The great myths of housing

jimmycrackcorm

timmyntc wrote: »

Yes but Eindhoven has a higher average income and smaller land area than Dublin. So you would think Eindhoven would have worse affordability issues than Dublin - but the opposite is true.

Is there such a thing as Nimbyism there?
Does every development get objections like here?

hometruths

ec18 wrote: »

If you're excluding land and the transfer of the land to the purchaser all you're essentially doing is providing long term rentals.......(that is a dramatisation but the T&C's around the leasehold need to be properly defined as you don't want to end up with what happens in mobile home parks in the States)

It's far from long term rentals, it's long term leasehold, and you can do everything you can with a freehold property except gain in any uplift of the underlying land value.

This used to be a very common arrangement back in the day when a house cost 3 times average teacher's salary.

The only difference being that the state owns the freehold and not some absentee aristocrat.

In terms of providing affordable housing it is certainly the best idea I have heard, and I have never voted SF nor am I ever likely to do so.

Murph85

For once, they are a totally going to pay a huge price for their in inaction. Their appalling governance has tied them up in knots like a ball of thread... zero chance this gets better, its absolutely going to get worse and bubble over...

Immediate action on planning, build costs, standards, land tax etc would be required now, given how long and drawn out the whole process is...

And honestly if there is no intention of actually genuinely and effectively using lpt, scrap it...

Furze99

Cyrus wrote: »

main problem with the old corporation houses is that they allowed people buy them.

And therein lies one of the reasons why LAs and the state now are shy of getting back into the building game.

They had this stock of housing rented out at reasonable rates but enough of the tenants couldn't be arsed to do basic maintenance themselves and were continually expecting the LA to come out and fix their gaffs. So the LAs decided to cut their losses and sell them out, so as to get rid of the maintenance burden.

That plus the fact that modern building regs and peoples expectations are far far higher now than the concrete boxes put up back in the 50s. The quality of much social housing now is far higher than the stock that many of us who have bought housing live in. Then you still hear complaints - too far from my mammy, no room for the horses and so on.

Who'd blame the LAs and state from passing this poisoned chalice to the private sector?

hometruths

It's not clear where the figure of 200,000 vacant properties cited in the article is from but presumably it is based on CSO figures.

It's also referenced in a journal.ie article today: Banks sitting on hundreds of vacant properties as pressure ramps up on government to get radical

There are an estimated 200,000 vacant homes in the country, with the Public Expenditure Minister Michael McGrath saying last week that the local authorities plan to work with owners to bring them back into use.

I wonder what has changed recently re attitude to vacant properties? It was not so long ago that politicians and media alike were dismissive of the idea that vacancies were an issue.

Both within and outside government, the prospect of a vacant property tax is being welcomed. Fine Gael’s Louth TD Fergus O’Dowd said such a move would generate much needed housing supply.

Whatever it is, it's a welcome and much needed change, IMO.

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

It's not clear where the figure of 200,000 vacant properties cited in the article is from but presumably it is based on CSO figures.

It's also referenced in a journal.ie article today: Banks sitting on hundreds of vacant properties as pressure ramps up on government to get radical



I wonder what has changed recently re attitude to vacant properties? It was not so long ago that politicians and media alike were dismissive of the idea that vacancies were an issue.



Whatever it is, it's a welcome and much needed change, IMO.

Presumably a lot of the vacant houses are the derelict or semi-derelict houses you see on the main streets of any Irish town? I am amazed at the near abandonment of entire streets in some villages. It would cost a fortune to get most of those buildings back up to a habitable standard, and even if we could, would people want to live in them?

A person could buy a house on a village street reasonably cheaply in (say) North Munster but collectively we seem to have decided we no longer want to live in such houses. I've no idea how you shift the culture back to on-street living.

hometruths

Deleted User wrote: »

Presumably a lot of the vacant houses are the derelict or semi-derelict houses you see on the main streets of any Irish town? I am amazed at the near abandonment of entire streets in some villages. It would cost a fortune to get most of those buildings back up to a habitable standard, and even if we could, would people want to live in them?

A person could buy a house on a village street reasonably cheaply in (say) North Munster but collectively we seem to have decided we no longer want to live in such houses. I've no idea how you shift the culture back to on-street living.

Vacancy rates for Dublin city:



Thanks to Timing Belt

L1011

Data from 2016. That's a very important thing not mentioned there.

El_Duderino 09

What's normal in terms of house vacancy in major cities? is 9% very high, comparatively speaking?

hometruths

L1011 wrote: »

Data from 2016. That's a very important thing not mentioned there.

Indeed, but presumably it is the data the 200,000 figure quoted this week is based on.

Posted mainly because it is commonly suggested that there are no vacancies in high demand areas.

The Dublin City figures confirm this is a complete misconception.

hometruths

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What's normal in terms of house vacancy in major cities? is 9% very high, comparatively speaking?

Yes, it's very high.

6% considered normal in fully functioning market with healthy supply and demand of sales and rentals.

Needless to say you'd expect to see figures well below 6% in a housing crisis.

Pawwed Rig

schmittel wrote: »

Yes, it's very high.

6% considered normal in fully functioning market with healthy supply and demand of sales and rentals.

Needless to say you'd expect to see figures well below 6% in a housing crisis.

I wonder how much of that is council property. There are a huge number of derelict and semi derelict council flats around D1 and D2. I would guess that these make up a good portion of the figures.

hometruths

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I wonder how much of that is council property. There are a huge number of derelict and semi derelict council flats around D1 and D2. I would guess that these make up a good portion of the figures.

Probably a decent chunk. A lot of Airbnb’s as well, and people just sitting on vacant property because it is a pretty good place for your money at present.

No matter what reason is behind an individual vacancy, the big picture question should be why does Dublin city have a 9% vacancy rate in 2016, and probably higher now, during a housing crisis?

ednwireland

Murph85 wrote: »

For once, they are a totally going to pay a huge price for their in inaction. Their appalling governance has tied them up in knots like a ball of thread... zero chance this gets better, its absolutely going to get worse and bubble over...

Immediate action on planning, build costs, standards, land tax etc would be required now, given how long and drawn out the whole process is...

And honestly if there is no intention of actually genuinely and effectively using lpt, scrap it...

you think ? i wouldnt be so confident

Ace2007

schmittel wrote: »

No matter what reason is behind an individual vacancy, the big picture question should be why does Dublin city have a 9% vacancy rate in 2016, and probably higher now, during a housing crisis?

Where does the data come from though? Is it census data and if so that's very misleading as certain cohort of the population won't complete it.

hometruths

Ace2007 wrote: »

Where does the data come from though? Is it census data and if so that's very misleading as certain cohort of the population won't complete it.

Yes it’s census data.

Out of interest, what do you base your opinions on current housing market in Ireland?

Yellow_Fern

schmittel wrote: »

Yes, it's very high.

6% considered normal in fully functioning market with healthy supply and demand of sales and rentals.

Needless to say you'd expect to see figures well below 6% in a housing crisis.

EU average is 18% but far lower in growing cities. The figures posted above are based on who returns the Census, which highly overstates it. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/number-of-vacant-homes-in-dublin-said-to-be-between-900-and-1-000-1.3368771

El_Duderino 09

schmittel wrote: »

Yes, it's very high.

6% considered normal in fully functioning market with healthy supply and demand of sales and rentals.

Needless to say you'd expect to see figures well below 6% in a housing crisis.

I'll take your word that 6% is normal. But I wouldn't expect there to be less than normal in a housing crisis. If there's a housing crisis then I don't expect the market to be operating efficiently and I'd expect there to be lots of causes.

I wonder why they are empty. Are they second homes? derelict shells of houses that need to be knocked (essentially sites) or are they houses on the market for a reasonably affordable price but people just aren't bidding on them for some reason.

If they're not on the market for a reasonably affordable price, then what difference does it make how many of them there are? What should be done with them? Compulsory purchase orders?

hometruths

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

EU average is 18% but far lower in growing cities. The figures posted above are based on who returns the Census, which highly overstates it. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/number-of-vacant-homes-in-dublin-said-to-be-between-900-and-1-000-1.3368771

It has been claimed by the Dept of Housing that the figure is overstated, but that is not quite the same thing as it been proven to be overstated. Quite the opposite in fact.

And that was the point of my post above - three years ago government was saying there was no problem with vacancies, sure the CSO overstated the figures. And now they’re saying we have to tackle this problem.

A welcome change in attitude and about time.

C14N

Ace2007 wrote: »

But it's family homes that people are complaining about that they are been out bid on and can't buy in the areas they want to.

Those bidding 500k+ on houses are not interested in buying apartments.

Some people specifically want detached or semi-detached single-family houses, but plenty of other people would be happy with apartments and currently live in a house anyway because it was what was available for the price/location they wanted.

I tend to agree that few families would want to live in the kinds of apartments we have in Ireland at present, but I also put that down to the fact that nobody really builds apartments here that are in any way suitable for families, or even really for couples to live in long-term. You'd have your work cut out for you trying to find a 3 or 4 bedroom apartment at 120+ sqm anywhere in Dublin. The vast majority are 1 or 2-bed apartments under 80 sqm, which is fine for some but not many people will want to live in a small unit that size forever.

It doesn't have to be this way either. A family friend of mine recently sold an investment apartment he had bought in Florida about 10 years ago. This was in a 20-something story building in a mid-sized city about the size of Cork. I got to stay in it once on holidays and it was huge, about 250 sqm. Had its own pool and gym and other facilities, built to a very good standard with big balconies. It was sold for around $480k USD, which was a lot more than it was originally bought for. These kinds of things aren't physically impossible, they just aren't supported by current government policy that still expects all Irish people to stop living in apartments and get themselves a single house and a long commute once they want to actually own property.

hometruths

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'll take your word that 6% is normal. But I wouldn't expect there to be less than normal in a housing crisis. If there's a housing crisis then I don't expect the market to be operating efficiently and I'd expect there to be lots of causes.

I wonder why they are empty. Are they second homes? derelict shells of houses that need to be knocked (essentially sites) or are they houses on the market for a reasonably affordable price but people just aren't bidding on them for some reason.

If they're not on the market for a reasonably affordable price, then what difference does it make how many of them there are? What should be done with them? Compulsory purchase orders?

It makes a huge difference because they are represent an inefficient use of a scarce resource. If there's only handful that inefficiency is irrelevant, but if is 10% of the existing housing stock it is a really big deal.

What should be done with them? The government should be trying to bring them back into use to ease the supply shortages. Whether that's by carrot or stick is up for debate.

What the government should definitely not be doing is saying there is nothing to see here, the CSO cannot count.

Ace2007

schmittel wrote: »

Yes it’s census data.

Out of interest, what do you base your opinions on current housing market in Ireland?

My opinion of the housing market is that too many young people want their dream home/area from day one, and so are looking in areas that they shouldn't be, which in turn sees them bidding on houses that are out of their range, some of whom will realize once it's accepted and may pull out or get in over their heads, while others never get their home and just end up bidding the values up for others who can afford it - the knock on effect then is that every house in the area has this bumped up price as it's floor - which is not representative of the actual market.

If people in general took at step back and say in 10 years time i want to buy my dream house or live in x location, but for the time being i'm going to buy somewhere else - it would take the heat out of the market and we wouldn't be seeing stupid prices for houses.

I also feel the EA's need to value houses fairly and not be trying to make a name for themselves to boost their profile - i've seen numerous houses that are just valued way to high - and it sets the bar for the rest of the neighborhood.

I spotted a house on social media during the week that was on the market in 2017 for €1.25m - didn't sell, and now it's back on the market for €1.9m. Can the EA really justify a 650k increase in 4 years for a house that couldn't sell 4 years ago, in an area that doesn't appear to have had any sales according to PPR?

The funny(sad) thing is that those buying these expensive houses and bidding prices only need to look back 15 years to see what can go wrong - but it's like they are caught up in the moment because society tells them that they have to buy a family home, and be near family and friends. The funny thing is that we literally have tens of thousands of people living on the commute belt, yet others seem to think this can't be a realistic solution if you work in Dublin.

El_Duderino 09

schmittel wrote: »

It makes a huge difference because they are represent an inefficient use of a scarce resource. If there's only handful that inefficiency is irrelevant, but if is 10% of the existing housing stock it is a really big deal.

What should be done with them? The government should be trying to bring them back into use to ease the supply shortages. Whether that's by carrot or stick is up for debate.

What the government should definitely not be doing is saying there is nothing to see here, the CSO cannot count.

If they're holiday homes or investments or second homes for someone to use when they fly into Dublin for business once a month, then we're talking about forcing or incentivising private people to sell something they own. If the government was willing to do that, they'd already have tried the much simpler options of building affordable houses like they did in the past or creating/moving jobs outside of Dublin.

They're really unlikely to make it so uncomfortable for wealthy people to own a second home in Dublin, that those people start selling their homes. And if it's derelict houses which are essentially sites, then they should start knocking and rebuilding them CPO style. But we're miles away from any of that kind of thing.

I would be fine with radical solutions. "Use it or lose it" rules on unused sites and homes would be a great start. 10% annual tax on unused sites and homes for example. That would reduce the number of unused properties. But ultimately the government needs to build homes.

The article at the start is not a clever, weighing both sides of the argument by an independent thinker. It's purely providing reasons for old people who already own homes to pull the ladder up and screw the rest - shur they're only crying victim anyway. total guff

hometruths

Ace2007 wrote: »

My opinion of the housing market is that too many young people want their dream home/area from day one, and so are looking in areas that they shouldn't be, which in turn sees them bidding on houses that are out of their range, some of whom will realize once it's accepted and may pull out or get in over their heads, while others never get their home and just end up bidding the values up for others who can afford it - the knock on effect then is that every house in the area has this bumped up price as it's floor - which is not representative of the actual market.

If people in general took at step back and say in 10 years time i want to buy my dream house or live in x location, but for the time being i'm going to buy somewhere else - it would take the heat out of the market and we wouldn't be seeing stupid prices for houses.

I also feel the EA's need to value houses fairly and not be trying to make a name for themselves to boost their profile - i've seen numerous houses that are just valued way to high - and it sets the bar for the rest of the neighborhood.

I spotted a house on social media during the week that was on the market in 2017 for €1.25m - didn't sell, and now it's back on the market for €1.9m. Can the EA really justify a 650k increase in 4 years for a house that couldn't sell 4 years ago, in an area that doesn't appear to have had any sales according to PPR?

The funny(sad) thing is that those buying these expensive houses and bidding prices only need to look back 15 years to see what can go wrong - but it's like they are caught up in the moment because society tells them that they have to buy a family home, and be near family and friends. The funny thing is that we literally have tens of thousands of people living on the commute belt, yet others seem to think this can't be a realistic solution if you work in Dublin.

Fair enough, all opinions presumably based on what you see for yourself. You don't need to rely on the CSO data for that!

hometruths

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If they're holiday homes or investments or second homes for someone to use when they fly into Dublin for business once a month, then we're talking about forcing or incentivising private people to sell something they own. If the government was willing to do that, they'd already have tried the much simpler options of building affordable houses like they did in the past or creating/moving jobs outside of Dublin.

They're really unlikely to make it so uncomfortable for wealthy people to own a second home in Dublin, that those people start selling their homes. And if it's derelict houses which are essentially sites, then they should start knocking and rebuilding them CPO style. But we're miles away from any of that kind of thing.

I would be fine with radical solutions. "Use it or lose it" rules on unused sites and homes would be a great start. 10% annual tax on unused sites and homes for example. That would reduce the number of unused properties. But ultimately the government needs to build homes.

To be honest I'm not keen to get into another nitty gritty debate about the wheres and whys of vacancies. If you're genuinely interested all my thoughts on the subject are in this thread - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058118775

My only point for the basis of the current thread was I'm glad to see some signs that government and media are beginning to take the problem seriously.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The article at the start is not a clever, weighing both sides of the argument by an independent thinker. It's purely providing reasons for old people who already own homes to pull the ladder up and screw the rest - shur they're only crying victim anyway. total guff

Have you read it yet? I've read it and think your assessment of the article is way off the mark.

Cal4567

Furze99 wrote: »

And therein lies one of the reasons why LAs and the state now are shy of getting back into the building game.

They had this stock of housing rented out at reasonable rates but enough of the tenants couldn't be arsed to do basic maintenance themselves and were continually expecting the LA to come out and fix their gaffs. So the LAs decided to cut their losses and sell them out, so as to get rid of the maintenance burden.

That plus the fact that modern building regs and peoples expectations are far far higher now than the concrete boxes put up back in the 50s. The quality of much social housing now is far higher than the stock that many of us who have bought housing live in. Then you still hear complaints - too far from my mammy, no room for the horses and so on.

Who'd blame the LAs and state from passing this poisoned chalice to the private sector?

Actually it was the policy of the relatively new state, from the 1940s onwards, to enter into purchase programmes with tenants rather than any other long term policy to maintain properties. Ireland was well ahead of other countries in doing this. The UK only started council house sell offs under Thatcher in the 1980s. People say quite understandably this was now a mistake. I did a run around of fellow acquaintances and ex colleagues in a zoom call recently. All Irish born and bred. Most in their 60s and 70s. The vast majority came out of houses across the country that were sold by various corporations to their parents/grandparents even.

As for your second point, modern buildings regs are essential, even more so now with the climate debate. I think you’ll find many home owners as well as tenants dearly wishing they were in place during the early 2000s.

snow_bunny

Ace2007 wrote: »

My opinion of the housing market is that too many young people want their dream home/area from day one, and so are looking in areas that they shouldn't be, which in turn sees them bidding on houses that are out of their range, some of whom will realize once it's accepted and may pull out or get in over their heads, while others never get their home and just end up bidding the values up for others who can afford it - the knock on effect then is that every house in the area has this bumped up price as it's floor - which is not representative of the actual market.

If people in general took at step back and say in 10 years time i want to buy my dream house or live in x location, but for the time being i'm going to buy somewhere else - it would take the heat out of the market and we wouldn't be seeing stupid prices for houses.

I also feel the EA's need to value houses fairly and not be trying to make a name for themselves to boost their profile - i've seen numerous houses that are just valued way to high - and it sets the bar for the rest of the neighborhood.

I spotted a house on social media during the week that was on the market in 2017 for €1.25m - didn't sell, and now it's back on the market for €1.9m. Can the EA really justify a 650k increase in 4 years for a house that couldn't sell 4 years ago, in an area that doesn't appear to have had any sales according to PPR?

The funny(sad) thing is that those buying these expensive houses and bidding prices only need to look back 15 years to see what can go wrong - but it's like they are caught up in the moment because society tells them that they have to buy a family home, and be near family and friends. The funny thing is that we literally have tens of thousands of people living on the commute belt, yet others seem to think this can't be a realistic solution if you work in Dublin.

Agreed.

I made a similar post in the property thread we were all posting in the other day. This phenomenon, social or psychological, or both, is affecting all sectors of the market, not just the "dream homes".

The quality is awful and asking prices are comical. "Fixer uppers" (compete wrecks) are priced as if the renovation work has already been carried out. Then you've to consider the recently increased cost of a renovation and the difficulty of getting anyone to do it. You quickly end up in lala land territory cost wise and could probably just buy a mansion for the money you'd spend. Yet they drive on with the crazy bids...and they have a punt on the mansion while they're at it.

The asking prices last summer were fairly standard and the same as they'd been for about 2 years. Anecdotally, the start of it all here was when a house near us, (small 3 bed semi in an average estate) sold for 300k, the most ever paid for a house of it's size in the estate. It went into a frenzied bidding war and was sold to a rumoured drug dealer for cash. This was like a bloody rag to a shark. Since that, every house that's come up in the estate has an asking price of about 60k more than what they achieved in 2018/19. All these houses need complete redecoration at a minimum and they're a total rip off. The 300k house had a massive extension and converted attic whereas these are zero frills. They have literally gone up in price overnight, all the estate agents seem to be benchmarking off each other and attempting to set a new price floor. It appears to be working.

The difference here is that I recognise it's not notions or entitlement driving buyers, it's desperation and a reprieve from a seriously expensive and unstable rental situation.

The bidding process needs a complete overhaul, if only to protect people from themselves. Something which has also been explored in the other thread.

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

Indeed, but presumably it is the data the 200,000 figure quoted this week is based on.

Posted mainly because it is commonly suggested that there are no vacancies in high demand areas.

The Dublin City figures confirm this is a complete misconception.

David McWilliams suggests a derelict or land tax.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/tyranny-of-short-termism-contributing-to-housing-crisis/?utm_source=Website+Subscribers&utm_campaign=2612567521-22112012_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_861a00f27d-2612567521-266233361

In there he says that we have one of the lowest number of dwellings per 1000 people. Places like Italy have 580 per 1000 we are at 422. Belgium is at 480 and to get to that, he says, we need 500,000 houses.

dwellings means occupied, of course. So maybe we can use some of the unoccupied houses. But it’s not enough.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

My opinion of the housing market is that too many young people want their dream home/area from day one, and so are looking in areas that they shouldn't be, which in turn sees them bidding on houses that are out of their range, some of whom will realize once it's accepted and may pull out or get in over their heads, while others never get their home and just end up bidding the values up for others who can afford it - the knock on effect then is that every house in the area has this bumped up price as it's floor - which is not representative of the actual market.

Young people aren't buying houses. The average age of first house purchase is about 34. People are literally hitting the limit of their mortgage durations when they buy at 34.

If people in general took at step back and say in 10 years time i want to buy my dream house or live in x location, but for the time being i'm going to buy somewhere else - it would take the heat out of the market and we wouldn't be seeing stupid prices for houses.
.

This would push up the second house purchase age to 44. Which isn't going to work for most of them. In the meantime houses might have increased again putting the house available to them at 34 out of reach, particularly with the lower available mortgage at that age.

There is no ladder anymore. And people who are struggling to get a house at 34 will obviously want to get their one and only house.

It strikes me that a lot of people are out of touch here.

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

Indeed, but presumably it is the data the 200,000 figure quoted this week is based on.

Posted mainly because it is commonly suggested that there are no vacancies in high demand areas.

The Dublin City figures confirm this is a complete misconception.

What are you arguing for here. Lets say your statistics re right? What do you want to happen?