Sir, – John Thompson (Letters, September 9th) appears to think that the State could only build public housing at scale by hiring permanent construction workers in the public sector.
He refers to this as something that happened in the past. In fact, the Dublin suburb of Marino built in the 1920s was publicly tendered and delivered under contract. Five different contractors were involved (one of which was German, Messrs Kossel) and the phases were broken down so that prices were kept competitive and could be renegotiated.
This is still the method used by the State for building homes, schools, hospitals, public buildings, roads and other infrastructure. These traditional building contracts are considered best practice for risk allocation and quality control, while ensuring competitive pricing and transparency in accordance with EU public procurement rules.
Currently, however, the State favours buying housing in the market at the sales prices set by developers. This is more expensive, less transparent and more vulnerable to defects and delays.
Were the State to return to contracting builders, we would have the same tradespeople, subcontractors and suppliers, but in a system more focused on widening participation, competition and capacity-building. Traditionally this approach made the construction industry more resilient to a downturn, mitigating emigration and a loss of skills.
What is the difference? According to the Department of Housing, last year the average “all-in” cost for a home procured by the State under contract was €255,221 for a three-bedroom house and €265,000 for a two-bedroom apartment, including VAT. This is considerably less than the high market prices being paid for the same new homes in other locations.
The case for better housing procurement policy is evidenced and economic, not ideological. – Yours, etc,
ORLA HEGARTY,
Assistant Professor,
School of Architecture,
Planning and
Environmental Policy,
University College Dublin
Belfield,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – Solving the housing crisis is very much doable. It did not materialise out of thin air. It is the consequence of an ideologically driven housing policy that handed over the provision of social housing to the market and other private entities. A blind man on a galloping horse could see at the time what the consequence would be; instead of planning for current and future needs we would get engineered shortages of land, labour, and materials to stunt output and thereby boost prices and land value. Warnings to the Government fell on deaf ears and, extraordinarily, continue to do so.
While no one is suggesting that the housing crisis can be solved overnight, there is no doubt that by the State placing all its resources in the provision of social housing in the first instance, the overall supply situation would improve quickly, which would see house prices stabilise and become more accessible and, most important of all, most people would find it easier to get a roof over their heads.
At this point, we ought to have a clear understanding of what has failed and resolve to try something that might work. The focus must be on providing homes for citizens rather than seeing housing as a commodity to be profited from. If we cannot bring ourselves to do at least that, what is the point of it all? – Yours, etc,
JIM O’SULLIVAN,
Rathedmond,
Sligo.