Apartment vs. House discussion

dave29ken

Hi all,

Looking for some advice with relation to buying an apartment in SCD over a house. We are first time buyers, recently married, mid thirties, and are have long wished to live in the Dun Laoghaire/Monkstown/Blackrock/Cainteeley general areas as it is close to our family and has plenty to offer as a location. We place a high value on location, due to transport links, amenities, schools etc. We don't currently have any children but we do wish to have a child in the next couple of years.

We have always favoured a house as our first purchase, but recently even the more affordable housing locations in these areas (ex council estates), are becoming out of reach and a going for 40-60k above asking price. The alternative to owning a house is to focus on other areas that are further out- and with that the transport links/amenities tend to offer much less.

As a result we are now considering 2 bed apartments in the desired areas. Has anyone faced the same dilemma and come to any decision or have any experiences that they could share? I'm aware of the basic pros and cons on apartment ownership (management fees, inability to add value etc) but would like to hear peoples opinions.

Cheers!

blindside88

I haven't been in the same position myself but I would caution the thinking of "starter home", a lot of people got stuck in these having bought in the boom with the idea of selling and buying bigger in 2-3 years. What ever you buy I would advise buying it with the thought of possibly still being there in 10 years time. If you are planning on having children in the near future will a 2 bed apartment be big enough (I'm not saying it won't just that you need to consider this). Best of luck with the decision. I bought my house a little over 2 years ago and what I found useful when looking at properties was asking myself "would I be happy here forever if my financial circumstances changed and I couldn't sell and move". Best of luck with the decision

trobbin

Have you not considered that the market is completely out of control? Why should you spend your life savings and take out a mortgage that you won't pay for another 25yrs for an ex council house or an apartment that isn't suitable for your family?

If people like yourself stopped and said no way I'm not getting sucked in here, the prices would adjust. Just rent. This place will fall apart when Brexit kicks in. And as for people thinking Dublin is gonna get all of Londons financial sector, wake up, and read!!!!

johnnyskeleton

We have always favoured a house as our first purchase, but recently even the more affordable housing locations in these areas (ex council estates), are becoming out of reach and a going for 40-60k above asking price. The alternative to owning a house is to focus on other areas that are further out- and with that the transport links/amenities tend to offer much less.

As a result we are now considering 2 bed apartments in the desired areas. Has anyone faced the same dilemma and come to any decision or have any experiences that they could share? I'm aware of the basic pros and cons on apartment ownership (management fees, inability to add value etc) but would like to hear peoples opinions.

Well the choice seems to be apartment in desireable area or house in less desireable area. Thats a common connundrum. There are also the other options above that the other posters have suggested such as continuing to rent and not thinking of it being a "starter home". But on the pure apartment v. house the scenario is:

Pros of apartment
1. Better location.
2. Usually cheaper.
3. Can be cheaper to heat.
4. Can be easier to clean.
5. Some apartments have good security/concierges etc.

Cons of apartment
1. Management fees.
2. Noisey neighbours (or annoyed neighbours if your e a bon vivant).
3. Feeling more enclosed above and below.
4. Cant be modified.
5. Can have serious stuctural problems ala BSQ/priory hall for which the sinking fund and home insurance wont cover it.

For good or ill, Irish people want houses. If you are happy in an apartment youre lucky because you might be able to get a better located property for a lower price than an equivalent house. Equally if your heart is set on a house you have to pay a premium.

johnnyskeleton

trobbin wrote: »

Have you not considered that the market is completely out of control? Why should you spend your life savings and take out a mortgage that you won't pay for another 25yrs for an ex council house or an apartment that isn't suitable for your family

Because they need somewhere to live that has security of tenure and they are getting almost nothing on deposit interest.

XsApollo

Having lived in an apartment with a new child born while living there and now a house with kids.
I would never go back to an apartment.
Unless you can get a bottom floor duplex , which I have also lived in without kids, because they are liveable.

Don't underestimate the value of letting your child walk out the front door and into your front garden and being able to play outside, with the next door neighbour while you relax or whatever.
Or underestimate the things like climbing up and down steps with buggies and shopping, not having a dedicated parking spot, noise , water pumps can drive you mad.

If people have to rent and live in one then that's what you have to do.
But the choice of buying one and having kids also, not a chance.

trobbin

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Because they need somewhere to live that has security of tenure and they are getting almost nothing on deposit interest.

At least it's not a life long commitment for something he's not even sure of!

He said he wants to start a family, how's he gonna cope in an apartment? It's horrible, I've unfortunately got friends in that situation.

Ex council houses in bad areas have risen in value by almost 300% and more in the last few years, just because people feel desperate. Due to attitudes like yours, "what else can we do, at least we'll be secure". We right! How secure will you be when the bubble bursts, and rates rise, or you get sick.

I will agree that deposit accounts in Ireland are poor, but remember. Savers have yet to be rewarded. Interest rates can only go one way, and the FED have already begun increasing them. There's a change coming.

If he can hold out and rent, I think it's he's in a better position.

Prices start stagnating last year, then CB relaxes rules, then government introduce the HTB, this has inflated an already pumped up market. In 2006 house prices rose by 12%, some people said it will adjust next year, it'll be a soft landing.

Listen, I can't tell you what to think, but look at the income to property price ratios. Look into what Brexit will do to many sectors in Ireland.

If this guy was buying his dream home it's one thing, but seriously!

Maybe I'm missing something, but hey I'm doing alright.

4ensic15

Council houses are much more likely to hold value relative to apartments. Apartments do not hold value relative to houses so the best approach is always buy a house and trade up to another house in the desired area that buy an apartment in the desired area and hope to trade to a house in the desired area.

mickmac76

As an apartment owner I would advise you to buy a house. Apartments are fine for a single person or a couple at a push. But with children a possibility in the future your standard Irish apartment is too small and cramped for a family. if you invest in an apartment now there is no guarantee you will afford the trade up in a few years and that doesn't include the money wasted on legal fees and auctioneers fees.

markpb

I've lived in a duplex, apartment, house, apartment and house with zero, one and two children.

Any apartment built in the last fifteen years is awesome when children are young: no stairs to sleepily climb in the middle of the night, no stairs to worry about them falling down, no worries about fitting a pram through the door, no annoying steps to lift a pram over at the front door and lots of other reasons.

Once children are a year or two old, having a house with a garden is great. Being able to let them roam around outside by themselves is great for their independent and great for you. Being able to park a car right at your front door is great when you're lugging several bags of shopping inside.

One of our homes was in an awkward area, no decent public transport, had to drive everywhere, nothing was close by and I'd never do it again.

LirW

I would take a different approach and would expand the area you're looking in. I understand that you'd like to live in area X but if it's not affordable, then that's not working out, as sad as it is. There are plenty of nice, established areas around Dublin and honestly plenty of people have to take short drives nowadays to visit family. It doesn't necessarily mean to automatically further out, but maybe think of looking into the western or northern part of Dublin.

Also Ex-council estates don't equal bad areas. There are good a good few of them that are actually quite mature and quiet. I'd just do my homework and would start looking at areas that you've never taken into account, you never know you might find your dream home there.

Samuel T. Cogley

House all the way. If you can't afford on the Southside, look on the Northside and get on the DART. Dublin is a small city really, family will be close by either way.

Pkiernan

A nasty dwelling in a nice area ALWAYS beats a nice dwelling in a nasty area.
Always.

IronSteve

Pkiernan wrote: »

A nasty dwelling in a nice area ALWAYS beats a nice dwelling in a nasty area.
Always.

Area nastiness is subjective

Samuel T. Cogley

IronSteve wrote: »

Area nastiness is subjective

Massively subjective and also the subject of a huge amount of snobbery in Dublin. You have to be comfortable with an area but there are very, very few unlivable places in Dublin, but admittedly they do exist.

That said if you're 50K ish off a property in SCD, you'll get into a very nice area in D5 such as Killester.

The_Pretender

trobbin wrote: »

At least it's not a life long commitment for something he's not even sure of!

He said he wants to start a family, how's he gonna cope in an apartment? It's horrible, I've unfortunately got friends in that situation.

Ex council houses in bad areas have risen in value by almost 300% and more in the last few years, just because people feel desperate. Due to attitudes like yours, "what else can we do, at least we'll be secure". We right! How secure will you be when the bubble bursts, and rates rise, or you get sick.

I will agree that deposit accounts in Ireland are poor, but remember. Savers have yet to be rewarded. Interest rates can only go one way, and the FED have already begun increasing them. There's a change coming.

If he can hold out and rent, I think it's he's in a better position.

Prices start stagnating last year, then CB relaxes rules, then government introduce the HTB, this has inflated an already pumped up market. In 2006 house prices rose by 12%, some people said it will adjust next year, it'll be a soft landing.

Listen, I can't tell you what to think, but look at the income to property price ratios. Look into what Brexit will do to many sectors in Ireland.

If this guy was buying his dream home it's one thing, but seriously!

Maybe I'm missing something, but hey I'm doing alright.

As you've said - if no one wants to buy, then prices will stagnante or fall. Great news for someone looking to buy right now, but what about those of us who plan on buying in the next 3-5 years?

I agree with you main point, prices are higher than what they should be. This is down to the lack of supply, very few purchased during the recession so very few houses were built, along with many of the developers going bust.

Since property prices have started to rise, constructing new properties has become viable and attractive again. This is how it has to work, prices rise in order to encourage construction. If everyone followed your idea, no one would buy and there would be no new houses built because obviosly no one wants to buy one. And people would still need to live somewhere, so rents will rise even further because no one is buying.

The issue is that it will be several years before the supply is there to meet the demand. AFAIK we aren't even building enough to meet the current demand coming on stream, nevermind the demand coming from those who were unable to buy during the recession.

While someone buying now may be paying more than they should for there house, it needs to happen in order for the market to correct itself.

digzy

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

That said if you're 50K ish off a property in SCD, you'll get into a very nice area in D5 such as Killester.

Might apply to a non dub, but op has stated their connections to a particular area.
I wouldn't like to be asking granny or grandad to be trekking from cabinteely over to killester to collect the kids from school either....

LirW

digzy wrote: »

Might apply to a non dub, but op has stated their connections to a particular area.
I wouldn't like to be asking granny or grandad to be trekking from cabinteely over to killester to collect the kids from school either....

The point isn't moving to Killester, it's more about that OP can't afford buying a house in the preferred area. And in that case you can either continue on renting there or get "creative" and buy somewhere where you can afford.
OP's preferred areas are among the most expensive ones in Dublin and there are a lot of nice and cheaper areas.

Samuel T. Cogley

digzy wrote: »

Might apply to a non dub, but op has stated their connections to a particular area.
I wouldn't like to be asking granny or grandad to be trekking from cabinteely over to killester to collect the kids from school either....

I should probably stop asking the in-law's to come down from Banbridge for Sunday dinner so :pac:

The point is we live in a city the size of a postage stamp with some excellent public transport (in very limited places). Granted if that's the sort of assistance they require then all other bets are off they have to stay in the area. Buying > Renting any day so get an apartment but expect to be potentially stuck with sub-optimal accommodation as the prices are more volatile than houses.

April 73

As someone earlier said the OP is looking to buy in the most expensive area, not just in Dublin but in the country. For most people that would mean a compromise. Live in the area that you want, but in a less than ideal home. Or broaden your search & find the right home in not quite the right area.
Personally I wouldn't choose an apartment as a long-term option.

digzy

LirW wrote: »

The point isn't moving to Killester, it's more about that OP can't afford buying a house in the preferred area. And in that case you can either continue on renting there or get "creative" and buy somewhere where you can afford.
OP's preferred areas are among the most expensive ones in Dublin and there are a lot of nice and cheaper areas.

I'm not slating killester.
My point is that when you're 'childless 'it doesn't really make a huge difference whether you're in a flat or a house.
Having kids is different. I used to live over work. Dragging buggies and all the other baby stuff up and down stairs is awkward and not being able to park outside your door is too. Having family/friends to support you is vital when you're new parents. You'd be nuts to move such a trek away (the Dublin traffic is a nightmare) if you could avoid it

It's easy for the likes of dermot banon and co to talk about how great apartment living is but in reality they're unsuitable for families.
(I know families have to live in them in urban centres all over the world) you cut your cloth according to your measure. If op can afford a house it's a no brainer.

hytrogen

dave29ken wrote:

We have always favoured a house as our first purchase, but recently even the more affordable housing locations in these areas (ex council estates), are becoming out of reach and a going for 40-60k above asking price. The alternative to owning a house is to focus on other areas that are further out- and with that the transport links/amenities tend to offer much less.

Owning a home is a huge commitment, in terms of maintenance, cleanliness, space, etc. To discover you live beside bad neighbours and remaining stuck beside them possibly until either of you die should you not be able to sell and move on, thankfully all my neighbours are golden unlike some of my colleagues and friends who find themselves hopeless with theirs after buying into nice looking neighbourhoods. At least with renting you can move away from these kinds of people after the lease has expired and not have to endure their manorisms indefinitely.

trobbin wrote:

If people like yourself stopped and said no way I'm not getting sucked in here, the prices would adjust. Just rent. This place will fall apart when Brexit kicks in. And as for people thinking Dublin is gonna get all of Londons financial sector, wake up, and read!!!!

+1 renting is far more convenient than commitment to a bank as a second (or third) wife, the arguement that "it's wasted money" is a farce lie, you're paying for a service and you now have more rights than the landlord in terms of tenure and rates security, and as mentioned above flexibility to be translucent.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Because they need somewhere to live that has security of tenure and they are getting almost nothing on deposit interest.

There are other means to increase your fortune, or better yet just spend it that's far more rewarding instead of hording it. There's enough insurance options on the market to cover that "rainy day fund"
To save looks great for credit ratings but unless it makes you a handsome return what's the point? It'll only get raided by the government when you die or another crash comes along like our pensions reserve..

lcwill

The debate is not apartment vs house its about a property that meets your needs.

Many of the negatives mentioned here about apartments only apply to crappy apartments and would apply equally to crappy houses.

I am married with 2 small kids and just bought a 3 bed apartment on ground floor with decent garden and allocated parking space (so few or none of the negatives listed in this thread apply).

I am in one of those European cities where apartment living is the norm. I could have spent way more for a house with very few advantages and probably much further from shops schools transport etc.

It is not a black and white debate and a good apartment in the right area will be a sound investment as apartment living becomes more normal in Ireland

The_Conductor

I live in a 3 bed duplex in a small gated community- comprising of 2 bed apartments and 3 bed duplexes (few than 40 in total), alongside a mix of commercial units.

I made a conscious decision that I was not going to bring up children here, for much the same reasons as several people have alluded to in this thread- and had a bid on a property- a large old house with reasonable sized ground for my prospective children- when the bottom fell out of the market in 2007.

I've now a 6 and a 7 year old living in a duplex- in an excellent area- and while my mortgage is more than it should be- the non-financial benefits of living where I am- vastly outweigh the perceived benefits I might have from living elsewhere.

I fully 'get' what people say about not bringing children up in apartments- however, every single day I thank my lucky stars that the bottom fell out of the market and I didn't buy that big old house- that I had in my head was an ideal 'family home'.

My duplex is even now only worth half what it was valued at in 2007 (a neighbouring property is gone sale agreed in the last week at exactly half the valuation I had done in 2007)- however, that is wholly aside from the point.

We need to get over house or apartment price rises and falls- and whether or not one property will keep its 'value' over a different property type or location. Property- is a utility- and needs to be viewed as a 'utility' for its utility value- rather than its headline 'worth' or 'value' that people seem fixated with. Worth and value have measures wholly divorced from pure monetary terms- that a lot of people seem to have a fixation with ignoring.

I would argue that if the OP does not see a property as a long term place they intend to live in- they shouldn't be buying, period. The whole notion of 'starter homes' and 'forever homes' should have been banished by the property crash- however, the manner in which so many people were never held to account for their decisions- and politicians were let off the hook for pushing property like crack cocaine to drug addicts- has meant there was no day of reckoning for the population as a whole- and there is a whole new generation lined up to be manipulated, yet again.

I live in a great location- I may not have a garden- I do however have public parks and facilities and amenities I could only dream of had I taken the plunge in 2007.

OP- I would value location first and foremost before any other decision- but I'd try and insulate myself to the best of my abilities (thus I have a 3 bed duplex in an excellent location- and my two children each have their own bedroom). However- I would also state rather forcefully- if you cannot see yourself living in the property you are looking at indefinitely- don't buy it.

Property is an investment in a roof over your head- a location you are living in- and facilities and amenities that do not have a pure cash value associated with them (for example- help with young children from family members living in the immediate vicinity- that you might not have if you move 30 miles away). Instead of looking purely at the headline price- and whether this monetary value will rise or fall- you have to live- and living is more than being King Midas hiding in a basement chortling to yourself about how your net worth is growing (or sobbing if it falls).

Personally- I'd love to hunt down whoever came up with the terms 'starter home' and 'forever home' and beat them up with a baseball bat. People need to give what should be the biggest decision in their lives more thought than simply looking at the headline cash value of a property- and deciding on the basis of whether it will most probably rise or fall- whether to buy or not.

Forget about a 'starter home', a 'forever home' or any other such manipulative term- can you see yourself living in a property long term- or is it a short term measure? If its a short term measure- don't buy- there is a strong and growing liklihood that your 'starter home' may end up as a 'forever home' and you may end up unhappier and unhappier- that you bought something somewhere- purely for the sake of buying something somewhere- and not because you actually wanted to live there.

Life is short- its only as you get older and have more life experiences that you may better appreciate that there are values other than financial values- that you really should be attributing to decisions you take.

Samuel T. Cogley

hytrogen wrote: »

+1 renting is far more convenient than commitment to a bank as a second (or third) wife, the arguement that "it's wasted money" is a farce lie, you're paying for a service and you now have more rights than the landlord in terms of tenure and rates security, and as mentioned above flexibility to be translucent.

Paying for a service - Okay but you're paying twice or more the going rate for the same property on a mortgage and you have to keep doing that as long as you need a place to live. Most of us don't want to be paying (or can't pay) upwards of 3 or 4 grand a month for a one bed come 2050. You have no doubt structured your pension better than I.

Rights though - you really don't. Even with the increased Part IV tenures the LL can, at any time, move back into the property or sell it out from under you. That's without the issue of vast numbers of BTL properties in arrears and the potential for a reciever to rock up at any money.

Ray Palmer

trobbin wrote: »

Have you not considered that the market is completely out of control? Why should you spend your life savings and take out a mortgage that you won't pay for another 25yrs for an ex council house or an apartment that isn't suitable for your family?

If people like yourself stopped and said no way I'm not getting sucked in here, the prices would adjust. Just rent. This place will fall apart when Brexit kicks in. And as for people thinking Dublin is gonna get all of Londons financial sector, wake up, and read!!!!

There were loads of people doing this as prices rose last time around. They hatched little schemes where they would buy when the market crashed. When it did they couldn't get a mortgage or didn't have enough to buy.
Time moved on and the prices rose again and when they tried to buy but again priced out of the market. Some was sheer price but other found they were too old to get a 25 year mortgage. Past 40 you are in a difficult situation to get a mortgage for the first time.
By all means wish that a mass of people can be controlled but reality is you have no control and you can't "should" the world around you. If you want to buy a house 5 years is a long time to wait let alone 10. The market can never really be out of control as it is never controlled.

Eire Go Brach

If kids are the plan. House all the way.
I'm stuck in negative equity in a 2 bed. Descent money coming in. But can't get out.

2 amazing kids. So wish we had a garden just to let them in. Park 10 minutes way. But still they don't get out as much as I would like them to. Would love a house with a garden only for the kids.

The_Conductor

Eire Go Brach wrote: »

If kids are the plan. House all the way.
I'm stuck in negative equity in a 2 bed. Descent money coming in. But can't get out.

2 amazing kids. So wish we had a garden just to let them in. Park 10 minutes way. But still they don't get out as much as I would like them to. Would love a house with a garden only for the kids.

It really isn't as easy as saying 'a house all the way' though, if kids are in the equation. Its not an ideal world- there are pros and cons associated with the various options.

I'd love a house with a nice garden for my two kids- however, I get 3 hours a day more with them where we now live- than I would if I bought a house in Longford and had to commute- and we have access to a wealth of facilities and amenties we wouldn't otherwise have access to.

There are pros and cons that the OP alone can identify and will have to weigh up and try to decide what is best for them.

It really is not as simple as saying a house all the way though- its nice- but there are costs associated with all our decisions- and we can become blinkered and imagine the grass is greener on the other side- when very often, it may not be.

dubrov

I'd be more concerned about space than whether it was an apartment or house.

Even with only one kid, anything with less than 2 bedrooms and 70m2 is going to feel cramped.
A garden is nice but would be down my priority list especially if there was a park and playground within 5 minutes walk.

If the choice is 60m2 apartment in a high-end area vs 90m2 house in middling area, I would go house every time if planning to have kids.

caviardreams

An awful lot of houses in Dublin have very minimal gardens too (especially at lower price points) so no guarantee you'll get much benefit from one over the outdoor space with an apartment.

dave29ken

The_Conductor wrote: »

I live in a 3 bed duplex in a small gated community- comprising of 2 bed apartments and 3 bed duplexes (few than 40 in total), alongside a mix of commercial units.

I made a conscious decision that I was not going to bring up children here, for much the same reasons as several people have alluded to in this thread- and had a bid on a property- a large old house with reasonable sized ground for my prospective children- when the bottom fell out of the market in 2007.

I've now a 6 and a 7 year old living in a duplex- in an excellent area- and while my mortgage is more than it should be- the non-financial benefits of living where I am- vastly outweigh the perceived benefits I might have from living elsewhere.

I fully 'get' what people say about not bringing children up in apartments- however, every single day I thank my lucky stars that the bottom fell out of the market and I didn't buy that big old house- that I had in my head was an ideal 'family home'.

My duplex is even now only worth half what it was valued at in 2007 (a neighbouring property is gone sale agreed in the last week at exactly half the valuation I had done in 2007)- however, that is wholly aside from the point.

We need to get over house or apartment price rises and falls- and whether or not one property will keep its 'value' over a different property type or location. Property- is a utility- and needs to be viewed as a 'utility' for its utility value- rather than its headline 'worth' or 'value' that people seem fixated with. Worth and value have measures wholly divorced from pure monetary terms- that a lot of people seem to have a fixation with ignoring.

I would argue that if the OP does not see a property as a long term place they intend to live in- they shouldn't be buying, period. The whole notion of 'starter homes' and 'forever homes' should have been banished by the property crash- however, the manner in which so many people were never held to account for their decisions- and politicians were let off the hook for pushing property like crack cocaine to drug addicts- has meant there was no day of reckoning for the population as a whole- and there is a whole new generation lined up to be manipulated, yet again.

I live in a great location- I may not have a garden- I do however have public parks and facilities and amenities I could only dream of had I taken the plunge in 2007.

OP- I would value location first and foremost before any other decision- but I'd try and insulate myself to the best of my abilities (thus I have a 3 bed duplex in an excellent location- and my two children each have their own bedroom). However- I would also state rather forcefully- if you cannot see yourself living in the property you are looking at indefinitely- don't buy it.

Property is an investment in a roof over your head- a location you are living in- and facilities and amenities that do not have a pure cash value associated with them (for example- help with young children from family members living in the immediate vicinity- that you might not have if you move 30 miles away). Instead of looking purely at the headline price- and whether this monetary value will rise or fall- you have to live- and living is more than being King Midas hiding in a basement chortling to yourself about how your net worth is growing (or sobbing if it falls).

Personally- I'd love to hunt down whoever came up with the terms 'starter home' and 'forever home' and beat them up with a baseball bat. People need to give what should be the biggest decision in their lives more thought than simply looking at the headline cash value of a property- and deciding on the basis of whether it will most probably rise or fall- whether to buy or not.

Forget about a 'starter home', a 'forever home' or any other such manipulative term- can you see yourself living in a property long term- or is it a short term measure? If its a short term measure- don't buy- there is a strong and growing liklihood that your 'starter home' may end up as a 'forever home' and you may end up unhappier and unhappier- that you bought something somewhere- purely for the sake of buying something somewhere- and not because you actually wanted to live there.

Life is short- its only as you get older and have more life experiences that you may better appreciate that there are values other than financial values- that you really should be attributing to decisions you take.

Thanks for this post, really enjoyed reading through it. Agree with your take on how the location can really benefit. As far as taking a long term view, the right apartment in the right location is somewhere i could imagine us settling in for 10/15 years if not longer i would say, but kids are the unknown for us I suppose and how that may change our thinking (We plan to have 1). Personally I wouldn't place a huge emphasis on having a back garden if good communal green areas or parks are within easy walking distance. I'm glad to hear that you are seeing the lifestyle benefits of your decision, while having a family life.

A big part of this thought process for me is that i have a lot of friends and colleague that were enticed into buying homes in disconnected locations during the boom. They hate where they are and as with many apartment owners, are also stuck in negative equity with no hope of trading currently.

I'm not adverse to renting (currently renting same apartment for last 4 years in super location, love it) but dont want to get to an age where obtaining a first time mortgage is going to be difficult.

thierry14

dave29ken wrote: »

Thanks for this post, really enjoyed reading through it. Agree with your take on how the location can really benefit. As far as taking a long term view, the right apartment in the right location is somewhere i could imagine us settling in for 10/15 years if not longer i would say, but kids are the unknown for us I suppose and how that may change our thinking (We plan to have 1). Personally I wouldn't place a huge emphasis on having a back garden if good communal green areas or parks are within easy walking distance. I'm glad to hear that you are seeing the lifestyle benefits of your decision, while having a family life.

A big part of this thought process for me is that i have a lot of friends and colleague that were enticed into buying homes in disconnected locations during the boom. They hate where they are and as with many apartment owners, are also stuck in negative equity with no hope of trading currently.

I'm not adverse to renting (currently renting same apartment for last 4 years in super location, love it) but dont want to get to an age where obtaining a first time mortgage is going to be difficult.

At your age it makes sense to buy now

Wait a few more years when your over 40 and it's going to be difficult getting any mortgage over 20 years

Plus it's better to get a mortgage when both of you are working and kids come along

Crash might happen who knows, but if your approaching 40 that's not a good thing as credit will dry up and you could be getting on a bit once out of the crash

If you were 25 I would say wait to buy

Dublin is pretty small, why not something around D15? Northside of Dublin

Lovely houses around there brand new for under 300k with good specs

hytrogen

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

Paying for a service - Okay but you're paying twice or more the going rate for the same property on a mortgage and you have to keep doing that as long as you need a place to live. Most of us don't want to be paying (or can't pay) upwards of 3 or 4 grand a month for a one bed come 2050. You have no doubt structured your pension better than I.

Yeah fair enough most landlord out there want to break even at the very least on the loans they took out to buy a rental property, hence as you say, most rents are nearly double the price they should be, as in matching a mortgage payment unfortunately. Equally with the annual maintenance costs etc. Some are just cold hearted blood drawing heathens that really should be taken out of the market (shot) and buried quietly..

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

Rights though - you really don't. Even with the increased Part IV tenures the LL can, at any time, move back into the property or sell it out from under you. That's without the issue of vast numbers of BTL properties in arrears and the potential for a reciever to rock up at any money.

Yeah I suppose I was a bit vague by what I meant, it was mostly aimed at the rpz caps which has really upset the market overall in a very cocked fashion. Good for tenants pockets and piece of mind, bad for landlord relations.
I still think if I was starting out again post graduation in these times I'd plan to rent for about 10years while in a decent job before I'd go near purchasing a property with the way things are so volitile and just weather it out, then look to buy a granny's old gaf when I made middle management

Nika Bolokov

Starter home isn't such a horrible term. As you progress in your career you earn more than you did at the start so you buy a bigger house. This practice has been around for decades and having a goal to do so and so using that term shouldn't be such a big deal.

Usually I find people who object to the term are a) paranoid about property prices or b) bought a house in a field off the M50 with no transport and hate people implying that it's not a great house.

If it's a big apartment OP and the location is great then go for it. Spending hours every day on the M50 or in the car is not worth it. The phrase 'apartments don't hold their value' has no statistical foundation when you compare like for like and is far better than buying a house out in a West Dublin lego land development with crap transport also with no outside space.

Whenever someone says there from SCD and there just over the moon with their new tiny house in what was once Tallaght but is now renamed by an estate agent think pinnoccio

The_Conductor

Nika Bolokov - I assure you that the majority of people who have issues with the term 'starter home' did not buy a shoebox in the arse-end of nowhere- as you're implying.

When property prices are increasing by almost 10% year-on-year- but wages aren't even keeping pace with consumer price inflation (2.1% currently according to the CSO)- and there is a large cohort of people who bought in the last bubble and are still in negative equity- you can rapidly see how and why there is such scepticism about the whole 'starter home' and 'forever home' terminology. Wholly aside from this- keep in mind- we don't build family homes such as were built in the 40s/50s/60s/70s- hell even the bankrupt 80s....... We aren't building them. And- people are very location conscious- you rapidly see people can't afford to live where they want to- and a significant portion of our pre-existing 'family housing' stock- is owned by older people whose children have flown the nest. Add the incentives being offered to first-time-buyers to buy new builds- and you can see that the deck is stacked against those who imagine they'll buy a 'starter home' and upgrade to a 'forever home' down the road.

There are hundreds of thousands of Irish living in accommodation which does not meet local authority housing needs qualifications (740,000 according to the CSO stats released a few weeks back- obviously this includes children etc- its not a measure of housing units). The standard not being adhered to is property size and bedrooms per family size units- i.e. you have families living in properties with too few bedrooms for their needs- and most probably a lot else thats not ideal besides.

Anyhow- I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you're not familiar with. If you'd like a good read- visit the CSO website- they have very good housing statistics published- it was the first data from the Census that they released, as they knew it was of such concern.

amtc

I bought where I'm from...which happens to be in d15. I don't have children but love the illusion of gardens (actually all I own is the patio). It's 83 sq metres. I pretty much use spare room as dressing room or overnight for a friend who needs to get red eye flights which are not accessible from her house in the country. Wouldn't change it for the world.

My mate lives in Dublin City Centre and had three children in three years. In a two bedroom apartment. Both on good salaries but neither drive. She has inherited house but miles away. It's rented out but below market rent. They're seriously considering board ing school

The_Conductor

amtc wrote: »

I bought where I'm from...which happens to be in d15. I don't have children but love the illusion of gardens (actually all I own is the patio). It's 83 sq metres. I pretty much use spare room as dressing room or overnight for a friend who needs to get red eye flights which are not accessible from her house in the country. Wouldn't change it for the world.

My mate lives in Dublin City Centre and had three children in three years. In a two bedroom apartment. Both on good salaries but neither drive. She has inherited house but miles away. It's rented out but below market rent. They're seriously considering board ing school

In your friends case- if they have no intention of ever living in the property they inherited- are letting it at below market value and its in an RPZ- there is no rational reason to keep the property. Sell it. Either invest the proceeds locally for them- or buy something that suits their family needs. Living in a 2 bed apartment- does not for most people equate with- lets the ship the kids off to boarding school, then we don't have to worry about bedrooms for them......... Seems to be someone taking very weird choices/decisions in my opinion- esp. as you say they're in quite reasonable jobs and definitely have the means to move, if they so choose to do so.

ThisRegard

Nika Bolokov wrote: »

.........b) bought a house in a field off the M50 with no transport and hate people implying that it's not a great house.

.........is far better than buying a house out in a West Dublin lego land development with crap transport also with no outside space.

Whenever someone says there from SCD and there just over the moon with their new tiny house in what was once Tallaght but is now renamed by an estate agent think pinnoccio

Have you ever been outside of the M50? And they either bought a house in a field, or bought a house with no outside space, it can't be both.

johnnyskeleton

The_Conductor wrote: »

Forget about a 'starter home', a 'forever home' or any other such manipulative term- can you see yourself living in a property long term- or is it a short term measure? If its a short term measure- don't buy- there is a strong and growing liklihood that your 'starter home' may end up as a 'forever home' and you may end up unhappier and unhappier- that you bought something somewhere- purely for the sake of buying something somewhere- and not because you actually wanted to live there.

While this may be good advice as a general rule, it isn't always so.

A person will only end up in a starter home forever if they cannot sell it. However, if they don't buy for fear of this happening and rent instead, they may spend the rest of their lives renting.

So let's say person X has two options - to buy an apartment or keeping renting.

To Buy
The risk in buying is that the property will go down in value to such an extent that the bank won't let them sell the property or they will have to take on a residual loan such that buying a property in future is unlikely.

The potential benefit is that it will go up in value and they will then have a larger deposit if they decide to move on.

A guarded, but more realistic scenario is that the property will stay more or less the same price and, between the deposit, money paid off the principle and the money they save on rent, less solicitor's fees, stamp duty etc, they could break even or come out slightly ahead if they were to sell after 5 years.

To Rent
The risk is that rents keep going up, making it ever more unaffordable. At the same time, prices could continue to go up, making the chances of purchasing in the future even more remote as rent swallows up more and more of a person's savings.

The potential benefit is that rents and/or prices go down, such that the cost of renting is cheaper than buying so they are saving on both and can afford a better house.

The most realistic scenario, in my view, is that rents can't go up much more, at least not without massive inflation, but with landlords pulling out it competition to get a tenancy is going to increase massively.

Each person must decide for themselves what they think is likely to happen. They can then hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

For example, let's say person X is renting for €1,500 a month, has a 100k deposit and ultimately wants to buy a house but doesn't need it in the short-medium term. If he buys an apartment for €200k, the mortgage interest will be approximately €4,000 per year, plus management fees of say €2,000. That's €500 a month, a grand less per month than what he is renting for. And the interest on the 100k might be less than a grand a year after DIRT.

Let's say that the stamp duty, solicitors fees, repairs and furniture etc cost €6,000 upfront as the one off cost of buying. Over 3 years that's €2,000 per year.

So if over 3 years the property goes down by €9,000 per year, he's still in a break even position.

Lycoge

@ Nika Bolokov, as someone from the SD area who moved, your sweeping comments have struck a nerve.

Nika Bolokov wrote:

As you progress in your career you earn more than you did at the start so you buy a bigger house.

It is a risk though. A change in circumstances (economy / personal / health/ financial) is all that is needed to prevent you buying the next home.. it would be prudent when investing such a significant amount of money and making a 30 year long financial commitment to question whether the starter home / first house would suit your needs if things went wrong. The risk might work out in the end, but that needs to be taken into consideration before taking it.

Nika Bolokov wrote:

Usually I find people who object to the term are a) paranoid about property prices or b) bought a house in a field off the M50 with no transport and hate people implying that it's not a great house.

Who doesnt hate anyone implying their house isnt a great house? Everywhere off the m50, other than the OP'S mentioned areas (which are also off the m50), is fields? No Luas / busses / easy access to the m50 anywhere else?

Nika Bolokov wrote:

Spending hours every day on the M50 or in the car is not worth it. The phrase 'apartments don't hold their value' has no statistical foundation when you compare like for like and is far better than buying a house out in a West Dublin lego land development with crap transport also with no outside space.

Assuming the OP works close to the areas they mentioned and works in those areas for decades to come, then yes they will save themselves a commute by staying in those areas.

But living in those areas doesn't guarantee they won't spend "hours" on the m50. Traffic north bound on the m50 from carrickmines onwards is substantial if they need to travel in that direction. South to city centre on n11 or West to city centre have same travel times in peak traffic. In my case 40-50 minutes to Dun Laoghaire and visa versa in peak times isn't the equivalent of "hours on the m50".

No outside space outside? Some lovely parks out this way, replace Cabinteely park nicely. Dont have the seaside nearby though and nothing can replace DL pier but it's worth a drive out on a Sunday all the same

Nika Bolokov wrote:

Whenever someone says there from SCD and there just over the moon with their new tiny house in what was once Tallaght but is now renamed by an estate agent think pinnoccio

I have so many questions about this piece....No large houses outside of the OP'S stated areas no? All tiny? None that are bigger than the average house in SD? None of the areas outside of OP'S areas have their own names / villages / history, they're all just an extention of Tallaght? Yes the ideal for those of us from SD would be to afford a house where we grew up but that can't happen for everyone. It's not all about the area you grew up in either. It's not as simple as saying, just buy in SD because everywhere else is crap (paraphrasing here, but close enough to the quoted comments). It's about identifying what you a) can afford to pay, b) want out of a house c) want in the area you buy in and then finding something that ticks those boxes that you're happy with... Before you part with 100,000s over the next 30 years.

All of this is mute of course if the OP has heart 100% set on their original areas and isn't open to exploring the "wild west" fields off the m50. In which case, for them, it does come down to whatever house/ apartment they chose to buy after weighing up the pros and cons of those 2 options. It just happens that when we were faced with only those 2 options, we moved a couple of exits up the m50.

No pinnochio here.

Paulw

I bought my apartment when I was single. I bought a top floor apt, in a decent area, but a very new area.

It has a nice large green area just outside the front door, and a playground in our courtyard.

Since I bought, I met someone, got married and we have a 3 yr old child now. Problems? Not really. The stairs were a little awkward, but nothing that you don't get used to. Problems with space? None. It's great to go out in to the park with the little one, or else around to the playground. She loves walking around the park. She likes watching others play football in the park, or watching people walking their dogs. She can also run around and play while we relax in the park.

Is it perfect and ideal?? No. Nothing in life is, especially when you buy. But, we are more than happy here and have no plan to move any time soon.

I bought it as my first step on the ladder. But, I was smart. I bought a 3 bed apartment, that was within my budget. Yes, I've a long mortgage, but my mortgage isn't crippling me. Lots of transport, shops, facilities, etc all close by. Not everyone starts with a little poke in the wall.

What would I house bring me? The hassle of having to cut the grass and maintain the garden. Other than that, it wouldn't be a whole lot different.

Murrisk

Pkiernan wrote: »

A nasty dwelling in a nice area ALWAYS beats a nice dwelling in a nasty area.
Always.

There's very few truly nasty areas in Dublin. I lived in a lovely, large house with a decent back garden in a slightly shabby area of the inner suburbs for five years. Give me that over a shoebox in Ballsbridge or Ranelagh any day. People can be mighty snobby towards perfectly decent areas of the city.

Eire Go Brach

Nika Bolokov wrote: »

Starter home isn't such a horrible term. As you progress in your career you earn more than you did at the start so you buy a bigger house. This practice has been around for decades and having a goal to do so and so using that term shouldn't be such a big deal.

Usually I find people who object to the term are a) paranoid about property prices or b) bought a house in a field off the M50 with no transport and hate people implying that it's not a great house.

If it's a big apartment OP and the location is great then go for it. Spending hours every day on the M50 or in the car is not worth it. The phrase 'apartments don't hold their value' has no statistical foundation when you compare like for like and is far better than buying a house

Paranoid? It's happened to me and lots of people. We done all you said. But still in negative equity. Earn good money and can't afford to get out.

Starter house, It's just another marketing term.
This has been a good thread all the same. It's show that people value different things over others. Where I live we don't even need a car. We have everything that close. Still I would love a house for the kids.