nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Housing crisis

emilymemily

Is there anyway of solving it? whats causing it? Looks like its a sign of another financial crash yet no body seems that bothered to fix it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

AllForIt

It's caused by the lack of rainfall. The houses just won't grow without any water.

The Backwards Man

Once upon a time I was falling in love, now there's only light in the dark

AllForIt

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Once upon a time I was falling in love, now there's only light in the dark

Noting more to say, total eclipse of the building art.

Allinall

There’s a lack of concrete evidence.

RobbingBandit

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Once upon a time I was falling in love, now there's only light in the dark

Nothing I can do except let out a big durty fart

frag420

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Nothing I can do except let out a big durty fart

Ah!!! Have you been huffing and puffing and blowing the houses down?

Bob Harris

Why isn't it called an apartment crisis? Or a high-rise flat crisis?

RobbingBandit

Theys gone with the wind

van_beano

Bob Harris wrote: »

Why isn't it called an apartment crisis? Or a high-rise flat crisis?

...or a condominium crisis :cool:

Bob Harris

van_beano wrote: »

...or a condominium crisis :cool:

..or a mews...people need more mews (not to be confused with Muse - no-one needs more Muse)

CPTM

When an economy recovers, cities recover first. When signs of life appeared, everyone flocked there to find jobs.

But to play devil's advocate - doesn't the government still have a massive stake in one of the biggest mortgage lenders in the country(AIB); a mortgage lender with many loans in arrears? Doesn't it make sense to bring the value of those struggling assets up so that the customer can clear the heavy debt before the government has to??

The Transport crisis is (or will be) the next thing as soon as they fix the housing crisis. They'll build the houses and put on extra bus routes but this city is already coming to a standstill with trains and buses full after the first few stations.

Cina

Maybe if Irish people didn't have such an elitist view when it comes to owning a house and would actually be happy with apartments, like most countries are, then there wouldn't be a crisis. Anything that is being built in Dublin is usually some massive housing estate that's just a complete waste of valuable land.

Considering the population of Dublin is predicted to grow by about 500,000 in the next 30 years then I don't see any of this getting solved anytime soon unless there's actually a proper effort put into building high-rise apartments.

Wanderer78

CPTM wrote:

But to play devil's advocate - doesn't the government still have a massive stake in one of the biggest mortgage lenders in the country(AIB); a mortgage lender with many loans in arrears? Doesn't it make sense to bring the value of those struggling assets up so that the customer can clear the heavy debt before the government has to??

Would helping to raise those asset prices cause problems for those that don't already own homes but would like to, and who truly gains from these rising asset prices, and what role does the financial sector play in all of this?

Berserker

CPTM wrote: »

The Transport crisis is (or will be) the next thing as soon as they fix the housing crisis.

It won't. It'll be health followed by personal debt.

whisky_galore

Because the private sector will only build when it's worth their while.

We can't have social housing as people (usually homeowners) will object as; it's too big or the wrong colour/it'll bring in too many people/it'll bring in too many of the wrong sort of people/it'll affect the price of my home/grrrrr...what's this? People getting free houses!

CPTM

Berserker wrote: »

It won't. It'll be health followed by personal debt.

The problems within the health sector are worse but for a smaller proportion of the population. I would agree that it is more hard-hitting but transport will affect more people on a day to day basis, and so will be picked up by the media before health. For example, there's a huge health crisis as we speak but the media is mostly favouring the housing crisis instead (in terms of coverage).

Edit: Regarding personal debt, struggling mortgages will be fine once the market reaches full employment and the properties hit the previous prices. I think rising wages will help that and also decrease the personal loan and credit card market.

whisky_galore

CPTM wrote: »

The problems within the health sector are worse but for a smaller proportion of the population..

So that's ok then... shur it'll be grand. Only those people who get sick with no health insurance, that must be a small number.

It's not like anyone's going to die or anything...

dotsman

This is a 30-year-old housing crisis.

Back in the late 80's/early 90's Ireland began to modernise rapidly. While much is documented about the massive social changes and improvement in standard of living, a huge change was never planned for, nor is it even being planned for today - the massive increase in urban population and modern living/work patterns.

Dublin was not suitable in 1990, and for it to double in population since then with very little change to the make-up of the city is the reason it is the disaster it is today where people pay several hundred thousand for a poorly built shoe-box that's over an hour's commute from their place of work.

Since 1990, Ireland has not just grown from a population of 3.5 million to 4.8 million (an extra 1.3 million people), there are a huge number of other factors:

Modern work life tends to be city-based. As jobs (especially high-paying jobs) become more and more skilled and specialised, the more they need to be city-based to ensure a larger pool of potential employees. For example, a Software Company looking to hire 200 people is not going to set up in some town. While there may be 200 unemployed people in the town, there is no chance in hell that there will be 200 highly trained/experienced software developers/testers/managers etc. In the modern era, the purpose of a city is a place for potential employee and potential employer to come together. As a result, internal migration has resulted in a larger proportion of the population moving to our cities
It's not just an extra 1.3 million people, the average household size has decreased. With the changes to social and financial circumstances, people are having less children, elderly relatives are more likely to live independently (and not with their adult children), parents no longer necessarily live together. As a result, a lot more houses are needed per 1,000 people than in 1990.
Not only has Dublin been horribly unplanned, but it has become the focus of much of the growth. Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford still remain provincial towns compared to a modern city. Had there been even a little strategic thinking, these cities would be twice their current size and with far superior infrastructure. Instead, they are just mini-Dublins.
Dual-income households are now the norm. Up to the 80's, the average family was only a single (probably low) income. Dual income households could often enjoy a very good standard of living. But, as it became the norm over the past 30 years, the bulk of that doubling of household income has gone towards bidding (be it rent or purchase) for the extremely limited number of suitable housing, resulting in rent/prices rocketing.
In the absence of strategic urban planning, Dublin has simply sprawled. The more we tack housing estates on to the edge of Dublin, the worse the problem becomes. Cities are supposed to go up, not out. The more the sprawl, the more people need to travel to get to work, but without the density, there is no ability to support decent public transport. Hence Dublin relies pretty much on cars and ****ty bus service. Had Dublin been planned, the city center would hold at least 100,000 people more than it does today and the non-center city an additional 250,000. Not only does this result in more people being walking/cycling distance from their place of work, but it also justifies proper public transport due to the density. Imagine if Dublin had 3 underground train lines and 5 luas lines, all very fast, frequent and reliable, all interconnected, and the majority of the population living/working close to a stop. Car and buses would only be for the few people who live outside the city or have a non-standard route.

How long will their be a housing crisis? I predict at least another generation. it takes many years/decades to see the results of strategic planning. Given that we haven't even started yet, don't expect the situation to resolve itself any time soon.

Does that mean there won't be crashes etc? Of course. House prices don't reflect reality. As demand for the suitable housing drives up prices, people spend a greater percentage of their income on trying to get "somewhere livable". Likewise, the national mantra becomes "house prices/rent increases", and thus both buyer and seller (landlord and renter) settle for higher prices for accommodation that is not in short supply. There is no viable reason why house prices have been increasing in rural areas over the past 30 years. In many cases, the population has been decreasing (or growing an extremely slow pace). It is simply buyers/renters willing to pay large amounts, because they assume that they have to when it is not necessary (they are probably the only one bidding!). This keeps going until the bubble bursts. But once the bubble does burst, it starts over again (as we go back to "well, there is still a critical shortage of ideal housing!").

It's not just higher prices that are a result of the lack of strategic planning, its:

people living in unsuitable/small housing
people spending a huge proportion of their working day "commuting". Anything more than half an hour's commute should be viewed as the exception, not the norm. In dublin, commutes in excess of an hour have become "acceptable".
a massive over-reliance on cars/oil. A modern city should see the majority of people take mass transport/walk/cycle to work/schools/shops/bars.
a massive problem with anti-social behaviour. Much of the most desirable land (city centre) is in the hands of the non-working population who live in 2-story houses right bang where large office/apartment complex should be. This is no place to raise children - there is no hope for th vast majority of children raised in these circumstances. As a result, much of Dublin city center problem-areas are multi-generational.
the introduction of "commercial parks" on the outskirts of the city. There really is nothing worse. Industrial parks make sens for factories that require huge horizontal space and large trucking both incoming and outgoing. Retail Parks makes sense for the large DIY/Furniture stores etc (along with the trucking required). But commercial offices are people-centric. The main focus points of where to place an office are:
- somewhere where the vast majority of the city can easily commute to (if you place your office in an unsuitable location like city west, blanch or sandyford, you do not have a pool of 2 million potential employees, you have a tiny fraction of that who can easily commute to your stupid location.
- excellent transport options that can handle the peak traffic hours (industrial/retail will be spread out throughout the day)
- somewhere with a large selection of restaurants, bars, shops etc to support the human function of office work. The amount of people who work in these places who commute to the gray estates, work, go to the one nearby coffee shop, and commute home again in the evening. Compare that to their colleagues who work in city center offices who will often go out for lunch with colleagues, pints on a Friday evening, pop out to the shops/bank etc at lunch time or immediately after work.

emilymemily

In fairness the housing crises isnt just in Dublin, it seems to be growing country wide as prices go up everywhere. 8 years ago you could rent a 2 bed apartment in the centre of a town for 500 - 600 euro. Now you'd pay that for a room sharing in an apartment in the same area.
One thing I noticed though, people are adamant to live in Dublin city center and wont even think about moving outside the city to a commuter town. I was speaking to a couple of Spanish lads who where giving out about their rent and cramped living conditions. They were living in Dublin city center. I said to them why don't they consider renting in Wicklow, Meath, Louth, Kildare or a town outside Dublin like Skerries or Swords, its an hour or less on the train or bus and doesnt cost that much but they shot down that notion before I could finish my sentence. Their attitude was like how dare I even suggest they should travel to work. It just came across a bit entitled, like id love to live in Dublin but I cant afford the standard of living that id like so I dont live there. I just think its mad the way so many people are determined to live in Dublin, knowing theres a crisis, Dublin is way over populated, its a tiny city and can realistically only accommodate so many people.
Tbh though it doesnt explain the house prices, rents prices etc in the rest of the country, my little home town where theres no opportunities has tripled in rent prices in the last few years, ive friends living rurally just outside the town paying 1,200 a month for a 3 bed house while trying to support their young family on one income.

Geuze

emilymemily wrote: »

Is there anyway of solving it? whats causing it?

(1) Yes, reduce land and building costs, so as to boost supply.

(2) Demand exceeds supply.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

Allinall wrote: »

There’s a lack of concrete evidence.

Underrated comment!

CPTM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Would helping to raise those asset prices cause problems for those that don't already own homes but would like to, and who truly gains from these rising asset prices, and what role does the financial sector play in all of this?

The only beneficiaries I can see from the housing crisis is the government's finance department and their exposure to bad loans, as well as the vulture funds (and lucky people) that snapped up the market between 08-13. That's not to mention the 50% of TDs who own property themselves. The financial sector is a business who will make as much money as legally possible. They will point to their regulators as a central governing body because if they don't they will lose their competitiveness.

dotsman

emilymemily wrote: »

In fairness the housing crises isnt just in Dublin, it seems to be growing country wide as prices go up everywhere. 8 years ago you could rent a 2 bed apartment in the centre of a town for 500 - 600 euro. Now you'd pay that for a room sharing in an apartment in the same area.

Tbh though it doesnt explain the house prices, rents prices etc in the rest of the country, my little home town where theres no opportunities has tripled in rent prices in the last few years, ive friends living rurally just outside the town paying 1,200 a month for a 3 bed house while trying to support their young family on one income.

But it is only in dublin (and the other cities to a lesser extent). The rest of the country is just a bubble. Because Ireland is so dublin-centric, the talk of property shortage and increase in prices relating to Dublin results in "fools" in rural communities thinking the same applies to them so pay more than they need to. Chances are, they are the only person bidding on (or looking to rent) the property. Sellers/landlord simply charge what people are willing to pay.

emilymemily wrote: »

One thing I noticed though, people are adamant to live in Dublin city center and wont even think about moving outside the city to a commuter town. I was speaking to a couple of Spanish lads who where giving out about their rent and cramped living conditions. They were living in Dublin city center. I said to them why don't they consider renting in Wicklow, Meath, Louth, Kildare or a town outside Dublin like Skerries or Swords, its an hour or less on the train or bus and doesnt cost that much but they shot down that notion before I could finish my sentence. Their attitude was like how dare I even suggest they should travel to work. It just came across a bit entitled, like id love to live in Dublin but I cant afford the standard of living that id like so I dont live there. I just think its mad the way so many people are determined to live in Dublin, knowing theres a crisis, Dublin is way over populated, its a tiny city and can realistically only accommodate so many people.

But you just have that attitude because it has been going on for so long and you are used to it, you are happy accept the situation and to settle for the terrible commutes and lack of proper city-living. An hour on the train or bus is a ridiculous concept (given that there is likely an additional commute from your home/office to the bus/train) that wouldn't be tolerated by most people living in properly planned cities. These Spanish lads are not "entitled", they are simply expecting a fairly normal city life, based on their own experiences of city-living prior to moving to the disaster that is "Irish Urban Planning".

CPTM

whisky_galore wrote: »

So that's ok then... shur it'll be grand. Only those people who get sick with no health insurance, that must be a small number.

It's not like anyone's going to die or anything...

Sorry do you think I want one crisis over another? If you're asking me which should be fixed first, I will say health sector for the reasons you've indirectly outlined. If you're asking me which will get more publicity as being a 'crisis', and therefore more attention from the public and politicians, I'm afraid I feel it will be transport because the media and politicians work on the loudest problems, which are not necessarily the most severe.

Berserker

Geuze wrote: »

(1) Yes, reduce land and building costs, so as to boost supply.

(2) Demand exceeds supply.

Tried that during the last boom. No shortage of houses. Remember the ghost estates?

kylith

Cina wrote: »

Maybe if Irish people didn't have such an elitist view when it comes to owning a house and would actually be happy with apartments, like most countries are, then there wouldn't be a crisis. Anything that is being built in Dublin is usually some massive housing estate that's just a complete waste of valuable land.

Considering the population of Dublin is predicted to grow by about 500,000 in the next 30 years then I don't see any of this getting solved anytime soon unless there's actually a proper effort put into building high-rise apartments.

part of the issue there is the state of renting in this country. In many European countries a tented home is just that - a home. You can decorate as you like, you supply your own furniture: you can more or less treat it as your own in that regard. Here you can’t even have a pet in rented accommodation. Rents are exhorbitant, there’s no security, and the state of some places is revolting.

CPTM

kylith wrote: »

part of the issue there is the state of renting in this country. In many European countries a tented home is just that - a home. You can decorate as you like, you supply your own furniture: you can more or less treat it as your own in that regard. Here you can’t even have a pet in rented accommodation. Rents are exhorbitant, there’s no security, and the state of some places is revolting.

Also, with apartments you have these huge mgmt fees for nothing. Insurance and cleaning. In other countries they build in gyms, dry cleaning facilities, creches etc into the building itself and residents get great discounts. Here there's elevators and compliance to fire safety regulations if you're lucky!

zom

Why should we build higher?

As houses are expensive now, people are forced to live in 60 - 80 sqm shoeboxes with tiny gardens. We better give them 60 - 80 sqm flats with balcony at the same costs.

As there is no densification, there is no real public transport to connect it. We better build towers of flats in city centre so people can walk and they don't need public transport at all.

As there is lack of skilled workforce building even simple house is expensive and poor quality. We better go for expensive high structures where there are much more quality factors like balconies or fire protection for example.

There is resistance for providing social housing because of social problems it can generate especially if densified. So we better provide those poor people with decent houses to help them to pursue working class we want to put into flats.

whisky_galore

zom wrote: »

As there is lack of skilled workforce building even simple house is expensive and poor quality. We better go for expensive high structures where there are much more quality factors like balconies or fire protection for example.

Bahahaha!

Even when we had this 'skilled workforce' we still got shoddy homes, builders penny pinching and being cute.

Wheeliebin30

Just heard the rent in council houses barely covers the maintenance of these houses.
Its just not sustainable to build endless social houses.