Vacant Properties in Ireland

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Well if we are to trust the ability and competence of our public and civil servants it would indicate that in a number of areas there is no over supply of property. Would you disagree?

If we are talking about the supply of properties available in April 2016, (census time) then yes I agree with you:

According to our public and civil servants there was no oversupply of property in a number of areas, specifically Greater Dublin, in April 2016. The census figures confirm this.

But the corollary of that is the census figures also confirm that there was no undersupply of property in a number of areas, specifically Greater Dublin, in April 2016.

And according to people trying to rent a property in that time frame there was a chronic shortage. Record lows apparently.

PropQueries

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, they explain, which means temporal vacant, that is in use, can be well classified as vacant. Holiday homes are vacant as well.
They classify 245,460 as vacant. As it includes that much of types of different "vacancies", and doesn't speak about long term vacancy, thus we can't know, if that means a lot, if it's normal, or low.

The second part, why should I believe you? You can not provide any source? Just your assumptions and believes.

I fully understand if you don't want to believe the Census figures for Q2 2016 which counts 180,00 vacant homes. I also fully understand if you don't want to believe the GeoDirectoy Survey for Q2 2020 which counts 90,000 vacant homes.

Marius34

PropQueries wrote: »

I fully understand if you don't want to believe the Census figures for Q2 2016 which counts 180,00 vacant homes. I also fully understand if you don't want to believe the GeoDirectoy Survey for Q2 2020 which counts 90,000 vacant homes.

I have never said that I don't believe.
And you are wrong even with Census, they count not 180,000, but 245,000.

PropQueries

Marius34 wrote: »

I have never said that I don't believe.
And you are wrong even with Census, they count not 180,000, but 245,000.

The c. 245,000 includes c. 65,000 holiday home properties. It's c. 180,000 after they are removed. That' why people refer to the c. 180,000 figure.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Holiday homes are vacant as well.
They classify 245,460 as vacant. As it includes that much of types of different "vacancies", and doesn't speak about long term vacancy, thus we can't know, if that means a lot, if it's normal, or low.

Marius34 wrote: »

I have never said that I don't believe.
And you are wrong even with Census, they count not 180,000, but 245,000.

What’s with your sudden fascination with the 245k figure including holiday homes? When you and I were having a similar discussion, you pulled me up, (rightly so), for quoting the the figure including holiday homes.

Marius34 wrote: »

3) We don't compare apples with apples here.
Even the article says:
"Our main interest here is in the 183k vacant units which accounts for 9.1% of the housing stock across Ireland." And not 12.3%

Edit: Nevermind, probably the wrong thread to be asking in.

Marius34

PropQueries wrote: »

The c. 245,000 includes c. 65,000 holiday home properties. It's c. 180,000 after they are removed. That' why people refer to the c. 180,000 figure.

Yes, some remove, but just because Census provided information about that particular group. We don't know about others, that's why they don't exclude. That still 245,000 vacant homes based on Census.
Why my home if it's holiday should removed from the list, and let say my home, that I'm doing some renovation, should not be removed from vacancy list?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

What’s with your sudden fascination with the 245k figure including holiday homes? When you and I were having a similar discussion, you pulled me up, (rightly so), for quoting the the figure including holiday homes.

Because of the article you provided. You was comparing 2016 all Census vacancies vs previous Census none-holiday homes vacancies. Apples and Pears.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Because of the article you provided. You was comparing 2016 all Census vacancies vs previous Census none-holiday homes vacancies. Apples and Pears.

Seems legit.

Edit to add, have just read back through the exchange, and it doesn't seem that legit after all.

As I recall I was not comparing "2016 all vacancies vs vs previous Census none-holiday homes vacancies." That was actually you:

Marius34 wrote: »

2) I don't see how large "Census vacancy", contributes to shortage. 2011 "Census vacancy" was 14,5%. That would mean that there were even higher shortage? Obviously that wasn't a case, it was record high.

That 14.5% included holiday homes

THERE WERE 289,451 vacant dwellings around Ireland at the time of Census 2011 – 14.5 per cent of all housing stock in the state.

Of these, over 59,000 were holiday homes.

I only referenced the 2011 figures in replying to your question.

schmittel wrote: »

The comparison with 2011 is worth highlighting. You say vacancies were at 14.5% - "That would mean that there were even higher shortage? Obviously that wasn't a case, it was record high." - the shortages were not apparent because demand was so weak in 2011.

Very easily to instinctively understand why vacancies would be high in a market where houses were not selling, people were emigrating etc.

Less so in a rising market with a growing population where everybody is talking about massive undersupply.

So it seems like you are spinning the data depending on what point you are trying to make. Not unlike Fingal Co Co and all the other census deniers.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Seems legit.

Edit to add, have just read back through the exchange, and it doesn't seem that legit after all.

As I recall I was not comparing "2016 all vacancies vs vs previous Census none-holiday homes vacancies." That was actually you:

That 14.5% included holiday homes

I only referenced the 2011 figures in replying to your question.

So it seems like you are spinning the data depending on what point you are trying to make. Not unlike Fingal Co Co and all the other census deniers.

I have compared Census ALL vacancy 2011 vs 2016, right? Apples with apples

You compared:

schmittel wrote: »

I believe one of the factors contributing to the current shortage of properties for sale is the very high numbers of vacant properties in the country. Long term averages are 6% but the most recent reliable measure we have is 12%. This view is based on the census data of 2016.

12% - is for 2016 ALL Census vacancy
6% - is for Vacancy (less holiday homes)

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

If we are talking about the supply of properties available in April 2016, (census time) then yes I agree with you:

According to our public and civil servants there was no oversupply of property in a number of areas, specifically Greater Dublin, in April 2016. The census figures confirm this.

But the corollary of that is the census figures also confirm that there was no undersupply of property in a number of areas, specifically Greater Dublin, in April 2016.

And according to people trying to rent a property in that time frame there was a chronic shortage. Record lows apparently.

Perhaps we then would need to know the types of vacant property - houses apartments etc - as well as the condition of the cvs can’t property. As you have said before we are building the wrong types of property ?

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

I have compared Census ALL vacancy 2011 vs 2016, right? Apples with apples

Erm, wrong.

Marius34 wrote: »

You compared:

12% - is for 2016 ALL Census vacancy
6% - is for Vacancy (less holiday homes)

Wrong again I'm afraid.

12% is for 2016 all vacancies. 9.1% is for vacancies less holiday homes.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Perhaps we then would need to know the types of vacant property - houses apartments etc - as well as the condition of the cvs can’t property. As you have said before we are building the wrong types of property ?

Sure the what would be useful, and no doubt the govt could get that info from the CSO if they wanted to.

In the short term I'd rather know the why. That would be a lot more useful.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Erm, wrong.

Wrong again I'm afraid.

12% is for 2016 all vacancies. 9.1% is for vacancies less holiday homes.

Explain, what's wrong?

bobbyy gee

Most vacant houses need to be knocked down and rebuilt


https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/why-are-so-many-owners-leaving-their-houses-and-apartments-vacant-1.3431685?mode=amp

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Explain, what's wrong?

Sure:

Marius34 wrote: »

3) We don't compare apples with apples here.
Even the article says:
"Our main interest here is in the 183k vacant units which accounts for 9.1% of the housing stock across Ireland." And not 12.3%

PropQueries

bobbyy gee wrote: »

Most vacant houses need to be knocked down and rebuilt


https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/why-are-so-many-owners-leaving-their-houses-and-apartments-vacant-1.3431685?mode=amp

That article refers to one house that needed to be completely refurbished. Didn’t mention anything about how many vacant homes needing to be knocked down.

However, thanks for the article as it did clear up one point I’ve been finding it difficult to find information on.

The finance minister stated in the article that one third of properties classified as vacant in the census belonged to elderly people.

If that’s true and it’s now over 4 years since the census was taken, a significant amount of probate sales are probably about to enter the market in the near future.

Life expectancy in ireland increased by about 5 years over the past 20 years so it appears the shortage of supply coming from this market segment is about to finally hit the market in significant numbers.

And their homes are primarily in the most desirable and sought after areas around Dublin and other cities.

And, it looks like they will be re-entering the market at the worst possible time as they will be competing with the rural properties that are becoming increasingly attractive to the WFH generation.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Sure:

Clearly report speaks about Census vacancy minus holiday home, which is 9.1%, and NOT 12.3%, as I said even article says it:
"Our main interest here is in the 183k vacant units which accounts for 9.1% of the housing stock across Ireland. " " A base vacancy rate of 6% "
9.1%, NOT 12%

Whereas you compared:

schmittel wrote: »

I believe one of the factors contributing to the current shortage of properties for sale is the very high numbers of vacant properties in the country. Long term averages are 6% but the most recent reliable measure we have is 12%. This view is based on the census data of 2016.

Census ALL vacancy = Apples. (12.3% for 2016)
Report speaks about Census all vacancy minus holiday homes = Pears (9.1% for 2016, 6% for Base)

Where did I compare Apples with Pears?

Timing belt

You have a very negative outlook on the property market and seem to be waiting for it’s collapse to such an extent that you are looking for conspiracies to back it up. Like it or not property prices won’t move by more than 5% in either direction without a significant building program put in place and backed by the government.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Clearly report speaks about Census vacancy minus holiday home, which is 9.1%, and NOT 12.3%, as I said even article says it:
"Our main interest here is in the 183k vacant units which accounts for 9.1% of the housing stock across Ireland. "
9.1%, NOT 12%

Whereas you compared:


Census ALL vacancy = Apples. (12.3% for 2016)
Report speaks about Census all vacancy minus holiday homes = Pears (9.1% for 2016, 6% for Base)

Where did I compare Apples with Pears?

I have no idea where you compared apples with pears, and never suggested you did. If you recall it was you kept going on about apples and pears.

I compared census all vacancies - 12.3% - with long term averages of 6% - yes.

And you said we should be talking about 9.1% not 12.3%:

Marius34 wrote: »

3) We don't compare apples with apples here.
Even the article says:
"Our main interest here is in the 183k vacant units which accounts for 9.1% of the housing stock across Ireland." And not 12.3%

I said fair enough, thats logical:

schmittel wrote: »

Ok, that's a fair point - the 12% figures include vacant holiday homes - the vast majority of which are far less likely to be suitable/available for permanent occupation, assuming they constitute dwellings like a cottage in Caherdaniel for instance.

And after a bit of comment about holiday homes in Dublin, I continued to discuss the figures using 183k ignoring holiday homes.

That's why I was a bit surprised to hear you in this thread muttering that 245k including holiday homes is the magic number.

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

That article refers to one house that needed to be completely refurbished. Didn’t mention anything about how many vacant homes needing to be knocked down.

However, thanks for the article as it did clear up one point I’ve been finding it difficult to find information on.

The finance minister stated in the article that one third of properties classified as vacant in the census belonged to elderly people.

If that’s true and it’s now over 4 years since the census was taken, a significant amount of probate sales are probably about to enter the market in the near future.

Life expectancy in ireland increased by about 5 years over the past 20 years so it appears the shortage of supply coming from this market segment is about to finally hit the market in significant numbers.

And their homes are primarily in the most desirable and sought after areas around Dublin and other cities.

And, it looks like they will be re-entering the market at the worst possible time as they will be competing with the rural properties that are becoming increasingly attractive to the WFH generation.

I suspect that's more political opportunism, clutching at straws to explain the numbers:

In November Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe said more than a third of properties currently classified as vacant were owned by elderly people. This is largely down to the Fair Deal nursing-home scheme, which uses a person’s disposable income to cover the cost of their care. This January 23,000 people were availing of the scheme

According the CSO 4,165 out of 183,312 houses are vacant because of their owners are in nursing homes.

More nothing to see here spin.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Sure the what would be useful, and no doubt the govt could get that info from the CSO if they wanted to.

In the short term I'd rather know the why. That would be a lot more useful.

You have far too much faith in government or public and civil servants. Better luck getting scooby doo on the case

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

As I recall I was not comparing "2016 all vacancies vs vs previous Census none-holiday homes vacancies." That was actually you:

I don't get you, you contradicting yourself:

schmittel wrote: »

I have no idea where you compared apples with pears, and never suggested you did. If you recall it was you kept going on about apples and pears.

I compared census all vacancies - 12.3% - with long term averages of 6% - yes.

And you said we should be talking about 9.1% not 12.3%:

That's was what report saying, which we was discussing.
"Our main interest here is in the 183k vacant units which accounts for 9.1% of the housing stock across Ireland." - this is a citation from report, not my words
http://airo.maynoothuniversity.ie/news/breakdown-housing-vacancy-figures-ireland

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

I don't get you, you contradicting yourself:


That's was what report saying, which we was discussing.
"Our main interest here is in the 183k vacant units which accounts for 9.1% of the housing stock across Ireland." - this a citation, not my words
http://airo.maynoothuniversity.ie/news/breakdown-housing-vacancy-figures-ireland

Please explain, (or better still, quote the exact post that gave you this impression), where I was comparing "2016 all vacancies vs vs previous Census none-holiday homes vacancies."

For example I will quote the post where you did exactly that:

Marius34 wrote: »

2) I don't see how large "Census vacancy", contributes to shortage. 2011 "Census vacancy" was 14,5%. That would mean that there were even higher shortage? Obviously that wasn't a case, it was record high.

If you can quote this post where I compared 2016 census vacancies to 2011 census vacancies (not the one where I was replying to your comparison obviously!) I will offer my humblest apologies for contradicting myself.

I am not trying to be difficult, I genuinely don't recall doing so, but you clearly do.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Please explain, (or better still, quote the exact post that gave you this impression), where I was comparing "2016 all vacancies vs vs previous Census none-holiday homes vacancies."

For example I will quote the post where you did exactly that:

If you can quote this post where I compared 2016 census vacancies to 2011 census vacancies (not the one where I was replying to your comparison obviously!) I will offer my humblest apologies for contradicting myself.

I am not trying to be difficult, I genuinely don't recall doing so, but you clearly do.

I'm not sure if you by purpose playing with words/ my English.
But ok, I just realized something it seems there could be misunderstanding (maybe), with plural forms. Previous Census I'm using as historical, I believe there is no difference in writing
Ok I'll try to explain as clear and honest.

I did not mean that you compared with 2011 Census. I talked about Previous Census (historical data, plural), in response as per you comment:

schmittel wrote: »

Long term averages are 6% but the most recent reliable measure we have is 12%. This view is based on the census data of 2016.
.

I believe what you intended to compare is the latest 2016 vs Historical? With Same measures. I might got it wrong, but yes please I'm happy if you clarify?

Now, talking about my comment, I really don't see anything mentioned about none Holiday homes in my comment, it's all about "Census vacancy" only.
"2) I don't see how large "Census vacancy", contributes to shortage. 2011 "Census vacancy" was 14,5%. That would mean that there were even higher shortage? Obviously that wasn't a case, it was record high."
If it's not clear something from this, I can explain. But please don't play with words.

Sorolla

Is there an official registration required to declare a property as a holiday home?

Sorolla

What happens to old houses that are vacant and nobody takes care of them - is there a process for them to become officially derelict?

What happens to derelict property - do the county council confiscate it?

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you by purpose playing with words/ my English.
But ok, I just realized something it seems there could be misunderstanding (maybe), with plural forms. Previous Census I'm using as historical, I believe there is no difference in writing
Ok I'll try to explain as clear and honest.

I did not mean that you compared with 2011 Census. I talked about Previous Census (historical data, plural), in response as per you comment:

I believe what you intended to compare is the latest 2016 vs Historical? With Same measures. I might got it wrong, but yes please I'm happy if you clarify?

Now, talking about my comment, I really don't see anything mentioned about none Holiday homes in my comment, it's all about "Census vacancy" only.
"2) I don't see how large "Census vacancy", contributes to shortage. 2011 "Census vacancy" was 14,5%. That would mean that there were even higher shortage? Obviously that wasn't a case, it was record high."
If it's not clear something from this, I can explain. But please don't play with words.

Marius, you often accuse me of being disingenous, please don't accuse me of playing with words as well.

A census is a snapshot of the situation of the situation at an exact point time. Long term averages are exactly the opposite of this, by literal definition.

I compared the Census of 2016 with the long term expected average, and was clear about that in every post on the subject:

schmittel wrote: »

The point is on census night 12% of the housing stock was classified as vacant, it should be closer to 6%.

The conversation the government should be having is why is that vacancy rate double the long term average?

schmittel wrote: »

I believe one of the factors contributing to the current shortage of properties for sale is the very high numbers of vacant properties in the country. Long term averages are 6% but the most recent reliable measure we have is 12%. This view is based on the census data of 2016.

You queried the 6% figure, and asked me to clarify it:

Marius34 wrote: »

3) You say long term vacancy is 6%? I don't think that's right. Where do you get this? do we compare apples with apples?

Fair enough query, so I replied to explain what I was referring to by the 6%:

schmittel wrote: »

2) To see how vacancies contribute you have to accept/understand point 3. The long term average of of vacant properties is 6% then we have a surplus of 6% (or approx 120,000 properties) that would otherwise normally be occupied. It stands to reason that if they are not being owner occupied, in normal circumstances in order to be occupied they would have to be offered either for sale or rent.

3) The figure of 6% is quoted in many studies in many different housing markets. For example the AIRO info you referenced previously:

When discussing vacancy rates it is also important to look at overall levels of housing oversupply and our expected base vacancy. A base vacancy rate of 6% of total housing stock is normally expected within a properly functioning housing market. For instance, the expected base vacancy for Ireland would be approximately 120k housing units (6% of 2.003m housing stock) – this allows for renovation, changing ownership or changing tenancies. Oversupply is calculated by subtracting the expected base vacancy from the actual recorded vacancy figures on census night.

So I am consistently saying I am comparing the census data to what is the expected long term average and you interpret this as:

"Previous Census I'm using as historical, I believe there is no difference in writing"

I cannot help the fact that you see no difference between long term averages and previous censuses. You are wrong, but I doubt you will graciously admit it. That's not your style.

I find this very frustrating because you consistently accuse me of some inherent bias, spinning data to suit my agenda and presenting lies as facts, or weak mathematics and inability to interpret data etc etc and time and time again when I debate a post with you further, it turns out you did not actually understand it in the first place. And now you are accusing me of playing with words.

I know my posts annoy you, as you so consistently attack them, but if you are unable to understand my posts, it would be better for both of us, and everybody else, if you just ignored them.

Hubertj

Are there any vacant properties near where you live? Thinking about it, I know of 3 within about 1km on my house that have all been vacant over 10 years, 1 on st Mary’s road and 2 on Elgin road.
There is another on Elgin road that Michael O’Leary owns. He bought it, renovated it but hasn’t been able to let it, I’d say it must be vacant 3 years. https://www.myhome.ie/rentals/brochure/5-elgin-road-ballsbridge-dublin-4/4439326

I have a neighbour who seems to know everything that goes on!

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

You have far too much faith in government or public and civil servants. Better luck getting scooby doo on the case

In fairness they started off on in the right direction, with Simon Coveny as Minister for Housing:

I welcome this week’s publication of Census 2016 Housing in Ireland data by the Central Statistics Office (CSO). This comprehensive information source is a very useful resource in informing housing and planning policy in a variety of ways...

...The new data added this year in respect of vacant units is particularly welcome and useful. We now have a reason for vacancy in relation to 31% of the total vacant housing stock (excluding holiday homes). This information, whilst not totally comprehensive, will nonetheless prove very valuable in determining the best courses of action to finalise the work on bringing vacant homes back into use as envisaged under Pillar 5 of our Rebuilding Ireland Strategy.

Pillar 5 of Rebuilding Ireland acknowledges that "vacant properties remain a very important source of potential accommodation supply":

For example, bringing 20,000 empty homes back into use would be equal to almost one year’s supply of new homes.
An overarching action under this Pillar is therefore the development of an overall national vacant housing re-use strategy, using the detailed 2016 Census results. Up-to-date data will be crucial in pin-pointing:
 Where vacant houses are located;
 Who owns them – in private hands, banks, investors or others;
 How their location matches current and future needs; and
 What actions would have greatest effect in getting these vacant homes back into use.

That's all excellent stuff. How they went from that to "Pfft, the census is bollocks, that's what Fingal Co Co told us" is a bit of a mystery.