The great myths of housing

Taylor365

Saving 6-7 years. Can pay many times the deposit of the wealth of houses in Dublin, but still cant afford most.

Your paying a 2021 price for houses that haven't been touched since 1970-1980!

hometruths

fvp4 wrote: »

What are you arguing for here. Lets say your statistics re right?

They re not my statistics. They are the CSO's.

fvp4 wrote: »

What do you want to happen?

Reduce the vacancy rate in Dublin city would be a good start.

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

They re not my statistics. They are the CSO's.



Reduce the vacancy rate in Dublin city would be a good start.

Sure. But I was expecting you to suggest a way to do that.

snow_bunny

fvp4 wrote: »

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.

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.

Nail.on.the.head.

Ace2007

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

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.

I would say 34 is young though. People don’t get married and have kids in their 20s as much anymore, so you have to consider that.

People live longer now than they did 20 years ago and will continue to live longer, so to think of 34 as old is a bit out dated IMO. And I’m fact is not helping the situation because it’s putting pressure on people not only to buy a house but also to start a family because they aren’t “young”

As we are living longer it’s inevitable that people will be working to 70+.

If you don’t buy a house until your 40 you could still have 25/30 year mortgage.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

I would say 34 is young though. People don’t get married and have kids in their 20s as much anymore, so you have to consider that.

It’s closer to middle age than young.

People live longer now than they did 20 years ago and will continue to live longer, so to think of 34 as old is a bit out dated IMO. And I’m fact is not helping the situation because it’s putting pressure on people not only to buy a house but also to start a family because they aren’t “young”

They probably have a family at 34 so they want to buy a reasonable house. Not the one you said they should trade up from.

As we are living longer it’s inevitable that people will be working to 70+.

If you don’t buy a house until your 40 you could still have 25/30 year mortgage.

It depends on the bank. Nobody is going to give you a mortgage for 30 years at 40 and who wants to be paying it off at 70 anyway?

If you are arguing that people should wait until their 40 you are admitting the system is broken.

Ace2007

Your saying that 34 is Middle Aged when the average person will live to 82, and one in 5 20 year olds will live to 100? Wow

hometruths

fvp4 wrote: »

Sure. But I was expecting you to suggest a way to do that.

To apply in RPZs:

Additional property tax on all habitable non PPRs linked to rental value of property. Exemptions available upon proof of RTB registered tenancy.

+

Uninhabitable properties should be deemed to be rented out at 30 per cent of the rental value for habitable equivalent and tax chargeable based on that deemed income.

+

75% income tax chargeable on Airbnb's operating without planning permission.

theboringfox

snow_bunny wrote: »

Nail.on.the.head.

Bought a starter home second hand around this age. Now left with needing to extend or trade up. I always assumed buying starter home was sensible. My homes worth about same as when I purchased it 5 years ago. But costs of extending or buying bigger house seem to have rocketed up since. Current mindset is extend as not found anything to buy in last 2 years but both bad options. Was still worth buying as saved vs rent but I'd say if we sold in morning we would struggle to get back cost plus what we've spent making place more livable.

hometruths

theboringfox wrote: »

Bought a starter home second hand around this age. Now left with needing to extend or trade up. I always assumed buying starter home was sensible. My homes worth about same as when I purchased it 5 years ago. But costs of extending or buying bigger house seem to have rocketed up since. Current mindset is extend as not found anything to buy in last 2 years but both bad options. Was still worth buying as saved vs rent but I'd say if we sold in morning we would struggle to get back cost plus what we've spent making place more livable.

where did you buy? that sounds very unusual to have not seen any capital appreciation in the last 5 years?

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

Your saying that 34 is Middle Aged when the average person will live to 82, and one in 5 20 year olds will live to 100? Wow

I said nearly middle aged. Closer to middle aged than young. 40 is definitely middle aged.

You are deflecting here because your big idea that first time buyers should buy a small house and move up ten years later has been thoroughly defeated by the facts of what age people are buying. All your assumptions about the “entitled” youngsters wanting a big house when they should settle are blown out of the water.

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

To apply in RPZs:

Additional property tax on all habitable non PPRs linked to rental value of property. Exemptions available upon proof of RTB registered tenancy.

+

Uninhabitable properties should be deemed to be rented out at 30 per cent of the rental value for habitable equivalent and tax chargeable based on that deemed income.

+

75% income tax chargeable on Airbnb's operating without planning permission.

Good one.

El_Duderino 09

schmittel wrote: »

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.



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

I'm not sure why you mention vaccines.

I read the portion that was posted a couple of pages back. It's behind a pay wall.

It's not any kind of thoughtful, trying to see both sides of the argument. It's just reasons not to fix the problems, from the perspective of current home owners.

No need to focus on first buyers they're only 25%of the annual trade.
Renters choose to rent because they want to rent, not because they can't afford to buy. But they've been told they're victims.
Young people shouldn't want to buy houses anyway because we don't want to be part of the high home ownership "club" like Romania. (He doesn't say that irish renters pay a higher %of their pay on rent than anywhere else in the world. I wonder why he left out that detail...)
We shouldn't build new houses because there are 200,000 houses vacant somewhere or other in the country (he doesn't say where those houses are or whether they're available to people whonwant to buy or if they're anywhere near the jobs. I wonder why he leaves out that little detail...)

He doesn't even say what the negative consequences of building affordable houses would be. You'd think that would have been picked up already but somehow the people who already agreed with him didn't seem to need to read what the negative consequences would be as they were sufficiently convinced by him just saying its a bad idea.

This isn't insightful journalism, it's just pull the ladder up. Jack.

The author is the former head of the Housing Agency and is a lecturer in planning.

This is where we are. That’s why we are in such a mess.

theboringfox

schmittel wrote: »

where did you buy? that sounds very unusual to have not seen any capital appreciation in the last 5 years?

Cork city. 3 bed semi for 300. 90sqm. Its probably of rental standard. We had to spend money on underpinning and other works post closing. Its because anyone buying here now doing homework on extension costs so they work back from that to value. Costs of extending rocketing up which is keeping lid on house prices. If we had bought an extended house already done up we would be seeing serious appreciation in price. Just bad timing. But luckier than others as have a place. Just cramped as family grows and wasnt planning on both of us working from home when bought!

Ace2007

fvp4 wrote: »

I said nearly middle aged. Closer to middle aged than young. 40 is definitely middle aged.

You are deflecting here because your big idea that first time buyers should buy a small house and move up ten years later has been thoroughly defeated by the facts of what age people are buying. All your assumptions about the “entitled” youngsters wanting a big house when they should settle are blown out of the water.

I never said they should buy small house - i said they should not be looking to buy the dream house or in the dream location first time round, especially in areas that they can't afford.

Last few days there have been posters talking about not being able to afford a house is south county Dublin and how it's not fair as that's where their support bubble and family was. The sense of entitlement that they should be able to buy a house wherever they want

I gave my views to someone who asked, and you started attacking them - yet what are you views?

Ace2007

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I read the portion that was posted a couple of pages back. It's behind a pay wall.

Stick the URL in this

https://outline.com/

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

I never said they should buy small house - i said they should not be looking to buy the dream house or in the dream location first time round, especially in areas that they can't afford.

Nobody is moving on from a house ten years after they bought a house at the age of 34. People are getting their final house in most cases when they buy their first one.

Last few days there have been posters talking about not being able to afford a house is south county Dublin and how it's not fair as that's where their support bubble and family was.

One guy said that, on a different thread, and you keep harping on about it.

The sense of entitlement that they should be able to buy a house wherever they want

At one stage you meant anywhere in Dublin. Nobody has argued that anybody should be able to buy in Dalkey or Howth. You keep saying that based on one anecdote about one person in some thread a few days ago.

I gave my views to someone who asked, and you started attacking them - yet what are you views?

I don't attack anyone. I argue the case. You are the one with generalised attacks on "entitled" youngsters, who aren't that young.

My views are that the reason that millennials and Gen Z can't afford houses is that the older generation, and the generation of the author of the piece in the OP, have devised a system to keep wealth in their houses.

We need to crash house prices by building hundreds of thousands in the next few years. If FFG dont do it, SF will.

Quite simply the present system can't go on, so it wont go on.

Top Dog

fvp4 wrote: »

It depends on the bank. Nobody is going to give you a mortgage for 30 years at 40 and who wants to be paying it off at 70 anyway?

I'm 45 next month, and in the past week I've been offered a 25 year mortgage, so 30 years at 40 is actually possible. Income and other factors may have an impact on it, but to say nobody will do it is incorrect.

However I do agree that next to nobody wants to still be paying their mortgage at 70.

jimmycrackcorm

theboringfox wrote: »

Cork city. 3 bed semi for 300. 90sqm. Its probably of rental standard. We had to spend money on underpinning and other works post closing. Its because anyone buying here now doing homework on extension costs so they work back from that to value. Costs of extending rocketing up which is keeping lid on house prices. If we had bought an extended house already done up we would be seeing serious appreciation in price. Just bad timing. But luckier than others as have a place. Just cramped as family grows and wasnt planning on both of us working from home when bought!

Why is a three-bed house, a "starter home"?

If WFH is going to be a permanent thing then convert or build a shed-type work office in the garden. IMHO, a starter home means two beds or less when having children comprising of boys and girls necessitates enough bedrooms for the sexes, the days of us having large families are long gone.

When the norm on the continent is apartment living, then three bedrooms is beyond starter home territory.

I'm 20 years living in my three-bedroom house, so I'll be confused if I should regard it as a "starter home".

Ubbquittious

It's all a load of sh1t.

We're all trapped in a system unless you're a millionaire or inherited a couple of "units"

The government has been "maximum power point tracking" the working folk in order to coax as much economic activity as possible out of them for decades and will continue to do so.

If you get rid of the government the EU will ensure it gets done.

If you get rid of the EU the crowd who meet in Davos will ensure it gets done.

---

Go back a thousand years, there was ample land and stones laying around, reeds for your thatched roof. You did not have to labour for 10 full years in order to build a house unless you decided to go for a castle instead. Whereas today a house can cost 10 years of an average man's salary

Go back 40-50 years, mechanisation meant houses were easier to build than ever and materials readily available in processed form. Someone obviously saw this as a problem

So they invented planning laws, zoning laws, building regulations. All supposedly to address some shortcoming or danger despite the fact that it was easier than ever to build a good house. All these things drove up the price massively

There is no shortage of land, no shortage of material yet there's a massive amount of people who can't get houses due to artificial scarcity. There's even piles of existing buildings tied up to make sure nobody lives in them. It's all artificial. People stupidly believe in the system and the laws as if they're there for the greater good but they're not.

Planning and zoning laws are the most expensive thing you'll ever buy in your life but you never see them on an invoice

---

Just in case you think I'm some tinfoil hat conspiracy nutter, there's even laws to prevent you from living in a wooden cabin or a makeshift house or a business premises. It's all set up in such a way that you're coaxed into buying this overpriced brick box to live in, spend sh1tloads on mortgage interest, property tax, utility bills, all to keep the global economic money changing hands merry go round turning much to the amusement of the elite

Deeec

The problem with housing at the moment is demand is driving prices up. I dont actually believe lost of new construction is the answer. Heres how I would try to reduce demand:

- Incentivise multigenerational living - I know this is not for everyone but bear with me. Eg. Grandmother living in large 4 bedroom house sells house and moves in with her daughters family. Proceeds from sale are used to pay off mortgage on daughters house. Grandmothers house is sold to another family thus increasing supply. Possible savings for daughter on childcare costs ( and no mortgage )and savings for government down the line for care of elderly grandmother. Government would need to incentivise this and possibly waive inheritance tax on the paying off of the daughters mortgage.
This could free up lots of family homes that are currently occupied by the elderly.

- If you stand on any street in Ireland and look up you will see unoccupied and uncared for 2nd and 3rd floors over immaculate shops. Government need to come up with a plan to get these overshop properties back to being lived in. This would free up rental houses in suburbs and reenergise city and town centres. Rental houses in suburbs may be sold as rental market isnt there any more thus making more family homes available.

- Government need to access building standards on new builds which is driving up costs on new builds. Do the standards need to be that high?
Also when planning permission is granted for a new estate that a maximum selling price is put on the houses as part of the planning conditions.

- Apartment living - Larger apartments need to be planned for to suit long term living. The shoe box apartments built in the 90's are a disaster.

Dav010

Ubbquittious wrote: »

It's all a load of sh1t.

We're all trapped in a system unless you're a millionaire or inherited a couple of "units"

The government has been "maximum power point tracking" the working folk in order to coax as much economic activity as possible out of them for decades and will continue to do so.

If you get rid of the government the EU will ensure it gets done.

If you get rid of the EU the crowd who meet in Davos will ensure it gets done.

---

Go back a thousand years, there was ample land and stones laying around, reeds for your thatched roof. You did not have to labour for 10 full years in order to build a house unless you decided to go for a castle instead. Whereas today a house can cost 10 years of an average man's salary

Go back 40-50 years, mechanisation meant houses were easier to build than ever and materials readily available in processed form. Someone obviously saw this as a problem

So they invented planning laws, zoning laws, building regulations. All supposedly to address some shortcoming or danger despite the fact that it was easier than ever to build a good house. All these things drove up the price massively

There is no shortage of land, no shortage of material yet there's a massive amount of people who can't get houses due to artificial scarcity. There's even piles of existing buildings tied up to make sure nobody lives in them. It's all artificial. People stupidly believe in the system and the laws as if they're there for the greater good but they're not.

Planning and zoning laws are the most expensive thing you'll ever buy in your life but you never see them on an invoice

---

Just in case you think I'm some tinfoil hat conspiracy nutter, there's even laws to prevent you from living in a wooden cabin or a makeshift house or a business premises. It's all set up in such a way that you're coaxed into buying this overpriced brick box to live in, spend sh1tloads on mortgage interest, property tax, utility bills, all to keep the global economic money changing hands merry go round turning much to the amusement of the elite

I wouldn’t go so far as that you are tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nutter.

Considering land ownership has existed, and been a source of conflict for millennia, I doubt there was a time when everyone could gather up those stones and build a house wherever they wanted. There is probably good reason why you can’t live in an office, wooden shed or makeshift house, I wonder what it could be.

ec18

fvp4 wrote: »

We need to crash house prices by building hundreds of thousands in the next few years. If FFG dont do it, SF will.

No they won't and anyone who believes a party that has never had any meaningful involvement in government and implementing policy needs to be committed. All they are spouting is populist nonsense. Eoin O'Broin even admits that his plan won't have any meaningful affect for years.

HBC08

mariaalice wrote: »

A single person on minimum wage or a couple on minimum wage would not get a mortgage for 230 nor would a single person or a couple on the living wage get a mortgage for 230.

Is SF going to direct the central bank to change the mortgage rules?

It's almost as if a lot of what SF spout is populist fantasy nonsense and you don't have to scratch the surface too far to see it.

Dav010

HBC08 wrote: »

It's almost as if a lot of what SF spout is populist fantasy nonsense and you don't have to scratch the surface too far to see it.

See PD’s debate appearance before last election, when it was put to him that their proposals amounted to a cost of 40b, when asked where that money was come from, embarrassingly, he was stumped, could not give an answer. Big promises are easy to make, difficult to keep.

ec18

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why is a three-bed house, a "starter home"?

If WFH is going to be a permanent thing then convert or build a shed-type work office in the garden. IMHO, a starter home means two beds or less when having children comprising of boys and girls necessitates enough bedrooms for the sexes, the days of us having large families are long gone.

When the norm on the continent is apartment living, then three bedrooms is beyond starter home territory.

I'm 20 years living in my three-bedroom house, so I'll be confused if I should regard it as a "starter home".

I think the notion of a three bed as a starter home is down to a slightly different demographics in how families are dispersed. Taking my own family, all have 3 bed houses either detached or semi ds that they've lived in for decades at this stage with Kids etc. They were all able to have jobs and buy around their parents so were close enough for any visits, babysitting or family events.

Now looking at myself and my cousins we've mostly had to move further away from 'homebase' so when looking at houses now for us. The requirements are 4/5 bed to have space for kids and to host grandparents or other family a few times a year.

So the idea of a three bed as a starter is really for a couple + 1 kid and then spare room for visiting family. Combine that with most newer builds missing a room downstairs compared to an older layout. Once you add in second or third child and them getting older and bigger space in a std 3 bed does fill up fast.

Deeec

ec18 wrote: »

I think the notion of a three bed as a starter home is down to a slightly different demographics in how families are dispersed. Taking my own family, all have 3 bed houses either detached or semi ds that they've lived in for decades at this stage with Kids etc. They al were able to have jobs and buy around their parents so were close enough for any visits, babysitting.

Now looking at myself and my cousins we've mostly had to move further away from 'homebase' so when looking at houses now for us. The requirements are 4/5 bed to have space for kids and to host grandparents or other family a few times a year.

So the idea of a three bed as a starter is really for a couple + 1 kid and then spare room for visiting family. Combine that with most newer builds missing a room downstairs compared to an older layout. Once you add in second or third child and them getting older and bigger space in a std 3 bed does fill up fast.

Agreed. Also the 3rd bedroom may now have to be used as a home office.

landofthetree

200,000 empty homes.

The vast majority in the middle of nowhere and many needing modernisation. I know. I inherited one. Its needs major work and is very isolated. In 31 years I've done nothing with it. Tried to sell it many times and have now given up.