger than my main bedrooms in my 3 bed in Ireland. Kitchen is twice the size. The living/dining area would easily take the entire floor plan of my Irish house. The purchase price for this apartment in this development is around €240k and it is in a prime location in the most sought after area of this city. I have a marina within 45 secs walk and a private beach within 5 mins. I can't see myself leaving this apartment until the day comes that we move home. Even if a small person came along, we wouldn't bother moving as it is perfect.

Now, why can't that be replicated in Ireland? Apartment living is seen as a dirty word in Ireland and it comes from the top down sadly.

It would cost far more and wouldn't increase the profits for the builder, so they will build more, smaller apartments and make more.
The site in RTE would have been ideal for these European style family apartments, but it was never on the cards

kippy

schmittel wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. The purchasing decisions. People are wary of apartments fluctuating in value which leads to outsized demand for 3 bed semis which leads to apartments fluctuating in value.

We have everything back to front. And we cannot expect to fix our dysfunctional market with the same thinking. We cannot wail why can we not have a functioning property market like other countries and continue to expect that over half the population should live in semi ds.

Which is the point of the article in the OP. The whole crisis is of actually of our own making, our collective actions in the market, and we perpetuate these myths which help nobody.

To solve the problems we need to start thinking differently about the entire market.

I don't disagree. But we live in reality, not how things should be.
People make their decisions based on reality and those issues are currently the reality.

It's not straightforward to fix issues with housing and again to suggest Ireland is the only county with these issues is totally incorrect.

In fairness most people, given the choice would go for a three bed semi over an apartment most of the time, again depending on their current situation but even thinking into the future when they may need the extra space and functionality a house gives over an apartment.

Sophia Petrillo

Thanks.