Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

1795796798800801943

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,453 ✭✭✭Icepick


    not surprising

    HTB requires new builds and 70+% LTV. In Dublin, the cheapest new home you can buy is 400k, generally a 1-bed or a 2-bed if outside of the city, so need a salary of at least 70k.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Average is a very different, much less relevant, figure to median. If you don't understand the difference between the two it explains a lot.



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


    I highlighted that it was average and not median in my post. Is that the best you have got?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,035 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Increasingly our taxes and state assets are being used to "assist" Middle to upper income range population cope with unsustainable prices and increase the wealth of asset owners

    This is not sustainable, another term of FFG will be a disaster for the economy

    He points to the new Land Development Agency cost-rental scheme in Citywest. There, tenants are being charged €1,390 for a one-bedroom, €1,580 for a two-bedroom and €1,750 for a three-bedroom



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,132 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    I think it's not that surprising. Many people are not getting married or having children anymore. Given the state of the place, and little hope for improvement, the question of "why bother?" isn't entirely unreasonable.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭chalky_ie


    I don't think you've ever had a decent take in this thread.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,132 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    It's a 210 bed "co-living" scheme. In other-words, it's a modern-day tenement, and we know precisely what the state would love to do with that.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 350 ✭✭SpoonyMcSpoon


    There is a huge fallacy here; Ireland is a country of home ownership. This is the policy of the State enacted by our governments. We do not have a developed rental market for a reason and it is because the policy is for people to buy their own home. As a result, all houses within Dublin city should be affordable for people earning Dublin salaries but unfortunately existing homeowners have hijacked policy and directed resources to inflating their own house prices which makes the home ownership policy a pipe dream in Dublin for people that work there. The same people cheering on “housing for me but not for thee” policies see also blocking rental developments and public transport expansions through their Dublin villages. Now we are effectively seeing gaslighting with these “affordable homes” with posts such as yours. Quite simply, attitudes such as yours do not see a housing crisis - as you do not think house prices are severely overvalued in Ireland because it would probably mean that your own house is overvalued significantly!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭chalky_ie


    This doesn't really make any sense, the house prices in Dublin are a result of rapid development in terms of industry there(tech and pharma mostly), the overall change in nature of Ireland as a country, from a developing nation to an advanced one, and finally the cost of building. These are the main drivers for house prices, you can't just stop these things from happening in isolation to solve the problem. If they built a heap more houses, they would still cost what they cost to build, the developer would still need to make a profit on them, and the average joe still wouldn't be able to buy one on their 50k salary.

    Can you name any major cities in the developed world that have solved this issue without just pushing low earners further from the centre? Dublin is no different, only in size, meaning that the centre is basically most of the county.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 350 ✭✭SpoonyMcSpoon


    As I said, Ireland is a country of home ownership and therefore neglects its rental market in terms of renter protection and ensuring an adequate supply of suitable rentals for all types of tenants. This is on purpose and is what is accepted since the primary goal in our housing market is to have people own their own home. The government has literally inflated house prices and decreased supply of homes to buy on purpose in an almost criminal act and in defiance of a stated home ownership policy. There is no other city to compare Dublin with in Europe for its size as renting is more common in cities which are typically brought up so you can’t compare. Seeing houses in Coolock at the top of an affordability ceiling for most potential first time buyers despite being brought to market “below market price” (which we know is artificially inflated by political intervention) is a catastrophic failure of policy and dereliction of duty from FF and FG who have ensured this state of affairs.

    “Fine Gael is the party of home ownership” - how is €450k for houses in Coolock supposed to ensure people can access homes to buy?

    https://www.finegael.ie/housing/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 350 ✭✭SpoonyMcSpoon


    The irony as well with the local NIMBYs there being traditionally seen as “working class”!

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,325 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    You should spend a little more time reading posts rather than writing your own ranting ones.

    Or are you of the opinion that it is normal and expected that houses in Coolock should be priced beyond the means of 100k+ earners?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 350 ✭✭SpoonyMcSpoon


    I am stating that there should be a minimum level of housing affordability within Dublin where anyone with reasonable income can afford to buy and seeing €450k new builds in Coolock being championed as being affordable is a p1sstake when €100k is needed to afford those houses and these are supposed to be below market! When €100k is seen as the breadline when it comes to buying a house, that is a catastrophic failure in housing policy that supposedly aims to achieve home ownership!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,325 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Go back and read what you are responding to.

    I replied to another poster who appeared to have the position that houses in Coolock should be that price due to their "closeness' to the city. In that reply I mentioned that it isn't all that close in reality for the size of Dublin. In addition, if the poster thought that Coolock should be beyond a 100k (unsubsidised) person, then I asked how far out they'd expect a teacher to have to go.

    That chain of back and forth started when I said it was ridiculous that people on 100k were considered as needing subsidies to buy a house in Coolock. You then took issue with that and said

    Quite simply, attitudes such as yours do not see a housing crisis - as you do not think house prices are severely overvalued in Ireland because it would probably mean that your own house is overvalued significantly!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 350 ✭✭SpoonyMcSpoon


    Sorry, yeah. I meant to reply to Data Dude who was seemingly trying to justify the Coolock houses by comparing Dublin to other European cities.

    Dublin cannot be compared to other cities as Ireland has a stated aim for achieving home ownership whereas other European cities are geared more for renting. Our own rental market also reflects that home ownership is the goal with its lack of tenant protections, lack of supply of family apartments and lack of storage within apartments - Irish apartments are only for short term living as people should be buying a home after renting is what the government are stating. Therefore, it is totally irrelevant to compare the Irish housing market with other countries and we can rightly call out BS when it comes to the Coolock houses which take at least €100k in income to afford!

    Otherwise, when defending it I think people should be honest and admit they are happy with the current housing situation in Ireland because they are benefitting from it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Ireland does not have a functioning rental market (agreed). Therefore Ireland should be able to produce abundant affordable housing in its capital city, which no other country in the world has managed to do….if only it were that simple.

    It’s a nice idea but it’s just not going to happen. Anyone who tells you it is is selling a pipe dream.

    Fixing the rental market is a much more realistic aim.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,132 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    "It’s a nice idea but it’s just not going to happen. Anyone who tells you it is is selling a pipe dream."

    This. I'm really tired of hearing that the problems Ireland faces have easy fixes or that they may be fixed "overnight". They cannot. The pension collectors, wastrels, crooks and lunatics that are running this investment fund with a flag have sailed the ship to the edge of a waterfall, and there's no easy way out. The only genuine solutions are unpalatable to most people, and none of them come without a cost.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,035 ✭✭✭Villa05


    In a survey of build costs released this week 2 cities on the same island 150km apart came top and bottom of the table

    Are we striving with taxpayers money to make the problem worse or better?

    If we agreed to stop making the situation worse that would be a significant step forward.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,035 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Election year, time to make those stats look better than they actually are add in a 5billion spending and tax cut budget. Inflation, How are you

    Source Sunday Business Post

    finance officials told McGrath that figures indicating that there were 53,000 commencements in the twelve months to April 2024 were “highly skewed and of diminished usefulness” for measuring the level of housebuilding in the state.The spike in April was “very likely” due to the high level of submissions of commencement notices ahead of an April 24 deadline for builders to avail of a development levy waiver and water connection charge rebate. The deadline was subsequently extended

    How are prices continually increasing when significant costs are removed. Electorate taken for fools

    Dejavu



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,620 ✭✭✭combat14


    deleted

    Post edited by combat14 on


  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If you are asking why the selling prices are increasing even though costs are lower, I suspect the answer lies both in demand, and the number of people who continue to be able to afford new houses. I haven’t seen any property remaining unsold, have you?

    If you are asking why building costs remain high, it is because there is more to building than development levies and water connection charges.

    Comparing costs in different jurisdictions is never a precise indicator, differing economies and construction sectors are of course going to through up price disparities.

    And datadude’s viewpoint is a fair one to make, a new build so close to the centre of any capital city is going to be more expensive. Consideration should be given to the relative affordability for the location and proximity, rather than just affordability.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭chalky_ie


    People see Coolock from a subjective view and lose the plot over the price, in reality it's relatively close to the city centre, and a lot of the people buying in places like Coolock are not from Dublin, or even Ireland, and don't have a pre-conceived notion of what price point that area should be.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Close to the city center of any city in of itself doesn't mean property is in a nice area and deserving of a high price. Plenty of areas much closer than Coolock, within walking distance of inner city cores, are poverty riddled. Most of Dublin 1 being a prime local example.

    In a fully rational housing market it obviously shouldn't be this way - all the property within walking distance, or a 10min commute, of a city center should be prime real estate. But thats not how things work in the real world. Killiney has, is deserving of, far higher property prices than East Wall for example.



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I would have thought a fully rational thinker would understand that inner city areas are not immune from social problems. Where would you move those poverty riddled occupants to if Dublin 1 was redeveloped into an affluent area for high income earners?

    Make no mistake, the inner city area you refer to is indeed prime real estate, the problem with making it what you think it should be, is getting all the current inhabitants out, so those high price homes you think should be there, can be built for you young guns.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,040 ✭✭✭pearcider


    You know when people are trying to justify people earning hundred grand a year only being able to afford a gaf in Coolock that we are near the top of the market.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Dublin 1 is empirically not prime real estate in the housing market, as the current property prices per sqm vs actual prime real estate in Dublin show very cleary.

    The social problems are exactly why its not prime real estate. And why neither is Coolock.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭chalky_ie


    It's 2024, the country is not the same as it was in 2007, there isn't a hope this is 'the top' and there is some impending collapse coming.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,040 ✭✭✭pearcider


    Keep telling yourself that. Property, like everything else, goes in cycles. If you look at price history from 2012 to now you can see the accumulation phase from 2013-2021 and then the bull trap from 2022-2023 you can even see the “double top” with the first peak in 2022 and we are about to make the second peak now. Housing supply hit an all time low in March 2024 but is rising steadily now. It’s an 18 year cycle. You’d be a fool to buy now. Unemployment is rising and more supply is coming to the market next year. Potential buyers should be patient, conserve their capital and credit. And their job.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,132 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Nonsense. Until we see people on 150K a year struggling to buy a fixer-upper in rural Cavan, we won't even be scratching the top of the market! I think another few hundred billion in funny money and maybe another lockdown is what's needed to fatten up those pension funds.

    Jokes aside, we have to be close to some sort of an asset bubble. Twenty years ago, money was generally discussed in the billions, but now the word "trillion" is being thrown about. For how much longer can this continue before something breaks?



Advertisement
Advertisement