From top: Siemens housing complex, Berlin, Germany; Cadbury’s House, Bournvlle, England; the proposed Facebook’s proposed housing and leisure unit at Menlo Park, San Fransisco
What do Bourneville, Port Sunlight, Siemenstadt, Bilund and Batadorp all have in common?
They are thriving ‘company towns’.
And none is in Ireland.
Antoine D’Alton writes:
The concept of ‘Company Towns’ or purpose build accommodation for employees is not unknown to large American corporations. Indeed right up until the 1980’s, large companies in the United States were building homes and communities for their staff.
Indeed at the moment, Facebook are currently building an apartment complex in Menlo Park in San Mateo County in California. Located less than 1.5 miles from the new Facebook West Campus, the company is building a $120 million mixed-used development. Indoor facilities include a clubroom, sports lounge, coffee shop, concierge service, a market, self-service bike repair shop, leasing center, fitness center and yoga room.
Outdoor amenities include: a resort-style pool, spa, entertainment lounge, sun lawn, game lawn and Bocce Ball, social lounge, and roof deck. In an effort to shore up city support, Facebook has made a pledge that some of the units would be made available for the general public.
In 2013, Google partly funded the Franklyn Street Family Apartments in Mountainview, California, creating affordable housing for 51 families near its campus.
Now think about that for a moment, Facebook are building apartments in Menlo Park and making some available to the General Public.
If they can do it there, why can’t they do it in Dublin?
The answer is simple, there is no good reason.
Consider the following, Facebook avails of Ireland’s 12.5% Corporate Tax rate which is considerably lower than the equivalent tax rate in the United States. And while it is true large multinationals create employment opportunities, these employees are also driving up the prices for rental properties in Dublin which is having a knock-on effect to other tenants in the city.
Employees of Facebook and other large companies know they’re being overcharged in the Dublin property market, and this will be a factor which will determine whether these companies put down long term roots or invest elsewhere in the future? Put simply, if Dublin loses its attraction for prospective employees, then large employers will consider moving elsewhere.
Now here’s the solution, you offer corporations like Facebook an incentive to build apartment complexes which are mixed use.
For them, it is a legitimate investment, which will pay for itself from rents accrued from leasing units to their employees and others. After 25 years or indeed during that time-frame, they can sell the properties to their employees or tenants with a credit for rent which had already been paid.
The benefit from this is that it will free-up rental properties across the city and contribute to solving the social housing problem.
Put simply, it will increase supply in the market and also free-up accommodation in the city for other users.
The notion of Company Towns and purpose build accommodation for employees is not unknown to Ireland. In fact there are many examples of properties which were once built by employers for their staff throughout the city, whether they were constructed by Guinness, Jacobs, or indeed the railway companies etc.
Back in 1872, Edward Cecil Guinness began building houses for his employees to rent in Belview and Thomas Court, adjoining the St. James’s Gate Brewery. This housing accommodated employees on the active list of the Company. Further housing was built in Rialto in the 1880s. Guinness’s policy of providing homes continued well into the 20th Century
In the years before independence many houses along the North Circular and South Circular Roads were built to accommodate soldiers and administrative staff belonging to the garrison.
Up until the present day, the United States Army Housing Division develops, manages and leases properties throughout the world in order to accommodate soldiers and their families, and it is not alone in this regard.
The point is this, there are additional solutions to the ‘housing problem’ which have not yet been considered or even thought about. And while some people might not like the idea of living in property owned by their employer, the truth is this, you don’t have to live there if you don’t want to. But at least you have a choice.
And for those who believe that Company Towns, and Company complexes are a thing of the past, why are Facebook building the St. Anton complex?
But why stop at Facebook, what about Tesco or other large companies which are dependent on low-wage earners?
We need people to work in our shops, in our factories and our cafés. On the income they earn, it is not possible or at least very difficult for them to get a mortgage and it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to afford the rent. Consequently, the state has to subsidise housing for them. But why should this problem fall back on the state, why can’t employers play their part?
How many affordable homes and apartments have the likes of AIB and Bank of Ireland built for low and medium income families?
The answer is none.
When you think about all the damage the banks did to our nation, perhaps they owe a debt to society by building affordable homes?
Remember you can effect change for the common good and incorporate large companies into the social bargain. This is what we call corporate welfare as opposed to social welfare which ultimately falls back on the taxpayer.
Also, there is nothing to stop the Government and State agencies from going to the capital markets and building accommodation for nurses, teachers, and other frontline employees on the same principle. They have done it in other countries, so there is no reason it can’t be done in Ireland.
Let’s not forget, that both business and governments depend on ‘goodwill’ and stable markets to prosper. They also depend on ‘purchasing power’ to raise income, improve their balance sheets and keep the economy going. By building homes they can contribute to both in a variety of different ways and here’s the key incentive, they can profit from it too.
All that is required is the will to work the problem.
Pics via Antoine
Like this..
https://www.google.ie/amp/www.geek.com/news/torrentreactor-buys-its-own-russian-town-for-148000-1275947/%3Famp%3D1?client=ms-android-htc-rev
It’s an excellent idea, and one which seems to have been forgotten. My grandfather worked for a large French manufacturer which built homes for its own employees at every level of the corporate chain, including himself. The community is still thriving today, with really good sports and recreational facilities including home care for the elderly.
I agree with Anton’s proposal, it can work very well. With the right brains in the Department of Environment it could form part of both the housing and spatial strategies. There’s a massive shortage of housing in Britain at the moment, and on the grapevine, I have heard that some of the tech firms are thinking of building apartment complexes there. So there is no good reason, commercially speaking why it cannot be done.
With the right brains in the Department of Environment it could form part of both the housing and spatial strategies.
Ah…. so no chance then.
Superb idea.
Great idea with a successful proven history however I can already think of one reason why this will not work here and now: GREED
I love it, Brilliant idea.
The socialist can’t say squat about it, because it involves giving back something to the community, the property speculators and cowboy developers will hate it because they will be muscled out of the market. It will create jobs in construction, improve the housing stock and free up resources for this living in squalor at the moment
I think company towns have fallen out of fashion because people don’t enjoy living in them; if they were as good for workers and the companies as you say, surely we would see more of them already? It’s not like big multinational corporations to leave money on the table.
Rob G. That sounds like spin with not a lot of thought gone into what you are saying.
Really?
I think that Antoine’s idea a bit simplistic, and would be very surprised he if was more clever than all of the the corporate fatcats to whom this idea has seemingly never occurred.
Rob_G by using the expression ‘Corporate Fatcats’ you have given yourself away as most likely someone who has never worked for a large company, and probably have never worked at all in the private sector, From my reading of Antoine’s article, its fairly clear there is a trend back to this as can be seen with Facebook and Google who are just two examples. So perhaps, you’re the one who is behind the curve. Many corporations not only take the interests of their shareholders seriously, but also consider the needs of their employees who are their greatest asset. Not every company is a vulture fund.
As noted above, there are Socialists and the subscribers to the lazy left who think the Government only exists to (a) give them a job (b) give them a home. But what is clear they are good at neither.
Brilliant idea, like a 21st century of the “Mill Town”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_town
perhaps we can take the kids out of school and get them to help out at work, eh?
Making sure they tug forelock when any senior management or executive level walks past….
I knew you’d be against making companies pay for housing.
You’re just a shill for all the large multi-nationals ;)
He’s changed so much since he won that Golden Discs voucher.
Employment patterns have changed in the past 200 odd years and so to compare a job in Facebook to a factory hand in Cadbury’s misses a shed load of nuance and reasoning for why these housing complexes were needed.
It’s a nice idea but that’s why we now build (again) social housing. That state took over from the socially conscious industrialists.
Ireland and housing.. how can a small group of individulas get filthy rich selling overpriced property to credit soaked workers. every other strategy is not considered
Lazy people always find a thousand excuses to do nothing, innovative self-starters are the opposite. Company Towns are a great idea, and though they declined somewhat in the 1980’s have not disappeared. One of the commenters above, Declan says that patterns have changed since the late industrial revolution. That much was true when homes were affordable and one modest income could pay a mortgage, which was the case up until the late 90’s in Ireland. So the ‘dynamics’ of the market for housing has changed but not the need. Large and medium sized undertakings are not unaware of this problem, and it is a topic of discussion in the major business schools such as Harvard, Wharton and Columbia at the moment, namely the need to revert back to a form of Corporate Welfare as a solution to some of the problems which ironically the financial institutions on Wall Street have created. The notion that all corporate entities are bad and ruthlessly run by greedy executives is untrue, and belies the fact that many companies contribute back to society when governments fail to deliver on basic requirements for their citizens.
Company towns and providing housing for employees is a solution, and one which is gaining currency. Remember governments cannot solve nor fix societal problems on their own. They need partners who are not solely beneficiaries, namely developers and speculators. Big business has the firepower to deliver homes for employees in ways that governments fail to deliver for citizens (unless the army is called in to requisition and build) they are more savvy at project management, better with budgets, and know what they are purchasing. In other words, you get better builds at a more efficient cost.
So Facebook builds an apartment block and rents it but then basically sells it to the tenants at the end for half nothing because the tenant has paid rent? Seriously?
And the Banks should build social housing just because they’re the big bad banks and cost us 60bn 10 years ago? Do they charge for it? Who owns it? Banks become social tenant landlords?
And Tesco too? Where does it stop? Jebus wept.
Well you’re probably already sporting some kind of ridiculous bum fluff on your face and people you know may or may not be a drinking craft beers b sporting a monocle or c riding a boneshaker
We may as well go full Victorian on it
‘Jebus wept’…. surely you meant Jesus
The principle is not rent and get nothing at the end. The employee gets a home in the same manner as if they had a mortgage only for a lot less. Clearly you’re too ignorant to understand how these things work, probably because you’ve no experience of either living in a designated employee home or in a housing trust sponsored by an employer
You’re not going to convince anyone Louis by saying they’re too “ignorant ” to understand some high level “concept” that only someone like yourself who may or may not have once gone to college could understand.
Indeed you are obviously inexperienced in articulating complex or new ideas to different sorts of people yourself and others might say this too shows ignorance.
Let me spell it out for you though.
These absurd Victorian-era ideas have no place here. Not only would Irish people not welcome a corporate landlord system in general ( you might want to read some of our history, which you should or may I say, might be able to do seeing as you’re college educated). Besides, our government being utterly incapable of regulation in most aspects of the habitation business, would simply not be trusted to regulate corporate landlords either.
@No more mr nice guy
I like your use of the ‘glittering generality’ and ‘appeal to prejudice’ with regard to the following statement ‘Not only would Irish people not welcome a corporate landlord system’. Joseph Goebbels would be impressed.
As it stands the great barrier to Employer provided accommodation is the tax system which treats it as benefit-in-kind. Which in itself raises questions
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/benefit-in-kind/subsidised-accom.html
Thanks Devine. You are quite correct but I think your allusion to Goebbels although deeply flattering is unhelpful.
Moreover you buttress my point. Like I said it’s not a mere matter of some lads talking on the internet. Opposition to corporate landlordism is a matter of public policy in this country.
“Indeed you are obviously inexperienced in articulating complex or new ideas to different sorts of people yourself and others might say this too shows ignorance”.
No more mr nice guy is the most ignorant little boy on Broadsheet. Inarticulate and deals only in meaningless platitudes. Others might say the constant use of “yourself ” is all a bit Mr Brown’s Boys . jesus weeps
Ignorant? Good man yourself.
“rent and get nothing”.
Let me break it down for you.
You rent. You pay money to someone else who owns the thing your renting. You don’t get nothing for your money. You get the use of the thing you are renting. In the case of a house or apartment:
1. You get full use of that property while you’re paying rent.
2. You take no risk on negative equity.
3. You are not liable for property insurance or repairs.
4. You do not need a mortgage.
5. You can move at any time once you give required notice.
6. You require no large deposit for a mortgage.
7. You are free from mortgage debt.
If you want to own something, you buy it, you don’t rent it.
It’s not rocket science.
“We need people to work in our shops, in our factories and our cafés.”
just as an aside, there’s at most (and I’m being very generous here), 20-30 years left of this kind of labour, the working class is hurtling towards obsolescence, not really worth long term investment.
Apple haven’t even opened a store here.
Google won’t help us with fibre.
Grow up.
We are a tax haven.
And they couldn’t care less about actually improving infrastructure here outside of their immediate obligations.
This has to be the weirdest thread I have ever read on this website
The thread or the gibberish post itself?
Both – is it performance art!!!!
Yea. I prefer the guys who pierce themselves or juggle footballs myself though.
There’s no accounting for taste I suppose!!!
I can’t wait for next week’s installment of How To Improve Your Sheetty Leetle Country, written by a Frenchman.
-We’ve done Flags, (twice), we’re doing architecture today. I might have missed one or two installments through not giving a flying French fupp…
What will it be next week?
(I bet it won’t be soap.)
And by the way, I once passed through one of these ‘towns’ that were built up around factories in France. I was asked to close my window by the driver because of the incredible stench of burning rubber.
-Name that town, Frenchie.
That’s not racist… me best mate is from Cork. I call him Korky.
-also… I have made more French wimmin happy than any other nationality, including the Irish.
– Giving them what they can’t get at home, parce que les ‘hommes’ Francaises sont patetique.
Sous ma bete.
*sorry, I didn’t learn French in a classroom.
I just picked up a few odd phrases in the bedroom, while I was administering lessons of my own.
French women are wonderful.
I can understand why French men feel so inadequate…
– but hey,
weyou can’t ALL be Charles Aznavour or Serge Gainsborough. .. 99% of you are a smelly version of Marcel Marceou, with nothing to say.He is from Canada you clown.
Sous ma bete, bebe.
Plus ca Canadian, c’est plus la meme chose.
Well, that truly was a substantive contribution to the debate, resorting to racism says everything you need to know about your background and discerning lack of sophistication. My god, ‘esǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq’ your parents must have really disliked you as a child. So who was it, your father or your mother who was ‘abusive’ towards you and brought you up to be a nasty piece of bile?
What a pity you are suffering with An infection that is eating away at your obvious sense of inferiority, fanning hate within you for things you clearly cannot accept or clearly don’t understand. Your stock response being a resort to racist invective, when your ignorance gets the better of you.
So who was responsible for crafting you into a net-liability individual.
I’d say it was your mother. She must have been a truly horrible person, making you feel inadequate growing up. Or maybe it was your father, perhaps he was a right piece of work.
Eitherway, it’s clear you’re an uncouth ignoramus, and not an original one at that.
Well said. He’s not even one of those funny racists.
I’d say you’re delighted with yourself, Mary
Somebody tell me where I’m ‘over-reacting’, quickly. Please.
“Menlo Park” ?!?
There I was thinking that all of this was about Galway, for a minute !
F.
F indeed.
– I used to think the French were subtle, or at very least subservient.
– I thought they said ‘I surrender’ all the time.
-I used to think the Canadians had a country that was 95% unihabatal, but were doing their best under the circumstances.
– I used to think the Canadians said ‘sorry’.
Don’t get me started on the Australians…