Just catching up on the day’s papers when I came across this in the Irish Times.
“Houses on ghost estates could be given to Irish emigrants seeking to return to their home counties or even to religious fundamentalists, Labour TD and presidential aspirant Michael D Higgins has proposed. … Some years ago, we discovered the diaspora. Some of our emigrants living in England, for example, are retired and can’t afford to come back. We should give them all these empty houses and let them look after them for three or four months at a time.”
Okay, so I didn’t hear the whole talk, but this seems worthy of a bit of scrutiny.
Who from the diaspora gets to live in these houses? What’s the selection criteria? Is it only those that can’t afford to fund their own trips back? Will they have support services when they’re here? What about transport, etc? Difficult to live in many rural estates without private transport as there’s no or limited public transport. Is this purely an altrustic move or is it designed to help the local economy/community? If this is simply to provide a base whilst the diaspora spend a short time in Ireland, surely we’d be better off giving very low rates for hotels and self-catering cottages (which are also struggling) where there would at least be some services, etc. and it would support local businesses? I appreciate all the arguments about the need to give something back to the diaspora who supported the country during the 1950s and 1980s, in particular, and I’d support initiatives such as the Aisling Project, but this needs a bit of thought.
What would be the logic in giving houses to religious fundamentalists? Is that what Ireland needs – religious fundamentalism?
Beyond an extension to initiatives such as Aisling Project, why would we give houses to the diaspora or religious fundamentalists when there are local people who need houses? Or perhaps local people who might like to trade-up or swap their house for one of these. I’ve been to a lot of ghost estates and many of them are pretty nice, with fine houses. The problem isn’t the houses or estate, it’s the market. As a recent firesale in Drumshanbo has shown, if you reduce the price sufficiently, houses do sell. Why give away when there is a market? In the Drumshanbo case a local market, not simply investor-led.
I can’t help wondering if the only way giving houses away is going to help local housing markets, and those in negative equity, is by getting some houses off the market and thus squeezing supply?
There are many questions surrounding ghost estates. I’m just not sure how giving houses away, in whatever form, helps address many of them in a constructive and productive way. And if I’d bought and lived on one of these estates (and there are only a handful that are completely empty) then I’d be pretty cheesed off if the remaining properties were given away. If the properties are going to be short term lets to the diaspora, I’d also be sceptical about how this is going to help build a long-term community.
There seems to be a lot of throw-away comments concerning what to do with ghost estates, some of which do not seem to be thought all the way through and do little to advance the debate or help the people living on them. The starting point for what to do with ghost estates has to start with their existing residents, the local economy, and the local housing market (including issues of housing need, social housing and affordability). Once all avenues around those have been explored and exhausted we can consider giving them away or finding alternative uses.
In the same article: ‘Dublin City Council’s chief planning officer, Dick Gleeson, complained that “the people who say ‘no’ have had too much influence” in blocking progress, and he emphasised that sustainability “rooted in good governance” was at the heart of the new city plan.’
I’ll admit that the planning process can be used to slow down or block development, sometimes excessively so, but the presumption for development at seemingly any cost over the boom years would seem to suggest the opposite – people who say ‘no’ had little or not enough influence. In fact, a big part of the bust is the fact that those that said ‘no’ were sidelined and their warnings not heeded. I’m not going to argue about good governance. We need good governance and good government. In spade fulls.
Rob Kitchin
Ireland after NAMA 
October 6, 2010 at 8:08 pm
I objected to a few of the follies but it costs the private citizen too much money. Especially if you appeal to An Board Pleanala as you invariably had to. The planning appeals process was used as a process of attrition to wear down the Joe Soaps.
Someone proposes some madness you object and you are down several hundred euro then another idiot steps forward to suggest an even greater folly that is the process at present.
How much did the cost of stopping Sean Dunne’s “plans” for Ballsbridge cost? Just imagine if the gigantic hole in the ground in Ballsbridge had been opened up? Mr. Barret who was Dublin City Council’s city architect at the time told Henning Larsen the Danish architects that “the 37 storey tower would be the most elegant solution”. All these “elegant solutions” are what destroyed the economy.
October 6, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Many people over the past couple of years have commented on the work of those who tried to stop the madness. But almost no one is prepared to name the orgainisation which did most to raise the issues, for which they were vilified and abused right, left and centre. AN TAISCE members, take a bow. You did your best, but greed and hubris triumphed. Heres to another 65 years of effort. Does anyone remember the name Robert Lloyd Praegar. Look it up and learn! Especially his 1948 broadcast on RTE.
October 7, 2010 at 12:56 am
@ Derrick
They did a great job on meagre resources and they were indeed despised and vilified. We could always depend on An Taisce to do what was right and honorable they should be given more powers and more money. I would love to see An Taisce given the legal power of enforcement against the recalcitrant and obnoxious owners and destroyers of listed buildings and protected structures. They should be able to take them over if the owners fail to put them back to their original condition.
Dublin City Council have been totally remiss and useless in this area. They never put their heart into this work at all. They only act if you embarrass them into action. All developers know that even if you were caught with a can of petrol in your hand going into your Georgian protected structure at 3 am in the morning absolutely nothing would happen. In fact, they would probably sympathise with you.
There was no money in preserving the fabric of the city and they have removed what was left of our wonderful architecture at every opportunity. My grandmother used to say that an ounce of feeding was better than a ton of feeding. Show me the proof all these documents and development plans are useless if you have unelected planners destroying the city and suffering no harsh sanctions such as loosing their jobs.
October 7, 2010 at 2:02 pm
I’ve said all along that the houses are not a problem! The loans are!
By offering them for free, the tenant has to live there, spend all his income, as it will not be high, and that will both protect the house and help the local community. Even housing German retirees would have a similar effect, possibly stimulating a growth in tourism as they receive visitors and when their temporary tenancy ends, they may stay on in a non-subsidized house/apartment. It might also apply to refugees!
October 8, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Thought-provoking post Rob. I must agree that the idea of just giving these houses away to the diaspora or, bizarrely, religious fundamentalists doesn’t strike me as the most thought-out or productive idea. Unless the idea is to put religious fundamentalists on the outskirts of towns where the rest of us don’t have to engage with them?
I jest. But one question comes to mind: has any quantification been done of the number of houses in ghost estates that would actually be suitable for human habitation without requiring any further substantial work?
October 8, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Lenny, the answer is yes, but we don’t yet know the results. The DEHLG survey of unfinished estates has sent inspectors to all the estates to assess the state of all properties. When published in the next couple of weeks it should give us an accurate picture of the number of habital houses, the number that are nearly habital (ie. they are sealed, etc, but need some work to finish them off), and those at various stages of construction. So, you should have your answer soon, hopefully.
October 14, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Interesting, looking forward to hearing the results of that. Richard Douthwaite has a piece in the new issue of Construct Ireland (of which I’m deputy ed) in which he quotes the architect Joseph Little as saying that if timber’s moisture content remains above 20% for any period of time, “serious structural decline” is likely to have begun. Little adds that 25-30% of houses built recently were timber frame. Similarly, the piece quotes Little as being concerned that if damp concrete walls are internally insulated when work resumes, it could take years for the moisture to dry out leading to risks of mould etc. I really hope the inspectors the DoEHLG are sending out have a strong knowledge of structural and moisture issue in buildings.
June 22, 2011 at 3:57 am
While Bob Kitchin explores and exhausts every available possibility these estates are crumbling health hazards. I would rather have the diaspora occupy them than rats and feral cats any day. But with a name like Bob Kitchin he probably knows ‘bugger all’ about diaspora in any case. Good on you Bobbyboy
June 22, 2011 at 11:11 am
The NAMA gravy train has been rolling for two years now it borrowed 31bn from the ECB and still owes over 30bn but what the heck the parties have been wonderful!
As for ghost estates and empty houses a transfer mechanism is going to take place the new poor (middle classes) will soon be looking for alternative accommodation.
We have learned nothing about the planning quagmire now all you do is wave a big flag which says “this will create jobs!” and bobs your uncle, you have planning!