Should social housing be in socially mixed areas or specific social housing developments?

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
16,024
This is not another "homeless" thread per se, but it's one of the blockers to the government defining a practical strategy that will deliver homes.

The two ends of the spectrum are where social homes are bought in standard developments and effectively allocated to people on the list, the other end is specific areas of uniform social homes, purpose built for social housing.

There are pros and cons for both and to be fair to politicians it's a mine field so sometimes I actually feel sorry for people with the authority to decide...but if there was a anything like an open debate they may find a broad consensus that could unlock future development.

My starter for 10:

Mixed social developments - less stigmatisation and less likely to hit "critical mass" of ASBO types that destroys any community BUT more expensive to buy/maintain and unfair to private renting/buying neighbours

Social developments - comes with ghetto connotations, needs strong community policing BUT more cost effective to build and maintain, could focus necessary services in area (transport corridor, primary health, schools).

I'd be genuinely interested in what other people believe - who knows - there may be a consensus and someone may take note.
 
Last edited:


Not The End Of The World

Active member
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
165
Has to be mixed. All developments anyway have 10% Part V units. I said on another thread that the gov should be building out social and affordable housing on its own land and if we are talking about scale, 50, 100 units, then this needs to be both social and affordable housing all those in need with household income up to a certain level - anyone who cannot market housing due to its cost.

If you think social housing is just full of wasters then you are probably not going to accept this. The reality is that social housing already has a mix of household incomes.
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
mixed developments are the only way forward. British style ghettos are a dead end. It needn't be unfair to the middle class neighbours because the middle class neighbours will be in the 90%+ majority, they dictate the standard of behavior. My block has 5 apartments used for social housing. We had a problem with one of them smoking in the lift. We knocked on the door and it soon stopped.
 

realistic1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
11,263
This is not another "homeless" thread per se, but it's one of the blockers to the government defining a practical strategy that will deliver.

The two ends of the spectrum are where social homes are bought in standard developments and effectively allocated to people on the list, the other end is specific areas of uniform social homes, purpose built for social housing.

There are pros and cons for both and to be fair to politicians it's a mine field so sometimes I actually feel sorry for people with the authority to decide...but if there was a anything like an open debate they may find a broad consensus that could unlock future development.

My starter for 10:

Mixed social developments - less stigmatisation and less likely to hit "critical mass" of ASBO types that destroys any community BUT more expensive to buy/maintain and unfair to private renting/buying neighbours

Social developments - comes with ghetto connotations, needs strong community policing BUT more cost effective to build and maintain, could focus necessary services in area (transport corridor, primary health, schools).

I'd be genuinely interested in what other people believe - who knows - there may be a consensus and someone may take note.
I would be in favour of specific social housing developments as it gives people something to strive for. There is nothing wrong with Social housing as long as the criminal elements are managed and evicted when necessary.
 

realistic1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
11,263
mixed developments are the only way forward. British style ghettos are a dead end. It needn't be unfair to the middle class neighbours because the middle class neighbours will be in the 90%+ majority, they dictate the standard of behavior. My block has 5 apartments used for social housing. We had a problem with one of them smoking in the lift. We knocked on the door and it soon stopped.
My God you must have been blessed with the best social tenants in the world. In my experience in Limerick, if you approached someone about anti-social behaviour, you more than likely will have your windows put in or worse.
 

paulp

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
7,304
I'd be in favour of mixed social developments.
Developers should not be able to buy their way out of their obligation.

Kids growing do better in mixed social rather than social.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
16,024
Has to be mixed. All developments anyway have 10% Part V units. I said on another thread that the gov should be building out social and affordable housing on its own land and if we are talking about scale, 50, 100 units, then this needs to be both social and affordable housing all those in need with household income up to a certain level - anyone who cannot market housing due to its cost.

If you think social housing is just full of wasters then you are probably not going to accept this. The reality is that social housing already has a mix of household incomes.
Many developers bought themselves out of part 5 and to be honest there is some logic in taking the "value" of part 5 and investing that on state owned land to build more units.
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
My God you must have been blessed with the best social tenants in the world. In my experience in Limerick, if you approached someone about anti-social behaviour, you more than likely will have your windows put in or worse.
And then we'd know exactly who put our windows in and call the gardaí, complain to the council. he's one in a block of over 80 apartments of people who are actively interested in keeping their block in tip top condition
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,680
This is not another "homeless" thread per se, but it's one of the blockers to the government defining a practical strategy that will deliver.

The two ends of the spectrum are where social homes are bought in standard developments and effectively allocated to people on the list, the other end is specific areas of uniform social homes, purpose built for social housing.

There are pros and cons for both and to be fair to politicians it's a mine field so sometimes I actually feel sorry for people with the authority to decide...but if there was a anything like an open debate they may find a broad consensus that could unlock future development.

My starter for 10:

Mixed social developments - less stigmatisation and less likely to hit "critical mass" of ASBO types that destroys any community BUT more expensive to buy/maintain and unfair to private renting/buying neighbours

Social developments - comes with ghetto connotations, needs strong community policing BUT more cost effective to build and maintain, could focus necessary services in area (transport corridor, primary health, schools).

I'd be genuinely interested in what other people believe - who knows - there may be a consensus and someone may take note.
What they are trying to in a number of areas e.g. the Glass Bottle site, the site of the old O'Devaney Gardens (North Circular Road, D7) is get the delivery of a mix of units and tenures in the new developments - some social housing, some private housing - and the private housing may be "affordable" i.e. a bit subsidised/less than market value.

I think it's a very good plan - the way to go, provided Irish people can be persuaded to buy in developments where there is a reasonably large component of social housing.
 

Gin Soaked

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,113
Mixed. But there needs to be a cap on size and value of state funded homes. Can't have a 4 bed semi in ballsbridge on the state's expense paid for by someone with a mortgage on a 3 bed in Lucan.

% mixed needs to include all state funded rentals and state dependent families. So you could see an estate being closed to certain families if it could be a tipping point.

All mixed developments and tenants need to sign a bond of conduct to adhere to societal norms or be downgraded.
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
What they are trying to in a number of areas e.g. the Glass Bottle site, the site of the old O'Devaney Gardens (North Circular Road, D7) is get the delivery of a mix of units and tenures in the new developments - some social housing, some private housing - and the private housing may be "affordable" i.e. a bit subsidised/less than market value.

I think it's a very good plan - the way to go, provided Irish people can be persuaded to buy in developments where there is a reasonably large component of social housing.
In the current climate you wouldn't be that picky like.
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,680
mixed developments are the only way forward. British style ghettos are a dead end. It needn't be unfair to the middle class neighbours because the middle class neighbours will be in the 90%+ majority, they dictate the standard of behavior. My block has 5 apartments used for social housing. We had a problem with one of them smoking in the lift. We knocked on the door and it soon stopped.
Some of the developments planned would have much higher than 10% social housing afaik.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
16,024
What they are trying to in a number of areas e.g. the Glass Bottle site, the site of the old O'Devaney Gardens (North Circular Road, D7) is get the delivery of a mix of units and tenures in the new developments - some social housing, some private housing - and the private housing may be "affordable" i.e. a bit subsidised/less than market value.

I think it's a very good plan - the way to go, provided Irish people can be persuaded to buy in developments where there is a reasonably large component of social housing.
I guess if you know what you're getting in to in the first place it's very fair, especially if there's better value to be had.

I think what gives some mixed social schemes a bad name is where the social housing is added later, so people with significant mortgages are looking across at their neighbours wondering why they bothered.
 

realistic1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
11,263
And then we'd know exactly who put our windows in and call the gardaí, complain to the council. he's one in a block of over 80 apartments of people who are actively interested in keeping their block in tip top condition
again you are blessed with your tenants. Gardai have a habit of saying to crims that "your neighbour complained about your anti-social behaviour" a day or so later your car is in flames.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top