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

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

I agree with you and that is partly my point. I found the comparisons with other countries interesting as some posters have commented about how much better it is in other countries. The data doesn’t seem to support that assertion.

I guess it depends what exactly we're comparing with other countries.

Our overall housing costs burden does not seem so bad in comparison because a lot of it is shared by all of us through various means.

But we don't often see posts like "Look at Sweden, they're doing a much better job than us stinging Sven Taxpayer for social housing costs"

Most comparisons on here comparing us with other countries are about affordability of buying a house should you wish to do so as well as the impact of high rents.

To make that comparison meaningfully we'd need to only look at those renters in full time employment not in receipt of housing supports, and measure that burden.

Whilst interesting, this is not the data to make that comparison.

Browney7

schmittel wrote: »

I wouldn't be really. As there is a large section of posters with an attitude that I'm alright Jack.

The data includes all households, including all those who own their house with no mortgage, those with very low mortgage payments, as well as those receiving HAP etc paying a token amount. Add all these people up and you'll have a majority of the population.

If you look at table HC1.2.2. Housing cost burden of low- and middle income households as share of disposable income you'll notice that Ireland stands out as the only country where middle income renters have a higher housing cost burden than the lowest income renters. This is the problem.

These middle income renters are the ones who are suffering because they have to pay full market rents. They earn too much to receive housing assistance and too little to buy a house.

Nothing surprising about the data, nor the I'm alright Jack attitude.

What's also interesting is that countries with the lowest average household size have the highest cost burdens. Ireland has one of the higher %s of adults living at home. If the parents are still working or even drawing down a pension, there are more than 3 incomes coming into that house which would contribute to a low "burden" especially if the mortgage is paid off or very small. The three Nordics for example have a household size of approx 2 whereas Ireland is one of the highest at 2.6.

Whether other countries have the same model of housing provision for young professionals whereby 3 or four teachers/accountants/nurses share a house in their 20s instead of getting a city centre apartment I don't know. Again, these households would have a high income and low burden.

Whether Eurostat have gone down the HAP rabbit hole and classifying it as an income and expenditure or just offsetting it against the cost burden I don't know

hometruths

Browney7 wrote: »

What's also interesting is that countries with the lowest average household size have the highest cost burdens. Ireland has one of the higher %s of adults living at home. If the parents are still working or even drawing down a pension, there are more than 3 incomes coming into that house which would contribute to a low "burden" especially if the mortgage is paid off or very small. The three Nordics for example have a household size of approx 2 whereas Ireland is one of the highest at 2.6.

Whether other countries have the same model of housing provision for young professionals whereby 3 or four teachers/accountants/nurses share a house in their 20s instead of getting a city centre apartment I don't know. Again, these households would have a high income and low burden.

Whether Eurostat have gone down the HAP rabbit hole and classifying it as an income and expenditure or just offsetting it against the cost burden I don't know

Good points.

And the causes behind adults living at home and four professionals sharing a house are precisely because we have a high housing cost burden for these categories, but it seems the effects are being interpreted as us having a low cost burden.

Browney7

Browney7 wrote: »

Whether other countries have the same model of housing provision for young professionals whereby 3 or four teachers/accountants/nurses share a house in their 20s instead of getting a city centre apartment I don't know.

Great point, one I was going to try and make here yesterday but said to my self why bother.

I dunno where it is now, but someone was giving yards about the developers building apartments because they are not suitable for families and Irish people dont want to live like that.

Well some do, I lived in one for years.

Marius34

Browney7 wrote: »

What's also interesting is that countries with the lowest average household size have the highest cost burdens. Ireland has one of the higher %s of adults living at home. If the parents are still working or even drawing down a pension, there are more than 3 incomes coming into that house which would contribute to a low "burden" especially if the mortgage is paid off or very small. The three Nordics for example have a household size of approx 2 whereas Ireland is one of the highest at 2.6.

Whether other countries have the same model of housing provision for young professionals whereby 3 or four teachers/accountants/nurses share a house in their 20s instead of getting a city centre apartment I don't know. Again, these households would have a high income and low burden.

Whether Eurostat have gone down the HAP rabbit hole and classifying it as an income and expenditure or just offsetting it against the cost burden I don't know

It's sound like we have lack of residential property stocks if we compare with Nordics?

Browney7

Marius34 wrote: »

It's sound like we have lack of residential property stocks if we compare with Nordics?

I would assume so.

Latest stats I see on % of 25-34 year olds living with parents is approx 27% in Ireland whereas the Nordics is down near 5%.

Despite their high housing burden cost as outlined in the paper, it doesn't seem to be a hurdle to accessing housing there.

Marius34

Browney7 wrote: »

I would assume so.

Latest stats I see on % of 25-34 year olds living with parents is approx 27% in Ireland whereas the Nordics is down near 5%.

Despite their high housing burden cost as outlined in the paper, it doesn't seem to be a hurdle to accessing housing there.

I was pointing this few times before, but many argue with me that this metric is not important, but rather that Ireland has property utilization issue.
For some it's important metric only when it suits the argument.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

I was pointing this few times before, but many argue with me that this metric is not important, but rather that Ireland has property utilization issue.
For some it's important metric only when it suits the argument.

This metric is not important. Ireland has a utilization issue.

Around 17% of the EU population live in an overcrowded home.

In Ireland 3.2% of people live in an overcrowded home.

Around 33% of the EU population live in an under-occupied home.

In Ireland 69.6% of people live in an under-occupied home.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/digpub/housing/images/pdf/Housing-DigitalPublication-2020_en.pdf?lang=en

Browney7

Marius34 wrote: »

I was pointing this few times before, but many argue with me that this metric is not important, but rather that Ireland has property utilization issue.
For some it's important metric only when it suits the argument.

It's likely more nuanced than what you outline in relation to Ireland.

People may choose to live at home for longer because they are able to and because the alternative isn't very palatable or attractive.

Your choice is (for Dublin), pay 1600 per month for a one bed apartment, shack up with a significant other and pay over 2 grand for a two bed or pay 800 or 900 for a room in a house share with strangers and hope they turn out to be sound or stay at home for free in mammy and daddy's spacious 4 bed semi D and save up your deposit to buy a place.

I'd agree that we need more units but also agree that utilisation of existing property in Ireland is probably inefficient also. Empty expensive rental apartments, large suburban homes with only 2 retirees that have no option in their existing communities to downsize to and so stay put.

I'd doubt that we are building enough of the right stock to better utilise existing stock.

SmokyMo

schmittel wrote: »

This metric is not important. Ireland has a utilization issue.

Around 17% of the EU population live in an overcrowded home.

In Ireland 3.2% of people live in an overcrowded home.

Around 33% of the EU population live in an under-occupied home.

In Ireland 69.6% of people live in an under-occupied home.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/digpub/housing/images/pdf/Housing-DigitalPublication-2020_en.pdf?lang=en

Does EU metric above excludes Ireland? Would need to look at distributions in those figures.

hometruths

SmokyMo wrote: »

Does EU metric above excludes Ireland? Would need to look at distributions in those figures.

EU averages include Ireland.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

This metric is not important. Ireland has a utilization issue.

Around 17% of the EU population live in an overcrowded home.

In Ireland 3.2% of people live in an overcrowded home.

Around 33% of the EU population live in an under-occupied home.

In Ireland 69.6% of people live in an under-occupied home.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/digpub/housing/images/pdf/Housing-DigitalPublication-2020_en.pdf?lang=en

Yes, as this is based on the walls, would be very very different if it would be counted on basis of living space. Apparently for you it number of walls is more important, household size/living space is not important metrics (or just depending on the case).

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, as this is based on the walls, would be very very different if it would be counted on basis of living space. Apparently for you it number of walls is more important, household size/living space is not important metrics (or just depending on the case).

Have you seen a study of crowding measured on basis of living space?

If so, could you link to it so we can compare the differences?

If not, how do you know it would be very different?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Have you seen a study of crowding measured on basis of living space?

If so, could you link to it so we can compare the differences?

If not, how do you know it would be very different?

I haven't see such studies on crowding measure, probably there is no such, except the ones with measuring walls.
The reason why I'm confident that those numbers would be lower, is due to the fact that comparing with Western Europe, Ireland average household size is higher, average property size is likely below Western Europe, and average living space per person is lower. And from the type of houses, there are many houses is Ireland below 100sqm packed with 5 rooms in it (3 bed + kitchen + living room). This is not as common in other countries I have lived.

cruizer101

I was curious as to what defines under/over-crowding and was googling, here are the definitions for those interested.
Its not clear is it referring to the number of bedrooms, but I think it must be as you can't be counting kitchen/bathroom etc in that.

However that would mean to be undercrowded you would have to have 2 spare bedrooms, as there is already one for the household, unless I am missing something that doesn't seem right, and I'd be amazed if 69% of houses in Ireland have 2 spare bedrooms What am I missing here.

For statistical purposes, a dwelling is defined as under-occupied if the household living in it has at its disposal more than the minimum number of rooms considered adequate, and equal to:

A person is considered as living in an overcrowded household if the household does not have at its disposal a minimum number of rooms equal to:

one room for the household;
one room per couple in the household;
one room for each single person aged 18 or more;
one room per pair of single people of the same gender between 12 and 17 years of age;
one room for each single person between 12 and 17 years of age and not included in the previous category;
one room per pair of children under 12 years of age.

Edit:
I found further definition
A room is defined as a space in a housing unit, or in living quarters other than housing units, enclosed by walls reaching from the floor to the ceiling or roof covering, or at least to a height of 2 metres above the ground, of a size large enough to hold a bed for an adult (4 square metres at least) and at least 2 metres high over the major area of the ceiling.

Thus, normal bedrooms, dining rooms, living rooms, habitable cellars and attics, servants' rooms, kitchens and other separate spaces used or intended for habitation all count as rooms. Passageways, verandas, lobbies, bathrooms, and toilet rooms should not be counted as rooms, even if they meet the criteria

So they do count kitchen and living rooms, in that case it makes sense that there would be under-occupation, as soon as you have a kitchen and living room along with adequate bedrooms you are under occupied. That means in my standard enough 4 bed house ~140m2, we could have ourselves along with 6 adult children, 8 adults total, and it would still not be considered over occupied, thats madness.

Marius34

Browney7 wrote: »

It's likely more nuanced than what you outline in relation to Ireland.

What you mean? I have shared lots of data here about Ireland, and forecasts which with a time showed that it was on the right directions, comparing with other side of argument.

Marius34

cruizer101 wrote: »

I was curious as to what defines under/over-crowding and was googling, here are the definitions for those interested.
Its not clear is it referring to the number of bedrooms, but I think it must be as you can't be counting kitchen/bathroom etc in that.

However that would mean to be undercrowded you would have to have 2 spare bedrooms, as there is already one for the household, unless I am missing something that doesn't seem right, and I'd be amazed if 69% of houses in Ireland have 2 spare bedrooms What am I missing here.

For statistical purposes, a dwelling is defined as under-occupied if the household living in it has at its disposal more than the minimum number of rooms considered adequate, and equal to:

A person is considered as living in an overcrowded household if the household does not have at its disposal a minimum number of rooms equal to:

one room for the household;
one room per couple in the household;
one room for each single person aged 18 or more;
one room per pair of single people of the same gender between 12 and 17 years of age;
one room for each single person between 12 and 17 years of age and not included in the previous category;
one room per pair of children under 12 years of age.

As far as I remember they count kitchen, and extension, etc. if it separated by wall, but they don't count bathroom.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

I haven't see such studies on crowding measure, probably there is no such, except the ones with measuring walls.
The reason why I'm confident that those numbers would be lower, is due to the fact that comparing with Western Europe, Ireland average household size is higher, average property size is likely below Western Europe, and average living space per person is lower. And from the type of houses, there are many houses is Ireland below 100sqm packed with 5 rooms in it (3 bed + kitchen + living room). This is not as common in other countries I have lived.

If there is no report about it, better leave it, and don't try to assume something as a "Fact".

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

If there is no report about it, better leave it, and don't try to assume something as a "Fact".

ok that would be fine, but for some reasons you looking to re-evaluate some reports that doesn't suit it, but I should leave numbers on it's own when it suits you.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

ok that would be fine, but for some reasons you looking to re-evaluate some reports that doesn't suit it, but I should leave numbers on it's own when it suits you.

I'm not re-evaluating anything! I am simply saying that the argument we have more of housing underutilisation problem than a housing stock problem is borne out by the overoccupied/under-occupied stats provided by the EU!

You're arguing against that, no problem, but it would be helpful if you had something more concrete than your anecdotal evidence.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

I'm not re-evaluating anything! I am simply saying that the argument we have more of housing underutilisation problem than a housing stock problem is borne out by the overoccupied/under-occupied stats provided by the EU!

You're arguing against that, no problem, but it would be helpful if you had something more concrete than your anecdotal evidence.

The household size and other metrics that I related to housing utilization is not anecdotical evidence.

cruizer101

schmittel wrote: »

overoccupied/under-occupied stats provided by the EU!

To be fair I think those stats need to be taken with a decent pinch of salt.
Going by them a small 3 bed, kitchen/diner and sitting room downstairs with a couple, an adult child, and two teenagers of the same sex is under occupied.
I don't think most people would consider that underoccupied.

If it was separate kitchen diner which wasn't uncommon a while ago you could have another adult child in there and still be under occupied.

I'm not overly familiar with housing elsewhere in europe but that metric does not fit here.

Similarly see my post above where I would need 9 adults in my decent enough but by no means huge 4 bed house for it to be overcrowded.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

This metric is not important. Ireland has a utilization issue.

Around 17% of the EU population live in an overcrowded home.

In Ireland 3.2% of people live in an overcrowded home.

Around 33% of the EU population live in an under-occupied home.

In Ireland 69.6% of people live in an under-occupied home.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/digpub/housing/images/pdf/Housing-DigitalPublication-2020_en.pdf?lang=en

I wonder does the widespread move to WFH (full or part time) change this metric much - spare rooms are now offices so would change classification of “under occupied”?

hometruths

cruizer101 wrote: »

To be fair I think those stats need to be taken with a decent pinch of salt.
Going by them a small 3 bed, kitchen/diner and sitting room downstairs with a couple, an adult child, and two teenagers of the same sex is under occupied.
I don't think most people would consider that underoccupied.

If it was separate kitchen diner which wasn't uncommon a while ago you could have another adult child in there and still be under occupied.

I'm not overly familiar with housing elsewhere in europe but that metric does not fit here.

Similarly see my post above where I would need 9 adults in my decent enough but by no means huge 4 bed house for it to be overcrowded.

Ok fair enough, but what I am missing about the difference between a 4 bed house in Dublin versus a 4 bed house in say Paris?

If the same rules of rooms per adult couple/children of same sex etc apply across all cities surely it still tells us that have more underoccupied houses than the EU average?

I see your point that you could squeeze 8 into your house before it would be classified as overcrowded, which does seem silly, but how many people do live in it?

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

I wonder does the widespread move to WFH (full or part time) change this metric much - spare rooms are now offices so would change classification of “under occupied”?

I don't think it would change much as far as the definition goes. As cruizer points out, the stats don't differentiate between what the purpose of the room is.

timmyntc

schmittel wrote: »

Ok fair enough, but what I am missing about the difference between a 4 bed house in Dublin versus a 4 bed house in say Paris?

If the same rules of rooms per adult couple/children of same sex etc apply across all cities surely it still tells us that have more underoccupied houses than the EU average?

I see your point that you could squeeze 8 into your house before it would be classified as overcrowded, which does seem silly, but how many people do live in it?

Many european countries have a lot more apartments - and apartments typically have one shared kitchen/living area - which immediately impacts on the "overoccupied"-ness of a property.

Marius34

cruizer101 wrote: »

To be fair I think those stats need to be taken with a decent pinch of salt.
Going by them a small 3 bed, kitchen/diner and sitting room downstairs with a couple, an adult child, and two teenagers of the same sex is under occupied.
I don't think most people would consider that underoccupied.

If it was separate kitchen diner which wasn't uncommon a while ago you could have another adult child in there and still be under occupied.

I'm not overly familiar with housing elsewhere in europe but that metric does not fit here.

Similarly see my post above where I would need 9 adults in my decent enough but by no means huge 4 bed house for it to be overcrowded.

I'm fairly familiar with housing in other countries, as I lived for 12 years around Europe without permanent place. I haven't seen 5 rooms (3bed+kitchen+living) apartment/house squeezed in 100sqm, outside Ireland. I believe it maybe fairly common in UK, and maybe Amsterdam, but not much of other places.
Size wise, except of Western Europe, properties in Ireland is still much bigger than typical post soviet countries, where in urban areas most property were block apartment of 1 bedroom with size of 46-48 sqm.

cruizer101

schmittel wrote: »

Ok fair enough, but what I am missing about the difference between a 4 bed house in Dublin versus a 4 bed house in say Paris?

I'm not sure, maybe there is more open plan in Europe, meaning the same size (sqft) house could be overoccupied in paris but under-occupied here, thats just a guess though.

schmittel wrote: »

I see your point that you could squeeze 8 into your house before it would be classified as overcrowded, which does seem silly, but how many people do live in it?

2, so it is very under occupied, however.
One of the bedrooms is small and will be converted into an ensuite for main bedroom.
The kitchen and diner are planned to be joined.
In that case it is still the same size but can now hold 2 less people under that criteria.

Also to add, we bought house with plans of raising a family here so expect to have a few children in future meaning it won't be under-occupied.
In theory that is under-utilization. Should we have bought an apartment, then upsized to a 3 bed, than a 4 bed, than downsize again as kids move out. It is more efficient from a housing point of view but I don't fancy doing that losing money each time.

I don't doubt there is significant under-occupation, particularly among older people and there should be moves to encourage downsizing, by building appropriate accommodation in suitable locations but it is far more complicated than just that. e.g. want space for grandkids to stay over, or a big one fair deal scheme can take a massive chunk of your assets but only a smaller % of the value of your ppr, thats a big reason not to downsize.

MacronvFrugals

Interesting new stats from the CSO, just highlights again how QOL is not as good for young people compared with some of our northern counterparts, but sure we don't need the CSO to tell us what consecutive polls are showing

a snapshot of Irish life taken this month and last from almost 10,500 people, the Central Statistics Office (CSO) found 76% of those who share rented accommodation with non-family members “feel they will never be in a position to own their own place”.

Despite 71% enjoying the company of others in the shared accommodation, more than half feel that they don’t have enough privacy, while 44% reported feeling lonely all or most of the time.

Household chores are the main source of rancour among housemates, with almost half saying it caused issues, while the sharing of facilities likes bathrooms and showers was a problem for a third.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40320092.html

hometruths

cruizer101 wrote: »

I'm not sure, maybe there is more open plan in Europe, meaning the same size (sqft) house could be overoccupied in paris but under-occupied here, thats just a guess though.



2, so it is very under occupied, however.
One of the bedrooms is small and will be converted into an ensuite for main bedroom.
The kitchen and diner are planned to be joined.
In that case it is still the same size but can now hold 2 less people under that criteria.

Also to add, we bought house with plans of raising a family here so expect to have a few children in future meaning it won't be under-occupied.
In theory that is under-utilization. Should we have bought an apartment, then upsized to a 3 bed, than a 4 bed, than downsize again as kids move out. It is more efficient from a housing point of view but I don't fancy doing that losing money each time.

I don't doubt there is significant under-occupation, particularly among older people and there should be moves to encourage downsizing, by building appropriate accommodation in suitable locations but it is far more complicated than just that. e.g. want space for grandkids to stay over, or a big one fair deal scheme can take a massive chunk of your assets but only a smaller % of the value of your ppr, thats a big reason not to downsize.

I am in the same boat, I have a four bed house that is currently underoccupied by any reasonable standards, even though 9 could in theory live in it and it would not be overcrowded.

But that's the theory. I suspect the reality in Ireland is closer to your case and mine - i.e the bulk of our 4 bed houses are not being classified as underoccupied with 8 people living in them!