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 2020

Bigmac1euro

Maybe an article for “Property Market 2020”
Anyhow looks like developers are going to start strangling supply in order to keep prices in check.

Worth a read anyway.

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/developers-now-fear-flooding-market-as-house-prices-in-decline-38820967.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The Belly

Knex. wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. Even things like the number of vacant apartments in Dublin, deliberately being kept off the market to keep prices high, absolutely needs to be addressed.

One of the major reasons why Sinn Fein did so well in the last election. Housing and Health.

voluntary

landofthetree wrote: »

The Government should aggressively hike tax on vacant development sites to drive land speculators from the property market, an ESRI research professor has told the Irish Independent.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hike-levies-on-vacant-land-to-hit-hoarders-reduce-house-prices-esri-38536129.html

Its been government policy to keep prices high.

I can only imagine many of these speculators would love to exit the market right now. They herd for too long and the coronavirus bite them now.

GreeBo

Assetbacked wrote: »

The jobs are in Dublin, that's why people should live there. As such, your statement is ludicrous. Linking living in Dublin to living in Ballsbridge as well to make a point is using hyperbole. KBC have also reported on the affordability issue, so you are swimming against the tide.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/first-time-buyers-need-incomes-of-100-000-to-buy-new-homes-in-dublin-1.4190725?mode=amp

Anyway, bar the covid19 crisis, a natural correction in house prices over the coming decade is what has been predicted. Not a crash, just a correction as against salaries as a result of the borrowing limits restraining continued increases and supply finally starting to pick up which had been lacking for a decade.

Its ludicrous to suggest that everyone should be able to live where they want.

I didnt link Dublin to Ballsbridge, I gave it as an example of what your argument boils down to.

Explain how, considering there is a finite amount of land in Dublin, you can ignore market forces and keep house prices affordable to the average worker?

The logical conclusion is that, at some point, you start selling houses below cost.

Does that seem like a sound economic policy to you?

Btw, I'm not arguing that houses are unaffordable, I'm questions why they should be affordable.

beauf

landofthetree wrote: »

The Government should aggressively hike tax on vacant development sites to drive land speculators from the property market, an ESRI research professor has told the Irish Independent.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hike-levies-on-vacant-land-to-hit-hoarders-reduce-house-prices-esri-38536129.html

Its been government policy to keep prices high.

It must definitely has been govt policy.

People blame LL and developers and investors but it's 100% govt policy.

Way too late for a policy on vacant land. That ship has so sailed for the next 6 months and longer.

Roberto_gas

GreeBo wrote: »

Its ludicrous to suggest that everyone should be able to live where they want.

I didnt link Dublin to Ballsbridge, I gave it as an example of what your argument boils down to.

Explain how, considering there is a finite amount of land in Dublin, you can ignore market forces and keep house prices affordable to the average worker?

The logical conclusion is that, at some point, you start selling houses below cost.

Does that seem like a sound economic policy to you?

Btw, I'm not arguing that houses are unaffordable, I'm questions why they should be affordable.

Just to add on top of this reply -

Correction - Something which happens in normal economic conditions
Crash - Something which happens on back of global economic collapse

beauf

The Belly wrote: »

One of the major reasons why Sinn Fein did so well in the last election. Housing and Health.

... I think their proposals might not stand up to reality of the economics.

landofthetree

GreeBo wrote: »

Its ludicrous to suggest that everyone should be able to live where they want.

I didnt link Dublin to Ballsbridge, I gave it as an example of what your argument boils down to.

Explain how, considering there is a finite amount of land in Dublin, you can ignore market forces and keep house prices affordable to the average worker?

The logical conclusion is that, at some point, you start selling houses below cost.

Does that seem like a sound economic policy to you?

Btw, I'm not arguing that houses are unaffordable, I'm questions why they should be affordable.

I agree that everybody can't live where they want.

But I can go to Dublin Connolly and get on a train for 10mins. Then I can get off and see farm land.

Im not joking, Go out to Ashtown and see for yourself.

Not to mention all the vacant land inside all over the city.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Why shouldn't people expect to live within 30 mins of work for a reasonable price? That should be the goal for the whole country.

Why do people so aggressively think there's no way anyone should have that possibility as a single person. Not like they are demanding everyone should have a 5 bed home, with work next door.

Graham

Assetbacked wrote: »

Ah okay, sorry I was a bit strong before.

My point isn't solely based on that, it is based on reports such as the KBC report on affordability, median salaries of people versus levels of borrowing, but also based on the lack of options for people considering the new builds aren't hitting the open market. No new apartments have been available to people to buy the past few years as they are sold in lots to institutionals. Second hand homes vary widely in value, as the first few pages of this thread highlight.

To use the BMW analagy, maybe the BMW is unaffordable but there are plenty of options in the car market for cheaper new cars but also for second hand BMWs. It is possible to buy a car with cash but the same cannot be said for a house, for the vast majority of people.

I'm not disagreeing that property is unaffordable to a large subset of the population.

That fact alone is not going to somehow magically cause property prices to reduce.

The_Conductor

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Why shouldn't people expect to live within 30 mins of work for a reasonable price? That should be the goal for the whole country.

Why do people so aggressively think there's no way anyone should have that possibility as a single person. Not like they are demanding everyone should have a 5 bed home, with work next door.

Its a game of priorities- and some people are willing to make sacrifices in one area (such as commuting) in order to get a higher salary- while others are willing to accept that there is a cost associated with living closer to home- and are willing to accept a lesser paying job in order that they don't have to commute.

Some people don't have any option- and *have* to travel to work- those people should be offered every possible opportunity to work from home and/or additional tax benefits in recognition of having to travel. Hell- even the TDs and Senators get recognition of the distance they travel to and from work- so while the hell shouldn't everyone else.

The ability to live in any particular area- is not a god given right- people have to accept there is a cost associated with these things.

People seem to imagine they can have or even are entitled to have it all. Well, they're not.

[Deleted User]

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Why shouldn't people expect to live within 30 mins of work for a reasonable price? That should be the goal for the whole country.

Why do people so aggressively think there's no way anyone should have that possibility as a single person. Not like they are demanding everyone should have a 5 bed home, with work next door.

Are there any capital cities in the western world where that happens?

Even in large cities, it's not as simple as that, take Manchester as an example there are areas with good transport links that are affordable but people still want to live in the like of Didsbury and Chorlton which are very expensive.

So if the goal is to live within a 30 minute of work that is a good goal but you would still get people saying they don't want the affordable area.

landofthetree

https://m.fin24.com/Economy/World/europe-dragged-into-record-recession-in-battle-to-halt-coronavirus-20200324

European data pretty much the worst ever.

UK+USA escaped a bit as it started lockdown later. It will probably face the same.

Probably facing the worse recession in history.

[Deleted User]

lomb wrote: »

Likely on a tracker though with a payment less than rent or even current buyers paying 3 percent

Nope

[Deleted User]

landofthetree wrote: »

https://m.fin24.com/Economy/World/europe-dragged-into-record-recession-in-battle-to-halt-coronavirus-20200324

European data pretty much the worst ever.

UK+USA escaped a bit as it started lockdown later. It will probably face the same.

Probably facing the worse recession in history.

It funny I just think that will not happen and that there will be a massive bounce back, in other words, it will the shortest recession ever. I have no evidence for that though.

Claw Hammer

mariaalice wrote: »

It funny I just think that will not happen and that there will be a massive bounce back, in other words, it will the shortest recession ever. I have no evidence for that though.

you can think what you like, but the reality is, if there is a close down in production, massive economic appeal with governments borrowing money left right and centre in an effort to hold their countries together, the best precedent is probably the two World Wars of the 20th century. There was misery for years after the fighting stopped.

GreeBo

landofthetree wrote: »

I agree that everybody can't live where they want.

But I can go to Dublin Connolly and get on a train for 10mins. Then I can get off and see farm land.

Im not joking, Go out to Ashtown and see for yourself.

Not to mention all the vacant land inside all over the city.

I live 7km from city centre and 7km from farmland, that doesn't mean much though.
You can build a house on any bit of land, but getting services and infrastructure there is another thing.

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Why shouldn't people expect to live within 30 mins of work for a reasonable price? That should be the goal for the whole country.

Why do people so aggressively think there's no way anyone should have that possibility as a single person. Not like they are demanding everyone should have a 5 bed home, with work next door.

Because demand will always outstrip supply!
If this wasnt the case then a 4bed house in Monaghan would be the same price as one in Clontarf.

landofthetree

mariaalice wrote: »

It funny I just think that will not happen and that there will be a massive bounce back, in other words, it will the shortest recession ever. I have no evidence for that though.

I would agree with you if this crisis was over by June/July.

But there is no evidence that it will be.

Rainmann

Claw Hammer wrote: »

you can think what you like, but the reality is, if there is a close down in production, massive economic appeal with governments borrowing money left right and centre in an effort to hold their countries together, the best precedent is probably the two World Wars of the 20th century. There was misery for years after the fighting stopped.

I'd say that the makeup of our economies and the market conditions 80-years ago Vs Ireland today are chalk and cheese. I think the bounce back for Ireland will be quicker than people think, the big question is when will the Virus pass allowing for this bounce back to happen.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

GreeBo wrote: »

I live 7km from city centre and 7km from farmland, that doesn't mean much though.
You can build a house on any bit of land, but getting services and infrastructure there is another thing.

Because demand will always outstrip supply!
If this wasnt the case then a 4bed house in Monaghan would be the same price as one in Clontarf.

Issue is that Dublin has plenty of land & with half decent transport, we could increase the supply hugely - with 30mins commute for a hell of a lot of people.

But that requires forward planning which the government can't handle.

Claw Hammer

Rainmann wrote: »

I'd say that the makeup of our economies and the market conditions 80-years ago Vs Ireland today are chalk and cheese. I think the bounce back for Ireland will be quicker than people think, the big question is when will the Virus pass allowing for this bounce back to happen.

No doubt economies were different 80 years ago, but have you any other precedent for such massive disruption worldwide?

voluntary

Discussing how to increase supply to meet the demand is such a pre-pandemic topic.

Browney7

GreeBo wrote: »

Its ludicrous to suggest that everyone should be able to live where they want.

I didnt link Dublin to Ballsbridge, I gave it as an example of what your argument boils down to.

Explain how, considering there is a finite amount of land in Dublin, you can ignore market forces and keep house prices affordable to the average worker?

The logical conclusion is that, at some point, you start selling houses below cost.

Does that seem like a sound economic policy to you?

Btw, I'm not arguing that houses are unaffordable, I'm questions why they should be affordable.

In fairness the selling of houses below cost has been done for years in the form of councils selling off council property to the occupiers - selling for more than the build cost a number of years previous but for less than the replacement cost

Idbatterim

The Belly wrote: »

The mess we were and are in are down to governemnt policy Its by design and about votes.

ABSOLUTELY! up until this election, when many people screwed by it, reached the end of their tether! at last! not quite as black and white for the rats anymore!

Graham

Claw Hammer wrote: »

you can think what you like, but the reality is, if there is a close down in production, massive economic appeal with governments borrowing money left right and centre in an effort to hold their countries together, the best precedent is probably the two World Wars of the 20th century. There was misery for years after the fighting stopped.

and a postwar economic boom.

LuckyLloyd

awec wrote: »

Easy for young, socially mobile singletons to say.

People with kids move cities, counties and countries. Ahead of a savage recession, people who have saved a deposit (and probably have cleared credit cards, etc) would be better served holding that cash to potentially live off / retrain / move to a better economy / etc than guarantee negative equity on a house purchase that eats up all their reserves.

Honestly, it’s a silly conversation. I am a FTB, ready to go and we stopped looking a few weeks ago. I’m not sitting here making out that we’ll get a bargain and everything else will stay the same (our jobs our salaries) but I am damn certain that I want to hold my cash right now.

I feel it is objectively and unambiguously true that nobody should be advised to buy an asset that will immediately lose tens of points in value. The arguments of ‘but this might be your only chance to own’ are irrational and emotional. Hold your money and wait. Much better for you and your family to be mobile with cash reserves than stuck in negative equity with a mortgage you are struggling to pay because one or both of you lost your job.

Advice to the contrary of that can only have an agenda behind it imo.

Graham

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Hold your money and wait. Much better for you and your family to be mobile with cash reserves than stuck in negative equity with a mortgage you are struggling to pay because one or both of you lost your job.

Advice to the contrary of that can only have an agenda behind it imo.

Unless that advice is coming from somebody that remembers inflation.

We're entering uncharted territory here with some unprecedented levels of government financial interventions. Nobody knows that inflationary effects these actions might have.

OwlsZat

cnocbui wrote: »

Houses have an underlying basic cost of construction. If the market considers a house to be worth less than it costs to build, no one will build them.

If the costs of the inputs were fixed then this statement would make sense.

cnocbui

landofthetree wrote: »

The Government should aggressively hike tax on vacant development sites to drive land speculators from the property market, an ESRI research professor has told the Irish Independent.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hike-levies-on-vacant-land-to-hit-hoarders-reduce-house-prices-esri-38536129.html

Its been government policy to keep prices high.

Just take land off the church in lieu of their unpaid debts.

awec

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

People with kids move cities, counties and countries. Ahead of a savage recession, people who have saved a deposit (and probably have cleared credit cards, etc) would be better served holding that cash to potentially live off / retrain / move to a better economy / etc than guarantee negative equity on a house purchase that eats up all their reserves.

Honestly, it’s a silly conversation. I am a FTB, ready to go and we stopped looking a few weeks ago. I’m not sitting here making out that we’ll get a bargain and everything else will stay the same (our jobs our salaries) but I am damn certain that I want to hold my cash right now.

I feel it is objectively and unambiguously true that nobody should be advised to buy an asset that will immediately lose tens of points in value. The arguments of ‘but this might be your only chance to own’ are irrational and emotional. Hold your money and wait. Much better for you and your family to be mobile with cash reserves than stuck in negative equity with a mortgage you are struggling to pay because one or both of you lost your job.

Advice to the contrary of that can only have an agenda behind it imo.

Of course they do. But it's a much more difficult prospect compared to someone with no family, no roots, no school requirements.

If you're looking at it purely financially then what you are saying makes sense. But for people with families it is not a purely financial decision. You say it's irrational and emotional, of course it is, you are talking about people housing their loved ones here. What cost can you put on your kids staying in the same school, near their grand parents, with their friends etc? Hard to put a figure on that. Would you overpay on a house if you could guarantee these things? You could wait for a drop and end up with none of these things.

I'm not giving advice, people can make their own minds up and they'd be daft to take advice from this place anyway, but just pointing out it's not as straightforward as being made out. There's no one-size-fits-all approach to this.

cnocbui

OwlsZat wrote: »

If the costs of the inputs were fixed then this statement would make sense.

I have not seen the cost of inputs to house construction fall in my lifetime, and I watched live on a B&W TV in a classroom, as Armstrong stepped onto the moon.

So nice in theory, but I'll believe it when I see it.