Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland: More than 300,000 empty houses in country

ei.sdraob

The number of empty houses around the country is somewhere between 301,000 and 352,000, according to research by the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland.

The research also puts the number of holiday homes somewhere between 49,000 and 73,000.

If these figures are correct, that would put the number of empty houses in the State at around 18% compared to 7.3% in Europe and just over 3% in the UK.

The RIAI wants local authorities to conduct a definitive count on how many houses are currently lying idle.

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/research-more-than-300000-empty-houses-in-country-453890.html

Here is where the money disappeared to, what economists call a misalocation of capital

300,000 * 150K ( average price to build, i presume appartments be cheaper etc etc)

thats 45 billion euro (most likely all borrowed) that could have been spent elsewhere...

now i wonder how many of these end up in NAMA, and worse how many will be knocked down.

MagicMarker

I'll take one for whatever is in my pocket right now.

lucy2010

Im not an economist by any sort - I havent a clue. But from a lay-mans eyes could these properties not have been bought under the NAMA deal so we the taxpayers would own them. If the loan is on the property & the loan is not being repaid then the property is the collateral that we would then own. These houses could then be used by the Government for social housing, thus reducing the amount they are spending monthly on rent supplements to people in substandard private rental properties. The houses wouldnt be idle & derelict leading to further social problems. There would also be no cost at demolishing them. Can only imagine how many millions the government will bill for demolishing works .

The_Honeybadger

lucy2010 wrote: »

Im not an economist by any sort - I havent a clue. But from a lay-mans eyes could these properties not have been bought under the NAMA deal so we the taxpayers would own them. If the loan is on the property & the loan is not being repaid then the property is the collateral that we would then own. These houses could then be used by the Government for social housing, thus reducing the amount they are spending monthly on rent supplements to people in substandard private rental properties. The houses wouldnt be idle & derelict leading to further social problems. There would also be no cost at demolishing them. Can only imagine how many millions the government will bill for demolishing works .

I have long been complaining about the wasteful rent supplement scheme. I know a young couple who are both unemployed with no kids, who are renting a 3 bed semi in a nice town, paid for nearly in full by the state, why can't they be forced to house-share ffs, they have 2 spare rooms and a gorgeous house, also the rates paid are too high and are putting a floor in the market.

On using the nama properties for social housing I'm not sure, have you seen where some of them are? Matt Cooper mentioned one particular ghost estate in Co. Kerry on his show lately, I have passed this a few times and it really is a shining example of the Celtic Tiger madness, I wouldn't ask anybody to move there as it is quite simply, 30+ houses thrown up in the middle of nowhere, now fenced off and boarded up, and this is replicated throughout the country. And anyway putting a large number of welfare recipients into one estate is probably not going to end well. I reckon the bulldozers are the only solution for places like that, and in cases where the house have some value, finish them and sell them off at whatever price the market allows. Of course this won't happen as it goes against FF's plan of keeping prices high, sigh I just don't know.

lucy2010

mickeyk wrote: »

I have long been complaining about the wasteful rent supplement scheme. I know a young couple who are both unemployed with no kids, who are renting a 3 bed semi in a nice town, paid for nearly in full by the state, why can't they be forced to house-share ffs, they have 2 spare rooms and a gorgeous house, also the rates paid are too high and are putting a floor in the market.

On using the nama properties for social housing I'm not sure, have you seen where some of them are? Matt Cooper mentioned one particular ghost estate in Co. Kerry on his show lately, I have passed this a few times and it really is a shining example of the Celtic Tiger madness, I wouldn't ask anybody to move there as it is quite simply, 30+ houses thrown up in the middle of nowhere, now fenced off and boarded up, and this is replicated throughout the country. And anyway putting a large number of welfare recipients into one estate is probably not going to end well. I reckon the bulldozers are the only solution for places like that, and in cases where the house have some value, finish them and sell them off at whatever price the market allows. Of course this won't happen as it goes against FF's plan of keeping prices high, sigh I just don't know.

I receive rent supplement - not very much but it helps monthly to pay the rent. Many people now on welfare are people who have never been on it before. They are normal everyday joe's who just ended up there in the last year. Ive noticed in my trips to the welfare office as you are there for so long im like - oh theres so & so to myself, he was the manager of X; they must be gone. With regards to the levels there are little or no properties in my area that even come in line with their levels - so for the punter finding a suitab;le home within the guidllines its difficult but for the LL its like a level they set their prices on. Rent prices are not falling at all.
I order to receive it ( RS) you must be on a corporation housing list. When I went to them they told me last year 2 houses became available ! 2 ! So with 8000 in my town with a housing need 2 houses in 1 year.Ill be dead before I reach the top of the list.!
Up the road a developer has gone bust leaving over 200 homes idle. What I would give for 1 of these . Now as its half inhabited & partly apartments how will the demolish? They wont - it will remain idle with every second home boarded up.

The_Honeybadger

lucy2010 wrote: »

I receive rent supplement - not very much but it helps monthly to pay the rent. Many people now on welfare are people who have never been on it before. They are normal everyday joe's who just ended up there in the last year. Ive noticed in my trips to the welfare office as you are there for so long im like - oh theres so & so to myself, he was the manager of X; they must be gone. With regards to the levels there are little or no properties in my area that even come in line with their levels - so for the punter finding a suitab;le home within the guidllines its difficult but for the LL its like a level they set their prices on. Rent prices are not falling at all.
I order to receive it ( RS) you must be on a corporation housing list. When I went to them they told me last year 2 houses became available ! 2 ! So with 8000 in my town with a housing need 2 houses in 1 year.Ill be dead before I reach the top of the list.!
Up the road a developer has gone bust leaving over 200 homes idle. What I would give for 1 of these . Now as its half inhabited & partly apartments how will the demolish? They wont - it will remain idle with every second home boarded up.

I'm not for a second saying scrap the scheme, if people are unemployed and can't afford rent then they should receive it absolutely, the situation I described where a couple in their early 20's have a lovely 3 bed semi off the back of the state is taking the p**s however IMO, I know RS is means tested but this particular couple have told me their actual rent out of their own pocket amounts to less than 30 euro pw. And rents aren't falling because the RS rates are so high, landlords that wouln't take these tenants in the past are now more than happy to, as their rent is guaranteed by the state. If landlords are happy to take these tenants they should have to register their property with the authority, and the rent should be determined by the state IMO, with so many properties empty it is ridiculous that rents are still so high, and doesn't reflect reality.

EDIT: In the case of estates that are half occupied like the one you describe, a case can be made for using some of the remaining units as social housing defiinately, however filling estates with welfare recipients can cause massive social problems if unemployment persists for a long time, so we would have to be extremely careful about how we would go about this. I realise most of our current unemployed are decent people and hopefully won't be depending on the state in the longer term.

gurramok

MickeyK is right. If the RS was halved overnight, the LL's will have to meet the new level as where will they find tenants for the previous high rent?

It really is a disgrace how a RS couple can rent a house for the same level as a working couple next door.

Same outrage applies for 'single mothers' who just continue pumping out kids as the RS will guarantee them a roof over their heads the more kids they have.

Regards social housing on the empties, they are moving people off the social housing list onto the unsold affordable housing units. Its a first step in the process. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0401/breaking67.html

RichardAnd

350k houses with no one in them. Another issue with those houses is that the majority of Celtic Tiger houses were built of cardboard.

I lived in an estate in Athlone during the summer whilst I was doing some contract work. The house I was sharing in was one of those mass produced pieces of crap that make up the majority of the empty houses. I think it was worth 300k at the peak of the boom but honestly, I wouldn't pay 10k for it. The walls were all cheap plasterboard, the woodwork was shoddy white deal and was crudely put together, the sinks and toilets were iffy and you could hear clearly what someone in the next room was doing.

So not only do we have a pile of empty houses, we have a pile of empty crap houses that probably will be ruins in ten 10-20 years.

dRNk SAnTA

The good thing about having the greens in government is that they will hopefully do something to avoid such awful planning decisions and low building standards in the future.

Take a look at the party you vote for, and see how the councillors voted on these ridiculous developments. Fianna Gael councillors acted particularly badly across the country.

Bad planning has so many knock-on effects on employment, public transport, schools and hospitals.

Cookie_Monster

RichardAnd wrote: »

350k houses with no one in them. Another issue with those houses is that the majority of Celtic Tiger houses were built of cardboard.

I lived in an estate in Athlone during the summer whilst I was doing some contract work. The house I was sharing in was one of those mass produced pieces of crap that make up the majority of the empty houses. I think it was worth 300k at the peak of the boom but honestly, I wouldn't pay 10k for it. The walls were all cheap plasterboard, the woodwork was shoddy white deal and was crudely put together, the sinks and toilets were iffy and you could hear clearly what someone in the next room was doing.

So not only do we have a pile of empty houses, we have a pile of empty crap houses that probably will be ruins in ten 10-20 years.

this is the major problem, if all these houses were of good quality you could see them lasting 50+ years and getting occupied in the short to near term at discounted prices. But because they are so badly built no-one will want them even at low prices. Some of the build quality is truly shocking.

Rented a house in Dalkey last year, one of 13 put in a small estate there. Crap houses, only half the roof insulated etc. 2 months after I moved out alll the pipes froze, burst and destroyed the house :eek: Quality indeed

Seth Brundle

300,000 empty houses but:
http://www.simon.ie/index.php?page=how-many

Zamboni

RichardAnd wrote: »

So not only do we have a pile of empty houses, we have a pile of empty crap houses that probably will be ruins in ten 10-20 years.

Yep
And what the hell happened to garages. Remember them?
Its all 'duplexes' and 'townhouses' which are absolutely disgusting messes.

hinault

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/research-more-than-300000-empty-houses-in-country-453890.html

Here is where the money disappeared to, what economists call a misalocation of capital

300,000 * 150K ( average price to build, i presume appartments be cheaper etc etc)

thats 45 billion euro (most likely all borrowed) that could have been spent elsewhere...

now i wonder how many of these end up in NAMA, and worse how many will be knocked down.

It will be the final act of madness in this sorry episode.
Demolishing the very houses, which were funded by Anglo.

I despair.

We'd be destroying the very asset upon which the loans were premised.
If it wasn't such a serious issue, it would make a great comedy.

hinault

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

The good thing about having the greens in government is that they will hopefully do something to avoid such awful planning decisions and low building standards in the future.

the greens are fcuking useless.

If they had any principle, they would have walked away from this govt in September 2008.

They're finished.

fontanalis

So the smart and ballsy guys will be demolishing property? They could be used for paint balling!

bamboozle

maybe i'm missing something but would it not make sense if the government basically tell each council that no more planning permission is to be granted unless the land was part of the family farm.

i think its madness that we still have planning being granted for houses all over the country with so many lying vacant.

The_Honeybadger

bamboozle wrote: »

maybe i'm missing something but would it not make sense if the government basically tell each council that no more planning permission is to be granted unless the land was part of the family farm.

i think its madness that we still have planning being granted for houses all over the country with so many lying vacant.

Forcing people to buy up existing stock is unfair. I'm no building engineer but I am told that much of the housing stock built over the past decade is pure s**te, hardly surprising given the speed at which they went up, and the total abscence of council building standards checks (Kerry CC recently admitted they never did checks). Also as has been stated numerous times, alot of estates are built in areas where there is no demand, is it fair to tell somebody working in Galway that they have to move to Ballinasloe because there are alot of unsold houses there, and it would suit NAMA and FF just lovely if he was to buy one of them, the answer of course is no. Sensible town & county planning is the way forward, although something about a horse and a stable door come to mind

EDIT: I realise you were not advocating forcing anybody to do anything, but I don't think blocking people from building in suitable locations is the way forward, the NAMA properties should knocked or sold at firesale prices if demand is not there IMO, but planning needs to be tightened up big time I agree.

dRNk SAnTA

hinault wrote: »

the greens are fcuking useless.

If they had any principle, they would have walked away from this govt in September 2008.

They're finished.

Meh... empty rhetoric.

IF the Gov collapsed in 2008 would our planning system be better than it is now? I don't think so, especially since Fine Gael councillors are some of the main culprits in pushing through unsustainable rezoning.

Anyone who calls the Greens useless is talking bollocks. The Green ministers are the only ones in Government getting anything done. John Gormley has done more in his time as minister than the 3 previous ministers for the environment put together. How come only the pro-active politicians attract the negative comments and moaning? No one gave a sh*t when people like Dick Roche sat on their ass blissfully ignorant of the disasters they were presiding over.

The fact that so many people don't even care about the planning issues makes me think that the Irish are useless at learning lessons from our mistakes. No wonder we can't go more 20 years without having massive economic depressions.

ei.sdraob

bamboozle wrote: »

maybe i'm missing something but would it not make sense if the government basically tell each council that no more planning permission is to be granted unless the land was part of the family farm.

i think its madness that we still have planning being granted for houses all over the country with so many lying vacant.

planning permissions are a lucrative business for councils (still populated by FFers, EAs, auctioneers etc)

they wont stop

fontanalis

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

Meh... empty rhetoric.

IF the Gov collapsed in 2008 would our planning system be better than it is now? I don't think so, especially since Fine Gael councillors are some of the main culprits in pushing through unsustainable rezoning.

Anyone who calls the Greens useless is talking bollocks. The Green ministers are the only ones in Government getting anything done. John Gormley has done more in his time as minister than the 3 previous ministers for the environment put together. How come only the pro-active politicians attract the negative comments and moaning? No one gave a sh*t when people like Dick Roche sat on their ass blissfully ignorant of the disasters they were presiding over.

The fact that so many people don't even care about the planning issues makes me think that the Irish are useless at learning lessons from our mistakes. No wonder we can't go more 20 years without having massive economic depressions.

I look forward to the day they die a death, the economy was going down the pan in November 08 but Forrest Gimp Ryan was sitting with a lobotomised grin talking about light bulbs.
Same gombeens, different sales pitch.

hinault

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

Meh... empty rhetoric.

IF the Gov collapsed in 2008 would our planning system be better than it is now? I don't think so, especially since Fine Gael councillors are some of the main culprits in pushing through unsustainable rezoning.

Anyone who calls the Greens useless is talking bollocks. The Green ministers are the only ones in Government getting anything done. John Gormley has done more in his time as minister than the 3 previous ministers for the environment put together. How come only the pro-active politicians attract the negative comments and moaning? No one gave a sh*t when people like Dick Roche sat on their ass blissfully ignorant of the disasters they were presiding over.

The fact that so many people don't even care about the planning issues makes me think that the Irish are useless at learning lessons from our mistakes. No wonder we can't go more 20 years without having massive economic depressions.

And the Greens by supporting the bank guarantee scheme was being farsighted?
Your beloved John Gormley was at home in bed when the govt signed away the economic future of this nation, by guaranteeing Anglo on 29th Sept 2008:D

As regards planning issue, the Greens may have some insight.

But the fact is that they aided and abetted the govt that helped destroy this economy and when they had the chance to dismiss the gombeen FF'ers from office, the Greens folded.

Gormley, Ryan and Cuffe and the rest of them will keep their snouts in the trough until 2012 and they'll then be dismissed to oblivion.

cson

fontanalis wrote: »

[I look forward to the day they die a death, the economy was going down the pan in November 08 but Forrest Gimp Ryan was sitting with a lobotomised grin talking about light bulbs.
Same gombeens, different sales pitch.

A party bereft of an semblence of credibility. The only thing green about them is the font on their logo.

On topic; the girl who mentioned 8000 on a housing list worries me - are that many people dependent on the State to house them in one area? :eek:

Amhran Nua

fontanalis wrote: »

So the smart and ballsy guys will be demolishing property? They could be used for paint balling!

True if a bit tongue in cheek, there must be an entrepreneurial angle that could be played here. Even in terms of demolishing them, just lease them to the US army for a few weeks for training purposes, as long as they sweep up when finished. I'm not sure why there is a big rush to demolish them in any case, if they can't be sold it won't affect the loan repayment by much either way.

Cookie_Monster

when they say demolish will it just be a case of driving a bulldozer through the site do you think of will they try and salvage stuff like fixtures and fitting (if already in place)

What about associated works such as roads, piping, cabling: will these all be pulled up to?

Amhran Nua

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What about associated works such as roads, piping, cabling: will these all be pulled up to?

The operative phrase is that the land would be returned to its former agricultural status, so everything must go. I don't see that letting them rot for a decade or so will cost us any more to be honest, theres no shortage of agricultural land.

murphaph

Leave them stand as a testament to sh!tty, non existant and often corrupt rezonings and planning permissions I say. Whe swepp them away under the carpet so quickly. If these ghost estates are still standing and uninhabitable in 10 years, it will be a reminder to councillors when they pass by them on the way into council chambers to attend a rezoning vote....much like heads used to be placed on pikes at the edge of towns in medieval times lol.

jmayo

fontanalis wrote: »

I look forward to the day they die a death, the economy was going down the pan in November 08 but Forrest Gimp Ryan was sitting with a lobotomised grin talking about light bulbs.
Same gombeens, different sales pitch.

Ahh fontanalis bad choice of picture it will only convince them more that they need to sacrifice everything (increase fuel charges) so that the poor polar bear isn't upset because his ice encrushed home is no more.
You should have chosen this picture instead

EDIT: 4 pigs at the trough 4 ministers.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

when they say demolish will it just be a case of driving a bulldozer through the site do you think of will they try and salvage stuff like fixtures and fitting (if already in place)

What about associated works such as roads, piping, cabling: will these all be pulled up to?

You see that would make sense, but they will just happen to hire a connected contractor (let me see one who has voted ff for the last 30 years maybe) to bulldoze the lot.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The operative phrase is that the land would be returned to its former agricultural status, so everything must go. I don't see that letting them rot for a decade or so will cost us any more to be honest, theres no shortage of agricultural land.

If the land is returned to agricultural use, and can only be sold as such then the price could be below 10,000 an acre.

Now lets play out a little pretend scenario here.
Developer buys 30 acres of land as development land due to convenient rezoning, priced at say €200,000 an acre.
(I am being very generous on how cheap they got this, since I know farmers in middle of nowhere in Mayo who managed to offload 1/2 acre one off house sites at €40,000.)
And the development site above would be for multiple shoeboxes.

Developer/builder could not repay loans, so maybe that still say per €5,000,000 outstanding on loans.

Now they decide to return land to agricultural use and because no one really wants or needs development land it sells at 20,000 an acre. (again being very generous here since argicultural land currently at or below 11,000)
That bloody well wont pay for the demolition, the management/legal fees involved nevermind go towards decreasing the amount outstandin on the loan. :mad:

Laminations

jmayo wrote: »

Ahh fontanalis bad choice of picture it will only convince them more that they need to sacrifice everything (increase fuel charges) so that the poor polar bear isn't upset because his ice encrushed home is no more.
You should have chosen this picture instead





You see that would make sense, but they will just happen to hire a connected contractor (let me see one who has voted ff for the last 30 years maybe) to bulldoze the lot.



If the land is returned to agricultural use, and can only be sold as such then the price could be below 10,000 an acre.

Now lets play out a little pretend scenario here.
Developer buys 30 acres of land as development land due to convenient rezoning, priced at say €200,000 an acre.
(I am being very generous on how cheap they got this, since I know farmers in middle of nowhere in Mayo who managed to offload 1/2 acre one off house sites at €40,000.)
And the development site above would be for multiple shoeboxes.

Developer/builder could not repay loans, so maybe that still say per €5,000,000 outstanding on loans.

Now they decide to return land to agricultural use and because no one really wants or needs development land it sells at 20,000 an acre. (again being very generous here since argicultural land currently at or below 11,000)
That bloody well wont pay for the demolition, the management/legal fees involved nevermind go towards decreasing the amount outstandin on the loan. :mad:

And i'm sure they'd still try and convince us that they were pursuing the developer vigorously as he suns himself abroad in one of many holiday homes in his wifes name

kuntboy

How much of that 45 Billion went out of the country in immigrant wages, imported building materials and local wages spent on foreign goods?

murphaph

kuntboy wrote: »

How much of that 45 Billion went out of the country in immigrant wages, imported building materials and local wages spent on foreign goods?

almost all of it is gone out of the country IMO, despite what many seem to think.

fontanalis

kuntboy wrote: »

How much of that 45 Billion went out of the country in immigrant wages, imported building materials and local wages spent on foreign goods?

I think the problem was there wasn't so much money but credit.

kuntboy

So they were paying wages in IOU's?

Japer

bamboozle wrote: »

i think its madness that we still have planning being granted for houses all over the country with so many lying vacant.

+1

Plus houses should be clustered around major towns, close to train / bus links, so its costs the country less when oil starts to run out / become really expensive.

p1akuw47h5r3it

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/research-more-than-300000-empty-houses-in-country-453890.html

Here is where the money disappeared to, what economists call a misalocation of capital

300,000 * 150K ( average price to build, i presume appartments be cheaper etc etc)

thats 45 billion euro (most likely all borrowed) that could have been spent elsewhere...

now i wonder how many of these end up in NAMA, and worse how many will be knocked down.

I dont understand what is gained by knocking the houses down!

Would NAMA not be better trying to sell the houses when (if) the housing market picks up.

What is gained from knocking all the houses down?

stepbar

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I dont understand what is gained by knocking the houses down!

Would NAMA not be better trying to sell the houses when (if) the housing market picks up.

What is gained from knocking all the houses down?

Many of these "houses" are in unfinished housing estates and of no use to anyone. It would cost a significant amount to put them right and probably far in excess of what the same house could be sold for.

I certainly hope they knock the white elephant that's a shrine to Anglo down in the Docklands (aka the "proposed" new Anglo headquarters).

Liam Byrne

One wonders where the supposed law of supply & demand fits in with the sudden emergence of all these 300,000 houses.....

.....I thought they were expensive because there weren't enough ?

Or was that yet another lie ?

The_Honeybadger

Liam Byrne wrote: »

One wonders where the supposed law of supply & demand fits in with the sudden emergence of all these 300,000 houses.....

.....I thought they were expensive because there weren't enough ?

Or was that yet another lie ?

They are / were expensive because of the Irish obsession with owning houses. Also estate agents & developers were very good at spinning the supposed shortage (which never really existed) during the boom, and the media lapped it up as they made vast fortunes in advertising and property supplements, and the gov did too as the stamp duty taxes flowed. It was the perfect pyramid scheme for years however the reality is now coming back to bite us on the a**e. I will be looking to build / buy in the next 5 years if my employment situation allows me to do so, however if they are still at todays prices I won't be touching a house, they are still madly overvalued judging by asking prices on the web.

Liam Byrne

mickeyk wrote: »

Also estate agents & developers were very good at spinning the supposed shortage (which never really existed) during the boom, and the media lapped it up as they made vast fortunes in advertising and property supplements, and the gov did too as the stamp duty taxes flowed.

Nail, head, I think.

Basically, we never had true capitalism in this country - just a group of powerful and connected vested interests.

When's the flight ban lifted so that I can find a country worth living in ?

Flamed Diving

Liam Byrne wrote: »

One wonders where the supposed law of supply & demand fits in with the sudden emergence of all these 300,000 houses.....

.....I thought they were expensive because there weren't enough ?

Or was that yet another lie ?

<insert facepalm>

RichardAnd

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I dont understand what is gained by knocking the houses down!

Would NAMA not be better trying to sell the houses when (if) the housing market picks up.

What is gained from knocking all the houses down?

No one wants them so they are taking upp land that could be used for ANYTHING else. They certainly won't sell because have a look at this...




...quite simply, no one of a sound state of mind will pay for one of these pieces of crap unless it is at a rock bottom price. Middle of no-where, no infrastructure, no jobs near by; useless.

NUIG_FiannaFail

There isn't 300,000 empty houses. The construction federation clearly states there is only 40,000

NUIG_FiannaFail

RichardAnd wrote: »

No one wants them so they are taking upp land that could be used for ANYTHING else. They certainly won't sell because have a look at this...




...quite simply, no one of a sound state of mind will pay for one of these pieces of crap unless it is at a rock bottom price. Middle of no-where, no infrastructure, no jobs near by; useless.

Building houses is good for the economy

hinault

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

There isn't 300,000 empty houses. The construction federation clearly states there is only 40,000

CIF would say that.
They were trotting out the lie as late as 2008 that more houses needed to be built.

changes

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

Building houses is good for the economy

Building to suit demand yes, but building and building and building is not good for the economy as we are learning the hard way.

flutered

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

Building houses is good for the economy

to most of the population it has been proven otherwise.

dan_d

Lots of things are good for the economy. Building your entire economy and maintaining it on a construction industry....is not good for the economy. In fact it's a disaster waiting to happen.
There will always be a certain level of construction at any given time. But the basis of entire economy was the construction industry. I'm no economist but you'd want to be living under a bush to not realise that that's not sustainable.A natural level will eventually be reached, but it is going to take ages, because so many people went into construction and the whole thing got so over-heated.
Knocking down houses is a plan I suppose, but what do we do with the land afterwards? Does it get used for something, or does it just stay derelict covered in rubble? In theory I suppose it's a good idea, but as with everything I just wonder has it been thought through. Those houses are certainly no good for anything else.

alias141282

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

Building houses is good for the economy

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

I can only presume you are taking the piss and trying to ridicule Fianna Fail.

stepbar

RichardAnd wrote: »

No one wants them so they are taking upp land that could be used for ANYTHING else. They certainly won't sell because have a look at this...




...quite simply, no one of a sound state of mind will pay for one of these pieces of crap unless it is at a rock bottom price. Middle of no-where, no infrastructure, no jobs near by; useless.

Eh, I take you haven't been through that village lately.... All those houses are nearly sold (and only because of massive price reductions). And furthermore I take you haven't a clue where that village is either. Because if you did, you'd know it's about 20 minutes from Mullingar.

What your point only goes to prove is that if the housing is available at the right price, people will buy.

cson

Probably been mentioned, but I'm interested in how the build quality of these units holds up in 5 or years time. I wonder will many snags surface?

Seth Brundle

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

Building houses is good for the economy

Aah right. And here is me thinking that the effects of the construction bubble are a bad thing. I suppose NAMA, etc. is as a result of the global recession and not disastrous leadership & cronyism!