Property Market 2016

Eule

flintash wrote: »

This is so fundamentally wrong in my head i just cant grasp that. Old house is an old house, like an old car. Its old design, energy inefficient, many materials used coming close to end of life , technologically backwards. Maybe its worth more than plot of the land but that's it. I give exceptions to highly populated places but more than half of population living outside Dublin,isnit?

That is not the case. Having lived in a range of homes built in different eras (1600's to new built) in a variety of places in Europe, it usually is the (sad) case that newer houses are of poorer quality and smaller in design.

Right now, I just moved from a 4 bed place built in the 00s to a larger 3 bed built in the 70s and I could not be more pleased --- a good amount of space, no draft, and I can barely hear the neighbors kids.

And every newer house I looked at whilst hunting for a new abode was worse than then one I've just moved from, price didn't seem to make much difference to quality either. ;(

OfflerCrocGod

If brand new houses are worse in terms of insulation/heating than houses built in the 70s then I'd doubt they are being built to A3+ standard. Unless you are talking about a renovated/updated house? Things like space are variable and have little to do with when the house was built, there are lots of old and new houses that are tiny.

Bob24

Goat Paddock wrote: »

Thats bad news then ours was bought mid 2015 at your peak :pac:

Sorry I was in a rush when I replied earlier and made a critical typo! I meant to say I would NOT expect prices to go down but rather stabilise or increase slowly.

cnocbui

I happened across this paper which was aimed at the Australian housing market but some might find it interesting as Ireland and Dublin do get a mention and the whole thing does seem pertinent to the situation.

In an article entitled " Britain's Self Perpetuating Property Racket ," Financial Times Chief Financial Commentator Martin Wolf echoes Senator Bob Day ( Introduction, above) about the contrivance of the land use restrictions that lead to losses in housing affordability: “The restrictions on land availability are man - made.” A more recent Financial Times editorial reiterated the need to “unblock supply and build more housing.”

...

The Productivity Commission of New Zealand has offered a finding that could be useful in improving middle - income housing affordability. The Productivity Commission h as recommended an “event - driven trigger” to increase the availability of greenfield land for development where urban fringe land prices have become distorted. As the Commission indicated: ""Where large discontinuities emerge between the price of land that can be developed for housing and land that cannot be developed, this is indicative of the inadequacy of development capacity being supplied..."

Cuddlesworth

Eule wrote: »

That is not the case. Having lived in a range of homes built in different eras (1600's to new built) in a variety of places in Europe, it usually is the (sad) case that newer houses are of poorer quality and smaller in design.

Right now, I just moved from a 4 bed place built in the 00s to a larger 3 bed built in the 70s and I could not be more pleased --- a good amount of space, no draft, and I can barely hear the neighbors kids.

And every newer house I looked at whilst hunting for a new abode was worse than then one I've just moved from, price didn't seem to make much difference to quality either. ;(

Structurally there are not many differences between older semi-ds and new ones, at least in terms of whats in between them. Its usually just a brick wall, which doesn't stop much sound. You would to go back to the Georgian houses with 2 foot thick stone walls if you wanted to find a meaningful difference. What I would say though, is that new builds don't do carpet. It's usually badly laid laminate flooring on a chipboard base and really thin cheap underlay. Rather than long planks with thick underlay and a carpet. You put that in a apartment/duplex setting and you have huge amounts of noise.

Cuddlesworth

cnocbui wrote: »

I happened across this paper which was aimed at the Australian housing market but some might find it interesting as Ireland and Dublin do get a mention and the whole thing does seem pertinent to the situation.

Just as a example.

A site in a location where I grew up(fortfield square) had a sale price of around 12mil Euro in 2001. They built 40 houses and 100 apartments. It started selling around 2006.

So for 5 years, they had 12 million tied up in the property. I think it's fair to say that at a interest rate of 3% they owed 16 million by the end of the 5th year. Could have been more, could have been less, it was the Tiger after all.

At 140 units, thats a average site cost of 115k per unit. Although it was probably a 50/50 split in terms of land, so 150k for the houses and 60k for the apartments.

So I don't think its fair to say site costs are the issue either. Those houses tried to sell for 1 to 1.5 million, 1 bed shoebox apartments at 500k. The developer sat on the units for years inching the prices down, it didn't seem to faze him. Some poor suckers even bought them at those prices. For anybody wondering, prices are at around 600-700k for the houses now.

Eule

OfflerCrocGod wrote: »

If brand new houses are worse in terms of insulation/heating than houses built in the 70s then I'd doubt they are being built to A3+ standard. Unless you are talking about a renovated/updated house? Things like space are variable and have little to do with when the house was built, there are lots of old and new houses that are tiny.

No I mean build quality itself (draughty windows, mouldy side walls/corners), not maintenance issues. Incidental stuff like flimsy staircases and general design issues like rooms that were already on the small side and then have been cut into tiny chambers with thin partitions, so what normally would be an ok 2 bed house is now a 4 bed. I didn't see anything new built (for a price a normal mortal can afford) that looked like it offered quality of life.

I could understand this if we were in 1916, but in 2016, we should be able to expect more and much better than the selection of rabbit hutches on offer.

Had a vote canvasser proudly explain to me that the minimum sizes were to be further reduced (to be in line with Europe apparently), that was quite depressing. I had bigger flats in Berlin (with outdoor loo, yay) than some of the houses I saw here, and if anything, we should only consider 'bringing in line' if this improves things.

Villa05

Eule wrote:

I could understand this if we were in 1916, but in 2016, we should be able to expect more and much better than the selection of rabbit hutches on offer.

Totally agree, as the prices increased in the bubble the size and quality got worse.
300% price growth In the late nineties to 06 and the end product got worse as time went by

Cuddlesworth

Villa05 wrote: »

Totally agree, as the prices increased in the bubble the size and quality got worse.
300% price growth In the late nineties to 06 and the end product got worse as time went by

Builders are not allowed to build sprawling estates. They have to meet certain housing density requirements for planning permission. It also makes the most financial sense for them, as people buy the postage stamp type houses on offer. Also, smaller houses are more efficient to build and efficient to heat.

gaius c

Eule wrote: »

That is not the case. Having lived in a range of homes built in different eras (1600's to new built) in a variety of places in Europe, it usually is the (sad) case that newer houses are of poorer quality and smaller in design.

Right now, I just moved from a 4 bed place built in the 00s to a larger 3 bed built in the 70s and I could not be more pleased --- a good amount of space, no draft, and I can barely hear the neighbors kids.

And every newer house I looked at whilst hunting for a new abode was worse than then one I've just moved from, price didn't seem to make much difference to quality either. ;(

As a general rule of thumb, avoid houses built during housing booms (especially identikit estate houses) because they'll be slapdash affairs with lots of corners cut in an effort to get it done asap. That's why I would be slow to buy a house built mid-late 70's.

gaius c

You have to laugh really.

http://imgur.com/ziEfX7q

El_Dangeroso

You can file this one under 'large pinch of salt'. But a friend of a friend who buys a lot of property has been told that the banks were told to hold off on putting the screws to people in arrears until after the election. And when the election is over there will be major pressure placed on those to sell.

I'm not going to make life-changing decisions based on that info but thought it was an interesting theory.

Michael D Not Higgins

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You can file this one under 'large pinch of salt'. But a friend of a friend who buys a lot of property has been told that the banks were told to hold off on putting the screws to people in arrears until after the election. And when the election is over there will be major pressure placed on those to sell.

I'm not going to make life-changing decisions based on that info but thought it was an interesting theory.

I'm not surprised, sure didn't they delay Slab Murphy's sentencing due to the election. All of public life hinges on the leveraging of any potential new government, even the Luas drivers are conveniently striking around now.

Sono

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You can file this one under 'large pinch of salt'. But a friend of a friend who buys a lot of property has been told that the banks were told to hold off on putting the screws to people in arrears until after the election. And when the election is over there will be major pressure placed on those to sell.

I'm not going to make life-changing decisions based on that info but thought it was an interesting theory.

Am in the middle of buying a home, maybe I'll drag it out a little longer and see what else comes to market in the next few weeks

flintash

El_Dangeroso wrote:

You can file this one under 'large pinch of salt'. But a friend of a friend who buys a lot of property has been told that the banks were told to hold off on putting the screws to people in arrears until after the election. And when the election is over there will be major pressure placed on those to sell.

Even if its true, banks actions means nothing in grand scale, its our judges that dont grant evictions, please check propertypin, they have good thread, where repo rate is documented.

Villa05

flintash wrote:

Even if its true, banks actions means nothing in grand scale, its our judges that dont grant evictions, please check propertypin, they have good thread, where repo rate is documented.

This is not repossession per se, more the bank putting pressure on the person to sell and a deal on the outstanding balance

El_Dangeroso

Sono wrote: »

Am in the middle of buying a home, maybe I'll drag it out a little longer and see what else comes to market in the next few weeks

I wouldn't do that if I were you, it's just an anecdote, no more or less likely to happen than most predictions.

If you're happy with the house and the price then go for it, if not then that's another story..

Besides even if it were true, it would be 3-6 months before the houses started appearing for sale.

I bought last year and have never looked back. Should have bought earlier and - for all I know - it could be worth waiting another year or two.

But the cost of renting in the meantime, plus the pain-in-the-bum of not having closure, make it a high price to pay. And there was always something making me wait - e.g. as soon as the mortgage interest relief or capital gains tax runs out prices will drop again; as soon building restarts; as soon as repossessions kick in; as soon as the new mortgage rules are in effect...

The mortgage rules probably have had an impact - but not a massive one. The others made no difference or never came.

It's very hard to time it perfectly. Even in an ideal world, if a 300k house drops 5% in a year it's 15k but you'd spend that on rent. You'd need the market to crash -10% to make it really worth it.

RandomAccess

I've been looking for a few months. Right now there is a total lack of used property coming onto the market.

There are a few houses advertised on MyHome that would suit us but it appears they are not really for sale??
The estate agent says they are not taking viewings, and they don't have sale signs outside the house.
Its quite irritating really, because there are loads of similar properties where the agent isn't really bothering to reply to requests to view, so we have found.

Does anybody have ideas for the reason behind this? (dummy properties)
I'm thinking the owners are waiting for something, like maybe for buyers to save up deposits, or perhaps they themselves need to save a deposit and are the blockage in the chain..

The result is that new build properties are looking a lot more straightforward, at least its actually possible to buy the darn things.

Villa05

RandomAccess wrote:

There are a few houses advertised on MyHome that would suit us but it appears they are not really for sale?? The estate agent says they are not taking viewings, and they don't have sale signs outside the house. Its quite irritating really, because there are loads of similar properties where the agent isn't really bothering to reply to requests to view, so we have found.

Probably incidents where banks are putting pressure on struggling mortgage holders to sell rather than go through reposession legally.

Can't do anything in a straight forward fashion in this country

Kai123

Would it be right to assume a one bedroom apt are fairly niche, many of them being used as buy-to-rent?

I cant afford to rent, unable to afford a two bedroom apt but a one bedroom would suit me just fine for the medium term, but there are almost none in Dublin 15.

athtrasna

Kai123 wrote: »

Would it be right to assume a one bedroom apt are fairly niche, many of them being used as buy-to-rent?

I cant afford to rent, unable to afford a two bedroom apt but a one bedroom would suit me just fine for the medium term, but there are almost none in Dublin 15.

Banks are not inclined to lend for one bedroom apartments

Kai123

athtrasna wrote: »

Banks are not inclined to lend for one bedroom apartments

It shows. There is one 1 bedroom apt in Dublin 15 (Ballymun) and this was before a long period of nothing.

Do you know why banks are not inclined to lend to single bedroom apartments?

athtrasna

Kai123 wrote: »

It shows. There is one 1 bedroom apt in Dublin 15 (Ballymun) and this was before a long period of nothing.

Do you know why banks are not inclined to lend to single bedroom apartments?

One beds lose value more than any other type, higher risk for banks

El_Dangeroso

Deleted User wrote: »

I bought last year and have never looked back. Should have bought earlier and - for all I know - it could be worth waiting another year or two.

But the cost of renting in the meantime, plus the pain-in-the-bum of not having closure, make it a high price to pay. And there was always something making me wait - e.g. as soon as the mortgage interest relief or capital gains tax runs out prices will drop again; as soon building restarts; as soon as repossessions kick in; as soon as the new mortgage rules are in effect...

The mortgage rules probably have had an impact - but not a massive one. The others made no difference or never came.

It's very hard to time it perfectly. Even in an ideal world, if a 300k house drops 5% in a year it's 15k but you'd spend that on rent. You'd need the market to crash -10% to make it really worth it.

Agreed and I'd advise anyone to do the same. With me it's not so much trying to time the market as just the selection of houses available is woeful.. So I'm hoping more stock comes along just so I don't have to buy a house that needs min 50K put in before you can live in it.

Plus I don't really want to buy a house for the sake of it. It's a big purchase so you need to be sure as although yes you'll be paying rent in the meantime, it can cost 10k to move if you moved into an unsuitable house.

yqtwqxqm

Kai123 wrote: »

Would it be right to assume a one bedroom apt are fairly niche, many of them being used as buy-to-rent?

I cant afford to rent, unable to afford a two bedroom apt but a one bedroom would suit me just fine for the medium term, but there are almost none in Dublin 15.

Of course banks lend for 1 bed apartments. Just go in and ask them and you'll find out for yourself.
1 beds in Dublin have a great yield compared to other properties, so firstly you dont see too many owners letting them go unless they have no choice. secondly, when they do appear investors snap them up fast and FTBs just cant compete with the cash.

gaius c

athtrasna wrote: »

One beds lose value more than any other type, higher risk for banks

No it's because they are unsuited to being PPR's and anybody buying them as such is bound to "grow out" of it within a few years, thus increasing the possibility of accidental landlordism and ultimately arrears.

handlemaster

Kai123 wrote: »

It shows. There is one 1 bedroom apt in Dublin 15 (Ballymun) and this was before a long period of nothing.

Do you know why banks are not inclined to lend to single bedroom apartments?

Ballymun is not Dublin 15. You must be looking in the wrong area

El_Dangeroso

Well this is interesting and seems to point towards my previous post:

http://www.businesspost.ie/election-2016-vulture-funds-set-for-post-election-blitz-on-business/

A number of so-called vulture funds are preparing to pull the trigger on hundreds of business foreclosures and property receiverships in the aftermath of the election.

The private equity giants, who have spent tens of billions of euro acquiring distressed Irish loan books, have secretly briefed insolvency practitioners to be ready for a blitz over the coming months.

handlemaster

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Well this is interesting and seems to point towards my previous post:

http://www.businesspost.ie/election-2016-vulture-funds-set-for-post-election-blitz-on-business/

A number of so-called vulture funds are preparing to pull the trigger on hundreds of business foreclosures and property receiverships in the aftermath of the election.

The private equity giants, who have spent tens of billions of euro acquiring distressed Irish loan books, have secretly briefed insolvency practitioners to be ready for a blitz over the coming months.

Add your reply here.


And ? Who cares ... their not going to sell at a loss and their not going to give their business interests away for nothing. Business as usual