"Ireland needs 30,000 new homes per year"

seamus

I didn't realise Sherry Fitzgerald had a sense of humour.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ireland-needs-30000-new-homes-per-year-520207.html

12/09/2011 - 12:08:59
Ireland will need to build over 30,000 new homes per year over the next 15 years, an economist has claimed.

Marian Finnegan of property auctioneer Sherry Fitzgerald told the National Housing Conference today that Ireland’s growing population would require substantial additional housing between now and 2026.

“The latest census figures show that Ireland’s population has risen to 4.58 million and it is expected to increase to 5.1 million people by 2026,” Ms Finnegan said.

“Based on this population growth we can anticipate that there will be a need for an average of 30,200 new homes to be built per year over the next 15 years.”

The conference, organised by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI), is taking place in Dublin Castle’s Conference Centre.

The comments come despite figures which show that there are more than 30,000 properties in the country which are either incomplete or vacant.

However RIAI President Paul Keogh said that the supply of empty units – many in so-called ‘ghost estates’ countrywide - would not meet future demand, as many were not located in growing centres of population.

“There is a perception that there are plenty of unoccupied housing units to meet the demand for new homes but that is not actually the case,” said Mr Keogh.

“It is projected that we will build around 10,000 units in 2012 – most of which are one-off houses in the countryside – yet the need for new homes is almost three times that and is concentrated in the Greater Dublin area where supply is expected to become quite limited from next year.

“So we need to start planning now to address the needs of our growing population for homes, schools, local shops and community infrastructure if we are not to face the type of major problems we have been facing over the last few years.”

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ireland-needs-30000-new-homes-per-year-520207.html#ixzz1XjuF21uD

While her population analysis is probably close enough, they're dismissing the 300,000 empty properties too easily. Her argument seems to be based on the idea that people want new properties specifically rather than just properties.

Do we know if the ghost estate make up a big portion of the empty properties, or are the majority of them reasonable properties in decent enough areas?

murphym7

I needed a good laugh today - that hit the spot.

Lantus

A lot of the empty units are in silly locations, no infrastructure, no shops, no community, no easy links to main places of work of business. They were built in a time when any house was seen as a castle of solid gold irrespective of any real tangible factors that might make it a good or often really really poor place to live.

A lot of the hideous planning decisions need to be bulldozed. We need to overhaul planning departments to stop this happening all again so that when the next growth spurt hits we all dont rush to the bogs with shovels screaming "I'm rich I'm rich!!"

unknownlegend

Lantus wrote: »

... so that when the next growth spurt hits we all dont rush to the bogs with shovels screaming "I'm rich I'm rich!!"

Clearly a case of vested interests. I take the point regarding the ghost estates being practically uninhabitable which would mean the more mature, infra-structurally sound areas would take on most of the demand. The case could probably also be made that why not put the services into place instead of bulldozing - wouldn't that be more cost effective if the demand that they claim materialises in the coming years (versus newbuilds)?

The article prompted me to think about one thing which I don't think I've seen discussed: what about the growing demographic of the elderly? I'm thinking in terms of OAP downsizing to smaller more manageable places... maybe some of the glut of apartments that are around could be of interest to them? This in turn would free up larger 'family' sized homes in more mature areas. In fact, I guess this may have a net effect of reducing prices in these areas? Time will tell.

jester77

Well, good for them as they already have a 10 year head start. Forward planning sometimes works :rolleyes:

RedXIV

unknownlegend wrote: »

The article prompted me to think about one thing which I don't think I've seen discussed: what about the growing demographic of the elderly? I'm thinking in terms of OAP downsizing to smaller more manageable places... maybe some of the glut of apartments that are around could be of interest to them? This in turn would free up larger 'family' sized homes in more mature areas. In fact, I guess this may have a net effect of reducing prices in these areas? Time will tell.

Thats actually one of the best ideas I've seen for these ghost estates. If you could set them up as retirement villages, then the things like a commute to work etc wouldn't be as important, instead concentrate on making things OAP friendly both in the houses and the surrounding area.

Fair play, great idea!

Joey the lips

These are the people bertie listened to.....

Build and they will come......


Problem is i think they came.....and went and all that is left... well mud on my face so to speak.

I would be interested in listening to the speach.

seamus

unknownlegend wrote: »

The article prompted me to think about one thing which I don't think I've seen discussed: what about the growing demographic of the elderly? I'm thinking in terms of OAP downsizing to smaller more manageable places... maybe some of the glut of apartments that are around could be of interest to them? This in turn would free up larger 'family' sized homes in more mature areas.

It's hard to say. Older people may be stuck with their homes (plenty of them went ahead getting large 10-year mortgages in their fifties and have gotten stuck). They may also be inclined to hold onto their current property so that it can be given to a child (who's stuck in a small home with their family) when they die, or they may do simple house-swaps where they take their child's 2-bed shoebox so that the child can live in a larger house with their own children.

It's hard to say what way it will go. Aside from the maintenance costs, there doesn't seem to be any specific benefit to downsizing. During the boom, downsizing allowed people to release huge amounts of equity in their homes - A million € or more in many cases. Those huge amounts don't really exist anymore. You might be lucky enough to get enough cash to buy a simple home and long holiday.

Theboinkmaster

Saw that and stopped reading after "Marian Finnegan of property auctioneer Sherry Fitzgerald told....."

J-blk

From the article:

the need for new homes is almost three times that and is concentrated in the Greater Dublin area where supply is expected to become quite limited from next year.

Translation: NOW is the time to buy!

Sheesh, amazing that they are still spouting this bullsh*t in 2011...

noxqs

So - where is this population growth coming from?

1. It ain't immigration - Ireland has net emigration at this time.

2. Who is having all these babies ? Reading my statistical charts, recessions are not usually baby boom times. Is Ireland different ? I honestly, don't know.

In fact - looking at the google graph from World Bank data (up to 2009 but I bet you, its not an upward trend now!):

http://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:IRL&dl=en&hl=en&q=irish+population+growth#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_grow&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:IRL&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

What a load of BS from an EA. Lies, lies, lies. I hope there is a special place in hell for estate agents and their like.

Edit: I have done some back of the envelope calculations and I have come to the conclusion that Sherry Fitzgerald assumes no one dies in Ireland from now until 2026 given current population growth. This is the only way a net emigration country like Ireland with a low birth rate as of today minus annual death rate can grow to that number. In any event this is hardly academic. Ping me when they release their methods and data sources.

OMD

noxqs wrote: »

Edit: I have done some back of the envelope calculations and I have come to the conclusion that Sherry Fitzgerald assumes no one dies in Ireland from now until 2026 given current population growth. This is the only way a net emigration country like Ireland with a low birth rate as of today minus annual death rate can grow to that number. In any event this is hardly academic. Ping me when they release their methods and data sources.

Irelands population is growing about 70,000 a year (Births + Migration minus deaths) .
Population 2006 4,239,848
Population 2011 4,581,269

That is total growth of 341,421 in last 5 years (Mainly bust times). 500,000 increase in next 15 years does not sound too extreme. It would mean a serious slow down in our population growth compared with the last 10 years

ShadowHearth

Emmm I think he wanted to say: " we need 30k social welfare houses ".

Some are poping children just, because it's financially it's better to have lots of kids and not to work.

Maybe we will need 30k new places, but I doubt there is a buying power to buy them.

SouperComputer

Pure. Comedic. Gold.

Weather these people "want" new or not isn't all that relevant. What's relevant is weather they can get a mortgage they can afford in order to finance it.

mikemac

Our village has a Section Twenty Three estate, still unfinished, thirty km to the nearest area with with many jobs.
Even during boom times there was no large employer in the local area. Spar shop is the biggest employer tbh

The houses are either going to the local authority waiting list or getting bulldozed.
And if they go to council tenants well I hope they drive as there is no bus service and the post office closed years ago

Madness to build an estate in a tiny village

The article is nonsense but it's true to say that there may be certain parts of Ireland with a housing need

noxqs

But according to the graph from the World Bank, see previous link, the population growth rate annually has dropped to 0.6% from 1.01%. That is very significant. So, which figure did they use to calculate this growth?

It's seems optimistic at best given current oversupply.

Example:

(2600000 * 1.006)-2600000 = 15,600 added to population given world bank figure of 2009 (for one year, I'm aware of compounding). Which I don't know if its higher or lower.

Given that emigration is currently higher than this number and that they are of optimal age to have children how does this impact future growth trends ?

And how does that compare to current oversupply ? Houses are actually still being built, an estate is finishing around the corner from here - and the foundation has been laid for another one (madness but oh well).

Just saying..

conorhal

RedXIV wrote: »

Thats actually one of the best ideas I've seen for these ghost estates. If you could set them up as retirement villages, then the things like a commute to work etc wouldn't be as important, instead concentrate on making things OAP friendly both in the houses and the surrounding area.

Fair play, great idea!

It's a hideous idea.

When I'm 85 I really don't intend on leaving the community and parish in which I have built my life and my home to go and live in a poorly built and poorly insulated ghost estate in Leitrim, about a two and a half hours drive from any hospital should I ever require medical attention, where I will have to endure 'rural isolation' miles from a shop or pub, just because you fancy a gaff in Blackrock.

It's this kind of self entitlement spawned by the Celtic tiger mentality that views a persons home as nothing more then a bricks and mortar asset. Why should older people be shunted out of their own homes and stuck 'out of sight and of mind' into a ghost estate?

I can tell you, when I hit 85 my attitude will be that I worked for it, I earned it, and whatever entitlement you may feel to it be damned, you can have the decency to wait until I'm dead before you get your grubby little hands on it!

Now get off my lawn!

desertcircus

That article beggars belief. The World bank data linked on the previous page indicates a sharp downward trend since 2008 and a probable negative net growth rate from 2010 onwards. It's embarrassing how this gets reported seriously - a sensible news organisation would be running with a headline of "Estate Agents Still In Denial, Ignoring Basic Reality".

ZYX

desertcircus wrote: »

That article beggars belief. The World bank data linked on the previous page indicates a sharp downward trend since 2008 and a probable negative net growth rate from 2010 onwards. It's embarrassing how this gets reported seriously - a sensible news organisation would be running with a headline of "Estate Agents Still In Denial, Ignoring Basic Reality".

The world bank data on the previous page is based on guesswork. The census is carried out every 5 years, the last one done this year. Population figures between censuses are just guesses. Our population is rising at a pretty fast rate. You can argue the need for houses but the population estimates for 2016 are pretty sound and may in fact be underestimates.

desertcircus

ZYX wrote: »

The world bank data on the previous page is based on guesswork. The census is carried out every 5 years, the last one done this year. Population figures between censuses are just guesses. Our population is rising at a pretty fast rate. You can argue the need for houses but the population estimates for 2016 are pretty sound and may in fact be underestimates.

I'm not buying this. We don't know what proportion of population growth occurred prior to the bursting of the bubble and what happened subsequent. All we know from the census is that the population grew between 2006 and 2011. The World Bank aren't exactly pulling numbers out of their arses, so I don't see why we should disbelieve them on this. A quarter of births in 2009 were to mothers born outside the state - the group most likely to have left the country since. It would make no sense for our population to keep growing at the same rate from 2011 to 2016 as from 2006 to 2011; at least half of the earlier period was in boomtime, with higher birth rates and net inward migration. Reduce the birthrate and introduce net outward migration (and the second feeds into the first, as migrants tend to be younger and more fertile) and we'll probably see very different figures.

Bearing in mind that from 1982 to 1997, Irish population growth only cleared 1% in a single year. We now have free movement in the EU making emigration easier, more liberal contraception laws enabling people to limit the number of children they decide to have, and unemployment at its highest rate in decades. In that 82-97 period, the population went up by two hundred thousand people - when condoms were illegal, free movement didn't exist, and educational levels were significantly lower than now. The population projection Sherry Fitzgerald are presenting is anticipating two and a half times that growth, with people of reproductive age better equipped to emigrate than before and better equipped to use contraception than before.

ZYX

desertcircus wrote: »

I'm not buying this. We don't know what proportion of population growth occurred prior to the bursting of the bubble and what happened subsequent. All we know from the census is that the population grew between 2006 and 2011. The World Bank aren't exactly pulling numbers out of their arses, so I don't see why we should disbelieve them on this.

The World Bank get their figures from the CSO. The CSO release estimates every year which the World Bank and other organisations use. These estimates are reported every year and are regularly quoted on this website. Then every 5 years the CSO does a census and releases correct figures. They released these figures a few months ago and are therefore far more accurate than the previous estimates released by the CSO. The CSO at the time acknowledged its previous estimates were wrong.
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/population/current/poppro.pdf

RedXIV

conorhal wrote: »

It's a hideous idea.

When I'm 85 I really don't intend on leaving the community and parish in which I have built my life and my home to go and live in a poorly built and poorly insulated ghost estate in Leitrim, about a two and a half hours drive from any hospital should I ever require medical attention, where I will have to endure 'rural isolation' miles from a shop or pub, just because you fancy a gaff in Blackrock.

It's this kind of self entitlement spawned by the Celtic tiger mentality that views a persons home as nothing more then a bricks and mortar asset. Why should older people be shunted out of their own homes and stuck 'out of sight and of mind' into a ghost estate?

I can tell you, when I hit 85 my attitude will be that I worked for it, I earned it, and whatever entitlement you may feel to it be damned, you can have the decency to wait until I'm dead before you get your grubby little hands on it!

Now get off my lawn!

hey if you want to stay put, go for it.

I'm thinking of the model seen in America, where there is plenty for the elderly to do (including pubs ) and its built to make the twilight years more enjoyable. Some people may prefer that, and I can't think of anything better to go with a "ghost estate" that may be in a very picturesque part of the country

desertcircus

ZYX wrote: »

The World Bank get their figures from the CSO. The CSO release estimates every year which the World Bank and other organisations use. These estimates are reported every year and are regularly quoted on this website. Then every 5 years the CSO does a census and releases correct figures. They released these figures a few months ago and are therefore far more accurate than the previous estimates released by the CSO. The CSO at the time acknowledged its previous estimates were wrong.
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/population/current/poppro.pdf

That would mean Sherry Fitzgerald were either high or simply lying when they talked about increased need for housing in Dublin, given that that document specifies that Dublin is projected to decline by 100,000 over those fifteen years...

ZYX

desertcircus wrote: »

[
That would mean Sherry Fitzgerald were either high or simply lying when they talked about increased need for housing in Dublin, given that that document specifies that Dublin is projected to decline by 100,000 over those fifteen years...

Greater Dublin Area population is expected to increase by almost half.

desertcircus

"Dublin’s population is projected to decline by just over 100,000 under
the M0F1 Recent scenario – the only region projected to show a
population decline in the period to 2026."

ZYX

desertcircus wrote: »

"Dublin’s population is projected to decline by just over 100,000 under
the M0F1 Recent scenario – the only region projected to show a
population decline in the period to 2026."

You are only reading part of the report