schmittel wrote: » Nonsense.
As Geodirectory have decide these categories are "more of a transition or temporary vacancy rate" and not counted in their vacancy rate, it means that the 1.3% vacancy rate in Dublin represents 1.3% over the 6% base rate. or to put it another way - 1.3% oversupply in Dublin, 2% oversupply in Kildare and 2.9% oversupply in Wicklow. Which begs the question why as a housing crisis worsens from 2017 to 2020 are vacancy rates in Dublin, Kildare and Wicklow above the expected base rate and rising?"
DataDude wrote: » This resonates very strongly with what I have experienced over the last 12 months. I know stories from one individual rarely mean much...but for what it's worth: I'm fortunate to work in a profession where I meet/work with a fair few 20 somethings with annual incomes in the range of 100-250k (unaffected by COVID-19). Myself and 4 others have been actively searching for homes since late 2019. All 5 of us were set on purchasing between Booterstown and Sandymount (price ranges between 700-1.2m). We have a Whatsapp group where we regularly share properties for others opinions. Over the last 12 months it has been amazing to watch the group (and my own) perspectives change. Sandymount quickly became removed from all filters, mid last year it was beginning to be Blackrock/Glenageary/Dun Laoghaire...then late last year with us all now having confirmation of between 2-4 days WFH in perpetuity - the properties going into the Whatsapp are now overwhelmingly Greystones/Delgany/Enniskerry/Bray etc. I'm probably lagging the group to some extent and still haven't ruled out SCD, but once the first of the group bought his stunning house/land in North Wicklow for a pittance compared to Dublin, it's become almost embarrassing to send in a 180m2 4 bed semi D in Booterstown for €900k. So in our little bubble, 5 high value sales in D4 will now become at least 4 lower value sales in Wicklow (Kildare/Meath etc. are also feasible) solely due to WFH. I know 5 people is a tiny sample size, and it's dangerous to extrapolate your own experiences onto a wider population - but if even 10-20% more young high earning professionals, precisely those who support the most expensive housing markets, turn their back on SCD...I can't see how prices don't suffer in the coming years - it's certainly opened my eyes enough to put any potential purchase on ice!
Marius34 wrote: » Well you wasn't looking to recalculate Census data, but you have a need to come up with some logic when numbers is not good to you.
schmittel wrote: » It was geodirectory who felt the need to recalculate the census data, not me. Geo figures strengthen my thesis not weaken it.
Marius34 wrote: » Not it wasn't, they just explained difference. You just trying your best to find why GeoDirectory vacancy figures can not be used on it's own.
GeoDirectory report a vacant stock of 96,243 address points or units in June 2017, while the 2016 Census reported a vacant stock of 183,312 address points or units, as of April 2016. Thus the GeoDirectory figure is around half the Census figure, which is a substantial difference, of the order of 87,000 dwellings. The average vacancy rate across the State is 4.9 per cent, according to GeoDirectory (Figure 10), compared with 12.3 per cent, according to the Census of Population. Drilling down further, however, it is possible to explain some of this substantial difference. The CSO has provided some data on the reasons why vacant dwellings were vacant at the time of the Census of Population for a small sample of vacant buildings (i.e. around 57,000 dwellings or close to one-third of the total). For this one-third of vacant dwellings, they include dwellings classified as for sale (10,948 dwellings), for rent (10,350), owner in nursing home (4,165), renovation work underway (3,678), owner in hospital (1,469), and owner with relatives (847). Some of these categories could be construed as dwellings which might not normally be classified as vacant in the context of vacant long term, but would represent more of a transition or temporary vacancy rate, i.e. while properties are waiting to be sold or rented out. In the aggregate they represent a total of around 31,500 properties out of the 57,000, or 55 per cent, implying that 25,500 of this total would be deemed to be vacant. As these explanations were only provided for one-third of vacant dwellings, (if it is assumed that 55 per cent of the remaining two-thirds were similarly classified, leaving 45 per cent as representing the true vacant total) this would reduce the CSO figure for the number of vacant dwellings considerably to around 83,000, which would be closer to the GeoDirectory figure of 96,243.
schmittel wrote: » Indeed they did. Here it is: So when Geodirectory compared apples with apples using their own methodology they found vacancies 16% higher than the CSO: 96,243 vs c. 83,000. As I said, it strengthens my theory rather than undermines it.
Marius34 wrote: » Geodirectory and Census are 2 very different methods, different meaning to define vacancy. They simply try to explain difference, as other reports, there is no much information on Census, so obviously its very hypothetical estimates. Instead of being fair, using 2 reports on it's own. You happy with Census numbers, as it's larger, but for Geodirectory working hard to go deep to the wording, to get into this never ending circles. Your argument can equally work both sides why Census should be adjusted to GeoDirectory calculation.
schmittel wrote: » Dublin has a surprisingly high number of vacancies given that we have a housing crisis. Geodirectory figures since the Census date indicate that number is rising as the housing crisis worsens. I just think that is odd. I get that you don't.
Graham wrote: » I'd have said 1.3% is a surprisingly low rate but there you go. Either way I don't expect it's going to change much over the year in either direction.
PropQueries wrote: » But can anyone explain what happened all those ex AirBnB and ex student rental properties in the Dublin market. Have they now re-entered the long-term rental market or are their owners keeping them empty until the pandemic has past?
BredonWimsey wrote: » I'm not sure of this has been talked about yet so apologies for bringing up old ground if it has - but anyone else think the papers have an agenda with saying house prices rising, houses in short supply (well we know this is the case) but doesnt it then drive up demand even further. its like going once, twice, sold to the man in the green hat- they are trying to increase demand and interest in cohorts with the real estate agents. but maybe thats me being cynical. thoughts?
Zenify wrote: » Haha welcome to the real world. Unfortunately everyone has an agenda. That doesn't just involve the papers and property. It's everywhere, lobbies and other organisation's will always push to their advantage. Sure The Journal is probably Ireland's main media source now and they have an interest in Daft.ie....
Browney7 wrote: » Impossible! The Irish times owning My Home.ie could never conflict them and other associated media outlets
BredonWimsey wrote: » aww interesting - feel so naive - didnt know that - surely there is some conflict of interest and journalistic integrity criteria they are violating for reporting on it so.
Zenify wrote: » common practice really. Anti tobacco charities actually set up by tobacco companies, they control the advertisements and use young cool looking actors etc. Same with the anti alcohol groups.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/smoking-case-big-tobacco-5326755-Jan2021/%3famp=1
BredonWimsey wrote: » wow thanks for the info - must research this
Zenify wrote: » Sure I even believe their are paid posters here by some of the property interests. How crazy is that....? Some of the pro property posters here must honestly spend hours each day on here. Just look at some of the names and how often they post. That's how skeptical you can become.
Zenify wrote: » Don't research it too much. You'll become far to skeptical like me and doubt everything. Sometimes I feel like a tin foil hat man.
DataDude wrote: So in our little bubble, 5 high value sales in D4 will now become at least 4 lower value sales in Wicklow (Kildare/Meath etc. are also feasible) solely due to WFH. I know 5 people is a tiny sample size, and it's dangerous to extrapolate your own experiences onto a wider population - but if even 10-20% more young high earning professionals, precisely those who support the most expensive housing markets, turn their back on SCD...I can't see how prices don't suffer in the coming years - it's certainly opened my eyes enough to put any potential purchase on ice!
BredonWimsey wrote: I'm not sure of this has been talked about yet so apologies for bringing up old ground if it has - but anyone else think the papers have an agenda with saying house prices rising, houses in short supply (well we know this is the case) but doesnt it then drive up demand even further. its like going once, twice, sold to the man in the green hat- they are trying to increase demand and interest in cohorts with the real estate agents. but maybe thats me being cynical. thoughts?
Villa05 wrote: » Interesting, I would have thought that an exodus from Dublin would be led and dominated by people priced out of the market. When you have the highest earners doing it we could have a very interesting few years ahead of us. The pandemic may well solve our housing crisis It was identified as a contributing factor to the last boom bust. Group think driven by media with a vested interest Along with Cif and other developer lobbyists having the government in their back pockets Interest rates far too low for an economy that was booming Areas that are different this time include The nations public debt is nearly 6 times higher so little leeway to cushion a downturn. The pension reserve fund which aided the correction is gone. The recovery dividend has been wasted on policies that increased house prices. Future social housing has been outsourced at peak rent prices on long term leases to the private sector. New House prices are dictated at the upper margins by reits and investment trusts on unsustainable rents and a 0 tax policy on these institutions plus access to 0% finance. The bank lending rules helped in softening the increases, but reits and investment trusts operate outside these controls plus the government is persistent in circumventing these rules The endgame is obvious its just a matter of time My daughter in junior infants had the story of the emporor with no cloths as part of her home schooling this week. I wonder how long it will take our nations leaders and others to learn the lesson of that story
Villa05 wrote: » Interesting, I would have thought that an exodus from Dublin would be led and dominated by people priced out of the market. When you have the highest earners doing it we could have a very interesting few years ahead of us. The pandemic may well solve our housing crisis
Hubertj wrote: » Add in fantasy populist policies from opposition parties that it can be easily solved and you have a great combination.
Hubertj wrote: Add in fantasy populist policies from opposition parties that it can be easily solved and you have a great combination.
