COOLOCK residents are moving to try to block plans

lola85 · 19-10-2019 05:01PM #1

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/news/reeling-in-disbelief-north-dublin-residents-bid-to-block-highrise-development-in-coolock-38451308.html

“The scheme will house a total of 88 one, two and three-bedroom apartments. Permission was granted despite 238 formal objections lodged by residents who are deeply opposed to the development for a number of reasons.”

Seriously will we ever solve this homeless crisis with most developments been opposed by locals??

How can we ever make progress on this issue???

friendlyfun · 19-10-2019 05:09PM

"Residents are also concerned the development may interfere with important archaeological artefacts that may lie underground"

They're really scraping the barrel

lola85 · 19-10-2019 05:10PM

It’s ridiculous.

Everyone giving out the government are doing nothing yet every development seems to be opposed.

Plumbthedepths · 19-10-2019 05:12PM

lola85 wrote: »

It’s ridiculous.

Everyone giving out the government are doing nothing yet every development seems to be opposed.

I couldn't find it in the article but is the proposed development social and affordable housing?

wakka12 · 19-10-2019 05:13PM

Haha and the residents were probably saying they know we need houses so badly but unfortunately the prime land outside my home is not the right place to start for a number of bull**** reasons, what excuses did they give? Wildlife, traffic, noise, visual obstruction?

sdanseo · 19-10-2019 05:15PM

These people complaining need a slap across the face.

There is a housing crisis. Building masses of social homes is not the answer and here is a private developer trying to build.

The same people are complaining about the lack of housing and some of them are demanding handouts. Describing 5 and 6 stories as high rise is as stupid as is it ignorant: we're talking about the middle of a capital city.

Politicians need to unite on issues of public attitude like this - there are an ever growing number of examples where the backward, self obsessed, parish pump and frankly uninformed Irish public need to be educated as to how the bloody world works.

Jesus (if he ever existed) wept.

lola85 · 19-10-2019 05:17PM

FF councilor brabazon siding with the residents of course.

lola85 · 19-10-2019 05:18PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I couldn't find it in the article but is the proposed development social and affordable housing?

Don’t know, not that it makes a difference.

Plumbthedepths · 19-10-2019 05:25PM

lola85 wrote: »

Don’t know, not that it makes a difference.

Actually it does, the housing crisis is not just driven by lack of supply, affordability is as much a problem.

Plumbthedepths · 19-10-2019 05:26PM

sdanseo wrote: »

These people complaining need a slap across the face.

There is a housing crisis. Building masses of social homes is not the answer and here is a private developer trying to build.

The same people are complaining about the lack of housing and some of them are demanding handouts. Describing 5 and 6 stories as high rise is as stupid as is it ignorant: we're talking about the middle of a capital city.

Politicians need to unite on issues of public attitude like this - there are an ever growing number of examples where the backward, self obsessed, parish pump and frankly uninformed Irish public need to be educated as to how the bloody world works.

Jesus (if he ever existed) wept.

Building masses of social housing is the answer, relying on market forces to solve the problem is not working.

lola85 · 19-10-2019 05:29PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Actually it does, the housing crisis is not just driven by lack of supply, affordability is as much a problem.

But lack of supply is an issue too?

The more houses for everyone the more prices go down.

People who can only afford social housing aren’t the only ones who matter too.

Ready4Boarding · 19-10-2019 05:30PM

Coolock residents are moving to try to block plans by a developer to build two high-rise apartments...

"The development consists of one six-storey apartment block and another five-storey block."

I didn't realise the term high-rise has been watered down so much that it now includes six storey buildings.

is_that_so · 19-10-2019 05:32PM

High rise? Cadbury's is bigger!

Mr Jinx · 19-10-2019 05:32PM

friendlyfun wrote: »

"Residents are also concerned the development may interfere with important archaeological artefacts that may lie underground"

They're really scraping the barrel

Probably a few bodies buried in concrete!

sdanseo · 19-10-2019 05:34PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Building masses of social housing is the answer, relying on market forces to solve the problem is not working.

We did that before, it didn't work. It creates areas of perpetual low income and costs the state billions in the long run. We need to encourage people to own their own homes or rent.

I agree finding a way to do that is proving incredibly difficult because of commercial greed. But there has to be a balance between a socialist state and the opposite like in the USA where you have the likes of skid row. The key is in the abolition of the fantasy that everyone should own their own home. Renting long term is perfectly acceptable once it's kept affordable.

pablo128 · 19-10-2019 05:35PM

sdanseo wrote: »

These people complaining need a slap across the face.

There is a housing crisis. Building masses of social homes is not the answer and here is a private developer trying to build.

The same people are complaining about the lack of housing and some of them are demanding handouts. Describing 5 and 6 stories as high rise is as stupid as is it ignorant: we're talking about the middle of a capital city.

Politicians need to unite on issues of public attitude like this - there are an ever growing number of examples where the backward, self obsessed, parish pump and frankly uninformed Irish public need to be educated as to how the bloody world works.

Jesus (if he ever existed) wept.

I'm not arguing with any of your points, but Coolock is hardly in the middle of a capital city. There's plenty of space there.

Plumbthedepths · 19-10-2019 05:35PM

lola85 wrote: »

But lack of supply is an issue too?
Previous FG sold off vast tracts of land at knockdown prices and have not dealt with the land hoarding issue in any meaningful way
The more houses for everyone the more prices go down.
Slight problem there as it is not in the interests of private developers to meet demand.
People who can only afford social housing aren’t the only ones who matter too.

Which is exactly why the state should embark on a major social housing building programme as was done in the early life of this state. Supply was also impacted by the fire sale of developments by NAMA.
Workers also live in social housing, just saying.

Spanish Eyes · 19-10-2019 05:38PM

Depends on where you live
.
Easy to castigate others if you are never going to be in the catchment for such developments.

lola85 · 19-10-2019 05:39PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Which is exactly why the state should embark on a major social housing building programme as was done in the early life of this state. Supply was also impacted by the fire sale of developments by NAMA.
Workers also live in social housing, just saying.

Yeah but the money isn’t there.

Back when they built huge amounts of social housing the standards were non existent with no insulation, fire standards etc

It was cheap and so was Labour.

Nowadays the standards are so high it’s ridiculously expensive to build anything all because of the boom under FF were dirt boxes were thrown up without any regulation.

See priory hall and many other developments.

sdanseo · 19-10-2019 05:40PM

pablo128 wrote: »

I'm not arguing with any of your points, but Coolock is hardly in the middle of a capital city. There's plenty of space there.

It's about 8km from O'Connell Street. It is the middle of the metropolitan area.

We cannot keep sprawling. We have to build upwards and do so more aggresively.

Six stories should be the minimum new build height inside the M50.
12 stories inside the canal ring.
This needs to be combined of course with sufficiently capable public transport for which there seems to be no urgency or political will in this country.

All the while, we continue to appeal to multinationals to come here despite there being nowhere to live, which puts pressure on everyone. I'm a decent example, I'm 31, live at home because can't afford anywhere else, despite being on a decent wage.

The Irish vision for development is backward and any limited progress is happening too slowly, on more than just housing. The sooner we pick ourselves out of the 1980s and realise we need to start making better policy and getting more done, the better.

Plumbthedepths · 19-10-2019 05:40PM

sdanseo wrote: »

We did that before, it didn't work. It creates areas of perpetual low income and costs the state billions in the long run. We need to encourage people to own their own homes or rent.

It has worked in many areas and not in others. If you build large social housing you need to put in services and amenities plus you also need to have a diverse mix of tenant's. Which is not impossible.

I agree finding a way to do that is proving incredibly difficult because of commercial greed. But there has to be a balance between a socialist state and the opposite like in the USA where you have the likes of skid row. The key is in the abolition of the fantasy that everyone should own their own home. Renting long term is perfectly acceptable once it's kept affordable.

Many have accepted they will never own their own home, however if proper tenant rights were implemented that exist in other European countries ownership would not be as important an issue to people.

Spanish Eyes · 19-10-2019 05:45PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Many have accepted they will never own their own home, however if proper tenant rights were implemented that exist in other European countries ownership would not be as important an issue to people.

Tenant rights are there now. What do you mean?

Plumbthedepths · 19-10-2019 05:48PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Tenant rights are there now. What do you mean?

Security of tenure is the most obvious, and at present only exists in a council house.

Liberta Per Gli Ultra · 19-10-2019 05:53PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Building masses of social housing is the answer, relying on market forces to solve the problem is not working.

You're not supposed to say that. Capitalism is a fair and frankly wonderful economic model that naturally rewards those born into wealth the best among us. Questioning capitalism or any of its facets is like questioning the importance of Google and Facebook to Ireland, it's sacrilege.

Spanish Eyes · 19-10-2019 06:01PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Security of tenure is the most obvious, and at present only exists in a council house.

OK so private LLs have to give up their property ad infinitum do you think. Well we are getting close to that, but most LLs cannot or do not want to to do this.

Enter REITs and co living rabbit hutches. That’s the plan now with licences for co living rather than legally protected leases via RTB. But the demand is there. Apparently.

The accidental or amateur LL provides Hap. Can’t see the REITs doing that.

lola85 · 19-10-2019 06:05PM

We’re going off the topic.

NIMBYS backed by councilors are just as big a problem in the housing crisis.

micosoft · 19-10-2019 06:14PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Actually it does, the housing crisis is not just driven by lack of supply, affordability is as much a problem.

But supply of what exactly?

Because the actual issue which the government should be focused on is the supply of serviced land which is much more important than the idiots thinking you just build houses. A lack of serviced land is policy led. Of course things like having a functioning property tax and water charges would help fund servicing this land along with all the other services - public transport, schools, health centres etc. Secondary challenges around making capital available, having people trained (shortage of key trade skills)

But no. The lsolution is have the government (actually councils) invest capital and risk in an area outside their competence getting into the construction business

is_that_so · 19-10-2019 06:15PM

lola85 wrote: »

We’re going off the topic.

NIMBYS backed by councilors are just as big a problem in the housing crisis.

That's so they can be on the right side of history when it's built.

micosoft · 19-10-2019 06:22PM

Liberta Per Gli Ultra wrote: »

You're not supposed to say that. Capitalism is a fair and frankly wonderful economic model that naturally rewards those born into wealth the best among us. Questioning capitalism or any of its facets is like questioning the importance of Google and Facebook to Ireland, it's sacrilege.

And is questioning the questioner if they have really thought through their "question" is sacrilege. Because you can always make the situation worse you know. Thinking you can solve the housing crisis with a "Guberment build mo houses" one liner is the issue in this country because it doesn't even understand what the problem.

Secondly the Capitalist system is recognised by pretty much all as a flawed system, though suspect you mean to say "free market" (we have a mixed economy). You use policy through taxation and regulation to ameliorate the worst impact.

kona · 19-10-2019 06:24PM

sdanseo wrote: »

It's about 8km from O'Connell Street. It is the middle of the metropolitan area.

We cannot keep sprawling. We have to build upwards and do so more aggresively.

Six stories should be the minimum new build height inside the M50.
12 stories inside the canal ring.
This needs to be combined of course with sufficiently capable public transport for which there seems to be no urgency or political will in this country.

All the while, we continue to appeal to multinationals to come here despite there being nowhere to live, which puts pressure on everyone. I'm a decent example, I'm 31, live at home because can't afford anywhere else, despite being on a decent wage.

The Irish vision for development is backward and any limited progress is happening too slowly, on more than just housing. The sooner we pick ourselves out of the 1980s and realise we need to start making better policy and getting more done, the better.

**** that ****. They need to accept that theres loads of places other than dublin, which would benefit greatly from some ****in investment and employment.

Sucking the life out of the country to flog overpriced high rise kips to people who have to leave the rest of the country to find work.

Liberta Per Gli Ultra · 19-10-2019 06:33PM

micosoft wrote: »

Secondly the Capitalist system is recognised by pretty much all as a flawed system, though suspect you mean to say "free market" (we have a mixed economy). You use policy through taxation and regulation to ameliorate the worst impact.

No, I didn't. I said "capitalism or any of its facets", the "free market" being a facet.

And is questioning the questioner if they have really thought through their "question" is sacrilege.

In English next time, cheers.

sdanseo · 19-10-2019 06:38PM

kona wrote: »

**** that ****. They need to accept that theres loads of places other than dublin, which would benefit greatly from some ****in investment and employment.

Sucking the life out of the country to flog overpriced high rise kips to people who have to leave the rest of the country to find work.

Society is evolving and global popultion rapidly increasing, and the majority of those people now live in cities or their metropolitan areas. There are more urban than rural dwellers in Ireland so we are no different.
Source: CSO

62.7% of the population lived in urban areas in April 2016.

Again, we need to start accepting hard facts and dealing with their consequences rather than reverting to our backward ideals of making Ballyjamesduff the new centre for excellence of something or other. It's delusional.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Many have accepted they will never own their own home, however if proper tenant rights were implemented that exist in other European countries ownership would not be as important an issue to people.

You have included some words that aren't mine in your quote in this post. You might correct them please.

Plumbthedepths · 19-10-2019 06:44PM

lola85 wrote: »

We’re going off the topic.

NIMBYS backed by councilors are just as big a problem in the housing crisis.

Plenty of NIMBYS are also backed by sitting TD's nothing new there although more insidious as they have the clout to affect decisions. Politicians will usually back the people that return them to office.

the_syco · 19-10-2019 06:45PM

sdanseo wrote: »

We did that before, it didn't work. It creates areas of perpetual low income and costs the state billions in the long run. We need to encourage people to own their own homes or rent.

They can't afford their own homes, and they are unable to pay the rent themselves. Why should private landlords take the risk?

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Security of tenure is the most obvious, and at present only exists in a council house.

So the landlords should take the risk, and be unable to take their home back?

kona wrote: »

**** that ****. They need to accept that theres loads of places other than dublin, which would benefit greatly from some ****in investment and employment.

No, actually, they don't. They can go looking elsewhere, such as Poland, though.

kona · 19-10-2019 06:48PM

the_syco wrote: »

No, actually, they don't. They can go looking elsewhere, such as Poland, though.

Why would you come to the conclusion that poland is a better place for investment and job creation than say for example carlow or portlaoise?

Plumbthedepths · 19-10-2019 06:52PM

the_syco wrote: »

They can't afford their own homes, and they are unable to pay the rent themselves. Why should private landlords take the risk?

So the landlords should take the risk, and be unable to take their home back?
.

The accidental landlord should be separated out from the business landlord. Amazing how other European countries have security of tenure but it can't be done here.
If you are renting a house to someone it is not your home it is your business, although I do understand the reason why people insist on referring to it as 'rheir home'.

sdanseo · 19-10-2019 06:56PM

the_syco wrote: »

They can't afford their own homes, and they are unable to pay the rent themselves. Why should private landlords take the risk?

Why can't we incentivise people to rent in the same way as we do through help to buy?

Force landlords to accept rent allowance. There is no reason not to do this, legislation can protect against both troublesome landlords or troublesome tenants. Why should a landlord care where the revenue comes from provided the tenant is respectful and pays on time?
Commercial built to rent developers will not be disenfranchised either if this is done right and can still make a significant profit while abiding by rent pressure rules. If anything it would open up more customers for them, bringing people who cannot afford to rent into the fold.

Provide tax relief for long term rent, subject to logical restrictions. Currently if you buy a home you can get up to €20,000 back in tax relief. You get nothing for rent unless you qualify for social housing, in which case most people arguably get too much. When they eventually get housed, that is.

Either are a better alternative than throwing a few billion into mass social housing projects (the American use of the term "projects" describes how they generally turn out). Rather than create ghettos, help existing communities grow with a better standard of living.

There are simple, logical, workable solutions that can help the average person until the market stabilises - which will only ever happen completely after a sustained period of proper planning, significantly higher investment in infrastructure, and social change.

We are incapable of comprehending the scale of social and infrastructural development needed here because of a terrifyingly potent backward national attitude, which itself is perpetuated because politicians are terrified of change. The back of this issue must be broken before we will get anywhere.

Fritzbox · 19-10-2019 07:03PM

kona wrote: »

Why would you come to the conclusion that poland is a better place for investment and job creation than say for example carlow or portlaoise?

If wages, property prices and other overheads are significantly cheaper in Poland, as I believe they are - it wouldn't be hard to come to that conclusion, would it?

kona · 19-10-2019 07:14PM

Fritzbox wrote: »

If wages, property prices and other overheads are significantly cheaper in Poland, as I believe they are - it wouldn't be hard to come to that conclusion, would it?

Significantly cheaper yes but i dont think it has the infrastructure and the type of workforce suited to the types of jobs which ireland would attract.

Varik · 19-10-2019 07:15PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The accidental landlord should be separated out from the business landlord. Amazing how other European countries have security of tenure but it can't be done here.
If you are renting a house to someone it is not your home it is your business, although I do understand the reason why people insist on referring to it as 'rheir home'.

Because in other countries those business can act like one and stop providing a service when they stop paying for it.

The government is doing a great job driving small landlords out of the market but no one wants to take their place.

Jimbob1977 · 19-10-2019 07:16PM

friendlyfun wrote: »

"Residents are also concerned the development may interfere with important archaeological artefacts that may lie underground"

They're really scraping the barrel

Archaeological artefact.

Someone's payslip?

Liberta Per Gli Ultra · 19-10-2019 07:21PM

sdanseo wrote: »

Either are a better alternative than throwing a few billion into mass social housing projects (the American use of the term "projects" describes how they generally turn out). Rather than create ghettos, help existing communities grow with a better standard of living.

Your use of the word "throwing" says it all and it is that right-wing ideology which turned many social housing schemes into failed projects in the past. You'll get a ghetto if you "throw" a group of people into a housing scheme with no facilities and no support.

Fritzbox · 19-10-2019 07:22PM

kona wrote: »

Significantly cheaper yes but i dont think it has the infrastructure and the type of workforce suited to the types of jobs which ireland would attract.

Some jobs which need the English language, perhaps. But I suspect that Ireland's advantage in this regard is decreasing - they speak English very well in many other EU countries as well - but the multinationals seem to love Dublin anyway. Other than the big tax concessions, I am not sure what else Ireland has to offer in particular?

Boggles · 19-10-2019 07:33PM

lola85 wrote: »

But lack of supply is an issue too?

The more houses for everyone the more prices go down.

You'd think so, but not in this country for some reason.

Not once in 30 years has building more houses led to cheaper houses.

Except for when the economy collapses and then that just makes the problem worse.

The main problem most certainly is affordable housing combined with supply.

lola85 · 19-10-2019 07:38PM

Boggles wrote: »

You'd think so, but not in this country for some reason.

Not once in 30 years has building more houses led to cheaper houses.

Except for when the economy collapses and then that just makes the problem worse.

The main problem most certainly is affordable housing combined with supply.

Think I read house prices down last month?

Boggles · 19-10-2019 07:44PM

lola85 wrote: »

Think I read house prices down last month?

Nothing to do with Supply. We are not building next to near enough.

More than likely consumer sentiment and the looming dreaded Brexit.

19-10-2019 07:57PM

Didn't we build a shed load of houses round 04 to 08 and the ass fell out of the prices.

Edit: a great time to be renting by the way, my rent never changed for years and years.:D

MOH · 19-10-2019 08:11PM

sdanseo wrote: »

These people complaining need a slap across the face.

Wow. Sure, why not beat people into submission!

...Describing 5 and 6 stories as high rise is as stupid as is it ignorant: we're talking about the middle of a capital city.

Not as ignorant as your complete lack of basic geography - try looking at a map.

Jesus (if he ever existed) wept.

At least we agree on one thing.

Boggles · 19-10-2019 08:17PM

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Didn't we build a shed load of houses round 04 to 08 and the ass fell out of the prices.

There was 92,000 built in 2005, prices went up 12%.

The alarm bells were being rung for real in 2006.

A couple had rung them before that but were told to go kill themselves. Good old Bertie.

lola85 · 19-10-2019 08:23PM

Boggles wrote: »

There was 92,000 built in 2005, prices went up 12%.

The alarm bells were being rung for real in 2006.

A couple had rung them before that but were told to go kill themselves. Good old Bertie.

The housing crisis goes back 40 years.

Not Eoghan Murphy era.

the_syco · 19-10-2019 09:07PM

sdanseo wrote: »

Force landlords to accept rent allowance. There is no reason not to do this, legislation can protect against both troublesome landlords or troublesome tenants.

Legislation is doing a sh|t job at protecting against troublesome tenants.

sdanseo wrote: »

Why should a landlord care where the revenue comes from provided the tenant is respectful and pays on time?

They don't. Except if HAP gets stopped, the LL is not told it'll be stopping; they find out it has stopped when is stops coming in. And they are paid in arrears by the councils.

sdanseo wrote: »

Rather than create ghettos, help existing communities grow with a better standard of living.

The Irish government prefers to give people what is essentially a free house next to someone who will pay €400,000 for their house.

COOLOCK residents are moving to try to block plans

Comments