Dublin price-rent

kippy

ProudDUB wrote: »

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.

The thing is, it's not really a "free market economy" in any way.......

murphaph

Don't buy it folks. You're telling me there are large scale social housing projects within 200 metres of the main boulevards in these other cities?

cali_eire

murphaph wrote: »

Don't buy it folks. You're telling me there are large scale social housing projects within 200 metres of the main boulevards in these other cities?

I dont want do come across as someone just trying to disagree with you but I also lived in San Francisco for 10 years and worked in property development there. I can give you addresses of places close to downtown in the Tenderloin neighborhood for example that are "No Go" and third world like conditions with people living in what are called SROs (Single Room Occupancy Hotels) It's not very pretty and very sad.

drumswan

murphaph wrote: »

Don't buy it folks. You're telling me there are large scale social housing projects within 200 metres of the main boulevards in these other cities?

The Tenderloin is 2 blocks from Union Square in SF. It is rife with crackheads.

Same with Victoria on Vancouver Island.

murphaph

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. Are these areas in private hands or are they social housing (projects)? If an area is just run down and full of unsociables, then so be it. If an area is "purposefully" run down by the state (for example by maintaining large scale social housing projects which house people most don't want for neighbours) then that's an issue for me. The state (ie, working taxpayers and companies) are paying to house large numbers of people on some of the most expensive land in the state is an issue for me. These social housing projects then discourage people from living in the city with their families.

cali_eire

murphaph wrote: »

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. Are these areas in private hands or are they social housing (projects)? If an area is just run down and full of unsociables, then so be it. If an area is "purposefully" run down by the state (for example by maintaining large scale social housing projects which house people most don't want for neighbours) then that's an issue for me. The state (ie, working taxpayers and companies) are paying to house large numbers of people on some of the most expensive land in the state is an issue for me. These social housing projects then discourage people from living in the city with their families.

In San Francisco it's a mix of these issues. There are large numbers of homeless, mentally ill and substance dependent people who wander the streets of certain neighborhoods. They are drawn to some areas in particular because of the existence of public as well as private charity shelters. Others stay in the SROs that dot certain neighborhoods

There are also public housing projects located on prime land, for example the Potrero Hill Projects will prime views of SF Bay and the skyline would be some of the most valuable land in the state if it wasn't a dangerous housing project with regular shootings.

xpto

Thanks for all the replies here so far.

I heard that Banks also own houses that remain empty and are not made available to rent or buy. In addition Banks don't finance building initiatives. For how long will this continue?

Another thing that i noticed is that agencies that own apartments in complexes like the Beacon (south Dublin), which is currently being finalized, do not make the apartments immediately available, i.e, they rent a small number of apartments at the same time making people to "bid" for the apartment maximizing their profit.

It surprises me that apparently there is no regulation for renting.

Thoughts?

ProudDUB

kippy wrote: »

The thing is, it's not really a "free market economy" in any way.......

How is it not a free market economy? The over whelming majority of landlords in this country are private landlords. They (for whatever reason) have an house or an apartment (or several) for rent. They advertize them on Daft or MyHome or wherever. People come to view them. They then decide whether or not to rent them, based on whether or not the apt/house suits their needs and budget.

The landlords decides to rent (or not to rent) to them based on whether or not they will meet his set out criteria, the main one being ability to pay the price they are asking and/or the tenants likely willingness and ability to keep on doing so. How is that any different from buying a car, or a house or new pair of shoes in the free market economy? Isn't it all just a matter of the seller setting out his stall and the buyer decides whether or not to purchase at it?

kippy

ProudDUB wrote: »

How is it not a free market economy? The over whelming majority of landlords in this country are private landlords. They (for whatever reason) have an house or an apartment (or several) for rent. They advertize them on Daft or MyHome or wherever. People come to view them. They then decide whether or not to rent them, based on whether or not the apt/house suits their needs and budget.

The landlords decides to rent (or not to rent) to them based on whether or not they will meet his set out criteria, the main one being ability to pay the price they are asking and/or the tenants likely willingness and ability to keep on doing so. How is that any different from buying a car, or a house or new pair of shoes in the free market economy? Isn't it all just a matter of the seller setting out his stall and the buyer decides whether or not to purchase at it?

At least three sets of interests ensure its not a free market.
1. NAMA
2. The banks.
3. The State.

ProudDUB

According to my good friend Wikipedia: A free market is a market structure which is not controlled by a designated authority. A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government policy intervenes in the setting of prices. An economy composed entirely of free markets is referred to as a free-market economy.

The Irish rental market may very well be influenced by the banks or the state or the existence of NAMA, but they do not dictate what the rents in private rental agreements between landlords and tenants should be. If I want to charge someone 2000 quid for a poxy one bedroom shoe box, I can. No government regulation or authority can stop me from doing so. Renters are free to decide for themselves whether or not to pay what I am asking. That's the free market at work.

Most businesses have ties to banks. If they don't make a profit, the banks/receivers/liquidators move in. A shoe shop or a restaurant is no different to a landlord in that respect. Every business has to operate in an environment that is often dictated by the state & their rules and regulations. A restaurant for example, must abide by health and safety guidelines laid out by the government. But it is still the free market that will determine what the restaurant owner charges for his food and whether or not people will pay it. Just as they are free to choose where to live and who to rent from.

irishguy

ProudDUB wrote: »

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

Hehe I totally misread that

irishguy

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.

But people will always pay a premium to live near the centre even if there is a good public transport system.
Also your looking at paying c. 3k before tax for public transport for a couple (taxsaver luas+bus) +taxis/car/toll. So the rent savings made for living in the suburbs are totally negated by transport costs (which are increasing at high single figures per year).

If there was high rise apartments in the docklands that could satisfy the demand of renters and which would free up houses for family's. Everyone is happy.

MysticalRain

ProudDUB wrote: »

According to my good friend Wikipedia: A free market is a market structure which is not controlled by a designated authority. A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government policy intervenes in the setting of prices. An economy composed entirely of free markets is referred to as a free-market economy.

I think you might be mis-interpreting that wiki article. The government does intervene in the market in the format of tax breaks, subsidies, rent allowance, enforcing standards, and of course NAMA as you mentioned. Basically, there is more to the definition of a "free market" than the government explicitly setting prices on something (See definition below). i.e. if the government is playing an active role in controlling supply and demand, it is not a free market by any stretch. A landlord may charge 2000 / month for what he thinks his property his worth, but it is the government which helps create the prevailing market conditions to enable him to do that e.g. NAMA holding on to a block of empty apartments next door and keeping them off the market for fear of driving down property prices.


A regulated market or controlled market, is the provision of goods or services that is regulated by a government appointed body. The regulation may cover the terms and conditions of supplying the goods and services and in particular the price allowed to be charged and/or to whom they are distributed. It is common for a regulated market to control natural monopolies such as aspects of telecommunications, water, gas and electricity supply. Often regulated markets are established during the partial privatisation of government controlled utility assets.

A variety of forms of regulations exist in a regulated market. These include controls, oversights, anti-discrimination, environmental protection, taxation and labor laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_market

gaius c

ProudDUB wrote: »

According to my good friend Wikipedia: A free market is a market structure which is not controlled by a designated authority. A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government policy intervenes in the setting of prices. An economy composed entirely of free markets is referred to as a free-market economy.

The Irish rental market may very well be influenced by the banks or the state or the existence of NAMA, but they do not dictate what the rents in private rental agreements between landlords and tenants should be. If I want to charge someone 2000 quid for a poxy one bedroom shoe box, I can. No government regulation or authority can stop me from doing so. Renters are free to decide for themselves whether or not to pay what I am asking. That's the free market at work.

Most businesses have ties to banks. If they don't make a profit, the banks/receivers/liquidators move in. A shoe shop or a restaurant is no different to a landlord in that respect. Every business has to operate in an environment that is often dictated by the state & their rules and regulations. A restaurant for example, must abide by health and safety guidelines laid out by the government. But it is still the free market that will determine what the restaurant owner charges for his food and whether or not people will pay it. Just as they are free to choose where to live and who to rent from.

Two words: Rent allowance.
Look at rent allowance levels in any rural town and then look at the lowest priced rentals available on daft for that town. You'll see a pattern over and over again.

The_Conductor

gaius c wrote: »

Two words: Rent allowance.
Look at rent allowance levels in any rural town and then look at the lowest priced rentals available on daft for that town. You'll see a pattern over and over again.

There is 100% definitely a correlation. In areas where supply is not in constraint (aka outside of Dublin/Cork/Galway- and a few select rural areas- such as most of Clare)- the RA levels are the primary factor determining local rental rates. They would be far lower- were market forces allowed dictate the going rate.

In places like Dublin- where supply is very constrained- the case is less clear. There is an argument that RA should be reduced anyway- sure, tenants might have to move to a less desireable area- but why should the taxpayer be subsidising someone's choice to live in an affluent area?

Should tenants have the right to decide where they want to live, when they're not paying the rent? That is the question. Too many 'doo-gooders' would have the magic money tree shaken again- to support people's right to live where-ever they choose.

murphaph

It's a discussion that needs to be had alright. Perhaps a higher level of rent supplement for the recently unemployed up to say 12 months so they have a fighting chance of getting employment again in the area they live in, then if still no go, reductions in RS that may lead to the tenants having to seek alternative cheaper accommodation elsewhere.

In Berlin there is certainly a bit of an exodus of those on Hartz IV welfare payments out to less affluent parts of the city as previously poor yet relatively central districts gentrify and the rents increase. There is no large scale social housing in Germany. Even in the former east where there were massive social housing programmes these ex communist era blocks are generally in private hands now with very few exceptions.

Ray Palmer

I could have written most of the points on this thread without reading it.

Some things are a very slanted view and others are just outright lies.

Having been in apartments in Paris, New York, Berlin, Madrid, Rome and Barcelona anybody claiming these are bigger than Irish apartments are simply wrong. They are tiny and more expensive per sq foot than Dublin. Many would not match our requirements to be rentable here.

People saying Dublin isn't making as much as any other city and therefore shouldn't have high rents is just not considering how a economic scale works. Dublin is where they highest earners live in this country as a general rule. You do have to compete with these people for property

Rent allowance is not an artificial floor to rent in Dublin. The rates were reduced and rents went up proving this is not the case. The allowance is designed to follow rent so will always be linked but not the driver. You want to talk about other locations not sure what that has to do with a thread on Dublin rent.


The great continental renting much better than Ireland is a result of the property being destroyed during the WWII. It wasn't a great plan of making rent cheaper it was the result of total destruction and major international finance to housing homeless cities. If you want what they have you need to destroy property and ownership then get large funding from the international community. It was magic or a great social plan. Easter block apartments were a great plan but built very poorly and very small.

gaius c

The_Conductor wrote: »

There is 100% definitely a correlation. In areas where supply is not in constraint (aka outside of Dublin/Cork/Galway- and a few select rural areas- such as most of Clare)- the RA levels are the primary factor determining local rental rates. They would be far lower- were market forces allowed dictate the going rate.

In places like Dublin- where supply is very constrained- the case is less clear. There is an argument that RA should be reduced anyway- sure, tenants might have to move to a less desireable area- but why should the taxpayer be subsidising someone's choice to live in an affluent area?

Should tenants have the right to decide where they want to live, when they're not paying the rent? That is the question. Too many 'doo-gooders' would have the magic money tree shaken again- to support people's right to live where-ever they choose.

Thing is that no area is an island. Higher than market rents in one town will affect rents in the next town because substitution effect has been meddled with. Take away market support to rents in Kildare, Meath & Wicklow and people who would like a better deal on rent will make the decision for themselves rather than thinking "sure they are high everywhere, I may as well stay close to town".

ProudDUB

gaius c wrote: »

Two words: Rent allowance.
Look at rent allowance levels in any rural town and then look at the lowest priced rentals available on daft for that town. You'll see a pattern over and over again.

This is a thread about rent increases in Dublin. Not in small rural towns. If were talking about that, it would be different. The rents that the majority of landlords charge in Dublin are set by the market, not by what the rent allowance is. People live in the capital city, because just like in most countries, that is where the jobs, universities, career opportunities etc etc are. They will always want to live here and continue to move here because of that.

Landlords know that, so they can charge those people whatever that want. If someone is not willing to pay it, the next person coming along with deeper pockets probably will. That is what happens in large cities. It may very well be different in Mullingar or Mallow or wherever, but that's not what this thread is about.

gaius c

ProudDUB wrote: »

This is a thread about rent increases in Dublin. Not in small rural towns. If were talking about that, it would be different. The rents that the majority of landlords charge in Dublin are set by the market, not by what the rent allowance is. People live in the capital city, because just like in most countries, that is where the jobs, universities, career opportunities etc etc are. They will always want to live here and continue to move here because of that.

Landlords know that, so they can charge those people whatever that want. If someone is not willing to pay it, the next person coming along with deeper pockets probably will. That is what happens in large cities. It may very well be different in Mullingar or Mallow or wherever, but that's not what this thread is about.

Did you read the post directly above yours?

Are you familiar with substitution effect? If you provide a false floor to cheaper alternatives (i.e. living outside of Dublin) then you are reducing consumer choice and making the more desirable options more expensive too.

There is a price point at which somebody might make the decision that the lower rental cost of living in Kildare outweighs all the cons. However, if the price of rentals is artificially high in Kildare, it will have a knock on effect in Dublin. It's a very simple concept and I've come to the conclusion that those who can't see it are deliberately ignoring it.

Ray Palmer

gaius c wrote: »

Did you read the post directly above yours?

Are you familiar with substitution effect? If you provide a false floor to cheaper alternatives (i.e. living outside of Dublin) then you are reducing consumer choice and making the more desirable options more expensive too.

There is a price point at which somebody might make the decision that the lower rental cost of living in Kildare outweighs all the cons. However, if the price of rentals is artificially high in Kildare, it will have a knock on effect in Dublin. It's a very simple concept and I've come to the conclusion that those who can't see it are deliberately ignoring it.

Did you read your own link? I suggest you look up "Substitutability of a good". Kildare is not a perfect substitute it is in fact an incredible poor substitute for somebody who is from Dublin. You seem to be deliberately ignoring why most people don't move to somewhere cheaper out of Dublin. Their lives and possible work is there.

Kildare is not a substitute making your whole argument wither away. It has no baring on Dublin rent for most people. You may have a marginal portion it does effect. You seem to be suggesting somebody who lived in Dublin all their life should be forced to live in another county. So much for the social inclusion ideals that forced affordable housing into new builds. You seem to be missing important understanding of the situation and want to force anybody on RA out of Dublin. It will never happen you might as well be talking about a moon base to be the solution.

MurdyWurdy

drumswan wrote: »

San Francisco is another example. And Toronto.

And Johannesburg. You can't even walk around the city centre at all there! Joburg is a special case, I know, but when people from SA visit us in a Dublin they think it's wonderful. Sometimes it's nice to appreciate that despite some issues we are very lucky here in a lot of ways

xpto

Hi all,

Just wanted to share something http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?id=1384750

Not sure if it will be available by the time you see this, but the question is: is it normal to raise a rent by 700 euros? This is not even city centre... This cannot be sustainable.

Idbatterim

I have a friend who moved here in February 2012, she rented a 2 bed in the Holly in Rockfield Dundrum for E1125, she moved out a few months ago, the cheapest 2 bed apartment in that block is now asking E1450 and one is up for E1500!

murphaph

To be honest and speaking as a landlord price jumps of €700 like that are not sustainable no.

The rental sector in Ireland needs improving. We need to make it easier to weed out rogue tenants & landlords, to ensure all parties can enter into rental agreements with some semblance of security. We need renting to become "mainstream" and not something you do while saving a deposit. Home ownership is likely to be beyond many in the future as it was in the past and is elsewhere in Europe.

To allow renting to become a long term option for people, there really has to be some sort of rent control so tenants can at least budget a few years into the future and without them I'm afraid we'll always have these big swings in the market (not good for anyone really, long term at least). Along with rent control we need a raft of reforms to enable swift eviction of non-payers.

Rent controls would also mean of course that tenants could no longer expect to go crying to their LL looking for a rent reduction. Rent reductions are unheard of in Germany, where rent controls exist (to an extent).

I fear in Ireland we'll just get the rent controls and nothing will be done about evicting non-payers as tenancy law has been shifting over to the tenant's side for years now, with little in it for landlords. If that continues however, expect more investors to exit the landlord scene and put their money into something else, thereby further restricting supply.

xpto

If anyone had any doubts on how crazy renting prices were last year, then 2014 already matched 2006 when everything went mad.

A 2 bed apartment can cost up to 1.600 euros in south side and the owner doesn't even need to bother painting or cleaning or replacing broken appliances. Someone will take it for that price and on bad conditions.

This is out of control... Pretty soon people will start thinking twice before moving into Dublin looking for job.

gaius c

xpto wrote: »

If anyone had any doubts on how crazy renting prices were last here, then 2014 already matched 2006 when everything went mad.

A 2 bed apartment can cost up to 1.600 euros in south side and the owner doesn't even need to bother painting or cleaning or replacing broken appliances. Someone will take it for that price and on bad conditions.

This is out of control... Pretty soon people will start thinking twice before moving into Dublin looking for job.

Point of information. Rents in Dublin didn't really go crazy until 2008 and it lasted 6-9 months before gravity prevailed and they fell by a lot until the current crisis.

kippy

xpto wrote: »

If anyone had any doubts on how crazy renting prices were last here, then 2014 already matched 2006 when everything went mad.

A 2 bed apartment can cost up to 1.600 euros in south side and the owner doesn't even need to bother painting or cleaning or replacing broken appliances. Someone will take it for that price and on bad conditions.

This is out of control... Pretty soon people will start thinking twice before moving into Dublin looking for job.

I expect that there are very few jobs outside of dublin at the moment ( there are generally less jobs outside of dublin but that appears to be magnified at the moment). This drives more people to Dublin pushing up demand hence the rises i rents which landlords are also doing do cover the increased costs over the past few years of being a landlord.

xpto

Some news - Who is building what in 2014

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/new-to-market/new-homes-who-is-building-what-in-2014-1.1664214?page=3