renting in the city

cena

Why is Dublin city so costly to rent in.
I'm not moving to Dublin yet. I have a brother that lives in Chapelizod, I won't say what part but I is a nice area. Only thing I hate the size of the place they live in is smallish and costs just over 1000 euro

SureYWouldntYa

Supply is less than demand. It's a landlords market

cena

Well it ever change.
I would love to move to Dublin but the brother doesn't want to house share with Hus other half

Avada

Shortage of property in Dublin at the moment. Hence the high rents and increasing purchase prices. Sound familiar? You think we'd learn

SureYWouldntYa

Only way it can change is for more houses to come on the market, or for the market to become regulated, neither is too likely in the immediate future

quadrifoglio verde

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

Only way it can change is for more houses to come on the market, or for the market to become regulated, neither is too likely in the immediate future

If the market comes regulated, where does excess supply go?
It'll still be there.
The only way to change it is to build more properties, the only thing is everyone seems to have a desire for a 3bed semi with a tiny garden. It'd make much more sense to build apartments that are suitable for families, as opposed to what passes for apartments in ireland. Our planners don't like big apartments though.

SureYWouldntYa

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

If the market comes regulated, where does excess supply go?
It'll still be there.
The only way to change it is to build more properties, the only thing is everyone seems to have a desire for a 3bed semi with a tiny garden. It'd make much more sense to build apartments that are suitable for families, as opposed to what passes for apartments in ireland. Our planners don't like big apartments though.

Price would be regulated, that's another problem with the market

It's near impossible to find accommodation as a student in the city, only for I got into the lottery of campus accommodation I'd be stuck right now. Several of my friends have been looking all summer and they've got nothing

TheBandicoot

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

IIt'd make much more sense to build apartments that are suitable for families, as opposed to what passes for apartments in ireland. Our planners don't like big apartments though.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0805/635238-surveyors/

Chattastrophe!

cena wrote: »

Well it ever change.
I would love to move to Dublin but the brother doesn't want to house share with Hus other half

I imagine you wouldn't want to impose on them either .. it is FAR from an ideal situation for anyone involved!

Living in Dublin is expensive because it's the capital city, and it's where the jobs are. And, no, I can't see any reason why this would change any time soon.

mdolly123

City centre is not as bad as most suburbs and you have feckall commuting distance. Students make it that more expensive so try get moving before Oct

subpar

More Jobs
Better paid jobs
Better clubs ,restaurants and bars
Better social scene
Few rent able properties
Many chasing these properties
Capital cities are always more expensive

cena

Yes all the jobs seem to be in Dublin. I would like to apply for sky but I couldn't afford to move with the price rent.

cgcsb

The government is leaning on NAMA and Dublin CC to relieve the rental situation. NAMA is applying for permission to demolish Bolands mill and build 3, 15 storey apartment towers on the site. Some sites in the north docks are also up for some high rise residential development and there is currently some whispering about rezoning some of the industrial area around park west for some high density living. Even still, by the time those projects are completed, our natural population increase will have gobbled up that additional supply.

Part of the problem is that many of our domestic developers are busted thanks to the recession, there is also a lack of capital available to develop sites for high density living. In short it's a catch 22. Our office market is in a similar grind, many of the 1960 or older office buildings are beyond unsuitable for modern office needs.

irishguy

cgcsb wrote: »

The government is leaning on NAMA and Dublin CC to relieve the rental situation. NAMA is applying for permission to demolish Bolands mill and build 3, 15 storey apartment towers on the site. Some sites in the north docks are also up for some high rise residential development and there is currently some whispering about rezoning some of the industrial area around park west for some high density living. Even still, by the time those projects are completed, our natural population increase will have gobbled up that additional supply.

Part of the problem is that many of our domestic developers are busted thanks to the recession, there is also a lack of capital available to develop sites for high density living. In short it's a catch 22. Our office market is in a similar grind, many of the 1960 or older office buildings are beyond unsuitable for modern office needs.

Any links for that?

cgcsb

nope, I work in property. Here's the boland's mill story http://www.herald.ie/news/nama-to-revamp-bolands-mill-site-with-200m-project-30445984.html

Aard

I doubt there's any plan to demolish Bolands Mill considering it's on the RPS.

reprazant

Treasury Holdings had Boland Mills for years and couldn't figure out what to do with it. I doubt NAMA are creative enough to come up with a good idea.

mynameispaul

cgcsb wrote: »

Part of the problem is that many of our domestic developers are busted thanks to the recession, there is also a lack of capital available to develop sites for high density living. In short it's a catch 22.

You've got it in one.

Also consider the fact that, because housing (especially in Ireland) isn't a proper supply-and-demand market, many of the bigger cash buyers (the ones who could afford to fund major projects) make more money buying as much land as they can get their hands on, than they do buying less land and keeping money to develop it - then they'll start selling in on to the smaller credit-buyers who expect to flip it or develop it, only to (eventually) hit a tipping point of "Oh ****, everyone's buying on credit, the cash buyers have already cashed out - SELL EVERYTHING" and the price plummets, suddenly no one has any money to start long-term projects, and the seeds of the next boom are sowed.

My point is it's not just a matter of there not being enough space (which is quite literally the case in many other cities) but an issue of the ebb-and-flow of the ownership of land in the country. They know people will panic-buy as the price rises, they know the Irish won't rent long term, they know that as long as they get out before everyone runs out of liquid assets, they can still sell land on wholesale, so they play this game of chicken with other developers, meanwhile no one's building any housing. Why would they when holding onto the land is the reason it's getting more valuable?

What's would be a solution?

* Developer mandates - Zone land in prime areas as 'Priority development areas' and tax the ever-loving bejaysus out of anyone who drags their feet in developing it after buying it up. They can still make their money, but they have to get the ball rolling at least.

* STOP releasing new 'schemes' and 'incentives' to first time buyers during the peak of the boom, just to make the economy look healthier. They're not buying because they can't afford it, leave them to stay with mammy for a year or so, won't kill them. The 'panic buy' effect is the reason our housing market functions so stupidly in the first place.

* Move the universities out of the city: Get everyone together for a weekend and move UCD to Wicklow and trinners to out to Drougheda, lower cost of living for the students, other cities get some money, loads more houses in Dublin - sorted. (I'm joking... mostly)

Thoie

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

everyone seems to have a desire for a 3bed semi with a tiny garden. It'd make much more sense to build apartments that are suitable for families, as opposed to what passes for apartments in ireland. Our planners don't like big apartments though.

I think a lot of people desire a 4+ bed, with a big garden, they're just not available. One of the reasons that people want a 3-bed semi is that they're more available than nearly anything else, and, as you've pointed out, apartments in Ireland aren't really aimed at long term living. There's always a view that they're a starting out point, and everyone will gradually move on to a house. There's an element of Catch-22 about it. As long as apartments are comparatively small, then 3-bed semis will be more popular. While I personally have no particular interest in a garden, gardens can be used for extra storage - e.g. you can keep bikes, tools, tins of paint in a shed out the back.

Taking an unscientific look at the first 10 3-bed houses that are on Daft at the moment, the average size is 107 sq m, with sizes ranging from 85-135. It was noticeable that the only two under 100sq m were both very new, and looked as tight for space as many apartments (though with a garden).

Doing the same experiment with 3-bed apartments, the average was coming in at 103 - though that included one extreme outlier at 203sq m, selling for €880k (more than twice what most of the houses are on offer for!). If you remove that outlier, the average is 92 sq m, ranging from a measly 70sq m to 121 sq m.

The difference in the average size is roughly 15sq m, or a 3mx5m room - that's quite a lot of space to be giving up when you have no shed outside to keep things in.



I'm not entirely sure that our planners are against big apartments - it's more that developers want to squeeze every inch centimeter they can out of a plot of land. If you can sell a 50sq m apartment for €100k, it doesn't always follow that you can get €200k for a 100sq m. Perhaps you'd get €180k for it instead, so from the developers' perspective if they can get 10 x 50sq m apartments into a plot of land, they'll do that rather than 5x 100sq m. The additional costs in building more apartments don't outweigh the extra profit.

I think the planners could help by setting/increasing the minimum size of apartment by the number of bedrooms. E.g. 1-beds must be a minimum of 65sq m (I'm pulling these numbers out of my a**), 2-beds must be at least 100 sq m, and must include 2 toilets. The minimum for apartments should be slightly larger than houses to account for the lack of outdoor space. I think there should also be a minimum amount of floor space devoted to storage and living areas, but I know I'm odd about storage. Other people on other areas of Boards have just suggested we should all just store less "stuff"

cgcsb

I know Dublin City council was considering levying a tax on landowners in the city who sit on their assets. What the update is, I'm not quite sure, and would it apply to all od Dublin City or just inside the canal ring. that would definately be helpful, there should be no incentive to sit on centrally located brownfield sites.

Aard

There are minimum areas for appartments. In Dublin City it goes:
1 bed - 55sqm
2 bed - 85sqm
3 bed - 100 sqm
There are also minimum storage and balcony sizes for each. Additionally for larger schemes, there is a maximum amount of 1 beds allowed - I think somewhere around 20% of all units.

The problem is that these regulations were brought in in 2007, and not much has been built since then.

Thoie

Aard wrote: »

There are minimum areas for appartments. In Dublin City it goes:
1 bed - 55sqm
2 bed - 85sqm
3 bed - 100 sqm
There are also minimum storage and balcony sizes for each. Additionally for larger schemes, there is a maximum amount of 1 beds allowed - I think somewhere around 20% of all units.

The problem is that these regulations were brought in in 2007, and not much has been built since then.

That seems more reasonable - I'm basing the sizes off my own experience with a 2006 apartment, and friends' pre-2005 apartments. I know of a 2-bed that is 52sq m, and my own 2-bed is less than 85sq m. It's a pity they didn't introduce this sooner, as many people's opinions are coloured by what they see when visiting other people

chopper6

Part of the reason for the high rentals is the amateur "buy to let" landlords sitting on properties and not paying their mortages.

There's a lobby of these shsters who believe the govt should write off their debt(at our expense I might add)and they're determined to gouge as much rental income as they can before they're evicted.

The banks should reposses these properties and let them onto the market...a Govt rental agency connected to NAMA could also help to regulate the market but it'd cost too much money to set up.

Aard

Thoie wrote: »

That seems more reasonable - I'm basing the sizes off my own experience with a 2006 apartment, and friends' pre-2005 apartments. I know of a 2-bed that is 52sq m, and my own 2-bed is less than 85sq m. It's a pity they didn't introduce this sooner, as many people's opinions are coloured by what they see when visiting other people

I think you're right there -- many people base their ideas of apartment living off 1990's and early 2000's apartments that they've only visited and not lived in. I think an 85sqm apartment is quite reasonable, especially when you consider that many Victorian terraces have about the same amount of living space (albeit with a small yard as well). The next "wave" of apartments are likely to change people's perceptions.

Another thing is that many people base their opinions of apartment living off what I would term suburban apartments. These generally are found around or beyond the M50, and are not what I would associate with high-quality living, where you still have to drive to work and to do the shopping. An apartment in Finglas or Stepaside is not the same thing as an apartment in town!

Thoie

Aard wrote: »

I think you're right there -- many people base their ideas of apartment living off 1990's and early 2000's apartments that they've only visited and not lived in. I think an 85sqm apartment is quite reasonable, especially when you consider that many Victorian terraces have about the same amount of living space (albeit with a small yard as well). The next "wave" of apartments are likely to change people's perceptions.

Another thing is that many people base their opinions of apartment living off what I would term suburban apartments. These generally are found around or beyond the M50, and are not what I would associate with high-quality living, where you still have to drive to work and to do the shopping. An apartment in Finglas or Stepaside is not the same thing as an apartment in town!

And the city centre apartments are even smaller than the suburban ones. The large one I saw was this one out in Blackrock, which should be definitely large enough for most families. I don't know the area, but it doesn't look particularly close to shopping/entertainment either - I think you'd still need a car (and there doesn't appear to be a lot of parking spaces).

85sqm for a 2 bed is quite good, though I suspect that city centre developers will ensure that all apartments meet the bare minimum, so marginally larger might have been nice.

thomur

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

Only way it can change is for more houses to come on the market, or for the market to become regulated, neither is too likely in the immediate future

Agree. Live 1 mile from the city centre and cant understand the number of vacant properties near me