Room to Improve.

stapolinhosting

amdublin wrote: »

Im sorry to hear you didn't want to sell it at all. Hope you are settled in new home. I guess it might have ben sold for half of what it was worth at one point (the peak/boom). But I'm assuming it was sold for ten/twenty times it was worth at another time (30 years ago).

All true, but before the boom it was valued around 750k and at time of sale it was more, but the advice was to take what you can get. Keep in mind, thousands of pounds/euro had gone back into that house, I remember when we moved in, their was parts of floors missing, the kitchen was a small gally at best. The attic looked like something from a horror movie. Recently the house had he refitted with solid teak stairs, new doors, pantry added to the kitchen (kitchen was also an extension we added), new shed/workshop build out the back garden. So lots of money and time had gone into the house over the years.

The parents got a place in Rush, with what was left after the banks got their bit.

stapolinhosting

Hollister11 wrote: »

TBH I don't now why Sutton houses are extortionate. Howth is a much nicer place to live and houses for some reason are cheaper

It was baldoyle, not Sutton.

helimachoptor

though the approach was interesting wasnt impressed with the exterior work but interior was good.


More a general question, but would every architect do a scale model like dermo?

stapolinhosting

helimachoptor wrote: »

though the approach was interesting wasnt impressed with the exterior work but interior was good.


More a general question, but would every architect do a scale model like dermo?

If requested, you can have them done. Most would be able to do it but it does take time, and time is money.

For the exterior, im glad the front was left the way it was but the windows didn't seem to look right for some reason. , the back though, that just looked odd. To me, flat roofs just look cheap and on that house I looks out of character to the other houses around it.

Call me Al

stapolinhosting wrote: »

As a house, it was fine but for the design they wanted, yeah, any house would probably have been better to level and start again.

If we are talking about the money spent then from a practical emotions-aside perspective then sure it would've made more sense to start from scratch.
But they were after that view, and that was apparent the minute they brought the camera crew through that front door, so for them any site wouldn't have ticked the box.
Seaviews in Dublin will always command a premium so I'm not surprised they spent €470k on what was essentially a shell for their eventual plans.
I absolutely loved what they did with it. Sitting at their kitchen table they won't have to see another car or van, and that must be a plus for them considering they had so little privacy at the front of their house.

Hollister11

stapolinhosting wrote: »

It was baldoyle, not Sutton.

I know it was Baldoyle, I live there.
I was responding to some one else's reply

P. Breathnach

stapolinhosting wrote: »

...
For the exterior, im glad the front was left the way it was but the windows didn't seem to look right for some reason....

I thought that, too.

The picture windows worked very well from the inside (with a view like that, they could hardly fail). But they broke the pattern of the exterior, and that is an aesthetic price.

There is also an issue of architectural good manners. A house should fit well with its neighbours, and that applies particularly to a semi-detached house on a road of semi-detached houses.

helimachoptor

recipio wrote: »

........of which 47,610 goes to the government in vat.:eek:

i wonder if anything is done cash in hand on the job..

recipio

Actually I'm wrong.Its only 23% of the materials cost.Still a big chunk to give away for nothing.

mickdw

recipio wrote: »

........of which 47,610 goes to the government in vat.:eek:

No it doesn't.

stapolinhosting

Hollister11 wrote: »

I know it was Baldoyle, I live there.
I was responding to some one else's reply

Sorry, didn't realise. But yeah in that case, your right. Sutton manages to get top prices on the properties.

recipio

mickdw wrote: »

No it doesn't.

I've deleted my mistake. There must be some way around this penal tax. Buy materials in NI ?

P. Breathnach

recipio wrote: »

I've deleted my mistake. There must be some way around this penal tax. Buy materials in NI ?

And pay UK VAT instead?

If I could afford a job like that, then I should be able to afford the VAT.

Galwayguy35

amdublin wrote: »

I like this couple. They are very positive.

Pushovers I would call them, they let him have all his own way.

470 k to buy the place, another 170 k agreed price and then fork out another 17 k because there was no foundation.

And it is still wedged up against the neighbours house after it all.

Effects

recipio wrote: »

Actually I'm wrong.Its only 23% of the materials cost.Still a big chunk to give away for nothing.

It's 13.5% on materials and labour.

Effects

grouchyman wrote: »

Must say I don't like upside down houses. Not great for the older folk or wheelchair users.

Why would you build your house to suit other people?

Galego

Effects wrote: »

Why would you build your house to suit other people?

Because you may need to sell it in a future?

Not sure how many buyers would be willing to have that lay-out.....

stapolinhosting

recipio wrote: »

I've deleted my mistake. There must be some way around this penal tax. Buy materials in NI ?

There is a 2 thirds rule, if labor accounts for more than 2 thirds of the material costs you can charge the lower VAT rate (dont quote me on that but I think thats how it works).

stapolinhosting

Galego wrote: »

Because you may need to sell it in a future?

Not sure how many buyers would be willing to have that lay-out.....

As a family home with that layout.. I could not see it working (unless your kids were able to sit very quite in a corner of the room).. never mind the constant running up and down the stairs to answer the door. Shopping.. no way I would want to have to carry it up the stairs.. that's why kitchens belong downstairs lol

ted1

stapolinhosting wrote: »

They got the house for half price.. so they got a pretty dam good bargain is you ask me.

Did they not pay market rate ?

ted1

stapolinhosting wrote: »

It was worth more than that during the boom, 3 houses down the street went for well over that much after the bubble burst.

That means absolutely nothing, things are only worth what somebody is willing to pay

TitianGerm

Effects wrote: »

It's 13.5% on materials and labour.

Can claim the Vat back now as well over three years with the home renovation scheme.

Penn

stapolinhosting wrote: »

As a family home with that layout.. I could not see it working (unless your kids were able to sit very quite in a corner of the room).. never mind the constant running up and down the stairs to answer the door. Shopping.. no way I would want to have to carry it up the stairs.. that's why kitchens belong downstairs lol

People who live in the likes of duplexes or flats across the country deal with it no problem.

I don't always agree with Dermot's designs, but moving the bedrooms downstairs and living areas upstairs was the right decision imo. Wouldn't work in a lot of houses, but definitely worked for that one.

Galego

Penn wrote: »

People who live in the likes of duplexes or flats across the country deal with it no problem.

I don't always agree with Dermot's designs, but moving the bedrooms downstairs and living areas upstairs was the right decision imo. Wouldn't work in a lot of houses, but definitely worked for that one.

I guess it is all down to personal preferences but I would assume majority of people would rather have the living space in the ground floor.

I actually think Dermot destroyed the "decent" size attic just to create some sort of view which IMO only works with bigger houses. That attic space would have come handy to store bulky belongings or unwanted junk. But then again he only designs the houses to look pretty but not necessary to be practical! This is at nearly 800k eur. Not saying it is not a nice view but can you actually not buy anything better nearby, with similar or identical view, for that budget?

stapolinhosting

Galego wrote: »

I guess it is all down to personal preferences but I would assume majority of people would rather have the living space in the ground floor.

I actually think Dermot destroyed the "decent" size attic just to create some sort of view which IMO only works with bigger houses. That attic space would have come handy to store bulky belongings or unwanted junk. But then again he only designs the houses to look pretty but not necessary to be practical! This is at nearly 800k eur. Not saying it is not a nice view but can you actually not buy anything better nearby, with similar or identical view, for that budget?

There was 3 brand new houses built a few years ago down the street, each was designed specifically for the view with large windows in the attic rooms which you can see awesome views from. The houses are also back from the road so no bother with privacy if you leave the blinds up when downstairs. I think one of them was still on the market at around 1m mark, but some haggling could have gotten that price down.

Atlantic Dawn

stapolinhosting wrote: »

There was 3 brand new houses built a few years ago down the street, each was designed specifically for the view with large windows in the attic rooms which you can see awesome views from. The houses are also back from the road so no bother with privacy if you leave the blinds up when downstairs. I think one of them was still on the market at around 1m mark, but some haggling could have gotten that price down.

Yes here's one of them, €950k...



http://www.daft.ie/dublin/houses-for-sale/baldoyle/brenthaven-40a-strand-road-baldoyle-dublin-1090214/

Galego

stapolinhosting wrote: »

There was 3 brand new houses built a few years ago down the street, each was designed specifically for the view with large windows in the attic rooms which you can see awesome views from. The houses are also back from the road so no bother with privacy if you leave the blinds up when downstairs. I think one of them was still on the market at around 1m mark, but some haggling could have gotten that price down.

I would retire if I had a million eur today! :-) :-)

For someone who lived in that house, did you actually agree with work done to the attic? I mean, what was the cost of that work alone, 50k?

Where are they going to store bulky stuff?

Call me Al

Galego wrote: »

I would retire if I had a million eur today! :-) :-)

For someone who lived in that house, did you actually agree with work done to the attic? I mean, what was the cost of that work alone, 50k?

Where are they going to store bulky stuff?

They have three bedrooms downstairs and only need one. I'd imagine they would use one of those rooms. Equally they possibly don't have a lot of bulky items that need storage.
Other than suitcases and Christmas decorations not much else goes in the attic in this house that can't be put in the garden shed.

Penn

Galego wrote: »

I guess it is all down to personal preferences but I would assume majority of people would rather have the living space in the ground floor.

Oh most people would absolutely prefer the living space on the ground floor. But for that house where the biggest selling point of the house for them was the view, having the living space upstairs was the right choice. As they said, most of the time the blinds upstairs are closed or down, and the view from the front window at ground level was badly hampered by the house being so close to the road at the front.

Red Kev