PropQueries wrote: » As Ronan Lyons pointed out today: "When there are fewer homes available to buy, prices increase. When there are between about 4,000 and 5,000 homes on the market, there is little pressure – up or down – on Dublin sale prices. And when there are lots of homes for sale – in some cases up to 7,000 – prices fall rapidly." It doesn't take much of a previously unforeseen/unaccounted for supply of pre-existing housing to re-enter the market to turn the current situation upside down and to it very rapidly IMO
fliball123 wrote: » Did you not read the part that More population = more housing. More people coming into the country than leaving = more housing More housing being snapped up by REITS / vulures and government mean less supply on the both the first and second hand market. So it does feed into the second hand sales market. I tried to bring you along nice and slowly but you still dont get it. The most common situation of someone selling a house will be someone puts a house on the market they sell it and then they also need to buy ergo one house into the 2nd hand supply chain and one house going out of the 2nd hand supply chain. You have argued this is not correct by saying people will be downsizing and ignoring a lot of people went through a year of lockdown and are yearning for a bigger place. ( I made this move personally). So there will be alot of upsizing as well. You have argued that people can sell and leave the country. I have shown you stats more people are coming in to the country to live than leaving. Meaning that for every person leaving there will at least one person coming in looking to be housed. Props brought up executor sales and while people are dying they have always been dying but guess what 100 years we have had births out pace deaths. So demand has been upping for years now. So the zero sum game on the 2nd hand market is not nonsense. I have pointed out what is wrong with your argument and while some here say it will be better to have more supply I agree it will but demand is not going down anytime soon.
DataDude wrote: » No idea on what the appropriate price is. But this is a serious house...I guess ideally you wouldn't want a Semi-D at €4.5m, but I'd put up with it.https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/dunmara-strand-road-killiney-county-dublin/4499807 EDIT- I know it wouldn't fit with the style, and probably not even allowed if it's a protected structure. But with a view like this it nearly seems like a bit of a shame that there aren't more expansive views of the sea from Kitchen/Living Room/Bedrooms.
cnocbui wrote: » Converting old uninsulated structures into something habitable and desirable by modern standards, is not something that can or will happen rapidly. There isn't the manpower to do it and the econimics may make it unjustifiable. I have personally been in the position of thinking of rennovating an old stone building to modern standards, and concluded it wasn't worth the financial risk. You are very quick to make light of very weighty issues. If you had some skin in the game, you mightn't be so forthcoming with your easy quick fixes.
Hubertj wrote: » I’d take it! Not mad about the stone exterior and poxy tennis court but the location is amazing!
Marius34 wrote: » I had enough of your interpretation. There are written rules for Geodirectory. I'll stick with what it says, not what it means. It's 1.6% vacancy for Dublin, which focus for long term, and they consider Dublin as low vacancy. Whereas Census over 6%, which is focus on the night of 24 April 2016, they can include it, regardless if person was away for 6 month, or 1 week.
Cyrus wrote: » some place. i think it has been on and off the market for quite some time now. Since 2017 at least.
timmyntc wrote: » This is the last I'm saying on this so as not to pollute the thread. I dont think you understand what a zero-sum game is or isn't. Immigration, it's impact on demand, and indigenous demand do not factor into the equation if you are trying to work out whether 2nd hand sales are a zero-sum game. A zero-sum game would be when every 2nd hand house sold, the seller then buys a house. There is no net addition to property market because the 2nd hand seller is also a buyer. Of course I've highlighted various scenarios that show why this isn't strictly the case. If we were to take your line of thought you could come to the conclusion that 2nd hand homes are a negative sum game! Because immigration demand is increasing and there is more demand for 2nd hand homes than those being sold or something. Or you could make the same argument about new builds being a zero sum game because all new supply is taken up by demand created from immigration. But thats not what zero sum game is. Either you dont understand or are too stubborn to admit you were wrong. Regardless, I'm not replying to you on this anymore.
PropQueries wrote: » If the Government put a 10% derelict property tax on it (like Washington D.C.), I would believe many would be very imaginative in how they could bring them up to code and back into the market in a very cost efficient and timely manner I also like the idea of Denmark where a property owner must tell the state if a property is vacant and why or they face a fine. It's obviously being debated to death in the media on why the Government doesn't pick at this low lying fruit and a simple idea like Denmark's would finally put it to bed IMO. If this Government doesn't do it, the next most likely will and they're making a big mistake in not targeting it as the next Government will take the credit for solving the housing crisis if such a supply does indeed exist IMO
MacronvFrugals wrote: » i'v been reading up lately on Spain's version of NAMA, incidentally setup by the same guys who did NAMA Alvarez and Marshall The spanish wined and dined the vulture funds but very little business was ever done with the prevailing attitude being 'we dont screw over our own people' they described Ireland as being wholeheartedly 'open for business'
Bass Reeves wrote: » Did up an old stone farm house between 2015-2018. Never employed an engineer or any other professional. House was stripped to four bare walls reroofed, new floors, plumbing wiring, windows and doors. Drylined it, new stairs, solar panel, stove and oil heated. Turned it into a two bed house. It cost about 600 euro/ sqM. I did some of the work myself. It is now rented. I hate to even contemplate it now. It would run to way the wrong side of 100K and I have to chase every trades man I needed. I have a lady with two children in it. he is delighted with a modern well insulated ( but its D rated) house that is cheap to heat and run. But then I am one of those gouging heartless LL's that are out there. All these things sound easy on paper, until you go and do them. It seems easy doing them in a recession, i had factored in a rental yield of 8-10% of costs to do it up, its hitting 16%
Cal4567 wrote: » Without going around in circles but that's my experience. While there's been increased interest in Ireland over the last 2/3 years, the first wave of investors have been here since 2012/13, with a lot of employment for recently left NAMA employees. Frank Connolly's NAMA book describes it all much better than I could ever do.
hmmm wrote: » The council are looking at cash flow, not value. It's spend 21 million now or 1 million. Who-ever is around in 10 years time can worry about value.
Murph85 wrote: » the quicker solutions for them, include getting fair deal properties rented out, not the current penal level of taxation, that leaves them idle. There is another scheme, where normal houses, were converted into two properties, the elderly person or persons, get to stay in their home and you locate people in established areas and obviously construction time and cost is way cheaper than a new build... If they wont do anything meaningful on the LPT and they wont, then perhaps incentivise the elderly to downsize, by paying out a few thousands, to cover the cost of the move, solicitor, stamp duty etc. Allow apartments in the garden of properties, has been discussed a few years ago, it may surface again. These homes can be put up start to finish, in about one week. Longer term, they are going to have to majorly start getting 15-16 year olds, into trades. The current farce of the leaving cert, being the be all and end all is a joke. Get them in at 15-16, pay them decent money when 18 and apprentices etc. I mean the labour shortage is so ridiculous in construction, that you either use what you have, which is far less labour intensive, or you start getting thousand of construction workers back into dublin from abroad, where do they get housed though? I believe in berlin in the 90's and possibly today, the workers and many were Irish, lived on the site, in large portacabins, that could be moved onto the next site, when that project was complete...
schmittel wrote: » GeoDirectory do not count properties that they consider are for sale or for rent. Hence the difference with the census. They reduced their vacancy numbers by almost 20k for sale and 20k for rent at a time when there was less than 5k for rent on the market. This is not my interpretation- this is explained in the methodology which I have showed you many times.
cnocbui wrote: » I have a 128 year old cut stone 'house' in the distant reaches of Connemara. I had someone recently interested who took his architect to view it, who estimated €500,000 to renovate. I have no doubt that was for something that would end up gracing the front cover of an architecture magazine and would be put up for an award. I think my gut and caution was right. Even at a relatively paltry €300,000, I wouldn't be up for such a financial risk. Rental prospects would be dire, due to remoteness.
Drilling down further, however, it is possible to explain some of this substantial difference. The CSO has provided some data on the reasons why 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). This one-third of the vacant stock includes 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 considered to be dwellings which might not normally be classified as vacant in the context of long term vacancy, but which would represent more of a transitional or temporary vacancy rate, i.e. properties 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%. This implies 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% of the remaining two-thirds were similarly classified, leaving 45% 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
awec wrote: » My reading is that CSO has some info on roughly 33% of the vacancies they found that would suggest that 55% of this 33% is "transient vacancy". Geodirectories are then extrapolating this out, assuming that the remaining 66% of vacancies would show the same trend, and then adjusting the CSO figure with this info to give a number that can be compared like for like with GeoD. In the end, they get pretty close.
schmittel wrote: » Thanks, and forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but just so I am clear, is your understanding thus that the like for like figure excludes the transient vacancies?
awec wrote: » I think so yea. The paragraph is quite hard to decipher!
schmittel wrote: » And would you agree that the transient vacancies include vacancies that are for sale and for rent?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
