Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Foley Street, Dublin 1

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,235 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    The previous attempts to make better use of city centre real estate were done in a typically Irish, half-assed, brown envelopes to the lads fashion. It could further be argued that given the funding that was poured into Ballymun, Finglas and Tallaght, the problem was less the locations and more to do with the members of those "communities". I use the inverted commas not as a scare tactic but one of derision for the label being applied to the residents of such areas: a culture of violence, omerta and fear does not represent a community imo.

    Foley Street wouldn't have a crime problem if it wasn't surrounded by social housing and a methadone clinic.

    Finally, what is idiotic about the suggestion that prime real estate shouldn't be used for public housing? Land values in the centre of any capital city will be multiples that of land outside of it. Why should those who contribute least to society expect to be housed in more attractive locations than those who pay for that housing?


  • Options
    #33
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,991 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    Sleepy wrote: »
    The previous attempts to make better use of city centre real estate were done in a typically Irish, half-assed, brown envelopes to the lads fashion. It could further be argued that given the funding that was poured into Ballymun, Finglas and Tallaght, the problem was less the locations and more to do with the members of those "communities". I use the inverted commas not as a scare tactic but one of derision for the label being applied to the residents of such areas: a culture of violence, omerta and fear does not represent a community imo.

    When I was really young, my family moved into a council house in Jobstown in Tallaght. My only real memory is on the week we moved out my father was talking about a few of our neighbors. He said that you could tell who would be there in 20 years and who wouldn't(maybe not in those words). Coming up on 3 decades later, he was pretty spot on in his predictions.

    From my family's experience the problem with large scale council housing is that after a decade or two, there is only going to be a high percentage of lifetime council tenants left in the estate. And within that, there is going to be a high percentage of assholes. Which leads to those social issues that are prevalent. Moving them as a group to another location will simply move the problem. That's one of the reason I really like the current policy of integrated council housing into normal estates. It gives the children a chance to avoid those hotspots that currently exist.


  • Options
    #34
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    From my family's experience the problem with large scale council housing is that after a decade or two, there is only going to be a high percentage of lifetime council tenants left in the estate. And within that, there is going to be a high percentage of assholes.

    Yes and then in the long term you have an evil circle whereby some decent people who would qualify for social housing will avoid it because of antisocial behaviour there. Making the issue worse and worse.
    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    Which leads to those social issues that are prevalent. Moving them as a group to another location will simply move the problem. That's one of the reason I really like the current policy of integrated council housing into normal estates. It gives the children a chance to avoid those hotspots that currently exist.

    I would have a caveat there: people benefiting from these schemes should be hand-picked to ensure they do want something better and do show respect to people who potentially paid big money and got a mortgage for their property. And there should be a zero tolerance policy if they are found to misbehave or do things like causing damage to common areas which will reflect in everyone's management fees. If this is not done the policy is just hiding the problem by making it more diffuse (and passing it to private owners) rather than solving it.


  • Options
    #35
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Finally, what is idiotic about the suggestion that prime real estate shouldn't be used for public housing? Land values in the centre of any capital city will be multiples that of land outside of it. Why should those who contribute least to society expect to be housed in more attractive locations than those who pay for that housing?

    Bingo! There's the idiocy.

    Public housing tenancy has absolutely zilch correlation with contributing to society or otherwise. Society is no more or no less likely to benefit from the contributions of a local authority tenant than a private tenant or homeowner. And why exactly do you believe that public housing should be anything less than attractive? I have to admit I don't often encounter such eager advocates for ghettoisation.


  • Options
    #36
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,235 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    alastair wrote: »
    Public housing tenancy has absolutely zilch correlation with contributing to society or otherwise. Society is no more or no less likely to benefit from the contributions of a local authority tenant than a private tenant or homeowner. And why exactly do you believe that public housing should be anything less than attractive? I have to admit I don't often encounter such eager advocates for ghettoisation.
    You can't see the difference between someone who contributes to the exchequer and someone who's a drain on it? OK then.

    Given the price premium of city centre real estate evident in other European cities that aren't blighted by such a high proportion of social housing as Dublin's city centre, there's no reason why the development of Dublin City Centre real estate currently being under-utilised as social housing couldn't fund the development of more, higher quality, social housing units across the city's suburbs. There's no reason for public housing to be a terrible place to live but I also don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that it shouldn't be so attractive that it encourages parasitic behaviour.

    Advocating for ghettoisation? I'm arguing against it. Most of the north inner-city already is a ghetto.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Sleepy wrote: »
    You can't see the difference between someone who contributes to the exchequer and someone who's a drain on it? OK then.

    Given the price premium of city centre real estate evident in other European cities that aren't blighted by such a high proportion of social housing as Dublin's city centre, there's no reason why the development of Dublin City Centre real estate currently being under-utilised as social housing couldn't fund the development of more, higher quality, social housing units across the city's suburbs. There's no reason for public housing to be a terrible place to live but I also don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that it shouldn't be so attractive that it encourages parasitic behaviour.

    Advocating for ghettoisation? I'm arguing against it. Most of the north inner-city already is a ghetto.

    Society is not the exchequer, and there are plenty public housing tenants who are net contributors to the exchequer.

    Your attitude is clear enough. You believe in the notion of second class citizens. Public housing, to your mind, is equated with that second class citizenry. And there's the core idiocy at play. The city centre contains, whether you like it or not, a community, and suggesting that people be uprooted and moved elsewhere (less attractive no less) simply because they live in public housing rather than private accomodation is nothing cleverer than rank snobbery.


  • Options
    #38
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    This is not an easy question.

    In many large European cities, it has became so expensive to live within the central areas of the city that the only people who can raise families in there are the rich and the poor who are entitled to social housing (by raising a family I mean being able to afford a decent sized accommodation).

    This means the middle class (hopefully a majority of the population) is getting kicked out of the cities. I am not sure Dublin is fully there yet, but it is not far at all and if I had to name a place I know where that process is fully completed I would mention Paris.

    I am very much in favour of pushing for some level of social mix within the city. But on the other end it is completely unreasonable to expect the middle class which is funding it through its taxes not to have a sentiment of injustice seing they are effectively paying for someone's accommodation in a prime location while they are themselves commuting for hours every day because they can't afford to live any closer to the city.

    I don't have any great solution for it, but I definitely think this is a problem.


  • Options
    #39
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Bob24 wrote: »
    This is not an easy question.

    In many large European cities, it has became so expensive to live within the central areas of the city that the only people who can raise families in there are the rich and the poor who are entitled to social housing (by raising a family I mean being able to afford a decent sized accommodation).

    This means the middle class (hopefully a majority of the population) is getting kicked out of the cities. I am not sure Dublin is fully there yet, but it is not far at all and if I had to name a place I know where that process is fully completed I would mention Paris.

    I am very much in favour of pushing for some level of social mix within the city. But on the other end it is completely unreasonable to expect the middle class which is funding it through its taxes not to have a sentiment of injustice seing they are effectively paying for someone's accommodation in a prime location while they are themselves commuting for hours every day because they can't afford to live any closer to the city.

    I don't have any great solution for it, but I definitely think this is a problem.

    What's entirely unreasonable is to ignore the fact that only 20% of inner city Dublin's housing stock is public housing. That's 80% of stock in the private sector, and yes - there's lots of middle class people living in the inner city. You don't have to be rich to afford living in the city. Raising a family in the inner city is more of a challenge, but not because of prohibitive costs - it's more to do with choice of schools.


  • Options
    #40
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    alastair wrote: »
    What's entirely unreasonable is to ignore the fact that only 20% of inner city Dublin's housing stock is public housing. That's 80% of stock in the private sector, and yes - there's lots of middle class people living in the inner city. You don't have to be rich to afford living in the city. Raising a family in the inner city is more of a challenge, but not because of prohibitive costs - it's more to do with choice of schools.

    I specifically mentioned raising a family. Of course people without kids can afford to rend a small apartment, but you would hope Ireland can offer its middle class the opportunity to have kids and suitable home to raise them.

    And it is not just the inner city. There are not many areas in co. Dublin where a lower middle class couple on lets say 50k per year can afford to raise a family in (aside from maybe the ones where you think it would be cruelty to send more public tenants). Yet that couple is funding social housing through taxation.


  • Options
    #41
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Bob24 wrote: »
    I specifically mentioned raising a family. Of course people without kids can afford to rend a small apartment, but you would hope Ireland can offer its middle class the opportunity to have kids and suitable home to raise them.

    And it is not just the inner city. There are not many areas in co. Dublin where a lower middle class couple on lets say 50k per year can afford to raise a family in (aside from maybe the ones where you think it would be cruelty to send more public tenants). Yet that couple is funding social housing through taxation.

    Plenty of tax payers in public housing too.

    Clearly there are many 50k income families in Dublin. The median household income for the city is not much more than that. You aren't limited to small apartments in the inner city either. There's lots of houses at prices that compare well with other European capital cities. You can still pick up an affordable family house in East Wall for instance. Obviously there's a premium for capital city living, but it's not particularly exaggerated in Dublin.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,235 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    alastair wrote: »
    Society is not the exchequer, and there are plenty public housing tenants who are net contributors to the exchequer.
    Really? If the amount you pay in tax is equal to the value of the social housing you're being provided with, how the hell are you entitled to it?
    Your attitude is clear enough. You believe in the notion of second class citizens.
    Yes, tbh, I do. While we should always strive to ensure our social and legal systems treat us equitably, it's a fool who genuinely believes that all men are created equal. I don't judge that class is defined by an accent or the place you grew up though, I judge it on actions and, frankly, anyone who expects the taxpayer to house them for their lifetime is a second class citizen imo. They're a drain on, rather than a contributor to, society.

    And on East Wall, being married to a woman who grew up there and still has family living there, unless you grew up in the area, you're not going to enjoy living there tbh. A friend and his girlfriend are renting there the past 9 months or so. He recently had to sell his pride and joy because some begrudging bastard couldn't bear to see someone own an Alfa GT and keyed it while it was parked in his own driveway.


  • Options
    #43
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,929 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    A tad weirded out by this,

    I am interested as to where Sleepy wants the people that sweep his streets, deliver is Deliveroo work in his mc donalds , wash his windows, sell his newspapers, hand him cigarettes in the newsagents, serve him coffee or tea.
    where he wants these people to be swept off to ?


    Perhaps Carlow i mean its cheaper down there, right ?

    Sure we can get all these office dwellers (myself included) to serve you coffee right ?


    Sure there is no place for people on lower wages in the citys lets wipe it clean fill them with 6 figures.


    Awesome plan.


  • Options
    #44
    Saipanne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    listermint wrote: »
    A tad weirded out by this,

    I am interested as to where Sleepy wants the people that sweep his streets, deliver is Deliveroo work in his mc donalds , wash his windows, sell his newspapers, hand him cigarettes in the newsagents, serve him coffee or tea.
    where he wants these people to be swept off to ?


    Perhaps Carlow i mean its cheaper down there, right ?

    Sure we can get all these office dwellers (myself included) to serve you coffee right ?


    Sure there is no place for people on lower wages in the citys lets wipe it clean fill them with 6 figures.


    Awesome plan.

    He specifically said people who don't contribute. So I really don't get your point here.


  • Options
    #45
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,935 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    alastair wrote: »
    Society is not the exchequer, and there are plenty public housing tenants who are net contributors to the exchequer.

    Contributors, yes.

    But nett contributors, I would seriously doubt.

    They had to be poor in order to get into the house in the first place. If their luck or circumstances have changed to much since then that they are paying for the cost of the house, then I'd guess they will have moved elsewhere.


  • Options
    #46
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Contributors, yes.

    But nett contributors, I would seriously doubt.

    They had to be poor in order to get into the house in the first place. If their luck or circumstances have changed to much since then that they are paying for the cost of the house, then I'd guess they will have moved elsewhere.

    +1 even for the house. Lets say 200k for the house which is conservative at best , 45 year working life lets say. That would mean that they'd have to contribute 4.4k every year from 20-65 in tax to be a contributor and pay for the house (assuming taxes aren't used for other things)

    In order to get to that point your talking about somebody being on 25k a year just to pay that in tax on income.

    find me anyone in social housing who has a consistent 25 years of 25k + work and id be amazed, and thats as a single person, the second you add in an unemployed spouse or any kids , the payback amount to become a net contributor is even higher (yet again assuming taxes pay for nothing else. which we know isn't true)


  • Options
    #47
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    +1 even for the house. Lets say 200k for the house which is conservative at best , 45 year working life lets say. That would mean that they'd have to contribute 4.4k every year from 20-65 in tax to be a contributor and pay for the house (assuming taxes aren't used for other things)

    In order to get to that point your talking about somebody being on 25k a year just to pay that in tax on income.

    find me anyone in social housing who has a consistent 25 years of 25k + work and id be amazed, and thats as a single person, the second you add in an unemployed spouse or any kids , the payback amount to become a net contributor is even higher (yet again assuming taxes pay for nothing else. which we know isn't true)

    You seem to miss the pertinent point of the property not having a lifetime restricted to the tenant. Most social housing stock will have multiple, sequential, tenancies, so it makes no sense to assign it's build/purchase cost to a single tenancy lifetime. A 15% of income rent model will certainly result in net contribution over a number of tenancies.


  • Options
    #48
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    alastair wrote: »
    You seem to miss the pertinent point of the property not having a lifetime restricted to the tenant. Most social housing stock will have multiple, sequential, tenancies, so it makes no sense to assign it's build cost to a single tenancy lifetime. A 15% of income rent model will certainly result in net contribution over a number of tenancies.

    until you factor in ongoing maintenance , re-wiring, fixing damage, modernisation after the tenant has left. The reoccurring cost every time a tenant changes can easily hit 70k

    but if you want to go rental model I'm sure they still end up net detractors, but ill have to work out the exact figures.


  • Options
    #49
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    until you factor in ongoing maintenance , re-wiring, fixing damage, modernisation after the tenant has left. The reoccurring cost every time a tenant changes can easily hit 70k

    but if you want to go rental model I'm sure they still end up net detractors, but ill have to work out the exact figures.

    Ongoing maintenance on DCC properties currently runs at an average of €2000 per annum - including all tenancy changeovers, modernisation etc. I really don't see where change of tenancy typically requires rewiring. Neither is it plausible that a cost of €70k on tenancy changeover is anything but atypical.

    The rental model is essentially the only social housing model in town, other than those limited shared ownership schemes on the go.


  • Options
    #50
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    Mod note Folks this thread has gone MASSIVELY off topic. If you want to discuss social housing please do it elsewhere. The OP was asking about Foley Street and does not deserve their thread to be derailed in this way.


  • Options
    #51
    Varatha
    Registered Users Posts: 72 ✭✭Varatha


    Hi Folks, Reopening this topic exactly after 7 years (last post on 16/11/15).

    I am looking to buy a 2bed 2bath in foley st for investment purpose. Its a nice spatious apartment 85 sq.m listed for 345K. Do you guys know if the area has improved in terms of 'safety' in the last 7 years? Would you recommend to purchase a property here?

    Appreciate your advise

    https://www.daft.ie/for-sale/apartment-21-montgomery-court-foley-street-dublin-1/3681865




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Saudades
    Registered Users Posts: 378 ✭✭Saudades


    Rental stock is so low right now that you won't have any problem finding tenants, no matter how unsafe the area.



  • Options
    #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119881012#Comment_119881012

    I would say it hasn't improved in the last 5 years, possibly got worse



  • Options
    #54
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,890 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119881012#Comment_119881012

    For 345k or thereabouts you could try to buy a nice two bed cottage in Stoneybatter. Could potentially rent it out at a higher price than the apartment.

    Yes it's smaller, but the location is infinitely better from a safety and community point of view.

    I definitely wouldn't be buying on Foley Street anyway.

    https://www.daft.ie/for-sale/terraced-house-15-thor-place-stoneybatter-dublin-7/4493972
    https://www.daft.ie/for-sale/end-of-terrace-house-2-ashford-street-stoneybatter-dublin-7/3817042




  • Options
    #55
    herbalplants
    Registered Users Posts: 1,215 ✭✭✭herbalplants


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920356#Comment_119920356

    A friend of mine rents one of those cottages on Thor Place and you can hardly swing a cat in. It is tiny. But yes nice area. Ridiculous price.

    Living the life



  • Options
    #56
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,890 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119921843#Comment_119921843

    I actually live in one myself a bit closer to the village, they're small alright but you can make them work with some smart storage ideas. Especially if you convert the attic like this house in Thor Place.

    https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/6-thor-place-stoneybatter-dublin/4524281

    Definitely paying for the location... although as a comparison, if you are to look at similar cottages on the southside somewhere like Glasthule you can add another 100k to the price believe it or not!

    https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/6-findlater-street-glasthule-co-dublin/4651299




  • Options
    #57
    herbalplants
    Registered Users Posts: 1,215 ✭✭✭herbalplants


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119934316#Comment_119934316

    Very true, the attic conversion will be good idea,but I am sure it won't be cheap.

    Living the life



Advertisement