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

2021 Irish Property Market chat - mod warnings post 1

hometruths

Happy new year to all.

2020 was the year of pent up demand. I think 2021 will be the year the pent up supply comes to market.

I think the pent up supply will exceed the pent up demand and prices will fall. By how much I have no idea!

edit: Mod Warnings

This thread is about the Irish Property Market, it is not about:
* Immigration
* Refugees
* Welfare recipients
* Welfare rates
* General Irish politics beyond its impact on property
* General Irish economy beyond its impact on property
* How wonderful Country X is to buy in

Additionally, the specific issue of Geodirectory vacancy figures has been done to death and is not to be discussed again.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

I did not misrepresent data and never have... You are the one that accused others of clutching at straws when they were trying to explain the data. Which in hindsight they were right!!!! that is what was Ironic.

Is this an accurate representation of the data:

Timing belt wrote: »

The data is telling us that we are consistent over the past 10 years and that most of the under-occupied houses are in rural areas with people 65+

I just can't see how it is even close to being an accurate representation. Could you explain?

And who was right in hindsight?

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Is this an accurate representation of the data:

I just can't see how it is even close to being an accurate representation. Could you explain?

:D:D you can't admit that we don't have a housing crisis... first it is vacant properties now it is under occupied houses.... what next will you come up with when you are wearing your tin foil hat

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

:D:D you can't admit that we don't have a housing crisis... first it is vacant properties now it is under occupied houses.... what next will you come up with when you are wearing your tin foil hat

Is that a case of deflecting the questions or is it more of a case of moving the goalposts?

Villa05

awec wrote:

My assumption was this being similar to the UK scheme. It sounds very similar, with the no fees for 5 years then a monthly fee etc etc.

A canny resemblance to adjustable rate mortgages.
What could possibly go wrong?

Timing belt

Originally Posted by Marius34 View Post
Because there are as well homes with 1 person, or 2 persons. There are all kind of households like in any other European countries. There are empty old country side homes, there are holiday homes, like anywhere else.
Families with 1-2 children of course doesn't explain all the 70%. But it explain big portion of difference from other countries. Which is due to accommodation type difference from rest of Europe. Smaller dwellings, but with more rooms.

schmittel wrote: »

Nonsense.

Is this really Nonsense ? will you admit you were wrong?

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Is this really Nonsense ? will you admit you were wrong?

I notice you bolded the bit saying "Which is due to accommodation type difference from rest of Europe. Smaller dwellings, but with more rooms."

But I am sure you also noticed in quoting my post saying Nonsense that I bolded the bit "Families with 1-2 children of course doesn't explain all the 70%. But it explain big portion of difference from other countries.. That's what's nonsense.

Families do not explain any of difference never mind a big portion of the difference. It's the people living in family homes without children that are clocking up underoccupied figures.

But you knew that, because I explained it a few posts later

Please don't misrepresent my posts as well as data.

You'll also notice that when I said Marius was clutching at straws it was specifically about trying to explain the numbers because of families with kids, nothing to do with different accommodation types:

schmittel wrote: »

The EU average is 1.6 per person. We are at 2.1 rooms per person. So by your own demonstration, it is not true to say "Many families with kids live in 3 bed houses, which means they live in under-occupied property."

You're clutching at straws here.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

I notice you bolded the bit saying "Which is due to accommodation type difference from rest of Europe. Smaller dwellings, but with more rooms."

But I am sure you also noticed in quoting my post saying Nonsense that I bolded the bit "Families with 1-2 children of course doesn't explain all the 70%. But it explain big portion of difference from other countries.. That's what's nonsense.

Families do not explain any of difference never mind a big portion of the difference. It's the people living in family homes without children that are clocking up underoccupied figures.

But you knew that, because I explained it a few posts later

Please don't misrepresent my posts as well as data.

No misrepresentation just highlighting how you dismissed people yesterday and accused them of grasping at straws which is what I find Ironic.:D:D:D

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

I notice you bolded the bit saying "Which is due to accommodation type difference from rest of Europe. Smaller dwellings, but with more rooms."

But I am sure you also noticed in quoting my post saying Nonsense that I bolded the bit "Families with 1-2 children of course doesn't explain all the 70%. But it explain big portion of difference from other countries.. That's what's nonsense.

Families do not explain any of difference never mind a big portion of the difference. It's the people living in family homes without children that are clocking up underoccupied figures.

But you knew that, because I explained it a few posts later

Please don't misrepresent my posts as well as data.

You'll also notice that when I said Marius was clutching at straws it was specifically about trying to explain the numbers because of families with kids, nothing to do with different accommodation types:

You are searching something in my comment if you can find an issue, it appears you are not even interested to understand why there are more rooms per person in Ireland.
Look, I mentioned few times, the key point in here is the difference of dwelling type, which you totally ignoring.
Regarding the difference from other countries, I would assume it's fairly normal in western world for single, couples without kids, retired to live in under-occupied homes, that's why I don't even discuss it. What I would assume is not typical in other countries, is that large proportion of families with children in Ireland live in under-occupied homes.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

No misrepresentation just highlighting how you dismissed people yesterday and accused them of grasping at straws which is what I find Ironic.:D:D:D

I use the phrase clutching at straws when somebody comes up with a ridiculous observation to explain some data that appears anomalous. The theory is often instantly obviously wrong to anybody that doesn't share the same bias.

When the flaw is pointed out, rather than saying "ok yes I see that now," the poster clutches at straws to explain why the original observation was right. That's what mean by clutching at straws.

Eg saying that families with kids explain the underoccupancy numbers. It's clearly nonsense.

Or that people over 65 in rural areas represent most of the 3.4m people living in underoccupied houses. Again, if you thought about that for a nanosecond you'd realise it's a fatuous statement to make.

As you're fond of dismissing posters and accusing them of misrepresenting data, you're not the only one detecting a whiff of irony here.

Also this deflection attempt is kind of ironic.

Timing belt wrote: »

Why not change the topic now that you are not able to back up your figures.... Lets hope people forget and you can use them again in a few weeks...

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

You are searching something in my comment if you can find an issue, it appears you are not even interested to understand why there are more rooms per person in Ireland.
Look I mentioned few times, the key point in here is the difference of dwelling type, which you totally ignoring. Regarding the difference from other countries, I would assume it's fairly normal in western world for single, couples, retired to live in under-occupied homes, that's why I don't even discuss it. What I would assume is not typical in other countries, is that large proportion of families with children in Ireland live in under-occupied homes.

I do think the abundance of 3 bed semis is the likely cause of the high figures. I'm not ignoring the difference in dwellings and never have.

I have been saying for about a year on here, for the love of god the last thing we need is to be building more 3 bed semis!

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

I use the phrase clutching at straws when somebody comes up with a ridiculous observation to explain some data that appears anomalous. The theory is often instantly obviously wrong to anybody that doesn't share the same bias.

When the flaw is pointed out, rather than saying "ok yes I see that now," the poster clutches at straws to explain why the original observation was right. That's what mean by clutching at straws.

Eg saying that families with kids explain the underoccupancy numbers. It's clearly nonsense.

Or that people over 65 in rural areas represent most of the 3.4m people living in underoccupied houses. Again, if you thought about that for a nanosecond you'd realise it's a fatuous statement to make.

As you're fond of dismissing posters and accusing them of misrepresenting data, you're not the only one detecting a whiff of irony here.

Also this deflection attempt is kind of ironic.

You are the one trying to misrepresent data to prove there is no housing crisis...

first it was vacant properties which you claimed Ireland was way higher than most countries something that I proved to you was incorrect..

Second it was that we have under-occupied housing in cities which yet again was proven wrong....

Who is misrepresenting data?

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

You are the one trying to misrepresent data to prove there is no housing crisis...

first it was vacant properties which you claimed Ireland was way higher than most countries something that I proved to you was incorrect..

Second it was that we have under-occupied housing in cities which yet again was proven wrong....

When you pointed out our rate vs other countries I rephrased it to query why do we have a rising vacancy rate in high demand areas in the middle of a housing crisis. I did not clutch at straws to avoid admitting I was wrong.

Remind me of the post where I misrepresented data saying we have underoccupied housing in cities? Maybe you misunderstood the data in the first place like you did with the over 65s in rural areas.

Timing belt wrote: »

Who is misrepresenting data?

Timing belt wrote: »

The data is telling us that we are consistent over the past 10 years and that most of the under-occupied houses are in rural areas with people 65+

PropQueries

Does this article help either side of the argument here:

Irish independent: https://m.independent.ie/opinion/ronan-lyons-make-no-mistake-the-country-needs-apartments-not-houses-37776681.html

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

Does this article help either side of the argument here:

Irish independent: https://m.independent.ie/opinion/ronan-lyons-make-no-mistake-the-country-needs-apartments-not-houses-37776681.html

As far as I'm concerned the debate is about Timing's claim that people 65+ in rural areas account for the majority of the underoccupied houses. Though he seems to have shifted the goal posts a little to deflect the question!

Re apartments I've argued this for a while. But problem is bulk of current demand appears to be for FTB families who want 3 bed semis. Armed with HTB and government equity demand, builders will deliver this supply.

Lets hope they dont get the greenlight for 50k a year!

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the debate is about Timing's claim that people 65+ in rural areas account for the majority of the underoccupied houses. Though he seems to have shifted the goal posts a little to deflect the question!

I have admitted that I was wrong about it 65+ but I was correct that the majority are in rural areas and provided data to back it up.

You say that I don't understand the data I am looking at when in fact I have taken time to find the definition of Under-occupied and explained to you why the statistic's you were looking at were showing Ireland as an outliner something that you could not get your head around yesterday.

I have never misrepresented data and have always taken time to drill into data and understand what it is really saying and shared the data and logic but you ignore all this.

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

Does this article help either side of the argument here:

Irish independent: https://m.independent.ie/opinion/ronan-lyons-make-no-mistake-the-country-needs-apartments-not-houses-37776681.html

Apartments have a bad name in Ireland for a variety of reasons... but if Space is valuable and we are to stop the urban spread then we need to embrace them in Urban locations. I have never understood why high rise is such a no-go area in Dublin but are ok in every other city around the world.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

I have admitted that I was wrong about it 65+ but I was correct that the majority are in rural areas and provided data to back it up.

Eh? Run that past me again?

69.6% of the population are living in underoccupied properties and you have proven that the majority are in rural areas?

3.4m people in Ireland live in underoccupied properties..
1.5m people in Ireland live in rural areas. (31.34%)

If approx 7/10 people in Ireland live in an underoccupied property and approx 3/10 people in Ireland live in a rural area, how on earth can the majority of people living in underoccupied houses also live in a rural area?!

beauf

Timing belt wrote: »

Apartments have a bad name in Ireland for a variety of reasons... but if Space is valuable and we are to stop the urban spread then we need to embrace them in Urban locations. I have never understood why high rise is such a no-go area in Dublin but are ok in every other city around the world.

They build them too small, and generally poor quality with problems with ventilation, sound pollution etc. They have tiny living spaces.

fliball123

Villa05 wrote: »

The experts got it so right last time

He made reference to the scheme in England and how well it worked, however a review of same scheme found that 60% of the people that availed of it did not need it.

It was basically used as risk spreading tool

as apposed to props who has always been right maybe we should ask Walter Mitty his opinion. The report was a stat not an assumption or an opinion on the amount of obsolescence seen in the years coming up to 2016. In 2016 it had an actual figure of over 6k properties lost to obsolescence. But who needs fact when Props"walter mitty" query pulls another IMO out of his butt

fliball123

PropQueries wrote: »

I’m not a statistics expert, but would using the median calculation be more relevant than calculating the average in ireland given the large houses in Ireland which skew the relevance of using averages compared to many other EU countries.

For example if there’s 10 three-bed houses in an estate and 9 are occupied by one person each who’s over 75 and the last one is rented out to ten persons by a slum landlord, the average is c. 2 occupants per household but that’s of no relevance in making policy decisions as 9 of the 10 houses would definitely be under-occupied.

Only if it benefits your theory

[Deleted User]

Timing belt wrote: »

Apartments have a bad name in Ireland for a variety of reasons... but if Space is valuable and we are to stop the urban spread then we need to embrace them in Urban locations. I have never understood why high rise is such a no-go area in Dublin but are ok in every other city around the world.

I lived in an apartment overseas and if I could ever find anything like it in Dublin, I would happily live the rest of my life in it. Lots of storage, 3 balconies, utility room.
Apartments in Dublin are not made for long term living, soulless unimaginative boxes, with smaller boxes inside. No storage and no thought for how people actually live their life.

I live in a 3 bed house, renting alone. The last house I owned was a 3 bed house. My single female friends in Dublin all bought and live alone in 3 bed houses, except one, who moved a fella in. But was there alone for years before.

Build better apartments and people might live in them.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Eh? Run that past me again?

69.6% of the population are living in underoccupied properties and you have proven that the majority are in rural areas?

3.4m people in Ireland live in underoccupied properties..
1.5m people in Ireland live in rural areas. (31.34%)

If approx 7/10 people in Ireland live in an underoccupied property and approx 3/10 people in Ireland live in a rural area, how on earth can the majority of people living in underoccupied houses also live in a rural area?!

Do you understand the data that you are looking at?

You are looking at no of rooms per house which I have already shown is not relevant as we have different housing stock the rest of Europe.
i.e.
We have more houses they have more apartments.... Its like comparing apples and oranges.

If you look at the number of people per housing unit you will see this is a better indicator of under-occupancy.

This is about the 10 time I have pointed this out to you......Time to move on..

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Do you understand the data that you are looking at?

You are looking at no of rooms per house which I have already shown is not relevant as we have different housing stock the rest of Europe.
i.e.
We have more houses they have more apartments.... Its like comparing apples and oranges.

If you look at the number of people per housing unit you will see this is a better indicator of under-occupancy.

This is about the 10 time I have pointed this out to you......Time to move on..

Yes I understand the data I’m looking at.

I’m looking at the data you posted last night and based on which you made the claims about 65+ and rural. Didn’t spot the number of people per unit on that data.

This data tells us that 7/10 people in Ireland live in underoccupied housing.

So I’ll ask you a simple question again - if 7/10 people in Ireland live in underoccupied housing, how is it possible that the majority of those people live in rural areas?

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Yes I understand the data I’m looking at.

I’m looking at the data you posted last night and based on which you made the claims about 65+ and rural. Didn’t spot the number of people per unit on that data.

This data tells us that 7/10 people in Ireland live in underoccupied housing.

So I’ll ask you a simple question again - if 7/10 people in Ireland live in underoccupied housing, how is it possible that the majority of those people live in rural areas?

what are you trying to prove? I have shared updated data which provides a clearer picture..... So as I said move on...

Timing belt

AIB looking to exit 50% of Dublin office Space by 2023

They are also looking at cutting overall office space by 40% which would indicate that staff in roles that could WFH would only be in the office 2 days a week if 30% of the staff were in roles that did not facilitate WFH

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

what are you trying to prove? I have shared updated data which provides a clearer picture.....

updated data based on some rather odd assumptions such as detached houses should have 4 people living in them, semi Ds should have 3 people living in them and apartments should have 2 people?! clutching at straws moving the goalposts as it were.

Speaking of ironic...

Timing belt wrote: »

The figures are from 2011 - 2016 so yet again you are moving the goal posts.

And yet more irony..

Timing belt wrote: »

So as I said move on...

Timing belt wrote: »

Why not change the topic now that you are not able to back up your figures.... Lets hope people forget and you can use them again in a few weeks...

I’m not trying to prove anything. I don’t need to. The data speaks for itself no matter how you spin, manipulate or misrepresent it.

It is mathematically impossible for the majority of the underoccupied houses to be in rural areas. But you know that. You’re not stupid. You just made a mistake. It’s ok, we all do it.

L1011

I suspect the banks with physical branches may return to how it was the pre-computerisation era and have more staff actually working in the office space in branch buildings - but this time able to work there due to modern networks; not having to work there to handle paper.

If you're a bank with a branch in, say, Trim with space for 6 more desks and happen to have 6 staff commuting every day from Trim and surrounding areas to D4 - staff you now know can work remote from HQ due to the last year - but still want them to go to an office for presenteeism obsession reasons, just get them to use the branch building. Could also cross-subsidse the running costs of more marginal branches.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

updated data based on some rather odd assumptions such as detached houses should have 4 people living in them, semi Ds should have 3 people living in them and apartments should have 2 people?! clutching at straws moving the goalposts as it were.

There is no clutching at straws.... If you have better assumptions and data share them... The number of people per housing unit is a good indicator..So unless you share data that proves otherwise and not the data on no of rooms per house... then move on... Go back and look at your vacant property and work out how that will solve the housing crisis.... but oh yeah you don't think we have one!!!!

Timing belt

L1011 wrote: »

I suspect the banks with physical branches may return to how it was the pre-computerisation era and have more staff actually working in the office space in branch buildings - but this time able to work there due to modern networks; not having to work there to handle paper.

If you're a bank with a branch in, say, Trim with space for 6 more desks and happen to have 6 staff commuting every day from Trim and surrounding areas to D4 - staff you now know can work remote from HQ due to the last year - but still want them to go to an office for presenteeism obsession reasons, just get them to use the branch building. Could also cross-subsidse the running costs of more marginal branches.

It will be interesting to see what they do... If they do use branches more... Aib are aiming at saving 1.3bn in costs by 2023.... would they ever introduce different pay scales based on locations to try and achieve this.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

There is no clutching at straws.... If you have better assumptions and data share them... The number of people per housing unit is a good indicator..So unless you share data that proves otherwiseand not the data on no of rooms per house... then move on... Go back and look at your vacant property and work out how that will solve the housing crisis.... but oh yeah you don't think we have one!!!!

Sure. I can do that.

The question is are the majority of underoccupied houses in rural areas?

7/10 people in Ireland live in underoccupied houses. Eurostat data.
3/10 people in Ireland live in rural areas. Eurostat data.

Ergo even if 100% of people living in rural Ireland lived in an underoccupied house it is still mathematically impossible for the majority of the underoccupied houses to be in rural Ireland.

QED.