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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

What Happened to The Vacant Properties Counted in the Census?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    PropQueries
    Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭PropQueries


    PropQueries wrote: »
    Are they from the 2016 Census though?

    I see they're from the Census data alright. But, they must have been practically complete and ready for occupancy to be included. I can't see a house with no windows installed being included... But good information there.


  • Options
    #33
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    PropQueries wrote: »
    Are they from the 2016 Census though?
    Yes, the first picture is mainly from Parkside Phase 1, if there was any, only very few buildings (definitely not more than 50) from Phase 1 was completed by that time.
    The second picture from the same Balgriffin area, New Priory apartments were empty due to fire safety. It was rebuilt later


  • Options
    #34
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Surely the census report is either accurate or it is not?

    i.e if you don't have any faith in one particular set of data - vacant properties - why would you have any faith in the rest of the data?

    And it is the census data telling us that we have a chronic housing shortage? So are those assumptions shaky too?


  • Options
    #35
    PropQueries
    Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭PropQueries


    schmittel wrote: »
    Surely the census report is either accurate or it is not?

    i.e if you don't have any faith in one particular set of data - vacant properties - why would you have any faith in the rest of the data?

    And it is the census data telling us that we have a chronic housing shortage? So are those assumptions shaky too?

    I don't think it's the Census data telling us there's a chronic shortage of supply. That's the media who are completely reliant on estate agents for their advertising income e.g. The Irish Times owns MyHome.ie and the rest make their income from either either selling advertising space to supermarkets, car dealerships or estate agents in their Sunday editions. Just have a flick through the Sunday newspapers this weekend. The 2016 Census recorded around 180,000 vacant homes in Ireland. In 2018 in England there was 216,000 and they have a population of 10 times Irelands: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/11/empty-homes-england-rises-property


  • Options
    #36
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,356 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Are we back talking about this census thing again? Hasn’t that been shown to be nonsense time and time again on this thread?

    One of the Dublin councils did an inspection of these so called vacant properties and found the majority of them were in fact occupied.

    I think the reason we stopped hearing about these vacant units was that it turned out using the census to try figure out vacancy was so wildly inaccurate that the data was useless.

    Gathering accurate vacancy information is very difficult, evidenced by the fact that nobody has managed to figure out how to do it yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    PropQueries
    Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭PropQueries


    awec wrote: »
    Are we back talking about this census thing again? Hasn’t that been shown to be nonsense time and time again on this thread?

    One of the Dublin councils did an inspection of these so called vacant properties and found the majority of them were in fact occupied.

    I think the reason we stopped hearing about these vacant units was that it turned out using the census to try figure out vacancy was so wildly inaccurate that the data was useless.

    Gathering accurate vacancy information is very difficult, evidenced by the fact that nobody has managed to figure out how to do it yet.

    Gathering accurate data is what the Census actually does. The information you're referring to is actually "drive-by" data on a couple of estates. I'd go by the Census figures as if they were debunked, the figures would have been changed afterwards or at the very least a disclaimer added. Census figures are very important and any information that debunks them would be noted.


  • Options
    #38
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    awec wrote: »
    Are we back talking about this census thing again? Hasn’t that been shown to be nonsense time and time again on this thread?

    One of the Dublin councils did an inspection of these so called vacant properties and found the majority of them were in fact occupied.

    I think the reason we stopped hearing about these vacant units was that it turned out using the census to try figure out vacancy was so wildly inaccurate that the data was useless.

    Gathering accurate vacancy information is very difficult, evidenced by the fact that nobody has managed to figure out how to do it yet.

    But is it just the vacant property figures that are nonsense or the entire census?

    Stands to reason that the whole thing is bogus and not worth quoting in any context.


  • Options
    #39
    PropQueries
    Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭PropQueries


    schmittel wrote: »
    But is it just the vacant property figures that are nonsense or the entire census?

    Stands to reason that the whole thing is bogus and not worth quoting in any context.

    Even if the census figures are nonsense, and if they were, the so-called vested interests e.g. estates agents, developers etc. would have already publicly debunked them (which they haven't), and the Census would have been forced to revise their figures or add a note to them, they signal a serious over-supply relative to a real city e.g. London, where our vacancy numbers are a multiple of London's figures on a per capita basis: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/11/empty-homes-england-rises-property


  • Options
    #40
    Hubertj
    Registered Users Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    schmittel wrote: »
    But is it just the vacant property figures that are nonsense or the entire census?

    Stands to reason that the whole thing is bogus and not worth quoting in any context.

    I would like to understand what criteria was used to determine if a unit is ‘vacant’. To suggest that some data within the census can’t be inaccurate is just ridiculous. Unless it suits the narrative that some claim there isn’t a shortage of property. But not even the losers on the left are claiming that.


  • Options
    #41
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,356 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    PropQueries wrote: »
    Gathering accurate data is what the Census actually does. The information you're referring to is actually "drive-by" data on a couple of estates. I'd go by the Census figures as if they were debunked, the figures would have been changed afterwards or at the very least a disclaimer added. Census figures are very important and any information that debunks them would be noted.

    There is nothing to be debunked.

    The census is not designed for evaluating the number of vacant properties in Ireland. It is designed to measure population as accurately as possible. They are two very different things.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    PropQueries
    Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭PropQueries


    awec wrote: »
    There is nothing to be debunked.

    The census is not designed for evaluating the number of vacant properties in Ireland. It is designed to measure population as accurately as possible. They are two very different things.

    Here;s the link to read for yourself. They take their recording of vacant homes very seriously: https://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2016reports/census2016vacanthousingstatisticsfaqs/#:~:text=CSO%20has%20produced%20more%20results,were%20still%20vacant%20in%202016.


  • Options
    #43
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,356 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    PropQueries wrote: »
    Here;s the link to read for yourself. They take their recording of vacant homes very seriously: https://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2016reports/census2016vacanthousingstatisticsfaqs/#:~:text=CSO%20has%20produced%20more%20results,were%20still%20vacant%20in%202016.

    I am aware of the link, it’s been discussed about 20 times on this forum already. Every time someone thinks they’ve uncovered some grand conspiracy between estate agents and the media and some other dark forces, the manufacturers of tin foil hats love it when this topic comes up.

    Someone not answering the door when the census person calls does not indicate vacancy. It’s a incredibly flaky methodology.

    Again, one of the Dublin councils literally checked this and found the majority occupied. We have a housing list that’s a decade long, if you think the councils aren’t looking into these supposed empty gaffs then you’re nuts.


  • Options
    #44
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Mod Note

    Thread Split


  • Options
    #45
    PropQueries
    Registered Users Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭PropQueries


    awec wrote: »
    I am aware of the link, it’s been discussed about 20 times on this forum already. Every time someone thinks they’ve uncovered some grand conspiracy between estate agents and the media and some other dark forces, the manufacturers of tin foil hats love it when this topic comes up.

    Someone not answering the door when the census person calls does not indicate vacancy. It’s a incredibly flaky methodology.

    Again, one of the Dublin councils literally checked this and found the majority occupied. We have a housing list that’s a decade long, if you think the councils aren’t looking into these supposed empty gaffs then you’re nuts.

    No they didn't lol. I saw the interview with the previous housing minister and he actually said it was a drive-by of certain areas. If the Census figures are wrong, they would have been changed or at least a note added that there is some reason why they may be wrong and the so-called vested interests e.g estate agents, developers etc., would have demanded such an addition.

    They haven't been changed so they must have being correct at that time. When you think about it, a landlord couldn't rent their property for free in 2011 and suddenly, in 2016, there was a rental shortage in Dublin. The census figures clearly state there was a population increase in Ireland of 172,000 between 2011 and 2016. Of that, over 100,000 was in the over 65's which leaves an increase of 70,000 people between 0 and 64. With 245,000 vacant properties including holiday homes, how could there possibly be a shortage?


  • Options
    #46
    Hubertj
    Registered Users Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    PropQueries wrote: »
    No they didn't lol. I saw the interview with the previous housing minister and he actually said it was a drive-by of certain areas. If the Census figures are wrong, they would have been changed or at least a note added that there is some reason why they may be wrong and the so-called vested interests e.g estate agents, developers etc., would have demanded such an addition.

    They haven't been changed so they must have being correct at that time. When you think about it, a landlord couldn't rent their property for free in 2011 and suddenly, in 2016, there was a rental shortage in Dublin. The census figures clearly state there was a population increase in Ireland of 172,000 between 2011 and 2016. Of that, over 100,000 was in the over 65's which leaves an increase of 70,000 people between 0 and 64. With 245,000 vacant properties including holiday homes, how could there possibly be a shortage?

    So you’re saying there is no accommodation shortage in Ireland and everyone is wrong - CSO, ESRI, Sinn Fein?


  • Options
    #47
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    PropQueries wrote: »
    Here;s the link to read for yourself. They take their recording of vacant homes very seriously: https://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2016reports/census2016vacanthousingstatisticsfaqs/#:~:text=CSO%20has%20produced%20more%20results,were%20still%20vacant%20in%202016.

    From report:

    "Do you know why the homes were vacant?
    CSO has produced new additional figures giving an insight into why some of the 183,312 homes were vacant on Census Night. While we don’t have a complete picture, we did note that many of the homes recorded as vacant were for sale, rental properties, had a deceased owner or were being renovated. Many of these may well have been occupied again a few weeks after the Census was completed. CSO is planning on producing more complete information of this nature on vacant homes for Census 2021."

    Less than 20% of vacant properties in Dublin Co. was recorded as a long term vacant. Meaning vacant on census night in 2011 and 2016.
    Thus probably vast majority of those 30.000 that was recorded vacant in 2016 in Dublin, would not be vacant if we do census tonight.
    And some of those that are long term vacant, are not in livable conditions, and maybe are about to be demolished.

    From other report
    http://airo.maynoothuniversity.ie/news/breakdown-housing-vacancy-figures-ireland
    "2. Long-term Vacancy
    The second category is based on properties that were vacant in both 2011 and 2016 and can be classed as ‘long-term vacant’ units. At a total of 65,039 or 35.5% of total vacant units, these properties account for 3.2% of the total housing stock. In contrast to the spatial distribution of the ‘recently vacant’ housing units the highest proportions of ‘long-term vacant’ units are within Roscommon (51.5%), Cavan (48.1%), Longford (48%) and Mayo (45.6%). Again, and as expected, lowest rates are within cities and commuters areas - South Dublin (14.8%), Fingal (16.3%), DLR (18.7%) and Dublin City (20.2%)."


  • Options
    #48
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Hubertj wrote: »
    I would like to understand what criteria was used to determine if a unit is ‘vacant’. To suggest that some data within the census can’t be inaccurate is just ridiculous. Unless it suits the narrative that some claim there isn’t a shortage of property. But not even the losers on the left are claiming that.

    There are two sides to every narrative, I guess.

    The housing shortage crisis is nonsense, look at the census

    And

    The housing shortage is drastic, the census is nonsense.


  • Options
    #49
    enricoh
    Registered Users Posts: 4,824 ✭✭✭enricoh


    myshirt wrote: »
    I think you are trying to undermine the integrity of the census, and I'm not having it. This isn't a survey for a new bingo night for the community hall. It's our census. It costs a shedload. It's a strong and robust process. Of course the information should be read in the right context, but by no means is it a bunch of enumerators not bothering their arse to do the job right. It's done right

    I know you didn't raise it directly but to the poster challenging the other poster with his two cocks, whether there is or isn't evidence of illegal cock fights included in the report is a side bar issue.

    I may well cost a shedload but a strong and robust process- I don't think so.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/number-of-vacant-homes-may-be-grossly-overstated-1.3220063%3Fmode%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwiB_ebrl4rrAhX6XRUIHS9wAjAQFjAAegQIBhAC&usg=AOvVaw3BQeAr_NbHLix3Esy4wL4Q&ampcf=1

    Its study, which involved council officials visiting houses listed as vacant, found that only a very small number of houses in the north county Dublin authority area (perhaps only 50 or 60) were genuinely unoccupied, compared with the 3,000 figure stated for Fingal in the official census returns.


  • Options
    #50
    Hubertj
    Registered Users Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    schmittel wrote: »
    There are two sides to every narrative, I guess.

    The housing shortage crisis is nonsense, look at the census

    And

    The housing shortage is drastic, the census is nonsense.

    I think the link provided by Marius above gives insight into how properties were counted vacant. being renovated? So a house being renovated which is uninhabitable is counted as being vacant? For sale means vacant? Pure genius


  • Options
    #51
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Hubertj wrote: »
    I think the link provided by Marius above gives insight into how properties were counted vacant. being renovated? So a house being renovated which is uninhabitable is counted as being vacant? For sale means vacant? Pure genius

    Marius’ link does indeed give an insight.

    Of particular interest is the long term vacancies as this represents a potential oversupply. I.e the same property was vacant in 2011 and 2016.

    As Marius quotes by relative numbers these are lowest in Dublin as you might expect.

    But of more interest are the reasons thAt they were vacant:
    Figure 9 below details the recorded reason for vacancy of the ‘long-term vacant’ units. Dublin local authorities have a much higher rate of For Sale and For Rent than the State average. Dublin City recorded more than twice the rate of For Rent than other Dublin local authorities with almost 16% of all vacant units on the rental market.

    So are these houses languishing on the rental market with no takers for 5 years or is it just a coincidence that a high number of properties in Dublin just happened to be between tenants on consecutive census nights 5 years apart?

    Or is there an altogether more probable explanation?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    the issue that census does not provide information on Permanent vacancy, so it's not a source for housing shortage details.
    They are planning to improve information about vacancy for 2021, hopefully they will add details on actual Permanent vacancy, although I don't expect magic, as it's abit of the complex question, and they can not work with other institutions to verify this.


  • Options
    #53
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    the issue that census does not provide information on Permanent vacancy, so it's not a source for housing shortage details.
    They are planning to improve information about vacancy for 2021, hopefully they will add details on actual Permanent vacancy, although I don't expect magic, as it's abit of the complex question, and they can not work with other institutions to verify this.

    Long term vacancy I.e 5 years + is very relevant in the context of a housing shortage.


  • Options
    #54
    Hubertj
    Registered Users Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    schmittel wrote: »
    Marius’ link does indeed give an insight.

    Of particular interest is the long term vacancies as this represents a potential oversupply. I.e the same property was vacant in 2011 and 2016.

    As Marius quotes by relative numbers these are lowest in Dublin as you might expect.

    But of more interest are the reasons thAt they were vacant:



    So are these houses languishing on the rental market with no takers for 5 years or is it just a coincidence that a high number of properties in Dublin just happened to be between tenants on consecutive census nights 5 years apart?

    Or is there an altogether more probable explanation?

    2 data points 5 years apart is less than useless. If this was updated quarterly then you have something to go on.


  • Options
    #55
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    Long term vacancy I.e 5 years + is very relevant in the context of a housing shortage.

    It is. But from census we only know, that on 2011 census night it was registered as vacant (for that specific night only, not in general), same for 2016. Thus, it doesn't really tell if it's really permanently vacant.


  • Options
    #56
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Hubertj wrote: »
    2 data points 5 years apart is less than useless. If this was updated quarterly then you have something to go on.

    You'd wonder why we bother with a census at all, if it is less than useless.


  • Options
    #57
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    It is. But from census we only know, that on 2011 census night it was registered as vacant (for that specific night only, not in general), same for 2016. Thus, it doesn't really tell if it's really permanently vacant.

    Nor does an occupied property tell us if it is really permanently occupied, but we can use our common sense to infer that.


  • Options
    #58
    Hubertj
    Registered Users Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    schmittel wrote: »
    You'd wonder why we bother with a census at all, if it is less than useless.


    They are totally different - objective of the census is to gather population information, hence the number of questions to compile a detailed data set. There are other sources of data for property. Or why didn’t the census cross reference vacant properties with RTB (or is it PRTB?) registrations?


  • Options
    #59
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Hubertj wrote: »
    They are totally different - objective of the census is to gather population information, hence the number of questions to compile a detailed data set. There are other sources of data for property. Or why didn’t the census cross reference vacant properties with RTB (or is it PRTB?) registrations?

    Probably because they have confidence in the methodology they have developed to try and evaluate every household in the country and didn’t expect people to say “sure the CSO doesn’t know its arse from its elbow, the census figures can’t be trusted, Fingal county council knocked on 76 doors and totally debunked it.”


  • Options
    #60
    Hubertj
    Registered Users Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    schmittel wrote: »
    Probably because they have confidence in the methodology they have developed to try and evaluate every household in the country and didn’t expect people to say “sure the CSO doesn’t know its arse from its elbow, the census figures can’t be trusted, Fingal county council knocked on 76 doors and totally debunked it.”

    I didn’t say the census can’t be trusted. I said that 2 data points 5 years apart are useless in terms of property.
    The explanation of what they determined vacant clearly sets out is extremely limited effectiveness in providing a reliable analysis of that data. Should a property that is being renovated be classified as vacant? Should a property for sale be vacant? What if people are living in it while it’s for sale?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Hubertj wrote: »
    I didn’t say the census can’t be trusted. I said that 2 data points 5 years apart are useless in terms of property.

    It was a generalisation on a view expressed here. Whilst you might not have explicitly said the census cannot be trusted, you're obviously not convinced by the data on vacant properties..
    Hubertj wrote: »
    The explanation of what they determined vacant clearly sets out is extremely limited effectiveness in providing a reliable analysis of that data. Should a property that is being renovated be classified as vacant? Should a property for sale be vacant? What if people are living in it while it’s for sale?

    Of course not, that's ridiculous. And that is not is what is being claimed by the census.

    Perhaps have another read of Marius' link to understand the explanation a little better.


Advertisement