Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

Bass Reeves

Hubertj wrote: »

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/redbarn-youghal-cork/4510589

This could be stunning when fully refurbished.

100-150k would do a stunning job on it. I say the lower figure would suffice. Dry line the external walls with 50mm of Kingspan insulation. Rewire and re plumb. Insulate attic. You may have to remove skates and replace them again due to nail failures at present. You could conside digging out ground floors and insulating and replacing them. G
Under floor heating would be an option then. Other option would be tradition radiators and a wood pellet boiler. After that it flooring, painting and fitting out.

You would have some place at that stage small slatted unit and a few Friesian bullocks and you are a gentleman farmer

I do it think Youghal is that bad it just it's a bit delapitated as traditionally it was a tourist area for Cork city. With working for home area like that will develop fast. It gives a good lifestyle choice. Most amenities but a bit away from the hustle and bustle

MacronvFrugals

Bass Reeves wrote: »

100-150k would do a stunning job on it. I say the lower figure would suffice. Dry line the external walls with 50mm of Kingspan insulation. Rewire and re plumb. Insulate attic. You may have to remove skates and replace them again due to nail failures at present. You could conside digging out ground floors and insulating and replacing them. G
Under floor heating would be an option then. Other option would be tradition radiators and a wood pellet boiler. After that it flooring, painting and fitting out.

You would have some place at that stage small slatted unit and a few Friesian bullocks and you are a gentleman farmer

I do it think Youghal is that bad it just it's a bit delapitated as traditionally it was a tourist area for Cork city. With working for home area like that will develop fast. It gives a good lifestyle choice. Most amenities but a bit away from the hustle and bustle

Use 100mm on the externals and get a heat pump that would be a proper job!

mcsean2163

150 off this today. Only on the market recently...

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/pollardstown-house-stud-pollardstown-the-curragh-co-kildare-r56-y658/4510414

mcsean2163

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Use 100mm on the externals and get a heat pump that would be a proper job!

Will be a lovely house when sea levels rise.

hometruths

cnocbui wrote: »

Both my children had their schooling in a smallish semi-rural village. No complaints from a parent's perspective, quite the reverse - highly recommended!. The schools were great and both kids did very well in the LC.

Would you be looking to camp out on the streets of Youghal or would you be spending 99% of your time in your non-kip nicely renovated house?

It's the far sighted individulas who pioneer the gentrification of places who gain the most.

Totally agree with this. Unfortunately my wife is not yet convinced! Have had the discussion with her numerous times, about various locations.

cnocbui

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Will be a lovely house when sea levels rise.

Current rate is 1m per 290 years. If you plan on living till you are 700, I can understand being concerned.

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

I was looking at that just this morning, thinking exactly the same thing.

Then I suddenly found myself checking out schools in Youghal!

Unfortunately I think Youghal is a bit of a kip.

that location is something else to be fair.

tobsey

cnocbui wrote: »

I live in a one off house. I didn't build it, because that's a priveledge reserved for the land owning classes in Ireland, and only locals at that, but I bought it semi-finished.

How is it an environmental diaster? There were electricity and phone lines running down the road for half a century before it was built. There is no wtaer main along the road. So the impact of this house to society is nill. I paid for a phone connection to line that was already there. I paid for a well to be drilled, the builder paid for the electricity to be connected to lines already there.

What I have done is help amortize the cost of provisioning utilities to the farms that are along the road and for which the utilities were originally provided for.

You need a private car to go anywhere, even for basic groceries never mind amenities. The utility lines may have been there anyway, but I guess you have a septic tank that needs to be maintained. The carbon footprint on all that is massive compared to an urban dwelling.

PropBuyer101

tobsey wrote: »

You need a private car to go anywhere, even for basic groceries never mind amenities. The utility lines may have been there anyway, but I guess you have a septic tank that needs to be maintained. The carbon footprint on all that is massive compared to an urban dwelling.

huh? so you have a problem with this guy building his own house in a rural community? my goodness what is the world coming to. we all have to live a massively over priced urban lifestyle do we. ok.

tobsey

PropBuyer101 wrote: »

huh? so you have a problem with this guy building his own house in a rural community? my goodness what is the world coming to. we all have to live a massively over priced urban lifestyle do we. ok.

Never said we had to. However less dense housing has a higher impact on the environment. If carbon taxes go higher then people will pay for the privilege but that'll go down like a lead balloon.

cnocbui

tobsey wrote: »

You need a private car to go anywhere, even for basic groceries never mind amenities. The utility lines may have been there anyway, but I guess you have a septic tank that needs to be maintained. The carbon footprint on all that is massive compared to an urban dwelling.

How many people living in Dublin, Galway, Cork or Limerick own and use a private car? The idea of a majority of urban dwellers not owning or using a private car is an eco-myth.

Anyway, you and your ilk would continue to object if my house was built to passive standards and I installed large sewage holding tanks and had them pumped a few times a year and bought a Tesla model 3 Performance and a vast swathe of solar panels to charge it with on non-cloudy days. If that was the price for living here, I'd gladly loosen my tightly tied purse strings and shell out the necessary. But it's not really about the carbon, it's about being able to afford to live beyond the rat-race and not having to share accommodation with an opinionated sweaty cyclist who hogs the shower the washing machine and blocks the hall and stairs with his titanium/carbon two wheeled eco charriot.

Anyway, without a private car, I couldn't reach my 2.5 hours away one-off holiday home. I really should get a helicopter, which would cut the journey to about 20 minutes. Plenty of land at either end for a pad.

PropBuyer101

tobsey wrote: »

Never said we had to. However less dense housing has a higher impact on the environment. If carbon taxes go higher then people will pay for the privilege but that'll go down like a lead balloon.

people in the cities are like sardines in a can and the property supply here is dwindling. people cant even buy apartments as everything being built goes to corporations renting them out.



ireland needs to move away from this urban mentality and go rural again - people need to spread out.



4 million people on a rock in the middle of the atlantic ocean crammed into one main city.


come on - we need to invest more in rural development. carbon taxes is something to discuss alright but young people's priority at the moment is housing.


this is the generation that will be paying the older generation's state pension after all - they deserve to get on their feet too. only way to do that is spread out more.

tobsey

cnocbui wrote: »

How many people living in Dublin, Galway, Cork or Limerick own and use a private car? The idea of a majority of urban dwellers not owning or using a private car is an eco-myth.

Anyway, you and your ilk would continue to object if my house was built to passive standards and I installed large sewage holding tanks and had them pumped a few times a year and bought a Tesla model 3 Performance and a vast swathe of solar panels to charge it with on non-cloudy days. If that was the price for living here, I'd gladly loosen my tightly tied purse strings and shell out the necessary. But it's not really about the carbon, it's about being able to afford to live beyond the rat-race and not having to share accommodation with an opinionated sweaty cyclist who hogs the shower the washing machine and blocks the hall and stairs with his titanium/carbon two wheeled eco charriot.

Anyway, without a private car, I couldn't reach my 2.5 hours away one-off holiday home. I really should get a helicopter, which would cut the journey to about 20 minutes. Plenty of land at either end for a pad.

I don't really care whether you live in a rural setting. Most of my extended family do. I'm simply pointing out that there's a higher cost to the environment relative to a similar urban house. You're right that urban dwellers own and use cars as well but the mileage on them is generally far less than a rural car. From my experience I'd say the average is 15k km in Dublin vs 25k outside per year. That's a lot of extra fuel.

Carbon tax is probably the best solution to it. People can choose to pay higher consumption taxes in return for the quiet lifestyle.

jill_valentine

Don't know if it's a glitch or if everyone just got the same idea at once but today I've gotten notifications for several houses in Dublin in my low budget filter, and when you click the link to the ad itself, it's quickly updated by a zero. So you get a notification for a 77k property, click in and find a 770k one.

It's not like it can be an bid driver either I'd have thought, because surely those are two very separate markets?

Do agencies get any benefit from click numbers alone? I wouldn't have thought so.

cnocbui

tobsey wrote: »

I don't really care whether you live in a rural setting. Most of my extended family do. I'm simply pointing out that there's a higher cost to the environment relative to a similar urban house. You're right that urban dwellers own and use cars as well but the mileage on them is generally far less than a rural car. From my experience I'd say the average is 15k km in Dublin vs 25k outside per year. That's a lot of extra fuel.

Carbon tax is probably the best solution to it. People can choose to pay higher consumption taxes in return for the quiet lifestyle.

I am glad you don't care, that matches my sentiments exactly, so we are in agreement on outlook.

For people who can work from home, and live in a rural one-off, their annual milage would be less than for an urban dweller who commutes. There is no fuel if you own an EV.

Have you discussed with your extended family your ambitions to increase their living costs? Were they overjoyed and fully supportive? /s

mcsean2163

Myhome showing 11628 on a first page all option search. That's the lowest I've seen for a while. I guess it's summertime..

Not long until August and the great market crash heralded by propqueries.

hometruths

handlemaster wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-has-opposed-building-of-6-000-homes-across-dublin-1.4602893?mode=amp

No wonder there are so few new homes been builth when you have a party thats always banging on about free homes opposing their co construction

Re opposition to these developments, as ever it's worth looking at the detail. Good article in today's Indo, that provides some of that detail -
Why the word “affordable” is the great cop-out of this Government’s failed housing policy

The Irish Times article says:

The Fine Gael document also references the O’Devaney Gardens which is to comprise 1,047 residential units across 10 apartment blocks.

Sinn Féin has said it believes the proposed development does not go far enough in terms of delivering affordable homes for local people.

The Indo says:

At another publicly owned site at O’Devaney Gardens in Arbour Hill, Dublin 7, a plan had been tabled for a total of 300 homes on a site that was previously the location of 100pc social housing. This plan envisaged a mix of 30pc social housing, 20pc “affordable”, and 50pc private, the latter amounting to 526 homes.

Again, when the council was ultimately pressed to define what “affordable” prices were for this site (where there was a 40pc ‘market discount’) it emerged that some of “affordable” apartments were to be priced at €420,000.

On the basis that you can actually buy an apartment in Ranelagh for less, we could take “affordable” in this case to mean: “more expensive than its equivalent in Dublin 6.”

So SF was voting against a proposal in which the developer was buying public lands at a 40% discount in Dublin 7 and in return providing "affordable housing" in Arbour Hill in excess of the market value in Ranelagh.

If I'd been a councillor I'd have voted against it too. And shame on anybody who supported it.

There is more.

The Irish Times says:

The Fine Gael document also references the Oscar Traynor site in north Dublin. Councillors last November voted 48 to 14 against the plan to sell the site in Santry, just east of the entrance to the Dublin Port Tunnel, despite warnings from the council’s head of housing Brendan Kenny the project would “have to be abandoned” if they did so.

Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald said councillors were right to vote down the transfer of public land at Oscar Traynor Road to a private developer as it “represented a bad deal for those in housing need”.

The Indo says:

For example, late last year Dublin City councillors asked their own housing department “how much is affordable?” in regard to homes then planned at a publicly owned site at Oscar Traynor Road in Coolock where councillors were being asked to hand over 17 acres of State-owned land worth €40m to a private developer. At this point, the plan was for 428 private homes for profit, and 253 small social and affordable housing apartments.

When asked what the specific prices were for the 172 “affordable” units proposed, DCC’s housing department said they were €260,000 for one-bed apartments, and €300,000 for two-bed units.

So in an area where existing two-bed apartments were on offer at that time from €135,000 to €145,000 and existing three-bed houses were priced at €255,000, the DCC housing department’s definition of an “affordable” one bed apartment can, in this case, be interpreted as: “more expensive than an existing three bed house in area (Coolock).”

I agree with Mary Lou, this was a bad deal for those in need of housing. And the taxpayer. As a taxpayer I thank SF and any other councillors for voting against this.

The whole article is well worth reading. Basically highlights the nonsense talked about affordable housing.

“Affordable” (per Irish Government housing policy): Indefinable smoke and mirrors term designed to conceal sweetheart deals on public land assets.

PropBuyer101

“affordable” apartments were to be priced at €420,000.


joke. this is not malibu people its Dublin. the place has gone mad.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Re opposition to these developments, as ever it's worth looking at the detail. Good article in today's Indo, that provides some of that detail -
Why the word “affordable” is the great cop-out of this Government’s failed housing policy

The Irish Times article says:



The Indo says:



So SF was voting against a proposal in which the developer was buying public lands at a 40% discount in Dublin 7 and in return providing "affordable housing" in Arbour Hill in excess of the market value in Ranelagh.

If I'd been a councillor I'd have voted against it too. And shame on anybody who supported it.

There is more.

The Irish Times says:



The Indo says:



I agree with Mary Lou, this was a bad deal for those in need of housing. And the taxpayer. As a taxpayer I thank SF and any other councillors for voting against this.

The whole article is well worth reading. Basically highlights the nonsense talked about affordable housing.

So its better that nothing gets built. That makes sense.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

So its better that nothing gets built. That makes sense.

Agreed

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Agreed

While it’s likely not a “good deal” it’s really the best that can be expected. The majority of our public servants are/possess
- at best of average intelligence
- little to no commercial acumen
- poorly managed/not managed at all
- no real conception of what a “budget” is
- are not accountable
- little interest in public service.

Another government can’t change that. Are Sinn Fein going to undertake a massive overhaul of how public services are delivered? Are they going to take on trade unions? Are they going to remove incompetent staff? It’s not like they can make people “disappear”

They can’t even use a calculator or Excel..

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/opw-criticised-over-86m-garda-hq-that-is-too-small-for-all-staff-1.4576830?mode=amp

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

Re opposition to these developments, as ever it's worth looking at the detail. Good article in today's Indo, that provides some of that detail -
Why the word “affordable” is the great cop-out of this Government’s failed housing policy

The Irish Times article says:



The Indo says:



So SF was voting against a proposal in which the developer was buying public lands at a 40% discount in Dublin 7 and in return providing "affordable housing" in Arbour Hill in excess of the market value in Ranelagh.

If I'd been a councillor I'd have voted against it too. And shame on anybody who supported it.

There is more.

The Irish Times says:



The Indo says:



I agree with Mary Lou, this was a bad deal for those in need of housing. And the taxpayer. As a taxpayer I thank SF and any other councillors for voting against this.

The whole article is well worth reading. Basically highlights the nonsense talked about affordable housing.

Are there new build apartments in ranelagh for 420k?

Yurt2

Hubertj wrote: »

While it’s likely not a “good deal” it’s really the best that can be expected. The majority of our public servants are/possess
- at best of average intelligence
- little to no commercial acumen
- poorly managed/not managed at all
- no real conception of what a “budget” is
- are not accountable
- little interest in public service.

Another government can’t change that. Are Sinn Fein going to undertake a massive overhaul of how public services are delivered? Are they going to take on trade unions? Are they going to remove incompetent staff? It’s not like they can make people “disappear”

They can’t even use a calculator or Excel..

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/opw-criticised-over-86m-garda-hq-that-is-too-small-for-all-staff-1.4576830%3fmode=amp

It really doesn't need any of the above. It takes a Minister of Housing and Local Government who has a spine and understands the implications of these deals to direct City Chief Executives and County Managers (appointed by the minister essentially as the top civil servant of local authority) to stop cutting them.

The buck stops with the Minister on this. It's a matter of policy.

Hubertj

Yurt! wrote: »

It really doesn't need any of the above. It takes a Minister of Housing and Local Government who has a spine and understands the implications of these deals to direct City Chief Executives and County Managers (appointed by the minister essentially as the top civil servant of local authority) to stop cutting them.

The buck stops with the Minister on this. It's a matter of policy.

I agree that it is a matter of policy and ministers and senior civil servants should be accountable but I don’t believe our public servants have the competence to implement and execute the policies.

You could put Alex Ferguson in charge of the Ireland team but they are still going to be sh*t….

Bass Reeves

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Use 100mm on the externals and get a heat pump that would be a proper job!

Usually not an option. On old houses like that there is no facia and soffit. Slates overhang the stone walls by 2-3 inches. This hoses straight into gutters. I have seen a botch job done on such a house where they put in 100mm insulation and sat the gutters on top it was f@@king awful looking.

At a guess that is a stone build house. There is 600 mm(2') thick walls on it. It's rendered with a lime plaster. Ideally lime wash the outside. Dry lining and internal insulation is the only option

Bass Reeves

tobsey wrote: »

You need a private car to go anywhere, even for basic groceries never mind amenities. The utility lines may have been there anyway, but I guess you have a septic tank that needs to be maintained. The carbon footprint on all that is massive compared to an urban dwelling.

No it isn't the house exists, from this thinking do we abandon all housing on the countryside. For that matter with electric cars after you buy one it nearly immaterial how much you drive it if you charge it on night time electricity.

Public transport will be an issue from.now on with loadings. COVID has not gone away it will be with us and social distancing will be with us for the next 5+ years. There is 16 acres with the house one septic tank in that area is nothing, better than all the raw sewage pumped out to sea from.many costal towns and villages like Youghal.

From the overhead photo it on the virtual outskirts of tbuild up area. You entrance is from the edge as far as I can see. You probably nearer the center of Youghal than tallagh is from O'Connell street

Sweet.Science

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2155-1-2-W-Kent-Ave-Missoula-MT-59801/2069967069_zpid/

It really seems to be a worldwide crisis

A shed for 250k

Yurt2

Sweet.Science wrote: »

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2155-1-2-W-Kent-Ave-Missoula-MT-59801/2069967069_zpid/

It really seems to be a worldwide crisis

A shed for 250k

Cash-rich Californians fleeing the Golden State after selling their jacked-up priced properties, bringing their problems with them. Montanans hate it. Montana is beautiful though, would move there in a heartbeat if I had American citizenship and Missoula is a lovely university town with a lot going on for its size.

Just noting the $203 dollar a month property taxes on that too.

You probably could expect a property tax bill of about $5000 per year for a modest family home in that town so.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

While it’s likely not a “good deal” it’s really the best that can be expected. The majority of our public servants are/possess
- at best of average intelligence
- little to no commercial acumen
- poorly managed/not managed at all
- no real conception of what a “budget” is
- are not accountable
- little interest in public service.

Are you really saying that whilst you recognise it is a bad deal, we cannot expect our elected representatives to recognise it is a bad deal, and thus we should be just accept that they will vote for these deals?!

And on top of that, we have councillors who recognised it was a bad deal, and voted against it, but you are saying they should not have done so? Should they just have realised that the other councillors were of lower intelligence and with poor commercial acumen, and voted with them nonetheless?

Utterly bonkers.

Beigepaint

cnocbui wrote: »

How many people living in Dublin, Galway, Cork or Limerick own and use a private car? The idea of a majority of urban dwellers not owning or using a private car is an eco-myth.

Anyway, you and your ilk would continue to object if my house was built to passive standards and I installed large sewage holding tanks and had them pumped a few times a year and bought a Tesla model 3 Performance and a vast swathe of solar panels to charge it with on non-cloudy days. If that was the price for living here, I'd gladly loosen my tightly tied purse strings and shell out the necessary. But it's not really about the carbon, it's about being able to afford to live beyond the rat-race and not having to share accommodation with an opinionated sweaty cyclist who hogs the shower the washing machine and blocks the hall and stairs with his titanium/carbon two wheeled eco charriot.

Anyway, without a private car, I couldn't reach my 2.5 hours away one-off holiday home. I really should get a helicopter, which would cut the journey to about 20 minutes. Plenty of land at either end for a pad.

Total nonsense. Can we put aside your creative writing homework and return to the facts?

Rural housing costs a fortune - whether it’s roads, water, power lines etc - all of this maintenance costs a fortune. Then we have the carbon taxes your countrymen are paying for your neighbours to shuttle their kids around.

It costs you nothing so you think it’s free. That’s called an externality.

Nobody but farmers should be living any more than 3km from a village, town, settlement.