Property Market 2015

Barely Hedged

gaius c wrote: »

By the time you've spent all the money doing it up to "Ranelagh standard", would you really have saved money on what you would have spent on the Ranelagh house in the first place?

And then you're left with a long wait for all of Ranelagh's amenities to come to the North Circular Road area.

200k, maybe 250k would get you an above average finish.

Tell that to the people who bought in Ranelagh in the late 80's.

gaius c

Barely Hedged wrote: »

Greater European integration is one of the reasons I can confidently talk about European future stability.

To be honest, using these points in a property forum as a caveat to house prices in Firhouse bring say 50k above what you're willing to pay for them is ludicrous

It's illustrative of how poor value is in this country when buying a house but is that really a surprise when agricultural land is nearly €10k an acre?

Barely Hedged

gaius c wrote: »

It's illustrative of how poor value is in this country when buying a house but is that really a surprise when agricultural land is nearly €10k an acre?

As an example would it be fair to say a couple purchasing in Firhouse would conservatively have a combined household income of 80k. Over the past four years they would have saved conservatively 50k between them. Would they be typical Firhouse buyers?

gaius c

Barely Hedged wrote: »

200k, maybe 250k would get you an above average finish.

Tell that to the people who bought in Ranelagh in the late 80's.

So you've spent €650-700k odd on a house and now you just wait till you're 70 before it becomes an area worth spending €700k on?
Sounds lovely.

Out of curiosity, have you ever considered that sometimes gentrification doesn't happen or even worse, goes in the opposite direction?
That's a lot of risk for a lot of money.

gaius c

Barely Hedged wrote: »

As an example would it be fair to say a couple purchasing in Firhouse would conservatively have a combined household income of 80k. Over the past four years they would have saved conservatively 50k between them. Would they be typical Firhouse buyers?

I agree that a household would need to be in or around the top 20% of earners in the country to afford to live in Firhouse, yes.

€50k savings over 4 years is probably a bit optimistic for a couple renting in the capital.

Greyian

gaius c wrote: »

I agree that a household would need to be in or around the top 20% of earners in the country to afford to live in Firhouse, yes.

€50k savings over 4 years is probably a bit optimistic for a couple renting in the capital.

On €80k combined income, they should be able to save €1,000/month without too much trouble.

Barely Hedged

gaius c wrote: »

So you've spent €650-700k odd on a house and now you just wait till you're 70 before it becomes an area worth spending €700k on?
Sounds lovely.

Out of curiosity, have you ever considered that sometimes gentrification doesn't happen or even worse, goes in the opposite direction?
That's a lot of risk for a lot of money.

2015 - 1990 = 25 years. 35yo + 25 years = 60. Dont let a bit of hyperbole get in the way of a good deflection point though.

Yes ive considered that but the location will help it maintain its value. It might not be D4 buts its definitely not Ballymun.

People with this type of money tend to have some sort of business acumen or cop on to accumulate it in the first place. Id be looking at the gentrification of Smithfield and subsequently Stoneybatter and a knock on impact to that location.

Im sure you'll scoff but then again there'll be the example of D4 -> Ranelagh -> Rathmines -> Harolds Cross in that order.

Barely Hedged

gaius c wrote: »

I agree that a household would need to be in or around the top 20% of earners in the country to afford to live in Firhouse, yes.

€50k savings over 4 years is probably a bit optimistic for a couple renting in the capital.

One person on €40k takes home roughly €30k net. How is it optimistic?

Barely Hedged

gaius c wrote: »

I agree that a household would need to be in or around the top 20% of earners in the country to afford to live in Firhouse, yes.

€50k savings over 4 years is probably a bit optimistic for a couple renting in the capital.

A teacher/nurse/Garda couple would be on this.

Your statistic makes a rubbish point

The Spider

gaius c wrote: »

I agree that a household would need to be in or around the top 20% of earners in the country to afford to live in Firhouse, yes.

€50k savings over 4 years is probably a bit optimistic for a couple renting in the capital.

That link is a waste of time, the top 20% in the country yes? But what about the top 20% in Dublin what's that salary range?

Most people in Dublin have two salaries coming in, the same can't be said in other parts of the country where there aren't as many jobs, but the cost of living is cheaper, so a household can have one person working.

You can't use a percentage for the entire country and then apply it to Dublin, which as you've pointed out is the capital.

gaius c

Barely Hedged wrote: »

2015 - 1990 = 25 years. 35yo + 25 years = 60. Dont let a bit of hyperbole get in the way of a good deflection point though.

Yes ive considered that but the location will help it maintain its value. It might not be D4 buts its definitely not Ballymun.

People with this type of money tend to have some sort of business acumen or cop on to accumulate it in the first place. Id be looking at the gentrification of Smithfield and subsequently Stoneybatter and a knock on impact to that location.

Im sure you'll scoff but then again there'll be the example of D4 -> Ranelagh -> Rathmines -> Harolds Cross in that order.

Hang on a sec. Are you trying to claim that 35 year olds would have the financial resources to spend €650-700k on their house?
And then sit tight in the hope that the area improves in order to make their house worth the money they spent on it.
And that's a figure you have volunteered to the debate!

I don't think you understand how gentrification works at all.

Spider
You misread the link. It's household income, not individual income.

One person on €40k takes home roughly €30k net. How is it optimistic?

As you keep pointing out, people are buying houses as part of a couple, not individually.
A couple on €80k has a take home of about €53.5k and they have to cover everything out of that. Now if they chose not to have children, they'll probably save the money alright but a couple at your benchmark figure of 35 wouldn't want to be delaying that too much longer.

We have about 2,000,000 households in the country. 20% of that is 400k households in the entire country above €80k. Even if you put every single one of them into Dublin, you still don't have enough people with the incomes required to sustain current pricing.

Besides, it would also mean that houses elsewhere would be much cheaper as "all" the high earners were in Dublin. Play it whatever way you want but the sums don't add up.

Barely Hedged

gaius c wrote: »

Hang on a sec. Are you trying to claim that 35 year olds would have the financial resources to spend €650-700k on their house?
And then sit tight in the hope that the area improves in order to make their house worth the money they spent on it.
And that's a figure you have volunteered to the debate!

Thats exactly what im in the process of doing now, im nowhere near 35 and i know of several people like me that have the means to do so and are enquiring about how mine develops. Its all through my own means - no leg up from parents, no winnings just hard work.

Youve backed up my initial post about people here not understanding that its possible for people to earn more money than they do and shock, horror when it is outside the norms of what they consider to be everybodys income.

gaius c wrote: »

I don't think you understand how gentrification works at all.

I dont understand it? Heres the dictionary definition of gentrification:

the buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper- or middle-income families or individuals, thus improving property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses.

How does the example i have given of the house on NCR not display this?

gaius c wrote: »

As you keep pointing out, people are buying houses as part of a couple, not individually.
A couple on €80k has a take home of about €53.5k and they have to cover everything out of that. Now if they chose not to have children, they'll probably save the money alright but a couple at your benchmark figure of 35 wouldn't want to be delaying that too much longer.

We have about 2,000,000 households in the country. 20% of that is 400k households in the entire country above €80k. Even if you put every single one of them into Dublin, you still don't have enough people with the incomes required to sustain current pricing.

Besides, it would also mean that houses elsewhere would be much cheaper as "all" the high earners were in Dublin. Play it whatever way you want but the sums don't add up.

Where do you get the €53.5k? The Deloitte and EY calculators give over €60k.

Im not even going to pick how many holes there is in that broad sweeping statement you have made. Its shockingly naive

gaius c

You're under 35 and in a position to spend €650-700k on a house?
Well done on your success in life but do you accept that your circumstances are not exactly typical?

The notion of gentrification implies that you spend less on the house in the first place and that the property value rises later. At €650-700k, you pretty much have blown Ranelagh-level money on the house already.

I used the Deloitte calculator.

by the seaside

gaius c wrote: »

You're under 35 and in a position to spend €650-700k on a house?
Well done on your success in life but do you accept that your circumstances are not exactly typical?

The notion of gentrification implies that you spend less on the house in the first place and that the property value rises later. At €650-700k, you pretty much have blown Ranelagh-level money on the house already.

I used the Deloitte calculator.

Did you put in high amounts for pension and health insurance into the calculator? I got €30k out as well.

Barely Hedged

gaius c wrote: »

You're under 35 and in a position to spend €650-700k on a house?
Well done on your success in life but do you accept that your circumstances are not exactly typical?

The notion of gentrification implies that you spend less on the house in the first place and that the property value rises later. At €650-700k, you pretty much have blown Ranelagh-level money on the house already.

I used the Deloitte calculator.

I know a lot people in the same position from the same means that have built large cash piles by living very modest lives the past 5 years. There's money to be made in a recession as well as in a boom.

Not really considering the size and type of house. It's very cheap but will probably go even cheaper at 390k. It's location ensures it's price has not fallen through a floor.

You'd pay north of 2mio for the same house in Ranelagh.

gaius c

by the seaside wrote: »

Did you put in high amounts for pension and health insurance into the calculator? I got €30k out as well.

Did you allow for PRSI & USC?

Greyian

gaius c wrote: »

You're inputting the data as a single income earner of €80k providing for him/herself, as well as their partner.

If they both work, and were each earning €40,000, their combined net income would be higher.

Here's how it works out in the case of a €40k/€40k split between the partners:

by the seaside

Greyian wrote: »

You're inputting the data as a single income earner of €80k providing for him/herself, as well as their partner.

If they both work, and were each earning €40,000, their combined net income would be higher.

Here's how it works out in the case of a €40k/€40k split between the partners:



http://imgur.com/Xzvhgg8

Is the correct answer.

gaius c

Barely Hedged wrote: »

I know a lot people in the same position from the same means that have built large cash piles by living very modest lives the past 5 years. There's money to be made in a recession as well as in a boom.

Not really considering the size and type of house. It's very cheap but will probably go even cheaper at 390k. It's location ensures it's price has not fallen through a floor.

You'd pay north of 2mio for the same house in Ranelagh.

Admit it. You just checked Ranelagh for the most expensive house you could find on myhome?

Why would anybody spend €650-700k on a house that would have none of the amenities of Ranelagh when for only a little more, they could actually live in Ranelagh and have a house that is somewhat habitable from the start?
http://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/62-sandford-road-ranelagh-dublin-6/3030473
http://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/40-anna-villa-ranelagh-dublin-6/3082139
http://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/16-charleston-road-ranelagh-dublin-6/3028623


Also, considering how blase you were about a near doubling of mortgage payments here, I'm sure sure you're in the best position to judge what is affordable for everybody else.

gaius c

Greyian wrote: »

You're inputting the data as a single income earner of €80k providing for him/herself, as well as their partner.

If they both work, and were each earning €40,000, their combined net income would be higher.

Here's how it works out in the case of a €40k/€40k split between the partners:

Gotcha. Thanks.

Barely Hedged

gaius c wrote: »

Admit it. You just checked Ranelagh for the most expensive house you could find on myhome?

Why would anybody spend €650-700k on a house that would have none of the amenities of Ranelagh when for only a little more, they could actually live in Ranelagh and have a house that is somewhat habitable from the start?
http://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/62-sandford-road-ranelagh-dublin-6/3030473
http://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/40-anna-villa-ranelagh-dublin-6/3082139
http://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/16-charleston-road-ranelagh-dublin-6/3028623


Also, considering how blase you were about a near doubling of mortgage payments here, I'm sure sure you're in the best position to judge what is affordable for everybody else.

Of those three houses youve sent on.

Firstly, they all require a significant amount of investment > 200k. So compare the houses on their sale prices as opposed to proposing a completely false and disingenuous point that for "for only a little more". In your last example its 925 - 425 which is 500k. When is 500k "only a little more"?

Secondly only the last is of comparable size in sqm terms. Thats the most basic factor in how to value a property.

How is my response to somebody saying there was nothing decent for less than 250k relevant? I was simply illustrating that at even unrealistic interest rates it was decent and affordable.

mr_seer

The Spider wrote: »

I don't understand your point here, I said there were plenty of available properties in his price range, just not in the areas he maybe wanted.

Is your point that anyone on an average income should be able to buy in any area they choose? I don't even know how in any economy on earth that would work, people with more money will snap up the most desirable areas.

Just as I can't afford a house overlooking the sea on Vico road in Dalkey, much as I'd love to or let's face it even an average 3 bed semi in Ranelagh, many people can't afford a three bed semi in Rathfarnham etc, but could quite easily afford it in Tallaght, or if they chose to a commuter town.

Sorry not everyone can have the same as everyone else, simple fact.

The median price of a 3 bed semi in Dublin is running at €350k+. This is a multiple of 12.5x the median income of someone at work. That is WAY too high. To say that people have to adjust their expectations is simply bull****. Prices are too high - just like they were in 2006 when people were coming out with the same nonsense about adjusting expectations and having to face up to the fact that even if they are on good incomes they have to live in crap areas.

Barely Hedged

mr_seer wrote: »

The median price of a 3 bed semi in Dublin is running at €350k+. This is a multiple of 12.5x the median income of someone at work. That is WAY too high. To say that people have to adjust their expectations is simply bull****. Prices are too high - just like they were in 2006 when people were coming out with the same nonsense about adjusting expectations and having to face up to the fact that even if they are on good incomes they have to live in crap areas.

And people earning the median income can buy where the median income allows them. People earning multiples of the median income, many ordinary civil servants for example, can buy in places where property prices are multiples of the median income.

Also can you give three examples of "craps areas"

MouseTail

mr_seer wrote: »

The median price of a 3 bed semi in Dublin is running at €350k+. This is a multiple of 12.5x the median income of someone at work. That is WAY too high.

Why would a single person want a 3 bed house, a dual income family on a median wage could get close to that with the new deposit rules.

yankinlk

gaius c wrote: »

The notion of gentrification implies that you spend less on the house in the first place and that the property value rises later.

No it doesnt. Early adopters get homes cheaper... but as the gentrification continues, the prices go up until eventually the original residents cant afford to live there anymore.

mr_seer

MouseTail wrote: »

Why would a single person want a 3 bed house, a dual income family on a median wage could get close to that with the new deposit rules.

No they couldn't. The median income for a household is lower than 2x median individual incomes for a start. Even if it was 2x median incomes the house would still be 6.25x incomes and that is off the charts by international standards

mr_seer

yankinlk wrote: »

No it doesnt. Early adopters get homes cheaper... but as the gentrification continues, the prices go up until eventually the original residents cant afford to live there anymore.

It's called a pyramid scheme. Finding ever greater fools to pay ever more in real terms for the same asset. Always ends the same way

Barely Hedged

mr_seer wrote: »

It's called a pyramid scheme. Finding ever greater fools to pay ever more in real terms for the same asset. Always ends the same way

Yep, wanting to live near ever more increasing amenities is definitely not a reason for a house costing more in one area as opposed to another with less/none.

People are idiots to buy on this criteria

MouseTail

mr_seer wrote: »

No they couldn't. The median income for a household is lower than 2x median individual incomes for a start. Even if it was 2x median incomes the house would still be 6.25x incomes and that is off the charts by international standards

Think your maths is off there!

yankinlk

mr_seer wrote: »

It's called a pyramid scheme. Finding ever greater fools to pay ever more in real terms for the same asset. Always ends the same way

Barely Hedged wrote: »

Yep, wanting to live near ever more increasing amenities is definitely not a reason for a house costing more in one area as opposed to another with less/none.

People are idiots to buy on this criteria

i actually am not sure if the last two posters are being sarcastic?

I agree that in the last boom suburbanization was a disaster of epic proportions. Ghost estates, unplanned communities, deckland etc... but people moving into the city - closer to amenities?