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*

1842843845847848943

Comments

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




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


    I think the first proper housing targets were launched in September 2021 under ‘housing for all’.

    The targets have been exceeded in each of 2022, 2023. 2024 likely to come in line

    2022 target 24.6, actual 29.8

    2023 target 29, actual 32

    2024 target 33, estimated 30-35

    Funny how all the top comments when government announced new targets, top liked comments on every article were ‘more targets they won’t hit’….facts be damned!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 461 ✭✭Rooks




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 929 ✭✭✭Mr Disco


    quite the opposite. Trump will force a peace with Ukraine giving up land and our Ukrainian ‘guests’ can return home



  • Posts: 12,836 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Or it simply suggests they don't believe its feasible to build more than that in 5 years. They'll struggle to even hit that target.



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


    I'd say that Ukraine will wrapped up in the next few months, probably with a peace treaty just as good as the one that was refused back in March of 2022. I'm sure all those young men that died or were crippled to stretch out a needless war are happy to have made the sacrifice.

    Regardless, what will be interesting is whether Ukrainians will be sent home once peace is declared. I suspect not.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    EU states need growth, they will be secretly happy to keep all Ukrainians

    "They will pay our pensions" - infrastructure be damned



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


    Yet one more way that the infinite growth model will ruin us.

    Maybe if Westerners thought more about the futures of our own children and grandchildren and less about pensions we would be better off.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Of course, I forgot that politicians' election pledges are famous for what they believe to be feasible.



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


    There’s also the practical side. If there is a big deficit of, let’s say 5-10 years regular annual demand. You have to make a call on over what period you want to close the gap. If you ramp up production to double annual demand in short term, you can close the gap in 5-10 years.

    Im sure that’s what some people would want, but it’s just not practical or even sensible. Doubling your construction workforce and then halving it again within a 10 year span is just silly.

    Seems gov are aiming for regular annual demand plus a small bit and closing any existing deficit (whatever that number) in a much more gradual & sustainable way.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,411 ✭✭✭j62


    Can we get back to discussing housing and leave posts about politics and immigration {which ignore the warnings made in OP} in appropriate forums?

    These drowned out the interesting posts higher up with actual data



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 461 ✭✭Rooks


    That's why I asked that question. It was interesting to see that their planned estimates weren't out of range back then.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I think the targets are fine, I've no complaints about them, but that's because I don't believe there is a deficit, or if there is, it is relatively small and will be fairly comfortably dealt with by these targets.

    Point I was making is that I think it is telling that the government are essentially ignoring the Housing Commission's figures. So did the ESRI recently.

    The HC figures are absurd, and are only cited by those seeking to stoke the scaremongering.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Yes, and I'm in agreement with DataDude that it is nonsense to peddle the myth that the targets were not hit.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 461 ✭✭Rooks




  • Posts: 12,836 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I don't think this thread (or boards itself) is remotely busy enough to kill pretty relevant discussions..



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I was referring to DataDude's point "top liked comments on every article were ‘more targets they won’t hit’"

    I am assuming he's correct in this, certainly sounds plausible, but TBH I've no idea.



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


    It is not possible to discuss housing without discussing immigration, for the housing crisis is directly created by the surge in population in recent years. The OP's warning on this matter was unenforceable because it was asking people to discuss a matter whilst ignoring the full picture.

    Regarding the posts on build completions, I agree that they highlight important data. However if one considers 50k houses built in a year to be important, then they must also look to the figure of 100k NET immigration in the same year.

    I understand that some people don't like discussing immigration, but if solutions are to be found for a problem, one must deal with reality as it is and not how one wishes it to be.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    It's completely pointless to be discussing government targets when everyone knows they were far too low

    In 2000 we had double the output with relatively the same construction employees. In addition we are 4 years into an ovversupply of commercial property currently

    Further to this no penalties have been introduced for people that leave housing stock empty/fall into Dereliction

    FFG will always prioritise those that have property over the people that don't

    100 years of governance and this has never changed



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


    It doesn't "suggest the government don't believe the Housing Commission claims". It shows the government has no faith in their ability to ramp up construction above 60k a year this decade.

    The housing goals are set based on what the government thinks its likely to be able to meet, so it can claim political victory - not on what the country actually needs.

    The target for 2023 was a paltry 29k like, in a year where our population grew by over 100k, and years into the very obvious housing crisis. Anyone could tell you that target wasn't actually based on the maths of real world housing need, but instead on what the government believed it could actually hit.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Anyone could tell you that target wasn't actually based on the maths of real world housing need

    The maths of real world housing need is exactly my point.

    The Housing Commission's calculations of a 250k deficit in 2022 mathematically means that well over 500k people were not housed according to their needs. That's over 10% of the population.

    That's a huge chunk of people that nobody is able to identify who they are in total. Homeless and excess of adults living either at home or in houseshares doesn't even account for 100k of the 500k.

    So, if you're so confident of the simple maths of real world housing need, who are these approximately 400k people and where are they currently living, if it not housed according to their needs?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,699 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    My issue is with the targets. Each target is half what is should be, so each year the govt is falling further behind the actual number that should be delivered.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    There are 14000 in emergency accommodation.

    And 440,000 young adults still living at home with parents.

    Not to mention the number who emigrate due to the housing crisis - just because we don't have 500k rough sleepers does not mean the demand or need for 200k+ houses/apartments does not exist.

    https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2024/0620/1446576-ireland-young-adults-living-at-home-parents-cso-statistics-housing/



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


    That’s just hindsight bias combined with an insane lack of realism.

    When the targets were set in year 2021 the annual net migration was 21k. Irelands population had grown by an average of 57k per year over the previous decade. 30k houses at 2.3 household size was a very sensible target, would have met new demand and slowly/sensible cleared any latent demand…however…6 months after the target was set Russia invaded Ukraine (how could they not foresee it!!) and we’ve had back to back year of 100k population growth (you can have a seperate argument over whether this was managed rightly or wrongly, not one I’m interested in getting involved in). Either way it was pretty much unprecedented and pretty unlikely to be sustained.

    Secondly context at the time matters. Ireland had come from a base building about 5,000 houses a year from 2009-2015. It was at about 20k by 2017. Aiming for over 65% uplift to 33k by 2024 was incredibly ambitious when you consider how long illiquid the supply of housing can be.

    Thirdly the number being built are literally some of the highest in the world. Doubling them again would just be stratospherically high targets.

    If someone in a position of responsibility for delivery published a report in 2021 saying we should aim for 60k home completions per year over the next 3 years like you’ve suggested, they should have been immediately fired. It would have been nonsensical at the time.

    Post edited by DataDude on


  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    From your RTE link:

    Census 2022 told us that over 440,000 young adults were living with their parents, up 13% from Census 2016. This accounts for 41% of people aged between 18 and 34 in Census 2022. In Census 2016, 37% of this cohort lived at home and it was 32% in Census 2011.

    I said the excess of adults living with their parents. There has always been a number of adults who have lived with parents for various reasons and always will be.

    In measuring any deficit or pent up demand the "maths of real world housing need" would only deal with the excess over the long term average.



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


    The idea that doubling our current housing out to building 60k housing units a year in Ireland is a "stratospherically high target" is absolutely insane, and has no basis in reality.

    Number one, most importantly, because its very clearly needed given the housing crisis and our now consistent yearly population population growth.

    But number two also simply because we have a history of building per capita far, far more than 30k a year. Its eminently achievable.

    In 2023 that goal of 29k housing units for a population of 5.1mn compares to our actually completed historically:

    88k housing units completed in 2005 when we had a population of 4.1mn, or the per capita equivalent of approx 110k units in 2023

    27k housing units completed in 1975, when we had a population of 3.2mn, or the per capita equivalent of 45k housing units in 2023

    In 1975, when we were one of the poorest, most backward countries in Europe, riddled with planning corruption, with negative population growth due to sky high immigration, we could build the per capita equivalent of 150% of the houses we're building now at a time of incredible wealth, so much tax revenue the government can't spend it, and runaway population growth. Thats a complete and utter failure of governmental housing policy.

    And the housing crisis didn't just begin in 2023 - its been ongoing for a decade now. Nobody would have gotten fired for suggesting a target of 60k housing units a year in 2021, they would have been applauded for actually being realistic and trying to resolve the crisis.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,699 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    All of that is true, but cost of housing was increasing rapidly and supply was restricted all the way back to 2015. People were protesting rising homelessness when I moved to Dublin in 2016 and it was tough to find decent accommodation.

    ESRI reported that over 60 thousand people were on the housing list in 2021. This has been a problem for a decade, so the person setting targets in 2021 was already at least 5 years behind the curve, and that's only gotten worse since.

    You're right that it's not realistic to expect 60k completions, but an acknowledgement from the government that their housing targets are completely meaningless and they have completely failed to contain the issue for over a decade would be a start.



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


    They didn't fail as such. Rather, they didn't try to contain the problem. Everything that the state has done for the last decade has exacerbated the housing crisis. From lockdowns, money printing, immigration and letting in investment funds, prices have gone up and up year on year. It would be credulous to believe that anyone is this incompetent.

    However let's not fool ourselves that this is just because of the actions of civil servants and politicians. I would say that a majority or people here want their house to be worth more, and I doubt that they care too much about the consequences.

    Post edited by RichardAnd on


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


    You're wrong about a majority of people in Ireland wanting continuous house price increases. 69% of the population would support a significant drop in the price of houses, including even 63% of home owners. Only 20% would oppose a drop in prices[1] .

    Most people in this country are either renters, or only own the property they live in. In either scenario they don't really benefit from the rapid increase in home prices.

    But they do experience the negative side effects - either directly in being priced out of the market to buy / having to get a larger mortgage, indirectly in the local community through a lack of teachers or gardai, professionally themselves when their company can't hire staff because of the housing market, or socially through their friends, relatives or children not being able to buy/rent.

    On top of that most Irish people are also fundamentally good people still, they don't like seeing 15,000 homeless people, 5000 homeless kids, 500,000 young people forced to live in their parents houses in their 30s etc - they want everyone to have the opportunity to buy their own home for a reasonable price if they work hard.

    Our current government though yes absolutely - they say otherwise in interviews, but the policies over the last decade now have all been very clearly aimed to do one thing - to increase house prices.

    There are too many instantly effective policies (like raising stamp duty significantly for foreign buyers as discussed here recently) they could implement overnight, which they haven't/won't, for no explainable reason.

    Its gone well beyond incompetence at this stage, its now very obvious deliberate.

    [1]https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/poll-sinn-feins-300000-house-price-gamble-pays-off/a382993578.html



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    500,000 young people forced to live in their parents houses in their 30s etc

    This is total and absolute nonsense. Absurd stuff.

    See post above about your "maths of real world housing need".



Advertisement
Advertisement