Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

1…8889919394…351

Comments

  • #2702
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    PropQueries wrote: »
    That’s a good point. Never made sense to me to take the obsolescence rate during the downturn and apply it to now. Many obvious reasons (like the one you mentioned) why the obsolescence rate would have been higher during that period.

    Given that the pre-Covid projected estimates of housing demand per year going forward were broken down as c.18,000 for existing domestic demand, c.12,000 for continued inward net migration and c.5,000 to replace obsolete stock each year, the rate of obsolescence is a big part of the projected future demand for housing.

    If the projected annual rate for obsolescence (same goes for projected annual net inward migration) is wrong, it matters a lot IMO

    It matters a huge amount. Reading the central bank figures the projections only take the loss of existing stock into account rather than any gain from renovations/repurposing.

    If they are basing projections on losing 5000 houses a year from existing stock when the reality is we are gaining 7000 a year, it throws their sums off by 12,000.

    In their low migration scenario (which is what ESRI expect for a few years post covid) their projected need is 23,000 new builds per annum based on 18,000 for natural population increase and 5,000 obsoletes.

    If we are gaining 7000 a year it means the figure should be 11,000, less than 50%.

    This is a big difference. And that's before you even get into the weeds over whether they really need to build as much as they think they do in the first place!


  • #2703
    decreds
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 144 ✭✭decreds


    fliball123 wrote: »
    What ever advice you get on here do not take it as gospel my god I hope to christ the conspiracy theory experts dont sway you one way or the other. If I was you I would sit down go over you finances, see how your relationship is with the family member as in pull him / her aside and ask "really how much of a burden am I here" I dont know your rental situation but 400 a month sounds pretty low. 200k in the bank there are over 2k properties for sale on myhome for that amount which would mean you dont need a mortgage. You must be on a high enough wage to able to get a mortgage of say 220 to 240k by yourself on the limit you set so financially you must be in good shape. But like I say it will all depend on your own circumstances. I would be swaying my decision on the below questions:

    How much of a burden are you on the family member you are staying with
    Do you need to live in a major city
    Will you be WFH
    How safe is your job
    If property was to drop by say 10-15% how would it affect you
    If interest rates were to go up by 4/5% could you afford to continue living
    Can you supplement your wage with an up to 14k a year (tax free) rent a room scheme as you already seem to be used to living with other people.

    I would look at those questions first before putting any credence on advice you get on here. Good luck with the hunt

    Thanks for taking the time to respond. I had considered buying out right but i require a house near South Dublin for the kids and couldn't find any properties near the 200k mark.

    After sleeping on it, i've decided to keep saving and purchase in around 18 months time. I wouldn't wish a crash on anyone but if prices dipped 10-20% ( as they seem ridiculously over valued at the moment), that would be ideal for me. If they rise by a small amount i won't be too concerned as i will hopefully have more saved. Time is not on my side so 18 months is the pushing it.

    I've looked at other investment vehicles and don't feel comfortable putting the money into them as i fear we are coming to the end of market cycles and could lose a chunk of my deposit.

    I may regret the property purchase as all indicators point to a massive crash across the economy but looks like this may take a few years to materialize.

    Thanks for the response


  • #2704
    Timing belt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    There is a separate tread on Ronan plans to sell €960,000 apartment to council for social housing if anyone is interested

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058157016


  • #2705
    Ursabear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 84 ✭✭Ursabear


    @decreds I think you are the same age, but in a much better buying position then I was when I first posted similar concerns about buying on boards a few years ago. I wasn't in a position to buy then but was just as worried about prices crashing after buying. I still am, but we have finally put a deposit on a house and am just delighted to be getting out of renting and getting a garden!! However I think with supply so tight and gov intervention with HAP and Reits etc I don't see prices dropping in the next 2 years , however I am not as informed on economics as most commenters. Like someone else said earlier just to follow your own best judgement . Sounds like you made a decision you are comfortable with and best of luck to you :)


  • #2706
    Hubertj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    Villa05 wrote: »
    Is removing checks and balances regarding the disposal of state land by a Fianna fail led department wise

    You used the word credibility yesterday. Does this exist with Fianna fail and their relationship with developers

    This land development agency combined with Fianna fail scares me. It has the potential to plunder state assets for the wealthy in a manner that would make Putin in Russia blush

    Be careful what you wish for and stop being selective in the history lessons you choose to study

    Checks and balances by unqualified political puppets? Checks and balances should be provided by people with competence and knowledge to comment on such subjects. I’ve interacted with some of the councillors in my area, members of all parties. Lucky if some of them can spell and they should be able to obstruct the provision of housing? Cop yourself on.
    Your conspiracy theories are getting out of hand.


  • Advertisement
  • #2707
    PommieBast
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,925 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    decreds wrote: »
    After sleeping on it, i've decided to keep saving and purchase in around 18 months time. I wouldn't wish a crash on anyone but if prices dipped 10-20% ( as they seem ridiculously over valued at the moment), that would be ideal for me.
    The problem is what happens within the market rather than the market as a whole. If prices do actually drop 20% it is going to be apartments (esp. 1-beds) tanking rather than the sort of house you would be looking for.


  • #2708
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Ursabear wrote: »
    @decreds I think you are the same age, but in a much better buying position then I was when I first posted similar concerns about buying on boards a few years ago. I wasn't in a position to buy then but was just as worried about prices crashing after buying. I still am, but we have finally put a deposit on a house and am just delighted to be getting out of renting and getting a garden!! However I think with supply so tight and gov intervention with HAP and Reits etc I don't see prices dropping in the next 2 years , however I am not as informed on economics as most commenters. Like someone else said earlier just to follow your own best judgement . Sounds like you made a decision you are comfortable with and best of luck to you :)

    Congrats and best of luck with it. As you say, follow your own best judgement, and your posts have always struck me that you have your head screwed on and your eyes wide open, which is the best you can hope for.


  • #2709
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Hubertj wrote: »
    Checks and balances by unqualified political puppets? Checks and balances should be provided by people with competence and knowledge to comment on such subjects. I’ve interacted with some of the councillors in my area, members of all parties. Lucky if some of them can spell and they should be able to obstruct the provision of housing? Cop yourself on.
    Your conspiracy theories are getting out of hand.

    I'm genuinely curious as to whether there is a particularly bad incident you have had with councillors, and if so can you spill the beans?!

    I have a pretty dim view of them generally, but I've noticed you're in a different league!


  • #2710
    Villa05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Hubertj wrote:
    Checks and balances by unqualified political puppets? Checks and balances should be provided by people with competence and knowledge to comment on such subjects. I’ve interacted with some of the councillors in my area, members of all parties. Lucky if some of them can spell and they should be able to obstruct the provision of housing? Cop yourself on. Your conspiracy theories are getting out of hand.

    Thanks for addressing the core point in relation to Fianna fails and other government parties relationship with developers

    The apathy you display shows how they get away with it

    What is my conspiracy theory??


  • #2711
    MacronvFrugals
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,045 ✭✭✭MacronvFrugals


    Timing belt wrote: »
    Definitely a good move as councillors will block and delay everything unless it comes from their own political party.

    Isn't that democracy lads?


  • Advertisement
  • #2712
    Timing belt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    MacronvFrugals wrote: »
    Isn't that democracy lads?

    It should be but all they are interested in is points scoring trying to get one over one of the other political party. They are all as bad as each other and end up doing nothing besides blaming each other for doing nothing.


  • #2713
    Hubertj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    schmittel wrote: »
    I'm genuinely curious as to whether there is a particularly bad incident you have had with councillors, and if so can you spill the beans?!

    I have a pretty dim view of them generally, but I've noticed you're in a different league!

    Personal experience would be very local such as inactivity on quality of roads, proper support and engagement on elements of bus connects.
    Overall I think they are simply an extension of their political parties which seems to take priority over the communities they are supposed to represent. Decisions seem politically motivated. Back to the Celtic tiger years and brown envelopes - who was the councillor they got on camera (ff or fg)
    SF councillors have to bring advisors with them to council meetings and consult before making decisions. Im sure there are some who are very competent. Hands up I am a cynical f*cker.


  • #2714
    MacronvFrugals
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,045 ✭✭✭MacronvFrugals


    Hubertj wrote: »
    Personal experience would be very local such as inactivity on quality of roads, proper support and engagement on elements of bus connects.
    Overall I think they are simply an extension of their political parties which seems to take priority over the communities they are supposed to represent. Decisions seem politically motivated. Back to the Celtic tiger years and brown envelopes - who was the councillor they got on camera (ff or fg)
    SF councillors have to bring advisors with them to council meetings and consult before making decisions. Im sure there are some who are very competent. Hands up I am a cynical f*cker.


    He was a Gaeler, Hugh McElvaney from Monaghan - "Money, Sterling,I want loads a money!!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DQL11dFVOc


  • #2715
    MacronvFrugals
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,045 ✭✭✭MacronvFrugals


    Timing belt wrote: »
    It should be but all they are interested in is points scoring trying to get one over one of the other political party. They are all as bad as each other and end up doing nothing besides blaming each other for doing nothing.

    Ah sure who cares about democracy, i would prefer the councillors we elect not having more powers taken away, Hogan already took away most of the teeth they had in 2013.


  • #2716
    MacronvFrugals
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,045 ✭✭✭MacronvFrugals


    2011 - How it started

    2021 - how it's going - Ronan plans to sell €960,000 apartment to council for
    social housing


    542181.PNG


    Now just bypass councillors to hand public land to developers and some are delighted with this, whats the point in electing councillors?


  • #2717
    Marius34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    It tells us the total housing stock has increased by 28k. 21k of these are new builds and 7k are from some combination of renovation/repurposing. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

    Can you prove it? Does it say anywhere like this? You always looking for source from other people if you are not convinced.
    That's nonsense. And you know it. It means exactly the same to me if they don't say they have calculated the figure differently hence we can compare 2019 to 2020 like for like but cannot compare 2016 to 2020 like for like.

    Again this is not a difficult concept to understand.

    The point I was making, that not each time housing stock numbers mean exactly the same thing. It can be that they make adjustment, re-calculate. You was the one telling that housing stock numbers, means housing stock, not considering other possible cases on their estimates. They are not regulated to provide exact details on their numbers.
    They clearly says they have added 21K new addresses. If some got renovated, what is this? It's not a new address? if not, maybe it was already in their database part of the housing stock. We simply don't know that much of details...


  • #2718
    Marius34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    Timing belt wrote: »
    It does if it is an error that relates to prior years....

    I have emailed them the following:

    Great job, but I'm afraid they won't respond to such questions for non-customers.


  • #2719
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    Can you prove it? Does it say anywhere like this? You always looking for source from other people if you are not convinced.

    No I cannot prove it which is why in the first instance I asked what other peoples thoughts were, hoping for some constructive debate.

    But logic dictates if they are not new builds then they must have come from existing stock. They did not appear out of thin air.

    If they came from existing stock the most likely source, in my opinion, is from renovations/repurposing old buildings.
    Marius34 wrote: »
    The point I was making, that not each time housing stock numbers mean exactly the same thing. It can be that they make adjustment, re-calculate. You was the one telling that housing stock numbers, means housing stock, not considering other possible cases on their estimates. They are not regulated to provide exact details on their numbers.
    They clearly says they have added 21K new addresses. If some got renovated, what is this? It's not a new address? if not, maybe it was already in their database part of the housing stock. We simply don't know that much of details...

    It's very simple. These are not estimates like future build requirements. They are drawn from a database of every recorded housing unit in the country.

    They state that at end of 2019 total residential stock was 2,014,357, and at end of 2020 total residential stock was 2,042,426 - an increase of just over 28k.

    What part of that do you not understand?


  • #2720
    Timing belt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    Marius34 wrote: »
    Great job, but I'm afraid they won't respond to such questions for non-customers.

    Well if you don't ask you definitely won't get a response :D

    Did the same with the CSO before and they came back and explained the data in an email and even suggest an alternative data source that verified the data I was looking at. The guy seemed happy that someone was looking at his data ;)


  • #2721
    Marius34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    No I cannot prove it which is why in the first instance I asked what other peoples thoughts were, hoping for some constructive debate.

    But logic dictates if they are not new builds then they must have come from existing stock. They did not appear out of thin air.

    If they came from existing stock the most likely source, in my opinion, is from renovations/repurposing old buildings.

    Debate is good, when you don't imply what it mean exactly for unknown information. I personally think that they make constant adjustment. But none of us can be sure what's that mean really, if they don't tell it.

    It's very simple. These are not estimates like future build requirements. They are drawn from a database of every recorded housing unit in the country.

    They state that at end of 2019 total residential stock was 2,014,357, and at end of 2020 total residential stock was 2,042,426 - an increase of just over 28k.

    What part of that do you not understand?

    The part that housing stock mean exactly same thing each year. Instead there could be adjustment, as proved in 2017 report. There is no such information for 2020, but nor it states that its 28K of actual annual gain, and not revaluation or something else.

    Simply, as you say, it's worth a debate, but not take as a fact, for something we don't know.


  • Advertisement
  • #2722
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    Debate is good, when you don't imply what it mean exactly for unknown information. I personally think that they make constant adjustment. But none of us can be sure what's that mean really, if they don't tell it.




    The part that housing stock mean exactly same thing each year. Instead there could be adjustment, as proved in 2017 report. There is no such information for 2020, but nor it states that its 28K of actual annual gain, and not revaluation or something else.

    Simply, as you say, it's worth a debate, but not take as a fact, for something we don't know.

    If they had made a meaningful adjustment to their calculations they would have declared it as they did in 2017.

    I was looking to debate the source of the extra 7k, not whether or not we could take the headline figure as fact or not.

    I did not expect someone to say well I don't believe the data. That's just nonsense. But I should have known better.


  • #2723
    Timing belt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    schmittel wrote: »
    If they had made a meaningful adjustment to their calculations they would have declared it as they did in 2017.

    I was looking to debate the source of the extra 7k, not whether or not we could take the headline figure as fact or not.

    I did not expect someone to say well I don't believe the data. That's just nonsense. But I should have known better.

    No they won't they never declared the 22k adjustment in 2017.

    In fact if you look at the 2017 report that included the derelicts they made reference to the fact that there figures agreed to the CSO which highlighted that there database was different to the CSO figures as it was including the derelicts.


  • #2724
    Marius34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    If they had made a meaningful adjustment to their calculations they would have declared it as they did in 2017.

    I was looking to debate the source of the extra 7k, not whether or not we could take the headline figure as fact or not.

    I did not expect someone to say well I don't believe the data. That's just nonsense. But I should have known better.

    Before you was saying that housing stocks, mean housing stocks. Once we see that it's not always a case, now we take as a fact that they should inform each time of any adjustments.

    You expect to much for all the details, that they should provide. They didn't declared why there is 7K in difference, means they don't provide all the details, and there are simply more details that we don't know.


  • #2725
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Timing belt wrote: »
    No they won't they never declared the 22k adjustment in 2017.

    In fact if you look at the 2017 report that included the derelicts they made reference to the fact that there figures agreed to the CSO which highlighted that there database was different to the CSO figures as it was including the derelicts.

    What 22k adjustment are you referring to?


  • #2726
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    Before you was saying that housing stocks, mean housing stocks. Once we see that it's not always a case, now we take as a fact that they should inform each time of any adjustments..

    I am saying they have not made any adjustments, so we can compare the 2019 to 2020 figures.
    You expect to much for all the details, that they should provide. They didn't declared why there is 7K in difference, means they don't provide all the details, and there are simply more details that we don't know.

    I don’t expect too much at all. I’m happy to rely on the common sense logic that if the 7k units are not new builds, they must be existing stock reclassified and the most likely source is uninhabitable or change of use.

    It’s You and others who need them to spell it out for you.


  • #2727
    Marius34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    I am saying they have not made any adjustments, so we can compare the 2019 to 2020 figures.



    I don’t expect too much at all. I’m happy to rely on the common sense logic that if the 7k units are not new builds, they must be existing stock reclassified and the most likely source is uninhabitable or change of use.

    It’s You and others who need them to spell it out for you.

    This could equally mean, that they have not removed derelict / properties becoming uninhabitable from their housing stock for this year.


  • #2728
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Timing belt wrote: »
    No they won't they never declared the 22k adjustment in 2017.

    In fact if you look at the 2017 report that included the derelicts they made reference to the fact that there figures agreed to the CSO which highlighted that there database was different to the CSO figures as it was including the derelicts.

    Ok I get the 22k now from reading your earlier post.

    But it is irrelevant because you can not compare 2017 to 2016 because they made some wide ranging changes to their methodology and classification between the two years.

    On the other hand the figures from 2019 and 2020 are directly comparable.


  • #2729
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    This could equally mean, that they have not removed derelict / properties becoming uninhabitable from their housing stock for this year.

    Nonsense.


  • #2730
    discodiva92
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 353 ✭✭discodiva92


    A property in a very slight after location of Limerick city that didn't sell with an auctioneer,then didn't sell with BidX1 then went up for 350k with another auctioneer just went for 335k


  • Advertisement
  • #2731
    Timing belt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    schmittel wrote: »
    Nonsense.

    How can you dismiss this it is as valid an explanation as what you are putting forward. At the end of the day we don't know what this 6k relates to.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement