Property Market 2020

hometruths

I think rental market will be one of the first things to be opened up again, so we should have a better idea soon enough of which way the wind is blowing.

In the meantime it is fascinating to speculate one way or the other, to listen to arguments of the bears and bulls (less bearish!).

Of course that debate is nothing new, but it is unique to trying to fathom what will happen to future of the property market when the entire market is essentially frozen in time!

Mad_maxx

ittakestwo wrote: »

I did give you an example... prices today in Japan are c. 40% below what they were in 1990

japan had the biggest asset bubble in history in the 1980,s , it made the period from 1996 to 2007 in ireland look like a bear market

japan was a complete anomaly and offers no real lesson unless you make predictions using extreme outliers

GreeBo

cnocbui wrote: »

Oh, I don't know, how about the Farm bordering DCU and some of those large green bits on the right? I'd mention the massive swathes of golf courses but people got upset last time. Sacred cows or something.

Ok, so how many houses are you going to get there after you have added infrastructure and left the required green spaces?
It's not the tens of thousands we need.

It would be nonsense to mention golf courses, why not their in the Aviva and public parks while you are at it?

Padre_Pio

awec wrote: »

Indeed they are, and the fact is that the market has not yet crashed, and if anyone listened to you a month ago they'd have been premature. A costly enough mistake.

Not a problem in itself, hardly anyone is always right in this game, it just gets frustrating when people like to act like they are the font of all knowledge.

I don't think the market has had a chance to crash.
We're paralysed right now until travel and work restrictions are lifted. It will be at least 3 months before we see any trends.

Judging by my own anecdotal evidence, there's about 70% drop in property listings. Buyers and sellers are keeping their powder dry for the time being.
That said, I spoke to my solicitor who told me her twenty or so clients were proceeding with purchase, but they have a longer term outlook and were much further in the process than me. Since I enlisted her services 6 weeks ago, no one else has called her regarding purchases.

smurgen

An interesting factor is the drop that will happen in commercial property. In the last few years companies have been firing up fancy offices,driving up labor costs. I think the combination of WFH being actively perfected By companies plus inevitable cost cutting coming down the line companies will be putting expensive real estate on hold.
The impact will be more builders for the residential market. I expect the upheaval in the universities to have to same effect. Can't see much more expensive student accommodation going ahead with a sharp drop of foreign students expected next year. All in all I hope this will drive down residential housing costs.

Hubertj

smurgen wrote: »

An interesting factor is the drop that will happen in commercial property. In the last few years companies have been firing up fancy offices,driving up labor costs. I think the combination of WFH being actively perfected By companies plus inevitable cost cutting coming down the line companies will be putting expensive real estate on hold.
The impact will be more builders for the residential market. I expect the upheaval in the universities to have to same effect. Can't see much more expensive student accommodation going ahead with a sharp drop of foreign students expected next year. All in all I hope this will drive down residential housing costs.

This will be interesting. I find it difficult to understand how many shared offices spaces are sustainable in Dublin. They seem to be everywhere. Are they cheaper than standard offices or is it just the flexible terms that are attractive?
Could some businesses switch to shared working spaces as it allows them to downsize and upsize. A number of factors to consider..

Villa05

GreeBo wrote: »

For houses?
Where are you seeing this?

Below is an article that summarises our inefficient use of land. how vested interests dominate it and how current Government are a major part of the problem





The Irish land racket and Dublin housing crisis

There is no shortage of land for development in County Dublin which has an area of 921 km² compared with the island of Singapore with an area of 721 km² and a population of 5.7m.
The Central Statistics Office (CSO) has estimated that farmland in 2010 accounted for 380 km² in County Dublin or 41% of the total area.

Article 43 of the Irish Constitution expressly states that the right to private property is "to be regulated by the principles of social justice" and to be reconciled "with the exigencies of the common good."
The NAMA Act of 2009 introduced a windfall rate of 80% on rezoned land. However, this charge was abolished and profits from rezoned land from January 2015 are taxed at a capital gains rate of 33%.

The IFA succeeded in getting 23% of the €18bn budget, for land acquisition, compared with a ratio of 1% in Norway and 10% in Denmark, according to the National Roads Authority

"Denmark has not just got cheaper housing: according to the Dallas Fed’s data, the real house price has increased by a factor of 1.6 in Denmark compared to 3.4 in the UK since 1975 but new houses in Denmark are a lot bigger: 80% bigger in fact."


The average size of an Irish house is the smallest in Western Europe despite having one of the lowest population densities on habitable land, in the European Union

Ush1

People should be concerned with more density in the city centre, not on fields in Castleknock.

snotboogie

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok, so how many houses are you going to get there after you have added infrastructure and left the required green spaces?
It's not the tens of thousands we need.

It would be nonsense to mention golf courses, why not their in the Aviva and public parks while you are at it?

How many people get to enjoy a match or concert at the Aviva or visit Phoenix Park compared to the number of people who get to enjoy a golf course? Golf courses are far more inefficient uses of urban land than parks or stadiums.

The_Conductor

Ush1 wrote: »

People should be concerned with more density in the city centre, not on fields in Castleknock.

Regardless of what happens- we critically need high rise and high density residential dwelling units in the city centre. We do not need more sprawl- we need to build upwards not outwards.

Assetbacked

snotboogie wrote: »

How many people get to enjoy a match or concert at the Aviva or visit Phoenix Park compared to the number of people who get to enjoy a golf course? Golf courses are far more inefficient uses of urban land than parks or stadiums.

As someone who uses one of the city golf courses I have to agree with this. They should be used to develop more housing but also more public parks at the same time which include facilities including public pitches, tennis courts etc. The vast majority of those that play golf drive to their club so it would not be a big ordeal to reduce the number or move them outside of the city. Although something I've noticed growing more popular is 9/12 hole golf rather than the marathon level of 18 holes. If that took off more then I could see courses selling off some land.

GreeBo

snotboogie wrote: »

How many people get to enjoy a match or concert at the Aviva or visit Phoenix Park compared to the number of people who get to enjoy a golf course? Golf courses are far more inefficient uses of urban land than parks or stadiums.

What's that got to do with anything?
The land is not idle.
Why not build on people's gardens also?
How about on the local gaa pitch?

It's typical lefty nonsense.

GreeBo

Villa05 wrote: »

Below is an article that summarises our inefficient use of land. how vested interests dominate it and how current Government are a major part of the problem





The Irish land racket and Dublin housing crisis

Singapore is your comparison?
Do you know what most people live in in Singapore?
It's not a house anyway.
https://www.propertyguru.com.sg/property-guides/the-different-types-of-housing-in-singapore-9916

Also the question was where would we build all theses houses in Dublin?
High density belongs in city centres, not in suburbs, or bloody golf courses.

GreeBo

snotboogie wrote: »

How many people get to enjoy a match or concert at the Aviva or visit Phoenix Park compared to the number of people who get to enjoy a golf course? Golf courses are far more inefficient uses of urban land than parks or stadiums.

How often is the aviva used compared to a busy golf course?
I can't believe Im actually replying to this nonsense.

JimmyVik

pearcider wrote: »

What if the random punter is armed with facts?

How rich are you?

snotboogie

GreeBo wrote: »

How often is the aviva used compared to a busy golf course?
I can't believe Im actually replying to this nonsense.

The Aviva has a capacity of 52k, what is the capacity of a busy golf course? Are you seriously suggesting that more people would use a busy golf course in a year than would attend the Aviva?

GreeBo

snotboogie wrote: »

The Aviva has a capacity of 52k, what is the capacity of a busy golf course? Are you seriously suggesting that more people would use a busy golf course in a year than would attend the Aviva?

Are you seriously suggesting that any houses built on a golf course would be affordable?

The whole idea is nonsense and just needs to stop being brought up.

We need high density homes in the city, we dont need them in the suburbs, which is where the golf courses are.

In any case, the question was where would you build new *houses* in the Dublin to solve the housing issue. A farm beside DCU isnt going to return too many new houses.

Hubertj

JimmyVik wrote: »

How rich are you?

I'd be fairly certain if this punter was "rich" he wouldn't be spending his time on boards. Easy to say what should be done with other peoples money....

snotboogie

GreeBo wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that any houses built on a golf course would be affordable?

The whole idea is nonsense and just needs to stop being brought up.

We need high density homes in the city, we dont need them in the suburbs, which is where the golf courses are.

In any case, the question was where would you build new *houses* in the Dublin to solve the housing issue. A farm beside DCU isnt going to return too many new houses.

I'm saying that golf courses are an absolute waste of urban land and that comparisons to stadiums and parks are ridiculous.

ittakestwo

snotboogie wrote: »

How many people get to enjoy a match or concert at the Aviva or visit Phoenix Park compared to the number of people who get to enjoy a golf course? Golf courses are far more inefficient uses of urban land than parks or stadiums.

Its shocking how Elm golf club in D4, miltown golf club in D6 and clontarf are still being used in this wasteful way. All of these golf clubs are cycling/walking distance from town and also have the dart/luas lines running contiguous with thier perimeters.

Go there on weekday and you might see a few old farts waddling around them yet they could be used for thousands of dwellings. The need to be moved out the N11/M1 into places like Wicklow and Meath

There also not public spaces. If you go onto them you are trespassing if your not a member so nobody can start "we need green space" argument with private gold clubs. Dun Laoghaire council very successfully turned Dun Laoghaire golf club into high density housing so why aren't others.

hometruths

Green spaces in cities help the whole place breathe. Perhaps ban 18 holes within the M50, stick to 9.

I'd also like to see some land repurposed - eg around the Long Mile Road - no need for truck dealers and panel beaters etc to be right there.

CPO vast tracts of it, and green land 5-10 miles away. Relocate the industrial estates on the new land and build housing in its place.

fliball123

Donald Trump wrote: »

Developers already own vast swathes of undeveloped land. What is being proposed is effectively a land grab so that the same wealthy developers (or powerful corporations - Thomas Reid's case anyone?) can seize land and continue to sit on it and develop it later at their leisure.


Before they go seizing more land they need to start enforcing vacant site taxes on land currently sitting idle.

Hows about we go into your bank account and rob any excess money you have or if you have 2 cars we will repossess one and sell it and use the profits for the greater good..We are not a communist country going down the road your talking about would cause havoc. Why would you bother getting up and working in the morning if you know that billy across the way can sit on his hole all day and get the same as you..Be careful what you wish for comrade

fliball123

Hubertj wrote: »

This will be interesting. I find it difficult to understand how many shared offices spaces are sustainable in Dublin. They seem to be everywhere. Are they cheaper than standard offices or is it just the flexible terms that are attractive?
Could some businesses switch to shared working spaces as it allows them to downsize and upsize. A number of factors to consider..

I wonder if the powers that be could allow owners of commercial spaces the option to redesign and use it as residential it might be a way to help the housing crisis, obviously some spaces wont be suitable but some would

JimmyVik

GreeBo wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that any houses built on a golf course would be affordable?

The whole idea is nonsense and just needs to stop being brought up.

We need high density homes in the city, we dont need them in the suburbs, which is where the golf courses are.

In any case, the question was where would you build new *houses* in the Dublin to solve the housing issue. A farm beside DCU isnt going to return too many new houses.

Houses will be free. Didnt you know that?

JimmyVik

fliball123 wrote: »

Hows about we go into your bank account and rob any excess money you have or if you have 2 cars we will repossess one and sell it and use the profits for the greater good..We are not a communist country going down the road your talking about would cause havoc. Why would you bother getting up and working in the morning if you know that billy across the way can sit on his hole all day and get the same as you..Be careful what you wish for comrade

First they came for my golf course.
Then they came for my garden.
And then they got my Balcony.

JimmyVik

I think people here are still under the impression that either the government or the people will still have money over the next few years.

Donald Trump

fliball123 wrote: »

Hows about we go into your bank account and rob any excess money you have or if you have 2 cars we will repossess one and sell it and use the profits for the greater good..We are not a communist country going down the road your talking about would cause havoc. Why would you bother getting up and working in the morning if you know that billy across the way can sit on his hole all day and get the same as you..Be careful what you wish for comrade

Are directing that at me "comrade"? I am not sure what your point is? Whether it is also against the idea of agricultural land seizure or against the idea of vacant site levies.

I only suggested a vacant site levy which is a very reasonable mechanism. Development land should be a use-it-or-lose-it scenario. We are not in the viking times - the reason for a particular site being more valuable is not because it is near a good place to tie up the longships. It is because other development were either allowed or encouraged adjacent or close to it.

Dwarf.Shortage

Hubertj wrote: »

This will be interesting. I find it difficult to understand how many shared offices spaces are sustainable in Dublin. They seem to be everywhere. Are they cheaper than standard offices or is it just the flexible terms that are attractive?
Could some businesses switch to shared working spaces as it allows them to downsize and upsize. A number of factors to consider..

It’s the exact same short sighted play as the US banks who were borrowing in short term liquidity markets to fund multi year liabilities during the last boom.

Sign a multi year lease at €x per square foot, re rent short term at 1.2-1.3x per square foot and take the profit. Things go tits up then and you’re left holding the baby.

fliball123

Donald Trump wrote: »

Are directing that at me "comrade"? I am not sure what your point is? Whether it is also against the idea of agricultural land seizure or against the idea of vacant site levies.

I only suggested a vacant site levy which is a very reasonable mechanism. Development land should be a use-it-or-lose-it scenario. We are not in the viking times - the reason for a particular site being more valuable is not because it is near a good place to tie up the longships. It is because other development were either allowed or encouraged adjacent or close to it.

The point is someone owns that land someone at some time had to pay for it. Why should they give it up for the greater good and you or I not give up anything that we have spare? why just a levy for vacant land why not a levy for when your not living in your gaff.. A levy when you go on holidays? Why not a levy on your car when your not using it. Is it a case of you don't have a vacant site so we should tax that?? Everyone everywhere wants the other person to pay and this is a simple case of it

pearcider

Hubertj wrote: »

I'd be fairly certain if this punter was "rich" he wouldn't be spending his time on boards. Easy to say what should be done with other peoples money....

Your pointless comments on this thread say a lot more about you than me. Of course the property bulls will always try and shut down debate especially when all the evidence is stacked against them.