Live data from Hacker News

A sold-out city? The fight to save Dublin’s nightlife

huckmag.com

61–70 of 111 posts

Re: A sold-out city? The fight to save Dublin’s nightlife

#61
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really a good point. The whole reason city living became popular again is that the supposed "utopia" of suburbia was really boring.

At what point was city life not popular?

In the US (and a lesser degree in other countries), the advent of the car in the 20th century (and especially after WWII) meant that the "good life" became defined as moving out of the cities (where housing was generally in apartment blocks or row houses) to the new suburbs where detached houses with their own yards were the norm. Cities were viewed as places where one might work, but if you were middle class or above, you returned to your suburban home at night. But over the last couple of decades people (particularly people born in the 1970s or later) began to see the advantage of living somewhere where you didn't need to drive everywhere and shopping, restaurants, and bars were just a short walk away.

Re: A sold-out city? The fight to save Dublin’s nightlife

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't the city allowed to be denser?

Pure speculation. Like in many other cities the density is limited, often with silly excuses, in order to drive up the market. Home owners, including large financial groups, sustain this policy.

for some reason i never considered this as a motivation for nimbyism. but it’s probably the best/simplest explanation in most cases.

Re: A sold-out city? The fight to save Dublin’s nightlife

#63
post #2

Dublin has been having a bit of a boom (of which tech is a major driver) in the last decade, but this just feels like another symptom of the city which is not allowed to build denser or to sprawl with the result being anything less profitable in terms of land value is getting pushed out of the city (including many families who have lived their behind) while rents reach some of the highest levels in Europe

There's nothing at all stopping Dublin from being much more dense than it is, and there's no need whatsoever to build high to do it.

Huge gains could be made by bringing more 'above the shop' units into use. Vacancy and dereliction are massive issues, both in the city centre and further out - tackling that through vacant site levies or compulsory purchase orders would be huge. Regulating the abuse of AirBnB could bring a few thousand rental units in the city back into long-term use practically overnight.

As far as building new stock goes, everything is too expensive because land is too expensive. Development land around the city has been stockpiled and hoarded for decades, creating artificial scarcity and driving up prices. It's basically impossible to make a profit on reasonably dense, reasonably priced, two or three bed apartment schemes in Dublin. The SCSI and PII have good reports on this if you want to look them up. It's nearly always more profitable (and easier) to just sit on the land rather than actually develop it. The reason all the nightclubs are being replaced by hotels is a result of this: hotels are a lot more commercially viable than almost any other form of development right now. (Hotel beds in Dublin had over 90% occupancy rates last summer - they're bursting and demand is massive.)

The majority of new residential building happens in the outer suburbs and commuter belt, from Lucan to Navan. Just 31 (!!!) new homes were built in Dublin 1 (the very centre of the city) in 2018.

Apartments made up just 13% of new builds in the state last year. The apartments we do build are, on average, smaller, darker, less well serviced, and more expensive than almost any other European city. The apartments built between 1995 and 2008 are riddled with issues, from fire safety to damp to electrics. I think that accounts for a lot of Irish people's apparent antipathy towards apartment living, much more than any nonsense about an inherent desire for a semi-d with a garden.

Rents are expensive because of an increase in the numbers renting (doubled in last decade); because the rent-certainty regulation is weak or non-existent; because tenure security does not exist; because build-to-rent is expensive to develop; because REITs and larger commercial landlords are soaking up all supply and charging as much as they can. Take your pick. It's a mess.

Sorry to go on, but I just finished a six-month deep dive on the reasons behind the housing crisis in Dublin and there is just so much misinformation out there, it's frustrating.

P.S. In case anyone wants to hear more, I made a four-episode podcast series about this, the final episode of which just went up today:

www.dublininquirer.com/2019/02/27/supply-demand-a-podcast-about-dublin-s-housing-crisis-episode-4

Re: A sold-out city? The fight to save Dublin’s nightlife

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are so many commenters here repeating this mantra "just build higher, just build denser", with seemingly no grip of facts about property in Dublin. There's no restrictions on height nor density in the Docklands area of Dublin: an area within walking distance of the centre of the city, and with a good regular tram link, that is mostly vacant. Similarly, many areas on major tram routes are not so restricted, such…

Why would the property owners rather have the units sit empty than rent them out at market rates?

Anecdotally, I live near a small UK town that has some empty commercial properties. I've been told that the landlords are London-based, and the rental rates reflect London rather than local pricing. Allegedly, the landlords are keen to show that all of the properties in their portfolios could in principle attract high rates, and that to let some out cheaper would dilute the brand as perceived by investors.

Don't know how true this is, or whether it applies in Dublin, but it is one answer that I've heard when I asked the same question.

Re: A sold-out city? The fight to save Dublin’s nightlife

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the property owners rather have the units sit empty than rent them out at market rates?

There's been plenty of papers published on this topic in far greater detail than I'd ever go into in a short HN comment, but the short answer is: property is a financial asset for owners, rather than a source of rent. This is largely about scale: these are large international owners, with significant property investments worldwide. If you search for "financialisation of property" or "financialisation of housing", you…

The owners are so huge they can't be bothered to care about hundred dollar bills lying on the sidewalk.

Re: A sold-out city? The fight to save Dublin’s nightlife

#66

I understand the opening sentence is a rhetorical flourish... but it is also astoundingly wrong. > This year, on Imbolc – a Gaelic tradition that sees Ireland celebrate the patron saint Brigid, a Celtic goddess... Imbolc is a celebration of the Goddess Brigid, which very few Irish celebrate. The feast day for Saint Brigid is on the same day, and is celebrated more widely. While she was possibly a Christianised versio…

So... the opening paragraph contains two factual mistakes and one politically (but not factually) correct statement.

But I'm sure they've done the research and checked their data for the rest of the article.

Re: A sold-out city? The fight to save Dublin’s nightlife

#67
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is because the last to move makes the greatest profit. So people just wait to be the last wave of available apartments so they can hike the price up to whatever. Which leads to a bottleneck of sorts since nobody is willing to demand lower rent which would actually lead to people moving in...

Could they not increase the price in the following years if the market price goes up? An apartment sitting idle should be a disaster - the higher rent obtained in the following years would need to be significantly higher just to break even in terms of yield. I would've thought as full occupancy as possible at all times, i.e. renting out at market rates, would be the most profitable strategy.

Thus speculation haha. Especially if you can pass laws in your favor or the like I think this is the train of thought most of them have. If it didn't bring some kind of profit why would they do it? The only reason to not rent it out is if they think they will make more profit by holding out. The alternative is that they just hate their own money and want to burn it so that's how I come to this conclusion. By process of elimination.

Well it depends on where you are. Some places have different laws no idea about Dublin but some places protect renters from having the price spike up too quickly and have fixed rates once a contract is signed.

Edit: I of course have a subjective opinion on this from my point of view and where I am from the laws are heavily in favor of tenants so it is next to impossible to throw people out or hike up the price once an apartment is rented out.

Re: A sold-out city? The fight to save Dublin’s nightlife

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been plenty of papers published on this topic in far greater detail than I'd ever go into in a short HN comment, but the short answer is: property is a financial asset for owners, rather than a source of rent. This is largely about scale: these are large international owners, with significant property investments worldwide. If you search for "financialisation of property" or "financialisation of housing", you…

The owners are so huge they can't be bothered to care about hundred dollar bills lying on the sidewalk.

I suppose it does make some sense if we are talking about 'dirty' money trying to safeguard their wealth from some form of confiscation. So they don't care about the price tag, they just want to safeguard as much of their wealth in a jurisdiction with strong property rights. They are happy if they don't lose more than 90%.

Still, it seems very irrational and thus unsustainable.

Re: A sold-out city? The fight to save Dublin’s nightlife

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the property owners rather have the units sit empty than rent them out at market rates?

There's been plenty of papers published on this topic in far greater detail than I'd ever go into in a short HN comment, but the short answer is: property is a financial asset for owners, rather than a source of rent. This is largely about scale: these are large international owners, with significant property investments worldwide. If you search for "financialisation of property" or "financialisation of housing", you…

Seems like an exponential tax for domestic property not in use as domiciles could be a way out. Something tolerable the first year, but doubling every 6 months of vacancy without at least 6 months of occupation between.
Post reply on HN