2021 Irish Property Market chat - mod warnings post 1

Timing belt · 21-01-2021 12:34am

schmittel wrote: »

Let’s wait and see how this post ages.

TIME 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019 2019 2019
AGE (Labels) Total Less than 18 years From 18 to 64 years 65 years or over Total Less than 18 years From 18 to 64 years 65 years or over Total Less than 18 years From 18 to 64 years 65 years or over Total Less than 18 years From 18 to 64 years 65 years or over Total Less than 18 years From 18 to 64 years 65 years or over Total Less than 18 years From 18 to 64 years 65 years or over Total Less than 18 years From 18 to 64 years 65 years or over Total Less than 18 years From 18 to 64 years 65 years or over Total Less than 18 years From 18 to 64 years 65 years or over Total Less than 18 years From 18 to 64 years 65 years or over
GEO (Labels)
Malta 57.5 39.6 59.4 80.3 58.7 45 58.2 82.8 54.8 41.3 52.8 81.9 55.5 44.2 54.2 80.6 56.7 41.5 55.4 84.4 54.1 35.8 50.1 84.4 57.3 34.8 52.1 87.7 60.4 37.6 55.7 87.9 66.6 46.7 62.5 90.4 63.4 39.3 58.9 88.1
Cyprus 59.8 48.5 56.4 71.3 55 40.8 50.8 70.6 55.1 46.9 51.3 69.4 51.3 40.1 50.9 66 55.4 41.4 55.2 69.4 54.2 51.1 53.1 64.1 55.8 50.4 53.4 71 56.2 48 52 77.7 54.3 36.6 52.5 78.6 56.4 39.4 51.8 81.6
Ireland 59.7 48.8 62.8 84.5 54.5 44.1 54.6 88.3 56.2 45.9 55.9 91.1 56.5 43.7 58.7 87.3 52.1 40.3 52.9 88.9 55.9 43.6 55.9 88.5 59.6 47.6 59.4 86.7 53 36.5 53.8 84.8 59.2 38.5 60.1 86.7 52.2 30.9 51.6 83.6
Spain 52.9 38.1 50.8 81.4 44 b 29.9 b 42.2 b 71.8 b 40.7 26.3 40.4 70.9 40.6 28.3 41 66.8 39.9 26.5 41 68.3 40.9 29.8 40.8 67.9 37.9 25.5 38.4 62.9 38.1 24.9 37.5 65.4 40.5 29.3 38.2 69.7 38.8 24.4 38.1 68
Netherlands 48 45.9 45.4 73.9 43.2 39.3 39.7 80.1 42.5 38.8 39.3 78.9 36.5 25.2 37.1 66.1 35.8 27.2 35.9 60.7 33.2 24.6 32.8 62 33.6 b 21.5 b 32.6 b 61.4 b 34.7 19.7 33.2 65.6 39.1 26.8 35.6 70.2 36.1 20.5 33 66.6
Luxembourg 30.2 26.2 29.5 62.1 26 24.8 25 47.8 26.9 28 23.9 55.5 27.6 24.1 27.3 54.8 31.3 27.5 29.9 70.4 28.9 25.3 26.5 65.4 27.1 b 23.1 b 25.3 b 59.1 b 31.3 25 28.8 64.5 30.3 22.7 29.6 59.2 33.3 25.6 32.4 68.3
Belgium 48.8 33.1 45.5 76 50.8 34 44.7 86.1 50.1 34.3 44.2 83.5 44.6 27.3 38.5 81 45.1 31.6 39.9 81.1 44.2 27.7 40.3 81 41.4 b 25.5 b 37.7 b 75.2 b 40.5 23.9 37 74.6 34.6 b 18.3 b 31.1 b 68.1 b 34.7 b 17.6 b 31.8 b 67.1 b
Portugal 21.6 5.6 19.6 44.5 27.6 10.8 24.7 54.7 30.3 11.7 28.7 56.9 27.5 12.1 26 57.1 28.7 13.6 28.5 52.4 27.9 12.9 26.4 52 30.6 13.8 29 52.5 31.1 14.5 29.6 52.1 31.2 12.6 28.8 53.4 29 12.5 25.4 52.6
Estonia 6.6 2.3 7.1 9.5 17.2 9.7 18.3 23.6 20.7 11.6 21.5 27.8 16.4 7.1 17.1 21.8 23.8 b 12.2 b 23.6 b 31.2 b 22.5 11.7 21.7 30.1 22.1 11.1 20.6 29.3 23 11.4 21.6 29.6 26.1 13.9 23.8 32.7 24.2 14.8 22.2 30.2
Slovenia 4.8 3.3 5.4 4.3 16.7 b 11.7 b 16.9 b 20.7 b 16.6 11.1 17.2 19.9 17.7 15.8 17.4 20.3 17.8 13.8 16.7 25.4 18.5 13.2 18.2 24 20.5 14.3 20.2 25.9 22.3 16.6 23.1 24.8 21.5 17 21.1 25.7 21.8 13.1 21.4 27.9
Switzerland 34.3 20.1 27.5 55.6 36.1 20.9 29.8 56.5 35.8 20.6 28.7 56.7 37.7 22.2 26.5 61.3 34.9 b 22.9 b 26 b 55.5 b 35 24.3 24.8 59.7 31.4 12.9 22.1 59.2 31.3 15.5 24.1 54.4 29.9 13.9 21.8 56.8 30 10.9 21.3 55.9
European Union (EU6-1958, EU9-1973, EU10-1981, EU12-1986, EU15-1995, EU25-2004, EU27-2007, EU28-2013, EU27-2020) 22.2 e 15.4 e 19.3 e 42.2 e 21.5 e 13.7 e 18.8 e 42.1 e 20.8 e 13.2 e 18.9 e 40 e 20.8 e 13.3 e 19.1 e 39.8 e 20.9 e 13.8 e 19.3 e 38.8 e 21.3 e 13.7 e 20.1 e 37.8 e 21.1 e 14 e 19.3 e 37.9 e 22.7 e 15.3 e 20.7 e 39.6 e 23.4 e 15.2 e 21.3 e 40 e 22.8 e 14.5 e 21 e 37.5 e
European Union - 28 countries (2013-2020) 22.2 15.4 19.3 42.2 21.5 13.7 18.8 42.1 20.8 13.2 18.9 40 20.8 13.3 19.1 39.8 20.9 13.8 19.3 38.8 21.3 13.7 20.1 37.8 21.1 14 19.3 37.9 22.7 15.3 20.7 39.6 23.4 15.2 21.3 40 22.8 e 14.5 e 21 e 37.5 e
Hungary 2.7 1.3 3 7.1 2.9 0.8 3.7 4.3 2.8 0.6 3.5 4.1 2.8 0.9 3.6 3.7 3.1 1.3 3.9 3.4 4.5 1.8 5.7 2.7 4.9 2.8 5.2 9.1 6.5 2.6 6.5 12.4 18.6 5.4 18.6 35.3 20 5.7 20.1 33.2
Euro area (EA11-1999, EA12-2001, EA13-2007, EA15-2008, EA16-2009, EA17-2011, EA18-2014, EA19-2015) 25.5 e 19.4 e 22.3 e 45.2 e 23.6 e 16.7 e 20.8 e 43.9 e 22.6 e 15.4 e 20.6 e 41.2 e 22.7 e 15 e 21 e 41.3 e 22.6 e 15.7 e 21.3 e 38.5 e 22.5 e 15.5 e 21.3 e 38.1 e 22.2 e 15.4 e 20.6 e 37.9 e 21.7 e 14.5 e 19.9 e 38.4 e 23.1 e 15.6 e 21 e 39.3 e 21.7 e 14 e 19.9 e 36.1 e
Euro area - 19 countries (from 2015) 25 19.1 21.9 44.6 23.4 16.5 20.6 43.6 22.4 15.2 20.5 40.9 22.5 14.8 20.9 40.9 22.4 15.6 21.2 38.3 22.5 15.5 21.3 38.1 22.2 15.4 20.6 37.9 21.7 14.5 19.9 38.4 23.1 15.6 21 39.3 21.7 14 19.9 36.1
Euro area - 18 countries (2014) 25.2 19.2 22.1 44.8 23.5 16.6 20.6 43.7 22.5 15.3 20.5 41 22.6 14.9 21 41.1 22.6 15.7 21.3 38.5 22.7 15.6 21.4 38.3 22.2 15.5 20.6 38 21.8 14.6 19.8 38.7 23.1 15.8 21 39.5 21.8 14.1 19.9 36.2
Denmark 31.5 20 21.7 68 30.7 b 27.8 b 20.7 b 65.4 b 30.7 30.5 22.8 57.5 21.4 14.1 13.9 62.3 31.5 31.1 23.9 67.5 19.7 15.3 13.4 55.8 22.6 25.9 15.8 53.4 24 21.7 16.7 63.8 23.8 25.6 15.6 61.9 25.6 25.7 18.6 59.5
Lithuania 6.8 4.8 7.5 5.9 15.6 b 7 b 16.8 b 29.5 b 17.7 6.7 17.8 29.9 13.5 b 5.5 b 14.2 b 22.3 b 11.8 5.2 10.3 23.8 13 4.3 12.2 25 19.4 9 18.7 30.2 19.1 5 21.2 25.1 20.6 2.3 21 30.5 18.8 5.3 18.4 28.2
European Union - 27 countries (from 2020) 20.8 e 15.3 e 18.2 e 38.4 e 19.7 e 13.5 e 17.4 e 37.7 e 18.8 e 12.3 e 17.3 e 35.4 e 18.7 e 11.9 e 17.4 e 35.3 e 18.8 e 12.5 e 17.9 e 33.3 e 19 e 12.6 e 18.2 e 32.5 e 19 e 12.8 e 17.7 e 32.9 e 19 e 12.4 e 17.5 e 33.3 e 20.5 e 13.4 e 18.8 e 34.4 e 19.5 e 12.3 e 18.1 e 31.7 e
Finland 26.1 25.3 22.7 35.3 24.7 23.3 22 32.4 22.4 18.5 18.6 33.8 23.2 20.3 18.5 35.7 21.3 20.1 16.5 33.9 21.1 21.9 16.7 32.4 19.6 16.8 16.2 31.7 : : : : 19.9 18.5 14.9 33.4 23.9 19.1 17.9 39.5
France 19.2 11.9 16.9 48.7 22.6 13.1 20.4 56.8 21.9 13 20.8 50.4 23.2 14.6 20.9 56 20.4 11 19.4 48.8 23.7 14.8 24 46 22.8 13.8 21.8 51.8 21.5 13.5 19.9 50.9 22.1 15.3 20.2 48.5 19.6 14.1 17.5 38.2
Czechia 8.6 4.8 9.4 14.2 10.6 5.9 12.2 13.1 11.2 6 12.7 15.2 9.4 4.7 11 10.4 8 2.9 9.1 13.8 10.9 7.3 12.5 11.3 9.9 5.8 9.3 19.4 14.3 6.5 15 21.2 14.3 5.4 13.9 21.9 17.6 11.1 15.9 24.6
Norway 22 17.8 15.5 52 22.8 15.7 16.1 58 19.6 14.6 16.1 42.4 22.8 24.4 17.4 45.1 23.6 28.1 18.9 37.3 21.2 21.5 16.1 47.7 19.7 18.4 15.6 41.2 23.6 25 18.4 47.3 20.9 25.5 16.3 40.8 19.4 22.3 15.5 36
Sweden 18.8 16.3 14.8 35.6 19.9 15.2 17 34.4 17.4 12.4 12.5 37.7 14.5 10 12.1 28.8 15.1 10.5 12.6 30.4 16.5 11.1 13.8 31.1 15.1 9.4 11.6 31.3 17 13 13.5 31.8 16 9.8 13.7 32.3 16.4 8.7 15.1 32.7
Germany (until 1990 former territory of the FRG) 17.2 17.5 12.7 32.7 16.7 13.9 12.6 33.9 16.4 12 13 32 17.2 10.1 14.3 33.6 19.2 17.9 15.6 31.9 17 11.5 13.8 31.2 17.5 16.6 13.3 30.8 16 13.5 12 29.5 18.4 13.4 14.8 31.2 16.9 12.6 14.2 26.1
Poland 5.9 4.3 6.3 7.2 7.1 5.8 7.6 7.3 6.8 4.2 7.6 7.9 6.3 5.4 6.3 8.2 7.1 5.6 7.8 6.4 8.1 6 9 7.5 9.7 8 10.3 9.8 9.9 7 10.7 9.6 11.6 7.8 12.4 11.9 12.9 10.3 13.3 13.5
Austria 20 14.8 15 40.6 19.8 12.9 16.9 36.9 15.9 12.5 13.1 29.4 18.7 14.1 16.3 31.6 14.1 13 11 25.5 14.8 11 12.6 27.8 16.5 10.7 14.6 31.1 13.9 9.9 11.5 28.6 15.4 11.8 12.6 30.8 15.7 13.3 12.4 29.6
Slovakia 7.1 2.3 8.1 14.6 6.2 4.7 6.4 9.9 6.8 3.5 7.8 10 6.6 3.2 7.9 7.8 6.8 2.7 8.3 9.7 7.6 4.1 9 10 7.1 5.7 8 3.7 8.2 5.4 9.2 10.1 7.8 5.5 8.9 8.2 8.4 4.3 10.1 9.8
Italy 12.7 6.9 9.9 29.2 10.8 5.5 8.7 24.8 9.9 4.5 7.8 24.7 10.7 5.1 8.9 25.3 9.8 4.5 8.2 23.4 10.4 4.8 8.7 24.7 10.2 5.3 8.9 21.4 10.7 6 9.1 22.7 11 5.9 10.3 19.7 10.9 5 9.7 21
North Macedonia : : : : : : : : 6 2.5 6.4 12 6.6 3.8 7.8 5.9 9.8 b 5.5 b 10.7 b 16.8 b 8.4 5.5 8.9 14.1 8.6 6.7 9 10.8 9.5 8.8 9.1 14 9.5 6.4 9.9 15.3 8.7 4.6 9.6 13.9
Croatia 6.5 1.8 6.1 10.7 6.4 2.1 5.8 11 5.9 2.6 5.5 10 6.2 2.4 6.1 10.2 7.3 3.9 7.1 11.4 9.9 6.5 9.6 13.3 9.3 4.6 9.5 12.5 8.2 2.8 8.9 10.6 8.3 3.2 7.4 13.1 9.7 3.1 9 14
Bulgaria 11.3 4 9.5 20.5 8.6 2.9 6.4 18.2 8.5 2.4 6.2 18.9 8.5 1.7 5.7 20.3 10 5.1 8.7 19.2 10.5 3.8 9.4 16.9 9.3 b 3.1 b 8.8 b 17.4 b 9.8 2.2 8.1 18.6 11.2 4.4 9.9 18.6 11.1 2.1 8.4 20.6
Latvia 3.4 1.2 3.4 6.4 6 3 6.6 8.9 7.6 3.3 8.2 11.8 9.2 2.6 10.5 12.6 7.9 2.5 8.5 11 6.7 1.1 7 9.4 7.6 2.4 7.9 9.6 8.2 2.8 8.9 9.7 9 4 9.4 10.3 8.4 4.5 7.7 10.2
Romania 3.5 1.5 3.6 7.3 3.4 1.1 3.8 7.2 2.9 1.1 3.3 5.5 2.8 0.7 3.2 6.3 3 0.7 3.5 6.4 3.4 0.7 3.8 7.7 4.2 0.7 4.4 11 5.4 0.8 5.3 14.2 6.3 1.1 5.5 16.3 6.4 1.8 5.5 14.5
Greece 7.8 3.6 6.8 15.1 6.5 3.7 5.3 12.7 5.7 3.8 4.8 12.6 4.9 2 4.4 12.1 5.6 3.1 5.2 11.1 5.2 2.7 5 10.1 5.3 2.3 5 12.3 5.6 1.8 5.1 14.2 5.8 2.1 5.2 14.3 5.6 1.5 4.9 14
Serbia : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3.5 2 3.5 5.7 3.6 2.8 3.6 4.9 3.3 2.6 3.4 3.8 2 0.5 1.8 4.7 3.6 1.7 3.6 5.9 3.9 2.8 3.7 5.6
Turkey 1.1 0.4 1.2 6.9 1.2 0.2 1.4 6.6 1.3 0.3 1.4 7.1 1.6 0.5 1.8 7.9 1.5 0.3 1.6 8.8 1.5 0.3 1.7 7.6 1.5 0.3 1.9 6.6 1.4 0.2 1.7 6.8 1.8 0.4 2.4 7.7 2.4 0.7 2.9 9.7
Montenegro : : : : : : : : : : : : 9.9 8.2 10.1 15.2 6 5.1 6.1 10 8.2 6.5 8.3 13.7 5.3 3.8 4.9 13.6 3.7 2.6 3.5 8.4 3.1 2 3.4 5.4 2.7 2.1 2.7 4.9
European Union - 27 countries (2007-2013) 22.4 15.5 19.5 42.7 21.6 13.8 19 42.6 21 13.3 19 40.5 21 13.4 19.3 40.2 21 13.9 19.4 39.2 21.5 13.8 20.2 38.2 21.2 14.1 19.4 38.3 22.9 15.4 20.8 40 23.6 15.3 21.4 40.4 : : : :
United Kingdom 32.4 15.7 28.3 62.9 34.9 15.6 30.6 64.6 35.3 b 19.7 b 31.4 b 68.6 b 36.7 22.7 33.3 65.2 35.3 22.4 30.1 67.2 37.7 21 35 68.7 36.7 22.7 32 67 47.5 b 31.7 b 44.9 b 78.7 b 41.8 24.4 39.4 70.6 : : : :
Iceland 20.3 17.1 21.4 28.5 u 19 15.4 20.7 21 u 18.4 11.6 19.8 37.3 u 19.1 14.4 17.6 64.6 u 23.2 19.1 22.1 41.2 u 19.7 13.5 18 53.6 u 19.1 12.1 19.7 37.4 u 18.9 14.9 18.3 31.4 16.6 9.1 17.5 37.3 u : : : :
Kosovo (under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99) : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4 2.9 4.3 6.4 : : : :

beauf · 21-01-2021 12:41am

fliball123 wrote: »

Well the other part that is totally missed are the houses that are being used by con men and rented mainly by non nationals and all under the radar as the owners are not paying tax. So your talking in some cased 5/6 to a room and I have heard of bigger numbers but this will not be in any report

While significant I'm not sure it would have an effect on the overall trends.

fliball123 · 21-01-2021 12:54am

schmittel wrote: »

Seems I might have been wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt earlier, maybe you weren’t being sarcastic.

Sarcastic or not what has an under occupied (yet still occupied house) got to do with the current availability for people looking for a house

beauf · 21-01-2021 1:06am

It's usually about forcing people to down size to increase the supply. Not that theres an issue with supply.

Timing belt · 21-01-2021 1:08am

schmittel wrote: »

Let’s wait and see how this post ages.

The data is very clear Ireland is an outlier in a lot of EU housing data because we have different types of housing and don't all live in cities.

- Ireland has 25.3% of its city housing stock as semi-detached houses the EU average is 5.8%

- Ireland has 6% of its city housing in apartments the EU average is 26.9%

- Ireland has 40.8% of its housing stock in rural areas the EU average is 28.3%

hometruths · 21-01-2021 1:14am

Timing belt wrote: »

The data is very clear Ireland is an outlier in a lot of EU housing data because we have different types of housing and don't all live in cities.

- Ireland has 25.3% of its city housing stock as semi-detached houses the EU average is 5.8%

- Ireland has 6% of its city housing in apartments the EU average is 26.9%

- Ireland has 40.8% of its housing stock in rural areas the EU average is 28.3%

Good reason not to be building any more 3 bed semis.

Obviously we don’t all live in cities, but any idea of the % of us that do?

beauf · 21-01-2021 1:16am

In fairness even if not directly relevant it is interesting.

They did say day one of the reasons Covid spread so fast in some countries was because they have a much higher % of multi generations in a family all sharing the same apartment, often in high density cities. So I assume they gave more shared common areas than we do.

It's also a reason mask wearing is popular in high density areas in the far East. Pollution but also illness spreads fast in high density places.

Some countries also have a lot of housing designed for singles. Which leads to problems with isolation and mental health issues.

Pros and cons to everything.

HansKroenke · 21-01-2021 1:23am

PropQueries wrote: »

Posted link earlier on in day so only reposting caused asked:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/german-investor-to-acquire-greystones-apartments-for-60m-1.4462425

The Rolls Royce may not be too far off the mark given that it’s the only thing that explains the cost difference between the cost of building private homes and the cost DCC stated it costs them to build.

The big money is getting into the residential market, but I wouldn't assume it is for social housing. There is a fairly reliable growth projection for both jobs and the population in Ireland into the coming decade. As such, it doesn't look like much of a crash will happen to the residential sector anytime soon. I wouldn't use the rapid increase in rents the last few years as an indicator of what one should expect to achieve, but with negative interest rates, economic uncertainty and potential bubbles in corporate debt and equities markets, investors are looking at the returns from property and these look a lot more stable in this environment.

Timing belt · 21-01-2021 1:27am

schmittel wrote: »

Good reason not to be building any more 3 bed semis.

Obviously we don’t all live in cities, but any idea of the % of us that do?

Timing belt · 21-01-2021 1:32am

schmittel wrote: »

Good reason not to be building any more 3 bed semis.

Obviously we don’t all live in cities, but any idea of the % of us that do?

Only 33% of the population live in cities in Ireland according to the 2016 census

2016 Dublin City and suburbs 25%
2016 Cork City and suburbs 4%
2016 Limerick City and suburbs 2%
2016 Galway City and suburbs 2%

33%

European no's will probably be twice that

hometruths · 21-01-2021 1:35am

Timing belt wrote: »

I presume ‘Other’ includes terraced houses - very surprised that is so low.

Timing belt · 21-01-2021 1:36am

schmittel wrote: »

I presume ‘Other’ includes terraced houses - very surprised that is so low.

I don't think it is terraced houses i think it is more informal settlements

Graham · 21-01-2021 1:37am

For a realistic comparison, pick a couple of EU countries with a similar city/rural spread.

I don't think you'll explain the difference away with the rural/city split. I haven't checked since this point last came up but I do recall we're still an order of magnitude higher even with similarly spread countries.

Our national obsession with 3/4 bed semi-detached forever homes and low property taxation probably explain our current position in the rankings.

hometruths · 21-01-2021 1:40am

Timing belt wrote: »

I don't think it is terraced houses i think it is more informal settlements

Where do terraced houses feature in the split then?

Timing belt · 21-01-2021 1:46am

Graham wrote: »

For a realistic comparison, pick a couple of EU countries with a similar city/rural spread.

I don't think you'll explain the difference away with the rural/city split. I haven't checked since this point last came up but I do recall we're still an order of magnitude higher even with similarly spread countries.

Our national obsession with 3/4 bed semi-detached forever homes and low property taxation probably explain our current position in the rankings.

Idbatterim · 21-01-2021 1:47am

just read the below article from independent.ie released at ten pm. This way worse than we expected pre christmas or even a week or two ago, is now probably a best case scenario! Going to be very interesting to see what they do with the pup payments etc, the cost is going to be off the scales for all of this, the decisions they took at the start and have persisted with are LUNACY!

https://www.independent.ie/news/lockdown-to-continue-well-into-february-fine-gael-meeting-hears-39993011.html

Most public health restrictions will continue well into February, a Fine Gael meeting heard tonight.

Foreign Affairs Minister Simon Coveney told the meeting of the Fine Gael parliamentary party that the restrictions will be in place for quite a number of weeks and it was unclear how this would apply to schools.

The slower-than-hoped for decline in case numbers and the continuing pressure on the health service will force the Coalition to extend the Level 5 restrictions when the Cabinet meets on Tuesday, Government sources indicated this evening.

Ministers are likely to review the situation again at the end of February but there is no expectation of any substantive reopening of the economy before April with daily case numbers still above 2,000 and hospitalisations and ICU admissions still considered too high.

Almost all of the existing public health restrictions will be extended for several more weeks beyond the end of January with the Government’s immediate focus being on trying to reopen schools.

However, ministers are unable to provide any clarity or indicative date when this might happen.

A senior Coalition figure said tonight they hoped to be able to reopen schools at some point next month, but said cases were not going down as fast as the Government would like.

One Government source cast doubt over whether schools could reopen before St Patrick’s Day, but other senior figures insisted this possibility had not been discussed, insisting the priority was to reopen schools.

Junior education minister Josepha Madigan told her parliamentary party that talks to reopen special schools would restart next week after unions rejected proposals to have them reopen this week.

A senior Government source said there was ongoing engagement with teaching unions and they needed further reassurances which are being “worked through”.

The hospitality sector expects to be shut until after Easter, with the Government privately warning it could be the summer before bars, restaurants and hotels are able to reopen in any way.

Some hospitality industry figures believe so-called wet pubs will be shuttered until the autumn, while any form of international tourism from overseas this year is being ruled out.

After schools, the Government hopes to reopen the construction sector, but no date has been mooted for this.

The Cabinet sub-committee on Covid-19 is likely to finalise plans to extend restrictions at a meeting on Monday where public health officials will brief the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and senior ministers before the decisions are finalised at Cabinet on Tuesday.

Timing belt · 21-01-2021 1:51am

Idbatterim wrote: »

just read the below article from independent.ie released at ten pm. This way worse than we expected pre christmas or even a week or two ago, is now probably a best case scenario! Going to be very interesting to see what they do with the pup payments etc, the cost is going to be off the scales for all of this, the decisions they took at the start and have persisted with are LUNACY!

https://www.independent.ie/news/lockdown-to-continue-well-into-february-fine-gael-meeting-hears-39993011.html

The Pup payments have saved the country..... If they were not there a lot of people still working would no longer be working.... The LUNACY would be to sit back and watch everything crash around you.

beauf · 21-01-2021 1:58am

Idbatterim wrote: »

..., the cost is going to be off the scales for all of this, the decisions they took at the start and have persisted with are LUNACY!
...

I'm not sure what choice they had. Also most of Europe even the world is in the same boat. All trying to keep the lights and and the wheels turning.

It's not really relevant to this thread though.

Idbatterim · 21-01-2021 2:00am

Timing belt wrote: »

The Pup payments have saved the country..... If they were not there a lot of people still working would no longer be working.... The LUNACY would be to sit back and watch everything crash around you.

I agree with PUP payments, I agree with a welfare system based on what you paid in, reflects what you get out. You think a system where one person loses a job and a hundred a week and another loses a thousand a week, but pays the same flat system, is a good or fair situation?

Germany and anywhere else that isnt a joke I assume, pay out, based on what you pay in. Mental that they actually have a PAY RELATED social insurance :rolleyes:

beauf · 21-01-2021 2:14am

It was a bit crude and uneven payment system for sure. Did it prop up property by propping up the economy. For sure. .

Can't see it changing. Though I was surprised it's gone on so long. But we are still in a pandemic. Probably at it's worse point and musty critical. Last time we took a step back it punished us badly.

So can't see much impact in property. Not in the short term.

Idbatterim · 21-01-2021 2:20am

beauf wrote: »

It was a bit crude and uneven payment system for sure. Did it prop up property by propping up the economy. For sure. .

Can't see it changing. Though I was surprised it's gone on so long. But we are still in a pandemic. Probably at it's worse point and musty critical. Last time we took a step back it punished us badly.

So can't see much impact in property. Not in the short term.

it was appallingly implemented, they were banking on it being sorted in a few weeks or months. I cant wait to see, what the next pup decision is, because they are now between a serious rock and hard place. Commit to extending it at current rates after the already colossal cost and then what? maybe have to extend it again for another few months?

If the politicians arent getting scared or starting to see where this is all headed...

Timing belt · 21-01-2021 2:22am

The following link gives a map breakdown by property type.

Just select the type of building you want to see on the map

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ILC_LVHO01__custom_477447/default/map?lang=en

MacronvFrugals · 21-01-2021 2:23am

Two interesting developments thats could slow how quick we see the end of Covid:

1) Single Covid vaccine dose in Israel 'less effective than we thought'

2) Covid vaccines may need updating to protect against new variant, study suggests

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/19/single-covid-vaccine-dose-in-israel-less-effective-than-we-hoped

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/20/covid-vaccines-may-need-updating-to-protect-against-new-variant-study-suggests

hometruths · 21-01-2021 10:20am

@Timingbelt

Is the data telling us that this is skewed by because "most of the under-occupied houses are in rural areas with people 65+" as per your claim?

I don't think so.

We have 69.6% of population living in underoccupied houses.

Age profile:

Degree of Urbanisation:

So the data is telling us 90.6% of people over 65 and 80.6% of people living in rural areas are living in underoccupied houses - NB that is very different to to telling us that 90.6% of underoccupied houses are lived in by 65 year olds or 80.6% of underoccupied houses are in rural areas.

According to the CSOs analysis of Urban and Rural Life in Ireland, 2019:

Just over three in ten people in Ireland (31.4%) lived in a rural area, above the rate of 27.3% in the EU...The definition of rural applied in this instance is that adopted by Eurostat as part of its degree of urbanisation (DEGURBA) classification.

If 31.4% of population live in a rural area and 80.6% of people living in rural areas live in underoccupied houses we can estimate a number for comparison.

Total population - 4.9m

31.4% living in rural area = 1,538,600
80.6% of these = 1,323,196 people living in under occupied houses in rural areas.

69.6% of total population live in underoccupied houses = 3,410,400 people.
If 1,323,196 of these are living in rural areas, then 2,087,204 of these live in Cities or Towns and Suburbs. Or in other words a significantly higher number.

How many of these in rural areas are over 65? Age profile of the country is:

So 14.3% of the total population is over 65. Presumably in rural areas that is higher so let's double it to avoid any argument - 28.6%

28.6% of the 1,323,196 = 370,475 people living in underoccupied houses in rural areas over 65.

Or to put it another way - about 11% of the total number of people living in underoccupied houses in the country.

It seems not to be the case "that most of the under-occupied houses are in rural areas with people 65+." Not even close.

One of us is misrepresenting the data to suit our narrative. Is it you or me?

HansKroenke · 21-01-2021 10:49am

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Two interesting developments thats could slow how quick we see the end of Covid:

1) Single Covid vaccine dose in Israel 'less effective than we thought'

2) Covid vaccines may need updating to protect against new variant, study suggests

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/19/single-covid-vaccine-dose-in-israel-less-effective-than-we-hoped

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/20/covid-vaccines-may-need-updating-to-protect-against-new-variant-study-suggests

Link two is nothing to worry about, it's normal for vaccines to be adapted as viruses change. Link one isn't really saying anything other than they may have misread its efficacy, it doesn't say anything about it not working.

It's really clear that covid is not the great leveller of the property market that people expected, which is in huge part to the government and other governments supporting the economy. At this point it is probably better to look at what's coming down the track after covid rather than waiting for covid to have a meaningful impact on the property market. For example, WFH and the projections for population growth in Ireland and what our cities and towns are going to look like to facilitate these changes. Another example is to look at housing needs for the pre-covid Ireland and where we are likely to see the property market grow to meet those needs. And don't forget that tourism is going to come back so in certain areas any perceived decline is due to demand being artificially surpressed by government travel restrictions (think of Dublin City centre rents dropping the 20% they have, this isn't going to last).

gourcuff · 21-01-2021 11:14am

the reluctance of irish people to live in cities in Ireland is largely because placemaking is so poor, the public realm is an afterthought and our urban areas are not enticing to people to live in.

Irish people have no issue living in the cities that top the liveable cities index such as melbourne, sydney, vancouver etc, its not a cultural thing that cant be changes.. irish cities need to be greatly improved in all areas to make them attractive places to live for a huge cohort of irish people..

PropQueries · 21-01-2021 11:16am

schmittel wrote: »

@Timingbelt

Is the data telling us that this is skewed by because "most of the under-occupied houses are in rural areas with people 65+" as per your claim?

I don't think so.

We have 69.6% of population living in underoccupied houses.

Age profile:

Degree of Urbanisation:

So the data is telling us 90.6% of people over 65 and 80.6% of people living in rural areas are living in underoccupied houses - NB that is very different to to telling us that 90.6% of underoccupied houses are lived in by 65 year olds or 80.6% of underoccupied houses are in rural areas.

According to the CSOs analysis of Urban and Rural Life in Ireland, 2019:

If 31.4% of population live in a rural area and 80.6% of people living in rural areas live in underoccupied houses we can estimate a number for comparison.

Total population - 4.9m

31.4% living in rural area = 1,538,600
80.6% of these = 1,323,196 people living in under occupied houses in rural areas.

69.6% of total population live in underoccupied houses = 3,410,400 people.
If 1,323,196 of these are living in rural areas, then 2,087,204 of these live in Cities or Towns and Suburbs. Or in other words a significantly higher number.

How many of these in rural areas are over 65? Age profile of the country is:

So 14.3% of the total population is over 65. Presumably in rural areas that is higher so let's double it to avoid any argument - 28.6%

28.6% of the 1,323,196 = 370,475 people living in underoccupied houses in rural areas over 65.

Or to put it another way - about 11% of the total number of people living in underoccupied houses in the country.

It seems not to be the case "that most of the under-occupied houses are in rural areas with people 65+." Not even close.

One of us is misrepresenting the data to suit our narrative. Is it you or me?

What you're showing does appear to make sense from just looking at the real world. For example, the children of many of the people who moved into council/corporation houses built right up the 1980's would now be in their 30's and may have flown the nest by now so there's probably just a couple living in many of those 3 bed houses.

The under-occupied houses are definitely also in the cities and not just primarily in rural areas IMO.

The way things are going, by pricing the majority of younger families out to the suburbs, the areas within walking distance of the centers of our cities and towns will be the equivalent of retirement communities in a few short years IMO

Just to add. In my opinion, it makes a mockery of the way people give out about the children of these families from the 1980's wanting to live near their families. It's not like the local councils didn't have 20+ years to plan for their housing needs as many of their children would obviously have wanted to live in the same community they were brought up in. This is a failure of planning on a monumental scale and was entirely predictable IMO.

Idbatterim · 21-01-2021 11:46am

how about a scheme where a child would buy the family home for their family and the elderly parent or parents would move to an apartment or duplex nearby? you could offer tax incentives...

like no stamp duty on purchase or either property...

Zenify · 21-01-2021 12:03pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

how about a scheme where a child would buy the family home for their family and the elderly parent or parents would move to an apartment or duplex nearby? you could offer tax incentives...

like no stamp duty on purchase or either property...

I think you would need a far better tax incentive to get elderly people to move. I think it's a great idea but people fear change. My mother was forced to sell the family home and was so upset. She now realizes all the benefits of an apartment. She is happier now but wouldn't have made the decision willingly.

I think we need a carrot and a stick.

Idbatterim · 21-01-2021 12:07pm

Zenify wrote: »

I think you would need a far better tax incentive to get elderly people to move. I think it's a great idea but people fear change. My mother was forced to sell the family home and was so upset. She now realizes all the benefits of an apartment. She is happier now but wouldn't have made the decision willingly.

I think we need a carrot and a stick.

true, how about a month rent free & commitment free trial or such... to see how they get on?

beauf · 21-01-2021 12:29pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

true, how about a month rent free & commitment free trial or such... to see how they get on?

Unless you have a load of apartments sitting empty in peoples community under your sleeve I can't see how that would work.

beauf · 21-01-2021 12:32pm

gourcuff wrote: »

the reluctance of irish people to live in cities in Ireland is largely because placemaking is so poor, the public realm is an afterthought and our urban areas are not enticing to people to live in.

Irish people have no issue living in the cities that top the liveable cities index such as melbourne, sydney, vancouver etc, its not a cultural thing that cant be changes.. irish cities need to be greatly improved in all areas to make them attractive places to live for a huge cohort of irish people..

I mentioned this on these forums before that so many place are souless here, no community central space, no planned green spaces. It just cram new developments on top of each other with no thought to how it will be to live there.

I was basically laughed out of it, by people who only interest was getting their foot on the property ladder that suited their immediate needs, no care about long term living.

Idbatterim · 21-01-2021 12:40pm

beauf wrote: »

Unless you have a load of apartments sitting empty in peoples community under your sleeve I can't see how that would work.

maybe when the new blocks are built, they allow for the ground floor ones say, to be kept for older people, it would probably be a lot nicer for the elderly, to also be living beside the elderly in the apartments. DCC head said yesterday about the new development plan, the days of 3/4 bed semi d in dublin are well gone...

I propose a solution or idea with rounding, that could actually work here. Will they force people out of their homes here ? no. Will they introduce anything but a token gesture, waste of time property tax like we currently have? NOT A CHANCE!

This is a huge part of the problem here, you simply cant solve the crisis or opportunity, depending on where you stand. Without changing the system, the system they dont want to touch. Proper property taxes would be an obvious first step, will never happen here. You could even flag it a year or two in advance and say from 2023, the rates will be revised. They were set sooooo low though, how do you effectively triple or quadruple them (at least) to actually make them effective, from a political perspective...

beauf · 21-01-2021 12:55pm

We pretty much have almost nothing for older people here. No retirement villages, no assisted living, no protected community housing. There's the odd place here and there. We are also moving into smaller places usually over 2 or 3 levels, no garden, completely unsuited for multigenerational living and taking older relatives in. We have a crisis in nursing homes, fair deal etc.

So in that landscape, there's no way a developer is going to leave apartments for this. Local authority and health services have no resources for it.

I tried downsizing one relative and moving another. It was just one obstacle after another.

hometruths · 21-01-2021 1:02pm

PropQueries wrote: »

The way things are going, by pricing the majority of younger families out to the suburbs, the areas within walking distance of the centers of our cities and towns will be the equivalent of retirement communities in a few short years IMO

I agree with the thinking behind this, but see it panning out slightly differently.

Premium areas such as D4 and 6, walking distance to centre, and high end established suburbs like Dalkey, Monkstown etc will be relatively unaffected because there will always be wealthy people to pay a premium for the most desirable locations.

Where I see a problem is in SCD suburbs like Goatstown, Stillorgan, Deansgrange etc. These are mature areas now, and if younger generation is priced out who is going to buy them when current owners sell up and move on.

First cohort of younger generation will have bought and settled in up and coming areas further out, and unlikely to trade up into these areas, next cohort are unlikely to be able to buy in SCD at current prices.

If i was an empty nester in my 60s in this area, with neighbours of a similiar profile I'd be exploring the option of joining forces with them to sell in bulk for development, with the sweetener of a mews or luxury ground floor flat thrown in for good measure.

Cyrus · 21-01-2021 1:17pm

schmittel wrote: »

I agree with the thinking behind this, but see it panning out slightly differently.

Premium areas such as D4 and 6, walking distance to centre, and high end established suburbs like Dalkey, Monkstown etc will be relatively unaffected because there will always be wealthy people to pay a premium for the most desirable locations.

Where I see a problem is in SCD suburbs like Goatstown, Stillorgan, Deansgrange etc. These are mature areas now, and if younger generation is priced out who is going to buy them when current owners sell up and move on.

First cohort of younger generation will have bought and settled in up and coming areas further out, and unlikely to trade up into these areas, next cohort are unlikely to be able to buy in SCD at current prices.

If i was an empty nester in my 60s in this area, with neighbours of a similiar profile I'd be exploring the option of joining forces with them to sell in bulk for development, with the sweetener of a mews or luxury ground floor flat thrown in for good measure.

i think people are underestimating the ability of people to buy in SCD, there are plenty of couples both earning plenty of money that can afford it. As long as that persists property prices in more desirable areas will reflect that.

fliball123 · 21-01-2021 2:38pm

Cyrus wrote: »

i think people are underestimating the ability of people to buy in SCD, there are plenty of couples both earning plenty of money that can afford it. As long as that persists property prices in more desirable areas will reflect that.

This is whats being a missed a large % of the population did not get affected by PUP or Covid when it comes to wages and in fact these people are saving more due to not having to travel to work or pay 10 euro for a soggy sambo and a coffee in Dublin city center areas which can be seen by the historic savings figures back in Oct/Nov of 2020.

TheSheriff · 21-01-2021 2:40pm

Cyrus wrote: »

i think people are underestimating the ability of people to buy in SCD, there are plenty of couples both earning plenty of money that can afford it. As long as that persists property prices in more desirable areas will reflect that.

Have to agree here, as distasteful as it sounds during a pandemic, there are plenty of early 30s couples floating around with this this kind of buying power.

Covid has not impacted this cohort. It's business as usual, perhaps with extra cash in the bank due to a decrease in discretionary spending.

Timing belt · 21-01-2021 3:12pm

PropQueries wrote: »

What you're showing does appear to make sense from just looking at the real world. For example, the children of many of the people who moved into council/corporation houses built right up the 1980's would now be in their 30's and may have flown the nest by now so there's probably just a couple living in many of those 3 bed houses.

What areas of Dublin would most of the council/corporation houses have built in the 1980's? I imagine it would have been Fingal and south county Dublin

Can you please explain so why in the 2016 census both of these places had 3+ occupants per semi-detached which is above the country average of 2.88

PropQueries · 21-01-2021 3:38pm

Timing belt wrote: »

What areas of Dublin would most of the council/corporation houses have built in the 1980's? I imagine it would have been Fingal and south county Dublin

Can you please explain so why in the 2016 census both of these places had 3+ occupants per semi-detached which is above the country average of 2.88

That's a good point. Does the CSO provide the average occupancy for the corporation estates in those areas?

beauf · 21-01-2021 3:52pm

Timing belt wrote: »

What areas of Dublin would most of the council/corporation houses have built in the 1980's? I imagine it would have been Fingal and south county Dublin

Can you please explain so why in the 2016 census both of these places had 3+ occupants per semi-detached which is above the country average of 2.88

There seemed to be states of all sizes large and small still popping up all over. Long time ago to remember.

L1011 · 21-01-2021 5:09pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

how about a scheme where a child would buy the family home for their family and the elderly parent or parents would move to an apartment or duplex nearby? you could offer tax incentives...

like no stamp duty on purchase or either property...

Stamp duty is now so low that it would not form much of an incentive.

Connavar · 21-01-2021 5:28pm

beauf wrote: »

I mentioned this on these forums before that so many place are souless here, no community central space, no planned green spaces. It just cram new developments on top of each other with no thought to how it will be to live there.

I was basically laughed out of it, by people who only interest was getting their foot on the property ladder that suited their immediate needs, no care about long term living.

Its something that has always bugged me.

Something they do much better in Spain from what I know.
Centers/recreational areas/schools etc are built before/at the same time as big new housing projects so the infrastructure and amenieties are there from day one and creates a community.

PropQueries · 21-01-2021 5:29pm

Looks like the Minister for Housing is pushing hard on his HTB scheme.

The Irish Independent reported "Renters to save €11,000 under new affordable housing scheme, minister claims"

So, if the state lends you €100,000 to buy that house for €400,000 and you wish to sell in 5 years time and the market price is €300,000, is the buyer still on the hook to the state for the €100,000 they lent them to "help" them onto the property ladder?

If so, doesn't it go against their premise that it's to help people buy and not just a €100k subsidy to the developer payed in full by the purchaser?

Also, if the whole purpose of the HTB is to increase supply and bring down prices and if it works, isn't the purchaser who is availing of HTB guaranteed to lose money if he chooses to sell in 5 years time?

Link to article in Irish Independent here: https://www.independent.ie/news/renters-to-save-11000-under-new-affordable-housing-scheme-minister-claims-39993427.html

awec · 21-01-2021 5:52pm

PropQueries wrote: »

Looks like the Minister for Housing is pushing hard on his HTB scheme.

The Irish Independent reported "Renters to save €11,000 under new affordable housing scheme, minister claims"

So, if the state lends you €100,000 to buy that house for €400,000 and you wish to sell in 5 years time and the market price is €300,000, is the buyer still on the hook to the state for the €100,000 they lent them to "help" them onto the property ladder?

If so, doesn't it go against their premise that it's to help people buy and not just a €100k subsidy to the developer payed in full by the purchaser?

Also, if the whole purpose of the HTB is to increase supply and bring down prices and if it works, isn't the purchaser who is availing of HTB guaranteed to lose money if he chooses to sell in 5 years time?

Link to article in Irish Independent here: https://www.independent.ie/news/renters-to-save-11000-under-new-affordable-housing-scheme-minister-claims-39993427.html

Since the government is buying a 30% stake I would assume that the value of that 30% stake fluctuates with the value of the property. Up or down.

DataDude · 21-01-2021 5:57pm

PropQueries wrote: »

Looks like the Minister for Housing is pushing hard on his HTB scheme.

The Irish Independent reported "Renters to save €11,000 under new affordable housing scheme, minister claims"

So, if the state lends you €100,000 to buy that house for €400,000 and you wish to sell in 5 years time and the market price is €300,000, is the buyer still on the hook to the state for the €100,000 they lent them to "help" them onto the property ladder?

If so, doesn't it go against their premise that it's to help people buy and not just a €100k subsidy to the developer payed in full by the purchaser?

Also, if the whole purpose of the HTB is to increase supply and bring down prices and if it works, isn't the purchaser who is availing of HTB guaranteed to lose money if he chooses to sell in 5 years time?

Link to article in Irish Independent here: https://www.independent.ie/news/renters-to-save-11000-under-new-affordable-housing-scheme-minister-claims-39993427.html

When I initially saw this scheme proposed I thought it was political suicide. Given what we saw in the last election, I would have assumed FF/FG would finally see the light and that a reduction (or at least flatlining) of property prices was needed in order to not completely alienate the under 35s and get massacred at the next election.

Beginning to wonder now however - does it just solidify the vote of current homeowners, and potentially win over enough FTBuyers who use the scheme but aren't financially inclined enough to realise that they've just borrowed money to give to a developer because "sure I have a house now and I don't need to start repaying that bit for 5 years...happy days"?

Perhaps the idea is more "clever" than I gave FF credit for!

Who loses? Those of us non-home owners earning €100k+ who pay for everything but receive nothing...I guess some things will never change!

Timing belt · 21-01-2021 6:25pm

awec wrote: »

Since the government is buying a 30% stake I would assume that the value of that 30% stake fluctuates with the value of the property. Up or down.

This was not the case with previous HTB Schemes in Ireland.

Previously if the property was under the market value at the date of purchase the owner still owned the full 30%.
e.g.
house market value at date of purchase 350k
Gov Equity 30% 105k
Individual 70% 245k

Individual sells the house 5 years later for 300k he only gets 195k (300-105) to repay against his mortgage with the bank.

Individual sells the house 5 years later for 400k he gets 280k (245+35) and the government get 120k (105+15)

If it is like the UK then these properties struggle to make the market value at date of purchase for a number of years to come.

awec · 21-01-2021 6:32pm

Timing belt wrote: »

This was not the case with previous HTB Schemes in Ireland.

Previously if the property was under the market value at the date of purchase the owner still owned the full 30%.
e.g.
house market value at date of purchase 350k
Gov Equity 30% 105k
Individual 70% 245k

Individual sells the house 5 years later for 300k he only gets 195k (300-105) to repay against his mortgage with the bank.

Individual sells the house 5 years later for 400k he gets 280k (245+35) and the government get 120k (105+15)

If it is like the UK then these properties struggle to make the market value at date of purchase for a number of years to come.

My assumption was this being similar to the UK scheme. It sounds very similar, with the no fees for 5 years then a monthly fee etc etc.

But you could be right.

Villa05 · 21-01-2021 6:35pm

fliball123 wrote:

So you dont believe what the experts think. I think I will believe experts over you with your track record. Sorry but 4/6% Obsolescence is the norm for this country. Houses have to be knocked down in order to build new devs.

The experts got it so right last time

PropQueries wrote:

The Irish Independent reported "Renters to save â‚¬11,000 under new affordable housing scheme, minister claims"

He made reference to the scheme in England and how well it worked, however a review of same scheme found that 60% of the people that availed of it did not need it.

It was basically used as risk spreading tool

Timing belt · 21-01-2021 6:40pm

awec wrote: »

My assumption was this being similar to the UK scheme. It sounds very similar, with the no fees for 5 years then a monthly fee etc etc.

But you could be right.

I just had a quick look at the UK HTB scheme and you are correct that the government take any gain/loss for the Equity element they have.
e.g.
if you purchased a home valued at £250,000 of which 20% was made up of an equity loan (£50,000) and the value of your home subsequently fell to £200,000. You would only need to pay back 20% of £200,000 which is £40,000.

This is different to the HTB schemes that were previously in Ireland. Will be interesting to see the exact details when they get published.

2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

Comments

2021 Irish Property Market chat - mod warnings post 1