Dublin price-rent

xpto

Hello,

I would like to know other people´s opinion regarding the increase of the price of the rent in Dublin.

Is this sustainable? Is it still worth to work and live in Dublin?

Thanks

ProudDUB

It is a free market economy. What ever people are willing to pay, will dictate what the market rents are going to be. Different people put different values on things, so what is worth it to one person, may not be worth it to another. A lot of people don't have a choice, because so many of the jobs are here. I can't see rents dropping any time soon, especially close to the city center.

January

Moved from Dublin City to Accommodation & Property.

Santa Cruz

Rents in areas convenient to the city centre are gone overboard. If there was an adequate public transport system people would not feel the need to have to live close to work. In London people commute in 40 miles and more to central London usually by rail and know they have a good service.

murphaph

xpto wrote: »

Hello,

I would like to know other people´s opinion regarding the increase of the price of the rent in Dublin.

Is this sustainable? Is it still worth to work and live in Dublin?

Thanks

If you think they're unsustainable in Dublin take a look at Munich or Paris rents v income. Paris is particularly bad. Average rent now €30/m² in Paris with lower take home pay than Dublin.

The_Conductor

murphaph wrote: »

If you think they're unsustainable in Dublin take a look at Munich or Paris rents v income. Paris is particularly bad. Average rent now €30/m² in Paris with lower take home pay than Dublin.

Berlin is the same- and despite being able to buy a two bed apartment on the likes of Tiergarten for less than 100k, people don't- when you factor in the costs of ownership, and the benefits of not being tied to a single property- it still makes more sense to rent.

_Kaiser_

murphaph wrote: »

If you think they're unsustainable in Dublin take a look at Munich or Paris rents v income. Paris is particularly bad. Average rent now €30/m² in Paris with lower take home pay than Dublin.

The_Conductor wrote: »

Berlin is the same- and despite being able to buy a two bed apartment on the likes of Tiergarten for less than 100k, people don't- when you factor in the costs of ownership, and the benefits of not being tied to a single property- it still makes more sense to rent.

Yeah but guys.. this isn't Munich, Paris, or Berlin.
One thing I see used all the time on this site is "well this is how they do it wherever". It's irrelevant, it may as well be on the moon for as much use as it is to compare to the situation in Ireland.


- Huge population differences / economies of scale. We have a population of about 4 million nationally. Berlin alone has 3.4 million people living in it.


- Public transport infrastructure. The Europeans generally have it right. Ours is infamous and has been for decades. Even the improvements (LUAS/DART) only serve a relatively small part of the city, and the wrong side - you'd get a lot more passengers on the north side of the city vs the well-heeled SUV driving south (stereotype maybe but with lots of truth).

- Population density. Everyone in Ireland wants a 3-bed semi-D with a garden. We don't build up in Dublin/Ireland, we build out - sure you could argue that Dublin extends as far as Navan, Drogheda, Naas etc now.
Contrast that to the proper-sized, far more common apartments on the continent. Here "apartments" are just shoe box flats with a fancy name and dodgy build quality in many cases


- The Irish mindset. As above we have this obsession with owning property in this country. We built an entire economy/house of cards on the idea of buying and selling overpriced poor quality houses and apartments in the middle of nowhere.
Renting is seen as the "poor man's choice" - for those with no other option, or as a stepping stone to "getting on the property ladder" (a term I personally despise but one which I reckon is on the way back as a skim through some of the threads here will show we've learned nothing from the last few years).


- The debt situation. Most people who were 25-40 10 years ago are up to their neck in debt, whether it's mortgages, credit cards, loans or whatever. Too many availed of the "free money" in the good times and will be paying for it for decades to come (as well as those of us who didn't party like it was 1999). The Germans are a very sensible people when it comes to money.


- The employment situation. We have hundreds of thousands (in a country of only 4 million) out of work and with no short-medium term solution in sight for many of these people as their careers were based on the aforementioned property bubble, while our "leaders" do nothing but massage the figures (hiding the true numbers in JobBridge schemes, CE schemes, FAS schemes and of course actively pushing young educated people onto planes).
Those who are still working (both private and public) have taken savage cuts for the most part, with ever inventive ways of squeezing the last few cents being rolled out by our leaders - the latest being "average speed" cameras on motorways (statistically the safest roads there are).


- The political situation. The country is "led" by a man who has been in public service since 1975. A former primary school teacher (who double-jobbed for 30 years) completely out of touch with the reality for most of the people who bought his (and his party's) promises of reform and change.
Instead we got even more gombeenism of the highest order, U-turns on practically everything they promised, and our "leader" more concerned with being the good European (of the year no less) vs representing and advocating for the people who put him in the job.

That's not to say Cowen, FF and co were/are any better. We don't elect our representatives on merit - we vote for them cause it's who mammy and daddy voted for, or because they used their pull to get us our extension, or they used their influence to build a bypass (all of which are ridiculous uses for a politician who is supposed to think and act at national level)


For all these reasons (and there are more) it's just not as simple as saying "look how they do it wherever". We have fundamental flaws in our country works and unless these are addressed there are a LOT of things, not just our rental/property market, that will remain broken.

murphaph

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

- Population density. Everyone in Ireland wants a 3-bed semi-D with a garden. We don't build up in Dublin/Ireland, we build out -

This isn't true any more. Berlin is also building out...many tens of thousands of acres in recent years have been turned over to development for detached family homes. It's not uniquely Irish that the suburbs look, well, suburban. We don't build detached homes in the city itself anymore and haven't for 30 years.

I think we've debunked the "low population density" thing already. Dublin doesn't have a terribly low population density compared to other European capitals. It's an urban myth at this stage that seems to stem from a time when we didn't build apartments. That is a long time ago now.

People think it's better everywhere else but I personally know people in Berlin with coal fired heating (in a flat!) and shower cubicles IN their kitchens. The stock is old, still often unrenovated and as soon as it's renovated the rent will shoot up as the law allows.

murphaph

The_Conductor wrote: »

Berlin is the same- and despite being able to buy a two bed apartment on the likes of Tiergarten for less than 100k, people don't- when you factor in the costs of ownership, and the benefits of not being tied to a single property- it still makes more sense to rent.

That's changing rapidly in Berlin and in Germany generally. Home ownership is much more on people's wish list these days I'd say, but they realise it may not happen for them. With historically low interest rates and the fact you can fix your mortgage here for the entire term (yes, 20 year fixed at ~3% is available right now if you have the right deposit) then people KNOW that buying will be cheaper than renting.

Barely Hedged

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Rents in areas convenient to the city centre are gone overboard. If there was an adequate public transport system people would not feel the need to have to live close to work. In London people commute in 40 miles and more to central London usually by rail and know they have a good service.

Just out of curiosity what would you pay versus what are you seeing for rental prices for 2 bed apartments in Dublin city i.e. Dublin 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6?

Its been a long time since i was looking to rent in Dublin

hfallada

Rents will continue to rise as there is no major building again in the city. Part of the problem was there was no high rise building in the city. Everyone wants to live and work in the city. But during the boom all the building was in the outer suburbs.

Area like the ifsc where there is no historical significance should have been built high rise (they have realised that now). Also a lot of the council housing should be flattened and replaced with housing for middle income family. Why should a someone on welfare live beside st Stephens green when a working person can only afford to live in an area which is hours away from the city

murphaph

hfallada wrote: »

Rents will continue to rise as there is no major building again in the city. Part of the problem was there was no high rise building in the city. Everyone wants to live and work in the city. But during the boom all the building was in the outer suburbs.

Area like the ifsc where there is no historical significance should have been built high rise (they have realised that now). Also a lot of the council housing should be flattened and replaced with housing for middle income family. Why should a someone on welfare live beside st Stephens green when a working person can only afford to live in an area which is hours away from the city

You don't have to go high rise to get density, look at Berlin or Paris (even without Le Defens) or Rome. Dublin density is surprisingly on a par with many European cities that we think would dwarf it. I'd agree that the docklands should have been built high rise however-it would have done absolutely no harm and probably would have been a great new focal point for the city. Instead the docklands is rather bland today.

Sleepy

hfallada wrote: »

Area like the ifsc where there is no historical significance should have been built high rise (they have realised that now). Also a lot of the council housing should be flattened and replaced with housing for middle income family. Why should a someone on welfare live beside st Stephens green when a working person can only afford to live in an area which is hours away from the city

I was listening to a piece on Newstalk a few months ago where they were discussing trying to get people to buy and maintain the grand old Georgian houses in the city centre and while they went through the various factors putting people off this (old drafty houses having low energy efficiency, high costs of refurbishment, high property tax etc.) they seemed to ignore the giant elephant in the room: no-one wants to live in Dublin City Centre because it's full of undesirable neighbours.

It amazes me that no-one in power saw the opportunity that existed during the boom to fund the development of high quality social housing in the suburbs via the sale of the existing social housing stock. The difference in value between an acre of land in Dublin 1 versus D15 for example could have even generated a profit to the exchequer after the cost of developing the site in D15.

Sleepy

murphaph wrote: »

You don't have to go high rise to get density, look at Berlin or Paris (even without Le Defens) or Rome. Dublin density is surprisingly on a par with many European cities that we think would dwarf it. I'd agree that the docklands should have been built high rise however-it would have done absolutely no harm and probably would have been a great new focal point for the city. Instead the docklands is rather bland today.

Bland? It's a ghost-town of half-finished buildings and unused property.

peter_dublin

Sleepy wrote: »

I was listening to a piece on Newstalk a few months ago where they were discussing trying to get people to buy and maintain the grand old Georgian houses in the city centre and while they went through the various factors putting people off this (old drafty houses having low energy efficiency, high costs of refurbishment, high property tax etc.) they seemed to ignore the giant elephant in the room: no-one wants to live in Dublin City Centre because it's full of undesirable neighbours.

It amazes me that no-one in power saw the opportunity that existed during the boom to fund the development of high quality social housing in the suburbs via the sale of the existing social housing stock. The difference in value between an acre of land in Dublin 1 versus D15 for example could have even generated a profit to the exchequer after the cost of developing the site in D15.

Didn't they try that in 60s with Ballymun, Neilstown etc etc and it was a disaster.

murphaph

Sleepy wrote: »

I was listening to a piece on Newstalk a few months ago where they were discussing trying to get people to buy and maintain the grand old Georgian houses in the city centre and while they went through the various factors putting people off this (old drafty houses having low energy efficiency, high costs of refurbishment, high property tax etc.) they seemed to ignore the giant elephant in the room: no-one wants to live in Dublin City Centre because it's full of undesirable neighbours.

It amazes me that no-one in power saw the opportunity that existed during the boom to fund the development of high quality social housing in the suburbs via the sale of the existing social housing stock. The difference in value between an acre of land in Dublin 1 versus D15 for example could have even generated a profit to the exchequer after the cost of developing the site in D15.

Sshhh. You're not allowed to suggest that the primest of prime land is too good for people who rely on the rest of society for a roof over their heads.

I personally have never visited another capital city where "no go" areas were so close to the city centre. In Dublin's case we're talking a couple of minutes walk!

murphaph

peter_dublin wrote: »

Didn't they try that in 60s with Ballymun, Neilstown etc etc and it was a disaster.

Ballymun & Neilstown weren't at all high quality. No amenities and crucially poor transport links to centres of employment, especially in Ballymun's case.

ProudDUB

peter_dublin wrote: »

Didn't they try that in 60s with Ballymun, Neilstown etc etc and it was a disaster.

No they didn't. They tried building massive high rise flats and soul less housing estates, with no proper social infrastructure or amenities or utilities that would lead to residents wanting to build a community that they would be proud off. Nor was the availability of jobs or training or proper transport or decent schools worked into their plans. Nor were support systems put in place to assist with many of the social problems that exist in inner city communities, that can fester and grow worse if relocated to a suburban environment.

The poster mentioned "high quality" social housing where things like that presumably are factored into plans. Thankfully, social housing thinking has come on a lot from what it was 40 or 50 years ago. Nowadays, people have the kop on to realize that you can't just dump 50,000 inner city people out to some newly created housing estate on the outskirts of the city and then just walk away from it all. Unfortunately, the money, the political will and politicians with balls big enough to do something like that, are in very short supply.

gaius c

murphaph wrote: »

This isn't true any more. Berlin is also building out...many tens of thousands of acres in recent years have been turned over to development for detached family homes. It's not uniquely Irish that the suburbs look, well, suburban. We don't build detached homes in the city itself anymore and haven't for 30 years.

I think we've debunked the "low population density" thing already. Dublin doesn't have a terribly low population density compared to other European capitals. It's an urban myth at this stage that seems to stem from a time when we didn't build apartments. That is a long time ago now.

People think it's better everywhere else but I personally know people in Berlin with coal fired heating (in a flat!) and shower cubicles IN their kitchens. The stock is old, still often unrenovated and as soon as it's renovated the rent will shoot up as the law allows.

You mentioned it twice now. Any sources re your claim because I have my doubts?

Paris
21,000/km2

Athens
19,135/km2

Barcelona
15,991/km2

Moscow
10,588/km2

Dublin
4,588/km2

Also, for the poster who mentioned the quality of accommodation in Berlin, you should bear in mind that it's a former Iron Curtain state and large amounts of buildings still date from that era. The fact that we're even comparing Soviet-era buildings to Irish buildings is amusing for all the wrong reasons.

gaius c

January wrote: »

Moved from Dublin City to Accommodation & Property.

Really? We have enough of these threads already and it might do no harm to have Dubs talk about Dublin in their own sub-forum rather than have to slum it with us boring amateur economists.

srsly78

Berlin offers amazing value for money, they have since renovated many of the old communist apartment blocks.

Irish celtic tiger apartments < Renovated communist apartments

cali_eire

murphaph wrote: »

Sshhh. You're not allowed to suggest that the primest of prime land is too good for people who rely on the rest of society for a roof over their heads.

I personally have never visited another capital city where "no go" areas were so close to the city centre. In Dublin's case we're talking a couple of minutes walk!

Washington DC for one that comes to mind

Sleepy

srsly78, I know my mother just sold a one bedroom apt in Berlin for a little above her asking.

(incidently murphaph, I think you gave her some advice when she was buytng the apt a few years ago on aam!)

ProudDUB

cali_eire wrote: »

Washington DC for one that comes to mind

It's not a capital city, but New Orleans would be another.

murphaph

gaius c wrote: »

You mentioned it twice now. Any sources re your claim because I have my doubts?

Paris
21,000/km2

Athens
19,135/km2

Barcelona
15,991/km2

Moscow
10,588/km2

Dublin
4,588/km2

Look like wikipedia figures so here's some more from wiki, just for completeness:
Madrid (one of the best if not the best metro in the world)
5,390/km2

Munich (fantastic metro system)
4,500/km2

Berlin (also one of the best metros in the world)
3,800/km2

Amsterdam (great metro system)
3,506/km2

Rome
2,100/km2 (also has a metro, perhaps not the greatest, but much more than Dublin has)

So basically Dublin easily has the population density to sustain mass transit if we are to believe Wikipedia. Personally I'm a little cautious to do that because it's sometimes not easy to define the boundary of a city or its metropolitan area (these things are constantly shifting anyway) but you brought wikipedia density figures into it so we'll run with them.

gaius c wrote: »

Also, for the poster who mentioned the quality of accommodation in Berlin, you should bear in mind that it's a former Iron Curtain state and large amounts of buildings still date from that era. The fact that we're even comparing Soviet-era buildings to Irish buildings is amusing for all the wrong reasons.

The flats I mentioned are in the former WEST Berlin Large swathes of West Berlin still looked like a warzone upon reunification. These flats are not Soviet era but rather Edwardian era. The point is that housing stock in Ireland isn't as bad as many tend to make out when compared to other European cities and you can find lots of examples of sh!tty flats in Berlin, Paris and London too!

murphaph

cali_eire wrote: »

Washington DC for one that comes to mind

No it doesn't. I've been to DC and stayed overnight with relatives if a friend in a suburb in Maryland. DC is surrounded by poor mostly black neighbourhoods that you drive through to get into the city but they are not 2 mins walk from what I'd call the centre of the city by any stretch of the imagination.

murphaph

srsly78 wrote: »

Berlin offers amazing value for money, they have since renovated many of the old communist apartment blocks.

Irish celtic tiger apartments < Renovated communist apartments

Most people still prefer to live in Altbau than renovated Plattenbau so whilst one can buy renovated Plattenbau flats, renting them out will be more difficult and they will not command premium rents, even though they might well be cheaper to run (more energy efficient than some draughty Altbau).

cali_eire

murphaph wrote: »

No it doesn't. I've been to DC and stayed overnight with relatives if a friend in a suburb in Maryland. DC is surrounded by poor mostly black neighbourhoods that you drive through to get into the city but they are not 2 mins walk from what I'd call the centre of the city by any stretch of the imagination.

Dude - what kind of crack are you smoking? I lived in DC (And when I say DC I mean DC and not MD or Northern VA). Get your facts right before telling someone they are wrong who knows more than you.

murphaph

I've been to DC like DC. Dude.

The_Morrigan

cali_eire wrote: »

Dude - what kind of crack are you smoking? I lived in DC (And when I say DC I mean DC and not MD or Northern VA). Get your facts right before telling someone they are wrong who knows more than you.

murphaph wrote: »

I've been to DC like DC. Dude.

Please cut it out you two and get back on topic.

Morri

drumswan

murphaph wrote: »

I've been to DC like DC. Dude.

San Francisco is another example. And Toronto.