PropQueries wrote: » I don't believe for one second c. 5,000 existing dwellings in and around the counties of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway (the counties where people want to live and where the majority of demand will be going forward, WFH or no WFH) need to knocked down and replaced each and every year i.e. 50,000 units would need to knocked down and rebuilt, primarily in these four counties over the next 10 years. I also don't believe using the 2011 - 2016 estimated level of housing obsolescence and applying it going forward would be appropriate given the unique circumstances of that time period. This, according to your link is how they calculate it: "For the intercensal period, 2011-2016 in this case, the number of dwellings that became obsolete each year can be obtained by taking the change in the stock of dwellings between Censuses and subtracting this figure from the numbers of dwellings built over the relevant period. Comparing the 2011 to the 2016 Census shows an increase of 8,800 permanent housing units. At the same time, completions in the intercensal period, between the second quarter of 2011 and the first quarter of 2016, amounted to 29,319 dwellings. The difference between these two figures provides an estimate of obsolete dwellings: a total of 20,519 or 4,104 per annum. This results in an obsolescence rate (obsolete dwellings compared to the total housing stock) of 0.20 per cent" There is definitely additional supply of at least c. 30,000 additional units entering the market each year when adding up new builds, refurbishments, re-connections, probate sales etc.. That's enough new additional supply entering the market to house c. 90,000 persons each year (average of a couple and one child). We definitely do not require enough additional housing supply to accommodate an additional 90,000 persons each year going forward IMO.
PropQueries wrote: » In relation to obsolescence, not many people would have had the funds between 2008 and 2013 to maintain their vacant properties especially if they thought there was little value in them at the time. Such properties would fall into disrepair fairly quickly in such a scenario. Extrapolating the obsolescence figures during that period and applying them going forward is wrong and overestimating the future levels of obsolescence IMO
Can't find figures on probate sales (maybe someone can find them), but stands to reason it's definitely in the 5,000 - 10,000 figure annually IMO.
PropQueries wrote: » There is definitely additional supply of at least c. 30,000 additional units entering the market each year when adding up new builds, refurbishments, re-connections, probate sales etc.. That's enough new additional supply entering the market to house c. 90,000 persons each year (average of a couple and one child). We definitely do not require enough additional housing supply to accommodate an additional 90,000 persons each year going forward IMO.
PropQueries wrote: » And I have no idea why they fret about the value of their home. The state is just going to take whatever value exists in their homes from them through some future version of the fair deal scheme, lower inheritance tax thresholds etc.
Timing belt wrote: » The figures are from 2011 - 2016 so yet again you are moving the goal posts. If people now had money to prevent a building from being obsolescent then they would also have money to bring back vacant properties to the market. yet this is not being seen in the ESB re-connection figures which you have totally ignored. If deaths are included in the population growth then why are you double counting with probate sales? Can you explain your logic.
Idbatterim wrote: » we have a marginal tax rate of FIFTY percent over a pittance after two booms and the party of early risers being at the helm for the last one. How much worse can it get? This rip off prices is all well and good, until their kids emigrate or emigrate long term OR they need financial assistance from the parents, who may struggle to afford it...
Idbatterim wrote: » we have a marginal tax rate of FIFTY percent over a pittance after two booms and the party of early risers being at the helm for the last one. How much worse can it get?
PropQueries wrote: » The logic being that if an old couple's house goes into probate, it's not likely to be bought by another old couple. I'm looking at the actual demand for additional housing required each and every year going forward and that generally means young couples with children or hoping to have children who don't already have an existing home bought or rented.
If people believe we need enough additional supply each and every year for c. 90,000 additional persons going forward, so be it. We're far too small a country, population wise, for this level of future demand to exist IMO
PropQueries wrote: » If people believe we need enough additional supply each and every year for c. 90,000 additional persons going forward, so be it. We're far too small a country, population wise, for this level of future demand to exist IMO
L1011 wrote: » The marginal rate does not reach 50% until you earn over 70k.Your posting style/tone here is exceptionally aggressive and not acceptable. Tone it down significantly.
schmittel wrote: » We have huge number of properties with nobody living in them - considerably above average.
schmittel wrote: » We have huge number of people living in underoccupied properties - way above average. We have tiny number of people living in overcrowded properties - way below average. We have huge number of properties with nobody living in them - considerably above average. We may want huge additional supply every year, but we definitely don’t need it.
Timing belt wrote: » It is not above average compared to most Cities in Europe and USA.
beauf wrote: » Average compared to where?
schmittel wrote: » EU. 70% of people live in houses that are too big for their needs. Twice the EU Average. Only 3.2pc of the Irish population were classified as living in overcrowded households in 2019 - the EU average is 17.2%https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/almost-7-in-10-people-in-ireland-are-living-in-homes-too-big-for-their-needs-39958654.html
Timing belt wrote: » Even in a low migration scenario the ERSI are saying we need 23k housing units each year to meet demand. Are you saying that this can be accommodated without building new properties and instead looking to better utilise our existing housing stock.
Timing belt wrote: » The housing Stock figure remains the same and there is no increase in supply. It is irrelevant who buys it as lets say it could be rented out to a young couple or could be bought by a couple upgrading who's house would then become available for FTB's. You are double counting by including this in your figures. Lets take a step back and count in housing stock as the 90k people is your figure which is calculated differently to how everyone else (ERSI,CSO etc) calculates it and results in no of people being over estimated. You are staying well clear from ESB re-connections do I take it that you agree that this is not additional supply now.
In relation to the Help-to-Buy scheme, Michelle Shannon - the current IMF head of mission to Ireland - said: "We have cautioned that this could contribute to demand pressures." The Department of Finance last year announced that there would be a review of the scheme which is to begin soon. Ms Shannon said the IMF welcomed this review as it could provide an evidence-based opportunity to assess the impact of the scheme.
PropQueries wrote: » Not staying clear of the ESB re-connections. I stated in my original post "5,000, maybe half that?" which is near enough your c. 2,000 per annum figure. Just to get that out of the way as you've asked me several times
Timing belt wrote: » But you are claiming it is additional supply when it is not!!!
schmittel wrote: » I’m not sure if the entire demand can be met from existing housing stock, so I assume some level of new build is required. I’m saying a lot of the future demand can be met by better utilizing our existing housing stock. The most important thing I am saying is it is blatantly untrue to say there is nothing we can do, the only solution is to build more.
91.7 per cent of the population living in house
beauf wrote: » I suspect thats because we have far more people in houses than apartements. Probably we have a lot of rural houses, one off housing compared to the EU.
PropQueries wrote: » It's most definitely additional supply in the sense that they weren't occupied for a minimum of 2 years previously and are now most likely occupied which means that's c. 2,000 less new build units required each year.
But, to me, it does raise the question. Is there a way to look at ESB connections and calculate how many of the vacant properties, housing estates etc. after the last bust have re-entered supply and then calculate (by a rough estimate) how many are still vacant?
Marius34 wrote: » It's due to the dwelling types. It would be different if it would be based on square meters. Irish bedrooms are very small, living rooms too. Many families with kids live in 3 bed houses, which means they live in under-occupied property. As well apartments typically has living room integrated with kitchen, which results in less rooms, versus the Irish typical property.
Timing belt wrote: » Yes they are vacant for 2 years because the banks held onto the properties after repossession. Just because they have entered the housing market does not mean no other properties exited with new repossessions. If you look at the actual figures there is minimal housing supply generated. if you are talking about Ghost estates etc then these are all counted separately by the ESB and 99% of that stock had re-entered the housing market by 2018https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-ndc/newdwellingcompletionsq12018/ec/
schmittel wrote: » And how would we rank if it was based on sq m? Can you explain how a family with kids in a 3 bed house means they live in an under occupied property?
PropQueries wrote: » Here's an interesting one IMO. In 2017, the CSO recorded that 14,354 new residential units were completed. From the ESB (link below), the number of connections from new dwellings, Unfinished housing estates and re-connections was 18,177.
