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

The great myths of housing

Options
1…1112141617

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    Deeec
    Registered Users Posts: 4,849 ✭✭✭Deeec


    landofthetree wrote: »
    200,000 empty homes.

    The vast majority in the middle of nowhere and many needing modernisation. I know. I inherited one. Its needs major work and is very isolated. In 31 years I've done nothing with it. Tried to sell it many times and have now given up.

    Council should be buying these houses. The cost for them to do it up to a reasonable standard is minimal. The house would perfectly suit a working family with low income that need social housing and bring new life to rural areas.

    There is lots of people who would love to live remotely but the cost of buying, getting planning permission and renovating is a turn off.


  • Options
    #393
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Top Dog wrote: »
    I'm 45 next month, and in the past week I've been offered a 25 year mortgage, so 30 years at 40 is actually possible. Income and other factors may have an impact on it, but to say nobody will do it is incorrect.

    However I do agree that next to nobody wants to still be paying their mortgage at 70.

    Well you will be unless you pay it off sooner.


  • Options
    #394
    selassie
    Registered Users Posts: 201 ✭✭selassie


    Ubbquittious wrote: »
    It's all a load of sh1t.

    We're all trapped in a system unless you're a millionaire or inherited a couple of "units"

    The government has been "maximum power point tracking" the working folk in order to coax as much economic activity as possible out of them for decades and will continue to do so.

    If you get rid of the government the EU will ensure it gets done.

    If you get rid of the EU the crowd who meet in Davos will ensure it gets done.


    Go back a thousand years, there was ample land and stones laying around, reeds for your thatched roof. You did not have to labour for 10 full years in order to build a house unless you decided to go for a castle instead. Whereas today a house can cost 10 years of an average man's salary

    Go back 40-50 years, mechanisation meant houses were easier to build than ever and materials readily available in processed form. Someone obviously saw this as a problem

    So they invented planning laws, zoning laws, building regulations. All supposedly to address some shortcoming or danger despite the fact that it was easier than ever to build a good house. All these things drove up the price massively

    There is no shortage of land, no shortage of material yet there's a massive amount of people who can't get houses due to artificial scarcity. There's even piles of existing buildings tied up to make sure nobody lives in them. It's all artificial. People stupidly believe in the system and the laws as if they're there for the greater good but they're not.

    Planning and zoning laws are the most expensive thing you'll ever buy in your life but you never see them on an invoice


    Just in case you think I'm some tinfoil hat conspiracy nutter, there's even laws to prevent you from living in a wooden cabin or a makeshift house or a business premises. It's all set up in such a way that you're coaxed into buying this overpriced brick box to live in, spend sh1tloads on mortgage interest, property tax, utility bills, all to keep the global economic money changing hands merry go round turning much to the amusement of the elite

    Pic attached from FT about housing land "shortage" in England. Probably a similar case here.

    Article: https://amp.ft.com/content/b2cd5d2e-83bf-4a04-8a40-dc114c5a25b7?__twitter_impression=true


  • Options
    #395
    C14N
    Registered Users Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    My opinion of the housing market is that too many young people want their dream home/area from day one, and so are looking in areas that they shouldn't be, which in turn sees them bidding on houses that are out of their range, some of whom will realize once it's accepted and may pull out or get in over their heads, while others never get their home and just end up bidding the values up for others who can afford it - the knock on effect then is that every house in the area has this bumped up price as it's floor - which is not representative of the actual market.

    If people in general took at step back and say in 10 years time i want to buy my dream house or live in x location, but for the time being i'm going to buy somewhere else - it would take the heat out of the market and we wouldn't be seeing stupid prices for houses.

    I also feel the EA's need to value houses fairly and not be trying to make a name for themselves to boost their profile - i've seen numerous houses that are just valued way to high - and it sets the bar for the rest of the neighborhood.

    I spotted a house on social media during the week that was on the market in 2017 for €1.25m - didn't sell, and now it's back on the market for €1.9m. Can the EA really justify a 650k increase in 4 years for a house that couldn't sell 4 years ago, in an area that doesn't appear to have had any sales according to PPR?

    The funny(sad) thing is that those buying these expensive houses and bidding prices only need to look back 15 years to see what can go wrong - but it's like they are caught up in the moment because society tells them that they have to buy a family home, and be near family and friends. The funny thing is that we literally have tens of thousands of people living on the commute belt, yet others seem to think this can't be a realistic solution if you work in Dublin.

    I think it's completely off the mark to think that the current problems in the housing market are coming from entitled young people bidding up prices on houses they couldn't even afford anyway. Estate agents in general will sell houses for the maximum price the market will bear. They won't just decide to sell it for less because a higher price seems unfair to a bystander, and in most cases young people with lower salaries and less accumulated wealth are not going to be the ones pushing the prices up very high. There isn't a widespread epidemic of "I'd have gotten this house for 100k less if it wasn't for you meddling kids".

    You seem to really emphasise this idea that young people won't get a "dream house in a dream location", which is true, but at the same time, the "dream location" to you seems to be basically anywhere in Dublin, or at least anywhere south of the Liffey. I completely disagree that it's entitled to feel like half of the most populous county shouldn't be off-limits to anyone who isn't in their 40s or older.

    It's a fact of life in most cities that some areas will be a bit more upmarket than others and will have higher home prices as a result, and these areas will usually be out-of-reach to younger people and first time buyers. Fair enough. In Dublin this might be Dalkey, Foxrock, Blackrock, Howth, Donnybrook, etc. But it's not a fact of life that the whole city is effectively off-limits and that anyone without a large amount of wealth should have to spend years living in the exurbs or the sticks to save up to buy somewhere close to work. Plenty of cities do not have this outcome, and do have places to live that are central and well connected that don't cost huge amounts of money.The notion of "I want to live in South Dublin because it's where my work, family, and social life is" doesn't have to be some kind of head-in-the-clouds fantasy like you think it does.


  • Options
    #396
    Ace2007
    Registered Users Posts: 19,705 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    C14N wrote: »
    I think it's completely off the mark to think that the current problems in the housing market are coming from entitled young people bidding up prices on houses they couldn't even afford anyway. Estate agents in general will sell houses for the maximum price the market will bear. They won't just decide to sell it for less because a higher price seems unfair to a bystander, and in most cases young people with lower salaries and less accumulated wealth are not going to be the ones pushing the prices up very high. There isn't a widespread epidemic of "I'd have gotten this house for 100k less if it wasn't for you meddling kids".

    You seem to really emphasise this idea that young people won't get a "dream house in a dream location", which is true, but at the same time, the "dream location" to you seems to be basically anywhere in Dublin, or at least anywhere south of the Liffey. I completely disagree that it's entitled to feel like half of the most populous county shouldn't be off-limits to anyone who isn't in their 40s or older.

    It's a fact of life in most cities that some areas will be a bit more upmarket than others and will have higher home prices as a result, and these areas will usually be out-of-reach to younger people and first time buyers. Fair enough. In Dublin this might be Dalkey, Foxrock, Blackrock, Howth, Donnybrook, etc. But it's not a fact of life that the whole city is effectively off-limits and that anyone without a large amount of wealth should have to spend years living in the exurbs or the sticks to save up to buy somewhere close to work. Plenty of cities do not have this outcome, and do have places to live that are central and well connected that don't cost huge amounts of money.The notion of "I want to live in South Dublin because it's where my work, family, and social life is" doesn't have to be some kind of head-in-the-clouds fantasy like you think it does.

    I didn't say it's anywhere in Dublin, there are many areas in Dublin that you can rent cheaply and buy cheaply, but because couples buying think the areas have bad names and so wont' touch them even if they are within a stones throw of the city center - let me do a very quick search on myhome.ie for some said homes:

    3 bedroom house with room for extension - Luas within walking distance and reasonably price. If this was on he south side - it would be 500k+

    https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/18-mulroy-road-cabra-dublin-7/4497125

    Here's a 4 bedroom for 380K
    https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/243-carnlough-road-cabra-dublin-7/4499320


    Why aren't these houses going for 500k plus given their on the Luas line, given their stones throw from city center? If there is this demand for houses - then they wouldn't have a price point this low. Is it simply because their address is Cabra? Let's not forget the leader of SF lives in Cabra after all.

    Similarly in many parts of the Dublin north side that are within a bus journey to the city center you can get good houses in nice locations for a fraction of what they would be on the other side of the liffey. - Artane, Donnycarney etc.

    If demand is outstripping supply like the media outcry that exists then you would never get a 3 bed house in dublin for that price. The reality is buyers want to live in certain locations and are driving prices in those areas through the roof, while in other areas houses are priced reasonable.

    IMO the media/opposition parties are running with the notion that there aren't enough houses/properties in Ireland. The reality is different - the properties are there - north and south of the liffey, however they are not either in area some buyers want, nor are they luxury houses - they might need a bit of work, and people aren't prepared to even consider that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,595 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    C14N wrote: »
    I think it's completely off the mark to think that the current problems in the housing market are coming from entitled young people bidding up prices on houses they couldn't even afford anyway. Estate agents in general will sell houses for the maximum price the market will bear. They won't just decide to sell it for less because a higher price seems unfair to a bystander, and in most cases young people with lower salaries and less accumulated wealth are not going to be the ones pushing the prices up very high. There isn't a widespread epidemic of "I'd have gotten this house for 100k less if it wasn't for you meddling kids".

    You seem to really emphasise this idea that young people won't get a "dream house in a dream location", which is true, but at the same time, the "dream location" to you seems to be basically anywhere in Dublin, or at least anywhere south of the Liffey. I completely disagree that it's entitled to feel like half of the most populous county shouldn't be off-limits to anyone who isn't in their 40s or older.

    It's a fact of life in most cities that some areas will be a bit more upmarket than others and will have higher home prices as a result, and these areas will usually be out-of-reach to younger people and first time buyers. Fair enough. In Dublin this might be Dalkey, Foxrock, Blackrock, Howth, Donnybrook, etc. But it's not a fact of life that the whole city is effectively off-limits and that anyone without a large amount of wealth should have to spend years living in the exurbs or the sticks to save up to buy somewhere close to work. Plenty of cities do not have this outcome, and do have places to live that are central and well connected that don't cost huge amounts of money.The notion of "I want to live in South Dublin because it's where my work, family, and social life is" doesn't have to be some kind of head-in-the-clouds fantasy like you think it does.

    Yes but itseems no cities with Irish population growth, Irish level wages and Irish level planning/building regulations. Happy to be disproven


  • Options
    #398
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Plus in most other cities people will buy to suit their needs.
    In Ireland everyone wants a 3 bed in the city with a garden as their first house.
    Even single buyers.


  • Options
    #399
    sprucemoose
    Registered Users Posts: 2,220 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    Is it simply because their address is Cabra? Let's not forget the leader of SF lives in Cabra after all.

    are you suggesting this as a positive?


  • Options
    #400
    Ace2007
    Registered Users Posts: 19,705 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    sprucemoose wrote: »
    are you suggesting this as a positive?

    If a TD lives in the area, it can't be as bad as perceived by some - given said TD could afford to live anywhere in the city.
    Said TD is also from the south side but that didn't stop them moving to northside like it appears to be stopping a few.


  • Options
    #401
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users Posts: 2,846 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    Deeec wrote: »
    Council should be buying these houses. The cost for them to do it up to a reasonable standard is minimal. The house would perfectly suit a working family with low income that need social housing and bring new life to rural areas.

    There is lots of people who would love to live remotely but the cost of buying, getting planning permission and renovating is a turn off.

    Its not worthwhile for the council .

    Even finding the workers would be difficult . Even if you find them it will take a few months for at the earliest for one house to be completed .

    How long would 1,000 houses take


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    C14N
    Registered Users Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    I didn't say it's anywhere in Dublin, there are many areas in Dublin that you can rent cheaply and buy cheaply, but because couples buying think the areas have bad names and so wont' touch them even if they are within a stones throw of the city center - let me do a very quick search on myhome.ie for some said homes:

    3 bedroom house with room for extension - Luas within walking distance and reasonably price. If this was on he south side - it would be 500k+

    https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/18-mulroy-road-cabra-dublin-7/4497125

    Here's a 4 bedroom for 380K
    https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/243-carnlough-road-cabra-dublin-7/4499320


    Why aren't these houses going for 500k plus given their on the Luas line, given their stones throw from city center? If there is this demand for houses - then they wouldn't have a price point this low. Is it simply because their address is Cabra? Let's not forget the leader of SF lives in Cabra after all.

    Similarly in many parts of the Dublin north side that are within a bus journey to the city center you can get good houses in nice locations for a fraction of what they would be on the other side of the liffey. - Artane, Donnycarney etc.

    If demand is outstripping supply like the media outcry that exists then you would never get a 3 bed house in dublin for that price. The reality is buyers want to live in certain locations and are driving prices in those areas through the roof, while in other areas houses are priced reasonable.

    IMO the media/opposition parties are running with the notion that there aren't enough houses/properties in Ireland. The reality is different - the properties are there - north and south of the liffey, however they are not either in area some buyers want, nor are they luxury houses - they might need a bit of work, and people aren't prepared to even consider that.

    Those houses both seem reasonable enough to me, but still have to bear in mind that for a first-time-buyer, without an exemption you would need a combined income of around €100k to buy that. That might be reasonable where a couple are both high-skilled workers but most people will not have a combined income that high.


  • Options
    #403
    C14N
    Registered Users Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Yes but itseems no cities with Irish population growth, Irish level wages and Irish level planning/building regulations. Happy to be disproven

    I really think this is the main issue, but, at least in theory, it can be changed. While Dublin has a growing population, I don't think it's really the case that it has been exceptionally explosive, and it could probably be eased if we could build faster and denser.


  • Options
    #404
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    selassie wrote: »
    Pic attached from FT about housing land "shortage" in England. Probably a similar case here.

    Article: https://amp.ft.com/content/b2cd5d2e-83bf-4a04-8a40-dc114c5a25b7?__twitter_impression=true

    The FT would support a free market solution but allowing no zoning isn’t a good fix for this. Dublin would just gobble up Meath.


  • Options
    #405
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    Plus in most other cities people will buy to suit their needs.
    In Ireland everyone wants a 3 bed in the city with a garden as their first house.
    Even single buyers.

    They want that because.

    1) the average age of first buyer is 34, so they probably have a family
    2) Irish apartments are not fit for purpose for families.


  • Options
    #406
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Deeec wrote: »
    Council should be buying these houses. The cost for them to do it up to a reasonable standard is minimal. The house would perfectly suit a working family with low income that need social housing and bring new life to rural areas.

    There is lots of people who would love to live remotely but the cost of buying, getting planning permission and renovating is a turn off.

    The cost of getting these houses to the standard required for modern living would be prohibitive. Even if they got the houses for nothing!


  • Options
    #407
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,136 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    The funny(sad) thing is that those buying these expensive houses and bidding prices only need to look back 15 years to see what can go wrong - but it's like they are caught up in the moment because society tells them that they have to buy a family home, and be near family and friends. The funny thing is that we literally have tens of thousands of people living on the commute belt, yet others seem to think this can't be a realistic solution if you work in Dublin.

    But this is why people are loathe to buy in an area they dont want to end up in long term, if the market crashes they will be stuck in negative equity in a place they dont want to be.


  • Options
    #408
    Ace2007
    Registered Users Posts: 19,705 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    GreeBo wrote: »
    But this is why people are loathe to buy in an area they dont want to end up in long term, if the market crashes they will be stuck in negative equity in a place they dont want to be.

    Would you prefer to be in an area that wasn't your dream and be struggling a littler or being in your dream area but up to your neck in debt in a recession?

    The difference could be 100+ additional debt.


  • Options
    #409
    C14N
    Registered Users Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    fvp4 wrote: »
    The FT would support a free market solution but allowing no zoning isn’t a good fix for this. Dublin would just gobble up Meath.

    From what I can tell, zoning is more often a problem because it prevents building housing in certain locations that aren't zoned for housing, or prevents the possibility of increasing density when large areas are zoned specifically for low-density housing. Imo, zoning laws should generally be pretty limited and should only be used for things like preserving common green areas, or preventing hazardous manufacturing in certain places, not for things like mandating that people aren't allowed to live near shops or restaurants, or that a certaian area has to have low-density housing forever, although I'm not sure how strict Dublin's zoning is on things like that.


  • Options
    #410
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,008 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    Would you prefer to be in an area that wasn't your dream and be struggling a littler or being in your dream area but up to your neck in debt in a recession?

    The difference could be 100+ additional debt.

    Negative equity is meaningless if you dont intend to sell.

    It's a problem if you bought as "starter home" and intended to sell and move on later in life, but if you bought your "forever home" then negative equity isnt an issue. You keep paying your mortgage, equity is meaningless.

    Thats actually more of a reason to buy the more expensive "dream house".


  • Options
    #411
    Browney7
    Registered Users Posts: 3,100 ✭✭✭Browney7


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    If a TD lives in the area, it can't be as bad as perceived by some - given said TD could afford to live anywhere in the city.
    Said TD is also from the south side but that didn't stop them moving to northside like it appears to be stopping a few.

    Said TD does not live off the Faussagh avenue in Cabra West that's for sure!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,136 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    Would you prefer to be in an area that wasn't your dream and be struggling a littler or being in your dream area but up to your neck in debt in a recession?

    The difference could be 100+ additional debt.

    Its only "debt" if you need to sell up and move though.

    Would you prefer to be in a home that was two small for your family (such as a 1/2 bed apartment) in an area you didnt want to live in and be in negative equity?

    You shouldn't be up to your neck in debt, recession or otherwise.


  • Options
    #413
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Deeec wrote: »
    Council should be buying these houses. The cost for them to do it up to a reasonable standard is minimal. The house would perfectly suit a working family with low income that need social housing and bring new life to rural areas.

    There is lots of people who would love to live remotely but the cost of buying, getting planning permission and renovating is a turn off.

    the standards demanded for leasing is very high so the cost of bringing them up to meet regulations is anything but minimal

    anyway its a black hole of investment for local authorities as they cant evict , better to leave the risk factor to private capital , half the rent paid to private landlords goes back to the exchequer anyway , the cost of those long term leases is over estimated by many and the cost of the state owning said properties underestimated


  • Options
    #414
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,505 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    This thread is drifting very much back to the topics covered in the main thread. If there is no more specific discussion of the article linked in the OP, please return to the main thread


  • Options
    #415
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,136 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    C14N wrote: »
    I completely disagree that it's entitled to feel like half of the most populous county shouldn't be off-limits to anyone who isn't in their 40s or older.
    It's the most populous country ergo its in the most demand, how do you suggest prices are kept low if it has the most demand in the state?


  • Options
    #416
    Flinty997
    Registered Users Posts: 11,902 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    I can't read the full article. But I would I mostly disagree with it. Housing and property isn't one market. It's made up of very different markets. Also housing can be vacant for many valid reasons. So it's just a load of sweeping generalisations that can't possibly be true. Supply and demand is a multi faceted issue. Lumping it all together is just meaningless sound bites.

    As for this thread, people have unrealistic expectations and are mostly unwilling to compromise. I do agree with the article in that the media and commentators are mostly telling people what they want to hear. Forums in general especially boards, is like minded people (bias even) taking themselves into a frenzy. Usually no balance. .

    I've stopped reading the indo I feel the articles generally have an agenda.


  • Options
    #417
    Flinty997
    Registered Users Posts: 11,902 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    GreeBo wrote: »
    It's the most populous country ergo its in the most demand, how do you suggest prices are kept low if it has the most demand in the state?

    There is a global trend of urbanisation. That said as a country we've had one Govt after another disproportionally focused on pushing all activity to Dublin for decades. Its has so much momentum now it's probably irreversible.

    Articles like the one on the OP. Just ignore this.


  • Options
    #418
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,847 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Flinty997 wrote: »
    I can't read the full article. But I would I mostly disagree with it. Housing and property isn't one market. It's made up of very different markets. Also housing can be vacant for many valid reasons. So it's just a load of sweeping generalisations that can't possibly be true. Supply and demand is a multi faceted issue. Lumping it all together is just meaningless sound bites.

    As for this thread, people have unrealistic expectations and are mostly unwilling to compromise. I do agree with the article in that the media and commentators are mostly telling people what they want to hear. Forums in general especially boards, is like minded people (bias even) taking themselves into a frenzy. Usually no balance. .

    I've stopped reading the indo I feel the articles generally have an agenda.

    Amazing how many people disagree with an article they have not read in full.

    Which sort of proves his point that we need to be able to think differently to solve the housing crisis. Too many people are blinkered.


  • Options
    #419
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,595 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    C14N wrote: »
    I really think this is the main issue, but, at least in theory, it can be changed. While Dublin has a growing population, I don't think it's really the case that it has been exceptionally explosive, and it could probably be eased if we could build faster and denser.

    I would say yes and no.
    image.png


  • Options
    #420
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    schmittel wrote: »
    Amazing how many people disagree with an article they have not read in full.

    Which sort of proves his point that we need to be able to think differently to solve the housing crisis. Too many people are blinkered.

    Amazing that you can post a link to a paywall and then critique people who couldn't read your link, for disagreeing with your unreadable link, even though you ( claim to) have summarised it. Not that I saw any solutions here either just a list of supposed "myths".

    And your second sentence is a non-sequitur.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    Flinty997
    Registered Users Posts: 11,902 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    schmittel wrote: »
    Amazing how many people disagree with an article they have not read in full.

    Which sort of proves his point that we need to be able to think differently to solve the housing crisis. Too many people are blinkered.

    You can see the main points and most of it is discussed here endlessly for years. There is nothing new in any of this, and it's a repeat of what happened in London and similar.

    New thinking..."Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."

    https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/learning_from_history.html

    None of this unique to this generation or this country. Those that tell you it is. Are telling you want you want to hear.


Advertisement