Ireland's biggest landlord: 'Dublin rents are at breaking point'

BoatMad

3. Social housing - We should completely remove the requirement for social housing inside the M50, the land is too valuable and the requirements put off a lot of developers. Nobody is going to buy a luxury apartment for 300k+ if the person below you is getting the same thing for free. All social housing should be pegged to estates where houses/apartments cost less than 80k per bedroom. It leaves a mix to prevent ghettoisation , but also doesn't kick working people in the face by giving away something that most can't afford to those who won't work.

Jaysus, theres a recipe for ghettoisation , basically shunt the poor out of sight so your 300K apartment isnt " devalued" or your not angered by a deserving family getting the same as you .


OMG is all I can say. ( and quadruple all LPTs on " luxury apartments")

Stealthfins

I think the reason rent is going upwards and upwards in Dublin is because the banks are putting pressure on landlords to pay back their Celtic tiger loans.

I remember the early 00's up as far as 08 and there was a cool off stage from 08 until around 2012.
Now that cooling off period is gone and people have to pay back their loans.

BoatMad

Stealthfins wrote: »

I think the reason rent is going upwards and upwards in Dublin is because the banks are putting pressure on landlords to pay back their Celtic tiger loans.

I remember the early 00's up as far as 08 and there was a cool off stage from 08 until around 2012.
Now that cooling off period is gone and people have to pay back their loans.

One presumes that one they have a rental income they can pay their loans , other wise it was a dammed stupid investment

we have several things that have come together to cause the issue in the private rental market ( as opposed to social housing etc )

1. A dramatic fall in construction due to the 2008 crisis , hence lack of new properties

2. The selling off of many previously rental properties , due to a departure from the private rental market ( bank pressure, legals etc).

3. A lack of private houses to buy and the finance to afford them , pushing buyers back into the rental marketplace.

to fix the supply of rental accommodation , several thing needs to happen

1. it must be possible to finance and build rental accommodation , subsidies may be necessary to kick start the market , land must be made available

2. the designs must be consistent with liveability while retaining the ability to be built for a price that results in a reasonable rent.

all this will take time, theres a 5 year lag in this sort of thing

Sham Squire

The things that are required are the very last things we're ever going to see in dublin; i.e. sufficient social housing (lol), a good supply of high quality apartments built (double lol) , and improved tenants rights and protection (aren't enough lols to go in here).

newacc2015

I find the argument that 30% of TD's and that's the main reason why rents are so high BS.If TD's wanted to protect their income. Why did they reduce mortgage interest relief to 75% of a mortgage, make LPT not tax deductible, ban pre 63s, put USC and PRSI on rental income? They basically gave themselves a 25% cut on their rental property in the middle of the harshest recession in decades when rents were lower than now ? Also make evicting a tenant never impossible. If being a landlord is such the gravy train. Why are 45% of units being sold former rental properties and only 15% of those going back as rental properties?

Planning needs to be centralised. Take it away from local authorities. It will stop one off housing in the middle of no where and stop DCC demanding that apartments be a certain way ie designed by someone who has never lived in an apartment. Most importantly get rid of objections from people who dont want Dublin to be more than 2 storeys high

BoatMad

Sham Squire wrote: »

The things that are required are the very last things we're ever going to see in dublin; i.e. sufficient social housing (lol), a good supply of high quality apartments built (double lol) , and improved tenants rights and protection (aren't enough lols to go in here).

firstly social housing has no real impact on the conventional private rented market , They are completely different

secondly " high quality apartments " equals expensive apartments , whats need is a range of offerings

improved tenants rights , A1 , we need a referendum however to fix that

BoatMad

Planning needs to be centralised. Take it away from local authorities. It will stop one off housing in the middle of no where and stop DCC demanding that apartments be a certain way ie designed by someone who has never lived in an apartment. Most importantly get rid of objections from people who dont want Dublin to be more than 2 storeys high

separate to everything , this is a good idea anyway , planning should be a simple rules based decisions, not having any " personal " input from a planner

Eric Cartman

BoatMad wrote: »

firstly social housing has no real impact on the conventional private rented market , They are completely different

secondly " high quality apartments " equals expensive apartments , whats need is a range of offerings

improved tenants rights , A1 , we need a referendum however to fix that

We also need to improve landlords rights, especially around the eviction process. You should be able to chuck a tenant and change the locks within 60 days at the end of a lease / rent unpaid. At the moment its a long and excruciating process for the landlord. Rents are high partially as the risks associated with bad tenants are high.

BoatMad

Eric Cartman wrote: »

We also need to improve landlords rights, especially around the eviction process. You should be able to chuck a tenant and change the locks within 60 days at the end of a lease / rent unpaid. At the moment its a long and excruciating process for the landlord. Rents are high partially as the risks associated with bad tenants are high.

yes I also agree, but only to a point, where a legitimate dispute exists there must be a way to resolve that . but which prevents the landlord from simply solving it by eviction

for example the tenant may have a dispute over the claimed condition or a deterioration in the property , therefore you cannot give a landlord simple rights to evict. There must be an arbitration process that both sides are bound by.

rents are high because of a shortage of buildings to rent , thats the simple answer

quadrifoglio verde

Now that people have learnt the hard way that property prices can fall as well as rise, are the yields even there anymore for your small time landlord to invest in buy to lets. While in a numbers term, Ires are massive, they have a minor role compared to the two or three unit owning Buy to Letter.
These guys invested back in the 2004-2007 period in the hope of capital appreciation, spurred on by certain tax breaks for doing so in areas with poor social problems.
Looking at the after tax figures, I really can't see the incentive for anyone to become a landlord based on those yield figures, without running it through a company.

You could only really do that though if you were a cash buyer and even still, corporation tax is 25% on profits, so if you had the cash you'd be better off investing in reits

Only solution I can see is councils building, but they'll have to take on new clients, the hard working class. Earn too much to qualify for social housing as it stands and earn too little to afford open market rates. Im talking guards, nurses, teachers etc

KomradeBishop

Idbatterim wrote: »

Id say with residential, it is profitable depending on what they paid for the site and the area it is in. But for apartment building, in many cases unless they are in expensive areas, its not viable to build them...

Also you cant just phase an apartment block, it needs to be done in its entirety, unlike houses. Houses are now being built instead of apartments, obviously because it makes sense for developers to do so. Probably easier to get financing, no big underground car parks, lifts etc. The problem I see with this is, that sites that could take several times the amount of residents, are being used for far lower density houses....

here is a link to the article by the developer in the independent, makes reasonable sense to me....

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/numbers-still-dont-add-up-for-new-building-outside-dublin-34512754.html

Personally, I wouldn't trust a single word of that author - read up on who he has been involved with in the past.

Remember, our news media in general, was in thrall to property developers and all other related vested interests, in the run up to the crisis - and they still are now - they're just going to be singing a different tune this time, more suited to property developers interests for this particular stage of the housing boom/bust cycle.

EDIT: Just to clarify given mod warning - this (and below post) relates to rents, from the perspective of private developers not building.

Idbatterim

I agree about vested interests. But I can see it in my area in Dublin. It's nothing but house building, I am referring to the Dublin 14 and 6 area. One site in Dublin 14 had original permission for big apartment development and developer changed plans for houses. What the author of that article says , is what I am witnessing...

KomradeBishop

Idbatterim wrote: »

Komrade I agree with a lot of your post. Several things need to be done, one in my opinion, is to make apartments a long term option for families and living in general. That to me currently, means 1. decent storage space 2. a second living room perhaps, or some room currently away from the kitchen / dining / living room 3. concrete walls separating properties, not bloody stud partitions. I would also say triple glazed or windows that offer major sound reduction in noisy locations 4. I am not sure if it is practical to do one of my main gripes in apartments, the bloody water pumps! ARRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!

Id say even if it is marginally profitable, why would you bother, you are taking a risk. I think its ridiculous to say, "oh they should develop, sure couldnt they risk making a 1-2% profit"... Yes I agree boom time profits were probably very nice, but you cant go to the other extreme and then expect them to build just because they could reasonably expect some pittance of a profit in percentage terms...

I'd agree with you that apartments in the city centre, would be a worthwhile way to develop for the future - and ya, definitely, they'd need to be up to spec so that people have proper privacy etc..

I'm very cynical of the idea, that such developments would not be profitably, really - I think it's going to take a large amount of public funding, put into social housing and/or co-ops, showing that good quality can be had without excessive cost, before private developers will stop trying to spoof people.

Idbatterim

The thing is, I don't think they are spoofing to any real extent. If you look at areas where it is profitable to build. Commercial hotel and evidently student accommodation. There is lots of this currently under construction. House building is coming back, but for the large part, it does seem to be house building ... the way I see it apartments need to be viable long term options and it needs to mKe sense for developers to start building them again as we can get a lot more use out of valuable land. Also if major amounts of good quality but affordable apartments were built. It could free up large amounts of housing currently occupied by professionals for families...

yqtwqxqm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

We also need to improve landlords rights, especially around the eviction process. You should be able to chuck a tenant and change the locks within 60 days at the end of a lease / rent unpaid. At the moment its a long and excruciating process for the landlord. Rents are high partially as the risks associated with bad tenants are high.

Easily done if the PRTB offered an eviction service to landlords as part of their service. Once the PRTB find an eviction is to happen, then they do it too.

BAck on topic though.

A few years ago nobody wanted apartments. They were an albatross around anyones neck that owned one. You only have to read the threads on here from the time. Now everybody is saying build higher, more apartments, smaller apartments etc.

In another few years it will cycle again and anyone caught with a load of uncompleted or unsold apartments will suffer again.
And this time, because they can get less of a loan to start the build, they will suffer even worse than last time.

No developer is going to go for that risk at this time.

syklops

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

Easily done if the PRTB offered an eviction service to landlords as part of their service. Once the PRTB find an eviction is to happen, then they do it too.

BAck on topic though.

A few years ago nobody wanted apartments. They were an albatross around anyones neck that owned one. You only have to read the threads on here from the time. Now everybody is saying build higher, more apartments, smaller apartments etc.

In another few years it will cycle again and anyone caught with a load of uncompleted or unsold apartments will suffer again.
And this time, because they can get less of a loan to start the build, they will suffer even worse than last time.

No developer is going to go for that risk at this time.

Yes build higher, yes build bigger, but you have to also build decent sized apartments with storage and you need to put them in an area with facilities and decent transport would be nice(but decent transport is a whole other thread).

The apartments you speak of were built as renters apartments. Something you live in for a couple of years. None of them were meant as long term homes. Look in the US and on the continent, and living in an apartment is the norm. As are 5 and 10 year leases. When I moved into my apartment the LL/Agent made a big deal when I asked for a 2 year lease. Apparently she had to change documents and it was a hassle for her. :rolleyes:

Build up, build larger, but don't build luxury apartments. Build functional apartments.

The best apartment I ever lived in or even visited in Ireland was a student complex in Athlone. I lived there for 6 months and offered the manager way more money to stay but he had a waiting list. What was so good about it? It had a logical layout, and the furnishings were sturdy built to last type things, not a straight out of Ikea will break if you look at it thing like I see everywhere else. There was no washing machine but there was a laundrette on the ground floor which was free to use. Someone was talking about saving space? Theres one space saver for you.

Its a sad day when student accommodation in Westmeath trumps everywhere where Ive lived in in Dublin.

newacc2015

Idbatterim wrote: »

The thing is, I don't think they are spoofing to any real extent. If you look at areas where it is profitable to build. Commercial hotel and evidently student accommodation. There is lots of this currently under construction. House building is coming back, but for the large part, it does seem to be house building ... the way I see it apartments need to be viable long term options and it needs to mKe sense for developers to start building them again as we can get a lot more use out of valuable land. Also if major amounts of good quality but affordable apartments were built. It could free up large amounts of housing currently occupied by professionals for families...

Even if the Government gave Universities a few hundred million to build college accommodation. You would free up thousands of units used for housing students to be let to professionals. DIT in Grangegorman are going to build housing units but not enough. One of the local councillors was outraged that they were going to put so many students into the area. That there might be social issues from it. Councillors arent capable of making decisions that serve any purpose other than pleasing their local residents

Look at how Munich houses students. They put them into apartment blocks that are up to 20 storeys high.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studentenstadt

DIT, UCD and DCU have tons of idle land that can be used house tens of thousands of people. If you supplied that amount of housing, it would have an effect on rents unlike banning Airbnb. But I imagine it will be a hard sell for the Government giving priority of housing to students over social housing

Even Broombridge which is currently an industrial estate could be turned into mixed student/professional housing. It is on the Luas Line to DIT, TCD and RSCI.

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

"If we wanted to build an apartment block in Canada, we would tend to build a large, rectangular building, which would have corridors not unlike a hotel.
"Depending on the size of the block we would have two or four lifts in one shaft. Here, with regulations around dual aspect, sizing and the ratio of lifts to apartments, that is not possible.

"If you offered someone a dual-aspect apartment or a lower rent, the vast majority would take the lower rent," he said.

This and the planners prejudice against high-rise have added enormously to the costs and the availabity of apartments in Ireland.

It could easily be fixed if our politicians woke up and took action instead of bemoaning the situation.

BoatMad

Yes build higher, yes build bigger, but you have to also build decent sized apartments with storage and you need to put them in an area with facilities and decent transport would be nice(but decent transport is a whole other thread).

The apartments you speak of were built as renters apartments. Something you live in for a couple of years. None of them were meant as long term homes. Look in the US and on the continent, and living in an apartment is the norm. As are 5 and 10 year leases. When I moved into my apartment the LL/Agent made a big deal when I asked for a 2 year lease. Apparently she had to change documents and it was a hassle for her.

The fact is that spacious apartments are expensive , in mainland european cities like Paris , centre city apartment living is for the rich , not the average family. No different in Dublin,

you cant have " decent sized apartments ", that are affordable and near to facilities and transport , to much wishful thinking

yes we need to make centre city living better and attractive to families and owners, thats entirely different to the private rental sectors demands

yqtwqxqm

BoatMad wrote: »

The fact is that spacious apartments are expensive , in mainland european cities like Paris , centre city apartment living is for the rich , not the average family. No different in Dublin,

you cant have " decent sized apartments ", that are affordable and near to facilities and transport , to much wishful thinking

yes we need to make centre city living better and attractive to families and owners, thats entirely different to the private rental sectors demands

Nail on the head.
Large apartments are there for anyone who wants them.
They are expensive though.
I know several people that live in large apartments. I would definitely consider them very well off.

Idbatterim

at the moment we have this dual aspect BS. Get rid of this and instead put some of the savings into things I would deem more important, i.e. build quality and size...

This and the planners prejudice against high-rise have added enormously to the costs and the availabity of apartments in Ireland.

It could easily be fixed if our politicians woke up and took action instead of bemoaning the situation.

if they even put in 8-10 floor blocks, they could do away with the need for high rise! not that I think we should. But this rubbish of 5-6 floors of residential in city centre, docklands in particular is a joke! Raise heights of all of the cubes by say 1/3, still nowhere near high rise, and houses an extra 33%... We will see the new city development plan soon...

KomradeBishop

If you want low-rent high-quality apartments, then again, co-ops are an excellent way to provide that - and can have assisted funding from the public purse.

I think if the city does switch to a high-rise/high-density type of layout, then the best way to avoid the corrupting influence that private developers have over politics in this area, is to actually restrict development of such complexes, to co-op type developments - as they are one of the best ways of stamping out the type of corrupt practices seen in the property industry - and can provide stability against overheating in the boom-stage of the property market.

The switch to high-rise in Dublin, has a very high potential, to become another stage of the corrupt gravy-train and revolving-door, between property developers and politicians/civil-servants - unless private developers have to compete with co-op type developments, that place ultimate ownership with the people who will be living in these developments - with the rent largely covering just maintenance and similar necessary ongoing work.

Idbatterim

as they are one of the best ways of stamping out the type of corrupt practices seen in the property industry

what corrupt practices are you referring to?

syklops

BoatMad wrote: »

The fact is that spacious apartments are expensive , in mainland european cities like Paris , centre city apartment living is for the rich , not the average family. No different in Dublin,



yes we need to make centre city living better and attractive to families and owners, thats entirely different to the private rental sectors demands

You are talking about Dublin city centre, Im talking about all of Dublin. I live in Dublin 18, and when I look out the window I can see a Luas and sheep and fields, and teeny weeny apartments like my own.

Of course living just off the Champs Elysee is expensive. Of course living in D2 is expensive, but people need to live somewhere and they do it in other countries. I wasnt talking about "large" apartments". Im just saying not teeny weeny shoeboxes with no storage. My apartment is owned by a single woman who now lives in Australia. To be honest it would suit me fine(aside from the location), if I was a single guy. But its a 2 bedroom apartment and theres two of us and we just about squeeze in and the place looks a mess all the time because we cant dry clothes on the balcony so we dry them in the sitting room. Our apartment would suit one person. It doesnt suit 2.

you cant have " decent sized apartments ", that are affordable and near to facilities and transport , to much wishful thinking

It depends what you call decent I suppose. And what you call affordable, and what you call transport. I live 4 miles from Bray. Its half countryside, but theres a Luas station. Theres plenty of room to build up 10 floors or more and no-one could complain.

A skyscraper on O'Connell street would look out of place. One in the docklands would look fine, and one in Dublin 18 would look fine too.

Idbatterim

good points above. There is no lack of land around Dublin. This problem can only be solved by political will. I expect there to be a load of talk and some changes made, nothing drastic, the usual Irish, "slowly, slowly" approach.

In my opinion for a start, get rid of these ridiculous height limitations and dual aspect requirement...

syklops

<MOD SNIP - see thread title>

In Star Wars theres a planet called Corrusant and the entire planet is one big city. If we continue with our current policies regarding building up, the emerald Isle will be one city, all about 6 floors in height. That idea is heart breaking.

yqtwqxqm

syklops wrote: »

<MOD SNIP - see thread title>

In Star Wars theres a planet called Corrusant and the entire planet is one big city. If we continue with our current policies regarding building up, the emerald Isle will be one city, all about 6 floors in height. That idea is heart breaking.

I like Dublins skyline the way it is.
I think there is great character to the city.

Sounds like im in the minority.

I thnk if you want to build up, go build a new town way outside the city and have a good rail link into the city from it. Concentrate the new high rise blight well outside of the city.

Idbatterim

I thnk if you want to build up, go build a new town way outside the city and have a good rail link into the city from it. Concentrate the new high rise blight well outside of the city.

blight? yeah the "high rise" crap you get here, fair enough. It doesnt take just height to make it a blight, look at the appalling rubbish they have thrown up throughout the docklands... But high rises can look amazing! There wouldnt even be a need for them if they just went for a middle ground in docklands etc, go 9-10 floors, with maybe 12 etc floors as features on corner...

I think dublin could look amazing with a proper downtown area. I.e. if the port was relocated, as per proposals in 2007. Create a world class area and I mean a world class area, not the mediocrity at best, that you could describe the current docklands. A massive blank canvass, create a competition and obviously it would be way too big to build in one go, but have a masterplan and do it in stages...

yqtwqxqm

Idbatterim wrote: »

blight? yeah the "high rise" crap you get here, fair enough. It doesnt take just height to make it a blight, look at the appalling rubbish they have thrown up throughout the docklands... But high rises can look amazing! There wouldnt even be a need for them if they just went for a middle ground in docklands etc, go 9-10 floors, with maybe 12 etc floors as features on corner...

I think dublin could look amazing with a proper downtown area. I.e. if the port was relocated, as per proposals in 2007. Create a world class area and I mean a world class area, not the mediocrity at best, that you could describe the current docklands. A massive blank canvass, create a competition and obviously it would be way too big to build in one go, but have a masterplan and do it in stages...

You do realize its Ireland right
What you will get is the cheapest sh!ttiest high rises that can possibly be built. It will be Ballymun all over again.
Look at the Ballymun regeneration. Its just a sh!t as it was before the regeneration.

Idbatterim

during the boom there were actually some nice high rise proposals, including the u2 tower and Sean Dunne building in ballsbridge...

this rubbish has just been approved and is a disgrace!