beauf wrote: » Maybe they've been adjusted with an anticipation of lower immigration. Though I wonder if that also has not been fully realised through people not being able to emigrate and others returning to Ireland. Who knows.
Marius34 wrote: » Don't think so, even without migration estimates are well over 20K. I guess something wrong with those number, it may mean something different. For example it may mean number of total residential stock increase by 20K, which would be equal more or less of 30K new properties. Who knows what these numbers are about, without looking at the source.
PropQueries wrote: » The Irish Central Bank last year put the figure at c. 18,500 without net inward migration.
Marius34 wrote: » Of what? That's not Central Bank estimates of the figures for demands for new builds?
PropQueries wrote: » As per the Central Bank report last year: "Over the period 2020-2030, the estimates indicate that around 18,000 new dwellings would be required each year due to the natural increase... Our scenario assumes that 5,000 new dwellings are required each year to replace existing housing stock lost due to obsolescence" I think some commentators have questioned that level of obsolescence per annum so the true required figure is probably lower. Another poster had previously posted the link to the report but here is the link to the report: https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/economic-letters/vol-2019-no-14-population-change-and-housing-demand-in-ireland-(conefrey-and-staunton).pdf
Marius34 wrote: » 18k, is not an estimated demands for new dwellings. It just a subset of demands. You see that there is 5k of obsolescence by report (which is low), not sure why you keep omitting numbers you not interested in, and misrepresenting report. Add this and you have 18+5=23K already. Their total estimate is 34K new dwellings per annum
PropQueries wrote: » No misrepresenting of the report. I was responding to your assertion that "even without migration estimates are well over 20K". The central bank report clearly states that c. 18,000 new dwelling are required each year out to 2030 to meet demand "due to the natural increase". It's on page 11 of the report. Their estimates of c. 18,000 are also based on "5,000 new dwellings are required each year to replace existing housing stock lost due to obsolescence". Also on page 11 of the report. So, that's c. 13,000 new dwelling required each year if there is no inward net migration or obsolescence. That level of obsolescence has also been question by a few commentators as they believe that even if that level of obsolescence was correct, it most likely would not happen in such numbers in places where people will actually choose to live e.g. cities, towns etc. They also appear to assume that the majority of the surplus housing stock overhang from the Celtic Tiger years won't re-enter the market through refurbishments etc. or that ex-AirBnB properties won't re-enter the market. So, the true number of new built dwellings required to meet current demand "due to the natural increase", which was the point of your initial post and what I was replying to, is probably in the single digits at most IMO
Marius34 wrote: » Their 34K estimates are based on 5K obsolescence, NOT 18K on 5K. 18K + 5K + 11K = 34K
PropQueries wrote: » Even if net inward migration figure was 100,000 or zero or a minus figure per annum, the 5,000 obsolescence figure wouldn't change...
fliball123 wrote: » Jesus read what the poster is saying. your saying 18k which you think includes the figure for obsolescence and he is telling its 18k without. Props will you cop on the stat is there for everyone to read and you trying to make a case that the need for 34k housing is actually 18k while the stat is there in front of us. Your looking like Comical Ali back in the day saying there are no american tanks in Bagdad and when the camera footage was rolling we could see a sh1t load of Americans tanks in the background. 2 pieces of advice change your name to Comical Ali and ask Trump if he needs a new doctor of spin
Claw Hammer wrote: » Quite a lot of dwellings in urban areas become obsolescent. Many are demoilished every year to make way for new builds of both commercial and residential units. A large number of cottages old dwellings were removed in inner Dublin for apartment building on the same site.
PropQueries wrote: » my bad. I'll give ye that one. Slow morning. Edit: Hold on This is the quote from the Central Bank report: "Over the period 2020-2030, the estimates indicate that around 18,000 new dwellings would be required each year due to the natural increase. Migration is the second key driver of housing demand out to 2051 with the increase in population from this source accounting for over one third of the estimated new housing demand out to 2051. Our scenario assumes that 5,000 new dwellings are required each year to replace existing housing stock lost due to obsolescence.". As I said, it's a slow morning But if there was no net inward migration or obsolescence, what would posters believe is the demand for new dwellings based on the above quote? 13,000 or 23,000?
donnaille wrote: » The chart Marius34 has posted clears it up, regardless of the ambiguity in the text. The 5k number is part of the overall scenario.
PropQueries wrote: » So, you believe it is 23,000?
As I said, it's a slow morning But if there was no net inward migration or obsolescence, what would posters believe is the demand for new dwellings based on the above quote? 13,000 or 23,000?
thefridge2006 wrote: » Banks tighten up mortgage lending for 'at risk' sectorshttps://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/banks-tighten-up-mortgage-lending-for-at-risk-sectors-39772106.html A very welcoming (and not surprising ) outcome of this mess. I'm only surprised its taken this long to happen and will probably need to be tightened further. Banks need to be extremely careful now with the increase of unemployment and bad debts because from what we're hearing on here (and from other people including estate agents), people are getting mortgages and buying house because they're afraid of losing their jobs, exemptions and having their income reduced next year. They are more comfortable fighting with the banks to prevent evections than being financially responsible which is totally mind boggling to me but seems to be the case for many
Sweet.Science wrote: » Great . What would you do in their situation ?
thefridge2006 wrote: » I don't get you, in who's situation ?
Social tenants in Rathgar complex excluded from certain facilities Gym, meeting rooms and roof terrace restricted to non-council residents Social tenants in a luxury apartment complex in Dublin say they are being “discriminated” against as they are not allowed to use the property’s gym, meeting rooms or roof terrace, keep pets or attend residents’ meetings. The exclusion of households nominated by Dublin City Council from facilities enjoyed by their private neighbours in the Marianella complex in Rathgar is “just the latest example” says Independent councillor Mannix Flynn of “social exclusion operating under the guise of social inclusion”. Finished in 2017, Marianella’s 210 apartments on the site of a former monastery on Orwell Road, were priced in the region of €700,000 and €950,000. Other tenants who did not want to be named said there had been occasions where the concierge refused to accept their parcels due to their address. All mentioned not being allowed to use the gym. The Fold spokeswoman said all tenants were made aware of its “no pet policy” prior to moving in. Fold “does not pay for the concierge service and tenants were made aware of this,” she said. A council spokesman said the authority had service level agreements with all AHBs managing council units. “All tenants sign up to a tenancy agreement with the AHB as the named landlord. The AHB must register all tenancies with the Residential Tenancies Board. AHBs provide a thorough explanation of the tenancy agreement and the rights and obligations of the landlord and the tenant.” The council did “not regard access to a gym as a welfare issue”.
Sweet.Science wrote: Great . What would you do in their situation ?
AssetBacked2 wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/social-tenants-in-rathgar-complex-excluded-from-certain-facilities-1.4415042 When I initially read this, I thought it seemed very unfair and demeaning to the tenants; that the things they are being denied access to are the gym, a parcel collecting concierge and being allowed to have pets in the apartment. However, upon reflection, they are getting lovely apartments in Rathgar and their only complaints are that they are being denied access to are the gym, a parcel collecting concierge and being allowed to have pets in the apartment. I'm sorry to the individuals but you come across extremely entitled and hard to empathise with. Having such a nice home set up is fantastic and will provide a great platform to better yourself with work so that you can try to save up in order to get your own place. I don't have a gym included in my rent, or a concierge to sign for my deliveries. Having a pet is allowed but it is not normal in private rentals in Ireland. Essentially, they should shut up.
combat14 wrote: » the forgotten face of many businesses out there struggling to survive, looks like the real pain will only truly start to be felt next year: 'I've lost millions this year, it frightens me' - Ben Dunne reveals he is planning to open his gyms in December "If we don't get a grip with this it will eat up every business we have. Very few businesses will survive lockdowns or a stop and start approach. Dunne also laughed at how politicians have been reassuring taxpayers that "money is cheap" thanks to low interest rates. "It has to be paid back. The young people are going to have a terrible time. There is no such thing as a free lunch.https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/ive-lost-millions-this-year-it-frightens-me-ben-dunne-reveals-he-is-planning-to-open-his-gyms-in-december-39775063.html
AssetBacked2 wrote: I'm sorry to the individuals but you come across extremely entitled and hard to empathise with. Having such a nice home set up is fantastic and will provide a great platform to better yourself with work so that you can try to save up in order to get your own place. I don't have a gym included in my rent, or a concierge to sign for my deliveries. Having a pet is allowed but it is not normal in private rentals in Ireland.
pearcider wrote: » This is comical, I’m literally laughing out loud at the Irish taxpayer who is going into debt to fund this socialist quackery.
Villa05 wrote: » Id be very tempted to do the same thing if I were in that position, Avoided it in noughties mainly because of no kids. Had we, it would have probably pushed us over the edge We have constructed a system that you are forced to choose between 2 evils. Post the bust of 08 The Taoisech of the country, in Davos (where the wealthiest, powerful, and influential meet annually) had the audacity to blame the crash on the behaviour of the Irish public who's crime was to simply provide shelter for their families. This is what you are up against. Dammed if you do or don't
