2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

cnocbui

Yurt! wrote: »

It scrambles some Irish folks brains the whole concept of affordable housing. In many people's imagination, there are only two types of housing possible: Social housing filled with Margret Cash clones strung-out on heroin, and mortgaged private housing filled with the self-styled brave industrious and long-suffering Paddy everyman who holds up the sky - and nothing in-between.

Any stigma is a stigma of ignorance.

Affordable housing projects delivered at scale have the real potential to break the back on the housing crisis and alleviate what would otherwise become a decade after decade quality of life and social crisis.

All the government has to do is borrow a bit more and all fixed. Can't see any problems with that.

Yurt2

cnocbui wrote: »

All the government has to do is borrow a bit more and all fixed. Can't see any problems with that.

You're aware that affordable housing is purchased by individuals/couples via a private mortgage right?

cnocbui

Mad_maxx wrote: »

why New Zealand may i ask ?

they do have a much more pro workers taxation code , is it purely down to this ?

No, but taxation is a biggie, it being far less there. No CGT and no inheritance tax, for instance. But there are plenty of other factors. The government doesn't kow-tow to a church. It's health system isn't 3rd world level It has a modern, sensible legal system It's not run by dickheads. It's got a population about the same as Ireland but they manage to run constant government surplus' while taxing far less. It's warmer than Ireland, the weather is better and it's got double the annual hours of sunshine compared to where I am at the moment.

Then there's the spectacular geography with varied climes with not every square centimetre of land being fenced off and farmed. And it's got the southern night skies, which are far more spectacular than the northern hemisphere.

Yurt! wrote: »

He's in for a land if he attempts to buy property in proximity any of the cities in NZ. Their housing crisis is an order of magnitude worse than ours, and he'll find himself on boards.nz arguing the toss about what is and isn't affordable there as well; perhaps on the other side of the equation as the proceeds of his buy-to-lets can't buy him a dunny in Upper Hutt.

Thanks for the heads-up, I never thought to look into the housing market first. I'm good.

mcsean2163

bellylint wrote: »

just interested, where do you base/get that from? Would like to look into it more myself.

This was a talking point a while back. Places like luxury apartments in islandbridge empty.

Sbp free extract


Capital Dock: nearly half the 190 apartments in the 22-storey built-to-let tower in Dublin’s Docklands are vacant. Picture: Fergal Phillips.
Hundreds of luxury apartments lie vacant at two of Dublin’s most prominent rental blocks controlled by a billion-dollar US fund.

A detailed analysis of the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) register by the Business Post has shown nearly four-fifths of the 246 apartments in phase three of Clancy Quay in Dublin 8 are empty.

Nearly half of the apartments in Capital Dock, a 190-apartment, 22-storey built-to-let tower in Dublin’s Docklands are also vacant..

cnocbui

How much of that emptiness is due to the previous occupants working in tech and returning to their home countries to WFH?

PropQueries

cnocbui wrote: »

How much of that emptiness is due to the previous occupants working in tech and returning to their home countries to WFH?

Many people living in Dublin noticed this phenomenon over the past 3 or more years and the media eventually picked up on it. According to the Sunday Business Post on the 23rd February 2020 (pre-covid): "The luxury gap: hundreds of high-end apartments lying empty across Dublin. Unoccupied units at upmarket rental apartment schemes in the capital are compared to boomtime ‘ghost estates’ by critics."

Link to SBP article here: https://www.businesspost.ie/ireland/the-luxury-gap-hundreds-of-high-end-apartments-lying-empty-across-dublin-ac7da06c

PropQueries

According to mortgage broker Michael Dowling of Dowling Financial:

“Every lender is now refusing applications from people whose employer is using the EWSS scheme, even when they themselves are not on it. Absolutely every one of the banks. If the employer is using it there is an automatic assumption the company is going to fail. It is very unfair.”

However, according to the article, most banks are denying blocking home loans due to the subsidy scheme. There's c. 40,000 companies using the scheme and it covers c. 300,000 employees.

Anyone know which story is closer to the truth i.e. the broker or the banks side? The broker is fairly adamant.

Link to article in Irish Independent here: https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/broker-says-lenders-are-using-wage-subsidy-scheme-to-refuse-mortgages-40196093.html

PropQueries

Another report out from the SCSI on the cost of rebuilding a home. They now put it at:

"The Society of Chartered Surveyors in Ireland (SCSI) has published its latest guide to rebuilding costs, which shows the cost of rebuilding an average three-bed semi ranges from €218,000 in Dublin to €140,000 in the northwest."

What accounts for the near €80k difference between Dublin and the North-West? And, it's not higher-specs as they're the exact same 3-bed semi and they're both near enough A1/A2 rebuilds.

I still don't buy the story that the construction wage premium in Dublin can possibly bridge that difference in cost IMO

Link to article in Irish Independent here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/rebuilding-costs-rise-due-to-energy-standards-and-cost-of-materials-1.4510134

Cyrus

PropQueries wrote: »

Another report out from the SCSI on the cost of rebuilding a home. They now put it at:

"The Society of Chartered Surveyors in Ireland (SCSI) has published its latest guide to rebuilding costs, which shows the cost of rebuilding an average three-bed semi ranges from €218,000 in Dublin to €140,000 in the northwest."

What accounts for the near €80k difference between Dublin and the North-West? And, it's not higher-specs as they're the exact same 3-bed semi and they're both near enough A1/A2 rebuilds.

I still don't buy the story that the construction wage premium in Dublin can possibly bridge that difference in cost IMO

Link to article in Irish Independent here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/rebuilding-costs-rise-due-to-energy-standards-and-cost-of-materials-1.4510134

Probably better direct the question to them ?

Cyrus

Yurt! wrote: »

You're aware that affordable housing is purchased by individuals/couples via a private mortgage right?

They will have to build it before they can sell it and knowing our recent history of the state building anything it will very likely be sold at a loss

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

Good point. I now realize you’re totally correct. This scheme is no different to the council estates of yesteryear and will surely lead to large scale squalid ghettos.

I realise you are being facetious but it won’t be any different , however I do disagree that all council estates are squalid ghettos.

But this will have a risk of that for sure, and Sinn Fein will want to appeal to the non workers too unfortunately so
It won’t be quite as noble as it’s made out .

As an aside are stats available on the percentage of full time workers v social welfare recipients in social housing ?

hometruths

Cyrus wrote: »

I realise you are being facetious but it won’t be any different , however I do disagree that all council estates are squalid ghettos.

But this will have a risk of that for sure, and Sinn Fein will want to appeal to the non workers too unfortunately so
It won’t be quite as noble as it’s made out .

As an aside are stats available on the percentage of full time workers v social welfare recipients in social housing ?

SF can appeal to the non workers too with all the range of current schemes - council houses, long term leases, HAP etc etc.

One of the attractions of this scheme to me is that the number of eligible people for all of the above should be reduced. If the bank will give you a 200k mortgage then you should go down the affordable housing route not hold your hand out for HAP.

This should be a priority for future govts, whereas FF/FGs policy will increase the burden on these schemes.

No idea of stats available on % of full time workers v social welfare in social housing.

But I would be pretty confident that the % of full time workers with private mortgages is way higher than those on welfare with private mortgages.

johnnyskeleton

PropQueries wrote:

What accounts for the near €80k difference between Dublin and the North-West? And, it's not higher-specs as they're the exact same 3-bed semi and they're both near enough A1/A2 rebuilds.

I still don't buy the story that the construction wage premium in Dublin can possibly bridge that difference in cost IMO

It will be an average of the costs incurred so the Dublin price will be higher simply because people in Dublin will pay more. The builders charge more and have higher wages, they might pay higher prices for different materials and it may take longer to rebuild e.g. a terraced house on a narrow street vs a detached cottage on a decent sized plot.

But ultimately what determines it is that people in Dublin will pay more

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

SF can appeal to the non workers too with all the range of current schemes - council houses, long term leases, HAP etc etc.

One of the attractions of this scheme to me is that the number of eligible people for all of the above should be reduced. If the bank will give you a 200k mortgage then you should go down the affordable housing route not hold your hand out for HAP.

This should be a priority for future govts, whereas FF/FGs policy will increase the burden on these schemes.

No idea of stats available on % of full time workers v social welfare in social housing.

But I would be pretty confident that the % of full time workers with private mortgages is way higher than those on welfare with private mortgages.

Would be an interesting statistic from a general knowledge point of view.

But, either way, I think it's a meaningless debate in that these people need to be housed in any event.

It's one of the primary reasons why we're meant to pay taxes in this country i.e. take care of the disadvantaged. It's also the one group that needs to be taken care of as history can provide many examples of what happens if they're not taken care of. Call it 'protection money'

But the statistics do show one thing. They're not costing us as much as many appear to believe IMO

Wanderer78

PropQueries wrote:

But the statistics do show one thing. They're not costing us as much as many appear to believe IMO

Its a red herring, welfare claimants have very little to do with our housing issues, it's ultimately the actions of the fire sectors (finance, insurance and real estate), pushing up prices, and successive governments supporting these activities and their actions

JimmyVik

I see in the papers today that half of companies are saying they will have some sort of WFH when COVID is gone.
I wonder what "some sort of" means.

My company has "some sort of" WFH for the past few years. Certain people can WFH one to two days a week if they are able to.
If nothing else changes then the same amount of days will be done in the office as there were before. I now from being at interviews that they tend to offer people who state they want to work from home less than the ones who dont state it. HR seem to have the view that that person will settle for less if we give them 2 days a week from home as a favour.

Villa05

JimmyVik wrote:

I see in the papers today that half of companies are saying they will have some sort of WFH when COVID is gone. I wonder what "some sort of" means.

Mine have said a minimum of 2 days per week on site.
Whether the employer is the owner or paying rent on their premises will be a significant factor to the degree of wfh adoption

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

SF can appeal to the non workers too with all the range of current schemes - council houses, long term leases, HAP etc etc.

One of the attractions of this scheme to me is that the number of eligible people for all of the above should be reduced. If the bank will give you a 200k mortgage then you should go down the affordable housing route not hold your hand out for HAP.

This should be a priority for future govts, whereas FF/FGs policy will increase the burden on these schemes.

No idea of stats available on % of full time workers v social welfare in social housing.

But I would be pretty confident that the % of full time workers with private mortgages is way higher than those on welfare with private mortgages.

if thats the way its delivered i could support something like that, but do you believe if a sinn fein lead government starts building large estates in parts of the country that everyone will be getting a private mortage?

I doubt it.

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

Mine have said a minimum of 2 days per week on site.
Whether the employer is the owner or paying rent on their premises will be a significant factor to the degree of wfh adoption

Also when a lease is up for renewal. Employers can fly kites about wfh, landlords get spooked and it is leverage when lease is up for review. Not zuckerbergs comments last year about wfh just before the deal for offices in Manhattan....

JimmyVik

Hubertj wrote: »

Also when a lease is up for renewal. Employers can fly kites about wfh, landlords get spooked and it is leverage when lease is up for review. Not zuckerbergs comments last year about wfh just before the deal for offices in Manhattan....

One floor on our lease came up for renewal.
They got a (greatly im told) reduced rent for renewing it.

SmokyMo

JimmyVik wrote: »

I see in the papers today that half of companies are saying they will have some sort of WFH when COVID is gone.
I wonder what "some sort of" means.

My company has "some sort of" WFH for the past few years. Certain people can WFH one to two days a week if they are able to.
If nothing else changes then the same amount of days will be done in the office as there were before. I now from being at interviews that they tend to offer people who state they want to work from home less than the ones who dont state it. HR seem to have the view that that person will settle for less if we give them 2 days a week from home as a favour.

I still havent heard a single tech company offering a switch to permanent wfh. Maybe for some peripheral support roles? Options to wfh was always there even before pandemic.

JimmyVik

SmokyMo wrote: »

I still havent heard a single tech company offering a switch to permanent wfh. Maybe for some peripheral support roles? Options to wfh was always there even before pandemic.

I dont think any will. They will just keep to the same schedule they had before the pandemic.

It will at most be 2 or 3 days a week from home, as it was already for lucky staff in tech companies.
And if you are married and have kids, you better hope the mrs gets the same and that its easy to move the kids, if you want to move down the country.


There are a lot of ducks that need to fall into line, if you are to move the family down the country. And you better not get it wrong because it will be expensive if you have to move back to Dublin after you've bought a house 2 or 3 hours commute away.

I think if companies do offer WFH it will be on the basis that it can be cancelled at any time they decide to. I certainly wouldnt want to move the family down the country on the strength of that. I wouldnt get buyin from the other half either.

hometruths

Cyrus wrote: »

if thats the way its delivered i could support something like that, but do you believe if a sinn fein lead government starts building large estates in parts of the country that everyone will be getting a private mortage?

I doubt it.

That's exactly what I understand the proposal to be, and if so, I think it is a smart idea. Certainly a lot smarter than anything else I have heard.

Tea drinker

Villa05 wrote: »

Mine have said a minimum of 2 days per week on site.
Whether the employer is the owner or paying rent on their premises will be a significant factor to the degree of wfh adoption

The buildings can be owned by the company pension fund, or any pension fund.
Seems bit of an amber blinking light there.

nsnoefc1878

SmokyMo wrote: »

I still havent heard a single tech company offering a switch to permanent wfh. Maybe for some peripheral support roles? Options to wfh was always there even before pandemic.

Mine has.

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

That's exactly what I understand the proposal to be, and if so, I think it is a smart idea. Certainly a lot smarter than anything else I have heard.

if thats the proposal and thats what delivered then i would agree.

PropQueries

SmokyMo wrote: »

I still havent heard a single tech company offering a switch to permanent wfh. Maybe for some peripheral support roles? Options to wfh was always there even before pandemic.

In an article last week about Liberty Insurance:

"The insurer said all staff, including its senior leadership team, will continue to work from home once the pandemic has passed, with the option of spending up to two days per week in the office to carry out specific activities or hold face-to-face meetings."

Someone here did say that this might not be the whole story, but it hasn't being refuted yet.

But, in relation to your tech comment, the same article stated:

"Liberty’s decision to go fully remote mirrors recent moves by other companies such as Salesforce and Spotify to allow employees to choose ways of working that best suits them."

The interesting thing about Salesforce is that back in 2019 (pre-covid), RTE reported:

"Salesforce Tower will consist of four new buildings, with 430,000 sq/ft of space, at Spencer Place overlooking the River Liffey. The company's 1,400 existing employees and the new hires will begin moving into the new office, being developed by Ronan Group Real Estate and Colony Capital, in mid-2021."

So, I wonder what Salesforce's plans to allow workers to decide how they want to work post-covid means for their plans for their new office space in Dublin?

Also, back in May 2020, Twitter stated "Twitter is allowing staff to work remotely forever".

But, some companies, with Liberty Insurance being the most upfront so far, are indeed going with the full time WFH. Unless, the Irish Times got that story wrong, which is entirely possible.

I still stand behind my thinking that it's either full time WFH or full time in the office. I really don't see hybrid working for all staff being realistic in the real world. It may be tested for e.g. staff morale issues etc., but then they will need to make the decision on either full time WFH or full time in the office IMO

Link to Irish Times article on Liberty Insurance here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/liberty-insurance-in-for-the-long-term-on-remote-working-1.4507820

Link to RTE on Salesforce (pre-covid - 2019): https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0118/1023962-jobs-salesforce-dublin/

Link to Twitter article here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/twitter-says-employees-will-be-allowed-to-work-from-home-forever-1.4252310

Graham

PropQueries wrote: »

I still stand behind my thinking that it's either full time WFH or full time in the office. I really don't see hybrid working for all staff being realistic in the real world. It may be tested for e.g. staff morale issues etc., but then they will need to make the decision on either full time WFH or full time in the office IMO

I'd be the opposite mind, at least in the short term. A hybrid approach allows companies/employees the best of both worlds.

I don't see the entire corporate world going completely virtual any time soon.

PropQueries

Graham wrote: »

I'd be the opposite mind, at least in the short term. A hybrid approach allows companies/employees the best of both worlds.

I don't see the entire corporate world going completely virtual any time soon.

Many already are full time WFH at the moment. I've no doubt the hybrid model will be tested. But I think the odds are that more companies will eventually decide either full time WFH or full time in the office, depending on the role of course.

Either way, it means much much less office space required going forward IMO

Hubertj

Graham wrote: »

I'd be the opposite mind, at least in the short term. A hybrid approach allows companies/employees the best of both worlds.

I don't see the entire corporate world going completely virtual any time soon.

Some companies will offer full time wfh which will suit some people. I think very few will mandate full wfh.