That place is still derelict? They must be 20 years in that state now. If I recall correctly (long time since I read about it), I think the O’Callaghan family owned those houses and had planned a commercial development there, but were denied demolition permission due to squatters. No. 11 was vested in Dublin City Council last August and the remainder is on the Derelict Sites Register. It’s a shame, it’s a prime location located just beside Trinity, Merrion Square…the entirety of Dublin 2.
Tangentially related, but there is dereliction and lack of upkeep not just here, but across the city and particularly historical properties. Mam grew up in a historical house abroad. If you wished to own a historical house within a defined city area, you had to look after it or face fines. We actually have some of the finest Georgian residential architecture here and it should be looked after.
Current planning application is from Gold Run Properties, a company in which members of the O'Callaghan family are directors:
[https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/firm-linked-to-noel-ocallaghans-family-firm-plans-87-city-apartments/42337275.html](https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/firm-linked-to-noel-ocallaghans-family-firm-plans-87-city-apartments/42337275.html)
A little more digging revealed that 11 Bass Place was subject to an agreement between Gold Run and DCC earlier this year whereby it and another piece of land changed hands in exchange for the withdrawal of a property claim by Goild Run on an adjacent site DCC want to develop plus an apartment.
[https://councilmeetings.dublincity.ie/documents/s44300/Jan-%20Disposal%20of%20lands%2011%20Bass%20Place%20and%20Plots%20to%20the%20rear%20of%20Fenian%20St%20with%20Gold%20Run%20Properties%20Ltd.pdf](https://councilmeetings.dublincity.ie/documents/s44300/Jan-%20Disposal%20of%20lands%2011%20Bass%20Place%20and%20Plots%20to%20the%20rear%20of%20Fenian%20St%20with%20Gold%20Run%20Properties%20Ltd.pdf)
I'd love to hear the opinion of a property lawyer on this deal, not because I think it's dodgy, but rather my understanding is that in the past DCC have done exchanges that would have been seen as commercially stupid.
I'd love to see one of these 'Gonna Get Things Done' newly-elected right-wing councilors try to steer a Dublin developer on their derelict buildings... and find themselves up to their hole in litigation five minutes later. These fuckers have \*no\* interest in the common good.
The laneway where asylum seekers were sleeping is just around the corner on Sandwith St. Racist scumbags were able to mobilise a crowd, including some locals, to harass them, whereas widescale dereliction in the area and the real estate machinations... crickets.
These bullies are always the same: strong with the weak, weak with the strong.
Didn't Malachy Steenson fall Asleep in a recent council meeting ? They're useless , elected on a single issue "immigration" that councils have no control over
As a property lawyer, commercial concerns are best addressed by valuers. In general, it's impossible to know how much land is worth without knowing how strong somebody's title is. The same house isn't worth the same money if you're comparing clear title to a weak one.
Without this agreement DCC’s planned development was deemed to be financially unviable.
DCC now not only get to continue with the planned development consisting of 33 units but also have agreed to be gifted a turnkey apartment at Gold Run’s planned development and considering the market price for 1-beds in Dublin City start at €475k I think it’s a very favourable agreement for the Council.
Yes, I read that in the document. And I'd stress that i don't have a problem with the fact that Gold Run are going to build apartments, I just wish they have done it long ago.
But I'm a bit sceptical about commercial negotiations between commercial groups and the public authorities. My feeling is that the latter tend to be seriously outgunned. That suspicion has nothing particular to do with the Bass Place/Andrews Court situation, I just wondered if anyone had a view on it based on the details available and referenced in the document above.
I wonder how much use of external legal and valuation services DCC make in these cases, or if it's mostly done by in-house lawyers who may be overworked and probably relatively underpaid. If that is the case conflicts may sometimes be put to bed regardless of whether the outcome is optimal. I don't know, 'just asking questions'...
I worked in the councils 20 years ago, not in housing, but other departments, in general when the cost or value of a project was of a certain level you had to get consultants in to ensure value for money and you didn't fall foul of the auditor general. Even with consultants you can hit huge unexpected issues, while civil servants don't get fired all that often they won't get promoted if they are known for "xyz" black hole. Very easy in councils to kill your career. So they tend to make sure they have cover. Same applies to the Deputy Council Managers, they really cover their ass to the point that they will even block innovation for fear of a black hole event.
Unfortunately dereliction is all too common right across our country. At the end of the day someone somewhere owns this but has literally zero incentive to improve the area because the current tax code rewards people for engaging in property speculation. Its far cheaper for the owner to do nothing with the property and sit on it whilst watching the value rise.
If you want to remedy the situation you'd need to introduce a Land Value Tax like they have in a number of other countries like Singapore, Taiwan and Denmark etc.
Is there not a vacant property tax? Surely if the other commenter is right in saying those properties, like many others around Dublin (city and county) which have been in such states for multiple years, then the owners are facing some sort of penalties? Genuinely asking as there is so many places like this near me
Ah right, seems pointless in many of these cases especially further out of the City where the properties are bigger, one might be forgiven for assuming owners of such properties are unfazed by such relatively small charges. Thank you!
>because the current tax code rewards people for engaging in property speculation
according to this subreddit the problem is the landlords and if we could just make sure noone rents out anything everything would be great.
The problem with the historical buildings is they're something of a nightmare to renovate. You are very restricted to keep anything on the exterior to the same as it currently is, which is probably not available off the shelf. Then things like windows sometimes can't be replaced with modern multi glazed options, so they're not as effective from a noise insulation or heat retention side of things.
There have been cases where people buy a historical building thinking that they can afford to renovate it, only get partially through the process and find themselves in a planning battle to make the changes they want and are finding preservation objections from both the council and the public or that costs have ballooned beyond what they afford.
I do not think this is *entirely* true, I work for a company in the heritage sector and I have seen Georgian houses on the register of protected structures done up with modern double-glazed windows made in a sympathetic sash style and recieve grants for repairing a historic building for said windows. Are there a lot of rules around protectef structures? Sure, but I think the main way to bring them up to standard is more and better grants not less protection
My understanding of it comes down to the local authority and how sound they are. In the same way that applying for planning permission one year might give you a different answer than the year before or the year after. Double glazing can be easier to get permission for than triple glazing because its smaller.
Even with the grants the expense is most likely way higher than normal, the grants make it easier but like retrofitting your non-protected house, the grants don't need you having huge funds available.
They absolutely were not denied demolition by the squatters. They were denied demolition cos they pulled a fast one on DCC, then after 10+years some squatters moved in. Lol.
> We actually have some of the finest Georgian residential architecture here and it should be looked after.
We should be razing the lot of these properties build on wealth from slavery and start building modern high density developments in the city, instead we are building massive apartment blocks at the end of transit systems that are already at capacity.
We are destroying our countryside by going up the mountains and spreading Dublin into the surrounding farm land to protect a skyline build on misery.
And this is it. Converting low density housing in the city centre to high density is worth the delay. This projects take time to plan, fund and find the construction workers to build.
Parking minimums kill density by making apartments building far more complex and far more expensive. You either have to force people to dig deep in order to build underground, or else increase the size of each site per development to accommodate the empty space needed for car parks. Both of these are expensive options.
People want houses to live in. They also want good public transport. Good public transport at affordable prices requires density. Requiring parking spaces is counterproductive as it forces lower density, which makes public transport less good.
>A total of 20 car parking spaces, 2 motorbike spaces and 198 cycle parking spaces (comprising 142 long stay spaces in basement of Block 1; 10 long-stay spaces in Block 3; with 44 short-stay spaces and 2 cargo bike spaces in the public realm) is provided on site.
City center apartments do not need one car parking space per unit.
Surely wanting the parking space per unit is the Luddite response?
Loads of people do not need parking spaces in the city centre, myself for example, no need to have a space per unit if we can provide more apartments without them or cheaper apartments.
You can rent it out if you don't need it, you'd make a small fortune (a safe parking space privately rented near the city center would be 4-5k a year easily)
If you own a car in that area, you need a psychological assessment. Why would you own a car in an area that everything is walkable or you can cycle?
If you need a car, live in the suburbs. There are tons of apartments in Dublin where tenants don't use the car space in the basement and it is rented to office workers. Building more car spaces just encourages more cars...
I wouldn't hold my breath, I saw a new development in stillorgan that's a mixture of 14 houses and about 30 or so apartments and there's barely been 1 parking space for each of the houses provided and nothing for the apartment s it seems , the new trend for development s is providing the bare minimum of parking forcing people into public transport
Most people living in a city centre area don't need a car. Some do, and there are car parking spaces available for those people elsewhere.
Requiring car parking spaces for apartments in a city centre is what kills construction of apartments, by multiplying complexity and costs.
Insisting on car parking spaces, either on-street or underground, is incredibly counterproductive when it comes to increasing density, and decreasing density is what worsens active and public transport.
As someone who whinges and moans non stop about the low density sprawl or Dublin and all the issues it brings, as well as our lack of anything resembling ling term thinking when it comes to property and infrastructure, that is absolutely great news!
Nope. Better to develop house and protect the society against predatory practices from landlord companies. Otherwise, the housing crisis won't get much better.
Which is what's needed. We desperately need a higher concentration of apartment rentals in the city centre. Not to mention how damned expensive it is to make a derelict property livable to modern standards.
We bought a house in need of work and wasn't derelict, but had no central heating, just fireplaces. The wiring was illegal since the 70s. The roof needed to be repaired and insulated.
We tackled it 8 years ago and it still cost over 100k to do - again, this house wasn't derelict, it was inhavited but neglected.
It’s progress, I guess. At least O’Callaghan’s didn’t illegally demolish these over a bank holiday weekend.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pressure-grows-for-action-over-demolition-of-dublin-garage-1.197977
You say that like it's a bad thing? Ciry centre residential dwellings have to be compact.
Can't have bungalows in a city centre and complain about a housing crisis ffs.
I think that the criticism is more related with the fact that those units will belong to a landlord company that will act in a cartel fashion, keeping people locked in a life of tenancy, with constant financial pressure of abusive prices. There is almost no chace of a regular person to put their hands in one of those units. The housing crisis is not only cause by the lack of stock, but also by abusive market practices making houses less affordable.
I agree with you that any new stock of houses is a good thing at this stage.
If you think landlords are acting like a cartel, you have no understanding of economics. It is hard for a market with a handful of players to act like a cartel, never mind a market where there are hundreds of thousands of landlords.
>There is almost no chace of a regular person to put their hands in one of those units
And? All of the new luxury rental apartments in Dublin is resulting in Dublin having the lowest rate of rental increases in the country. Just because you can't afford an apartment doesn't mean someone else can't and if that person can't find a luxury apartment in Dublin 2, they will rent a shithole of one in Dublin 7. A shithole of an apartment that a 'regular person' could put their hands on...
Please, educate me about economics. Educate me how the players of a market in deeply need of offer will not take advantage of it, being predatory to the society. A cartel exists no matter the number of players. Having high concentration of market share in the hands of few players which also have strong political influence is enough.
Netherlands has limits to units purchased by those companies in every new development. In such scenario, we need government actions to balance the game again.
When I said "regular person" I mean any person at all. It doesn't matter if you have money or not. You won't be able to buy one of those units because those predatory landlord companies will buy all of them.
> Having high concentration of market share in the hands of few players
But there is no such thing on rental market in Dublin. There is no high concentration at all.
You keep taking the housing crisis and rental pressure out of your considerations. 1% of houses in a situation like the current one is very significant.
No it’s not. You can’t steer market having 1% of it. Not to say having 0.1%. You could divide those “big” landlords over 100 smaller and absolutely nothing would change.
Planning permission should e granted in mid july. Tenders probably going out soon for it. Expect demolition in autumn and finished late next year. One of the building is 8 floors going in so a bit of work involved
I guess you're referring to the low-rise block on the corner of Fenian and Sandwith Street? I've been down there recently. Does anyone know what DCC have planned for the site? They could certainly go higher density, but they need to get on with it.
Yes and not just those ones. A lot of the council flats in that part of D2 are blocked.
No clue what DCCs plans are tbh. It does feel, however, while there is a push to rebuild communities in the city centre, it is just lip service.
But this is it. DCC don't want to replicate the mistakes of the past. I get we have a bunch of people demanding a state building company to create Ballymun/Jobstown II but most state planners want to build proper mixed communities and not sink estates/tower blocks.
"dUbLiN iS fUlL"
The amount of buildings/sites in this country that are allowed to be derelict and fall into disrepair is infuriating.
I wish we had some shining knight to slay the dragon sitting upon his mound of gold that he's hoarding from us
In the UK, maybe it's comparable.
But in the mainland, MANY of the shitty streets get renovated and brought up to speed even if it means demolishing and building new.
The metro. population of each of those is at least 3x of metro. Dublin.
And there are ACTIVITLY going ahead with renovations.
Parts of Berlin are worse of due to its time under the soviets so it still has a long way to go.
It’s a common practice in lots of places. “It’s too far gone to be maintained and not safe for use. We’ll have to knock it down and build something else”
Gluck with fitting an apartment into most hipster coffee shops - most of them operate in a space smaller than your average 1 bed apartment.
And they employ a number of people, and provide both a service and provide a place to be
I mean sure. If someone wants to open it, let them. But market seems to be fully saturated. There is not much more money to be made on this market, competition is very strong already. So if someone else wants to build new apartaments - also let them.
We actually had our front door kicked in at least once a week by teenagers for laughs the last month or so we wwre there. Great place to live for convenience but them little shits ruined the place
Charge the owner 10% of value for the area per annum in tax, won't be empty for long then. If there is a dispute over ownership, charge each of the parties an equal cut of the 10%.
It was occupied during the pandemic by some punks with dogs. They played nice music all day and made a bunch of community gardens around the area. They were run out after a year or two.
That place is still derelict? They must be 20 years in that state now. If I recall correctly (long time since I read about it), I think the O’Callaghan family owned those houses and had planned a commercial development there, but were denied demolition permission due to squatters. No. 11 was vested in Dublin City Council last August and the remainder is on the Derelict Sites Register. It’s a shame, it’s a prime location located just beside Trinity, Merrion Square…the entirety of Dublin 2. Tangentially related, but there is dereliction and lack of upkeep not just here, but across the city and particularly historical properties. Mam grew up in a historical house abroad. If you wished to own a historical house within a defined city area, you had to look after it or face fines. We actually have some of the finest Georgian residential architecture here and it should be looked after.
Current planning application is from Gold Run Properties, a company in which members of the O'Callaghan family are directors: [https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/firm-linked-to-noel-ocallaghans-family-firm-plans-87-city-apartments/42337275.html](https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/firm-linked-to-noel-ocallaghans-family-firm-plans-87-city-apartments/42337275.html)
A little more digging revealed that 11 Bass Place was subject to an agreement between Gold Run and DCC earlier this year whereby it and another piece of land changed hands in exchange for the withdrawal of a property claim by Goild Run on an adjacent site DCC want to develop plus an apartment. [https://councilmeetings.dublincity.ie/documents/s44300/Jan-%20Disposal%20of%20lands%2011%20Bass%20Place%20and%20Plots%20to%20the%20rear%20of%20Fenian%20St%20with%20Gold%20Run%20Properties%20Ltd.pdf](https://councilmeetings.dublincity.ie/documents/s44300/Jan-%20Disposal%20of%20lands%2011%20Bass%20Place%20and%20Plots%20to%20the%20rear%20of%20Fenian%20St%20with%20Gold%20Run%20Properties%20Ltd.pdf) I'd love to hear the opinion of a property lawyer on this deal, not because I think it's dodgy, but rather my understanding is that in the past DCC have done exchanges that would have been seen as commercially stupid.
I'd love to see one of these 'Gonna Get Things Done' newly-elected right-wing councilors try to steer a Dublin developer on their derelict buildings... and find themselves up to their hole in litigation five minutes later. These fuckers have \*no\* interest in the common good.
The laneway where asylum seekers were sleeping is just around the corner on Sandwith St. Racist scumbags were able to mobilise a crowd, including some locals, to harass them, whereas widescale dereliction in the area and the real estate machinations... crickets. These bullies are always the same: strong with the weak, weak with the strong.
Didn't Malachy Steenson fall Asleep in a recent council meeting ? They're useless , elected on a single issue "immigration" that councils have no control over
As a property lawyer, commercial concerns are best addressed by valuers. In general, it's impossible to know how much land is worth without knowing how strong somebody's title is. The same house isn't worth the same money if you're comparing clear title to a weak one.
Without this agreement DCC’s planned development was deemed to be financially unviable. DCC now not only get to continue with the planned development consisting of 33 units but also have agreed to be gifted a turnkey apartment at Gold Run’s planned development and considering the market price for 1-beds in Dublin City start at €475k I think it’s a very favourable agreement for the Council.
Yes, I read that in the document. And I'd stress that i don't have a problem with the fact that Gold Run are going to build apartments, I just wish they have done it long ago. But I'm a bit sceptical about commercial negotiations between commercial groups and the public authorities. My feeling is that the latter tend to be seriously outgunned. That suspicion has nothing particular to do with the Bass Place/Andrews Court situation, I just wondered if anyone had a view on it based on the details available and referenced in the document above. I wonder how much use of external legal and valuation services DCC make in these cases, or if it's mostly done by in-house lawyers who may be overworked and probably relatively underpaid. If that is the case conflicts may sometimes be put to bed regardless of whether the outcome is optimal. I don't know, 'just asking questions'...
I worked in the councils 20 years ago, not in housing, but other departments, in general when the cost or value of a project was of a certain level you had to get consultants in to ensure value for money and you didn't fall foul of the auditor general. Even with consultants you can hit huge unexpected issues, while civil servants don't get fired all that often they won't get promoted if they are known for "xyz" black hole. Very easy in councils to kill your career. So they tend to make sure they have cover. Same applies to the Deputy Council Managers, they really cover their ass to the point that they will even block innovation for fear of a black hole event.
Unfortunately dereliction is all too common right across our country. At the end of the day someone somewhere owns this but has literally zero incentive to improve the area because the current tax code rewards people for engaging in property speculation. Its far cheaper for the owner to do nothing with the property and sit on it whilst watching the value rise. If you want to remedy the situation you'd need to introduce a Land Value Tax like they have in a number of other countries like Singapore, Taiwan and Denmark etc.
Is there not a vacant property tax? Surely if the other commenter is right in saying those properties, like many others around Dublin (city and county) which have been in such states for multiple years, then the owners are facing some sort of penalties? Genuinely asking as there is so many places like this near me
There is, however the Vacant Property Tax is simply 3x the Local Property Tax which could be as low as 270e a year.
Ah right, seems pointless in many of these cases especially further out of the City where the properties are bigger, one might be forgiven for assuming owners of such properties are unfazed by such relatively small charges. Thank you!
>because the current tax code rewards people for engaging in property speculation according to this subreddit the problem is the landlords and if we could just make sure noone rents out anything everything would be great.
The O Callaghans own a lot of that area, including 3 hotels just around the corner and a fancy build to let apartment block, don’t they have enough 🤣
The problem with the historical buildings is they're something of a nightmare to renovate. You are very restricted to keep anything on the exterior to the same as it currently is, which is probably not available off the shelf. Then things like windows sometimes can't be replaced with modern multi glazed options, so they're not as effective from a noise insulation or heat retention side of things. There have been cases where people buy a historical building thinking that they can afford to renovate it, only get partially through the process and find themselves in a planning battle to make the changes they want and are finding preservation objections from both the council and the public or that costs have ballooned beyond what they afford.
I do not think this is *entirely* true, I work for a company in the heritage sector and I have seen Georgian houses on the register of protected structures done up with modern double-glazed windows made in a sympathetic sash style and recieve grants for repairing a historic building for said windows. Are there a lot of rules around protectef structures? Sure, but I think the main way to bring them up to standard is more and better grants not less protection
My understanding of it comes down to the local authority and how sound they are. In the same way that applying for planning permission one year might give you a different answer than the year before or the year after. Double glazing can be easier to get permission for than triple glazing because its smaller. Even with the grants the expense is most likely way higher than normal, the grants make it easier but like retrofitting your non-protected house, the grants don't need you having huge funds available.
They absolutely were not denied demolition by the squatters. They were denied demolition cos they pulled a fast one on DCC, then after 10+years some squatters moved in. Lol.
Sandwith place is in an awful state too, crazy how it's so central and nothing has been done with it.
> We actually have some of the finest Georgian residential architecture here and it should be looked after. We should be razing the lot of these properties build on wealth from slavery and start building modern high density developments in the city, instead we are building massive apartment blocks at the end of transit systems that are already at capacity. We are destroying our countryside by going up the mountains and spreading Dublin into the surrounding farm land to protect a skyline build on misery.
Dublin doesn't have a skyline, it has a Qashqai that it parks on the footpath.
Soon to be demolished and turned into 3 blocks of flats
87 apartments, cafe and gym. 8-10 stories over basement.
That is exactly what Dublin needs. It's how we live on the continent. I hope they put parking in the basement.
And this is it. Converting low density housing in the city centre to high density is worth the delay. This projects take time to plan, fund and find the construction workers to build.
This site is in the heart of the city, there's no need for parking here.
Less need certainly, but there are still good reasons a person might need to leave the city on a regular basis.
I don't think that's most of the people who would live there.
I don't think you get to decide for others what they do and don't need.
Parking minimums kill density by making apartments building far more complex and far more expensive. You either have to force people to dig deep in order to build underground, or else increase the size of each site per development to accommodate the empty space needed for car parks. Both of these are expensive options.
The idea of density is not above what people need and want.
People want houses to live in. They also want good public transport. Good public transport at affordable prices requires density. Requiring parking spaces is counterproductive as it forces lower density, which makes public transport less good.
If people don't want density then the city centre isn't for them. There's plenty of housing estates to live in if they prefer low density.
If they need a car space, they can choose a house or apartment with one. It is not that hard.
No parking - based upon the originally submitted plans
>A total of 20 car parking spaces, 2 motorbike spaces and 198 cycle parking spaces (comprising 142 long stay spaces in basement of Block 1; 10 long-stay spaces in Block 3; with 44 short-stay spaces and 2 cargo bike spaces in the public realm) is provided on site. City center apartments do not need one car parking space per unit.
They need AT LEAST one parking space per unit. Luddites.
Surely wanting the parking space per unit is the Luddite response? Loads of people do not need parking spaces in the city centre, myself for example, no need to have a space per unit if we can provide more apartments without them or cheaper apartments.
You can rent it out if you don't need it, you'd make a small fortune (a safe parking space privately rented near the city center would be 4-5k a year easily)
I don’t know if building spaces just so people can rent them out is the best use of space if it is quicker and cheaper to just build with less spaces.
Not even close to those figures
If you own a car in that area, you need a psychological assessment. Why would you own a car in an area that everything is walkable or you can cycle? If you need a car, live in the suburbs. There are tons of apartments in Dublin where tenants don't use the car space in the basement and it is rented to office workers. Building more car spaces just encourages more cars...
I wouldn't hold my breath, I saw a new development in stillorgan that's a mixture of 14 houses and about 30 or so apartments and there's barely been 1 parking space for each of the houses provided and nothing for the apartment s it seems , the new trend for development s is providing the bare minimum of parking forcing people into public transport
If they're in the very centre of the city, why would they need parking?
Because cars can be used for more than just commuting.
Most people living in a city centre area don't need a car. Some do, and there are car parking spaces available for those people elsewhere. Requiring car parking spaces for apartments in a city centre is what kills construction of apartments, by multiplying complexity and costs. Insisting on car parking spaces, either on-street or underground, is incredibly counterproductive when it comes to increasing density, and decreasing density is what worsens active and public transport.
Also, many workplaces are not in the city centre
Great to hear
That would be absolutely fecking perfect !
As someone who whinges and moans non stop about the low density sprawl or Dublin and all the issues it brings, as well as our lack of anything resembling ling term thinking when it comes to property and infrastructure, that is absolutely great news!
That sounds great
All the units owned by landlord companies acting in a cartel fashion and deepening the housing crisis. Business as usual.
Better leave it as a derelict terrace then.
Nope. Better to develop house and protect the society against predatory practices from landlord companies. Otherwise, the housing crisis won't get much better.
Lol
A far better use of the space
Which is what's needed. We desperately need a higher concentration of apartment rentals in the city centre. Not to mention how damned expensive it is to make a derelict property livable to modern standards. We bought a house in need of work and wasn't derelict, but had no central heating, just fireplaces. The wiring was illegal since the 70s. The roof needed to be repaired and insulated. We tackled it 8 years ago and it still cost over 100k to do - again, this house wasn't derelict, it was inhavited but neglected.
Please do so. You want to solve housing, build housing.
Planning reference 3861/24
It’s progress, I guess. At least O’Callaghan’s didn’t illegally demolish these over a bank holiday weekend. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pressure-grows-for-action-over-demolition-of-dublin-garage-1.197977
I love that they were forced to rebuild it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/archer-s-garage-rebuilt-after-razing-1.1152577
Irish people are like the guy from the meme with 2 buttons. “Complain about housing shortage / complain about housing.”
I was wondering if it's a private developer, the answer is yes it is.
You say that like it's a bad thing? Ciry centre residential dwellings have to be compact. Can't have bungalows in a city centre and complain about a housing crisis ffs.
Where did I say it was a bad thing? I just said they're soon to be demolished
I think that the criticism is more related with the fact that those units will belong to a landlord company that will act in a cartel fashion, keeping people locked in a life of tenancy, with constant financial pressure of abusive prices. There is almost no chace of a regular person to put their hands in one of those units. The housing crisis is not only cause by the lack of stock, but also by abusive market practices making houses less affordable. I agree with you that any new stock of houses is a good thing at this stage.
If you think landlords are acting like a cartel, you have no understanding of economics. It is hard for a market with a handful of players to act like a cartel, never mind a market where there are hundreds of thousands of landlords. >There is almost no chace of a regular person to put their hands in one of those units And? All of the new luxury rental apartments in Dublin is resulting in Dublin having the lowest rate of rental increases in the country. Just because you can't afford an apartment doesn't mean someone else can't and if that person can't find a luxury apartment in Dublin 2, they will rent a shithole of one in Dublin 7. A shithole of an apartment that a 'regular person' could put their hands on...
Please, educate me about economics. Educate me how the players of a market in deeply need of offer will not take advantage of it, being predatory to the society. A cartel exists no matter the number of players. Having high concentration of market share in the hands of few players which also have strong political influence is enough. Netherlands has limits to units purchased by those companies in every new development. In such scenario, we need government actions to balance the game again. When I said "regular person" I mean any person at all. It doesn't matter if you have money or not. You won't be able to buy one of those units because those predatory landlord companies will buy all of them.
> Having high concentration of market share in the hands of few players But there is no such thing on rental market in Dublin. There is no high concentration at all.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-ten-biggest-landlords-now-own-17000-homes/41339550.html
So 10 biggest landlords have less than 1% of housing stock? Yeah. Pretty much what I said.
You keep taking the housing crisis and rental pressure out of your considerations. 1% of houses in a situation like the current one is very significant.
No it’s not. You can’t steer market having 1% of it. Not to say having 0.1%. You could divide those “big” landlords over 100 smaller and absolutely nothing would change.
When can we expect that to happen?
Planning permission should e granted in mid july. Tenders probably going out soon for it. Expect demolition in autumn and finished late next year. One of the building is 8 floors going in so a bit of work involved
Denser developments like that can't come soon enough.
Are you saying this as if that's a bad thing?
How on earth did you read that and come to that conclusion?
Which will cost 6 grand a month and will be paid into offshore bank accounts
Whole floors of boarded up apartments in the flats around there too. It's a fucking disgrace.
I guess you're referring to the low-rise block on the corner of Fenian and Sandwith Street? I've been down there recently. Does anyone know what DCC have planned for the site? They could certainly go higher density, but they need to get on with it.
Yes and not just those ones. A lot of the council flats in that part of D2 are blocked. No clue what DCCs plans are tbh. It does feel, however, while there is a push to rebuild communities in the city centre, it is just lip service.
But this is it. DCC don't want to replicate the mistakes of the past. I get we have a bunch of people demanding a state building company to create Ballymun/Jobstown II but most state planners want to build proper mixed communities and not sink estates/tower blocks.
"dUbLiN iS fUlL" The amount of buildings/sites in this country that are allowed to be derelict and fall into disrepair is infuriating. I wish we had some shining knight to slay the dragon sitting upon his mound of gold that he's hoarding from us
Dublin really looks like utter shiet compared to mainland Europe.
Mainland Europe is a very broad category. Much of Athens looks worse.
It's pretty easy to find dhitty streets in most cities.
This is true, and at the same time this street looks pretty usual for Dublin. This is too close to “average inner Dublin street” for my liking.
In the UK, maybe it's comparable. But in the mainland, MANY of the shitty streets get renovated and brought up to speed even if it means demolishing and building new.
In Paris, in Berlin, in Barcelona it's comparable
The metro. population of each of those is at least 3x of metro. Dublin. And there are ACTIVITLY going ahead with renovations. Parts of Berlin are worse of due to its time under the soviets so it still has a long way to go.
This shit happens everywhere.
I think you are arguing with a troll.
It's funny how you call everyone you don't agree with a troll.
Sounds like troll talk to me
I’m in Spain atm and passed about 30 streets on my morning walk like this one
Plás Bás?
It’s sad so much in Dublin is just all shut up like this
The incompetence of this country is making me want to move everyday.
Bass in the place Dublin
Dereliction is vandalism and should be severely punished
It was pretty common in Dublin to let sites go derelict to enable larger developments to happen.
It’s a common practice in lots of places. “It’s too far gone to be maintained and not safe for use. We’ll have to knock it down and build something else”
Exactly this It's how a lot of Georgian Dublin was pulled down
Good spot to open a few hipster coffee shops?
Vape shop, Turkish barber, American sweet shop. Plenty of opportunities for laundering money!
You forgot the electric gadget shop that is dotted all over the city centre
We have too many hipster coffee shops and to little apartments
Yeah I know, was a joke.
Gluck with fitting an apartment into most hipster coffee shops - most of them operate in a space smaller than your average 1 bed apartment. And they employ a number of people, and provide both a service and provide a place to be
I mean sure. If someone wants to open it, let them. But market seems to be fully saturated. There is not much more money to be made on this market, competition is very strong already. So if someone else wants to build new apartaments - also let them.
It's clearly a place for community art.
Street Seems a bit Fishy...
They need to replace the sign as there's a missing I. But given the low frequency of maintenance it's doubtful they will.
It's the bottom half right?
I lived in the first house there about 18 years ago. Was boarded up soon after.
Jeez, what did you do?
We actually had our front door kicked in at least once a week by teenagers for laughs the last month or so we wwre there. Great place to live for convenience but them little shits ruined the place
Architecturally the red brick houses of Dublin are beautiful. Its a sin that they are allowed to fall into such disrepair.
Same thing is happening in Belfast
Its such a shame. So often they are placed by generic glass office towers/apartment blocks
Or just demolished like in North Street :/ https://maps.app.goo.gl/qn4HuE8MArfoEWMs5?g_st=ic https://maps.app.goo.gl/zzNsFYHo5fHsxnst6?g_st=ic
Being able to look back at the locations from the street imagery years ago is stark
Flip I didn’t even realise that, Jesus Belfast has downgraded so badly
Unfortunately i think a lot of places in Ireland, not just Belfast, have gone the same way
Yea Ireland as a whole seems to place very little on making places look architecturally nice
I hate it here.
Yeah that should be the DCC slogan.
You’re free to leave
Those houses all have alarms from the same company. Someone is protecting them and keeping squatters out.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CEmDzzfn9A5/?igsh=ZndjZ2FyZjhhMjh4
Charge the owner 10% of value for the area per annum in tax, won't be empty for long then. If there is a dispute over ownership, charge each of the parties an equal cut of the 10%.
More of a street half full guy myself
Until they make the dereliction tax a serious proportion of the price - and **give it to Revenue to collect** - this will go on.
Classic Dublin
Ahhh, That’s Bass (street)!
Flatten it and build fifteen-storey apartments.
Flatten it and build fifteen-storey apartments.
Lived in Ireland in the 1970s. What the hell happened?
Unusual to see a street light not on a pole.
Surprised it hasn't been claimed for refugees yet.
It was a few years ago
Has it since been occupied?
It was occupied during the pandemic by some punks with dogs. They played nice music all day and made a bunch of community gardens around the area. They were run out after a year or two.
That's a pity. Sounds cool.
What do you think?