Fixing the housing crisis without massively increasing tax or borrowing

macraignil

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are we on the way to another bubble?



New measures look to be more of the same.
It seems the economy is on the right track, so maybe housing could be the next task to tackle or are we still an economy too dependent on the construction industry to provide social housing?

I don't think the government is aiming for a new housing bubble and the policy they have which is not being publicised is to show consistent increase in property values so pension funds etc. will invest in buying the property working people will not be able to afford to buy for themselves anymore because of the increasing gap between wages and property prices. From a nation were many people could afford their own home we are to go and follow the european model were most people have no choice but to rent a place to live.

That's why I think no new measures are being used to address the problem of affordability in housing. Many young people will leave the country and go live somewhere with a better functioning economy but as long as the government continue to keep property prices moving in the right direction for the home owners who provide reliable voters there is no reason for them to change. I don't agree the economy is on the right track and while the numbers of people out of work has decreased the quality of work available continues to get worse particularly when looked at in conjunction with the cost of having a place to live and other essentials.

Mr.Micro

This housing crisis was self made by the previous coalition of FF and the Greens, setting up NAMA and continued by the last two Governments. Properties were sold to whoever gave money, no questions asked. Vulture funds probably own half the country, run by faceless individuals from all parts of the globe, so rents have increased to totally ridiculous levels. Can't have cake and eat it.

99nsr125

We're already in it

What's worse and what no one is talking about is the huge commercial property bubble primarily in Dublin

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are we on the way to another bubble?



New measures look to be more of the same.
It seems the economy is on the right track, so maybe housing could be the next task to tackle or are we still an economy too dependent on the construction industry to provide social housing?

James Brown

It's probably optics, but we were told once the economy was stronger we could then look to housing, outside of dependence on the private sector, (which works from a business perspective but not for the public). Granted we don't seem to be making any moves past talking about it.

macraignil

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's probably optics, but we were told once the economy was stronger we could then look to housing, outside of dependence on the private sector, (which works from a business perspective but not for the public). Granted we don't seem to be making any moves past talking about it.

That's how to get ahead in politics in Ireland from what I can see. Talking about doing the things everyone would like to see but actually doing nothing that could inconvenience anyone else at the same time.

While the point you quote about the social housing budget being cut by over half over recent years is very significant, it's the refusal to adjust regulations that have made building a home more difficult and expensive I find even more irritating as to make changes there could make housing more affordable and provide an immediate boost to the economy.

It just does not suit the FF/FG economic model that really only works for property owners and the very well paid. It's a pity the political alternatives in this country don't provide any realistic economic alternatives and are happy just to sit in opposition and continue with their protests about anything that seems popular without giving the electorate a trustworthy choice.

Wheeliebin30

macraignil wrote: »

That's how to get ahead in politics in Ireland from what I can see. Talking about doing the things everyone would like to see but actually doing nothing that could inconvenience anyone else at the same time.

While the point you quote about the social housing budget being cut by over half over recent years is very significant, it's the refusal to adjust regulations that have made building a home more difficult and expensive I find even more irritating as to make changes there could make housing more affordable and provide an immediate boost to the economy.

It just does not suit the FF/FG economic model that really only works for property owners and the very well paid. It's a pity the political alternatives in this country don't provide any realistic economic alternatives and are happy just to sit in opposition and continue with their protests about anything that seems popular without giving the electorate a trustworthy choice.

5 billion allocated for social housing this year.

They are and will be built.

macraignil

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

5 billion allocated for social housing this year.

They are and will be built.

Had not heard the budget figures myself. Has there been anything done to help affordability of housing for those who might not qualify for something in the social housing budget?

James Brown

Just had a read;

47,000 homes to be delivered;
26,000 will be built as Social housing. 11,000 will be bought, (some as new builds) directly from the market. 15,000 will be leased by LA's under various schemes and 5,000 will be sourced by NAMA.
Coupled with HAP, tax funded assistance.

http://rebuildingireland.ie/accelerate-social-housing/

Surely 26,000 houses, (probably PPP) won't cost 5 billion?
Looks like more of the same. I wonder what we're giving up besides money, for the 26,000 social housing? Would it be PPP, with land given away?
The plan to tackle rents seems to rely on vague intentions. And buying houses off the market is a terrible waste for the tax payer. If the problem is developers can't afford to build, where will they find them so? If we are giving out contracts to have houses built with a view to the state buying them, should we be getting them for cost not market?

All in all, looks like a great budget for landlords and developers.

Wheeliebin30

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/government-plan-spend-5-billion-11637127.amp

James Brown

Looks like little value with less results for the tax payer.
Rather than build we are partially building with, buying and leasing from the market at market rates.

The Rebuilding Ireland plan also includes €200m for councils to get large sites ready for developers to get on with building 15-20,000 homes. Up to 20 sites are being identified for this.

Other sites on state owned land are also being identified for 500 homes to be built by developers in 2017, increasing each year up to 1,000 homes by 2021.

macraignil

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

5 billion allocated for social housing this year.

They are and will be built.

Wheeliebin30. The link you posted for dublinlive.ie says that there is a plan to spend 5.35 billion by 2021. The article is from mid 2016 so this could be spending over five years. Earlier in the thread an RTE news article was quoted as giving a figure of 1.54 billion being spent on social housing in 2008. If we went back to this spending level on social housing from almost ten years ago over five years there would be 7.7 billion available so the 5.35 billion figure in the government plan over that time frame is far from a spectacular response to the homeless crisis.

While I have no objection to social housing and think it could help the country if built independently of the private sector, this is not what the plan describes and the plan introduced by Simon Coveney has done nothing for affordability of housing and if anything in my opinion has made the situation worse. In fact the plan on the government website includes figures for leasing houses from the private sector of 10,000 and purchases from the private sector of 11,000 which without addressing the supply issue would as has proved the case so far push rent and purchase prices for housing even higher.

Bass Reeves

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Just had a read;

47,000 homes to be delivered;
26,000 will be built as Social housing. 11,000 will be bought, (some as new builds) directly from the market. 15,000 will be leased by LA's under various schemes and 5,000 will be sourced by NAMA.
Coupled with HAP, tax funded assistance.

http://rebuildingireland.ie/accelerate-social-housing/

Surely 26,000 houses, (probably PPP) won't cost 5 billion?
Looks like more of the same. I wonder what we're giving up besides money, for the 26,000 social housing? Would it be PPP, with land given away?
The plan to tackle rents seems to rely on vague intentions. And buying houses off the market is a terrible waste for the tax payer. If the problem is developers can't afford to build, where will they find them so? If we are giving out contracts to have houses built with a view to the state buying them, should we be getting them for cost not market?

All in all, looks like a great budget for landlords and developers.

The 5 billion is for social housing over the next 4-5 year. For 26k houses it is an average cost of 200k each. I imagine this includes land purchasses and full development costs etc

James Brown

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The 5 billion is for social housing over the next 4-5 year. For 26k houses it is an average cost of 200k each. I imagine this includes land purchasses and full development costs etc

If you read the plan, it mentions allowing private builds on public land.
It seems to include buying from the market, renting/leasing from the market also.
In short there is nowhere near 5 billion going on social housing. Unless we are changing the definition to include any dwelling, be it public or private, once tax payer monies are involved. A tenant getting a rent subsidy to go towards paying a private landlord or the LA leasing a private property is not social housing.
It reads as more of the same. It will result in marginally more dwellings, (26,000) and serve to keep the market hot, while not addressing the problem, in fact likely feeding it.

Bass Reeves

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you read the plan, it mentions allowing private builds on public land.
It seems to include buying from the market, renting/leasing from the market also.
In short there is nowhere near 5 billion going on social housing. Unless we are changing the definition to include any dwelling, be it public or private, once tax payer monies are involved. A tenant getting a rent subsidy to go towards paying a private landlord or the LA leasing a private property is not social housing.
It reads as more of the same. It will result in marginally more dwellings, (26,000) and serve to keep the market hot, while not addressing the problem, in fact likely feeding it.

No matter what happens the market will be hot. We have limited labour in Construction sector. The state intervening and building more than 10k houses a year will draw construction labour and companies into building them. The real issue is that we need to build about 30K houses a year for the next 10ish years and we do not have the skilled labour to do that. Over the last 10 years the construction sector has trained virtually no apprentices.

In all trades there are massive skills shortages and it is unlikly that these will be brough back from abroad. During the last boom construction workers migrating back in to Ireland provided a large part of the labour. Maybe we can get the magic fairy to sort the problem

James Brown

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No matter what happens the market will be hot. We have limited labour in Construction sector. The state intervening and building more than 10k houses a year will draw construction labour and companies into building them. The real issue is that we need to build about 30K houses a year for the next 10ish years and we do not have the skilled labour to do that. Over the last 10 years the construction sector has trained virtually no apprentices.

In all trades there are massive skills shortages and it is unlikly that these will be brough back from abroad. During the last boom construction workers migrating back in to Ireland provided a large part of the labour. Maybe we can get the magic fairy to sort the problem

Not if the state/LA's built social housing in significant numbers.
There's no point in admitting defeat and simply making the most of it.
The market would not be so hot if we didn't continually feed it with tax payer money.
A shortage of workers is not a problem. We are in the EU. There are enough construction workers with the ability to come to Ireland if there's work.
Paying market rates to lease and buy will supply some homes but will likely not solve a thing. It's a waste of tax payer money to stick a plaster on an ever gaping wound. I'd prefer a politician(s) over a magic fairy.

We should not go back down the road of gearing our society around the hot button trade/skill of the minute. Was a disaster when everyone and his dog got into IT back in the day. With our track record of boom and bust I'd steer clear of a career in construction myself.

Bass Reeves

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'd prefer a politician(s) over a magic fairy.
There's no point in admitting defeat and simply making the most of it.
The market would not be so hot if we didn't continually feed it with tax payer money.
A shortage of workers is not a problem. We are in the EU. There are enough construction workers with the ability to come to Ireland if there's work.
Paying market rates to lease and buy will supply some homes but will likely not solve a thing.

I may be wrong but I think we were in the EU the last time too maybe we weren't. Labour usually will not migrate unless rates of pay are substancially better than where there existing work is. Usually in the order of 80-100% premium over existing pay. In reality this only leaves Eastern European labour in the frame.

The best way to control prices is by using a carrot and stick. Once again we see politicians in Ireland refusing to use property tax as a way to control prices. As well by not using a use it or tax it solution to hoarding of development land we again havea problem that happened 15+ years ago.

Another few interesting Tales of the Unexpected. In certain area's single people are renting small two and three bed houses by themselves using HAP or Rent allowance squeezing out smaller family units and workers. As well another issue cropping up is those accepting HAP are being pressuirized to upgrade accomodation and product certification for electrical and heating in the house or appartments. One lad indicated he intended to remove tenant from house througt the need of a family member and relet to non HAP or rent allowance tenents in the future.

James Brown

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I may be wrong but I think we were in the EU the last time too maybe we weren't. Labour usually will not migrate unless rates of pay are substancially better than where there existing work is. Usually in the order of 80-100% premium over existing pay. In reality this only leaves Eastern European labour in the frame.

The best way to control prices is by using a carrot and stick. Once again we see politicians in Ireland refusing to use property tax as a way to control prices. As well by not using a use it or tax it solution to hoarding of development land we again havea problem that happened 15+ years ago.

Another few interesting Tales of the Unexpected. In certain area's single people are renting small two and three bed houses by themselves using HAP or Rent allowance squeezing out smaller family units and workers. As well another issue cropping up is those accepting HAP are being pressuirized to upgrade accomodation and product certification for electrical and heating in the house or appartments. One lad indicated he intended to remove tenant from house througt the need of a family member and relet to non HAP or rent allowance tenents in the future.

Some interesting and valid points, however they do not take away from the budgetary plan re housing, to rent/lease and buy from the market, coupled with the HAP scheme.
It's quite right not to skim on certification only to find ourselves with people occupying dwellings, usually later and at great cost to the tax payer, deemed not fit for purpose.
As regards single people using the HAP scheme to get two or three bedroom houses, I'd be surprised. Can you supply any stats on that? It use to be the way that the LA or whomever only allowed state aided letting/renting based on need. The idea single people are getting two and three bedroom homes should be tackled if true.
Again, none of this takes away from the wasteful plan of paying the market to feed a problem rather than fixing it.
The problem is a failure to tackle the problem of not enough houses working people can afford. Using the tax payer to pick up the slack is wasteful.

macraignil

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I may be wrong but I think we were in the EU the last time too maybe we weren't. Labour usually will not migrate unless rates of pay are substancially better than where there existing work is. Usually in the order of 80-100% premium over existing pay. In reality this only leaves Eastern European labour in the frame.

I think we were in the EU the last time the construction sector was producing large numbers of houses. A lot of eastern european workers came to Ireland then. I think some europeans are willing to work in Ireland at less of a pay premium in order to improve their english language skills before moving on to other countries where english is the main language and where they can earn more and live for less than in Ireland. They also can benefit from better jobs back in there home country if they have improved language skills. There have been some technological developments in offsite construction of modular house components that can be assembled onsite with less labour from traditional trades which might also be of help here.

The best way to control prices is by using a carrot and stick. Once again we see politicians in Ireland refusing to use property tax as a way to control prices. As well by not using a use it or tax it solution to hoarding of development land we again havea problem that happened 15+ years ago.

The meddling in the construction industry by government from what I can see is providing no improvement to the supply of housing. What are you suggesting?

macraignil

Less regulations on apartments link to RTE news website.

Any other regulations that should be changed?

James Brown

With exceptions for heritage buildings, we really need to start building up. There's room to build ensuring green space also. We don't need a concrete jungle and as we have little in the way of hi-rise, we can plan to avoid that.

macraignil

Matt Barrett wrote: »

With exceptions for heritage buildings, we really need to start building up. There's room to build ensuring green space also. We don't need a concrete jungle and as we have little in the way of hi-rise, we can plan to avoid that.

I think you're right and if well planned there should not need to be so much regulations against building up. Some friends were in Canada recently and commented on how the apartments were a lot different there with shared barbecue and social events facilities. The apartments there were built so people could continue to live there long term rather than it just being a temporary measure.

Much of Ireland also has very low population density by european standards and I think rural areas need less anti development regulations as well. There needs to be more options for people wanting to live in Ireland and not all will want to live in high rise apartments.

James Brown

macraignil wrote: »

I think you're right and if well planned there should not need to be so much regulations against building up. Some friends were in Canada recently and commented on how the apartments were a lot different there with shared barbecue and social events facilities. The apartments there were built so people could continue to live there long term rather than it just being a temporary measure.

Much of Ireland also has very low population density by european standards and I think rural areas need less anti development regulations as well. There needs to be more options for people wanting to live in Ireland and not all will want to live in high rise apartments.

I was actually thinking of Canada. They have high rise apartment towers in the suburbs. Clusters surrounded by fields and forestry, accessible to public transport etc.
If we did it spaced out rather than the old estate model it could work, in tandem with inner city builds.

macraignil

Quoting summary of budget from RTE.

A total of €1.83 billion has been allocated to housing in Budget 2018, with 3,800 social houses to be built by local authorities and approved housing bodies.

This is a big increase in numbers of social houses. Will this be achieved in 2018? Should the target be even more?

The Housing Assistance Payment Scheme will increase by €149m, enabling an additional 17,000 households to be supported and accommodated next year.

Are we accepting that rent is unaffordable for thousands of people in Ireland?

Funding for homeless services will increase by €18m to more than €116m.

Is this enough to keep people from living on the streets?

The Government has said 4,000 social housing homes will be delivered next year through the Social Housing Current Expenditure Program.

An extra €500m for the direct building program
will see 3,000 additional new build social houses by 2021.

€750m is to be made available for commercial investment in housing finance.

The level of stamp duty on commercial property transactions will rise from 2% to 6% from midnight.

The vacant site levy will increase from 3% in the first year to 7% in second and subsequent years.

Will this impact on developers who actually want to develop a site but are held up by the planning system? Will there be exemptions for genuine delays in construction rather than just holding onto sites for a increased sell on price?

A new house-building entity to boost construction has been announced.

I would be interested in opinions on the governments efforts to address the housing crisis.

James Brown

I think we are doing everything we can to maintain a heated market. We are weighing heavily on the tax payer to keep things 'as is'. 'As is' isn't working. What's the point in assisting private builds if we rely on the tax payer to support those private builds with credit/loans and aid for the people/customers to assist with buying?
Essentially we are in part funding the creation of a product few can afford, and then funding in part the purchase of that product. And somehow the spin to be believed is more houses built in this manner, dependent on the tax payer at both ends, will help the problem.
It seems like a recipe for a ponzi scheme.

djPSB

Why can't the government build x number of houses on a rent to buy scheme.

The banks are practically owned by the government anyways.

Bass Reeves

djPSB wrote: »

Why can't the government build x number of houses on a rent to buy scheme.

The banks are practically owned by the government anyways.

Who will build them?????

BoatMad

djPSB wrote: »

Why can't the government build x number of houses on a rent to buy scheme.

The banks are practically owned by the government anyways.

The current biggest issue with housing starts and the states plans is the lack of sufficient construction companies

unless you think giving a minister a trowel with solve all your problems

djPSB

BoatMad wrote: »

The current biggest issue with housing starts and the states plans is the lack of sufficient construction companies

unless you think giving a minister a trowel with solve all your problems

I would imagine if they were tendered for, the larger construction companies would be able to staff it and if not it would attract overseas interest. The likes of BAM have operations in other countries, a few hundred houses isn't a massive undertaking in the general scheme of things for them.

We're great at finding obstacles in this country rather than solutions. If there's a shortage of builders, why isn't there an incentive to get more young people into the trade. It's not rocket science.

Bass Reeves

djPSB wrote: »

I would imagine if they were tendered for, the larger construction companies would be able to staff it and if not it would attract overseas interest. The likes of BAM have operations in other countries, a few hundred houses isn't a massive undertaking in the general scheme of things for them.

We're great at finding obstacles in this country rather than solutions. If there's a shortage of builders, why isn't there an incentive to get more young people into the trade. It's not rocket science.

First off it is more than a few hundred houses. For the state to get building 6-8K houses/year similar to the 70's and 80's building resources would have to diver from commercial and private house building schemes. we saw the issue with this in the noughties where house building sucked in resources from right accross the economy.

As well from 2008-20014 we trained no apprentices and the number doing construction related courses in college dropped. To attract non national workers into the Irish construction you would have to pay a premium over there own national constyruction sector. That will rule out workers from western European economies. For construction workers you are looking at Eastern European workers. While the economics of the labour cost might doable cost of living in Dublin would be very high for these workers.

James Brown

The lack of social housing is not down to a lack of people to carry out the work. That might be a new excuse, since Brexit has lost it's shine.
If you put out attractive tenders, you will find people. We have exported builders to the U.K., Saudi Arabia etc. I'm quiet sure other countries are capable of same.
It's a very bad idea to have a generation told get into 'X', because in this case, when the next property crash comes, as it inevitably will, we'll be left with troves of construction workers needing to be re-skilled.

The private partnership costs the tax payer more in my opinion. There is no cheaper model than tendering and having homes built rather than buying at market rates. Then rent; easing the market, easing the need for emergency accommodation.
The only problem with that model is it means developers only get paid for the work they do, they don't also make profit on a sale and they won't like that, (also landlords might need lower rents to compete) and our politicians won't broach it because of that.

As regards accommodation; we've a housing crisis. Lots of people have trouble finding/affording accommodation. This is were prefabs come in. It's very common for workers to live by or even in a site. It's not luxury but many of these people are over to make money not pay rent to some gouger. As our situation equates us to a third world or under developed region, like oil workers, companies often supply temporary portable lodgings.

fash

Matt Barrett wrote: »

]

Hopefully fewer bears...

James Brown

fash wrote: »

Hopefully fewer bears...

Didn't even notice when I first posted

macraignil

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The lack of social housing is not down to a lack of people to carry out the work. That might be a new excuse, since Brexit has lost it's shine.
If you put out attractive tenders, you will find people. We have exported builders to the U.K., Saudi Arabia etc. I'm quiet sure other countries are capable of same.
It's a very bad idea to have a generation told get into 'X', because in this case, when the next property crash comes, as it inevitably will, we'll be left with troves of construction workers needing to be re-skilled.

The private partnership costs the tax payer more in my opinion. There is no cheaper model than tendering and having homes built rather than buying at market rates. Then rent; easing the market, easing the need for emergency accommodation.
The only problem with that model is it means developers only get paid for the work they do, they don't also make profit on a sale and they won't like that, (also landlords might need lower rents to compete) and our politicians won't broach it because of that.

As regards accommodation; we've a housing crisis. Lots of people have trouble finding/affording accommodation. This is were prefabs come in. It's very common for workers to live by or even in a site. It's not luxury but many of these people are over to make money not pay rent to some gouger. As our situation equates us to a third world or under developed region, like oil workers, companies often supply temporary portable lodgings.

Bears to one side I don't think Ireland's housing crisis is going to be solved with prefabs. The fundamental cost of building with so many regulations needs to be addressed. We seem to find no problem with criticising developers for wanting to make a profit while being perfectly happy about taxing the industry at very high rates and then moaning about a lack of activity. The government here from what I can see is being completely two faced in taxing the industry excessively and then lauding its spending that is making up for the inactivity which is a result of so many anti construction regulations.

BoatMad

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The lack of social housing is not down to a lack of people to carry out the work. That might be a new excuse, since Brexit has lost it's shine.
If you put out attractive tenders, you will find people. We have exported builders to the U.K., Saudi Arabia etc. I'm quiet sure other countries are capable of same.
It's a very bad idea to have a generation told get into 'X', because in this case, when the next property crash comes, as it inevitably will, we'll be left with troves of construction workers needing to be re-skilled.

The private partnership costs the tax payer more in my opinion. There is no cheaper model than tendering and having homes built rather than buying at market rates. Then rent; easing the market, easing the need for emergency accommodation.
The only problem with that model is it means developers only get paid for the work they do, they don't also make profit on a sale and they won't like that, (also landlords might need lower rents to compete) and our politicians won't broach it because of that.

As regards accommodation; we've a housing crisis. Lots of people have trouble finding/affording accommodation. This is were prefabs come in. It's very common for workers to live by or even in a site. It's not luxury but many of these people are over to make money not pay rent to some gouger. As our situation equates us to a third world or under developed region, like oil workers, companies often supply temporary portable lodgings.

There is no evidence elsewhere to back up what you claim might happen. Even our motorways builders are largely joint venture from the finance side but Irish staffed

House building isn't the channel tunnel . It's not one big monolithic plan.

Construction starts are increasing

In 5 years we'll be back to the usual levels of " house crisis "

This will go away , it's a time and place issue.

James Brown

macraignil wrote: »

Bears to one side I don't think Ireland's housing crisis is going to be solved with prefabs. The fundamental cost of building with so many regulations needs to be addressed. We seem to find no problem with criticising developers for wanting to make a profit while being perfectly happy about taxing the industry at very high rates and then moaning about a lack of activity. The government here from what I can see is being completely two faced in taxing the industry excessively and then lauding its spending that is making up for the inactivity which is a result of so many anti construction regulations.

The prefabs would be a temporary measure for foreign workers to use. This was my response to us not having accommodation for any foreign workers, the premise being, we don't have the workers, nor accommodation for any we might bring over from abroad.
I've no issue with anyone making money. I've issue with government enabling private companies make profit, with tax payer money, when it's not the best deal for addressing the housing crisis.
Currently the idea seems to be having NAMA use our money, along with other tax funded incentives, to bankroll private builds. Essentially profiting off the tax payer, to supply private homes for sale to the market, to be sold at market rates. That is a great way to help the housing industry, but not the people/tax payer.

BoatMad wrote: »

There is no evidence elsewhere to back up what you claim might happen. Even our motorways builders are largely joint venture from the finance side but Irish staffed

House building isn't the channel tunnel . It's not one big monolithic plan.

Construction starts are increasing

In 5 years we'll be back to the usual levels of " house crisis "

This will go away , it's a time and place issue.

I'm not sure what I'm claiming might happen.
I'm calling out current moves as I see them.
We are funding private builds for private sale under the guise of the government supplying housing.
The only result will be developers will have more product to market. Houses won't be more affordable.
The crisis has been growing for a decade. I'm not so sure we can just ride it out for 5 years.

macraignil

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The prefabs would be a temporary measure for foreign workers to use. This was my response to us not having accommodation for any foreign workers, the premise being, we don't have the workers, nor accommodation for any we might bring over from abroad.
I've no issue with anyone making money. I've issue with government enabling private companies make profit, with tax payer money, when it's not the best deal for addressing the housing crisis.
Currently the idea seems to be having NAMA use our money, along with other tax funded incentives, to bankroll private builds. Essentially profiting off the tax payer, to supply private homes for sale to the market, to be sold at market rates. That is a great way to help the housing industry, but not the people/tax payer.

It is good to have somewhere for people working here to stay and foreign workers might be the way to go since the irish education system seems to have abandoned the traditional construction trades that are needed for home building. The only alternative I can think of to getting private companies to build homes is the state employing construction workers directly. I would have no confidence this would be done efficiently and in fact think it could end up being even more expensive for the tax payer if the current levels of incompetence in public sector management were maintained in any state owned construction company.

I'm not sure what I'm claiming might happen.
I'm calling out current moves as I see them.
We are funding private builds for private sale under the guise of the government supplying housing.
The only result will be developers will have more product to market. Houses won't be more affordable.
The crisis has been growing for a decade. I'm not so sure we can just ride it out for 5 years.

I agree that we can't just ride it out for another 5 years as unaffordable housing will deter people from coming to work here and in turn deter companies setting up here and slow the development of the economy. The moves currently being planned however in my opinion will be much less effective than just removing unnecessary building restrictions and cutting taxes on lower priced homes.

James Brown

macraignil wrote: »

It is good to have somewhere for people working here to stay and foreign workers might be the way to go since the irish education system seems to have abandoned the traditional construction trades that are needed for home building. The only alternative I can think of to getting private companies to build homes is the state employing construction workers directly. I would have no confidence this would be done efficiently and in fact think it could end up being even more expensive for the tax payer if the current levels of incompetence in public sector management were maintained in any state owned construction company.

I agree that we can't just ride it out for another 5 years as unaffordable housing will deter people from coming to work here and in turn deter companies setting up here and slow the development of the economy. The moves currently being planned however in my opinion will be much less effective than just removing unnecessary building restrictions and cutting taxes on lower priced homes.

I would not recommend nor trust the state to run it's own construction company.
As in the past and currently, tender out. Hopefully the process would be transparent.
If you wanted to build a home on a plot of land you would hire a developer/builder. You would pay them for their work, you would own the home at cost. I envisage the same on a grander scale. Best deal for the tax payer in my mind. The state buying off the market is a complete waste of money.

macraignil

Interesting information released today from the Society of Chartered Surveyors. Related news article.

So much for the argument that the only way forward for affordable housing in Ireland is to build up.

VinLieger

macraignil wrote: »

Interesting information released today from the Society of Chartered Surveyors. Related news article.

So much for the argument that the only way forward for affordable housing in Ireland is to build up.

Part of that is due to the restriction on height, if you allow developers to build higher and thus add more apartments the overall cost of the apartments comes down

macraignil

VinLieger wrote: »

Part of that is due to the restriction on height, if you allow developers to build higher and thus add more apartments the overall cost of the apartments comes down

There was a representative of the Chartered Surveyors group on the radio talking about their research and he mentioned when building up the cost does not necessarily go down as some might expect as more expensive building techniques need to be employed when putting more floors on an apartment block. Heavier gauge steal for each floor to support the weight of the next one, more complex facade structures, etc. It's not like a twenty story tower costs the same as five four floor buildings to construct as the engineering to put all those floors on top of each other costs money.

Good loser

I believe once buildings go over 60ft (18m) costs increase significantly.
Presumably per cu m on the entire.

macraignil

Good loser wrote: »

I believe once buildings go over 60ft (18m) costs increase significantly.
Presumably per cu m on the entire.

Not sure of the full details myself as I was mainly just referring to what the guy from the Chartered Surveyors was saying. It makes sense though that once you go over a certain height the standard building blocks etc. would not have the strength to hold up the greater weight of the taller buildings.

Some of the engineering described for the tallest buildings to stay standing sounds amazingly complex and expensive when I have seen details on television. As well as everything needing to be stronger when the size is increased the fact that components are no longer the standard size makes a difference. I remember somebody on a building site for a Maynooth University building where I was a general operative telling me the price of some specifically engineered window frame that they were fitting and I was shocked by how much more it was compared to standard type windows that I would have also seen prices for.