It'll take us 43 years to fill all empty houses

thebman

"Over 200,000 houses would need to be demolished in order for the housing supply to fall to three years of current population growth."

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/itll-take-us-43-years-to-fill-all-empty-houses-3133714.html

Click link for rest of article.

Pretty much saying what everyone knew and pretty much shows the insanity of NAMA's business plan IMO.

And this ignores that while the houses aren't filled, they aren't being maintained and the questions over the quality of the buildings themselves.

Don't look at me for a solution though, as with most people my reply starts with, well I wouldn't start from here :P

Lawrence1895

thebman wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/itll-take-us-43-years-to-fill-all-empty-houses-3133714.html

Click link for rest of article.

Pretty much saying what everyone knew and pretty much shows the insanity of NAMA's business plan IMO.

And this ignores that while the houses aren't filled, they aren't being maintained and the questions over the quality of the buildings themselves.

Don't look at me for a solution though, as with most people my reply starts with, well I wouldn't start from here :P

I'm not sure, but maintaining those houses might create jobs?

Not sure about this one either, but if people can't afford to buy anymore, why not renting out those houses to an affordable price?

SBWife

Lars1916 wrote: »

I'm not sure, but maintaining those houses might create jobs?

Not sure about this one either, but if people can't afford to buy anymore, why not renting out those houses to an affordable price?

Look at where the excess is located, we're within 18 months of running out of houses in Dublin.

If no body wants to live in the wilds of Donegal (because there are few jobs, inadequate transportation links, and not much in the ways of cultural activities) it doesn't matter how affordable the rent is the property will stay empty.

number10a

Is this map a measure of empty houses or actual NAMA properties and ghost estates?? I'm guessing empty houses. It seems to be very red in the "holiday home belt" along the west coast, and this was always the case. They're holiday homes, so they're always going to be empty for most of the year.

And then of course we have the massive oversupply of ghost estates phenomenon in Sligo/Leitrim/Roscommon and the towns in Longford/Carlow/Cavan that became part of the extreme two hour commuter belt of Dublin around 2006/2007. This is what we should be focussing on. These are the houses that NAMA has and that are going to rack and ruin and that will (unfortunately) need to be demolished eventually.

We cannot really get a clear picture from what we're being shown here. There has always been a huge number of unoccupied houses in the west. We need seperate statistics for houses that are never occupied at any time of the year, houses that are only half built etc.

Sponge Bob

The report conflates household formation nationally with that in rural areas.

Crap report and crap journalistic 'anal'ysys of same.

Blowfish

By all accounts, Deutsche Bank's analysis is pretty poor as they've left a lot of factors out. There's a decent rebuttal of it here.

spank_inferno

Seeing the East coast has red-areas around Courttown and other Wexford 'holiday villages' I dare say that these are probably houses that are vacant most of the year anyway.

Mean while Dublin will probably face a housing shortage in the coming few years.

mike65

You cannot treat a given geographic area as uniform and all properties as being for the same use, Dublin is apparently in danger of running out of domestic units while parts of the wesht will be well served (in theory*) until hell freezes over or for a few decades.






* of course properties left idle will rot.

Lawrence1895

SBWife wrote: »

Look at where the excess is located, we're within 18 months of running out of houses in Dublin.

If no body wants to live in the wilds of Donegal (because there are few jobs, inadequate transportation links, and not much in the ways of cultural activities) it doesn't matter how affordable the rent is the property will stay empty.

But why is that? Does all the funding (considering, there is funding available) stay in and around Dublin? Are those rural areas neglected?

Blowfish

Lars1916 wrote: »

But why is that? Does all the funding (considering, there is funding available) stay in and around Dublin? Are those rural areas neglected?

Scofflaw had an interesting post on this recently. Per capita Dublin is the largest net contributor of funding and Donegal is the largest recipient.

thebman

thebman wrote: »

Don't look at me for a solution though, as with most people my reply starts with, well I wouldn't start from here :P

How about we give the free market a try?

Lars1916 wrote: »

I'm not sure, but maintaining those houses might create jobs?

Not sure about this one either, but if people can't afford to buy anymore, why not renting out those houses to an affordable price?

Yep! Why not put them up for sale or rent at market prices?

Crazy idea I know, imaging that - houses up for rent and for sale.
The only crazier idea is to allow NAMA to demolish enough houses to rig the property market to their idea of property valuations....

Lawrence1895

Blowfish wrote: »

Scofflaw had an interesting post on this recently. Per capita Dublin is the largest net contributor of funding and Donegal is the largest recipient.

But what is the money used for, if it's not for job creation, establishing a decent public transport system, cultural activity stuff, roads, maintenance of houses, etc.?

thebman

Lars1916 wrote: »

Blowfish wrote: »

Scofflaw had an interesting post on this recently. Per capita Dublin is the largest net contributor of funding and Donegal is the largest recipient.

But what is the money used for, if it's not for job creation, establishing a decent public transport system, cultural activity stuff, roads, maintenance of houses, etc.?

Water and waste services and wages.

Oh and trips abroad or fact finding missions, whatever you want to call them

Sand

Lars1916 wrote: »

I'm not sure, but maintaining those houses might create jobs?

Google the broken windows fallacy.

Lawrence1895

thebman wrote: »

Water and waste services and wages.

Oh and trips abroad or fact finding missions, whatever you want to call them

So they wasted the money?

mike65

mike65 wrote: »

* of course properties left idle will rot.

Let us not forget that many people renovate famine era cottages, plenty of buildings over 100 years old are done up.

Demolition is insanity

the keen edge

Whatever about the text of the report, the use of the map of Ireland is ridiculous.

Its a terrible way to graphically display the information.
Huge areas in West Galway, North Clare, Kerry/Cork, Mayo and Donegal that are mountainous wilderness as in Connemara, or covered in limestone as in the Burren, are dramatically highlighted in red.

Anybody who has ever driven through these areas will know that including them in a property survey, or at the very least displaying the information gathered from these areas in the manner used in map, is completely misleading.

The presentation of the article is the usually sensational bullshit.

Geuze

http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/

A response to the Deutsche Bank article.


Here is a NUIM working paper on unfiniahed estates:

http://www.nuim.ie/nirsa/research/documents/NIRSA%20working%20paper%2067%20-%20Unfinished%20estates%20in%20post%20Celtic%20Tiger%20Ireland.pdf

Geuze

http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/podcasts/ieconf/presentations/RobKitchin.pdf

More work on housing by Rob Kitchin at NUIM.


Vacant houses from the 2011 census was 294,202 units.

Lots of these are holiday homes.

Oversupply is estimated to be 80-100k units.

ardmacha

This looks like a lazy analysis, one wonders at the agenda of those who produced it. Even if half of all houses in Leitrim are vacant, it has little enough effect on the overall state of the economy. The idea that there will not be houses built in Dublin or Cork for 40 years because there are houses in Leitrim is such nonsense that it would hardly appear on Boards, never mind in a report by a well known bank.

In Germany
"It is a sad experience to enter many a town in the former GDR and to see a spanking brand new railway station, state of the art bus stops and new cycle paths, reflecting the huge sums that have been invested in infrastructure, but to observe that hardly anyone is enjoying them. In some towns the council has put net curtains up in the empty flats to make it look as though they are inhabited, and literally sliced the upper layers off high-rise housing blocks as towns adjust to drastic population drops as people die or move away"

empty flats, eh? does this mean that there will never be any new property built in Germany?

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/podcasts/ieconf/presentations/RobKitchin.pdf

More work on housing by Rob Kitchin at NUIM.


Vacant houses from the 2011 census was 294,202 units.

Lots of these are holiday homes.

Oversupply is estimated to be 80-100k units.

His solution:

The priority should be to tighten supply and demand to the
point where households are competing for property – starting
to build before this will flatline the market

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

His solution:

Ah yes, lets fuel another "must get on the property ladder cause the price will only go up!" craze :rolleyes:

Sponge Bob

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Ah yes, lets fuel another "must get on the property ladder cause the price will only go up!" craze :rolleyes:

Must treat the bottom 8 rungs (out of 10) for galloping woodworm so!

Lawrence1895

ardmacha wrote: »

This looks like a lazy analysis, one wonders at the agenda of those who produced it. Even if half of all houses in Leitrim are vacant, it has little enough effect on the overall state of the economy. The idea that there will not be houses built in Dublin or Cork for 40 years because there are houses in Leitrim is such nonsense that it would hardly appear on Boards, never mind in a report by a well known bank.

In Germany
"It is a sad experience to enter many a town in the former GDR and to see a spanking brand new railway station, state of the art bus stops and new cycle paths, reflecting the huge sums that have been invested in infrastructure, but to observe that hardly anyone is enjoying them. In some towns the council has put net curtains up in the empty flats to make it look as though they are inhabited, and literally sliced the upper layers off high-rise housing blocks as towns adjust to drastic population drops as people die or move away"

empty flats, eh? does this mean that there will never be any new property built in Germany?

Sounds like, what happened in the years after the German reunification. People from the former GDR moved to the West, because they thought, the chances of getting a job might be better.

It happens even nowadays, some areas in the eastern counties of Germany have an umemployment rate of 20% or so, especially young citizens are moving westwards.

And to answer the point with the empty flats/no new property...maybe it's because of the fact, that most Germans tend to rent a place, rather than being mad about owning a property.

Some info on demolition:

In Limerick it costs 100,000 Euros PER HOUSE for demolition.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/5-years-116m-and-not-a-house-built-179892.html#ixzz1jECKlTJa

Almost €90m of that has gone to Limerick City Council for the demolition of about 900 houses during the course of the regeneration programme to date.

While in Wexford they charge 28,000 for two unoccupied houses and the foundations of three:

The unoccupied houses -- and foundations for three more -- were levelled at Church View in Clongeen, Co Wexford, at a cost to the taxpayer of €28,000.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bulldozers-send-boomtime-buildings-crashing-down-2939736.html

This is what one looked like before demolition:


Striking that the media report all this, its in the public domain yet there is no investigative journalism into why the prices differ so much, who was being paid 100k per house etc.

Start knocking houses and you open a whole new can of corruption not just for a demolition gravy train but also who decides where and what gets demolished.

Who does it benefit ? Who gains and who loses? You`ll be the loser will be the taxpayer.

http://www.advertiser.ie/mullingar/article/42906/ghost-estate-demolition-could-cost-council-40000
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15091533
In Westmeath the going rate is 40,000 to knock a ghost estate. By Ghost estate they mean 3 houses:

The Mullingar Advertiser has reported that three almost complete bungalows in the village of Ballingore have been knocked down.

Just over 13,000 per house.

Dotsie~tmp

Lars1916 wrote: »

Sounds like, what happened in the years after the German reunification. People from the former GDR moved to the West, because they thought, the chances of getting a job might be better.

It happens even nowadays, some areas in the eastern counties of Germany have an umemployment rate of 20% or so, especially young citizens are moving westwards.

And to answer the point with the empty flats/no new property...maybe it's because of the fact, that most Germans tend to rent a place, rather than being mad about owning a property.

They are heading into a slow decline. Demographics are against them. Another reason the dont want debt pooling. They are looking to lock in gains made for an aging population.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-land-without-children-why-won-t-germans-have-more-babies-a-779741.html

Sponge Bob

Limerick houses are decanted first and the decanting is probably included. Most of the empty shells will cost around €10k each to flatten and topsoil and reseed.