Ireland has the highest proportion of under occupied dwellings in the EU.

beauf · 16-06-2019 1:25pm

Well I'm out. Too much focusing on single issues and no analytical thinking here.

STB. · 16-06-2019 1:27pm

Graham wrote: »

Struggling to see why owned houses built on the east coast would automatically make them more likely to be under occupied.

And there I was thinking that you were reading my responses in detail!

I never said "houses built on the east coast would automatically make them more likely to be under occupied" Quite the opposite.

What I said was that so called "Under occupation" figures are diluted and skewed for Ireland due to the fact that rural Ireland is low density.

The demands for housing continue to be on the east coast, due to the economic demands and the vast population economic centre that is the greater Dublin Area.

Even so, the actual stats are meaningless as they do not account for a vast amount of cultural differences, landscape and environmental factors that make us differ from our European neighbors.

[Deleted User] · 16-06-2019 1:39pm

Lumen wrote: »

Not for rent, because moving tenancy is relatively cheap and simple.

But owner occupied housing is inevitably stickier, and in any case 125sqm is not excessive for a family of four or five.

A measure based on floor area (say 30sqm + 30sqm per person) would make much more sense.

And obvs underoccupancy is only a problem where it's a problem. Do we care about half empty houses in Leitrim?

125 sq metres is very small, my build will be around 280sq metres excluding garage and will be just 3 of us living in it to begin with anyway.

[Deleted User] · 16-06-2019 2:24pm

Graham wrote: »

Discussion isn't about government, government proposals or government policy.

There is something amiss with how we plan, build and utilise housing.

Crying about 'housing crisis' while pretending abnormally high under-occupancy (across housing tenures) are not part of the problem would be a bit daft.

Owner occupied properties are no ones business but their owners.
Social housing is another thing and under occupancy should be planned for with smaller units available once children reach a certain age. Or maybe all social housing in high demand areas limited to 2 bed properties. If the tenant wants a bigger property then they accept one in a less populated area.

Lumen · 16-06-2019 2:27pm

Howard Refined Salt wrote: »

125 sq metres is very small, my build will be around 280sq metres excluding garage and will be just 3 of us living in it to begin with anyway.

Plenty of space for many leather bound books, and I trust it will smell of rich mahogany.

Lackadaisical · 16-06-2019 2:32pm

I'd suspect one of the issues is we weirdly sell homes based on the number of bedrooms, rather than usable space.

So you'll see a 5 bedroom house being marketed rather than a particular floor space.

I find a lot of Irish homes have pokey bedrooms that were clearly designed to maximize the number for marketing reasons.

Also family sizes are smaller. If you went back to the 70s contraception was illegal or difficult to get and huge families were normal. So your a demand for large numbers of bedrooms in mid 20th century homes.

I also think we generally take an anglophone view of housing that's more like North America and Australia/NZ than most of continental Europe. Scandinavian countries can be a little more like that too.

If you look at that map the smaller dwellings seem to be largely in countries to the east, but so is the overcrowded dwelling issue.

bertsmom · 16-06-2019 2:38pm

I'm 37 and live in a four bedroom semi detached house on my own. I am not in any way sorry for this. I work full time sacrifice buying a lot of things ie electronic devices and iPhones etc.
I pay my mortgage and take no money from the state. I really feel the state should mind it's own business as long as I'm not asking for state assistance to pay for my home.
If the state wants to get single people living in one bedroom places perhaps it should start by looking at council homes with single occupancy.

[Deleted User] · 16-06-2019 2:59pm

Graham wrote: »

Because we have the whole housing thing so well sorted?

10 years ago there wasn't a housing issue....occupancy rates would have been lower.

[Deleted User] · 16-06-2019 3:02pm

Howard Refined Salt wrote: »

125 sq metres is very small, my build will be around 280sq metres excluding garage and will be just 3 of us living in it to begin with anyway.

You never got the landlord gig going Nox?
I hope the build goes better for you :pac:

brightspark · 16-06-2019 3:41pm

If someone has earned enough money to pay for large house who cares how many people live in it?

The taxes on both their income and on the property when it was bought etc have probably made it possible to subsidise those who haven't earned a cent yet still want to live where ever they want.

People often need a "spare room" or even a couple of spare rooms for when family members visit (e.g. a grandparent who stays over a few nights to help babysit etc) or even just for occasions such as Christmas etc.
If they can afford to purchase a large enough house whose business is it that it isn't fully occupied 24/7/365.

Even the widowed grandparent is entitled to have sufficient rooms to allow their family stay when they can.

However if someone cannot afford to own or even pay the full market rent on a property, then they should either move to a location where they can or accept that they cannot have a large house to themselves.

Lackadaisical · 16-06-2019 3:58pm

I think though a part of the homelessness issue here is a lack of accommodation that's affordable for single people.

We do have a gap where most housing is 3 and 4 bedroom suburban houses and they're now often being used by multiple adults sharing.

There's definitely a growing demand for apartments that's not being met. I don't think that survey is pointing at forcing people to change home type but it's rather showing that our mix of housing types isn't really matching the demographics and they really have changed dramatically over the past few decades.

I don't really think having multiple, unrelated adults having to share homes should be normalised. People do have expectations to have their own space and privacy.

I'm also not happy with the build to rent setup, where companies are building to let, unless it also comes with long term leading options and security of tenure, like in countries where that model is common.

FG and FF seem happy to bring in big developers to build to let but they've left the rental arrangements as they evolved for small and accidental landlords. That needs to change or BTR won't work.

LirW · 16-06-2019 4:00pm

Lackadaisical wrote: »

I'd suspect one of the issues is we weirdly sell homes based on the number of bedrooms, rather than usable space.

So you'll see a 5 bedroom house being marketed rather than a particular floor space.

I find a lot of Irish homes have pokey bedrooms that were clearly designed to maximize the number for marketing reasons.

Also family sizes are smaller. If you went back to the 70s contraception was illegal or difficult to get and huge families were normal. So your a demand for large numbers of bedrooms in mid 20th century homes.

I also think we generally take an anglophone view of housing that's more like North America and Australia/NZ than most of continental Europe. Scandinavian countries can be a little more like that too.

If you look at that map the smaller dwellings seem to be largely in countries to the east, but so is the overcrowded dwelling issue.

Contrary to that in continental Europe you often have the floor space and a number of rooms - not bedrooms. And sometimes in one of the rooms is the designated space for the kitchen. So a two room apartment is in reality a one bed with living-dining. Sometimes the kitchen is extra and you can use both as bedrooms, especially popular for shares.
They do have their fair share of oddly laid out apartments there and there's no hard rule around bedrooms which is incredibly annoying.

I like the number of bedrooms as an indication, it gives you an idea how many rooms are really suitable for sleeping. I don't find it unreasonable though if a couple pays for their own 3bed home, for what I'm concerned a single person can live in a 7bed castle if they wish to do so.

When it comes to under occupation in council properties this is an entirely kettle of fish but I'm not gonna open this can of worms now because the mismanagement is too vast.

Lackadaisical · 16-06-2019 4:07pm

The worst case is what the Tories did with the bedroom tax. They put the cart before the horse and applied a disjointed, cold, hard economic and bureaucratic solution to a physical problem. They didn't build appropriate alternative council accommodation in the communities, and especially in smaller towns smaller council homes don't exist as the wasn't historically space pressure. The result was they forced elderly residents out of familiar communities, taxed very low income households who couldn't find alternative accommodation and even pushed disabled people out of adapted larger homes.

They seem to have always specialised in applying crude economic calculation to human situation, regardless of the practical or social implication. It's not new either, when you consider the history.

brightspark · 16-06-2019 4:07pm

Lackadaisical wrote: »

I think though a part of the homelessness issue here is a lack of accommodation that's affordable for single people.

We do have a gap where most housing is 3 and 4 bedroom suburban houses and they're now often being used by multiple adults sharing.

There's definitely a growing demand for apartments that's not being met. I don't think that survey is pointing at forcing people to change home type but it's rather showing that our mix of housing types isn't really matching the demographics and they really have changed dramatically over the past few decades.

I don't really think having multiple, unrelated adults having to share homes should be normalised. People do have expectations to have their own space and privacy.

I'm also not happy with the build to rent setup, where companies are building to let, unless it also comes with long term leading options and security of tenure, like in countries where that model is common.

FG and FF seem happy to bring in big developers to build to let but they've left the rental arrangements as they evolved for small and accidental landlords. That needs to change or BTR won't work.

When I was single 20+ years ago the choice was either a bed-sit or house-sharing. There was no way I could have afforded a one bed apartment and even if I could have it was more prudent to save my money for a house deposit.

Lackadaisical · 16-06-2019 4:13pm

brightspark wrote: »

When I was single 20+ years ago the choice was either a bed-sit or house-sharing. There was no way I could have afforded a one bed apartment and even if I could have it was more prudent to save my money for a house deposit.

The issue though is that the housing market in the cities, relative to income has made that unrealistic for many people.

There's a huge issue with affordability and then you've got to couple that to using a stable currency with very low inflation.

Most of our parents generation bought houses they could barely afford and high inflation melted their mortgages away to very affordable levels over a decade or so. That's never going to happen again due to the price stability of the Eurozone.

The price stability is a huge advantage too but in terms of housing and mortgages it's a different paradigm entirely to the 1950s-1990s.

We have gone form a situation where a single income family could afford very decent housing to one where a double income family (with a lot more spending power in terms of other goods and services) are struggling to ever attain the same standards their parents did.

That's a global issue though, not just an Irish one and it's why you're seeing the rise of the likes of Trump. There was an expectation that things keep getting better. This is one of the first modern generations in the West that will be worse off than their parents, certainly in terms of housing. We are doing better in Ireland in employment and spending power in every other area, just not accomodation.

So we either need to increase supply and deflate the house prices, which will infuriate those who enjoy their notional paper wealth and those who bought at high prices and would be in negative equity. Or, we supplement it with build to rent as a parallel market.

I would prefer to deflate the asset prices to a sane level but I think that'd never going to happen due to the reality of politics.

It looks to me we'll go for two tier housing. Those of us who'll live in long term rental and won't be able to aspire to own a home Vs those who can.

I just can't see FF and FG doing anything to undermine house prices, so we end up with an asset rich Vs asset poor divide, largely in a generational basis.

I also think in the medium term that's also going to be the end of FF and FG. If the housing situation isn't resolved with affordability and sustainable supply, you'll ultimately see more votes going elsewhere.

[Deleted User] · 16-06-2019 4:53pm

Augeo wrote: »

You never got the landlord gig going Nox?

By choice, I could rent our current house (owned by my wife) but between zero rights for LLs and the insane taxes it’s not worth the hassle.

Nobelium · 16-06-2019 5:14pm

I notice the last few years there's a political trend of continually attacking and going after old people ?

Do some people think growing old and finding themselves in the same position in few years time doesn't apply to them ?

LirW · 16-06-2019 5:34pm

Nobelium wrote: »

I notice the last few years there's a political trend of continually attacking and going after old people ?

Do some people think growing old and finding themselves in the same position in few years time doesn't apply to them ?

For a lot of things social housing is the scapegoat, with under-occupancy it's the elderly. Like I get where people are coming from when they see aunt Mary living in a 5bed red brick and effectively uses two rooms because she's old, not entirely fit anymore and in reality it's a burden.
But old people owning their houses shouldn't have to leave, simply because the urban areas in this country failed completely to sufficiently cater to all age groups other than families in need of 3bed semis.
There is simply nothing out there the elderly could downsize to even if they wanted to. It's beyond difficult displacing an old person in need of a certain support network that they know. So it makes sense for them to stay put even if the property isn't right anymore.

But believe me, if there would be an incentive to get elderly to downsize, young people would be in arms again because they snap up properties that would suit professional couples and singles with no family plans.

Eric Cartman · 16-06-2019 5:58pm

LirW wrote: »

For a lot of things social housing is the scapegoat, with under-occupancy it's the elderly. Like I get where people are coming from when they see aunt Mary living in a 5bed red brick and effectively uses two rooms because she's old, not entirely fit anymore and in reality it's a burden.
But old people owning their houses shouldn't have to leave, simply because the urban areas in this country failed completely to sufficiently cater to all age groups other than families in need of 3bed semis.
There is simply nothing out there the elderly could downsize to even if they wanted to. It's beyond difficult displacing an old person in need of a certain support network that they know. So it makes sense for them to stay put even if the property isn't right anymore.

But believe me, if there would be an incentive to get elderly to downsize, young people would be in arms again because they snap up properties that would suit professional couples and singles with no family plans.

Well you can build retirement villages like in other countries. Incentivise older people to downsize by allowing them to move to a retirement village and in exchange pay no tax on the sale of the house or transfer of that wealth to children in future.

Nobelium · 16-06-2019 6:02pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well you can build retirement villages like in other countries. Incentivise older people to downsize by allowing them to move to a retirement village and in exchange pay no tax on the sale of the house or transfer of that wealth to children in future.

Excellent idea, but wouldn't suit the vested interests of the "fair deal" scam

TSQ · 16-06-2019 6:05pm

brightspark wrote: »

When I was single 20+ years ago the choice was either a bed-sit or house-sharing. There was no way I could have afforded a one bed apartment and even if I could have it was more prudent to save my money for a house deposit.

Yes, and a pretty small and un-cool bedsit at that. It was horrible by todays standards but you just accepted that "i want everything and i want it now" didnt cut it in the real world, and it was up to yourself to get it together.

[Deleted User] · 16-06-2019 6:23pm

I haven't lived in many other countries long term, i haven't a great idea of the way housing works in other countries, etc.

but I do know several people, pensioners, in Council houses. Typical 3-bed houses, and they're living on their own. Council offered one of these people €5,000 as a cash incentive to downsize and move to a 1 bed in a different place. I thought the concept of the council offering cash was madness, but even more-so, i found it bizarre that this fella, that would take the arm off you for a euro, actually turned it down.

His reasoning was the same that I've heard from pretty much everyone else that has been asked to move on: They know the area they're in now, and they know the Council will house anyone randomly.

In other words, they know who their neighbours are, and that they don't get hassle. But the council could easily move them in beside a load of scumbags, travellers, druggies, etc. that the person doesn't want to be beside.

I reckon if the anti-social issues that plague many estates (and seems almost unique to council tenants) was actually stamped out, then you'd have more people that would be interested in moving to different areas.

The chap I'm talking about is always giving out that it costs too much to heat his house, garden takes too much maintenance, but at least he knows that where he is at the moment, he won't have a petrol bomb through the window, or teenagers sitting on his front wall, or have to listen to joyriding every night of the week or worry about anything along those lines. And I can completely understand what he means and where he's coming from when the says that.

brightspark · 16-06-2019 6:45pm

TSQ wrote: »

Yes, and a pretty small and un-cool bedsit at that. It was horrible by todays standards but you just accepted that "i want everything and i want it now" didnt cut it in the real world, and it was up to yourself to get it together.

Yes, but almost everyone I knew lived in similar places. Typically with just a two bar heater for warmth, and the toilet could be across a hallway.

Even when I bought my house it didn't have central heating, relying on a back-boiler from the fireplace that just about took the chill out of the air when burning coal.
As I was saving up to buy new windows and get oil central heating installed I was reading in the paper about how the council tenants were complaining about waiting a few months to get it free.

Nobelium · 16-06-2019 7:00pm

TSQ wrote: »

Yes, and a pretty small and un-cool bedsit at that. It was horrible by todays standards but you just accepted that "i want everything and i want it now" didnt cut it in the real world, and it was up to yourself to get it together.

How many multiples of an average salary did the average house cost back then ?
Buying as house then was no where near as unobtainable as it is now.
It's a whole different ballgame nowadays.

brightspark · 16-06-2019 7:38pm

Nobelium wrote: »

How many multiples of an average salary did the average house cost back then ?
Buying as house then was no where near as unobtainable as it is now.
It's a whole different ballgame nowadays.

Back when I bought my house (1996) it my mortgage was for £43,000, which from memory was about the limit I could borrow on my earnings at the time (I needed a letter from my employer stating that my normal working week included a certain amount of guaranteed overtime), interest rate was fixed at about 7% I think, high now but small compared to historic levels at the time.

Without overtime, and in a job that pays less than the one I was in when I bought my house (the pay when I left that job was higher than what I am on now) there are several houses that I could just about afford if I was starting again. Most no doubt would need work, but so did mine!

Admittedly I don't live in Dublin, but I probably couldn't have afforded a house in Dublin at the time either.

Nobelium · 16-06-2019 8:48pm

brightspark wrote: »

Back when I bought my house (1996) it my mortgage was for £43,000, which from memory was about the limit I could borrow on my earnings at the time (I needed a letter from my employer stating that my normal working week included a certain amount of guaranteed overtime), interest rate was fixed at about 7% I think, high now but small compared to historic levels at the time.

what was your annual salary then, and what would a similar house cost today, and what would a similar job pay today ?

LirW · 16-06-2019 8:54pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well you can build retirement villages like in other countries. Incentivise older people to downsize by allowing them to move to a retirement village and in exchange pay no tax on the sale of the house or transfer of that wealth to children in future.

Given they want to move into it. They're an excellent idea for some elderly, not for everyone though. Some wouldn't cope in such an environment.
I have a grandmother that lives in a huge country house that's a total burden, she's too well to go into a care home but she refuses to sell and downsize or leave her area because the thought fills her with utter dread. There's not a lot you can do to make them move.

Again, the main issue isn't under-occupancy, it is that urban areas failed to cater to a wide variety of the population. The whole population has a lot on individual housing needs but only built the same layout all over the place. It's only natural that this leads to under-occupied houses because there's not much else to choose from. Existing units wouldn't even be split in two - the council did this here on my road, split 2 semi-ds in 2 units each.

brightspark · 16-06-2019 9:30pm

Nobelium wrote: »

what was your annual salary then, and what would a similar house cost today, and what would a similar job pay today ?

I don't recall the exact figures.

At the time I had the choice, based on savings and the fairly tight lending rules of the time which I think was 2 1/2 times annual salary for a single earner, between a 20 year old bungalow or a mid terrace in a new estate being built at the time. (I chose the older house because of it's location)

When the recession hit and that job finished over 10 years ago I was on about 25% more than my current position but that included overtime which I don't have now.

Entering my details as if I was in my mid 20s first time buyer etc (with my salary which would be available to anyone that age with my qualifications etc) into the mortgages.ie website results in a max mortgage of €148,000.

The property price register indicates that several houses in a similar housing estate sold recently for just €145,000.

Several second houses are also advertised under €150,000 on daft.ie in the area, some even under €100,000 but they look like they need a lot of renovating or are located in villages further from the town.

As I previously stated it's not Dublin, but a medium sized town just beyond the main commuter belt (though many commute by train). However I have looked at jobs in Dublin that pay substantially more than my current salary so the higher prices asked for in the commuter towns would probably be within my range. (not planning on moving though for a myriad of reasons)

pwurple · 17-06-2019 7:42am

I really think this thread really missed the context when it was split....

The previous thread had a statement around rentals. The premise was, that when landlords leave the market rentals become owner occupied, which has no impact on the net occupancy.

However, It clearly does, as renters can, and do behave more efficiently, because they are (in a working sector anyway), more free to move to accommodation which fits their needs.

We need all three sectors to be functional.
Social Housing
Rental Sector
Private Ownership.

The only conclusion I was making, is that penalizing the rental sector service providers does not solve any problems.

Graces7 · 17-06-2019 11:29am

LirW wrote: »

Given they want to move into it. They're an excellent idea for some elderly, not for everyone though. Some wouldn't cope in such an environment.
I have a grandmother that lives in a huge country house that's a total burden, she's too well to go into a care home but she refuses to sell and downsize or leave her area because the thought fills her with utter dread. There's not a lot you can do to make them move.

Thank you. Uprooting in old age is very hard for many . And that needs to be honoured

Ireland has the highest proportion of under occupied dwellings in the EU.

Comments