If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 250 ✭✭thereiver

    Many council estates are now owned by former tenants if you own your house you tend to be older and have no wish to cause trouble or reduce the value of the property .there has to be more building of social housing and apartments and housing aimed at the first time buyer

    Most tenants chose to buy their house of the council if they were working and could afford to do so

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,413 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves

    A link to HAP cost over a billion please

    On the significant increase I provided a link that showed between 1970 and 1995 that state education funding increased by 2500% and between 1995 to2023 it increased by another 400%. The increase of 2500% was as the state started to take over from religious orders.

    The gugures I gave for the education structure 50 years ago us very accurate and is part of the reason education costs have increased to the state.

    Post edited by Bass Reeves on

    Slava Ukrainii

  • Registered Users Posts: 212 ✭✭danfrancisco83

    Well played to the person who bought this house a few months ago for 500k, and is now selling the side entrance for 400k.

  • Registered Users Posts: 123 ✭✭LJ12345

    And this person who bought for 400k in October last year. Just relisted with a 799k asking price.

    Completely refurb’d it in fairness and it looks well but 400k upgrade?

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,579 ✭✭✭Villa05

    One of our failed council house estates of the past, no doubt

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭SpoonyMcSpoon

    Fear mongering in the BP today about SF and housing policy but the fear mongering is being done from one of the unaccountable corporates making hay from the housing crisis so I think that indicates, at face value, there is something of substance in the SF policies.

    What is quite comical in the argument put forward by the corporate representative the article is that the current housing output situation would be jeopardised with SF’s plans. Turkeys not in favour of Christmas shock horror!

    Post edited by SpoonyMcSpoon on

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,014 ✭✭✭timmyntc

    First time I recall seeing it spelled out this clearly in print that the Irish system is designed around house prices ever increasing. Will be interesting if this narrative gains momentum among the public - would definitely hurt Govt narrative that more private house building through (demand driven) incentives will somehow cause prices to drop.

  • Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭SpoonyMcSpoon

    The government carefully choose their words when talking about prices and we all know they love to use the word “affordable”, which is vague but does not necessarily mean lower prices. Affordable mortgages could be based on a comparison to renting the same property; it could mean affordable relative to incomes etc.

    The government have played a very dangerous game to throw our huge tax income of the recent years into propping up house prices in a sort of “hail Mary” effort to retain as many of their existing voter base as possible. In the papers today we see the crooked Big Tech companies playing the poor man and looking for more subsidies from the Irish government - even more good cash being thrown at places that don’t need it.

    It seems to all be leading to the forthcoming election as there is no way all of this free money for the booming sectors of the economy is sustainable - we are after all supposed to be fighting (and struggling to fight) inflation. We are in the end game of the current model of throwing seemingly unlimited money at the property market - can the magic money printers and corporate tax revenue be used to push up house prices in isolation to an inflation fight when housing is the single largest expense for households? Absolutely not.

  • Registered Users Posts: 537 ✭✭✭theboringfox

    I dont think its the SF policies are issue. I dont think theyre that radically different. I think SF have been absolutely on the button with govt subsidies driving up demand more than supply. I think there is more a macro fear that SF in govt would spook investors and capital for projects. I think SF policies have come back much more towards centre. Dont see lot of difference in them vs FF tbh. So I think SF in govt wont see any major changes to housing policy. Supply will remain strong. Prob bigger focus on govt owned public housing than private ownership but again no drastic changes

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,185 ✭✭✭combat14

    good article government plan is to increase wages (and keep house prices high)... the reality is wages are already very high compared to international salaries .. the real problem is house prices, rents, taxes, land prices, uncontrolled immigration and government inaction on funds buying up properties, green zoning and lack of supply

    government tax of 33-41+% on savings and investments also is not helping as it funnels money into property investment instead

    Post edited by combat14 on

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭DataDude

    Ireland desperately needs house building acceleration to continue.

    All the companies who build these houses in unison -

    ‘We will build less houses under these policies’

    ’Sounds like some good policies of substance. We should try those’

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,660 ✭✭✭CorkRed93

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,880 ✭✭✭enricoh

    An estate agent I know was bemoaning that he isn't getting the stock to sell. He has no problems selling them just can't get enough of them.

    I said did you not get any of the new estates on the go , there's 3 or 4 local enough. All social housing/charities etc no estate agent required.

    Excluding one offs in the countryside is the majority of housing estate houses now not for sale?

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭PommieBast

    The political priority was to bail out those who overpaid in the mid-2000s by getting prices back up to bubble levels. Affordability was never on their minds.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭PommieBast

    A large portion of new properties are bought up in bulk and never see the open market.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,014 ✭✭✭timmyntc

    In fairness they are never going to be positive about policies that hurt their profit margins. It is in their interest not to see a change in policy because their interest is maximising profit for shareholders, not affordable housing.

    Also in this morning's article the main issue with sinn Fein policy is that any change of policy "will take time to adjust to".

    “What we don't need here is radical intervention by the new government or a complete overhaul of existing policies because it will take time to adjust to what those new policies are,” he said.


    If there’s a change in government, whoever that ends up being, and they reinvent the wheel and we have to go through that whole process all over again, that is going to create uncertainty in the sector, which slows us down,” Gallagher said

    This is mostly playing the poor mouth and not wanting any change from current situation where government is subsidising apartment builds massively AND subsiding buyers massively. Turkeys won't vote for Christmas, so these articles aren't a surprise.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭DataDude

    There’s an economic reality that if you want lots of housing built, you need to ensure a stable and profitable environment for house builders to operate (see housing output when house prices declined). We want more house yet we vilify those who build houses for making a profit.

    There’s a significant cohort of people who’d love to see Cairn, Durkans etc. posting record losses but still racing to increasing their production and competing to sell at the lowest possible price. It’s populist nonsense and needs to be called out as such.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,014 ✭✭✭timmyntc

    see housing output when house prices declined

    Housing output declined because of a complete financial meltdown seeing many developers and builders going bust as they themselves were significantly overleveraged too.

    How about the fact that with lower retail price for new homes in the 2000s, we still built even more than we are today?

    There’s a significant cohort of people who’d love to see Cairn, Durkans etc. posting record losses but still racing to increasing their production and competing to sell at the lowest possible price

    This is a strawman argument. These people do not exist in significant numbers. Do you have any evidence of the existence of this significant cohort?

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,334 ✭✭✭✭Dav010

    I don’t think it is too much a stretch to say that though house prices were cheaper in the 2000s, the cost of building was also less expensive and regulations in relation to standards, lower.

    In relation to developers, in many people’s view, developers contributed significantly to the financial meltdown you referenced, due to overdevelopment and over borrowing. Yet now it would seem they are being blamed for not building enough and being more prudent about borrowing.

    The fact remains, if developers do not see profit in development, they will not build. There is no mystery in that, if house prices drop and costs remain at similar levels, it would be poor business judgement to proceed. Developers also have to try and forecast what values will be in two years, which realistically, is the timeframe from planning to completion, right now they will be considering what a change of government will bring, so it’s hardly surprising that they might want to wait and see what the election brings.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭DataDude

    At its core, housing stopped being built in any material numbers for about a decade because the price you could sell a house for was not sufficient to cover the input costs and compensate for the risk of doing so.

    If there is enough profit to be made from an economic activity. Someone will find a way to do it.

    The input costs of delivering new housing in 2024 vs 2000 are not comparable. Neither is the skill set of our population, where young people have been scared off pursuing building trades for the last 15 years because the sector was not stable or profitable.

    You can’t seriously argue that there isn’t an overwhelming negative sentiment towards developers and housing financiers in Ireland.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,014 ✭✭✭timmyntc

    You can’t seriously argue that there isn’t an overwhelming negative sentiment towards developers and housing financiers in Ireland

    I agree there's plenty of negative sentiment towards property developers - but that is not the claim that was made. It was that there is a significant cohort who simultaneously hold both the view that developers are evil and should make losses but also that they should keep making more houses at cheaper prices. I don't think many people hold both those views simultaneously

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,579 ✭✭✭Villa05

    I recall developers complaining that NAMA were preventing them from finishing off developments

    Windows, doors, heating boilers, labour etc were a fraction of there current cost in 2014 when I was buying them

    Land was a fraction of current cost, recovery was well under way at this point

    Housing shortage risk identified as early as late 2012 for Dublin

    I disagree that housing could not be viably built from at least 2014. It's probably the greatest missed opportunity of our lifetimes. The time to invest is when everything is cheap and resources plentiful but again this is a narrative that is continually thrown out and never questioned

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,185 ✭✭✭combat14

    perhaps an increase in 35 to 40 year mortgages is the answer to all our property woes - stretching out the payments will allow builders and sellers to jack up prices considerably more thus increasing supply and allowing everyone escape the rental trap - except for no money to afford children property problem solved

    'I had no choice but to get a 35-year mortgage'

  • Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭chalky_ie

    I'd be fairly sure the majority of first time buyers are getting 35 year mortgages already.

  • Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭SpoonyMcSpoon

    Another scheme of the government to prop up house prices, under the guise of helping IPAs. What a country and seemingly an endless supply of free money to pay for all of this - and people somehow think it matters how SF fund their housing initiatives!

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,185 ✭✭✭combat14

    then we must be almost at max affordability at that rate

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,014 ✭✭✭timmyntc

    With the average age of FTB well over 30 now I think 35 year mortgages are pushing it for many

  • Registered Users Posts: 160 ✭✭engineerws

    Nicola's five-year fixed rate mortgage costs £598 a month.

    Different world in the UK

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,660 ✭✭✭CorkRed93

    A recent briefing delivered by the Department of Public Expenditure to Department of Housing officials stressed the need for a move away from a reliance on subsidised delivery to a focus on delivering the underlying infrastructure needed to ramp up delivery.

    hoping the penny has finally dropped….