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

Property Market 2019

The_Conductor

As is now becoming a custom- we'll start a new thread to discuss all topics as they pertain to the property market in general, alongside people's predictions and experiences- for the year 2019.

Its going to be an interesting year- with Brexit, if it comes to pass, at the end of March- and to misquote Donald Rumsfeld - the unknown unknowns that are likely to jump out at us, when we least expect them to.

2018 thread is now closed.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

I'm a recent FTB, I bought a 100 year old E1 rated home. Obviously this isn't ideal compared to an A rated but it's certainly liveable. Could do with a few upgrades like new windows which we'll do in due course. We've spent the summer in the house which was absolutely fine, winter is setting in now and we've had the heating going a bit but again it's still fine. If we can take any affordable steps to improve the BER then we will but we have open fires for example which we definitely won't be getting rid of.

Whatever about the BER, we would much prefer to live in this house than a brand spanking new one.

Mickiemcfist

I think there's a couple of other variables in buying an older house that are priced in. The cost difference isn't meant to equal the upgrade cost to bring it to new standard.

An older home will have an established, identifiable neighbourhood, no crossing your fingers & hoping the neighbours aren't pondlife. There's usually bigger back gardens, driveway, not terraced, transport & infrastructure already in place, fireplace if that's your thing.

Each have pro's & each have cons, it's not as simple as one is better than the other. New are better with regards BER & most of the time fittings, but it's only one aspect of it.

SozBbz

Sleepy wrote: »

I don't necessarily disagree but I think the current price differential between new A rated houses and older homes in the same area that would benefit from modernisation doesn't currently match the cost of the work needed to bring the older home up to that standard.

In my experience its hard to compare new and 2nd hand homes.

I totally agree that many 2nd hand homes in poor condition are very expensive if you were to retrofit them and make them look like a show home.

However many people are willing to compromise/pay a premium for a second hand home if it has better fundamental attributes than new homes, such as;
- large plot size.
- large back garden
- character/curb appeal
- location in the heart of an established area.
- house type (detached or semi d)
- settled street (large new estates will be plagued by teenagers in 10+ years time)

Many new houses are maxed our in terms of potential, especially in Dublin. The common footprint now is terraced over 3 stories. Even new Semi D's are quite close together so that theres no hope of a side extension. Many are built so that theres no attic to speak of, so loft conversions are out too.

My own personal view on new builds of the type I've described above, is that they will never be better than on the first year you own them. Its all downhill from there, and over time like any house, you will need to reinvest.

With an older house, if it has good fundamental attributes, you have much more possibility without having to move again.

Cyrus

SozBbz wrote: »

In my experience its hard to compare new and 2nd hand homes.

I totally agree that many 2nd hand homes in poor condition are very expensive if you were to retrofit them and make them look like a show home.

However many people are willing to compromise/pay a premium for a second hand home if it has better fundamental attributes than new homes, such as;
- large plot size.
- large back garden
- character/curb appeal
- location in the heart of an established area.
- house type (detached or semi d)
- settled street (large new estates will be plagued by teenagers in 10+ years time)

Many new houses are maxed our in terms of potential, especially in Dublin. The common footprint now is terraced over 3 stories. Even new Semi D's are quite close together so that theres no hope of a side extension. Many are built so that theres no attic to speak of, so loft conversions are out too.

My own personal view on new builds of the type I've described above, is that they will never be better than on the first year you own them. Its all downhill from there, and over time like any house, you will need to reinvest.

With an older house, if it has good fundamental attributes, you have much more possibility without having to move again.

thats one POV.

the other is the amount of work you would have to do on an old house to get it to an A rating is prohibitive.

Older houses on large plots are often comically small (120sq/m 4 bedroom houses) and so you basically have to do a costly extension to make it large enough for a family. You see a lot of them where the downstairs extension has been done as its planning exempt so downstairs is spacious and then upstairs is still massively cramped.

as to kerb appeal, lets say certain decades have aged better than others, oftens new builds are much more attractive than stock from the 50s,60s,70s and 80s.

i paid a premium for a new home, it had a decent garden (as big as we needed with enough room for a garden room, patio and area to play for the kids), even though its over stories it has a decent attic fo5r storage and i dont need to worry about an extension as its already at the right size.

duffman13

Cyrus wrote: »

thats one POV.

the other is the amount of work you would have to do on an old house to get it to an A rating is prohibitive.

Wouldn't disagree with any of your post however getting a second hand home to a good B rating is more than achievable and good enough for most. It's certainly better than anything the vast majority of people were brought up in.

It'll be probably 10 years before we can look at whether houses built now with an A rating turned out to be good value for money and even then this will vary by build/location/future developments. I can see why people go new, I can also see why people go 2nd hand.

Mickiemcfist

Cyrus wrote: »

thats one POV.

the other is the amount of work you would have to do on an old house to get it to an A rating is prohibitive.

Older houses on large plots are often comically small (120sq/m 4 bedroom houses) and so you basically have to do a costly extension to make it large enough for a family. You see a lot of them where the downstairs extension has been done as its planning exempt so downstairs is spacious and then upstairs is still massively cramped.

as to kerb appeal, lets say certain decades have aged better than others, oftens new builds are much more attractive than stock from the 50s,60s,70s and 80s.

i paid a premium for a new home, it had a decent garden (as big as we needed with enough room for a garden room, patio and area to play for the kids), even though its over stories it has a decent attic fo5r storage and i dont need to worry about an extension as its already at the right size.

Plenty of families in Ireland grew up in far less than A rated 120sqm+ houses.

Earlier you were moaning about wants vs needs. Now you're arguing against some people potentially being happy with second hand houses which are smaller than yours? :rolleyes:

SozBbz

Cyrus wrote: »

thats one POV.

the other is the amount of work you would have to do on an old house to get it to an A rating is prohibitive.

Older houses on large plots are often comically small (120sq/m 4 bedroom houses) and so you basically have to do a costly extension to make it large enough for a family. You see a lot of them where the downstairs extension has been done as its planning exempt so downstairs is spacious and then upstairs is still massively cramped.

as to kerb appeal, lets say certain decades have aged better than others, oftens new builds are much more attractive than stock from the 50s,60s,70s and 80s.

i paid a premium for a new home, it had a decent garden (as big as we needed with enough room for a garden room, patio and area to play for the kids), even though its over stories it has a decent attic fo5r storage and i dont need to worry about an extension as its already at the right size.

Humm.... sounds a lot like you're trying to justify your choice there, which is totally unnecessary if you read my post with an open mind. Like everything, different things appeal to different people. Neither one is right or wrong, its just different.

I only said that some 2nd hand home have better attributes, not all. Late 20th century doesn't appeal to me personally, but there are far older houses out there. My own home is from the early 1900's and you just couldnt get anything like it as a new build these days (detached, single story, large plot). In DLR where I live, if you are 1km or less from either the dart, the luas or a QBC then theres serious density requirements in the county development plan. This won't be the same everywhere, but in South County Dublin I don't see a way around it.

I'm not saying "new house - bad, old house -good", but I'm saying I can see why older houses even in imperfect condition can appeal to a lot of people. Not everyone will bring them up to an A rating, as there is no obligation to (yet, at least).

[Deleted User]

Cyrus wrote: »

thats one POV.

the other is the amount of work you would have to do on an old house to get it to an A rating is prohibitive.

Older houses on large plots are often comically small (120sq/m 4 bedroom houses) and so you basically have to do a costly extension to make it large enough for a family. You see a lot of them where the downstairs extension has been done as its planning exempt so downstairs is spacious and then upstairs is still massively cramped.

Is there any need to get an old house up to an A rating?

And since when is 120sqm comically small?

beauf

Good questions.

Interested Observer wrote: »

Is there any need to get an old house up to an A rating?

That's all about return on investment.
Depends on the house though.

Interested Observer wrote: »

And since when is 120sqm comically small?

I looked around for an answer to this, and couldn't get reliable data.

Thus far I got 150 is average for houses new and old in Ireland.
But for new houses its 76(UK) and Ireland about 90.

Also rural house tend to be a lot bigger and cheaper then urban houses.
So theres that also.

[Deleted User]

beauf wrote: »

I looked around for an answer to this, and couldn't get reliable data.

Thus far I got 150 is average for houses new and old in Ireland.
But for new houses its 76(UK) and Ireland about 90.

Also rural house tend to be a lot bigger and cheaper then urban houses.
So theres that also.

I couldn't even count the number of houses I viewed over the last 18 months or so in D7/D9 and 120sqm would absolutely not have been small, while 150sqm would have been fairly large.

ebayissues

When it comes to second hand or old properties, how does one gauge any isus and cost in re-doing it up, especially hidden costs?

Mickiemcfist

ebayissues wrote: »

When it comes to second hand or old properties, how does one gauge any isus and cost in re-doing it up, especially hidden costs?

A good QS

Samuel T. Cogley

ebayissues wrote: »

When it comes to second hand or old properties, how does one gauge any isus and cost in re-doing it up, especially hidden costs?

Doing that tappy thing on the walls.

ebayissues

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Doing that tappy thing on the walls.

I don't follow

The_Conductor

ebayissues wrote: »

I don't follow

Whether its loadbearing or can be removed without consequence.
Watch Fawlty Towers for further information..............

cruizer101

Interested Observer wrote: »

Is there any need to get an old house up to an A rating?

I'd say not really, looking at typical energy cost for 4 bed semi 150m^2 (that's a big enough size 4 bed) from the seai. D1 2600, B1 900, A1 280.
So you save 1500 a year getting D1 to B1 which should be achievable enough for reasonable money.
Get to A1 to save another 620 but how much will that cost.

Obviously you would need to know exact figures but I would think unless you are doing serious renovation anyway the payback will be quite long for getting up to A level.

Link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.seai.ie/publications/Your-Guide-to-Building-Energy-Rating.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj_iYLn5dPlAhWgSxUIHWwYD2YQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw3Bqu8xgjYGXiyTJuL9y_UT

MicktheMan

I would caution anyone relying on the BER cert to make significant financial decisions.
Put simply, you cannot rely, with any reasonable level of confidence, on the rating to guesstimate your energy consumption requirements/costs nor what it might / might not take to make the house affordably comfortable.

Padre_Pio

MicktheMan wrote: »

I would caution anyone relying on the BER cert to make significant financial decisions.
Put simply, you cannot rely, with any reasonable level of confidence, on the rating to guesstimate your energy consumption requirements/costs nor what it might / might not take to make the house affordably comfortable.

The BER is a bit of a farce.

If you're looking at buying an older house the biggest issues would be air tightness, windows, and attic and wall insulation in that order.

Whether the house is an A, B or whatever is irrelevant. What's relevant is cost/benefit of adding insulation to save on heating.

Cyrus

SozBbz wrote: »

Humm.... sounds a lot like you're trying to justify your choice there, which is totally unnecessary if you read my post with an open mind. Like everything, different things appeal to different people. Neither one is right or wrong, its just different.

I only said that some 2nd hand home have better attributes, not all. Late 20th century doesn't appeal to me personally, but there are far older houses out there. My own home is from the early 1900's and you just couldnt get anything like it as a new build these days (detached, single story, large plot). In DLR where I live, if you are 1km or less from either the dart, the luas or a QBC then theres serious density requirements in the county development plan. This won't be the same everywhere, but in South County Dublin I don't see a way around it.

I'm not saying "new house - bad, old house -good", but I'm saying I can see why older houses even in imperfect condition can appeal to a lot of people. Not everyone will bring them up to an A rating, as there is no obligation to (yet, at least).

I’m not sure what you are getting at you gave one POV and I gave another. I’m not trying to justify anything I looked at houses for 9 months before I ended up buying and viewed all sorts . In the end to me the new build made more sense , I live in the same general area as you for what it’s worth.

Cyrus

Interested Observer wrote: »

Is there any need to get an old house up to an A rating?

And since when is 120sqm comically small?

For a 4 bed house 120 sqm is far too small in my opinion and was born out when I viewed houses of that size configured in that way.

Just my opinion no need to take offence .

Cyrus

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Plenty of families in Ireland grew up in far less than A rated 120sqm+ houses.

Earlier you were moaning about wants vs needs. Now you're arguing against some people potentially being happy with second hand houses which are smaller than yours? :rolleyes:

The only person moaning was the poster who couldn’t afford what they wanted. I was providing some context.

I’m not arguing against anyone being happy I was giving an alternative POV to the poster I responded to. Was that poster arguing against people being happy in a new houses ?

Narky crowd tonight

Mic 1972

Cyrus wrote: »

you need extra income because you bought a more expensive property....

and if you have 2 or 3 children needs or wants doesnt come into it you cant give them back :rolleyes:

As i stated before i need extra room for family visits and extra income so for me the 3 bed is a need. If you are a single person and your only income is salary you might as well want to add extra income in case something goes wrong instead having all your eggs into one basket
As for children, you can't give them back once you have have but you can plan ahead before having them

Cyrus

Mic 1972 wrote: »

As i stated before i need extra room for family visits and extra income so for me the 3 bed is a need.

still isnt a need. but its a pointless debate, you wanted a 3 bed and you could afford it. good for you

what_traffic

MicktheMan wrote: »

I would caution anyone relying on the BER cert to make significant financial decisions.
Put simply, you cannot rely, with any reasonable level of confidence, on the rating to guesstimate your energy consumption requirements/costs nor what it might / might not take to make the house affordably comfortable.

The readability of the BER reports on SEAI website leave a lot to be desired as well.

mcbert

what_traffic wrote: »

The readability of the BER reports on SEAI website leave a lot to be desired as well.

Last time i looked a month or two ago, the reports seems to be gone altogether, only basic cert available. As vague as the reports might have been, the basic cert is even more useless.

Mic 1972

Cyrus wrote: »

still isnt a need. but its a pointless debate, you wanted a 3 bed and you could afford it. good for you

Sorry but, who are you to decide what's a need for me and what's not?

SozBbz

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Sorry but, who are you to decide what's a need for me and what's not?

Any of us only need shelter for ourselves or any dependents. This is not about you or your needs/wants. The point is the definition of what constitutes a need versus a want.

Having what is essentially guest accommodation/optional extra revenue is not a need.

You wanted those things though, and you could afford them and no one is cricitizing you for that.

Why is the word need" so important to you? Why do you feel you have to justify your choice?

The_Conductor

We're going way off-topic here guys...……..

Brussels Sprout

Rex Disgusting Tariff wrote: »

Asking price literally has no correlation to sales price.

No, asking price has literally no correlation to the price of turnips or the number of nil-nil draws in the premier league this season.

There is evidently a correlation between asking price and selling prices. Here's a list of asking prices for the past decade which we can see falling from a peak during the boom, bottoming out around 2012/2013, before rising steadily for a 5-6 year period, which we all know is the shape of the sale price of properties during this time period.

Not to be putting words into your mouth but I suspect that your real point is on how strong this correlation really is.

Eric Cartman

Interested Observer wrote: »

Is this true? Doesn't really feel like it is, the big employers are the likes of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, LinkedIn, Amazon, SAP, IBM etc.

twitter, linkedin, indeed, wework, snapchat, uber, and a pile more do not make a profit, many of them are living on a loss and only make money through upping value and re-investment. its an infinite growth model that eventually has to run out of runway unless they can kick every other player out of the market which is a dangerous game to play.