Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Converting multi-unit property to family home

Options
  • 25-07-2017 3:32pm
    #1
    catrionanic
    Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭


    Just wondering what the catch is here. I see so many gorgeous period properties online which are divided into multiple small units, and they are priced much cheaper than similarly sized houses which haven't been subdivided, even if both are in similar states of disrepair.

    Obviously one would have to spend considerable money converting them back to family homes, and apply for planning also. But surely this can't be the only reason for such a huge difference in price?

    What's the catch?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,995 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    You don't need planning usually for internal changes.

    The first catch is it costs money to revert them to a family home, a lot of money. Its usually a complete refurb of the internals, effectively a new houses minus the cost of the walls.

    The second catch is most of them are protected buildings, so it costs even more money to change as works have to be done to some specific standards and in some cases stupid standards.

    The third catch is that most pre-63 properties were not treated very well over their lifetime or put together very well. And they have been standing for longer then they were designed for. So when you start knocking walls, pulling plumbing/wiring etc, pretty good chance your going to hit some very nasty structural problems. Which costs even more money to fix.

    The fourth catch is all of this will take a very long time to do. And the property will need to be empty to do that work. Which means most people are paying for a mortgage on a property they can't live in.


  • Options
    #3
    Feckofff
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Feckofff


    Anything nice will have either been removed or broken over the years.

    It is serious money for everything.
    E.g. it could easily cost 10k+ just to paint the place.
    Through in some rotten windows and a leak from one of the 6 showers etc

    The min you would need is 50k and preferable 100k to be on the safe side.


  • Options
    #4
    catrionanic
    Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭catrionanic


    But what's to say most (if not all) of these issues wouldn't also apply to a single residence home that's a similar age and also needs totally gutted? The multi-unit ones still seem to be significantly cheaper.

    I had wondered whether it is harder to get a mortgage/need a large deposit than the usual 20% trader upper?


  • Options
    #5
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,995 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    catrionanic wrote: »
    But what's to say most (if not all) of these issues wouldn't also apply to a single residence home that's a similar age and also needs totally gutted? The multi-unit ones still seem to be significantly cheaper.

    I had wondered whether it is harder to get a mortgage/need a large deposit than the usual 20% trader upper?

    Well, period residences in general are quite expensive to maintain or renovate anyway.
    If your talking about having to gut both houses, the house that is now in flats is just harder to do. More stuff to remove, more walls, more plumbing, more holes and wear in general.
    There have been a few over the years that were quite cheap that had been let go to ruin, to the point where their roofs were caving in. Two on Morehampton Rd I could think of.


Advertisement