Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

FromADistance

FromADistance wrote: »

Oh so I'm not allowed to be annoyed at the suggestion that the answer to everything is move out of Dublin... I'd like to think my children will be able to live close to me if they want... not 100 miles away because of inflated house / rent prices. Anyone defending this nonsence needs to take a good hard look at themselves.

All parents would like their kids to live close, most understand that they may not be able to due to work/family commitments, and affordability. It’s sad, but saying they should be able to live near their birthplace, just because their parents continue to, is a rather blinkered way of looking at things. I don’t think the State should be required to facilitate people to buy a property based on them wanting to live in a certain location.

cnocbui

FromADistance wrote: »

Oh so I'm not allowed to be annoyed at the suggestion that the answer to everything is move out of Dublin... I'd like to think my children will be able to live close to me if they want... not 100 miles away because of inflated house / rent prices. Anyone defending this nonsence needs to take a good hard look at themselves.

Anyone who thinks that the capital city of an OECD country should have housing costs on par with rural areas or affordable for everyone, needs to have a hard look at themselves and global realities.

I am not condoning REITs or big capital snarfing up housing supply, but even if you got rid of those parasites, you would still have a disparity that people would complain about.

cnocbui

Dav010 wrote: »

All parents would like their kids to live close, most understand that they may not be able to due to work/family commitments, and affordability. It’s sad, but saying they should be able to live near their birthplace, just because their parents continue to, is a rather blinkered way of looking at things.

How many parents living in south Dublin, want their kids to be able to live close to them enough that they are prepared to sell up and move to a less desirable suburb that their kids can afford? I'd guess none.

cubatahavana

cnocbui wrote: »

How many parents living in south Dublin, want their kids to be able to live close to them enough that they are prepared to sell up and move to a less desirable suburb that their kids can afford? I'd guess none.

Ouch!

yagan

Dav010 wrote: »

All parents would like their kids to live close, most understand that they may not be able to due to work/family commitments, and affordability. It’s sad, but saying they should be able to live near their birthplace, just because their parents continue to, is a rather blinkered way of looking at things. I don’t think the State should be required to facilitate people to buy a property based on them wanting to live in a certain location.

Is it blinkered?

Are we a society or an economy? Planning is a national competence yet successive governments have preferred to let the free market decide housing policy to the point that pointing out building on a flood plain as a bad idea was met with accusations of talking down the economy!

I think the problem there's way too much of our political class that think building is the economy. Even multinationals who operate in many different housing environs have stressed that housing costs for their employees is a problem, yet all the government hears is the hum of the cement mixer.

The sustainable housing is anathema to them.

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that the capital city of an OECD country should have housing costs on par with rural areas or affordable for everyone, needs to have a hard look at themselves and global realities.

I am not condoning REITs or big capital snarfing up housing supply, but even if you got rid of those parasites, you would still have a disparity that people would complain about.

Who is claiming that Dublin should be as cheap as rural Ireland?
You keep making this statement, but nobody is claiming housing should be as cheap in Longford as it is in Dublin.

People have rightfully highlighted that construction costs of new houses in Dublin should be similar to down the country - but that only pertains to govt builds with no profit or cost of purchasing land. But nobody in these threads is claiming "A capital city of an OECD country should have housing costs on par with rural areas".

The reality is though, that Dublin is a very low density city, with not a huge population - its not a London, Paris, New York or Sydney, and should not cost as much. Current Dublin prices are ridiculously out of whack compared to the affordability of the people who work in Dublin.

Up to now Dublin has been "lucky" in that the extortionate housing costs didnt drive away too many workers who just moved out to Kildare, Meath, Laois, Wicklow, Louth. But if things continue as unaffordable as they are, Dublin's growth and the Irish economy's growth will stagnate and we will all suffer.

yagan

yagan wrote: »

Is it blinkered?

Are we a society or an economy? Planning is a national competence yet successive governments have preferred to let the free market decide housing policy to the point that pointing out building on a flood plain as a bad idea was met with accusations of talking down the economy!

I think the problem there's way too much of our political class that think building is the economy. Even multinationals who operate in many different housing environs have stressed that housing costs for their employees is a problem, yet all the government hears is the hum of the cement mixer.

The sustainable housing is anathema to them.

Thinking that the State, or society should facilitate children living close to parents in the most expensive market in the country is blinkered. Considering how many people are directly, and indirectly, employed as a result of construction, it would be naive to ignore how intertwined and codependent society is on economical effects of the construction sector.

AdamD

For all of the talk of 'look outside of Dublin' - how is that in any way sustainable? Where do you expect your supermarket/hospitality workers to live? Your cleaners, bus drivers, primary school teachers, admin workers etc etc? You can't have a city and expect all low to medium income workers to just live somewhere else.

AdamD

AdamD wrote: »

For all of the talk of 'look outside of Dublin' - how is that in any way sustainable? Where do you expect your supermarket/hospitality workers to live? Your cleaners, bus drivers, primary school teachers, admin workers etc etc? You can't have a city and expect all low to medium income workers to just live somewhere else.

Where do you think they live in London, New York, Paris etc?

timmyntc

AdamD wrote: »

For all of the talk of 'look outside of Dublin' - how is that in any way sustainable? Where do you expect your supermarket/hospitality workers to live? Your cleaners, bus drivers, primary school teachers, admin workers etc etc? You can't have a city and expect all low to medium income workers to just live somewhere else.

Exactly - too many posters think that all housing in Dublin should be 500k+ starting because "its a capital city". What it should be, is a diverse market with lower end and higher end options.

Ace2007

AdamD wrote: »

For all of the talk of 'look outside of Dublin' - how is that in any way sustainable? Where do you expect your supermarket/hospitality workers to live? Your cleaners, bus drivers, primary school teachers, admin workers etc etc? You can't have a city and expect all low to medium income workers to just live somewhere else.

I know 5/6 teachers who live in a different country than they work -they live in Maynooth/Naas/Ashbourne and travel in. Many taxi drives who work in Dublin come up from Meath and Kildare.

Some people seem to think that every Tom, Dick and Harry should be able to buy a house - despite the fact that even 40 years ago this wasn't the case.

Should a delivroo driver be able to buy a house because he is works in the city? Genuine question -

timmyntc

Dav010 wrote: »

Where do you think they live in London, New York, Paris etc?

They live in those cities. Granted its mostly flats/apartments, but plenty move on to houses with their partners over time.

Teachers in London dont commute from birmingham, they live in London. Same goes for nurses, police etc.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

I know 5/6 teachers who live in a different country than they work -they live in Maynooth/Naas/Ashbourne and travel in. Many taxi drives who work in Dublin come up from Meath and Kildare.

Some people seem to think that every Tom, Dick and Harry should be able to buy a house - despite the fact that even 40 years ago this wasn't the case.

Should a delivroo driver be able to buy a house because he is works in the city? Genuine question -

Ah yes that old chestnut again. The deliveroo driver - no they should not be able to afford to buy a house, they earn minimum wage. Its one of those jobs done more as a stopgap than as a long term career. Same as shop and deli workers, and all those unlucky enough to get 0 hour contracts.

Teachers, Nurses, Gardai, Council workers, ESB, all sorts of trades - these people should easily be able to afford to live in Dublin - but the current generation coming up cannot. Do you think that all Teachers in Dublin schools in future should drive in from Kildare or Meath? And the Dublin Gardai should all be based outside the city? ESB technicians?

God help you if you ever needed a plumber on short notice, sure he'd have to drive down from Maynooth to get to you!

Bass Reeves

timmyntc wrote: »

People have rightfully highlighted that construction costs of new houses in Dublin should be similar to down the country - but that only pertains to govt builds with no profit or cost of purchasing land. But nobody in these threads is claiming "A capital city of an OECD country should have housing costs on par with rural areas".

There is not a hope in hell that construction costs in Dublin will ever be similar to the rest of the country. Even accross the country house construction costs vary. Sub contractors charges have to allow for travelling and time delays.

At present the price of a new build 3 bed semi in a midsized town would be in the 250 k bracket it over 300 k in Limerick, 370+K in Galway's. Cork and s over 400k. On that scale Dublin would be over 500 k

Builders operating in smaller towns can often access the labour that is. It mobile the lads that has no car, is a bit older or is off the road. Mid sized towns would be similar any more than these lads have more options often the labourers are on sub 500/ week and trades are 6-800 in some of these situations. Lads working in cities have to get into work themselves. Other than Cork and Dublin most other cities and large towns are self sufficient in construction labour.

If you were a trades person from Carlow or Portlaoise what premium over local work would you want to travel in and out of Dublin to a building site. I be reckoning I would want 50%

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

They live in those cities. Granted its mostly flats/apartments, but plenty move on to houses with their partners over time.

Teachers in London dont commute from birmingham, they live in London. Same goes for nurses, police etc.

You think people who live in London can live close to work/family? London is vast in size, if you want to buy in an affordable area, that often means long commutes. And yes, some people working in London do live outside it, I lived 40 miles outside the M25 even though I worked in the centre of London, because that is where I could afford to live.

Graham

timmyntc wrote: »

They live in those cities. Granted its mostly flats/apartments, but plenty move on to houses with their partners over time.

Teachers in London dont commute from birmingham, they live in London. Same goes for nurses, police etc.

I can only assume you've never been on a commuter train into London if you think that.

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

Ah yes that old chestnut again. The deliveroo driver - no they should not be able to afford to buy a house, they earn minimum wage. Its one of those jobs done more as a stopgap than as a long term career. Same as shop and deli workers, and all those unlucky enough to get 0 hour contracts.

Teachers, Nurses, Gardai, Council workers, ESB, all sorts of trades - these people should easily be able to afford to live in Dublin - but the current generation coming up cannot. Do you think that all Teachers in Dublin schools in future should drive in from Kildare or Meath? And the Dublin Gardai should all be based outside the city? ESB technicians?

God help you if you ever needed a plumber on short notice, sure he'd have to drive down from Maynooth to get to you!

Ok so your saying that if your unlucky enough to be on minimum wage, you shouldn't be able to buy a house - is that not excluding a certain cohort of the population? Why should they be excluded - just because it doesn't suit your narrative? If they want to buy a house what do they do?

hmmm

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Canary in the coalmine!

He seems to be arguing that the demand for property will drive a future supply glut.

If it comes to that and we suddenly end up with stuff being built everywhere, then yeah I can see another crash. But right now with a supply shortage I can't see any resemblance to the celtic tiger property market, and it would probably be preceded by a run-up in prices as people pile into buying second homes and rentals.

timmyntc

Dav010 wrote: »

You think people who live in London can live close to work/family? London is vast in size, if you want to buy in an affordable area, that often means long commutes. And yes, some people working in London do live outside it, I lived 40 miles outside the M25 even though I worked in the centre of London, because that is where I could afford to live.

I never said they should be able to live right beside their family - but that they should be able to live in the same city. I hope for your sake you lived near a train line.

Graham wrote: »

I can only assume you've never been on a commuter train into London if you think that.

From Birmingham, but I dont know if I'd call it "commuter" - no doubt you do get some people who move further afield so they can buy their house on their own plot of land, we get the same in this country with McMansions out in the middle of nowhere. But I'd be very surprised if the majority of teachers live outside London. Anecdotally, I know plenty inside but none outside London.

Ace2007 wrote: »

Ok so your saying that if your unlucky enough to be on minimum wage, you shouldn't be able to buy a house - is that not excluding a certain cohort of the population? Why should they be excluded - just because it doesn't suit your narrative? If they want to buy a house what do they do?

You cannot have 100% home ownership, no. Nowhere in the world has that. Minimum wage is the bottom of affordability, you would be renting at that price range. If they want to buy a house they'll have to save like crazy for decades, or try get better paying jobs.
The situation we are in now however, is that even median income households would struggle to buy. Thats almost 50% of population below that income line who may not be able to buy a house, which is well below EU average home ownership.

enricoh

50% absolute minimum I reckon bass. Even trying to get parking for van on most jobs is a nightmare in dublin.
Van almost guaranteed to get broken into if out of eyesight too!

Jmc25

Dav010 wrote: »

Thinking that the State, or society should facilitate children living close to parents in the most expensive market in the country is blinkered. Considering how many people are directly, and indirectly, employed as a result of construction, it would be naive to ignore how intertwined and codependent society is on economical effects of the construction sector.

It's fair enough to hold that point of view re the state aiming to facilitate people from Dublin continuing to live there. But the other side of the coin is that if the policy view is that people should move to other locations then the state would also need to put in place policies to relocate at least some of the better paid jobs to locations outside Dublin, which is much easier said than done and In a best case scenario would take 5-10 years and require significant investment in infrastructure.

At the moment in many rural locations the options are self employment, public sector or service industry jobs.

C14N

Dav010 wrote: »

Where do you think they live in London, New York, Paris etc?

You hardly think New York and London are each cities of 8-9m millionaires? Obviously lots of people also live outside any city, but in many other cases it is a choice rather than pretty much a necessity based on income.

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

Who is claiming that Dublin should be as cheap as rural Ireland?
You keep making this statement, but nobody is claiming housing should be as cheap in Longford as it is in Dublin.

People have rightfully highlighted that construction costs of new houses in Dublin should be similar to down the country - but that only pertains to govt builds with no profit or cost of purchasing land. But nobody in these threads is claiming "A capital city of an OECD country should have housing costs on par with rural areas".

The reality is though, that Dublin is a very low density city, with not a huge population - its not a London, Paris, New York or Sydney, and should not cost as much. Current Dublin prices are ridiculously out of whack compared to the affordability of the people who work in Dublin.

Up to now Dublin has been "lucky" in that the extortionate housing costs didnt drive away too many workers who just moved out to Kildare, Meath, Laois, Wicklow, Louth. But if things continue as unaffordable as they are, Dublin's growth and the Irish economy's growth will stagnate and we will all suffer.

The population density of Dublin is 4590 people/Km² for Melbourne, it's 1560 people//Km². So Dublin has 3 times the population density.

The average house price in Dublin is €398,000 while the average house price in Melbourne is €617,000. Dublin has about the same housing cost as Adelaide, the second cheapest capital city in Oz. The average villa price in Malmo Sweden, is €590,000

Compared to where, apart from Athens, are Dublin house prices extortionate?

Cyrus

timmyntc wrote: »

You keep making this statement, but nobody is claiming housing should be as cheap in Longford as it is in Dublin.

at least one poster has made this assertion multiple times to be fair.

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

I never said they should be able to live right beside their family - but that they should be able to live in the same city. I hope for your sake you lived near a train line.



From Birmingham, but I dont know if I'd call it "commuter" - no doubt you do get some people who move further afield so they can buy their house on their own plot of land, we get the same in this country with McMansions out in the middle of nowhere. But I'd be very surprised if the majority of teachers live outside London. Anecdotally, I know plenty inside but none outside London.



You cannot have 100% home ownership, no. Nowhere in the world has that. Minimum wage is the bottom of affordability, you would be renting at that price range. If they want to buy a house they'll have to save like crazy for decades, or try get better paying jobs.
The situation we are in now however, is that even median income households would struggle to buy. Thats almost 50% of population below that income line who may not be able to buy a house, which is well below EU average home ownership.

What’s your point here?

In cities like Dublin/London/NYC, the cost of living often, but not always obviously, means that people cannot afford to live where they want, or even in the city, and therefore it is not unique to Dublin. If you can’t afford to live where you want, you have to look elsewhere, where you can afford to live, and accept that a commute may be involved. As Graham said, the trains/buses of London are full of people who cannot afford to live near work/family, does the State owe them that affordability? No, living in cities with high demand is almost always expensive.

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

The population density of Dublin is 4590 people/Km² for Melbourne, it's 1560 people//Km². So Dublin has 3 times the population density.

The average house price in Dublin is €398,000 while the average house price in Melbourne is €617,000. Dublin has about the same housing cost as Adelaide, the second cheapest capital city in Oz. The average villa price in Malmo Sweden, is €590,000

Compared to where, apart from Athens, are Dublin house prices extortionate?

One thing you leave out in that calculation is that Australian houses are much much bigger than here in Ireland.

Cost per sqm in Melbourne: €1850
Cost per sqm in Dublin: €2580

A Dublin sized house in Melbourne would be significantly cheaper.

median income in Melbourne is €63k
median income in Dublin is €47k (not sure on this figure, think it may be higher)

So there you go - not only is Melbourne cheaper per sqm, but they also have higher incomes. So housing is much more affordable in the Sunny state of Victoria than in dreary old Ireland.

MacronvFrugals

Sticks can be very valuable sometimes!


Vonovia and Deutsche Wohnen to combine in €18bn real estate deal





https://www.ft.com/content/e57c04ba-c88a-4694-86b8-373c6393bf88

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

One thing you leave out in that calculation is that Australian houses are much much bigger than here in Ireland.

Cost per sqm in Melbourne: €1850
Cost per sqm in Dublin: €2580

A Dublin sized house in Melbourne would be significantly cheaper.

median income in Melbourne is €63k
median income in Dublin is €47k (not sure on this figure, think it may be higher)

So there you go - not only is Melbourne cheaper per sqm, but they also have higher incomes. So housing is much more affordable in the Sunny state of Victoria than in dreary old Ireland.

Several things you leave out are that Australian houses don't tend to have any, or much, insulation. Nor do they have very expensive - relatively - double glazing or central heating, or storage tanks in lofts. Insulation specs on Oz houses are increasing, so I may be out of touch there.

I have owned houses in both countries, and Australian houses are less complicated and cheaper to build from a materials and infrastructure aspect. They are the complete opposite of air tight.

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

I

You cannot have 100% home ownership, no. Nowhere in the world has that. Minimum wage is the bottom of affordability, you would be renting at that price range. If they want to buy a house they'll have to save like crazy for decades, or try get better paying jobs.
The situation we are in now however, is that even median income households would struggle to buy. Thats almost 50% of population below that income line who may not be able to buy a house, which is well below EU average home ownership.

Ok, so by your own admission it's ok to exclude a certain cohort of the population from every owning a house.

Now what's your definition of median income households?

Now you say 50% of the population can't buy a house - is this any house in Ireland or just in Dublin? there are houses available in pretty much an area of Dublin for wide range of price, but buyers not only want the right area, they want the right house. I reckon you could look at Contarf, Malahide, Blackrock, Glasnevin etc, and find houses ranging from 350k to 2million - something for everyone - but too many people want the house priced at 600k range.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

Ok, so by your own admission it's ok to exclude a certain cohort of the population from every owning a house.

Now what's your definition of median income households?

Now you say 50% of the population can't buy a house - is this any house in Ireland or just in Dublin? there are houses available in pretty much an area of Dublin for wide range of price, but buyers not only want the right area, they want the right house. I reckon you could look at Contarf, Malahide, Blackrock, Glasnevin etc, and find houses ranging from 350k to 2million - something for everyone - but too many people want the house priced at 600k range.

Average FTB in Dublin who gets a mortgage in Dublin has a joint income of 92k. *
So approx 350k is their upper ceiling of affordability. 50% of all buyers in Dublin are after houses priced 350k and below.
How many houses in Clontarf, Malahide, Glasnevin could you find for 350k and below? Not many.

*source here from CBI: https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/household-credit-market-report/household-credit-market-report-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=5

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

Several things you leave out are that Australian houses don't tend to have any, or much, insulation. Nor do they have very expensive - relatively - double glazing or central heating, or storage tanks in lofts. Insulation specs on Oz houses are increasing, so I may be out of touch there.

I have owned houses in both countries, and Australian houses are less complicated and cheaper to build from a materials and infrastructure aspect. They are the complete opposite of air tight.

Doesn't change the fact that they are much more affordable to the average citizen there.

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

Average FTB in Dublin who gets a mortgage in Dublin has a joint income of 92k. *
So approx 350k is their upper ceiling of affordability. 50% of all buyers in Dublin are after houses priced 350k and below.
How many houses in Clontarf, Malahide, Glasnevin could you find for 350k and below? Not many.

*source here from CBI: https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/household-credit-market-report/household-credit-market-report-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=5

Where do you come up with the 50% number? you already have said min wage shouldn't be included, so that's a decent %. Those on social welfare need to be excluded. Was 50% plucked out of the sky?

You can also apply for exemptions when buying a house - which some FTB get.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

Where do you come up with the 50% number? you already have said min wage shouldn't be included, so that's a decent %. Those on social welfare need to be excluded. Was 50% plucked out of the sky?

Its from the report - the average income of all FTB mortgage applicants was 92k - i.e. all the people applying for a mortgage to buy a home in Dublin.

This doesnt count people who dont work or anything else - you are totally misinterpreting it. 50% of all FTB couples in Dublin earn 92k or below.

AlmightyCushion

cnocbui wrote: »

The population density of Dublin is 4590 people/Km² for Melbourne, it's 1560 people//Km². So Dublin has 3 times the population density.

The average house price in Dublin is €398,000 while the average house price in Melbourne is €617,000. Dublin has about the same housing cost as Adelaide, the second cheapest capital city in Oz. The average villa price in Malmo Sweden, is €590,000

Compared to where, apart from Athens, are Dublin house prices extortionate?

You are comparing Ireland to Australia to show how house prices aren't expensive here. Are you serious? Australia is known for having expensive house prices. That's like saying an €8 pint in Temple Bar isn't expensive because they cost more in Oslo.

SmokyMo

Dublin and Melbourne are not comparable. Dublin is considered tiny town, kinda backwards place in terms of infrastructure when talking with people from mainland Europe.
I would attempt to compare Dublin with similar size, population city/town in UK in terms of building costs, labour etc.

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

Its from the report - the average income of all FTB mortgage applicants was 92k - i.e. all the people applying for a mortgage to buy a home in Dublin.

This doesnt count people who dont work or anything else - you are totally misinterpreting it. 50% of all FTB couples in Dublin earn 92k or below.

Your also coming up wiht figure of 350k, while ignore the figure of 385k in the report as the average property value. why did you go to 350k?

Graham

SmokyMo wrote: »

I would attempt to compare Dublin with similar size, population city/town in UK in terms of building costs, labour etc.

Why would you not compare with other EU capitals?

Cyrus

Graham wrote: »

Why would you not compare with other EU capitals?

because it doesnt suit his argument.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

Your also coming up wiht figure of 350k, while ignore the figure of 385k in the report as the average property value. why did you go to 350k?

Typo, your earlier post mentioned 350k so I must have mixed them up.
Doesnt change much though.

javaboy

timmyntc wrote: »

Its from the report - the average income of all FTB mortgage applicants was 92k - i.e. all the people applying for a mortgage to buy a home in Dublin.

This doesnt count people who dont work or anything else - you are totally misinterpreting it. 50% of all FTB couples in Dublin earn 92k or below.

That 92k figure is for actual mortgages issued to FTBs. It excludes the people who didn't get approval, got approval but didn't proceed (e.g. if they couldn't find something in budget), didn't apply yet because they know they won't get enough incl. deposit.

So it doesn't represent the combined income of all wannabe FTBs. Just the ones who actually completed their sale. It's an important distinction when you're picking and choosing which figures to quote.

timmyntc

javaboy wrote: »

That 92k figure is for actual mortgages issued to FTBs. It excludes the people who didn't get approval, got approval but didn't proceed (e.g. if they couldn't find something in budget), didn't apply yet because they know they won't get enough incl. deposit.

So it doesn't represent the combined income of all wannabe FTBs. Just the ones who actually completed their sale. It's an important distinction when you're picking and choosing which figures to quote.

That just means that affordability is even worse - since plenty of people would be refused a mortgage or not apply at all in the first place given how unaffordable property is.

C14N

javaboy wrote: »

That 92k figure is for actual mortgages issued to FTBs. It excludes the people who didn't get approval, got approval but didn't proceed (e.g. if they couldn't find something in budget), didn't apply yet because they know they won't get enough incl. deposit.

So it doesn't represent the combined income of all wannabe FTBs. Just the ones who actually completed their sale. It's an important distinction when you're picking and choosing which figures to quote.

Also, it's an average and not a median, so you can't say for sure that 50% have fewer. It may be close to that but that's not what averages measure. The median could be either higher or lower.

HalfAndHalf

SmokyMo wrote: »

Dublin and Melbourne are not comparable. Dublin is considered tiny town, kinda backwards place in terms of infrastructure when talking with people from mainland Europe.
I would attempt to compare Dublin with similar size, population city/town in UK in terms of building costs, labour etc.

Also factor in that the average salary (according to salary explorer) in Dublin is €45,000 and in Melbourne is an equivalent €67,000 then they really aren’t comparable.

SmokyMo

Graham wrote: »

Why would you not compare with other EU capitals?

Yes it might be comparable with some Eastern block capital, like Vilnius maybe?
Main point was, you need to compare it to markets, locations which are closer to Dublin. Which have similar infrastructures, resources, labour force, laws etc

In addition how can you do binary comparison between relatively small, un developed city to cosmopolitans like New York, Paris, London, Melbourne.

Cyrus wrote: »

because it doesnt suit his argument.

You need relax and enjoy some sun shine sweetheart.

Villa05

Bass Reeves wrote:

If you were a trades person from Carlow or Portlaoise what premium over local work would you want to travel in and out of Dublin to a building site. I be reckoning I would want 50%

enricoh wrote:

50% absolute minimum I reckon bass. Even trying to get parking for van on most jobs is a nightmare in dublin. Van almost guaranteed to get broken into if out of eyesight too!

So 500k for a house where you need security to keep possession of your vehicle

As most of the workers in Dublin live outside Dublin, do they get a premium of 50% over an above Limerick/Waterford wages for instance?

cnocbui

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

You are comparing Ireland to Australia to show how house prices aren't expensive here. Are you serious? Australia is known for having expensive house prices. That's like saying an €8 pint in Temple Bar isn't expensive because they cost more in Oslo.

He brought up population density as an argument as to why the prices should be cheaper, thinking Dublin is low density. I proved that assumption wrong so time to move the goal posts.

You seriously want me to pick New Zealand, which is even worse, or Canada? I did include Malmo, Sweden, as an alternative.

How is 'Australia is known for expensive prices' any different from him saying 'Dublin prices are extortionate?' If Dublin prices are 'extortionate' - what does that make places that are actually more expensive, like Malmo, Australia, New Zealand? Dublin is on par with Edinburgh - does that make Edinburgh extortionate or is perhaps that actually Dublin is not really as out of step with world city prices as some people like to think?

Dublin houses may well be expensive in terms of disposable incomes, because Irish taxpayers are so comprehensively shagged by Revenue; all to pay for what must be one of the most expensive public sectors on the planet.

It's not the house prices that are the problem it's the lack of affordability, which I believe is down to the level of tax burden. When the government is buying up a significant fraction of residential housing and giving gold-plated top tier houses away as 'social-housing', because the second most expensive public sector in the EU couldn't manage to to do what many individuals can manage when they self build a house, no wonder FTBers are up against it.

Graham

SmokyMo wrote: »

You need relax and enjoy some sun shine sweetheart.

Mod Note

we expect a reasonable standard of posting here in A & P. That isn't it.

Do not reply to this post.

Ardillaun

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It's more complex than that. Even when people compare it to mass housings of the 30's they forget it was pre electrified. In the 30' houses were basically 4 walks a few windows a front and back door and a roof. There was no on suites in fact there was often no I side toilet if it was it was downstairs...

...Houses are much more complex buildings now. Houses could have a couple grand spend on telecoms provision. Regulation require a downstairs toilet, there will also be a main bathroom and an on-site. Add in a fitted Kitchen not just with presses but with appliances as well, maybe similar in the utility not to forget the granite worktop.

Houses are indeed more complex but we have highly efficient ways of producing such items now. By some measures, the cost of light, for example, has been falling for thousands of years:

https://www.statista.com/chart/10567/the-cost-of-light-through-the-ages/

One thing that’s hard to make a hundred times more of is land and we’re not managing the land we have effectively. This isn’t England with multiple other Dublins close to our capital, and we shouldn’t even be looking to other English-speaking countries like the UK, Canada or Oz for solutions, given that they have also made a complete hames of this problem in their largest cities. Why does Germany manage to provide rental properties at a better, i.e. lower, cost in Berlin and Munich? Smaller European countries should be the peers we judge ourselves against, like Austria and its capital city.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Ireland&city1=Dublin&country2=Austria&city2=Vienna

Graham

SmokyMo wrote: »

Yes it might be comparable with some Eastern block capital, like Vilnius maybe?
Main point was, you need to compare it to markets, locations which are closer to Dublin. Which have similar infrastructures, resources, labour force, laws etc

In addition how can you do binary comparison between relatively small, un developed city to cosmopolitans like New York, Paris, London, Melbourne.

I didn't suggest Dublin should be compared with New york, Paris, London or Melbourne.

A comparison against all EU capitals would probably be sensible. I suspect you'd find we're far from the most expensive.

Timing belt

timmyntc wrote: »

I never said they should be able to live right beside their family - but that they should be able to live in the same city. I hope for your sake you lived near a train line.



From Birmingham, but I dont know if I'd call it "commuter" - no doubt you do get some people who move further afield so they can buy their house on their own plot of land, we get the same in this country with McMansions out in the middle of nowhere. But I'd be very surprised if the majority of teachers live outside London. Anecdotally, I know plenty inside but none outside London.



You cannot have 100% home ownership, no. Nowhere in the world has that. Minimum wage is the bottom of affordability, you would be renting at that price range. If they want to buy a house they'll have to save like crazy for decades, or try get better paying jobs.
The situation we are in now however, is that even median income households would struggle to buy. Thats almost 50% of population below that income line who may not be able to buy a house, which is well below EU average home ownership.

The likes of Meath Kildare Wicklow would be considered Dublin if you are comparing it to London. And the majority that commute don’t live in McMansion’s outside London....the difference is infrastructure In London you can easily commute compared to Dublin (yes I know the trains are crammed full and most staff get a loan to pay for their quarterly ticket as they are so expensive). Maybe try living in London or its surroundings before comparing to Dublin because from the sounds of it you have no idea what reality is like there. And in case you think I am talking about low paid jobs i’m not i’m Talking about people that work in the square mile on good money.