Property Market 2019

Dolbhad

bdmc5 wrote: »

It is indeed alot of money but we we are fortunate to be able afford it comfortably so its not crazy money to us. Blackrock is a one of most sought areas in as location 2 mins from water and so central to everything but very quiet at night.

They are building the last final phase at the end of estate as 3 bed semi are priced at the same as the 4 bed we bought 18 months ago!! The 3 floor 5 bed semi are nearly 600k and all sold off the plans!!

I was just in a middle of a reply to say if you don’t know Cork, Blackrock is the most expensive place in the City. Maybe only beaten by Kinsale in the County so not surprised at all by the new build price. Don’t think you could approach a house on Blackrock on less than 300k.

Dolbhad

Dolbhad wrote: »

I was just in a middle of a reply to say if you don’t know Cork, Blackrock is the most expensive place in the City. Maybe only beaten by Kinsale in the County so not surprised at all by the new build price. Don’t think you could approach a house on Blackrock on less than 300k.

You could if its Mahon Blackrock

I agree with you, i bought a house with your idea, but now i am going to sell as i would need to invest 20-25k to bring it to a comfortable level. Dont get me wrong with 25k the bathroom, kitchen, front door and soundproofing would be done, but its a lot of upheaval and i decided to sell.

My house has a back garden of about 175 sqm mostly paved and graveled, i had loads of plans but just abandoned the project for a newer house with less hassle.

you can buy it if you want but it needs about 25k pumped into it

Dolbhad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You could if its Mahon Blackrock

I agree with you, i bought a house with your idea, but now i am going to sell as i would need to invest 20-25k to bring it to a comfortable level. Dont get me wrong with 25k the bathroom, kitchen, front door and soundproofing would be done, but its a lot of upheaval and i decided to sell.

My house has a back garden of about 175 sqm mostly paved and graveled, i had loads of plans but just abandoned the project for a newer house with less hassle.

you can buy it if you want but it needs about 25k pumped into it

That is very true. The amount of houses with “Blackrock” that are clearly Mahon...

Your tempting me! I don’t mind some work 😂

Dolbhad

Dolbhad wrote: »

That is very true. The amount of houses with “Blackrock” that are clearly Mahon...

Your tempting me! I don’t mind some work ��

Well if your really tempted pm me and we can cut out the estate agent :cool:

Cuddlesworth

hmmm wrote: »

It was interesting to see the report in the Indo today that Cherrywood has a gap in funding to deliver infrastructure:
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/cherrywood-facing-severe-delays-over-62m-funding-gap-38432976.html

That would explain why its looked like they have stalled out the last few months. They redid the junction, did a fair bit of ground work and then nothing for a few months, with only a fraction of it going up at the moment.

If we do crash somebody is loosing their shirt on that development, again.

Bluefoam

hmmm wrote: »

It was interesting to see the report in the Indo today that Cherrywood has a gap in funding to deliver infrastructure:
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/cherrywood-facing-severe-delays-over-62m-funding-gap-38432976.html

It was also interesting to see this comment:
"So the shortfall in funding has not yet become an issue. However, if a source of income is not found, the delivery of housing will be delayed. The most obvious source is an increase in future development levies."

More levies, more costs the builders will pass on to purchasers.

One place with lots of existing infrastructure is the city centre. If we would only build a few buildings of moderate height, we wouldn't have to worry about LUAS/Metro or funding new infrastructure.

This is shocking... Will be a catastrophy for the area. I notice that they have been trying to sell of parcels of land recently, probably to make up the shortfall. Looks like a disaster waiting to happen...

Eric Cartman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LI0tqVmGtI

a great video on smaller apartments as theyre doing in san fransisco.

Sheeps

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LI0tqVmGtI

a great video on smaller apartments as theyre doing in san fransisco.

If Co-Living is like this in Dublin, then I'd be OK with us allowing a certain amount of it in here. Interesting video.

ontheditch2

I think, with a bit of imagination, small apartments/homes can be a great addition to Irelands cities. If you Google tiny homes and look at the videos/images, you can see how resourceful they are with space and everything needed can be fitted into tiny areas.
Some American cities are not covering old multi storey car parks, filling them with shipping containers and making homes from them.
Higher density living with launderette, shops, take aways, gym etc on the ground floor.
It's just a different way of thinking about living. Not everyone wants a 3 bed semi with a car parking space on the outskirts of the city.

beauf

I think people out grow these tiny places quickly. You want to be wary not to end up stuck in one of your needs change. Which is what happened last time there was a load of smaller sized apartment and house thrown up in the 90s. You don't want to pay over the odds for one at the peak of the market.

SozBbz

beauf wrote: »

I think people out grow these tiny places quickly. You want to be wary not to end up stuck in one of your needs change. Which is what happened last time there was a load of smaller sized apartment and house thrown up in the 90s. You don't want to pay over the odds for one at the peak of the market.

I think these super compact places are for the build to rent market.

When I was in my early 20's I'd have been happy enough if it meant I'd privacy and affordability.

My issue with the proposed Dublin developments is that they still seem really expensive.

Padre_Pio

Dolbhad wrote: »

That is very true. The amount of houses with “Blackrock” that are clearly Mahon...

Your tempting me! I don’t mind some work ��

Saw a house in Tallow that was listed as Midleton.

Estate agents must get creative writing classes to come up with the bullsh*t in some of their ads.

awec

awec wrote: »

The HTB must be the first time in a long time that these people saw anything for their taxes.

Only helps if your buying in a new housing estate.
After renting for 7 years in a housing estate we didnt even consider buying in one,Its just not for us.
We got no help to buy

The_Conductor

BrownFinger wrote: »

Only helps if your buying in a new housing estate.
After renting for 7 years in a housing estate we didnt even consider buying in one,Its just not for us.
We got no help to buy

It is high time that it gets renamed to something more apt.
Its a sop to the construction industry- not to buyers.
Its cheaper to buy second hand, the HTB scheme is padding prices for FTBs.
Why must we continue with the charade that its a help for hard-pressed first time buyers?

awec

The_Conductor wrote: »

It is high time that it gets renamed to something more apt.
Its a sop to the construction industry- not to buyers.
Its cheaper to buy second hand, the HTB scheme is padding prices for FTBs.
Why must we continue with the charade that its a help for hard-pressed first time buyers?

It is a help, just not directly or in the way the name implies. The purpose was to help FTBs by throwing some money at developers to build houses that people could buy.

It worked, because more and more new builds became available, but it's possibly reaching tipping point now where it's having an obvious detrimental affect on second hand purchases, now that there's no longer a real shortage of new homes.

ELM327

awec wrote: »

It is a help, just not directly or in the way the name implies. The purpose was to help FTBs by throwing some money at developers to build houses that people could buy.

It worked, because more and more new builds became available, but it's possibly reaching tipping point now where it's having an obvious detrimental affect on second hand purchases, now that there's no longer a real shortage of new homes.

It is also a help as it reduces the deposit needed to 5%

awec

ELM327 wrote: »

It is also a help as it reduces the deposit needed to 5%

Right, so while it might increase the price by 5%, it also reduces the deposit by up to 50%, which is very significant.

ELM327

awec wrote: »

Right, so while it might increase the price by 5%, it also reduces the deposit by up to 50%, which is very significant.

As an example of this (from real life);


myself and my partner are looking to buy a house and spend ~250k as second time buyers.
My brother and his wife just bought a HTB house as first time buyers for ~250k.
We need 55k deposit, they needed 12500.
That's where the HTB comes in.


55k second time buyer, 25k first time buyer, 12.5k first time buyer with HTB.

The_Conductor

awec wrote: »

Right, so while it might increase the price by 5%, it also reduces the deposit by up to 50%, which is very significant.

However- it was specifically stated that this was not supposed to be how it was functioning (as per the Central Bank press guidance on deposits). The government went and undermined the Central Bank on this because it was expedient to do so. The fact of the matter is- even if the deposit requirements are lower than they might otherwise be- people are borrowing more for more expensive property, that arguably should not have reached the levels its at, had there been a level playing field.

It also means first time buyers are defacto excluded from the secondhand market as their deposit requirement is doubled- and non-first-time-buyers are defacto excluded from the new market- as their deposit requirement in comparison to a FTB is quadrupled.

The whole sector is so incredibly screwed up- but no-one has the guts to sit down and logically deal with it, least of all the Minister.

Busman Paddy Lasty

ELM327 wrote: »

awec wrote: »

Right, so while it might increase the price by 5%, it also reduces the deposit by up to 50%, which is very significant.

As an example of this (from real life);


myself and my partner are looking to buy a house and spend ~250k as second time buyers.
My brother and his wife just bought a HTB house as first time buyers for ~250k.
We need 55k deposit, they needed 12500.
That's where the HTB comes in.


55k second time buyer, 25k first time buyer, 12.5k first time buyer with HTB.

That's a huge difference. The 20% requirement must be preventing a large segment from moving or trading up.

Interested Observer

The_Conductor wrote: »

It also means first time buyers are defacto excluded from the secondhand market as their deposit requirement is doubled- and non-first-time-buyers are defacto excluded from the new market- as their deposit requirement in comparison to a FTB is quadrupled.

Is there any data to back either of these points up?

I know this is anecdotal but if I look at people I know who've bought houses, plenty of FTBs including myself have bought second hand homes. I'd no interest in a new house and at viewings I went to of second hand homes there were loads and loads of FTBs like myself. This was over the course of a year or more.

With non-FTBs why is it relevant as to whether they buy a new or a second hand home? The deposit requirement is the exact same. Plus they'll have been building up equity for however long they've been paying their mortgage which presumably goes a long way towards the deposit.

The_Conductor

The data that is out there relates predominantly to mortgage draw downs- rather than looking at the demographics of who is buying what. We have a reasonable cross-section of the community posting in here- which would lend itself to the supposition as discussed- however, its not scientific, even if it is common sense.

alwald

The more I analyse the HTB the more I realise that it should have never been introduced. The price of new builds jumped by at least 20K more the day after its announcement and the people who benefited from it the most are those who didn't really need it as they bought expensive houses (priced at over 400K).

I don't buy the argument that it contributed to more supply because the demand was strong anyway, builders would have just built cheaper houses by reducing the size or by building smarter...anyway the only real contribution of the HTB is an increase of the final price of new builds.

The_Conductor

alwald wrote: »

The more I analyse the HTB the more I realise that it should have never been introduced. The price of new builds jumped by at least 20K more the day after its announcement and the people who benefited from it the most are those who didn't really need it as they bought expensive houses (priced at over 400K).

I don't buy the argument that it contributed to more supply because the demand was strong anyway, builders would have just built cheaper houses by reducing the size or by building smarter...anyway the only real contribution of the HTB is an increase of the final price of new builds.

RTE went and compared the before and after HTB introduction about a fortnight after its introduction- the 20k had simply been incremented onto prices. Its not that dwellings would have been smaller, or builders would have had to be smarter- they simply got 20k per unit incremented onto their profit margins- simple as.

alwald

The_Conductor wrote: »

RTE went and compared the before and after HTB introduction about a fortnight after its introduction- the 20k had simply been incremented onto prices. Its not that dwellings would have been smaller, or builders would have had to be smarter- they simply got 20k per unit incremented onto their profit margins- simple as.

I totally agree and I will just add that the rebuilding Ireland home loan, with some improvements in the processing time and the overall application process, is a better initiative than the HTB and can be used as a long term solution.

Interested Observer

The_Conductor wrote: »

The data that is out there relates predominantly to mortgage draw downs- rather than looking at the demographics of who is buying what. We have a reasonable cross-section of the community posting in here- which would lend itself to the supposition as discussed- however, its not scientific, even if it is common sense.

I don't see how your point on non FTBs is common sense at all. How does it make any difference whether they buy new or second hand homes? Their deposit requirement is the same either way.

The_Conductor

Interested Observer wrote: »

I don't see how your point on non FTBs is common sense at all. How does it make any difference whether they buy new or second hand homes? Their deposit requirement is the same either way.

The HTB and the lower deposit requirement for a FTB makes it increasingly difficult for a non FTB to buy a new property- from a financial perspective, most non-FTBs simply cannot compete for new properties. Put it this way- two identical people neither own property- but one can buy a new property with a 5% deposit- whereas the other needs a 20% deposit. Its stacked. Its not as bad for secondhand properties- because a FTB still needs a 10% deposit- which is an achievement.........

The secondhand market is moribund- and slowing- property prices are at rarefied levels that need to be brought down to reasonable levels- and our semi-normalisation of supply is assisting this somewhat (if we ever got the hell over our reticence to build to reasonable heights and reasonable densities).

FTBs are being treated with kiddie gloves- whether they realise it or not- and there are hundreds of thousands of others out there who for one reason or another simply don't meet the criteria to get access to the same largess. There are unhappy people out there- who are never going to own property- or who are going to have to bring up children in inappropriate small apartments etc- as they have no other options. That is just the way it is.

99problems1

awec wrote: »

Right, so while it might increase the price by 5%, it also reduces the deposit by up to 50%, which is very significant.

Your numbers sound impressive. However, it works out worse.

if a house is 400k, a 10% deposit it 40k.

A 5% increase is 20k.

A 50% drop in deposit is 20k.

Except you'll be paying interest for 30 years on that 20k so it costs more and extends people and puts them at more risk, driving up prices.

It's better for things to cost lower for everyone, than to have some people have more money. It's called wealth inequality.

SozBbz

99problems1 wrote: »

Your numbers sound impressive. However, it works out worse.

if a house is 400k, a 10% deposit it 40k.

A 5% increase is 20k.

A 50% drop in deposit is 20k.

Except you'll be paying interest for 30 years on that 20k so it costs more and extends people and puts them at more risk, driving up prices.

It's better for things to cost lower for everyone, than to have some people have more money. It's called wealth inequality.

Bit too simplistic -no accounting for inflation or the fact that paying off the money slowly over time, even when paying interest is more affordable (aka preferable) to a lot of people.

If this wasnt he case, people wouldnt borrow for cars, holidays, weddings etc but they do. Even costing more, people often favour the convenience of being able to borrow and having to put down as little as their own money up front as possible.

awec

99problems1 wrote: »

Your numbers sound impressive. However, it works out worse.

if a house is 400k, a 10% deposit it 40k.

A 5% increase is 20k.

A 50% drop in deposit is 20k.

Except you'll be paying interest for 30 years on that 20k so it costs more and extends people and puts them at more risk, driving up prices.

It's better for things to cost lower for everyone, than to have some people have more money. It's called wealth inequality.

Of course you pay it off over time, that's obvious. But ,most first time buyers would prefer to have the money up front and pay it off over the course of the mortgage, than have to wait and save up double the deposit.

The deposit is the big hurdle that affects first time buyers the most. There are LTI rules etc that prevent overstretching.

Also you need to account for inflation.