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

ESRI report - we are not overcooked, but house prices will rise 20% by 2020

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭The Student


    Interested Observer wrote: »
    I'm not looking in the leafy suburbs anyway but I am also not going to look at a 1 bed as within 12-18 months it's more than likely we'll have a baby on the way, it makes absolutely no sense to me to buy small and then move in such a short period of time. I would say it's the same for a lot of couples, kids tend to follow marriage pretty sharply.

    Based on one of your previous posts you referenced friends in their 30's so I made an assumption you were in your 30's also.

    On the assumption you are in your 30's (and I apologize if I am wrong) then you like most of us would have left home (or liked to) somewhere in your early to mid 20's.

    At which point a single bedroom property would be ideal for you and a partner. Then as your relationship progresses and as you say marriage and children you would be at the point of needing to upsize.

    if we had a proper functioning market you would have bought a single bedroom property, held it for 5 or so years then traded up. At the other end of the spectrum you could have the mature people who are living in properties to big for them who could downsize to the one bed property you lived in.

    In an ideal functioning market this is what would happen, but with our dysfunctional system of social welfare and our entitlement culture it is the likes of you and I who suffer.


  • Options
    #33
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,051 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    The Student wrote: »
    Based on one of your previous posts you referenced friends in their 30's so I made an assumption you were in your 30's also.

    On the assumption you are in your 30's (and I apologize if I am wrong) then you like most of us would have left home (or liked to) somewhere in your early to mid 20's.

    At which point a single bedroom property would be ideal for you and a partner. Then as your relationship progresses and as you say marriage and children you would be at the point of needing to upsize.

    if we had a proper functioning market you would have bought a single bedroom property, held it for 5 or so years then traded up. At the other end of the spectrum you could have the mature people who are living in properties to big for them who could downsize to the one bed property you lived in.

    In an ideal functioning market this is what would happen, but with our dysfunctional system of social welfare and our entitlement culture it is the likes of you and I who suffer.

    Your assumptions are all correct, I am in my 30s and I left home in my early/mid 20s initially. I don't disagree with your assessment above (it wouldn't have fit my personal situation due to our work locations but that's just me), but I also am not entirely sure how it solves the problem we're in now which is a shortage of family homes. You'll still have all these recently married couples looking for a house to bring up kids in.


  • Options
    #34
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,016 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    The Student wrote: »
    In an ideal functioning market this is what would happen, but with our dysfunctional system of social welfare and our entitlement culture it is the likes of you and I who suffer.

    we really need to move on from all this 'the market' stuff, nothing but neoclassical rubbish, a theory that doesnt include human behaviour into its models and in fact assumes ''rational expectations' when the utopian idea of 'equilibrium' is reached! :rolleyes: i suspect our housing problems have very little to do with the actions of 'the entitled'!


  • Options
    #35
    Beta Ray Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,580 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    flas wrote: »
    Not all situations are the same, it could take you just an extra 40 minutes. Example my own.brother and partner were living in lucan,both working in city,one on baggot street other in Smithfield, it took my brother well over
    1 hour and 10 minutes to get from lucan to Smithfield everyday with traffic on Dublin bus.

    They moved back down to longford,he asked for a start time of hour earlier, they were paying €1200 a month rent on a 1 bed shoe box apartment, they bought a big house,used to be a b+b, got it for €105,000, put a small bit of money modernizing it and doing it up the way they wanted, they have a beautiful home with absolutely huge front and back gardens,on the outskirts of town and their mortgage is under half of what they were paying a month on rent,it takes him from door to door 1 hour 30 minutes to work, and the simple change of starting 1 hour earlier and finishing 1 hour earlier means he misses most traffic. For his house now in Dublin would cost up on 1 million,especially with the size of grounds it came with.its about quality of life at the end of the day.

    1 hour 30 minutes door to door from Longford to Baggot Street, he must be driving (At pace)
    Bus is 2 hours 30 mins from Longford to Dublin.

    If he's driving he has a toll to pay too, plus fuel, plus wear and tear on the car plus parking Unless he has a work car park spot. (Given that will never amount to the saving he's made buying a house in Longford)

    Luncan, like Blanch, Clondalkin and Tallaght is one of these commuter towns that was built with absolutely no thought put into "How are people going to get from here, into Dublin City Centre?"

    At least Tallaght and Clondalkin have the Luas now (20 years after the Towns were built!!!!!)


  • Options
    #36
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,042 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    The Student wrote: »
    On the assumption you are in your 30's (and I apologize if I am wrong) then you like most of us would have left home (or liked to) somewhere in your early to mid 20's.

    At which point a single bedroom property would be ideal for you and a partner
    I don't understand why one bed apartments are considered "ideal". I left home at 18 and have never lived alone. It simply never occurred to me that this would be possible or pleasant. We are social creatures (even the antisocial ones).

    More practically, one bed apartments are not a very efficient use of space. 45sqm for one person is fairly cramped. 180sqm for 4 people is very spacious.

    I suppose it's just an extension of the individuality creep we've seen over the past century since the creation of the modern welfare state. It seems to be what people want, but I doubt it's what people need.

    edit: I appreciate you're proposing a one bed for two people, which is obvs quite efficient.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    MrMorooka
    Registered Users Posts: 710 ✭✭✭MrMorooka


    The_Conductor wrote: »

    The EU Commission have another delegation coming over here in 2 weeks time to showcase how not to manage planning (to another Polish delegation).

    Have you got a link on this?


  • Options
    #38
    flas
    Registered Users Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭flas


    grahambo wrote: »
    1 hour 30 minutes door to door from Longford to Baggot Street, he must be driving (At pace)
    Bus is 2 hours 30 mins from Longford to Dublin.

    If he's driving he has a toll to pay too, plus fuel, plus wear and tear on the car plus parking Unless he has a work car park spot. (Given that will never amount to the saving he's made buying a house in Longford)

    Luncan, like Blanch, Clondalkin and Tallaght is one of these commuter towns that was built with absolutely no thought put into "How are people going to get from here, into Dublin City Centre?"

    At least Tallaght and Clondalkin have the Luas now (20 years after the Towns were built!!!!!)

    Its 1 hour 30 minutes longford to Smithfield,and its not exactly flying the whole way...its a 2 hours 30 minutes on the bus that goes to the airport first then goes into the city,there are a few buses,but most who commute just use the train,there are 3 trains that leave longford and get to Connolly before 8:50 everyday. The longest train takes 2 hours but normal train takes 1 hour 40 minutes,its longer when it has to stop at all commuter stations,he doesnt have to stop once and is on motorway or dual carriage way most of the journey.


  • Options
    #39
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,051 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    I know not everybody can do it (physically able, need showers in work, etc), but a lot of these commuting woes could be solved by cycling. I would bet my non-existent house that for people living within about 10-15km of the city centre and commuting at rush hour that cycling would be the quickest way for them to get to work.


  • Options
    #40
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,042 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Interested Observer wrote: »
    I know not everybody can do it (physically able, need showers in work, etc), but a lot of these commuting woes could be solved by cycling. I would bet my non-existent house that for people living within about 10-15km of the city centre and commuting at rush hour that cycling would be the quickest way for them to get to work.
    Showers are simply not required to enable commuter cycling. That's mostly an idea held on to by people who simply don't want to cycle, along with "it's too dangerous" and "Ireland has the wrong climate".

    Still, you can't cycle to work in Dublin from Longford, so I'm not sure it really solves "a lot of these commuting woes". Cycling mostly just relieves pressure on other short distance transport options.


  • Options
    #41
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭The Student


    Lumen wrote: »
    I don't understand why one bed apartments are considered "ideal". I left home at 18 and have never lived alone. It simply never occurred to me that this would be possible or pleasant. We are social creatures (even the antisocial ones).

    More practically, one bed apartments are not a very efficient use of space. 45sqm for one person is fairly cramped. 180sqm for 4 people is very spacious.

    I suppose it's just an extension of the individuality creep we've seen over the past century since the creation of the modern welfare state. It seems to be what people want, but I doubt it's what people need.

    edit: I appreciate you're proposing a one bed for two people, which is obvs quite efficient.

    In the main young people (at least when I was in my late teens to mid 20's) didn't spend much time at home. I used it just to sleep in. One bed apartments could be built specifically for these purposes.

    We are now getting around to building purpose built student accommodation which is a start.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,051 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    Lumen wrote: »
    Showers are simply not required to enable commuter cycling. That's mostly an idea held on to by people who simply don't want to cycle, along with "it's too dangerous" and "Ireland has the wrong climate".

    I am a regular bike commuter and I would not do it if I couldn't shower once I got in, not a chance.


  • Options
    #43
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,042 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Interested Observer wrote: »
    I am a regular bike commuter and I would not do it if I couldn't shower once I got in, not a chance.
    I am also a regular bike commuter (daily for about 7 years) and I've managed fine without a shower in work for all of that time. Now my commute is 35km each way I can only cycle it a couple of times a week and I still manage without a shower. All three offices I've used in that time have been Georgian buildings with private bathrooms but no shower.

    I do appreciate that people differ.


  • Options
    #44
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭The Student


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    we really need to move on from all this 'the market' stuff, nothing but neoclassical rubbish, a theory that doesnt include human behaviour into its models and in fact assumes ''rational expectations' when the utopian idea of 'equilibrium' is reached! :rolleyes: i suspect our housing problems have very little to do with the actions of 'the entitled'!

    Can I share a personal experience of "the entitled" if I may. As a small landlord earlier this year I put my property up for rent. It was a three bed semi. I received a large number of enquires regarding same.

    The majority of those who viewed the property were in receipt of the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP). Most of those on the Hap were single mothers in their 20's with either one or two children. When I was asked how much the rent was I gave the fig and the response I got from all of those on the HAP was that's fine I am entitled to a higher fig than the rent I quoted.

    Ironically, my niece and her partner both in their mid 20's with no children and both working full time and both still living at home trying to save for a mortgage can't afford to buy a house in the area I am renting one out. There income is not enough to qualify for a mortgage for the property although those on the HAP can afford to live in the area simply because their rent is subsidized.

    Whether you agree with me or not we have created a culture of entitlement whereby having children without the means to support them yourself is seen as a way to better ones station in life. It is human nature to follow the path of least resistance to get what we want. If people had to work for what they want and it was not handed to them then we might be in a different place and maybe the housing market could function the way it should.

    By giving HAP tenants subsidized rents there is now a floor on the market that the market knows it does not need to go below. If you however let the market work normally the floor would be found automatically by the market and it would go up and down accordingly.


  • Options
    #45
    Beta Ray Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,580 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    ^^^^^ Great post ^^^^^

    One thing to take from this, and every other sector/market in the country.

    Every time the government intervenes or adds a subsidy; it destabilises / fluctuates the market.
    Prices end up "going up" for no good reason other than to avail of "Free Money"

    The only thing the government should subsidise is food production, that's it.
    Everything else should be free market.


    Edit: Just to add, a lot of people claiming to be single mothers are not in fact single and the father of their children is in fact living with them.
    I get there are a lot of people that have found themselves in a sh*t situation where the relationship has broken down, but there are also a hell of a lot of people milking the state as per above.


  • Options
    #46
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,983 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    Cyrus wrote: »
    how does a cash back offer change equity you have in a house? who cares where the deposit came from?

    you are talking about FTBers buying at the lower end of the market, i was talking about everyone else

    Cash back and moratoriums are being used as a mechanism to pay back debtors who gave out deposits. We care where deposits came from because the more equity people have in houses the less likely they are to default. And I believe we still have the highest default rates in the world.


  • Options
    #47
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,016 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    The Student wrote: »
    Can I share a personal experience of "the entitled" if I may. As a small landlord earlier this year I put my property up for rent. It was a three bed semi. I received a large number of enquires regarding same.....

    apologies, but i didnt read all your post, will later. firstly i sympathise with you as a landlord, but our current housing model is actually failing both landlords and tenents, of course you can debate by how much of each. as i tried to explain earlier, i do personally believe this is largely due to our over reliance on flawed economic theories called neoclassical theory and 'the efficient market hypothesis', which strangely isnt very efficient at providing us with our actually needs, in this case, housing. we have decided that it is best to blame individuals and groups for our housing woes, including 'the entitled'. we have become indoctrinated to think, 'the market' solves all our needs, but reality doesnt show us this, it never has. when a theory mentions things such as 'rational expectations', start questioning it, as theres no such thing as a rational human being, and our behaviour tends towards irrationality in particular regarding housing.


  • Options
    #48
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,983 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    flas wrote: »
    Its 1 hour 30 minutes longford to Smithfield,and its not exactly flying the whole way...its a 2 hours 30 minutes on the bus that goes to the airport first then goes into the city,there are a few buses,but most who commute just use the train,there are 3 trains that leave longford and get to Connolly before 8:50 everyday. The longest train takes 2 hours but normal train takes 1 hour 40 minutes,its longer when it has to stop at all commuter stations,he doesnt have to stop once and is on motorway or dual carriage way most of the journey.

    Using maps, which uses telemetry data from drivers who do that drive. Variance would be the usual crashes, school rushes, rain etc.

    Arriving at 8am
    1 h 20 min - 1 h 50 min (119 km)
    via N4 and M4

    Leaving at 4pm
    1 h 25 min - 2 h (119 km)
    via M4 and N4


  • Options
    #49
    Cyrus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,908 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    Lumen wrote: »
    I am also a regular bike commuter (daily for about 7 years) and I've managed fine without a shower in work for all of that time. Now my commute is 35km each way I can only cycle it a couple of times a week and I still manage without a shower. All three offices I've used in that time have been Georgian buildings with private bathrooms but no shower.

    I do appreciate that people differ.

    you might manage fine, its your co workers id worry about:D


  • Options
    #50
    myshirt
    Registered Users Posts: 5,245 ✭✭✭myshirt


    There are a couple of home truths that we all need to accept, but we won't, and that is what it all traces back to. All this centres on nimbyism, self interest, and outright delusionary views of ones self efficacy as a driver of personal position. And mostly from baby boomers and early gen'x'ers I'm afraid, whether those people like to hear it or not.

    Bad economists are excellent at selling sh't analysis, and good economists are very bad at selling quality analysis, mostly because it is boring to a population that has limited financial literacy.


  • Options
    #51
    Cyrus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,908 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    Cash back and moratoriums are being used as a mechanism to pay back debtors who gave out deposits. We care where deposits came from because the more equity people have in houses the less likely they are to default. And I believe we still have the highest default rates in the world.

    That wont change the LTV or the equity people have in the property.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭server down


    flas wrote: »
    Not all situations are the same, it could take you just an extra 40 minutes. Example my own.brother and partner were living in lucan,both working in city,one on baggot street other in Smithfield, it took my brother well over
    1 hour and 10 minutes to get from lucan to Smithfield everyday with traffic on Dublin bus.

    They moved back down to longford,he asked for a start time of hour earlier, they were paying €1200 a month rent on a 1 bed shoe box apartment, they bought a big house,used to be a b+b, got it for €105,000, put a small bit of money modernizing it and doing it up the way they wanted, they have a beautiful home with absolutely huge front and back gardens,on the outskirts of town and their mortgage is under half of what they were paying a month on rent,it takes him from door to door 1 hour 30 minutes to work, and the simple change of starting 1 hour earlier and finishing 1 hour earlier means he misses most traffic. For his house now in Dublin would cost up on 1 million,especially with the size of grounds it came with.its about quality of life at the end of the day.

    So the solution to Dublin's problems is to move to Longford? you know what we happen to traffic and cost if we did that?

    The Student wrote: »
    Based on one of your previous posts you referenced friends in their 30's so I made an assumption you were in your 30's also.

    On the assumption you are in your 30's (and I apologize if I am wrong) then you like most of us would have left home (or liked to) somewhere in your early to mid 20's.

    At which point a single bedroom property would be ideal for you and a partner. Then as your relationship progresses and as you say marriage and children you would be at the point of needing to upsize.

    if we had a proper functioning market you would have bought a single bedroom property, held it for 5 or so years then traded up. At the other end of the spectrum you could have the mature people who are living in properties to big for them who could downsize to the one bed property you lived in.

    In an ideal functioning market this is what would happen, but with our dysfunctional system of social welfare and our entitlement culture it is the likes of you and I who suffer.

    I wonder why social welfare is blamed here? Anyway, your solution doesnt work in this market, and it caused people in 2006 to be stuck with 1 bedroomed house and having to rent those out during the crash, while renting themselves some bigger house.


  • Options
    #53
    flas
    Registered Users Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭flas


    server down wrote: »
    So the solution to Dublin's problems is to move to Longford? you know what we happen to traffic and cost if we did that?




    I wonder why social welfare is blamed here? Anyway, your solution doesnt work in this market, and it caused people in 2006 to be stuck with 1 bedroomed house and having to rent those out during the crash, while renting themselves some bigger house.

    That wasnt my point, my point was how truly ****ed Dublin is in the long term for people with ordinary jobs who want to buy a family home and how value can be found by looking outside it, I never said what you said I said, I never said thats the solution.


  • Options
    #54
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,983 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    Cyrus wrote: »
    That wont change the LTV or the equity people have in the property.

    Couple move into a 350k property with the bare minimum of 10% deposit, meaning 315k principal. They get a 10k loan from the parents to make that 10% and take advantage of the 2% cash back offer. In order to afford to repay the loan and buy items for the house, they request a 6 month moratorium on their payments to go along with the 2% cash back. 6 months of no payments means its now a 320k loan and over 1 year from draw down to even get back to 10% equity. And that's assuming they don't borrow more and request longer payment breaks.

    I am in my thirties, I see people doing this.


  • Options
    #55
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭The Student


    server down wrote: »
    So the solution to Dublin's problems is to move to Longford? you know what we happen to traffic and cost if we did that?




    I wonder why social welfare is blamed here? Anyway, your solution doesnt work in this market, and it caused people in 2006 to be stuck with 1 bedroomed house and having to rent those out during the crash, while renting themselves some bigger house.

    If the same principle was extended to social housing (ie those living in a three bed social house where their children had grown up and left the house they could be housed in more suitable accommodation eg a one bed property making the family home available for a family).

    The issue with the 2006 was not a housing issue in itself. It was a global crash of financial markets. Financial institutions were over reliant on property with multiple loans offered on single properties, there was a lot of speculation in the property market as well.

    A properly functioning market would stop this from happening, those who speculate and fail would suffer the consequences of their failure, those who speculate and succeed the market rewards them.

    Before anybody states "we bailed out the banks" then yes we did, we should not have but we did, despite what people all economies need a functioning banking system.


  • Options
    #56
    Fian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,190 ✭✭✭Fian


    Lumen wrote: »
    I am also a regular bike commuter (daily for about 7 years) and I've managed fine without a shower in work for all of that time. Now my commute is 35km each way I can only cycle it a couple of times a week and I still manage without a shower. All three offices I've used in that time have been Georgian buildings with private bathrooms but no shower.

    I do appreciate that people differ.

    Mine has a shower, i rarely use it. Only a 7.5km commute mind, and slightly downhill into the city centre (from Dundrum). I shower before i leave, wait to cool down before changing, change all my clothes, quick wipe with a baby wipe, though even that isn't strictly necessary.

    I used to shower, but generally i find that I would be more damp/sweaty changing after a shower, from the heat/steam in the shower cubicle, than I would changing in my office without one.


  • Options
    #57
    Cyrus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,908 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    Couple move into a 350k property with the bare minimum of 10% deposit, meaning 315k principal. They get a 10k loan from the parents to make that 10% and take advantage of the 2% cash back offer. In order to afford to repay the loan and buy items for the house, they request a 6 month moratorium on their payments to go along with the 2% cash back. 6 months of no payments means its now a 320k loan and over 1 year from draw down to even get back to 10% equity. And that's assuming they don't borrow more and request longer payment breaks.

    I am in my thirties, I see people doing this.

    they are still at 91.50% LTV after 6 months i dont think its as bad as you are suggesting and that is an absolute extreme example, which bank gives 2% and a moratorium ?


  • Options
    #58
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,051 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    Couple move into a 350k property with the bare minimum of 10% deposit, meaning 315k principal. They get a 10k loan from the parents to make that 10% and take advantage of the 2% cash back offer. In order to afford to repay the loan and buy items for the house, they request a 6 month moratorium on their payments to go along with the 2% cash back. 6 months of no payments means its now a 320k loan and over 1 year from draw down to even get back to 10% equity. And that's assuming they don't borrow more and request longer payment breaks.

    How does the moratorium work, interest keeps accruing but you're not taking anything from the capital so you'll pay more in the end?


  • Options
    #59
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,983 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    Cyrus wrote: »
    they are still at 91.50% LTV after 6 months i dont think its as bad as you are suggesting and that is an absolute extreme example, which bank gives 2% and a moratorium ?

    It's an example of people bypassing the central bank rules for LTV ratio's, to emphasis the point that they are doing it.


  • Options
    #60
    Cyrus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,908 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    It's an example of people bypassing the central bank rules for LTV ratio's, to emphasis the point that they are doing it.

    its an extreme example and i can think of only one or two banks that would possibly do it


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    server down wrote: »
    Anyway, your solution doesnt work in this market, and it caused people in 2006 to be stuck with 1 bedroomed house and having to rent those out during the crash, while renting themselves some bigger house.

    People were stuck because the market crashed, not because they owned a 1 bedroom house.

    There were probably more households stuck with a 3 or 4 bed semi that they could no-longer afford than your example 1-bed owners.


Advertisement