Property Market 2016

yqtwqxqm

air wrote: »

How do you expect Dublin to grow economically without an increase in density?
There is little or no available housing in the city as is and the commuter roads and rail lines are at capacity.
It doesn't need skyscrapers but Dublin needs to go up if it's to have a future.

Trains and tunnels.
Thats it. They would solve all of the problems.
Dublin is a tiny city.
Transport is the problem. Always has been.
Solve that and you can have many more centers of industry and people can live anywhere they want and get to any of them easily.

The_Conductor

Rew wrote: »

ECB rate just went to 0%

From 0.05% - its a remarkably small move- and only worth pennies to those on trackers.

Of far more significance- the rate the ECB pay to financial institutions depositing money with it- was reduced to -0.4%.

In addition- QE has been upped from 60 billion a month- to 80 billion a month.

The ECB are doing their damndest to get inflation happening.

Bob24

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

Trains and tunnels.
Thats it. They would solve all of the problems.
Dublin is a tiny city.
Transport is the problem. Always has been.
Solve that and you can have many more centers of industry and people can live anywhere they want and get to any of them easily.

Mass transit doesn't work with low density. For a regular and dense subway/railway service to be viable you need a high concentration of people.

Without it, you are left with sparse and less frequent rail links, and cars and buses to compensate - much slower and subject to traffic jams. It is fine for a small city where distances are short, but Dublin isn't one.

Dublin isn't a tiny city, it is actually very widespread for its population. Have a look at the whole city of Paris below (2 million people) and Dublin shown at the same scale next to it. The whole of Paris could fit in a small subset of Dublin (roughly Dublin city centre plus adjacent postcodes).

yqtwqxqm

Bob24 wrote: »

Mass transit doesn't work with low density. For a regular and dense subway/railway service to be viable you need high concentration of people.

Without it, you are left with sparse and less frequent rail links, and cars and buses to compensate - much slower and subject to traffic jams. It is fine is fine for a small city where distances are short, but Dublin isn't one.

Dublin isn't a tiny city, it is actually very widespread for its population. Have a look at the whole city of Paris below (2 million people) and Dublin shown at the same scale next to it. The whole of Paris could fit in a small subset of Dublin (roughly Dublin city centre plus adjacent postcodes).

I lived in Paris for 3 years. I think you better look again at how big you think Paris is

Look at the train network it has too. And not just the metro.
Also there are a lot of centers of industry in and around paris where many, many people work. They arent all looking to only go to the center of the city.
The transport network enables this.
What we need in Dublin is a rapid transport system that can get you to any other place in the city underground and connects to other potential job centers outside easily. Until we have that everyone will want to work or live in the city center because transiting the city center is the only way to get anywhere else by public transport. And its sloooww

loveisdivine

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

Until we have that everyone will want to work or live in the city center because transiting the city center is the only way to get anywhere else by public transport. And its sloooww

I agree with this. I lived in Swords, worked in Finglas (right on the M50) my only public transport option was to get a bus into the city centre and then back out again! Taking nearly 2 hours! For something that would take 10 minutes in a car.

Sleepy

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

What we need in Dublin is a rapid transport system that can get you to any other place in the city underground and connects to other potential job centers outside easily.

Blame the men we're celebrating this year... the British would have built us an underground years ago had we still been under their rule!

Bob24

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

I lived in Paris for 3 years. I think you better look again at how big you think Paris is

Look at the train network it has too. And not just the metro.
Also there are a lot of centers of industry in and around paris where many, many people work. They arent all looking to only go to the center of the city.
The transport network enables this.

I do know Paris well (I am French and have lived there) which is why I used that example.

The map I posted does include the whole city of Paris (except small bits of the Easter and Western tips but with the addition of parts of some suburbs North and South) - a population of over 2 million people. Same map and numbers can be found on the Wikipedia page.

You might be referring to the metropolitan area (Ile-de-France) which is obviously larger but consists of 12 million people for an area similar to county Dublin plus a few commuter towns in the neighbouring counties (so again much higher population density in the same area, without which the many rail links you are mentioning wouldn't be viable).

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

What we need in Dublin is a rapid transport system that can get you to any other place in the city underground and connects to other potential job centers outside easily. Until we have that everyone will want to work or live in the city center because transiting the city center is the only way to get anywhere else by public transport. And its sloooww

Fully agreed transport links need to be less city centre focussed, but again with the current population density it mostly applies to buses. Would a train line going lets say from Dun Laoghaire to Tallaght through Dundrum (ie covering a number of South Dublin population centres without going through the city centre) be viable to run every 10 minutes and with a decent number of stops in between? I am not too sure ...

SarahMollie

Bob24 wrote: »

Irish banks will argue (rightly or wrongly, I honestly don't know) that these new ECB rates will increase their cost for managing tracker mortgages and that they need to recover that loss on variable rate mortgages.

There is no evidence of them upping rates for new business every time there has been an adjustment in the ECB rate downwards.

You could argue that this means that they are going to increase their profits with their fixed rate customers.

thisonetaken

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

What we need in Dublin is a rapid transport system that can get you to any other place in the city underground and connects to other potential job centers outside easily.

Not gonna happen as the costs would be enormous and Ireland already has an insane level of debt. High rise apartments in the city centre is the only viable solution to the housing crisis.

Goat Paddock

thisonetaken wrote: »

Not gonna happen as the costs would be enormous and Ireland already has an insane level of debt. High rise apartments in the city centre is the only viable solution to the housing crisis.

Agreed, see this planned 90 storey residential tower in part of Sydney

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-09/design-chosen-for-the-largest-residential-tower-in-nsw/7233954



People in Dublin would object to 9 storeys being too high, let alone 90!!!

Cuddlesworth

Goat Paddock wrote: »

People in Dublin would object to 9 storeys being too high, let alone 90!!!

It would ruin the Phallic view of O'Connell Streets monuments.

Monife

thisonetaken wrote: »

Not gonna happen as the costs would be enormous and Ireland already has an insane level of debt. High rise apartments in the city centre is the only viable solution to the housing crisis.

Not everyone who works in the city centre want to live in apartments. Growing families want a house with a garden. The demand right now is for houses, so I don't see that as a viable solution at all.

jay0109

If Apts we built in the likes of the Glass Bottle site for example, a lot of younger workers would move that direction rather than living in houses (with gardens) further out.
Domino effect

El_Dangeroso

jay0109 wrote: »

If Apts we built in the likes of the Glass Bottle site for example, a lot of younger workers would move that direction rather than living in houses (with gardens) further out.
Domino effect

Exactly, there's many a houseshare that would be freed up for a family home. Most people in their 20's want to live in a central two bed apartment, but many share a 4 bed semi-d in the suburbs out of necessity.

Bob24

Monife wrote: »

Not everyone who works in the city centre want to live in apartments. Growing families want a house with a garden. The demand right now is for houses, so I don't see that as a viable solution at all.

The thing is - once a city reaches a certain population, if everyone is to have a house with a garden the only proven urban development model to fit all these houses is the American one: very widespread city with limited public transport, large motorways crossing the city, and most people required to drive long enough distances to do anything but having a stroll around the house.

If you ask people who want houses whether this is the lifestyle they want, a number of them will say yes but I don't think all of them will. This is why I think there is room for a high density core city with walkable streets populated with shops, restaurants, and cafés, and served by dense and efficient public transport (pleasing one of my two groups); surrounded by not so dense suburbs where people have more space and green areas but have longer commutes and very few businesses available at their doorstep (pleasing the other group).

Providing the best of both worlds to the general population is simply not possible given the size (and growing) of Dublin; it will become more and more of a luxury only wealthy people can afford.

air

An underground is predicated on high population density to make it economically viable. Dublin doesn't have this due to the huge dread of buildings over 6 storeys in height.

Alter_Ego

So, anyone fancy having a guess how the property market is going to pan out in 2016? Prices have been in decline in Dublin for 2 consequent months now and commuter counties are still playing catch up. Lack of supply and poor level of building activity is the only thing that keeps prices high in 'big' cities. The sellers are hoping central bank is going to relax the rules in November, but I think they can dream on - the LTV ratio is not going to change, there may be some tweak on deposit levels. Overall, I think prices in Dublin will fall by single digits and rise by single digits outside of Dublin which will drive the national average to near zero.

johnp001

Alter_Ego wrote: »

So, anyone fancy having a guess how the property market is going to pan out in 2016? Prices have been in decline in Dublin for 2 consequent months now and commuter counties are still playing catch up. Lack of supply and poor level of building activity is the only thing that keeps prices high in 'big' cities. The sellers are hoping central bank is going to relax the rules in November, but I think they can dream on - the LTV ratio is not going to change, there may be some tweak on deposit levels. Overall, I think prices in Dublin will fall by single digits and rise by single digits outside of Dublin which will drive the national average to near zero.

Prices in decline for 3 months in Dublin according to CSO
2015 November 86.4 -1.3 0.7 3.3
December 86.0 -0.5 -0.7 2.6

2016 January 85.0 -1.2 -2.9 3.4

If lack of supply keeps prices high in the cities then I don't there will be increases outside Dublin. Demographically our population, especially that of house-buying age, is still leaving most areas of the country and moving to Dublin and the surrounding counties.
I agree that CB rules are unlikely to be relaxed but prices can fall further if people hold off buying in the belief that they will be.
Volumes of properties sold as recorded in the PPR have fallen dramatically since the end of Q3 2015 which would be a downward driver for prices unless this reverses

SarahMollie

johnp001 wrote: »

I agree that CB rules are unlikely to be relaxed but prices can fall further if people hold off buying in the belief that they will be.
Volumes of properties sold as recorded in the PPR have fallen dramatically since the end of Q3 2015 which would be a downward driver for prices unless this reverses

I also think its unlikely that they will change substantially. Maybe *slight* concession to appease the masses, but I think any relaxation will cause prices to go upwards agian.

Its still the same cohort of people chasing the same housing stock. The numbers of units being built is nowhere near sufficient to meet demand.

I think the current situation is a bit of a stalemate to between buyers and sellers as evidenced by the low volumes going through at the moment. The market is far from normal at the moment so I wouldnt read to much into it for now.

saggart26

Is it possible to get a breakdown of prices by area code in Dublin?

With the new deposit restrictions it would be interesting to know if there has been price spikes in certain areas.

Example would be a FTB who was looking to buy in D6. Are they now buying in D8?

I would imagine people are looking at other Dublin area codes first rather than moving out to the commuter belts.

johnp001

Houses: asking price per sq.ft by region

This asking price data is broken down by area in Dublin

Bob24

Looks like at least one speculator is getting ready to release some land.

"New Generation may sell residential sites in Dublin" - http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/new-generation-may-sell-residential-sites-in-dublin-1.2569958

OfflerCrocGod

Bob24 wrote: »

Looks like at least one speculator is getting ready to release some land.

"New Generation may sell residential sites in Dublin" - http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/new-generation-may-sell-residential-sites-in-dublin-1.2569958

Sounds like the current property prices are enough to attract builders back into the market. It's just taking time for the supply to come on stream.

OfflerCrocGod

Some unsubstantiated claims that if the mortgage rules were removed we'd have more house building http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0316/775203-esri-economy/ .

johnp001

OfflerCrocGod wrote: »

Some unsubstantiated claims that if the mortgage rules were removed we'd have more house building http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0316/775203-esri-economy/ .

ESRI encourages Central Bank to ease mortgage rules
Same from the Kieran McQuinn of the ESRI on Newstalk this morning suggesting a sliding scale of LTV and deposit ratios based on supply levels.

The Central Bank seems to understand a lot better than the government that complex interventions are very counter-productive and will not be swayed by this sort of nonsense.

The probable consequence of this speculation will be to make buyers hold out buying what they can actually afford in the hopes of being given license to indebt themselves at 2006 levels again in the future which would further dampen demand in a market that has seen transaction levels fall off a cliff recently.

Unintended consequences are a major factor in our market, as last year when the introduction of prudential lending rules with a six month stay led to prices skyrocketing as buyers took their last chance at taking out loans that were so unaffordable they were judged to be a systemic risk to our overall financial system and the banking system (knowing from the previous bail-out that it will not be held to account) did all it could to circumvent the measures put in place to protect it.

Alter_Ego

Alter_Ego wrote: »

The sellers are hoping central bank is going to relax the rules in November, but I think they can dream on - the LTV ratio is not going to change, there may be some tweak on deposit levels.

Do you mean the LTI ratio is not going to change? The LTV refers to the ratio between the deposit and the value of the house.

As a matter of interest, why do you think they might change one but not the other?

Diarmuid

Talk about fixing the wrong problem. According to Ronan Lyons, to build a 2 bed apartment in Ireland costs 280k excluding land costs. Fix that first before we go back to the good old days of shouldering the younger generation with crippling debt

If prices are not high enough to justify building there are two options:
- reduce the cost of building (i.e. cut levies and taxes for builders)
- try to push up prices

Why, oh why, are we going for the second option?

I've bought; I'm out. But I'd rather we didn't go down this old road again.

SarahMollie

Deleted User wrote: »

If prices are not high enough to justify building there are two options:
- reduce the cost of building (i.e. cut levies and taxes for builders)
- try to push up prices

Why, oh why, are we going for the second option?

I've bought; I'm out. But I'd rather we didn't go down this old road again.

Amen.

I've also bought already, but would like to trade up someday, and would rather the market not be a basket case by the time I get back to it

OfflerCrocGod

Land reform is complex and could be used as a tool to attack the politician that attempts it. Pushing up prices with debt is simpler and will be opposed by fewer people.