Irish Property Market 2020 Part 2

fliball123 · 20-11-2020 12:58pm

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...

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 · 20-11-2020 1:00pm

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

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 · 20-11-2020 1:01pm

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

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?

fliball123 · 20-11-2020 1:02pm

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.

In fact this is quite common with developers as some of the work like ESB, sewerage and Water are already connected to the site so it makes sense to demolish a house to build 10

beauf · 20-11-2020 1:16pm

Marius34 wrote: »

Their 34K estimates are based on 5K obsolescence, NOT 18K on 5K.
18K + 5K + 11K = 34K

Interesting.

I wonder how this aligns with that vision for Ireland projection on increasing the population massively.

donnaille · 20-11-2020 1:39pm

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?

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 · 20-11-2020 1:47pm

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.

So, you believe it is 23,000?

donnaille · 20-11-2020 2:02pm

PropQueries wrote: »

So, you believe it is 23,000?

The chart shows it is. I don't have access to the model, or data, used to arrive at this number, but the fact it is 23,000 in this report cannot be disputed.

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?

The answer here is 18,000 (no net inward migration or obsolescence leaves you with natural increase only).

fliball123 · 20-11-2020 2:46pm

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?

no immigration either way and also for this year lets put that in caps, bold and underline it FOR THIS YEAR

thefridge2006 · 22-11-2020 11:40am

Banks tighten up mortgage lending for 'at risk' sectors

https://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 · 22-11-2020 12:26pm

thefridge2006 wrote: »

Banks tighten up mortgage lending for 'at risk' sectors

https://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

Great . What would you do in their situation ?

thefridge2006 · 22-11-2020 12:58pm

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Great . What would you do in their situation ?

I don't get you, in who's situation ?

Hubertj · 22-11-2020 1:27pm

thefridge2006 wrote: »

I don't get you, in who's situation ?

Yea the bank or the purchaser?

AssetBacked2 · 22-11-2020 4:06pm

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/social-tenants-in-rathgar-complex-excluded-from-certain-facilities-1.4415042

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”.

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.

Villa05 · 22-11-2020 4:10pm

Sweet.Science wrote:

Great . What would you do in their situation ?

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

pearcider · 22-11-2020 4:32pm

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.

This is comical, I’m literally laughing out loud at the Irish taxpayer who is going into debt to fund this socialist quackery.

combat14 · 22-11-2020 5:05pm

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

Claw Hammer · 22-11-2020 5:07pm

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

My heart is breaking for Ben Dunne.

Villa05 · 22-11-2020 5:11pm

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.

So the lunacy is the tenants and not the system that put them there in the first place?
Who would you expect to have more cop on?

Financesetc. · 22-11-2020 5:21pm

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.

The irish tax payer begrudge the social tenants for getting a very expensive apartment for practically notting when they or the tax pay would never be able to buy or rent such a home.
The average tax payer is jealous that they cant get the same and the high earners are part of the "not on my doorstep brigade".

Hubertj · 22-11-2020 5:38pm

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

Yes it’s called personal responsibility. The Irish are very bad at it. It’s always someone else’s fault. It’s easier to blame bankers, the system, capitalism, the elites.

Hubertj · 22-11-2020 5:42pm

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.

Couldn’t agree more. And of course some socialist to*sers will be up in arms about it.

Graham · 22-11-2020 5:50pm

Hubertj wrote: »

Couldn’t agree more. And of course some socialist to*sers will be up in arms about it.

Mod Note

We expect a minimum standard of posting here in A & P.

That isn't it. Please fix that.

Do not reply to this post.

Villa05 · 22-11-2020 6:13pm

Hubertj wrote:

Yes itâ€™s called personal responsibility. The Irish are very bad at it. Itâ€™s always someone elseâ€™s fault. Itâ€™s easier to blame bankers, the system, capitalism, the elites.

Personal responsibility in an enforced game of Russian roulette.
Chose your poison
A risky mortgage
Or
Rents that are significantly higher than mortgage repayments

And if we are playing the personal responsibility card, it would seem ironic that the people who never participated in the last madness are the people that suffer most in the current mess as a result of Government policy

Villa05 · 22-11-2020 6:19pm

Hubertj wrote:

Couldnâ€™t agree more. And of course some socialist to*sers will be up in arms about it.

Are we referring to socialism for the well heeled here. If we are buying social housing from exclusive developments. The only beneficiary is the developer

The tax payer is being made a fool of

Those requiring housing are less likely to get solutions as we are paying x for one unit that probably buys or build 3 units elsewhere

Villa05 · 22-11-2020 6:21pm

Hubertj wrote:

Couldnâ€™t agree more. And of course some socialist to*sers will be up in arms about it.

Ps, stop trying to make this a socialist or capitalist argument. It's simple common sense

thefridge2006 · 22-11-2020 7:04pm

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.

What are you sorry for? they are living in apartments worth in the region of 750k - 1 million.... for more or less free. If I was there i'd be keeping my head down and hoping nobody would notice how much of a disgrace this was.

Hubertj · 22-11-2020 7:19pm

Villa05 wrote: »

Are we referring to socialism for the well heeled here. If we are buying social housing from exclusive developments. The only beneficiary is the developer

The tax payer is being made a fool of

Those requiring housing are less likely to get solutions as we are paying x for one unit that probably buys or build 3 units elsewhere

You clearly didn’t bother reading the article. Tax payer is being made a fool of by the council paying so much for the units. Tax payer is further bein ade a fool of by a sense of entitlement by social housing tenants.

And to suggest it’s common sense that the solution is so simple..

Villa05 · 22-11-2020 9:38pm

Hubertj wrote:

You clearly didnâ€™t bother reading the article. Tax payer is being made a fool of by the council paying so much for the units. Tax payer is further bein ade a fool of by a sense of entitlement by social housing tenants.[/

And to suggest itâ€™s common sense that the solution is so simple..

We should never ever be buying social housing units in a development that are priced between 700k and 950k. Common sense should tell us that

The guy on about the gym wanted to pay for it

The couple on about pets, was more of a story about a family missing their dog maybe dressed up a little for shock value. They said they missed their previous accomodation

I think this story is a little dressed up when the real story is the lunacy of buying in this development for social purposes

thefridge2006 · 22-11-2020 9:44pm

Villa05 wrote: »

We should never ever be buying social housing units in a development that are priced between 700k and 950k. Common sense should tell us that

The guy on about the gym wanted to pay for it

The couple on about pets, was more of a story about a family missing their dog maybe dressed up a little for shock value. They said they missed their previous accomodation

I think this story is a little dressed up when the real story is the lunacy of buying in this development for social purposes

I'd say the aim of this article is to cause outrage from the lefties ( how dare people who get it free be treated any differently to those who have worked extremely hard to afford a 750k-1 mill property )

The article has kind of back fired and highlighted pure entitlement ,the ridiculous situation that there is social welfare housing in such a development and the fact that the council is actually paying for them...

Irish Property Market 2020 Part 2

Comments