How low can you go?

Day Lewin

I was thrilled to see a house for sale for 195 thousand. Granted, it was tiny, but it was sweet and a perfect little starter for some bachelor...this was a minute artisan cottage in Sallynoggin/Glenageary. (One week ago)
Alas I don't have any money to spare for buying houses...but it's a hobby of mine to follow the ups and downs of property prices.
At one time the auctioneer websites used to group properties by price, ie., Under 200K, under 300k etc. The cheapest one I ever saw in the last ten years was for 95K...but it was an ice-cream parlour on the seafront in Bray!
So, how low can they go, for a livable-in actual house? One-man-or-woman apartment? Waiting expectantly...

mari2222

some apartments in the last Allsop auction were for sale at 20K

P. Breathnach

mari2222 wrote: »

some apartments in the last Allsop auction were for sale at 20K

I think most apartments should be considered as being in a separate market from houses, and I think we might reach the point where some apartments will be unsaleable.

D3PO

katemarch wrote: »

Granted, it was tiny, but it was sweet and a perfect little starter for some bachelor...

It was this kind of thinking that got many people into the mess they now find themselves in.

Starter home, getting on the ladder. It beggars belief that people are still using these kind of phrases.

the_syco

katemarch wrote: »

Granted, it was tiny, but it was sweet and a perfect little starter for some bachelor...

A starter on the everlasting slide of negative equity, debt, with a very hard landing at the end when you're thrown off?

3DataModem

P. Breathnach wrote: »

mari2222 wrote: »

some apartments in the last Allsop auction were for sale at 20K

I think most apartments should be considered as being in a separate market from houses, and I think we might reach the point where some apartments will be unsaleable.

I agree completely. I can foresee a future where some blocks become unpopular for tenants, owners default, management fees run short, maintenance and insurance is unaffordable, owner-occupiers are left to default, block becomes all but empty.

I don't mean city centre, just some of the more bland barely commutable blocks in middle of nowhere.

the_syco

3DataModem wrote: »

I don't mean city centre

How "hip" were the Ballymun towers & flats when they were first built? I wonder will the high rise apartments of today end up like the flats of yesterday?

shangri la

Were there many SCD houses in turnkey condition in those auctions?

Is the next one in March?

Day Lewin

Originally Posted by katemarch View Post
Granted, it was tiny, but it was sweet and a perfect little starter for some bachelor...

Yes, and now the owner of it has someplace to live, and something to sell should they wish to. Instead of years of rent piddled away with nothing to show for it.

murphaph

katemarch wrote: »

Yes, and now the owner of it has someplace to live, and something to sell should they wish to. Instead of years of rent piddled away with nothing to show for it.

The roof over your head for all those years was hardly piddling money away, unless living in a cardboard box is appealing to you?

riclad

MAYBE YOU just look on the southside, i saw ads for 1 or 2 bed houses in good nick, dublin city centre, 60-70k, in 2012, small cottages, with a small yard, would need total decoration, but ok for a single person.

Some apartments may be hard to sell in future, cos some people are not paying the service charges, leaving other residents to cover maintenance. THIS situation cant go on indefinitely.

THE BALLYMUN flats were council housing, they were never sold, just rented. ONLY avaidable to people on low income.

you think a tiny house going for 195k is a bargain?? I thought the whole concept of starter houses went out with the crash in 2008.

yeah, people were buying 1 bed apartments in 2007 for 250 k, as a starter home. who ever said the ballymun flats were hip?

Santa Cruz

Apartment in the middle of nowhere are going for 30000. Maybe some scope for a small block or three apartments over a commercial property but bigger blocks in villages and small towns have no future

odds_on

D3PO wrote: »

It was this kind of thinking that got many people into the mess they now find themselves in.

Starter home, getting on the ladder. It beggars belief that people are still using these kind of phrases.

What then would you call a first time buyer and is the first time buyer not getting on the property ladder?

Where much of the problem arose was through people wanting to start too high up the ladder, stretched themselves financially and as soon as something happens - like a reduction in wages or hours - they find themselves in arrears. This was helped by the banks encouraging buyers to take out the biggest mortgage that the rules, if any, allowed.

Unfortunately, it is still happening today. There have been several posts on boards by people wanting to know how much of a mortgage they would be able to get based on their current income.

In my seemingly stupid opinion, if you can get a mortgage for 200k, think of buying a property at half that.

dinnyirwin

Everyone expects to start with a mansion in the most desirable areas these days. They think they have a right to housing on a low wage in an areas where even people on high wages cant afford it.

djimi

odds_on wrote: »

What then would you call a first time buyer and is the first time buyer not getting on the property ladder?

Its not a ladder; that was a ridiculous term dreamt up by the same people who did a fantastic job of brainwashing people in this country into thinking that it was imperative to buy a house, any house, as soon as they possibly could.

There is nothing wrong with renting until you are ready to buy a decent house that you actually want; its not money pissed away and I know Id certainly prefer to rent a property that I want to live in rather than spend money on a smaller "starter home", just so I can say I own my own home.

murphaph

There's no "need" for a property ladder at all. It's not even a historically Irish phenomenon. Most of our parents probably still live, or lived in until passing away in the first property they bought.

odds_on

djimi wrote: »

Its not a ladder; that was a ridiculous term dreamt up by the same people who did a fantastic job of brainwashing people in this country into thinking that it was imperative to buy a house, any house, as soon as they possibly could.

There is nothing wrong with renting until you are ready to buy a decent house that you actually want; its not money pissed away and I know Id certainly prefer to rent a property that I want to live in rather than spend money on a smaller "starter home", just so I can say I own my own home.

OK, djimi, what would you call it, buying a first, low cost home in order to have your own dwelling and as a step to buying another property which you would like to live in to grow a family or for your retirement days. "Getting your foot in the door? A stepping stone? A ladder seems to me to be a good description.

As regards renting on a long term basis to me is not a good idea. Why pay 1000 euros a month renting and all you have is a roof over your head and nothing else to show for it.

You can buy a house/apartment for 1000 euros a month and at least you have something in hand to sell at the end of it.

I have been renting for the last 21 months and I have nothing to show for it except a declining bank balance which will never be replaced.

MouseTail

murphaph wrote: »

There's no "need" for a property ladder at all. It's not even a historically Irish phenomenon. Most of our parents probably still live, or lived in until passing away in the first property they bought.

In fairness, that was a different era. People moved from their parents home to a marital home, women were not in the workforce, people had steady jobs for life,, and for the most part there was economic stagnation. You really cant compare socioeconomic factors then and now.

djimi

Calling it a "ladder" is precisely the reason why so many people are now stuck in shoebox apartments and tiny 2 bedroom houses that dont meet their needs and they cant afford to get out of. This country for years was brainwashed into the notion that you absolutely have to buy a house, any house at all, just to get on some mythical property ladder, as if your future was determined by signing a mortgage by the age of 25, and quite honestly it was, and still is, a pile of horse****.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with paying money to rent a property until you are in a position to buy a house that can be seen as a long term option. Id far sooner pay rent on something that I probably couldnt afford to buy and can move from whenever the whim takes me (more or less), than tie myself into a tiny house because its all that I can afford, just to be able to say that I own it, at the risk that I might not be able to sell it when I outgrow it and need to upgrade.

I dont have an issue with people buying property, and I dont have an issue with people buying small at the start if that is all that they can afford. I just resent this notion that we were spoonfed for so many years that you have to get onto the "property ladder" at all costs; its complete nonsense. There is nothing wrong with renting; some might see it as dead money but I see it as paying for the freedom of not being tied into a property and a mortgage with interest rate payments. Its not a permanent solution, but neither is buying a one bedroom apartment/2 bed house and outgrowing it, and I know which Id sooner do...

odds_on

murphaph wrote: »

There's no "need" for a property ladder at all. It's not even a historically Irish phenomenon. Most of our parents probably still live, or lived in until passing away in the first property they bought.

My parents moved on several occasions. Both sets of grand parents also moved on several occasions. And all my great grand parents all moved several times, some to Australia (and back). No wonder that I had the wander lust when I was younger!

riclad

NOTHING wrong with getting on the property ladder,something wrong with buying a house for 150k,1 hour from where you work,
as people were doing cos a 3bed house in dublin was 300k in 2007. I read article ,a local counciler outside dublin ,Said lets buy houses ,rather than spend millions on rent allowance every year. LOCAL houses are going for 50k, he was told we can,t do this
its against government rules on spending.

ITS like a school in kerry ,they spend 1000,s renting out portacapins every year.BUT they cant get money to pay a builder ,
to build more classrooms which would be more comfortable and energy effecient than portcapins.

THIS government thinks maybe 2 or 3 years ahead ,look how long it took the hse to switch to generic drugs ,which are identical but 1 third the cost of branded medicine.

ARTICLE in gaurdian.co.uk today, says there should be a rule ,you can only borrow 3x times your income,as house prices in southern england are rising too fast.

Gael23

With an asking price of 195k in Dublin, I wouldn't want to pay more than 175k. Thats taking off 10% which I think for Dublin is realistic. Would go in lower outside dublin.

marathonic

riclad wrote: »

ITS like a school in kerry ,they spend 1000,s renting out portacapins every year.BUT they cant get money to pay a builder ,
to build more classrooms which would be more comfortable and energy effecient than portcapins.

If you are talking about a program that was on RTE a few years ago, I think I saw the same one. If memory serves me correctly, I believe there was a town where the church had offered to pay for the build cost if the government were to repay the loan over 25 years. I believe the annual cost was less than the rental for the portacabins but the red tape meant it was a no-go.

riclad

It was a radio program,on radio 1, this happens in every county in the country,
red tape,dept of education,finance etc
theres a school, improvement program.
YOU,LL wait years to get a grant to build,
meanwhile just rent out portacabins for 10 years ,
sure its tax payers ,money .
SURE look we spend billions teaching irish every year.
whats a few million spent on renting portacabins.
look at the money spent on voting machines ,
which never worked properly.

lukesmom

riclad wrote: »

It was a radio program,on radio 1, this happens in every county in the country,
red tape,dept of education,finance etc
theres a school, improvement program.
YOU,LL wait years to get a grant to build,
meanwhile just rent out portacabins for 10 years ,
sure its tax payers ,money .
SURE look we spend billions teaching irish every year.
whats a few million spent on renting portacabins.
look at the money spent on voting machines ,
which never worked properly.

Why did you specifically single out 'teaching Irish'????

Balmed Out

To believe in a property ladder one has to believe that prices are on a permanently upward trajectory.
I dont understand how anyone can still believe in that.

andersat2

ryanf1 wrote: »

With an asking price of 195k in Dublin, I wouldn't want to pay more than 175k. Thats taking off 10% which I think for Dublin is realistic. Would go in lower outside dublin.

you're living in the past.
at the moment in Dublin if the asking price is 195k, the real selling price will be 205.. 210K.
As there is a huge demand.
Last weekend it was a viewing of one house in Lucan. Asking price was 149K. It was 20 people at this viewing. The deal was accepted at 165K for the buyer paying in CASH. All mortgages and especially first time mortgages are not accepted in our days.

djimi

ryanf1 wrote: »

With an asking price of 195k in Dublin, I wouldn't want to pay more than 175k. Thats taking off 10% which I think for Dublin is realistic. Would go in lower outside dublin.

Realistic is what people are willing to pay for it. If a house has an asking price of €195k and there are several people looking to buy (and there probably will be, as demand is short) then you could well be looking at adding 10% to the asking price, not knocking it off.

moxin

andersat2 wrote: »

you're living in the past.
at the moment in Dublin if the asking price is 195k, the real selling price will be 205.. 210K.
As there is a huge demand.
Last weekend it was a viewing of one house in Lucan. Asking price was 149K. It was 20 people at this viewing. The deal was accepted at 165K for the buyer paying in CASH. All mortgages and especially first time mortgages are not accepted in our days.

Generalisations how are ya!

Each locality in Dublin is different with different levels of demand, some low, some high. And sellers do accept deals via a mortgage, you're wrong there saying its only cash buyers for everyone.

djimi wrote: »

Realistic is what people are willing to pay for it. If a house has an asking price of €195k and there are several people looking to buy (and there probably will be, as demand is short) then you could well be looking at adding 10% to the asking price, not knocking it off.

Some of those several people do be tyre kickers. Its really down to what the local demand is, this is where the buyer has to do their homework. If houses take long to sell, one can low ball by 10%. If they sell fast, yes it might go over the asking price.