Snobbery towards high rise rental studio apartments

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,093
Irish planners and establishment politicians until not long ago ignored the fact that high rise apartments are permitted in major foreign cities to make housing affordable. For instance, in Toronto, Canada despite mushrooming growth of high rises of up to 40 stories for decades, the city council felt the need a few years ago to increase the proportions of studio apartments of about 400 square feet in new buildings.

Finally, the Irish government seems to be getting the message, with the rollout of new regulations that allow high rise rental only apartment buildings consisting of one bedroom units and studios. The latter must be a minimum size of 37 square metres or about 400 square feet. Buildings will have communal recreational rooms, sports facilities, lounge areas and work spaces. This is progress compared to the complicated gold plated regulations demanding huge minimum sizes, excessive numbers of lifts and dual aspect windows that added maybe 30% to building costs.

However, the planning snobs won't be pleased as shown in The Times March 14 article "New tower block apartments are "the slums of the future"" https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-tower-block-apartments-are-the-slums-of-the-future-dspsw892f (paywall). The criticisms of the new planning rules included opinions the apartments wouldn't be attractive and that there would be no guarantee of affordability.

If the developers of these apartments believe that the new regulations will help ease the housing crisis over the long term,in their self interest they will build to a high spec to ensure their buildings will continue to attract tenants. They would be more likely to do so if the regulations applied to all new apartment buildings, not just rental units.

As for affordability, basic economics of supply and demand says that increasing supply would either reduce rents or reduce the pace of rent increases. A guarantee of affordability through rent controls would likely drastically reduce the interest of developers in building to rent in the first place. Toronto provides another example for this. After rent controls were introduced in the 1970s high inflation, the large stock of high rises being built switched to condos for sale and not a single unsubsidised new high rise rental building was built by the private sector until rent controls were lifted in the 1990s.
 
Last edited:


ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
49,731
These new 'units' seem destined to be glorified Air B'n'B type units. Too small for anybody with a family, or with a desire to stay in the city centre in the long term. And because they will be cheaper to build and will be more profitable, they will drive up the cost of land in the area, meaning that the only people buying land in the area will be people looking to build these units. And all without a guarantee that they will be in any way more affordable.

No doubt some social tenants will be crammed into these units.

Meanwhile, families will be forced out into the commuter belt and the centre of our capital city will be like a campus for 20 something tech and finance geeks, and people doing short term stints in the IFSC or Barrow Street.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,655
We are unusual in global terms by our elites resistance to high rise. I think their opposition is about keeping land values high by getting less habitation out of a unit of land.
 

popular1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
3,130
We are unusual in global terms by our elites resistance to high rise. I think their opposition is about keeping land values high by getting less habitation out of a unit of land

High rises were the answer in Glasgow in the sixties and seventies

They even had a soap about them when the were introduced first
On STV called. High living

Check out this link

.[/https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/disappearing-glasgow-documenting-demolition-city-troubled-past
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,093
These new 'units' seem destined to be glorified Air B'n'B type units. Too small for anybody with a family, or with a desire to stay in the city centre in the long term. And because they will be cheaper to build and will be more profitable, they will drive up the cost of land in the area, meaning that the only people buying land in the area will be people looking to build these units. And all without a guarantee that they will be in any way more affordable.

No doubt some social tenants will be crammed into these units.

Meanwhile, families will be forced out into the commuter belt and the centre of our capital city will be like a campus for 20 something tech and finance geeks, and people doing short term stints in the IFSC or Barrow Street.
Soon Air BnB will likely be better regulated to prevent neighbours being disturbed. Then it would be helpful to tourism and in suitable rental units reduce BnB in unsuitable places.

A one child family could live comfortably in a 400 square feet studio. A couch in Dunnes has a lever that enables the back to be flattened down to make a comfortable bed,which can improve the utilisation of apartment space. In Tokyo and Hong Kong, 400 square feet is luxury.

Increasing the supply of economical units will make them far more affordable than not increasing their supply according to Economics 101. If competition for land for these units drives out builders of bigger units, that means more people get housed for the money, though not to your lofty standards.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,093
We are unusual in global terms by our elites resistance to high rise. I think their opposition is about keeping land values high by getting less habitation out of a unit of land

High rises were the answer in Glasgow in the sixties and seventies

They even had a soap about them when the were introduced first
On STV called. High living

Check out this link

.[/https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/disappearing-glasgow-documenting-demolition-city-troubled-past
The problems with a lot of high rise social housing in post WW2 UK included poor construction methods, crowding families into high rises that were too high for families, insufficiently diversified social makeup when the prosperous working class began moving out and the widespread bulldozing of old neighbourhoods to make way for high rises.

See link above at https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/disappearing-glasgow-documenting-demolition-city-troubled-past

Those Glasgow high rises that turned into crime ridden slums became that way as the quality of new tenants declined over time. Managing low quality and crime ridden tenants is a very tough business for which councils and housing agencies are unsuited with their bureaucratic mentality. I've read of two examples of effective management of such properties. In the 1980s slums of New York City which became slums thanks to excessivly low regulated rents, a large Albanian group fixed up building that were in dire shape and collected good rental incomes. Problem tenants were swiftly evicted, probably leaving in fear of violence. I also read about an Indian businessman who managed social housing apartments on a big scale on contract with government and using businesslike methods did a very good management job.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 48908

These new 'units' seem destined to be glorified Air B'n'B type units. Too small for anybody with a family, or with a desire to stay in the city centre in the long term. And because they will be cheaper to build and will be more profitable, they will drive up the cost of land in the area, meaning that the only people buying land in the area will be people looking to build these units. And all without a guarantee that they will be in any way more affordable.

No doubt some social tenants will be crammed into these units.

Meanwhile, families will be forced out into the commuter belt and the centre of our capital city will be like a campus for 20 something tech and finance geeks, and people doing short term stints in the IFSC or Barrow Street.
I agree with this bastard.

400 sq ft sounds like a lot, but it's 20 x 20.

A bedroom/sleeping area is 12 x 12 - 144
A functional kitchen area is 10 x 10 - 100
A place to eat/dining area 10 x 10 - 100
Recreational/TV/Sofa area 10 x 10 - 100
Bathroom will always be. 5 x 8 - 40
Then there's common areas - 100

You're looking at a minimum of 600 sq ft or so...and that's just a minimum. Where the hell am I supposed to put the Baldwin grand piano, the billiard table, the Louis XVI armoire..???

High rise is good, and it should be embraced in Dublin, but ffs, build big enough apartments/condos where people could see themselves actually living in them.
 

Mitsui2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
32,380
I agree with this bastard.

400 sq ft sounds like a lot, but it's 20 x 20.

A bedroom/sleeping area is 12 x 12 - 144
A functional kitchen area is 10 x 10 - 100
A place to eat/dining area 10 x 10 - 100
Recreational/TV/Sofa area 10 x 10 - 100
Bathroom will always be. 5 x 8 - 40
Then there's common areas - 100

You're looking at a minimum of 600 sq ft or so...and that's just a minimum. Where the hell am I supposed to put the Baldwin grand piano, the billiard table, the Louis XVI armoire..???

High rise is good, and it should be embraced in Dublin, but ffs, build big enough apartments/condos where people could see themselves actually living in them.
Never mind the grand piano, where the f*** do you put the bike and the pram?

The (at the time) much-lauded building of apartments in Dublin in the early Tiger years was accompanied by lots of drooly newspaper articles about "city living," while perfectly reasonable questions about how the hell anyone was supposed to actually live in shoeboxes where storing even a vacuum cleaner was a puzzle were dismissed out of hand.

This sounds a wee bit like phase two of the same con job.
 
Last edited:

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,093
I agree with this bastard.

400 sq ft sounds like a lot, but it's 20 x 20.

A bedroom/sleeping area is 12 x 12 - 144
A functional kitchen area is 10 x 10 - 100
A place to eat/dining area 10 x 10 - 100
Recreational/TV/Sofa area 10 x 10 - 100
Bathroom will always be. 5 x 8 - 40
Then there's common areas - 100

You're looking at a minimum of 600 sq ft or so...and that's just a minimum. Where the hell am I supposed to put the Baldwin grand piano, the billiard table, the Louis XVI armoire..???

High rise is good, and it should be embraced in Dublin, but ffs, build big enough apartments/condos where people could see themselves actually living in them.
The latter might require an increase in the seven stories height limit in architecturally mediocre areas of cities.

The 144 square feet bedroom area isn't needed in a studio equipped with a couch that converts to a bed. That cuts your 584 feet down to 440 square feet.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

Never mind the grand piano, where the f*** do you put the bike and the pram?

The (at the time) much-lauded building of apartments in Dublin in the early Tiger years was accompanied by lots of drooly newspaper articles about "city living," while perfectly reasonable questions about how the hell anyone was supposed to actually live in shoeboxes where storing even a vacuum cleaner were dismissed out of hand.

This sounds a wee bit like phase two of the same con job.
Well, the bike and the pray are taken by the servants when I arrive home of an evening, never to be seen until I have occasion to use them again. One imagines they sequester them in their quarters, in between the double and triple glazing.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,093
Never mind the grand piano, where the f*** do you put the bike and the pram?

The (at the time) much-lauded building of apartments in Dublin in the early Tiger years was accompanied by lots of drooly newspaper articles about "city living," while perfectly reasonable questions about how the hell anyone was supposed to actually live in shoeboxes where storing even a vacuum cleaner were dismissed out of hand.

This sounds a wee bit like phase two of the same con job.
Lots of buildings have storage areas in basements.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

The latter might require an increase in the seven stories height limit in architecturally mediocre areas of cities.

The 144 square feet bedroom area isn't needed in a studio equipped with a couch that converts to a bed. That cuts your 584 feet down to 440 square feet.
It's fine to sleep on a fold out couch for a night. Not two, and certainly not more than that. Personally, I'd rather sleep on the couch as it is without being unfolded; there's a feckin bar that always seems to be right in the wrong spot.

Murphy beds are great, we have one in our house, but they're not something I see as a permanent sleeping arrangement...certainly not for someone in a long term living situation.
 

Mitsui2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
32,380
Well, the bike and the pray are taken by the servants when I arrive home of an evening, never to be seen until I have occasion to use them again. One imagines they sequester them in their quarters, in between the double and triple glazing.
The thought of you re-using the pray is one I will struggle to forget.

Otherwise well said.
 

Mitsui2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
32,380
Lots of buildings have storage areas in basements.
Pat, I've lived in cities with large amounts of apartments. I've visited and stayed in many others.

Given the number of white elephants we already have from Phase 1 of the Make Central Dublin Unihabitable project - elephants whose whiteness was obvious at the time they were being hoo-hahed to the heavens - I'll wait for details before I stop sneering at the idea.

But to be perfectly frank I don't expect much more than a rinse and repeat.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

Pat, I've lived in cities with large amounts of apartments. I've visited and stayed in many others.

Given the number of white elephants we already have from Phase 1 of the Make Central Dublin Unihabitable project - elephants whose whiteness was obvious at the time they were being hoo-hahed to the heavens - I'll wait for details before I stop sneering at the idea.

But to be perfectly frank I don't expect much more than a rinse and repeat.
Glorified motel* rooms.

*You'll, no doubt, understand the significance of the "m" rather than the "h".
 

Mitsui2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
32,380
Needs must, old man. Brexit is having its repercussions.
I thought that EitilAthaCliath was going to solve those.

You disappoint me now.

"If there's one man you can always depend on," my old mum used to say, "it's that Carlos Danger. He used to leave me boxes of Milk Tray no matter what Daddy did."

Her secret chocolate allergy was the only thing that kept you apart.

But we fat kiddies felt we could always rely on you.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

I thought that EitilAthaCliath was going to solve those.

You disappoint me now.

"If there's one man you can always depend on," my old mum used to say, "it's that Carlos Danger. He used to leave me boxes of Milk Tray no matter what Daddy did."

Her secret chocolate allergy was the only thing that kept you apart.

But we fat kiddies felt we could always rely on you.
Used bring a tear to the eye, seeing you devour the coffee creme ones.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top