Inside Dublin’s Housing Crisis

Read that this morning. Thoroughly depressing stuff. It makes you wonder where what the direction of housing policy is taking us, and what the city will look like in 20 or 30 years time.

Without working class people being able to invest in a capital asset (like a house or apartment) that they can pass on to their children, we're looking at poverty that will be compounded and locked in to families for generations to come.

But hey, Minister Eoghan Murphy is on top of things.

Redneck Culchie

Supply shortages and mass immigration will do that. UN Compact on Migration being signed this week by the Government.

500,000 immigrants planned for Ireland in the next 20 years - Simon Coveney this week

In short things will be getting drastically worse, unless you own property in Dublin. But the vulture funds will likely buy them up.

Apiarist

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

Supply shortages and mass immigration will do that. ....

Immigration is not a problem, unless suddenly the government decides to import a million refugees with no right to work and no skills. This is not going to happen. The fact is that people want to live in the country that has work and good prospects. If you have many immigrants coming into the country, it means the country is doing well.

Take a hypothetical construction worker from, say, Hungary, coming to Ireland. Let this person build you houses and in 10 years there will be no housing crisis. Why is this not happening? My guess is that there no political will to actually build anything. Even we take the approach that the free market will sort the problem out, the government needs to take action to make things such as high rise apartment building in the city possible, compulsory purchase orders on vacant sites etc.

jimmycrackcorm

victor8600 wrote:

Take a hypothetical construction worker from, say, Hungary, coming to Ireland. Let this person build you houses and in 10 years there will be no housing crisis. Why is this not happening? My guess is that there no political will to actually build anything. Even we take the approach that the free market will sort the problem out, the government needs to take action to make things such as high rise apartment building in the city possible, compulsory purchase orders on vacant sites etc.

Why is it not happening?
The excessive rules and regulations for starters. I'm not even talking a bit the good ones such as no pyrite and decent fire safety, but the silly ones about window aspects and parking spaces in the city centre.
That nimbyism is allowed to overrule.
That the planning process is so drawn out.
That traffic concerns override providing housing instead of penalising traffic in favour of public transport.
That there is no separation between social housing and private housing, meaning only the most expensive housing is available for social purposes. - we used to build nimbyism estates but now we can only get a small percentage of private housing for social use because the bleeding hearts want the mixed model instead of kicking out problem tenants in council area.

So yes, there isn't the political will, but we live in a politically church era.

Macha

Main reason: we built and continue to build houses instead of apartments.

You don't have to have a PhD in physics to understand that you can fit far fewer homes within a decent distance of places where people work etc if you do this.

The rest are compounding factors.

aido79

More landlords would rent their properties out if they knew they would get them back in a similar condition. However the ways things are there is no guarantee that they will get their properties back without a fight(sometimes a costly one) let alone in a habitable condition.
The lack of rights for landlords and the fact that any lease for a property in Ireland is about as useful as a chocolate teapot mean landlords are reluctant to lease properties.

Technocentral wrote: »

Word.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/nov/29/empty-dublin-housing-crisis-airbnb-homelessness-landlords

Thanks for posting.

It is amazing how impossible it is for these kinds of writers to cover something like housing without reference to such incredible cliche topics like abortion and laundries.
Also I dont understand how these protesters believe that they can solve a supply problem by force.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Thanks for posting.

It is amazing how impossible it is for these kinds of writers to cover something like housing without reference to such incredible cliche topics like abortion and laundries.
Also I dont understand how these protesters believe that they can solve a supply problem by force.

It isn't force, it's the right to public assembly and to demonstrate.

It spills over on both sides though (An Garda Síochána and the demonstrators) and can get heated. But people are at the end of their patience with this stuff. It's understandable.

And the housing situation is going to get worse in the next few years before it gets better. People have had enough.

I have no party affiliation myself and would consider voting FG in the next General Election based on how they've managed the economy in recent years as well as the Marriage Equality and Repeal the 8th Referendums, but I can't vote for them with the way they've allowed this housing crises develop since 2011 and are still doing sweet f*ck all about it. I can't trust them.

tigger123 wrote: »

It isn't force, it's the right to public assembly and to demonstrate.

It spills over on both sides though (An Garda Síochána and the demonstrators) and can get heated. But people are at the end of their patience with this stuff. It's understandable.

And the housing situation is going to get worse in the next few years before it gets better. People have had enough.

I have no party affiliation myself and would consider voting FG in the next General Election based on how they've managed the economy in recent years as well as the Marriage Equality and Repeal the 8th Referendums, but I can't vote for them with the way they've allowed this housing crises develop since 2011 and are still doing sweet f*ck all about it. I can't trust them.

The idea that the Gov lacks political will is not convincing. It is also not believable that this a specifically Irish problem. It is simply the predicable result of fast population growth, urbanisation and economic growth, with added exacerbation by our obsession with low rise development. End nimbism and give tax breaks to developers who build high and carbon neutral and you might get a slow improvement.

mkdon

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The idea that the Gov lacks political will is not convincing. It is also not believable that this a specifically Irish problem. It is simply the predicable result of fast population growth, urbanisation and economic growth, with added exacerbation by our obsession with low rise development. End nimbism and give tax breaks to developers who build high and carbon neutral and you might get a slow improvement.

is there any reason for positivity

I heard recently 100 cranes in city atm

sury this will provide some respite?

mkdon wrote: »

is there any reason for positivity

I heard recently 100 cranes in city atm

sury this will provide some respite?

Mostly building hotels and office blocks I'd say.

the_syco

Has Dublin abolished the height restriction yet for apartment buildings? We need a few 24 floor apartment buildings with decent sized apartments built nearby LUAS stops to allow people that work in the city to live near the city.

the_syco wrote: »

Has Dublin abolished the height restriction yet for apartment buildings? We need a few 24 floor apartment buildings with decent sized apartments built nearby LUAS stops to allow people that work in the city to live near the city.

*Clutches pearls*

"You"ll ruin the Georgian fabric of the city" :-)

24 storeys.... If they went up 6 or 8 I'd be happy.

Two years ago I lived in apartments beside the phoenix park near ashtown station + the luas and within walking distance to the city centre..... and they started building semi-d's beside us!

This is a typical example of a lack of coordination and joined up thinking between local councils and Bord Pleneala:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/plans-to-transform-college-green-into-worldrenowned-pedestrian-plaza-refused-37429914.html

It doesn't bother me in the slightest about College Green itself, it's the sheer f*ckin ineptitude of the different authorities involved not being able to coordinate their actions, and have some sort of strategic direction agreed upon and in place.

From the article:

"Dublin City Council’s plan to develop a pedestrian plaza at College Green have been shot down.

An Bord Pleanála has refused permission due to traffic concerns, and the impact that removing vehicles from Dame Street would have on bus services across the city."

How and why were they not consulting with each other before hand, and working together to find a solution that works for Dublin Bus, local residents, local business and various forms of public transport?

mkdon wrote: »

is there any reason for positivity

I heard recently 100 cranes in city atm

sury this will provide some respite?

Some respite but too little. A relative has a new house in a west Dublin in a brand new estate, right by the Luas and all the various amenities. An apartment block is being developed and he was quite shocked to see his neighbours were unison against it and trying to appeal it. It is worrying how inflexible people are to high rise.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Thanks for posting.

It is amazing how impossible it is for these kinds of writers to cover something like housing without reference to such incredible cliche topics like abortion and laundries.
Also I dont understand how these protesters believe that they can solve a supply problem by force.

And 80 people in a 3rd level class.... not one expects to own their own home. Bullsh1t or a pack of wasters Imo.

Augeo wrote: »

And 80 people in a 3rd level class.... not one expects to own their own home. Bullsh1t or a pack of wasters Imo.

As you say it is outlandish that none out of 80 in any course will ever own there own home, either they are just being shy about putting up their hands or they believe the negative hype.

Augeo wrote: »

And 80 people in a 3rd level class.... not one expects to own their own home. Bullsh1t or a pack of wasters Imo.

What course was it?

Go down and ask the kids in medicine! :-)

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

What course was it?

Go down and ask the kids in medicine! :-)

Probably Sociology or a related field, as it was Rory Hearn.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Unless you have to, you would be insane to rent out your property in Ireland. The lease between landlord and tenant is completely useless, because at the end of the day the landlord has no power to evict a non paying tenant except he/she follow a long drawn out process. If you have property, best to sell, don't rent.

Macha

Neither landlord nor tenant have the proper protections. I rent in Brussels and it is far better regulated for both sides.

Let's not make this a zero sum game.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Probably Sociology or a related field, as it was Rory Hearn.

It's a possibility then......

Old diesel

We need to develop an understanding of what the landlord model should be going forward....

First do we want a landlord to be the person who actually builds the supply of rental properties but perhaps get agents to manage the tenants and property issues after been built. So someone like Cairn Homes retains ownership of some homes they build and rent out. Need a suitable finance agreement to facilitate.

Or do we want people to simply buy properties to let - ie the traditional model.

If we go traditional buy to lets - who are our target investors. And what do they require from the investment. And what cost structure should we have in place to get into the market and the cost per month we should aim for landlords.

Cost per month includes.....

1) cost of finance repayments on the property.

2) cost to maintain property.

3) cost to get tenants in/out.

4) Problem contingency fund - bad tenants/gap between tenants/big repairs.

5) tax.

Cost per month to the landlord is an important because landlords require a monthly surplus for as much of the propertys time in their ownership as possible.

This is why they put forward the market should set the rate - if they make a monthly loss in downturn - they need to make that money back in the upturn.

In simplistic terms the landlord wants something like this

Rent 1900 per month

All costs including tax - 1600 per month

1900 - 1600 = 300 euros surplus or profit.

The rent is covering costs and putting money in the landlords bank accountransfer.

They find the following unacceptable however.

Rent 1500 per month

All costs including tax 1600 per month

1500 - 1600 = -100.

There is a shortfall of 100 between the rent recurved and the costs the property incurred.

The landlord must dip into their bank account to pay the 100 euro worth of cost the rent failed to cover

mikemac2

100 euro a month and at the end you get an asset. Why is that unacceptable?

Old diesel wrote: »

.......

Cost per month includes.....

1) cost of finance repayments on the property.

2) cost to maintain property.

3) cost to get tenants in/out.

4) Problem contingency fund - bad tenants/gap between tenants/big repairs.

5) tax.

Cost per month to the landlord is an important because landlords require a monthly surplus for as much of the propertys time in their ownership as possible.

This is why they put forward the market should set the rate - if they make a monthly loss in downturn - they need to make that money back in the upturn.

In simplistic terms the landlord wants something like this

Rent 1900 per month

All costs including tax - 1600 per month

1900 - 1600 = 300 euros surplus or profit.

The rent is covering costs and putting money in the landlords bank accountransfer.

They find the following unacceptable however.

Rent 1500 per month

All costs including tax 1600 per month

1500 - 1600 = -100.

There is a shortfall of 100 between the rent recurved and the costs the property incurred.

The landlord must dip into their bank account to pay the 100 euro worth of cost the rent failed to cover

Private investors borrowing to but btl property makes little financial sense. The government here are fortunate that enough goons did it and remain in the game. Their numbers are dwindling though.

theguzman

There is multiple factors for this:

All multinationals should be forced to locate all new job openings outside of Dublin.

Build the National Broadband Plan, Fibre to everywhere, make rural towns and villages competitive again.

Failure to invest in proper public transport. Build a heavy rail link to Dublin Airport, have InterCity services calling there. The typical excuse for Dublin is the Airport.

All new developments between the canals should be a minimum of thirty to forty stories.

Build a proper underground Metro

Sinn Fein got rid of out of Dublin Council, how they managed to run the IRA after seeing what they are doing there is beyond me.

An Bord Pleanala and Taisce got rid of, it takes far too long to do anything here.

Three months from planning to shovels in the ground maximum, 24 hr operations incentivised. Alot of Health and Safety regulations repealed and got rid of.

mikemac2 wrote: »

100 euro a month and at the end you get an asset. Why is that unacceptable?

I borrow 200k to 300k to buy it.

I only get 100 a month for all that risk and *maybe* in 20-30 years I can sell for a profit. I'm sorry I'm out.

tigger123 wrote: »

Read that this morning. Thoroughly depressing stuff. It makes you wonder where what the direction of housing policy is taking us, and what the city will look like in 20 or 30 years time.

Without working class people being able to invest in a capital asset (like a house or apartment) that they can pass on to their children, we're looking at poverty that will be compounded and locked in to families for generations to come.

But hey, Minister Eoghan Murphy is on top of things.

id take another view

taking a service/need like housing and insisting that it be delivered as a capital asset is exactly what has fcuked the market/service

affordable rent should be the key aim. not the cycle of "your house is your future wealth" that has crippled us.

Old diesel

Augeo wrote: »

Private investors borrowing to but btl property makes little financial sense. The government here are fortunate that enough goons did it and remain in the game. Their numbers are dwindling though.

Well I was thinking of it in a different way - that you can only make it work if rent is very expensive.

That's why I was saying we need to look at what landlord model we should go for.

Remember ALL new housing supply will effectively use borrowing of some kind to deliver it.