What will happen to all the new/empty houses after another 5 years?

Essien

As the title says...

What do people expect will happen to all the new/unfinished houses currently lying empty around Ireland? (I've just said 5 years as an example btw, if your opinion relates to a shorter or longer time-frame feel free to share)

I was on the verge of buying one of them last year, thank god I didn't, and I've decided to stay put and earn interest rather than pay it.

Anyway, will a lot of them become uninhabitable after a few years of being left idle and just be knocked?

Will the prices continue to drop until they are all sold?

Will NAMA sell them off for feck all?

Will they end up as council houses?

I will eventually buy in Ireland when I go back there (it's still home, no matter how fucked it is) so ultimately I think I'm just looking for a rough guide of what I should expect to see on the market after a few years.


FTR, I don't expect anyone to look into a crystal ball, this thread is all about guesstimation

Zamboni

I don't think 'a lot' of them will ever be sold.
I believe that spineless banks and governments over the next decade will allow most of them to rot and be demolished in the future, rather than allow all of that supply hit the market and drag it down to where it really belongs.

In the meantime they can falsify their balance sheets with imaginary numbers.
The true meaning of Long Term Economic Value = Ignoring actual losses for as long as it takes.

Essien

Zamboni wrote: »

I don't think 'a lot' of them will ever be sold.
I believe that spineless banks and governments over the next decade will allow most of them to rot and be demolished in the future, rather than allow all of that supply hit the market and drag it down to where it really belongs.

In the meantime they can falsify their balance sheets with imaginary numbers.
The true meaning of Long Term Economic Value = Ignoring actual losses for as long as it takes.

That's an awful prospect. One thing I've never understood is just how it would be in the interest of...well anyone, to let these houses rot.

Is there some benefit to letting that happen or is it just a case of people in power being too greedy, stubborn etc to just bite the bullet and allow prices to fall naturally?

Snakeblood

Essien wrote: »

That's an awful prospect. One thing I've never understood is just how it would be in the interest of...well anyone, to let these houses rot.

Is there some benefit to letting that happen or is it just a case of people in power being too greedy, stubborn etc to just bite the bullet and allow prices to fall naturally?

A lot of the houses are in places were people simply don't want to live, I suppose. There'd be little to gain by keeping them. I mean, you see pictures where there's 3 houses in the middle of a field in the arse end of nowhere, where no one in their right mind would have built, or bought. That sort of thing should really go.

Although I think the lion's share of demolition will be to prop up property prices, there's legitimate cases for 'why did they build that'.

BO-JANGLES

I live in a semi detached house and the house adjoining mine is and always has been vacant. The back garden is just a dumping ground for everyone in the area.

Really annoys me. Wonder do I have any rights to claiming the property as the builder has never been on site in last five years to finish and never replies to my calls regarding the state of this house.

Any advice welcome!

Milk & Honey

You have no right to claim the property. You should complain to the local council and get them to use their powers under the Derelict Sites Act.

bladebrew

i think the demolition of houses was mentioned in the news during the week, it may have been in wexford, i read it on breakingnews.ie,
i can see that happening to a lot of these places, as mentioned some are in places that nobody wants to live/no jobs etc,

they cant release them on the market,
and i see it mentioned a lot, all the homeless people and all the empty houses in the country
you cant really just give them away either that would piss off a lot of people,

headmaster

Essien,
a great question and no doubt some of those houses are at the point of no return right now, worse still, winter's on the way. Happened to overhear a sort of conversation recently in a large town cafe/bar. It revolved around a big estate of 50 or so of these houses and one of the people mentioned, what would happen if they were set on fire. Needless to say, the other person answered that it was one way to bring it to a head. One way or another, it's going to be resolved and it's not going to suit everyone. Mcguire and Patterson could be very busy if the houses are insured, if they're not, well who the hell cares?

not even wrong

BO-JANGLES wrote: »

Really annoys me. Wonder do I have any rights to claiming the property as the builder has never been on site in last five years to finish and never replies to my calls regarding the state of this house.

Any advice welcome!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

Villa05

bladebrew wrote: »

i think the demolition of houses was mentioned in the news during the week, it may have been in wexford, i read it on breakingnews.ie,
i can see that happening to a lot of these places, as mentioned some are in places that nobody wants to live/no jobs etc,

they cant release them on the market,
and i see it mentioned a lot, all the homeless people and all the empty houses in the country
you cant really just give them away either that would piss off a lot of people,

I believe that the cost of demolishing is between 40 to 50k per unit. Could this money be used to finish the units and use them as low cost holiday lets, retirement villages, nursing homes e.t.c.

foxy06

Villa05 wrote: »

bladebrew wrote: »

i think the demolition of houses was mentioned in the news during the week, it may have been in wexford, i read it on breakingnews.ie,
i can see that happening to a lot of these places, as mentioned some are in places that nobody wants to live/no jobs etc,

they cant release them on the market,
and i see it mentioned a lot, all the homeless people and all the empty houses in the country
you cant really just give them away either that would piss off a lot of people,

I believe that the cost of demolishing is between 40 to 50k per unit. Could this money be used to finish the units and use them as low cost holiday lets, retirement villages, nursing homes e.t.c.

How the hell can it cost 50k to knock down one house?

gozunda

A bit like any structure left to nature....



LINK
In our climate and without heat and maintenance, house materials start to break down quite quickly (<five years)

Blocked gutters, weather and vandalism will many of these houses unusable within quite a short time.

The rising value of metals on the world market has resulted in many of these houses being targeted by thieves especially the copper piping and tanks. Resulting flooding has caused serious damage to many of these structures

There is a real oppoertunity here for someone with resources to start offering a complete demolition / recycling service to local authorities or NAMA to recoup at least some value for these otherwise unsalable properties

The recycled materials if properly extracted can be exported or resold for money providing a clean up service at the same time. Rubble produced can be past back into the construction indusrty to where it many be needed and remedial works carried out on these sites that have now become major health and safety concerns...

Del2005

Villa05 wrote: »

I believe that the cost of demolishing is between 40 to 50k per unit.

It's no way going to cost 50k per unit if in an estate. But it's better to spend that to return some of our countryside to it's semi natural state then leave blots on it.

Villa05 wrote: »

Could this money be used to finish the units and use them as low cost holiday lets, retirement villages, nursing homes e.t.c.

Most of them are hardly suitable as family houses never mind nursing homes or retirement villages.

They are usually in places no one wants to live, no shops/transport, so they're also unsuitable for holiday lets, we have too many holiday villages destroying our countryside to let more stay.

The only possible solution would be to move people from multiple ghosts estates to one or two per county/locality fully finish these, provide decent infrastructure, and then demolish the rest. But that's not going to happen.

gozunda

From Citizens Information

LINK

All local authorities in Ireland are responsible for dealing with derelict sites and dangerous structures in their area. The Derelict Sites Act, 1990 and the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1964 can be used by local authorities to force owners to clean up these sites. Both acts allow local authorities to prosecute owners who do not comply with notices served, to keep registers of all derelict sites and dangerous structures, to purchase land compulsorily and to carry out necessary work themselves and charge the owners for the cost.
You are required by law to make sure your property does not become derelict or contain any dangerous structures. If it does, you must take steps to remedy the situation. Otherwise, you are liable for prosecution by your local authority.

Mr. Presentable

bladebrew wrote: »

i think the demolition of houses was mentioned in the news during the week, it may have been in wexford, i read it on breakingnews.ie,
i can see that happening to a lot of these places, as mentioned some are in places that nobody wants to live/no jobs etc,

they cant release them on the market,
and i see it mentioned a lot, all the homeless people and all the empty houses in the country
you cant really just give them away either that would piss off a lot of people,

Nobody, not even homeless people, wants to live in Leitrim or Longford.

johndaman66

bladebrew wrote: »

i think the demolition of houses was mentioned in the news during the week, it may have been in wexford, i read it on breakingnews.ie,
i can see that happening to a lot of these places, as mentioned some are in places that nobody wants to live/no jobs etc,

they cant release them on the market,
and i see it mentioned a lot, all the homeless people and all the empty houses in the country
you cant really just give them away either that would piss off a lot of people,

Just as the wholesale building of these houses was shortsighted so too is shortsighted to go on an all out frenzy of knocking them. Granted it probably will be necessary in certain cases but these will be limited I think.

There is no doubt in my mind that they will shift at a certain price. It might be a hell of a lot lower on what it cost to build the unit in many cases but so be it. If they are put on the market and the price dropped in increments until they shift I'm sure they will shift eventually. Or else well advertised public auctions and whatever price they clear at, then so be it, even if it means somebody acquiring a 3 bed semi-d for €20k. They aren't just giving em away then. If it pisses people off because they paid hugh multiples of such figures for similar houses back in 2005 or whenever, well thats their tough/ unfortunate luck.

Some of these houses may have the odd smashed window here and there, the odd one with rodent problems, some where the hot water cylinder will have being nicked...such issues can be easliy rectified... doesn't necessairly warrant knocking the house.

I suppose overall a cost benefit analysis will need to be carefully carried out. The cost/benefit accrued from finishing off such houses and selling them at whatever they clear for or selling them in their current state at whatever they clear for versus the cost/benefit accrued from knocking them (obviously NAMA has a massive supply of property on its books so knocking some of these units will have a positive impact on the supply/demand equation from their point of view). Of course it should be an exercise that should be carried out prudently.

Another thought is that the government intend to reduce and eventually abolish rent allowance. I can foresee that a growing number of people on rent allowance will end up being subsidised by the government under a different heading eventually as more and more special needs cases are submitted by people who simply cannot pay rent, ending up in shelters or living with friends/ family in undesireable living arrangements. Why not hold onto these empty units as a contingency? Hardly fair I know but chances are the taxpayer would end up subsidising these people in one way or another anyway...this way they may not end up being as big a financial burden on the exchecker and many may be able to make a contribution for that matter by paying a small rent on an otherwise vacant property.

Del2005

johndaman66 wrote: »

Just as the wholesale building of these houses was shortsighted so too is shortsighted to go on an all out frenzy of knocking them. Granted it probably will be necessary in certain cases but these will be limited I think.

There is no doubt in my mind that they will shift at a certain price. It might be a hell of a lot lower on what it cost to build the unit in many cases but so be it. If they are put on the market and the price dropped in increments until they shift I'm sure they will shift eventually. Or else well advertised public auctions and whatever price they clear at, then so be it, even if it means somebody acquiring a 3 bed semi-d for €20k. They aren't just giving em away then. If it pisses people off because they paid hugh multiples of such figures for similar houses back in 2005 or whenever, well thats their tough/ unfortunate luck.

Some of these houses may have the odd smashed window here and there, the odd one with rodent problems, some where the hot water cylinder will have being nicked...such issues can be easliy rectified... doesn't necessairly warrant knocking the house.

I suppose overall a cost benefit analysis will need to be carefully carried out. The cost/benefit accrued from finishing off such houses and selling them at whatever they clear for or selling them in their current state at whatever they clear for versus the cost/benefit accrued from knocking them (obviously NAMA has a massive supply of property on its books so knocking some of these units will have a positive impact on the supply/demand equation from their point of view). Of course it should be an exercise that should be carried out prudently.

Another thought is that the government intend to reduce and eventually abolish rent allowance. I can foresee that a growing number of people on rent allowance will end up being subsidised by the government under a different heading eventually as more and more special needs cases are submitted by people who simply cannot pay rent, ending up in shelters or living with friends/ family in undesireable living arrangements. Why not hold onto these empty units as a contingency? Hardly fair I know but chances are the taxpayer would end up subsidising these people in one way or another anyway...this way they may not end up being as big a financial burden on the exchecker and many may be able to make a contribution for that matter by paying a small rent on an otherwise vacant property.

The problem is that they cost money to be maintained and secured. We can't keep pumping more cash into most of these. There are some in the larger towns and cities which can and should be saved. The majority in the countryside, unless within 500m of a decent sized town, should be bulldozed back to farm land.

We've made a complete mess of our land there is no point in continuing it, no more building outside of towns/villages. Lets start getting people centralised so it's affordable to provide facilities and transport links.

If people didn't want to buy these houses/apartments in the boom there's no chance of people wanting to live in the middle of nowhere now. We've already seen what happens when people are dumped into undeveloped areas.

Firetrap

Does it really cost that much to get rid of a unit? :eek:

johndaman66

Del2005 wrote: »

The problem is that they cost money to be maintained and secured. We can't keep pumping more cash into most of these. There are some in the larger towns and cities which can and should be saved. The majority in the countryside, unless within 500m of a decent sized town, should be bulldozed back to farm land.

We've made a complete mess of our land there is no point in continuing it, no more building outside of towns/villages. Lets start getting people centralised so it's affordable to provide facilities and transport links.

I do agree with you which is why a cost benefit analysis needs to be done as part of the exercise, as I mentioned in my previous post. No one rule will be applicable to all of these estates and they will need to be looked at on a case by case basis. I would suggest that there are more than you might imagine in the countryside that could be saved. There are still jobs and househunters in the countryside too you know despite everything. Some people rather country living regardless of their job locations. Having said that there is no doubt in my mind that a large wallop of poorly constructed and half constructed property, some of which may have being compromised as a result of being exposed to the elements, should and will eventually be demolished, both in the countryside and in cities/ urban areas. Remember there is an absolute glut of vacant properties in towns and cities too..perhaps its a more serious problem than in the countryside, where vacant properties really stand out. You will not convince everybody to move into the cities and towns and you are never too severly far from an urban area in this country regardless of your countryside location

Del2005 wrote: »

If people didn't want to buy these houses/apartments in the boom there's no chance of people wanting to live in the middle of nowhere now. We've already seen what happens when people are dumped into undeveloped areas.

Maybe that was more to do with silly asking prices than location per se. As I already mentioned there is also an absolute glut of property that people did not buy in cities and built up areas dring the boom years. As I mentioned in my previous post I believe almost everyting will clear at a certain price. It might be very low but it will shift at a certain price all the same.

Just to use an unfinished estate in a countryside town not too far away from me as an example. To my untrained eye it would seem that the structure of the houses are complete apart from windows. I would imagine services are already in place only to be connected. Footpaths are laid. Other than that it would seem that roadways around the estate need to be tarred and minimal landscaping to bring the houses to turnkey condition. I'm by no means a quantity surveyor but would imagine it would cost as much if not more to demolish the houses and return to green fields than it would to complete them. Again I'm no expert but would question if this land would be suitable for agriculture after as would imagine watertables would be upset and what not...I'm open to correction/ being properly informed on that one though.

I know there are many people who commute a hell of a lot further to and from Limerick city on a daily basis than the distance this town is from Limerick. As such I feel that there is absolutely no doubt that these houses will clear at a certain price.

I do appreciate that the government will need to act fast enough in certain cases where half finished housing units are being compromised by the elements. But that does not mean any less credible results assuming the exercise is independantly carried out in a professional and unbiased manner...just a case of prioritising certain estates over others...

johndaman66

Firetrap wrote: »

Does it really cost that much to get rid of a unit? :eek:

I would suggest that it costs more than many people might imagine. I have a friend who worked with a demolition firm for a spell so would have a bit of an idea on this one!

Villa05

Firetrap wrote: »

Does it really cost that much to get rid of a unit? :eek:

Just double checked Quotes of 35k per house mentioned for demolishing - Source Limerick regeneration

bladebrew

well it would always be a better option to have them lived in, i would think some of these estates would need a good deal of money to get them to the selling stage and whoever takes on the job may never make all their money back with prices still going down,
its a tricky situation though, i didnt realise demolition would cost so much,
the problem is the longer they are left empty the more money it will take to make them liveable

johndaman66

Villa05 wrote: »

Just double checked Quotes of 35k per house mentioned for demolishing - Source Limerick regeneration

I was actually going to check with my friend next time I was on the phone to him and post up some ballpark figures. He used to be mentioning prices of jobs to me all the time when he worked with the demolition firm but as they were of no interest to me they sort of went in one ear and out the other. It was mainly the demolition of commercial buildings he was involved in but I do specifically remember him mentioning a figure of €25k to demolish and dispose of the rubble of a small cottage. Hence I would guess the figure of €35 per house is a pretty good guide.

On top of that roadways would need to be lifted and all replaced with topsoil. Would we be talking a figure of circa half a million for and estate of 10 houses I'm guessing?

Essien

johndaman66 wrote: »

On top of that roadways would need to be lifted and all replaced with topsoil. Would we be talking a figure of circa half a million for and estate of 10 houses I'm guessing?

Half a million would surely go a long way towards fixing up an estate of 10 houses. Even if you had to throw a few quid on top at least you would have an end product of 10 houses in turnkey condition.

I know you were guessing at 500k but even if it only cost half of that the same would still apply.

Also, if this were to happen, who pays the demolition costs?

johndaman66

Essien wrote: »

Half a million would surely go a long way towards fixing up an estate of 10 houses. Even if you had to throw a few quid on top at least you would have an end product of 10 houses in turnkey condition.

I know you were guessing at 500k but even if it only cost half of that the same would still apply.

Totally. As you have pointed out it is important to remember my figure is a total estimate and a rough one at that but if the figure is in the range I would imagine it would be less costly to finish houses to a builders finish in very very many cases. A hugh lot are practically at that stage already bar some plastering/ internal doors/ skirting/ archatrives/ footpaths etc. A lot more are probably at a builders finish state already. It is why I think knocking perfectly good practically built houses is a last resort at all costs. In particular I would think people living in substandard accommodation would find it shameful to say the least.

Essien wrote: »

Also, if this were to happen, who pays the demolition costs?

Thats another question. I'm sure the taxpayer would ultimately end up footing the bill one way or another.

aquaman

If the price is right the houses will sell. So sold they should be. The sooner the better too. There is no point waiting until the economy turns around as the buildings will significantly materially delapidate in that time.


There are very few of these estates "out in the countryside" The majority are in towns or villages (often unsuitable house types for villages, however they are there).

Environmentally it would be madness to knock all these buildings then extract natural resources to rebuild new houses as required. Apart from the material they are made of there is the energy used to construct them, this is significant.
If they are constructed then generally the utility services are already in place to serve them as planning is granted on this basis.

The only reason not to sell them off is to try to artifically sustain high prices. This is the logic that got a lot of people into financial difficulty and should not be continued.

Breise Breise

Here is an opinion piece that I wrote for an Irish magazine in Australia. The map illustrates exactly what one member has already posted, that houses were being built in very remote parts of Ireland. The builders, banks and the government all made money out of the housing boom in Ireland, the builders on sales, the banks on loans and the government on stamp duty for each house sold. It was essentially an artifical housing boom.

Please read the article and feel free to leave a comment,
http://breisebreiseleighgoleire1969.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/that-is-no-country-for-old-men/

Thanks

gozunda

Breise Breise wrote: »

Here is an opinion piece that I wrote for an Irish magazine in Australia. The map illustrates exactly what one member has already posted, that houses were being built in very remote parts of Ireland. The builders, banks and the government all made money out of the housing boom in Ireland, the builders on sales, the banks on loans and the government on stamp duty for each house sold. It was essentially an artifical housing boom.

Please read the article and feel free to leave a comment,
http://breisebreiseleighgoleire1969.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/that-is-no-country-for-old-men/

Thanks

Excellent piece on speculative building...
Btw I is guilty as charged I used your photo to highlight the ravages of time on new buildings.... (but I did give a link )

The problem with these developments is not just the daft locations, the half built houses, the unfinished infastructure such as sewage disposal plants, roads and lighting etc it is also the fact that they were built without reference to need or proper planning consideration. This coupled with the fact that any building left for even a short time starts to rapidly deteriote means that many of the buildings if not knocked down will become homes for vandals and the very remote olaces the local wildlife.

How many people are aware of the abandoned houses in the countryside from the 1960's and 1970's? Ireland has a grand ol tradition of houses lying crumbling into the ground. From mansions, to cottages and even the ubiqitous bungalow there are thousands of ruined properties already out there....looks like we have more subject matter for another photographic coffee table book. Anyone got a good camera?

jackiebaron

foxy06 wrote: »

How the hell can it cost 50k to knock down one house?

Indeed. You can get a bag of fertiliser for about a fiver. Blast-cap, wiring and detonator cost about the same. The quarter pound of semtex is costly enough but still only about 50 quid, so all in all you could have the house reduced to powder for less than 100 quid.

sh1tstirrer

Snakeblood wrote: »

A lot of the houses are in places were people simply don't want to live, I suppose. There'd be little to gain by keeping them. I mean, you see pictures where there's 3 houses in the middle of a field in the arse end of nowhere, where no one in their right mind would have built, or bought. That sort of thing should really go.

Although I think the lion's share of demolition will be to prop up property prices, there's legitimate cases for 'why did they build that'.

I wonder is there any way they could be uprooted and moved to Dublin where everyone wants to live :rolleyes:

jackiebaron

I was just thinking. The biggest problem with most of these ghost estates is that they are in the arsehole of nowhere, i.e. they are not near any amenities. Instead of them being nowhere near infrastructure, why not "bring infrastructure to them"?

What I mean is take the largest of these ghost estates and then build a regional technical college right beside them with a few shops, laundromat and playing field. That way then all the empty houses can be facelifted as student accomodation. Obviously there's only so many colleges a country can have but if the likes of the universities that we already have are turning away foreign students in their droves because of a shortage of places then surely a few more institutes of high learning dotted around the country wouldn't go amiss with an already ready supply of lodgings.

Just a thought.

Also Mountjoy should be shutdown and you could put all the inmates in one of these ghost estates with a big concentration camp-style fence around it. Not ideal but at least it would address the overcrowding and "slopping out" problem.

Zamboni

jackiebaron wrote: »

Also Mountjoy should be shutdown and you could put all the inmates in one of these ghost estates with a big concentration camp-style fence around it. Not ideal but at least it would address the overcrowding and "slopping out" problem.

Aye.
Perfect for non violent offenders like unpaid fines etc and people who don't let the ESB access their property...

sh1tstirrer

jackiebaron wrote: »

I was just thinking. The biggest problem with most of these ghost estates is that they are in the arsehole of nowhere, i.e. they are not near any amenities. Instead of them being nowhere near infrastructure, why not "bring infrastructure to them"?

What I mean is take the largest of these ghost estates and then build a regional technical college right beside them with a few shops, laundromat and playing field. That way then all the empty houses can be facelifted as student accomodation. Obviously there's only so many colleges a country can have but if the likes of the universities that we already have are turning away foreign students in their droves because of a shortage of places then surely a few more institutes of high learning dotted around the country wouldn't go amiss with an already ready supply of lodgings.

Just a thought.

Also Mountjoy should be shutdown and you could put all the inmates in one of these ghost estates with a big concentration camp-style fence around it. Not ideal but at least it would address the overcrowding and "slopping out" problem.

Where exactly are these estates in the middle of nowhere? Any I see are in towns and villages with schools, shops and pubs nearby. Using housing estates as substitutes for a prisons now that is a silly idea. Do you realize what it would cost to run them :rolleyes: It costs 70k/year to keep each prisoner as it is, your brainwave would double that figure

miss no stars

johndaman66 wrote: »

Just as the wholesale building of these houses was shortsighted so too is shortsighted to go on an all out frenzy of knocking them. Granted it probably will be necessary in certain cases but these will be limited I think.

There is no doubt in my mind that they will shift at a certain price. ...

...Some of these houses may have the odd smashed window here and there, the odd one with rodent problems, some where the hot water cylinder will have being nicked...such issues can be easliy rectified... doesn't necessairly warrant knocking the house.

The odd smashed window? Making it not weather tight. Rain gets in and wets all the timber elements - bye bye timber elements - all need replacing. Roof is then comprimised, water gets in all down walls and gets into the mortar. Winter hits and water in mortar freezes, cracking everywhere. CBA is right - it'd probably cost less to knock them than to carry out remedial works!

johndaman66 wrote: »

I would suggest that there are more than you might imagine in the countryside that could be saved. There are still jobs and househunters in the countryside too you know despite everything. Some people rather country living regardless of their job locations.

Doubt it. They've been left out to rot for quite a long time now already.

johndaman66 wrote: »

Having said that there is no doubt in my mind that a large wallop of poorly constructed and half constructed property, some of which may have being compromised as a result of being exposed to the elements, should and will eventually be demolished, both in the countryside and in cities/ urban areas. Remember there is an absolute glut of vacant properties in towns and cities too..perhaps its a more serious problem than in the countryside, where vacant properties really stand out. You will not convince everybody to move into the cities and towns and you are never too severly far from an urban area in this country regardless of your countryside location

Precisely. Any that aren't weather tight are at this stage a long way from habitable or safe.

By the way, it's not just the next few years we're talking about here. People should be able to buy a house and expect to be able to live in it for 50 years with only minor upgrades -no big structural work in that time unless they want to change it up a bit. Those houses might stand now - there's no guarantee that they'll still stand 20 years down the line without major rehabilitation works done now.

johndaman66 wrote: »

Just to use an unfinished estate in a countryside town not too far away from me as an example. To my untrained eye it would seem that the structure of the houses are complete apart from windows. I would imagine services are already in place only to be connected. Footpaths are laid. Other than that it would seem that roadways around the estate need to be tarred and minimal landscaping to bring the houses to turnkey condition. I'm by no means a quantity surveyor but would imagine it would cost as much if not more to demolish the houses and return to green fields than it would to complete them. Again I'm no expert but would question if this land would be suitable for agriculture after as would imagine watertables would be upset and what not...I'm open to correction/ being properly informed on that one though.

So they aren't weather tight. Structure being complete doesn't mean that the structure is safe after being left to the elements. We're not talking about fixing up the plaster work here, we're talking about repair to the structure itself. That WILL cost, but yeah a CBA would need to be carried out to determine whether pumping 40k into demolishing it is better than pumping 80k into fixing it and selling it at a price at which it WILL sell.

johndaman66 wrote: »

I know there are many people who commute a hell of a lot further to and from Limerick city on a daily basis than the distance this town is from Limerick. As such I feel that there is absolutely no doubt that these houses will clear at a certain price.

I do appreciate that the government will need to act fast enough in certain cases where half finished housing units are being compromised by the elements. But that does not mean any less credible results assuming the exercise is independantly carried out in a professional and unbiased manner...just a case of prioritising certain estates over others...

You said it yourself.

Breise Breise wrote: »

Here is an opinion piece that I wrote for an Irish magazine in Australia. The map illustrates exactly what one member has already posted, that houses were being built in very remote parts of Ireland. The builders, banks and the government all made money out of the housing boom in Ireland, the builders on sales, the banks on loans and the government on stamp duty for each house sold. It was essentially an artifical housing boom.

Please read the article and feel free to leave a comment,
http://breisebreiseleighgoleire1969.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/that-is-no-country-for-old-men/

Thanks

More here: http://www.cif.ie/news-events/current-news/new-housing-supply-data-for-every-county/


Personally I think the best thing to do is offer entire unfinished estates up for sale at minimal price. In the countryside say put them up for sale at 20 euro an acre under the provision that they must be returned to farmable land (or prior use if it wasn't a farm beforehand, say forested area). In built up areas you could sell for maybe 50 euro an acre with the provision that the land be returned to former (or similar) useage. So if it used to have 5 inhabited houses on it and now has 40, return it to 4-8 decent sized, well finished, habitable houses. If its use had been industrial but there are now lots of inhabited housing areas around, change use to small scale commercial or small scale industrial. That way the new owner bears the brunt of the demolition cost, communities benefit from the bloody things being gone and something appropriate back in their place, the state benefits as it's no longer their problem, they've recouped SOME costs.

BostonB

They should should be strip some of them, to finish other ones, it has to be cheaper than building new. Use them for social housing where appropriate. Then demolish whats left.

Monty Burnz

Interesting that we've gone from a situation where people thought they'd be priced out of the market and panic-bought places miles away from their work for crazy prices, to the current situation where many of these properties actually have negative value - it would be cheaper for the authorities to give you some money plus the deeds to the house for free than have to destroy them.

BostonB

True.

gozunda

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Interesting that we've gone from a situation where people thought they'd be priced out of the market and panic-bought places miles away from their work for crazy prices, to the current situation where many of these properties actually have negative value - it would be cheaper for the authorities to give you some money plus the deeds to the house for free than have to destroy them.

The problem with this scenario is that thses houses dont exist in isolation. They are in estates. Its mot just the houses that are unfinished and deteriorating, the roads, pathways, sewage systems, piping, lighting etc of the esates as w hole lie in various stages of completion varying from significant health and safety concerns to estates that simply cant be lived in because there is no sewage system to connect to...roads that cant be driven on....green areas that look like the battle of the somme and that many of the units are rapidly deteriorating. Leave a house (esp a new built one) not weatherproofed or completed and without heating to dry new plaster etc and these houses become unlivable in very very quickly.

Monty Burnz

gozunda wrote: »

The problem with this scenario is that thses houses dont exist in isolation. They are in estates. Its mot just the houses that are unfinished and deteriorating, the roads, pathways, sewage systems, piping, lighting etc of the esates as w hole lie in various stages of completion varying from significant health and safety concerns to estates that simply cant be lived in because there is no sewage system to connect to...roads that cant be driven on....green areas that look like the battle of the somme and that many of the units are rapidly deteriorating. Leave a house (esp a new built one) not weatherproofed or completed and without heating to dry new plaster etc and these houses become unlivable in very very quickly.

I'm not even referring to the unfinished houses - I think there are built houses with negative value out there!

gozunda

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not even referring to the unfinished houses - I think there are built houses with negative value out there!

I think that most individuals who bouht houses in the last couple of years are in negative equity -- I am refering to "cheaper for the authorities to give you some money plus the deeds to the house for free than have to destroy them"

Even where some of the the houses may be finished the infastructure of the estate is often not and the houses unlived in and unheated start to detiorate quickly.

The completly finished estates with finished houses generally are not the ones with the problem...these can be easily leased / sold / local authority use etc. Its the other unfinished houses in unfinished estates that make up the bulk of the problem

Monty Burnz

When I say 'negative value', I mean that you couldn't even give them away and expect people to maintain them. I'm suggesting that you might have to say to somebody, 'we'll give you 10k plus the house if you undertake to maintain if for the next 10 years' or whatever. Without agreeing a contract for the underlined part, people would take the freebie houses and many would just let them rot, causing others to abandon and let theirs rot and so on...

gozunda

Monty Burnz wrote: »

When I say 'negative value', I mean that you couldn't even give them away and expect people to maintain them. I'm suggesting that you might have to say to somebody, 'we'll give you 10k plus the house if you undertake to maintain if for the next 10 years' or whatever. Without agreeing a contract for the underlined part, people would take the freebie houses and many would just let them rot, causing others to abandon and let theirs rot and so on...

OK understand however the point I was making that many of these houses cant be lived in because the lack of completed infastructure of the estates eg sewage, roads, lighting makes inhabiting such houses finished or otherwise often impossible

Or are you refering to individual houses NOT built in estate type developments?

Monty Burnz

gozunda wrote: »

OK understand however the point I was making that many of these houses cant be lived in because the lack of completed infastructure of the estates eg sewage, roads, lighting makes inhabiting such houses finished or otherwise often impossible

Yup, I take your point.

gozunda wrote: »

Or are you refering to individual houses NOT built in estate type developments?

I'm just referring to houses that are complete and ready to live in, regardless of their situation. We may not be there yet, but I can see a time where owning one of these poorly situated houses is seen as much as a nuisance as an asset.

johndaman66

miss no stars wrote: »

The odd smashed window? Making it not weather tight. Rain gets in and wets all the timber elements - bye bye timber elements - all need replacing. Roof is then comprimised, water gets in all down walls and gets into the mortar. Winter hits and water in mortar freezes, cracking everywhere. CBA is right - it'd probably cost less to knock them than to carry out remedial works!




Doubt it. They've been left out to rot for quite a long time now already.


Precisely. Any that aren't weather tight are at this stage a long way from habitable or safe.

There is no doubt you are right in that the odd smashed window and houses which are not completely weather tight will have a knock on affect and more serious issues will materialise in time. But I do feel your points are somewhat overly pesamistic tbh. Remember that although the house may be built and sitting there for a number of years the window may have being smashed in recent times. I think it is a bit extreme in the least to automatically assume a house will need to be knocked because theres one or 2 smashed panes of glass in it. Yes in certain cases such houses would be gone past the point of saving them but I would suggest such would be the exception rather than the rule.

I'm sure timeberframe houses would be particularly suspectable to rot and deterioration over time if not made completely watertight. I would suggest it would take much longer than you might seem to imagine for the structure of a concrete built house to be compromised if not completely watertight. There may of course be cases where if second fix was already completed the house may need to be gutted inside and redone.

Of course each of these houses should be subjected to a structural survey, regardless. I think its madness to assume you will need to go helter skelter with a knocking ball because there is the odd smashed window here and there.

miss no stars wrote: »

By the way, it's not just the next few years we're talking about here. People should be able to buy a house and expect to be able to live in it for 50 years with only minor upgrades -no big structural work in that time unless they want to change it up a bit. Those houses might stand now - there's no guarantee that they'll still stand 20 years down the line without major rehabilitation works done now.

You say 50 years, I say 80 as that would generally seem to be the ballbpark figure for life expectancy of a concrete structure in a climate such as ours. Of course as I afore mentioned structural engineers reports are vital on these houses (as with any new house of course) before they are pammed of on unsuspecting members of the public. That would be your best guarantee that no major remedial work is needed 20 years down the line.

celticcrash

As for knocking the houses for 35 thousand euro, Houses are hardcore,
There are a lot of landfill sites that take this hardcore for 0 euro,
0 euro
0 euro
0 euro
Yes, you dont pay to fill someones site,
If someone has a landfill site and has permission to fill it,than they need it
filled. The builders landscapers and truckers know this.
Give the owner the price of a few drinks, as its known in the business.

So out of this 35 thousand euro, how much is spent knocking a house?
1 plumber
1 sparks
2 labourers
15 ton digger and driver
1 tipper truck and driver
2 big skips for non hardcore
Cost all in 5k tops, thats a handy 30 thousand for one house
One days work for the demolisher.
He could backhand half of this, say 15 thousand a house a day and
He would only be making 75 thousand a week.
Oh I for got the landscaping, four tons of top soil, grass seed
The digger would spread this in 15 mins tops, the boys meaning labours
would rake it in another 15 mins tops,
County council or city council, thats where the Tds of this country
Learn their trade, sharpen their claws,