• Before posting anything about COVID-19, READ THIS FIRST! COVID-19 and Misinformation (UPDATED)
    Misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this topic, even if intended as humor, will not be tolerated!

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,798
Last edited:
Last edited:
The denizens of Ringsend are revolting!

Locals campaign against proposed 15 storey residential tower in Dublin

Dublin needs to grow up, not out. Far too many people are spending far too much time commuting from peripheral locations. The housing density in areas closer to the city has to be increased, and while Ringsend might have lots of nice two-up-two-downs, it's hardly architecturally significant.
 

PAGE61

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2018
Messages
1,198
Perhaps the solution though is to build up but within the right places . There is no point in increasing the population of a ready established area that has been setteled for years. . Plenty of spots along the motorway out by City west for example that could be used .
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
32,104
There's never a right place. The locals will always complain. The demand is for the ready established area. Build the things. Streamline and speed up the appeals process.
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,798
Perhaps the solution though is to build up but within the right places . There is no point in increasing the population of a ready established area that has been setteled for years. . Plenty of spots along the motorway out by City west for example that could be used .
The objectives of ecologically sensitive and economically efficient development would be best served by increasing housing density in the places near where people work.
 

Levellers

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
14,782
Andrews is spot on. FFG policy is to give developers whatever they want and damm the community.
 

tsarbomb

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
5,495
From the article it seems that a good bit of the opposition is due to the development being exempt from having to be social housing. In that context I think it's reasonable to be against it.
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,798
From the article it seems that a good bit of the opposition is due to the development being exempt from having to be social housing. In that context I think it's reasonable to be against it.
I'm a lot more cynical than you:)

Do you think that if the social housing exemption was revoked that the local opposition would melt away?
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
32,104
They've applied for an exemption. If it's not NIMBYism: Support the build but oppose the exemption. They seem to be opposing both.
 

tsarbomb

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
5,495
I'm a lot more cynical than you:)

Do you think that if the social housing exemption was revoked that the local opposition would melt away?
According to the article some of the opposition is due to the exemption and some of it is due to it being high in comparison to other buildings in the area. If the exemption is lifted then some of the opposition will disappear I'd say.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,792
From the article it seems that a good bit of the opposition is due to the development being exempt from having to be social housing. In that context I think it's reasonable to be against it.
Their application for exemption is based on the site being less than 0.1 hectare. If it was half the height(the approx permitted height for city residential) then it would be greater than 0.1 and so could not be exempt. If they are granted permission it should be on the condition that they provide 10% social.
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
11,336
From the article it seems that a good bit of the opposition is due to the development being exempt from having to be social housing. In that context I think it's reasonable to be against it.
Not a chance. Nobody ever campaigns for more low paid, unemployed and single mothers to move into their neighbourhood. Statistically those groups are more likely to cause anti social problems.
 

tsarbomb

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
5,495
Not a chance. Nobody ever campaigns for more low paid, unemployed and single mothers to move into their neighbourhood. Statistically those groups are more likely to cause anti social problems.
It's likely that people in Ringsend want there to be opportunities for their family to stay and live in the community even if they fall on hard times. A lot of these new developments in the city centre are unaffordable for many people.
 

galteeman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
3,675
Not a chance. Nobody ever campaigns for more low paid, unemployed and single mothers to move into their neighbourhood. Statistically those groups are more likely to cause anti social problems.
Wrong, actually the generational scroungers will want free gaffs for their kids right next to their own. SF are their reps.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
4,137
Is there anything to stop the city council from buying apartments in the building and then handing them out to the local skangers at cheap rents?
Apart from it not being a cost effective use of taxpayer money.
 

galteeman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
3,675
B
Is there anything to stop the city council from buying apartments in the building and then handing them out to the local skangers at cheap rents?
Apart from it not being a cost effective use of taxpayer money.
Better let private landlords rent them to the skangers, save the council a fortune.
They simply don't deserve to get free gaffs and that is also soul destroying for their neighbors with big mortgages.
 

galteeman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
3,675
Basically the local rep in the article is saying he is against 'gentrification' which actually means people paying for their own houses. He is even against outsiders joining the local sports clubs.
They have a nice thing going in their little welfare world and they don't want anyone else coming in. Total selfish nimbyism plain and simple.
 

Politics matters

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
7,763
We should be building in the centre. Lots of employment around those parts. A logical place to build.
Plenty of areas on the Northside with this problem. Finglas, Ballymun etc. The long term unemployed and their kids should be moved to rural Ireland. The property they live in could be sold to first-time buyers.
 

Politics matters

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
7,763
Basically the local rep in the article is saying he is against 'gentrification' which actually means people paying for their own houses. He is even against outsiders joining the local sports clubs.
They have a nice thing going in their little welfare world and they don't want anyone else coming in. Total selfish nimbyism plain and simple.
My friend's mother in law pays something like 1200 a month for their mortgage. Right next to them is a family of feckless bums with four kids and one grandchild, they pay a pittance in rent.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom