Papering Over The Cracks

at



Saturday.

Sandyford, Dublin 18 (opposite Stillorgan Luas station)

Activists from Dundrum Housing Action Group drill a ‘Not For Sale sign at a site listed for residential housing development during a 24 hr protest.

The site, with planning permission for 459 apartments opposite Stillorgan Luas stop, is owned by NAMA and the group want it used for social housing.

Dundrum Housing Action Group

Previously: Sandyford site for 459 apartments guiding €36m (irish Times, October 31)

 Sam Boal/RollingNews.ie, third pic via Dundrum Housing Action Group

44 thoughts on “Papering Over The Cracks

  1. Starina

    Good. Apartments around that area go for astronomical prices and are rented out at rates only the sponsored medical students can afford.

    1. Rob_G

      If this protest succeeds in holding up the construction for any amount of time, those 459 people will go and rent 459 other apartments elsewhere, outbidding 459 other people in the process.

      Any new housing built will have the effect of easing the crisis – why is it so hard for people to understand that?

        1. Rob_G

          Who cares?!? I hope it is profitable, and more vulture funds decide to build thousands of apartments, which will then be available to rent or buy. Jesus wept…

          1. dav

            “will then be available to rent or buy..” at property bubble prices, outside the reach of the average renter/buyer.. jesus wept indeed

          2. Rob_G

            If theses 459 apts weren’t built, the people who are going to rent them would just have find other apartments. If there were no more ‘luxury’ apartments left, people from the top-end of the market would start looking for properties occupying the middle of the market, which would caused middle-priced properties to become more expensive for the ‘average renter/buyer’ (which is surely happening already).

            Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?

          3. dav

            We are at property bubble prices at the moment, barely 10years after the previous property bubble destroyed the nations finance.
            Isit so difficult for you to comprehend that a housing crisis that this state is experiencing,cannot be solved by allowing “the market” to dictate the prices and the supply?

          4. rotide

            Dav, There is a huge difference between this property bubble and the one in 2006. Entirely different causes.

            Those cows are small.

            Those cows are far away.

          5. Rob_G

            Irrelevant waffle.

            Until we arrive at your unattainable Utopian idyll, demand will set property prices. 459 new properties will reduce demand, however slightly. 459 properties being built now will do a lot more for renters than any amount of harping on about the injustices of market capitalism.

          6. dav

            “injustices of market capitalism” as evident from sept 2008 onwards, where markets were very happy to socialise their debts..

    2. rotide

      Oh my good god., What is wrong with peoples brains.

      Rob is 100% correct.

      People are actually complaining about the housing crisis and also complaining about appartments being built

      1. Dr.Fart MD

        but can rotide and rob_g not see what the problem with only building luxury apartments is? Can you two really not see that? If not, stop commenting so arrogantly on it.

        1. Fact Checker

          If ‘luxury’ apartments aren’t built then rich people will just live in middle quality apartments, leaving less for the poor.

          Also, new build is generally of a higher spec and more in line with modern tastes than existing, hence the higher prices.

          There are lots of pretty unexciting semi-Ds all over Ireland with no insulation and tiny kitchens that were billed as ‘luxury’ in 1974.

          1. Dr.Fart MD

            are you, rotide and rob_g actually suggesting a ‘trickle down’ system but with housing? Look, there’s no shortage of apartments/houses for high earners. The shortage is with affordable and social housing. only luxury accom gets built because the developers make more money from building them. Your idea that you should build loads of expensive property first, is quite frankly, dense.

          2. Rob_G

            “Look, there’s no shortage of apartments/houses for high earners”
            – yes there is; they always have the option of ‘trading down’ and renting something cheaper, so won’t be as adversely affected as a poorer person who can’t afford accommodation in chosen area.

            “only luxury accom gets built because the developers…”
            – this is demonstrably incorrect

            ” ‘trickle down’ system but with housing…”
            – this has absolutely nothing to do with trickle down economics; I’m not sure that you understand what this term means.

            Diagnosis: poor.

          3. Dr.Fart MD

            you’re an idiot. an arrogant idiot at that. there is NOT a shortage of luxury accom. There simply is not. builders DO build high end apartments to maximise profits, profits that wouldn’t be as high if they had builder afforable homes. thats very easy to undrstand.. look, ill show you. IF YOU SELL AN EXPENSIVE ITEM. YOU MAKE MORE MONEY THAT IF YOU SEE A .. say it with me .. NOT EXPENSIVE ITEM. the trick to knowing this is true, is by knowing that more money is more than less money. practice it in the mirror, say it a few times, but think about it too. and i didnt say trickle down economics, i said what you are inferring is similar, you’re saying “build high end accom until all the wealthy have their pick of houses and are happy, and then start building affordable accom, so that the rich havent made it more expensive by buying it (which they wouldnt have anyway)” so im saying what youre sayin is similar to TDE, look after the rich and the rest will benefit later. dunno why im explaining this, you never read replies properly, or if you do, you’ll ignore someone painting out the facts for you. youre really frustrating and i wish i didnt reply, you dont get it, you dont get anything.

          4. Rob_G

            ” IF YOU SELL AN EXPENSIVE ITEM. YOU MAKE MORE MONEY THAT IF YOU SEE A .. say it with me .. NOT EXPENSIVE ITEM. “

            By this logic, there would only be expensive items in shops, and no inexpensive items; whereas we know that this is not the case.

            If there is no shortage of luxury accommodation, why are builders building them at all – if there was no excess demand, they would struggle to sell them all, so you have kind of disproven your own point.

            There was an article on BS a few days ago about affordable housing being built in Ballymun; perhaps you missed it. Every new housing unit that is built is obviating the crisis in some small way. As Fact Checker pointed out, new units would normally attract a premium anyway as they would be built to a better/more modern spec; I haven’t seen anything to confirm that these apartments will be any more luxurious than other new builds.

          5. Dr.Fart MD

            yep. we’re all done here. You’re an idiot who masquerades as being smart. The worst kind of idiot. No point trying to make you see what’s clear as effing crystal to literally everyone in the world, you’re too stubborn and tunnel visioned.

  2. Rep

    I thought the general consensus was that it is a good thing to move away from large social housing developments and having a mix was a better idea all round?

    1. Starina

      Putting in social housing there would be a mix, as (as far as I know?) there’s only luxury apartments there at the moment.

      Maybe they should try finishing the post-apocalyptic-looking shell of apartments in Sandyford first.

      1. Rep

        But it hasn’t been built yet so how can there be only luxury apartments there at the moment?

        “The site, with planning permission for 459 apartments opposite Stillorgan Luas stop, is owned by NAMA and the group want it used for social housing.”

        A complex with 459 apartments is pretty big and to have it as only social housing could lead it down the route that pretty much the other large complexes of only social housing flats went down.

      2. rotide

        Do you really think the only people renting in Dundrum are 1%’ers in luxury apartments?

        for christs sake.

    2. Nigel

      People literally haven’t a clue what to do or even what should be done except in piecemeal responses to particular situations because THERE’S NO COHERENT OVERALL POLICY BEING PROMOTED OR PURSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. So stuff like this isn’t big-picture it’s local because central government have failed to be effective.

  3. Jonjo

    I thought we needed to build more housing?

    If we only build social housing, private rent will continue to grow. The County Councils just need to stick to the plans of having a certain percentage of new developments as social housing and not letting developers buy their way out of that arrangement.

  4. Vanessa off the Telly

    How is delaying the delivery of 459 residential units of any benefit?
    Seriously?
    That’s 459 potential HAP units btw

    And good luck fending off local objections to social housing of that scale

    Well done folks ye’ve potentially added another 2 years delay to a significant roll out in a location that is being strangled from an accommodation shortage
    Of any kind
    Owner occupied
    Private Rental
    HAP or RAS

    Is it any wonder

    1. scottser

      the problem for most is that the taxpayer will probably end up funding over 11 million into the long term rental of the units and we will own nothing at the end of the term. landlordism is still the lowest form of capital.

      1. Vanessa off the Telly

        Scottie
        How many times have ye heard me complain about Government strategy to privatise social housing?
        How many times have ye heard me say that Social Housing responsibility and decision making needs to go back to the Local Authorities?

        This protest should be on two fronts
        Lobbying the local authority and the Councillors, who are all up for election btw, to purchase the site and develop it to their local demand and needs
        And
        The Department of Housing / Housing Agency to tell NAMA to cop the fec on and ‘sell‘ the site to the LA

          1. Vanessa off the Telly

            So what’s this crowds problem then?
            assuming NAMA already offered South Dublin CoCo (or is it DLRC?) some of its stock

  5. Cian

    “The County Councils just need to stick to the plans of having a certain percentage of new developments as social housing and not letting developers buy their way out of that arrangement.”

    This doesn’t always work.
    Take an example where a developer builds 5-bed 10 houses in leafy Foxrock that will sell for €1.8m each. The council is entitled to buy one of these at “existing use value” – which is less than the sale value. The council have the option to spend (say) €1,200,000 to buy this 5-bed house… but that is a waste of public money – they could buy four or five smaller houses in cheaper locations for the same money.

  6. rotide

    Obviously it’s more helpful to stand out in the rain virtue signalling than it is to actually get housing built

  7. A Person

    10% of these houses will be soical units i.e. 45 social units are being provided. Yet people are protesting. Seriously, who are these clowns?

  8. Cian

    The five-year planning permission was granted in July for a development of 459 apartments across six blocks […]. An underground parking facility already approved is designed to cater for 454 cars and 516 bicycle spaces.
    The development guidelines have since changed quite radically […] open the way for the higher figure of 539 apartments, though with considerably fewer car-parking spaces – a maximum of 160 parking slots.

    Bonkers – more people and fewer cars!

    1. Rob_G

      I’m glad planning is moving in this direction – this development is on the Luas line, on the occasions that people want to drive, they can rent a car. Dedicating vast swathes of scarce land to warehouse vehicles that are not used 90% of the time, that lose 30% of their value the minute that they leave the showroom, and that (most importantly) destroy the planet in both their use and production is madness in this day and age, IMO.

  9. Vanessa off the Telly

    Just had a further dip into this there

    How the Jaysus did this Group think that 36bar plus purchase costs is good value for the LA to acquire the site

    By the way, our man in NY has asked me to remind ye that this isn’t a NAMA sale

    1. Cian

      “The site, with planning permission for 459 apartments opposite Stillorgan Luas stop, is owned by NAMA and the group want it used for social housing.”
      Someone is not correct

Comments are closed.