Property Market 2016

Bob24

Sleepy wrote: »

Are there that many that want to live in the city centre? It's a bit of a social housing ghetto tbh.

That is true for a number of areas in town, but there are also decent locations.

lazeedaisy

I lived in the city centre for years, bought in Custom Hall when it was built. Suited us both for work, and we did not need a car. Obviously back in the day😊. Moved and made a killing on the sale, bought a car, that was a long time ago, believe it or not city living ius for young people and nice when it suits! Don't knock it til you've tried it. 😇

alastair

Sleepy wrote: »

Are there that many that want to live in the city centre? It's a bit of a social housing ghetto tbh.

Social housing! Heaven forbid!

The_Conductor

alastair wrote: »

Social housing! Heaven forbid!

There is no issue with social housing per se- providing it is managed as a component of a viable vibrant area. The issue with some inner city areas- is they are predominantly social housing- there is not a good mixture of residential housing types- so you end up with defacto ghetto type situations- and the social problems that concentrating social housing in a single area entails.

A good mixture of different residence types- is key to ensuring areas are properly serviced with facilities and amenities for all.

Bob24

The_Conductor wrote: »

There is no issue with social housing per se- providing it is managed as a component of a viable vibrant area. The issue with some inner city areas- is they are predominantly social housing- there is not a good mixture of residential housing types- so you end up with defacto ghetto type situations- and the social problems that concentrating social housing in a single area entails.

A good mixture of different residence types- is key to ensuring areas are properly serviced with facilities and amenities for all.

You can add a lack of policing and judicial punishment to the reasons you mentioned. Regroup a number of idle people (not judging whether it is there fault for being unemployed/less well off) in an area where there the rule off law isn't enforced properly - some of them will get so bored that eventually they will go wild. And even if it is just a few individuals, once this has started and there is no strong answer from the State, the tough guys will gradually imposed their own law over the area and contaminate other members of the local community who at the end of the day will have no choice but playing along with the tough guys because they know the State will not enforce the law to protect them.

gaius c

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes - but what the report is saying is that the city centre has no new builds whatsoever though, regardless of the price (as mentioned by SarahMollie earlier there is definitely land available, and there have been reports confirming this recently: "More than 61 hectares of vacant or derelict land, spread over 282 sites in central Dublin, could be developed for homes or commercial buildings, according to Dublin City Council").

When they are talking about the lack affordable options they are talking about Dublin city as a whole (which I think is an issue).

Are you mad?
It would be positively communist to inflict any sort of loss on the dope who bought sites in the mid-noughties. That's why it's absolutely critical that FTB's get access to the finance required to ensure that important people don't lose any money.

handlemaster

Whats the figures for properties been added for sale this year. In dublin doesnt look like alot has been added

quadrifoglio verde

Very good article in the Irish times
Seems the only way forward is to significantly cut the cost to build
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/homeowners-vote-and-homeowners-like-high-house-prices-1.2524119

dubrov

quadrifoglio verde wrote:

Very good article in the Irish times Seems the only way forward is to significantly cut the cost to build

It's pretty much a fluff piece. €275,000 cost build a basic 2 bed apartment is laughable.

handlemaster

dubrov wrote: »

It's pretty much a fluff piece. €275,000 cost build a basic 2 bed apartment is laughable.

How much should it cost in your opinion ?

Bob24

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Very good article in the Irish times
Seems the only way forward is to significantly cut the cost to build
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/homeowners-vote-and-homeowners-like-high-house-prices-1.2524119

I would agree that if correct the figure given for a 2 bed apartment is crazy high and should be reduced.

But I am a bit afraid of the recommendation made to lower it (to relax regulation). It is not as if Irish build had a track record of building high quality development - letting them loose seems a bit risky to me.

There must be other reasons for the high construction costs (other countries are doing it cheaper with stricter regulation).

Bob24

Did some Googleing and found a study on construction cost by country.

Selected countries for "Apartments – private medium density" in 2011 (cost per square meter in USD):
- Australia: 1,995
- Canada: 1,925
- China: 512
- Germany: 1,536
- Ireland: 1,878
- Japan: 2,355
- Russia: 1,534
- South Korea: 993
- UK: 2,994 (!!!!)
- US: 1600

Drawing proper conclusions would require a better understanding of how the study was conducted, but at first glance Ireland doesn't seem crazy high?

dubrov

handlemaster wrote:

How much should it cost in your opinion ?

There is another forum here where people discuss building their own detached houses. As i recall it was about 100 euro per square metre excluding the land cost but including profit for the builder.



Obviously the spec quality would have an impact on the cost but a 2 bed apartment should be significantly cheaper than a 2 bed detached house to build

air

dubrov wrote: »

As i recall it was about 100 euro per square metre excluding the land cost but including profit for the builder.

€1000 per square metre.

Apartments should be far cheaper to build than one off houses, huge economies of scale & efficiencies vs a house.
The cost to build comparison by country is not very useful, its merely a reflection of labour rates in each location as construction is labour intensive.
Australia for example has shockingly poor houses, single glazed windows & little or no insulation are common.

The biggest barrier to reducing the cost of housing is the absence of a site value tax. Owners are sitting on prime land & derelict properties as there is no cost to do so. There should be site value tax payable on all property within urban areas. This would have a hugely positive impact on land availability. Derelict properties should default to council ownership if unoccupied more than say 2 years.

Fkall

air wrote: »

€1000 per square metre.

Apartments should be far cheaper to build than one off houses, huge economies of scale & efficiencies vs a house.
The cost to build comparison by country is not very useful, its merely a reflection of labour rates in each location as construction is labour intensive.
Australia for example has shockingly poor houses, single glazed windows & little or no insulation are common.

The biggest barrier to reducing the cost of housing is the absence of a site value tax. Owners are sitting on prime land & derelict properties as there is no cost to do so. There should be site value tax payable on all property within urban areas. This would have a hugely positive impact on land availability. Derelict properties should default to council ownership if unoccupied more than say 2 years.

Apartments are much more expensive to build than your typical 3 bed semi.

El_Dangeroso

Mostly behind a paywall but this article in the Sunday Business Post caught my eye:

http://www.businesspost.ie/the-west-winger/

As he sells up, Stephen Vernon believes the ‘opportunity phase’ of the recovery is over

As the head of the largest property-investment vehicle in the country, I read this as 'expect no more drastic rise in prices'. Anyone agree/disagree with that interpretation?

slowjoe17

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Mostly behind a paywall but this article in the Sunday Business Post caught my eye:

http://www.businesspost.ie/the-west-winger/



As the head of the largest property-investment vehicle in the country, I read this as 'expect no more drastic rise in prices'. Anyone agree/disagree with that interpretation?

Well, this is (presumably) the prices of commercial (ie shopping) property.

Whether there stuff about the residential market behind the paywall, none of us know!

gaius c

dubrov wrote: »

It's pretty much a fluff piece. €275,000 cost build a basic 2 bed apartment is laughable.

You can justify any cost you want if you use the 2006 valuation for the site you bought.

Make no mistake, the current squeeze is a bailout by the back door. The more we pay, the smaller of a loss from peak time for banks and developers.

gaius c

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Mostly behind a paywall but this article in the Sunday Business Post caught my eye:

http://www.businesspost.ie/the-west-winger/



As the head of the largest property-investment vehicle in the country, I read this as 'expect no more drastic rise in prices'. Anyone agree/disagree with that interpretation?

He's looking at a large-scale commercial investment so what he sees there would not necessarily extrapolate to other sectors, such as residential.

TSQ

The_Conductor wrote: »

.....
I'd also suggest more landlords are going to exit the market- its already been made very uncomfortable for small landlords from a tax perspective- now the regulatory regime is turning even more unfavourably against landlords. An increasing proportion of property on the market- will be BTL properties- not necessarily distressed mortgage holders- rather landlords who just don't see the point any longer.

2016 is going to be a difficult year for many- but a year of vast opportunities for others.

I keep reading about life being difficult for small landlords, who are exiting the property market in their droves etc. I am a small landlord, and I don't know what you are on about. I have no problem with the regulations, registering with PRTB (and paying my tax, since that means landlords can't hide from revenue any more), providing a decent level of accommodation, giving 2 years security of rent, etc. The property tax has been fixed at a very low rate, I don't pay the water charges, interest rates have come down, though not as much as they should, so I am not faced with higher outgoings for the forseeable future. Given all of this, if the rent last year was enough to give me a decent return on my investment, I don't see any particular problem having to wait an extra year before increasing rent again (and if I am happy with my tenants, I would not increase to the max possible anyway).So, as it is not due to any effort on my part that the rental value of my property has increased, and in another scenario rents might well have stayed level, leaving me in the same situation, it is only from envy at what I think other people are getting that I might feel hard done by.

Obviously, if I was unlucky enough to get bad tenants / non-payers, and lost months of rent while trying to get rid of them I would be totally pissed off, but then this situation is neither better nor worse than it was 10 years ago. This is the only issue that I would get het up about - and it it the only issue that landlords should be campaigning on, the rest is just whinging.

handlemaster

TSQ wrote: »

I keep reading about life being difficult for small landlords, who are exiting the property market in their droves etc. I am a small landlord, and I don't know what you are on about. I have no problem with the regulations, registering with PRTB (and paying my tax, since that means landlords can't hide from revenue any more), providing a decent level of accommodation, giving 2 years security of rent, etc. The property tax has been fixed at a very low rate, I don't pay the water charges, interest rates have come down, though not as much as they should, so I am not faced with higher outgoings for the forseeable future. Given all of this, if the rent last year was enough to give me a decent return on my investment, I don't see any particular problem having to wait an extra year before increasing rent again (and if I am happy with my tenants, I would not increase to the max possible anyway).So, as it is not due to any effort on my part that the rental value of my property has increased, and in another scenario rents might well have stayed level, leaving me in the same situation, it is only from envy at what I think other people are getting that I might feel hard done by.

Obviously, if I was unlucky enough to get bad tenants / non-payers, and lost months of rent while trying to get rid of them I would be totally pissed off, but then this situation is neither better nor worse than it was 10 years ago. This is the only issue that I would get het up about - and it it the only issue that landlords should be campaigning on, the rest is just whinging.

You sound like you have just been lucky with your situatuon. Wait until you get a bad tenant the paper thin 'profit' your making will evaporate very quickly.

TSQ

handlemaster wrote: »

You sound like you have just been lucky with your situatuon. Wait until you get a bad tenant the paper thin 'profit' your making will evaporate very quickly.

Would be perfectly happy to support a campaign for landlords to get fair treatment in the right to kick out nonpaying / destructive tenants. That's the only area that should be exercising the minds of landlords, because it is the only area where there is a genuine imbalance between the rights of landlord and tenant. The PR TB should be able to maintain a register of bad tenants.

slowjoe17

TSQ wrote: »

I keep reading about life being difficult for small landlords, who are exiting the property market in their droves etc. I am a small landlord, and I don't know what you are on about. I have no problem with the regulations, registering with PRTB (and paying my tax, since that means landlords can't hide from revenue any more), providing a decent level of accommodation, giving 2 years security of rent, etc. The property tax has been fixed at a very low rate, I don't pay the water charges, interest rates have come down, though not as much as they should, so I am not faced with higher outgoings for the forseeable future. Given all of this, if the rent last year was enough to give me a decent return on my investment, I don't see any particular problem having to wait an extra year before increasing rent again (and if I am happy with my tenants, I would not increase to the max possible anyway).So, as it is not due to any effort on my part that the rental value of my property has increased, and in another scenario rents might well have stayed level, leaving me in the same situation, it is only from envy at what I think other people are getting that I might feel hard done by.

Obviously, if I was unlucky enough to get bad tenants / non-payers, and lost months of rent while trying to get rid of them I would be totally pissed off, but then this situation is neither better nor worse than it was 10 years ago. This is the only issue that I would get het up about - and it it the only issue that landlords should be campaigning on, the rest is just whinging.

Your POV is welcome. The forum needs diversity of opinion.

However, the market is defined at the margin, for the marginal existing landlord thinking about selling, and the marginal potential landlord thinking about buying their first or next property.

My impression is that it probably isn't the case that you are the marginal existing landlord.

Are you thinking about buying further properties in the next 12 months?

Michael D Not Higgins

http://www.daft.ie/report/ronan-lyons-2015q4-rental

Rental supply has dropped to nearly a quarter of 2008-2012 average levels in Dublin, and the rest of the country is even more stark in contrast, with nearly an 85% drop.

The conclusion is that something is holding back building of apartments and they're suggesting it's cost (we also know landlords are selling up in their droves). Someone I heard on Newstalk this morning was complaining about the cost of building as well, saying the new regulatory system requiring architects/chartered surveyors on site is also pushing up prices beyond affordable levels.

Bob24

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The conclusion is that something is holding back building of apartments and they're suggesting it's cost (we also know landlords are selling up in their droves). Someone I heard on Newstalk this morning was complaining about the cost of building as well, saying the new regulatory system requiring architects/chartered surveyors on site is also pushing up prices beyond affordable levels.

While the suggestion are certainly worth listening to (I attended a conference from Ronan Lyons once and as opposed to many property journalists/experts in Ireland he didn't seem like a property industry propaganda agent to me), we really should be careful with relaxing regulations.

Relaxing cosmetic type of regulations (minimum size, availability of minimum number of windows, etc) is not ideal but probably acceptable to a point. However I would be cautious about touching any regulations around safety and construction quality. Priory Hall and Longboat Quay (plus probably more to come) don't exactly show our building industry is able to deliver quality housing without supervision - and if you ask property owners in these blocks they probably would have liked contractors and architects to be on site more often and carry out more inspections).

Michael D Not Higgins

Bob24 wrote: »

While the suggestion are certainly worth listening to (I attended a conference from Ronan Lyons once and as opposed to many property journalists/experts in Ireland he didn't seem like a property industry propaganda agent to me), we really should be careful with relaxing regulations.

Relaxing cosmetic type of regulations (minimum size, availability of minimum number of windows, etc) is not ideal but probably acceptable to a point. However I would be cautious about touching any regulations around safety and construction quality. Priory Hall and Longboat Quay (plus probably more to come) don't exactly show our building industry is able to deliver quality housing without supervision - and if you ask property owners in these blocks they probably would have liked contractors and architects to be on site more often and carry out more inspections).

Agreed, but I really think they should be relaxing maximum heights not minimum sizes.

I have a feeling this line of reasoning from the construction sector is merely a way to increase their profits not decrease price. The example given in an article posted here recently (not sure which one exactly) was that the equivalent cost of the council inspecting properties in the UK (Northern Ireland maybe? can't remember) was £200 v ~€10,000 for the engineer/surveyor/architect on site for the current regulation in Ireland.

Now I'm not an expert on these figures but there's certainly scope for a decrease in this cost.

OfflerCrocGod

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/0209/766511-daft-ie-rental-report/

He also pointed to figures which suggest that is is 100 times more expensive to certify the safety of an apartment of a home in the Republic compared to the North of Ireland.

I guess that's what you are referring to MDNH.

TSQ

slowjoe17 wrote: »

Your POV is welcome. The forum needs diversity of opinion.

However, the market is defined at the margin, for the marginal existing landlord thinking about selling, and the marginal potential landlord thinking about buying their first or next property.

My impression is that it probably isn't the case that you are the marginal existing landlord.

Are you thinking about buying further properties in the next 12 months?

I would buy again if I had the money.

subpar

Small landlords are treated in the tax system as a business, but yet get very few of the tax treatments of a business for example

They are taxed on gross rental income

---

not profit

They pay P.R.S.I. on the rental income.

They pay U.S.C. on the rental income.

They are not even allowed to write off a single hour of the time they work on renting / servicing / cleaning / repairing or sourcing fixtures or fittings for the rental property.

They are required to pay 100% of the P.R.T.B registration charge even though the P.R.T.B. are biased in favour of the tenant.

What is fair about that. Many of those renting out 1 or 2 properties are accidental landlords and not the greedy, evil, exploiting types often portrayed in the media.

subpar

Small landlords are treated in the tax system as a business, but yet get very few of the tax treatments of a business for example

They are taxed on gross rental income

---

not profit

They pay P.R.S.I. on the rental income.

They pay U.S.C. on the rental income.

They are not even allowed to write off a single hour of the time they work on renting / servicing / cleaning / repairing or sourcing fixtures or fittings for the rental property.

They are required to pay 100% of the P.R.T.B registration charge even though the P.R.T.B. are biased in favour of the tenant.

What is fair about that. Many of those renting out 1 or 2 properties are accidental landlords and not the greedy, evil, exploiting types often portrayed in the media.