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

Hubertj

L1011 wrote: »

Its short time away in summer, stuff gets quieter. Unlikely to be much change either direction

So you’re saying prices won’t fall 50%-75% by July-august? Oh well. Maybe September

yagan

I heard the new property taxes being discussed on various radio shows earlier and the consensus was that it will only really affect the over €500.000 mark, so I can imagine properties for sale just above that amount may have a harder time selling which may put more pressure on the top end.

So FTB with their ratio limits dictate price floor and future property taxes will temper the top end. Interesting dynamics ahead.

kippy

yagan wrote: »

I heard the new property taxes being discussed on various radio shows earlier and the consensus was that it will only really affect the over €500.000 mark, so I can imagine properties for sale just above that amount may have a harder time selling which may put more pressure on the top end.

So FTB with their ratio limits dictate price floor and future property taxes will temper the top end. Interesting dynamics ahead.

Property tax doesn't currently and won't influence purchasing trends......

Balluba

yagan wrote: »

I heard the new property taxes being discussed on various radio shows earlier and the consensus was that it will only really affect the over €500.000 mark, so I can imagine properties for sale just above that amount may have a harder time selling which may put more pressure on the top end.

So FTB with their ratio limits dictate price floor and future property taxes will temper the top end. Interesting dynamics ahead.

Actually I think it might only affect houses over €600,000

Hubertj

Balluba wrote: »

Actually I think it might only affect houses over €600,000

As I understand it the rates will be reviewed every 4 years so it would be 2022, then 2026? I think it will be 12+ years before property tax gets to a rate which will have a significant impact.

Balluba

L1011 wrote: »

Its short time away in summer, stuff gets quieter. Unlikely to be much change either direction

I am not convinced yet that things will get quieter. I am surprised to see 4 houses put up just now on Daft .ie one asking 7.2 million, another 6.45 million, another 5million and 2.45 million. All houses are in Dublin.

yagan

kippy wrote: »

Property tax doesn't currently and won't influence purchasing trends......

You think?

For anyone making a fore ever home purchase what property taxes may be due in the future is a serious concern.

There seems to be broad support for the measure as the majority of home owners aren't affected so the thinking will be the over €600.000 valued home owners will be easy pickings politically.

When I was living in Oz I could see that downsizing was a serious business as property taxes which could be absorbed while working but were a lot more onerous to retirees who'd rather sell the house, buy a RV and drive around Oz on their pension until their eyesight failed.

It's amazing how many measures resisted for long are now happening simply with the threat of SF being in government.

kippy

yagan wrote: »

You think?

For anyone making a fore ever home purchase what property taxes may be due in the future is a serious concern.

There seems to be broad support for the measure as the majority of home owners aren't affected so the thinking will be the over €600.000 valued home owners will be easy pickings politically.

When I was living in Oz I could see that downsizing was a serious business as property taxes which could be absorbed while working but were a lot more onerous to retirees who'd rather sell the house, buy a RV and drive around Oz on their pension until their eyesight failed.

It's amazing how many measures resisted for long are now happening simply with the threat of SF being in government.

Yeah I do think. Property tax hasn't and won't come into the thinking of those wishing to buy/sell for the medium to long term unless drastic increases and/or changes to terms are forthcoming which don't appear to be the case.

Welcome to politics.....although I didn't think property tax was something SF wanted at all. They were happier see the money come from the magic money tree.

Flinty997

yagan wrote: »

...
It's amazing how many measures resisted for long are now happening simply with the threat of SF being in government.

Didn't have any effect last time.

yagan

Flinty997 wrote: »

Didn't have any effect last time.

I can't remember but what was their vote growth between 2011 and 2016?

Flinty997

yagan wrote: »

...
When I was living in Oz I could see that downsizing was a serious business as property taxes which could be absorbed while working but were a lot more onerous to retirees who'd rather sell the house, buy a RV and drive around Oz on their pension until their eyesight failed. ....

Very different in a RV in OZ than Ireland.
Also there is nothing to downsize too.

By that I mean people won't move as easy as you think. because they can't.

DataDude

Balluba wrote: »

I am not convinced yet that things will get quieter. I am surprised to see 4 houses put up just now on Daft .ie one asking 7.2 million, another 6.45 million, another 5million and 2.45 million. All houses are in Dublin.

For what it's worth, I do a weekly check on PPR for houses of interest (and a couple of aspiration) in the €1m+ zone. Last couple weeks has been a noticeable cooling off where most have gone below asking (as was case in 2019 and 2020). It's not a massive amount of properties nor indicative of the wider market, but it's interesting after a period when it felt like everything was going for wayyy above asking. Hopefully the sign of the "top" of the market rejecting any major upward moves.
For example, the three most notable this week.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/1-brookfield-mews-brookfield-terrace-blackrock-dublin/4474366

Asking €1.2m
Sold €1.15m (they paid €1.1m for it new in 2016 )

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/alderley-adelaide-road-glenageary-co-dublin-a96-r7w3/4370604

Asking €2.65m
Sold €2.42m

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/merrion-view-lodge-merrion-view-avenue-ballsbridge-dublin-4-d04-y5r7/4448947

Asking €1.65m
Sold €1.5m

awec

PommieBast wrote: »

From memory TikTok got what is effectively a pretty steep discount though.

They got a bit of a discount, but they still let out some major office space.

yagan wrote: »

And how long will TikTok last before the next social media fad replace it?

Easy come, easy go. Google on the other hand has become a verb.

Sure, we can look at Google instead. Yesterday:

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/google-submits-plan-for-10-storey-city-extension-as-itbets-their-staff-will-return-to-the-office-40489559.html

Google will today submit a planning application for a major 10-storey extension and redevelopment of the former Treasury building on Grand Canal Street, Dublin.

Ace2007

DataDude wrote: »

For what it's worth, I do a weekly check on PPR for houses of interest (and a couple of aspiration) in the €1m+ zone. Last couple weeks has been a noticeable cooling off where most have gone below asking (as was case in 2019 and 2020). It's not a massive amount of properties nor indicative of the wider market, but it's interesting after a period when it felt like everything was going for wayyy above asking. Hopefully the sign of the "top" of the market rejecting any major upward moves.
For example, the three most notable this week.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/1-brookfield-mews-brookfield-terrace-blackrock-dublin/4474366

Asking €1.2m
Sold €1.15m (they paid €1.1m for it new in 2016 )

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/alderley-adelaide-road-glenageary-co-dublin-a96-r7w3/4370604

Asking €2.65m
Sold €2.42m

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/merrion-view-lodge-merrion-view-avenue-ballsbridge-dublin-4-d04-y5r7/4448947

Asking €1.65m
Sold €1.5m

How do you filter by 1m homes? Or are you only looking in certain areas?

Eclectic Econometrics

DataDude wrote: »

For what it's worth, I do a weekly check on PPR for houses of interest (and a couple of aspiration) in the €1m+ zone. Last couple weeks has been a noticeable cooling off where most have gone below asking (as was case in 2019 and 2020). It's not a massive amount of properties nor indicative of the wider market, but it's interesting after a period when it felt like everything was going for wayyy above asking. Hopefully the sign of the "top" of the market rejecting any major upward moves.
For example, the three most notable this week.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/1-brookfield-mews-brookfield-terrace-blackrock-dublin/4474366

Asking €1.2m
Sold €1.15m (they paid €1.1m for it new in 2016 )

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/alderley-adelaide-road-glenageary-co-dublin-a96-r7w3/4370604

Asking €2.65m
Sold €2.42m

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/merrion-view-lodge-merrion-view-avenue-ballsbridge-dublin-4-d04-y5r7/4448947

Asking €1.65m
Sold €1.5m

Did you see many houses hit their asking in the last two quarters of 2020 and first of 2021? Reason I ask is because, as I said before, from my anecdotal checking of asking Vs achieved, in the price bracket you mention, there was usually downward negotiation. This was especially pronounced outside the m50, despite all the WFH is the future talk.

DataDude

Ace2007 wrote: »

How do you filter by 1m homes? Or are you only looking in certain areas?

Just download the PPR every Wednesday into excel. Compare to previous week to identify new entries. Filter by price. There’s probably ‘only’ 10-25 sold in any given week these days. I watch myhome wayyy to closely so I’ll usually recognise the names of any of the ones we considered

awec

DataDude wrote: »

Just download the PPR every Wednesday into excel. Compare to previous week to identify new entries. Filter by price. There’s probably ‘only’ 10-25 sold in any given week these days. I watch myhome wayyy to closely so I’ll usually recognise the names of any of the ones we considered

Did you ever follow up on those ones you liked in Greystones that you linked before?

DataDude

Eclectic Econometrics wrote: »

Did you see many houses hit their asking in the last two quarters of 2020 and first of 2021? Reason I ask is because, as I said before, from my anecdotal checking of asking Vs achieved, in the price bracket you mention, there was usually downward negotiation. This was especially pronounced outside the m50, despite all the WFH is the future talk.

For sure. Not every house but it wasn’t uncommon in November - April for them to reach asking or often blow through (some still went below of course).

In 2019 and 2020 it was absolutely standard that you’d knock 5-10% of the asking. Was quite rare to see one make it.

Very early days and not a statistically representative sample (plus some houses hit PPR within a couple weeks of selling, others take months), but the last month or so have felt a bit closer to 2019/2020 again in terms of asking vs realised.

I’m taking some hope from it, although perhaps misguided!

DataDude

awec wrote: »

Did you ever follow up on those ones you liked in Greystones that you linked before?

Nope - once the third one came up at 740 they all went sale agreed in fairly quick succession. Would assume they all went in and around that price (very good value IMO).

Two nice houses gone up in Greystones in last while which we might view. EAs involved both had one of the Glendale houses so will see if I can extract any info in terms of sale price or the inside track on why 3 sold in quick succession. They’re usually fairly coy though these days in case one falls through!

enricoh

The ban on evictions to be further extended.

I wonder will landlords get a chance to sell up before sinn Fein take the reins?!

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2021/0602/1225588-housing-dail/

Ozark707

DataDude wrote: »

For what it's worth, I do a weekly check on PPR for houses of interest (and a couple of aspiration) in the €1m+ zone. Last couple weeks has been a noticeable cooling off where most have gone below asking (as was case in 2019 and 2020). It's not a massive amount of properties nor indicative of the wider market, but it's interesting after a period when it felt like everything was going for wayyy above asking. Hopefully the sign of the "top" of the market rejecting any major upward moves.
For example, the three most notable this week.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/1-brookfield-mews-brookfield-terrace-blackrock-dublin/4474366

Asking €1.2m
Sold €1.15m (they paid €1.1m for it new in 2016 )

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/alderley-adelaide-road-glenageary-co-dublin-a96-r7w3/4370604

Asking €2.65m
Sold €2.42m

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/merrion-view-lodge-merrion-view-avenue-ballsbridge-dublin-4-d04-y5r7/4448947

Asking €1.65m
Sold €1.5m

https://thepropertypin.com/c/the-irish-property-bubble/dublin-south-property-price-drops

Quite a few drops reported here in the higher bracket recently. Would chime with what you reported

Cyrus

DataDude wrote: »

For what it's worth, I do a weekly check on PPR for houses of interest (and a couple of aspiration) in the €1m+ zone. Last couple weeks has been a noticeable cooling off where most have gone below asking (as was case in 2019 and 2020). It's not a massive amount of properties nor indicative of the wider market, but it's interesting after a period when it felt like everything was going for wayyy above asking. Hopefully the sign of the "top" of the market rejecting any major upward moves.
For example, the three most notable this week.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/1-brookfield-mews-brookfield-terrace-blackrock-dublin/4474366

Asking €1.2m
Sold €1.15m (they paid €1.1m for it new in 2016 )

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/alderley-adelaide-road-glenageary-co-dublin-a96-r7w3/4370604

Asking €2.65m
Sold €2.42m

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/merrion-view-lodge-merrion-view-avenue-ballsbridge-dublin-4-d04-y5r7/4448947

Asking €1.65m
Sold €1.5m

Not familiar with the ballsbridge House but the one in Blackrock they are strange houses in as bad a location as you can have that close to the village, I can't believe that has sold for that money twice nice,

The glenageary house is lovely they did a smashing job but the price was always aspirational, they bought that not that long ago for 900k or so and I doubt they put a million into it so it was a good return, I didn't ever see if getting asking personally.

DataDude

Cyrus wrote: »

Not familiar with the ballsbridge House but the one in Blackrock they are strange houses in as bad a location as you can have that close to the village, I can't believe that has sold for that money twice nice,

The glenageary house is lovely they did a smashing job but the price was always aspirational, they bought that not that long ago for 900k or so and I doubt they put a million into it so it was a good return, I didn't ever see if getting asking personally.

Couldn’t agree more on that Blackrock house. Horrendous location. How they sold 4 of them for around 1-1.1m in 2016 is beyond me. Might be the only houses in the country that didn’t appreciate in that time.

Glenageary one well beyond my area of expertise in terms of price, but I thought it looked decent value. Haven’t seen many houses of that quality for that price. If I had 2.5 to spend. That’s the house I’d have bought.

Cyrus

DataDude wrote: »

Couldn’t agree more on that Blackrock house. Horrendous location. How they sold 4 of them for around 1-1.1m in 2016 is beyond me. Might be the only houses in the country that didn’t appreciate in that time.

Glenageary one well beyond my area of expertise in terms of price, but I thought it looked decent value. Haven’t seen many houses of that quality for that price. If I had 2.5 to spend. That’s the house I’d have bought.

Yes I suppose my thinking was coloured in that I could have bought it for 900k 18 months previous so to me 2.65 seemed gaga but its a lovely house for sure!

Amadan Dubh

https://www.thejournal.ie/esri-borrowing-housing-5456342-Jun2021/

THE GOVERNMENT COULD help to solve the housing crisis if it borrowed an additional €4 billion to €7 billion a year, the ESRI has said in a new report.

The Economic & Social Research Institute said that Ireland faces another ten years of rising prices and rents without a ‘significant’ amount of spending in building homes.

The report, published today, says that Covid-19 has had a hugely negative impact on the supply of homes in Ireland, and notes that a ‘significant’ increase in publicly funded housing is needed to bridge the gap between the actual supply levels and the demand for housing.

It noted that the Irish economy is forecast to do well post-Covid, and given the low cost of sovereign debt, borrowing money for housing could be both ‘prudent and sustainable’.

Wow, I didn't think the ESRI would say that the government could borrow a lot more in order to do something. Maybe the government will use the magic money tree that apparently doesn't exist but only when people talk of SF's housing policy. This report is lubricating the wheels of policy justification should they go down the McWilliams route of undertaking significant borrowing to get houses built.

awec

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/esri-borrowing-housing-5456342-Jun2021/



Wow, I didn't think the ESRI would say that the government could borrow a lot more in order to do something. Maybe the government will use the magic money tree that apparently doesn't exist but only when people talk of SF's housing policy. This report is lubricating the wheels of policy justification should they go down the McWilliams route of undertaking significant borrowing to get houses built.

It's not that surprising, the IMF said something similar last month (Ireland should spend more and can fund it by borrowing in the short term).

Villa05

kippy wrote:

Welcome to politics.....although I didn't think property tax was something SF wanted at all. They were happier see the money come from the magic money tree.

One suspects that the magic money trees will be well harvested by the time fffg relinquish power

Amadan Dubh wrote:

Wow, I didn't think the ESRI would say that the government could borrow a lot more in order to do something. Maybe the government will use the magic money tree that apparently doesn't exist but only when people talk of SF's housing policy. This report is lubricating the wheels of policy justification should they go down the McWilliams route of undertaking significant borrowing to get houses built.

With any spend you have to consider the alternative to not spending and that is expensive long term leasing. Borrowing to build at 0% while owning much of the land required is considerably cheaper and adds to supply

Ace2007

I’ve said it before but will say it again - the government could build 100,000 houses in green fields out past the airport, but that’s not going to solve the heat in the market. It will give low income families a home and perhaps reduce homelessness.

But is that going to affect the bidding on 500k+ houses going for higher amounts? No it’s not.

Is the government going to build enough
Masses affordable houses in Blackrock? Or in SCD suburbs? What about malahide, portmarnock, clontarf, Drumcondra glasnevin - the list in endless where houses prices are through the roof. There are already areas in dublin where houses are cheap but people say no because of a social attitude associated with such areas.

People think that the amount of houses available is the issue , but it’s more where the houses are located thats the problem - supply not available where people want.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

I’ve said it before but will say it again - the government could build 100,000 houses in green fields out past the airport, but that’s not going to solve the heat in the market. It will give low income families a home and perhaps reduce homelessness.

But is that going to affect the bidding on 500k+ houses going for higher amounts? No it’s not..

100,000 new houses in Dublin would absolutely take the heat out of the market.
You are deluded to think that it wont.

There will still be a premium for central or established areas, but for people who are outbid at those premium prices, they now have options elsewhere but still close enough to Dublin. It depends how far is "out past the airport" of course

AlmightyCushion

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/esri-borrowing-housing-5456342-Jun2021/



Wow, I didn't think the ESRI would say that the government could borrow a lot more in order to do something. Maybe the government will use the magic money tree that apparently doesn't exist but only when people talk of SF's housing policy. This report is lubricating the wheels of policy justification should they go down the McWilliams route of undertaking significant borrowing to get houses built.

Before Covid, the state's ability to borrow was limited due to the fiscal compact. The fiscal compact has been suspended for Covid related spending. I would hope that the fiscal compact would get altered to allow states to borrow for housing and infrastructure post Covid but we will see what happens.

Bass Reeves

Villa05 wrote: »

One suspects that the magic money trees will be well harvested by the time fffg relinquish power




With any spend you have to consider the alternative to not spending and that is expensive long term leasing. Borrowing to build at 0% while owning much of the land required is considerably cheaper and adds to supply

I have no real hangups about the government borrowing to build rather than the present leasing structure. However it has a few issues. I presume that much of this will be social and affordable houses. Will these turn into getto's and give us the new Ballymun's, Knocknaheenie's and Moyross's of this generation. In the affordable element of the housing will you be gifting people a 1-200k site. It very hard to police.

If a young Guard or Nurse buys a 1 or 2 bed apartment and then in 6-10 years time gets married or moves down the country, or maybe even a person who has no option but to move because of there work how do you manage the sale. Any site recovery costs has implications on these people. How do you manage these people from renting these houses if buying or moving elsewhere.

I do not think it will add to supply either. There is a finite limit on the amount of construction workers in the country. At present we are at full employment and we build 20k houses last year and this year it may only be 16k. Even if workers move from commercial to residential construction will we get to 30k units per year.

Aside from all that it would take 2-3 years before a house was build

Jmc25

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/esri-borrowing-housing-5456342-Jun2021/



Wow, I didn't think the ESRI would say that the government could borrow a lot more in order to do something. Maybe the government will use the magic money tree that apparently doesn't exist but only when people talk of SF's housing policy. This report is lubricating the wheels of policy justification should they go down the McWilliams route of undertaking significant borrowing to get houses built.

I think the tide has turned somewhat on the era of balanced budgets no matter what the social cost. If you look at the warning issued by the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council recently - 5/6 years ago that would have been a major talking point and many broadsheet column inches would have been devoted to telling us which state service is due for a good snipping. This time however, it was more or less ignored, which tells us a good deal about the change of attitude in terms of state spending.

Borrowing to build houses would be a very solid investment in my opinion, I just can't really believe we're at the point where the ESRI is saying it.

Ozark707

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Before Covid, the state's ability to borrow was limited due to the fiscal compact. The fiscal compact has been suspended for Covid related spending. I would hope that the fiscal compact would get altered to allow states to borrow for housing and infrastructure post Covid but we will see what happens.

It will come down to politics here. Unless the government can vastly increase the housing stock in some way that results in more supply for buyers and cheaper rent then they can kiss goodbye to the next election. If they have fiscal constraints applied then I can see a scenario where spending is cut in some areas (e.g. road building) and diverted to housing.

timmyntc

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I have no real hangups about the government borrowing to build rather than the present leasing structure. However it has a few issues. I presume that much of this will be social and affordable houses. Will these turn into getto's and give us the new Ballymun's, Knocknaheenie's and Moyross's of this generation. In the affordable element of the housing will you be gifting people a 1-200k site. It very hard to police.

If a young Guard or Nurse buys a 1 or 2 bed apartment and then in 6-10 years time gets married or moves down the country, or maybe even a person who has no option but to move because of there work how do you manage the sale. Any site recovery costs has implications on these people. How do you manage these people from renting these houses if buying or moving elsewhere.

I do not think it will add to supply either. There is a finite limit on the amount of construction workers in the country. At present we are at full employment and we build 30k houses last year and this year it may only be 16k. Even if workers move from commercial to residential construction will we get to 30k units per year.

Aside from all that it would take 2-3 years before a house was build

The state has long moved on from building "ghettos" like Ballymun or Moyross.
It should be mix of social, affordable sale, and cost rental. Gifting people a site? You can sell them a leasehold on the property with the stipulation it cannot be resold above that value + inflation. So no speculation or no "gifting" of an expensive site.

You have a point with our construction capacity - there is definitely a cap there on how much we can build with our current labour availability. You would think commercial space will be in less demand post pandemic and that might free up some more builders. Even 30k+ a year would be a big boost - I think 2019 figure was 21k and 2020 was 20k new completions also.

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

100,000 new houses in Dublin would absolutely take the heat out of the market.
You are deluded to think that it wont.

There will still be a premium for central or established areas, but for people who are outbid at those premium prices, they now have options elsewhere but still close enough to Dublin. It depends how far is "out past the airport" of course

But there are already options elsewhere, but folk don't want to buy in those areas. you seem to think that they are magically going to all say, ah well can't buy here, don't want to live in Finglas/Cabra even though that's a lot closer to city with established transport links, lets' move to past Dublin Airport.

If you work on southside how does living out by the Airport help any more than moving to Maynooth on Naas? It doesn't but because it's still Dublin, you are going to justify it as being ok - even though we all know they won't move out.

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

The state has long moved on from building "ghettos" like Ballymun or Moyross.
It should be mix of social, affordable sale, and cost rental. Gifting people a site? You can sell them a leasehold on the property with the stipulation it cannot be resold above that value + inflation. So no speculation or no "gifting" of an expensive site.

So you would basically be stuck in the area and would not be able to trade up to an "established area" like you perhaps wanted to.... right would love to see that being sold to people. Your ideas get better and better.

Villa05

Ace2007 wrote:

I’ve said it before but will say it again - the government could build 100,000 houses in green fields out past the airport, but that’s not going to solve the heat in the market. It will give low income families a home and perhaps reduce homelessness.

This will help low income families who will still be spending a reasnoble amount for these properties thereby reducing the overall cost

Ace2007 wrote:

But is that going to affect the bidding on 500k+ houses going for higher amounts? No it’s not.

As current policy is to house low/no income people in ever increasing 500k + properties, your argument has no legs so continually saying it will not make it true

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

So you would basically be stuck in the area and would not be able to trade up to an "established area" like you perhaps wanted to.... right would love to see that being sold to people. Your ideas get better and better.

If you buy a house to "get on the ladder" you run the risk of ending up in negative equity and not able to sell at all.
Also keep in mind these affordable properties would be affordable - so the money you save in the sale price & mortgage can be used to buy your next property.

And finally, if prices are to rise then the starter house you bought initially might have risen, but all other prices would rise too. So you dont end up any better off really.

JimmyVik

timmyntc wrote: »

If you buy a house to "get on the ladder" you run the risk of ending up in negative equity and not able to sell at all.
Also keep in mind these affordable properties would be affordable - so the money you save in the sale price & mortgage can be used to buy your next property.

And finally, if prices are to rise then the starter house you bought initially might have risen, but all other prices would rise too. So you dont end up any better off really.

Tell that to the person who bought 5 or 6 years ago and had a static mortgage in the meantime, while the person next door saw their rent go up and up.

jill_valentine

Ace2007 wrote: »

I’ve said it before but will say it again - the government could build 100,000 houses in green fields out past the airport, but that’s not going to solve the heat in the market. It will give low income families a home and perhaps reduce homelessness.

But is that going to affect the bidding on 500k+ houses going for higher amounts? No it’s not.

Is the government going to build enough
Masses affordable houses in Blackrock? Or in SCD suburbs? What about malahide, portmarnock, clontarf, Drumcondra glasnevin - the list in endless where houses prices are through the roof. There are already areas in dublin where houses are cheap but people say no because of a social attitude associated with such areas.

People think that the amount of houses available is the issue , but it’s more where the houses are located thats the problem - supply not available where people want.

I would take a house out past the airport any day of the week when my current alternative is a house in Offaly.

timmyntc

JimmyVik wrote: »

Tell that to the person who bought 5 or 6 years ago and had a static mortgage in the meantime, while the person next door saw their rent go up and up.

You are not comparing like with like.
An affordable leasehold vs a house bought on open market - rent doesnt come into it.

JimmyVik

timmyntc wrote: »

You are not comparing like with like.
An affordable leasehold vs a house bought on open market - rent doesnt come into it.

Sorry. I was referring to affordable, as in something you can afford to buy, rather than a scheme.

Villa05

Bass Reeves wrote:

I have no real hangups about the government borrowing to build rather than the present leasing structure. However it has a few issues. I presume that much of this will be social and affordable houses. Will these turn into getto's and give us the new Ballymun's, Knocknaheenie's and Moyross's of this generation. In the affordable element of the housing will you be gifting people a 1-200k site. It very hard to police.

Sites stay in state ownership, price of units linked to inflation so they always remain affordable stock. These become the new starter homes/affordable rentals. The majority would be low to middle income workers ie the makup of these estates would be reflective of average society

Bass Reeves wrote:

I do not think it will add to supply either. There is a finite limit on the amount of construction workers in the country. At present we are at full employment and we build 30k houses last year and this year it may only be 16k. Even if workers move from commercial to residential construction will we get to 30k units per year.

There are 30k construction workers on pup. There claiming its black market, I'm not convinced. Possibility that commercial will stall for some time until we have greater visibility on wfh impact

timmyntc

JimmyVik wrote: »

Sorry. I was referring to affordable, as in something you can afford to buy, rather than a scheme.

No worries - the point is that buying a starter home with the view that it will increase in price and help you to buy another property is a fallacy - if the price of your home goes up chances are the home you want next will go up too. The difference will remain the same moreless so you are not any better off.

At least leaseholding proposal has fixed re-selling prices - plenty more of those in the market would make the market a lot saner and less speculative.

section4

PropQueries wrote: »

Another date to be missed? I haven't been proven wrong yet. It's the start of June...

This reminds me of the property crash in London in the late 80s
The developers of Canary Wharf , the reichman brothers,
The biggest commercial owners in New York
Got caught in the crash, when asked how they git caught ,
They said quite simply , we never saw it coming .
And that’s going to happen in Dublin again
Even if you. Can’t see it coming
The housing market is in fairyland again.
And overdue a correction even before COVID

JimmyVik

timmyntc wrote: »

No worries - the point is that buying a starter home with the view that it will increase in price and help you to buy another property is a fallacy - if the price of your home goes up chances are the home you want next will go up too. The difference will remain the same moreless so you are not any better off.

At least leaseholding proposal has fixed re-selling prices - plenty more of those in the market would make the market a lot saner and less speculative.

But thats not true.
You will have built up equity, you will be paying less in mortgage payments than rent. The rent will go up. The mortgage wont. And you can save the difference between the mortgage and what you would have been paying in rent each year. So you will be better off by the time you decide to step up, if indeed you ever feel you even need to.

timmyntc

JimmyVik wrote: »

But thats not true.
You will have built up equity, you will be paying less in mortgage payments than rent. The rent will go up. The mortgage wont. And you can save the difference between the mortgage and what you would have been paying in rent each year. So you will be better off by the time you decide to step up, if indeed you ever feel you even need to.

Again - you arent comparing like with like.
Its affordable housing (leasehold) vs house bought on open market.
I'm not comparing the opportunity cost of rent vs sale

JDD

Ace2007 wrote: »

I’ve said it before but will say it again - the government could build 100,000 houses in green fields out past the airport, but that’s not going to solve the heat in the market. It will give low income families a home and perhaps reduce homelessness.

But is that going to affect the bidding on 500k+ houses going for higher amounts? No it’s not.

Is the government going to build enough
Masses affordable houses in Blackrock? Or in SCD suburbs? What about malahide, portmarnock, clontarf, Drumcondra glasnevin - the list in endless where houses prices are through the roof. There are already areas in dublin where houses are cheap but people say no because of a social attitude associated with such areas.

People think that the amount of houses available is the issue , but it’s more where the houses are located thats the problem - supply not available where people want.

I see where you're coming from here, but I'm not sure that's entirely true.

Of course people who grew up in Blackrock or Terenure or Clontarf might want to live there, but they also see reality and know that they might have to compromise. You might want to live in Sandycove, but will accept that you can only afford a newly built house in Cherrywood, or you might want to live in Malahide, but accept that you can only afford an apartment by the airport. That way you are not too far from family, from grandparents who might childmind etc.

And there is a trickle up effect on prices when you take the pressure off the market for first time buyers and renters.

- Building social housing will take a lot of HAP renters out of the private renting market. That will free up rental properties for lower income earners who don't qualify for HAP. And of course it will relieve the pressure on emergency accommodation which can only be a good thing. But I suppose that's a side benefit when we're exclusively talking about the housing market.
- Affordable homes (if they are actually affordable) should mean that lots of young families stuck in the rental trap can now move on to buy a property. I can tell you now that even if you want to buy a house in Blackrock if you're stuck renting a house at exorbitant rates and you have young kids you will take a new build in Cherrywood or Bray or Baldoyle just for the piece of mind of owning a house.
- An increased amount of properties for rent should put downward pressure on rents. Downward pressure on rent should take some cash buyers (including REITs) out of the market. It may mean that some of the more recent cash buyers might sell their property as it is no longer giving them the return that it once had. That means more supply, even in the high demand areas.
- If you can get a three bed new build in Cherrywood for €350k, then you're not going to buy a second hand 3 bed for €470k in Sallynoggin. So those prices might go down. If you can get a three bed in Sallynoggin for €450k, then you're not going to pay €550k for the same house on the edge of Glenageary, and so on and so forth. It all has a trickle up effect.

Ace2007

CPI over the last 10 years to April 2021 was 5.1%

So if you brought one of these affordable houses that you can’t sell on for anymore than inflation, a 300k house (would that even be affordable by definition?), would now only be worth 315k if you were to sell it.

The same 300k house in the open market environment could be worth near 40/50% more.

So how would you ever get out of the area???

You’ll end up with a new area that folk will feel a stigma to because only those that can’t afford anywhere else will live and with that may come
Social issues.

PS I have no problem with houses built for low incomes etc but it’s not going to take the heat out the market IMO.

yagan

Ace2007 wrote: »

CPI over the last 10 years to April 2021 was 5.1%

So if you brought one of these affordable houses that you can’t sell on for anymore than inflation, a 300k house (would that even be affordable by definition?), would now only be worth 315k if you were to sell it.

The same 300k house in the open market environment could be worth near 40/50% more.

So how would you ever get out of the area???

You’ll end up with a new area that folk will feel a stigma to because only those that can’t afford anywhere else will live and with that may come
Social issues.

PS I have no problem with houses built for low incomes etc but it’s not going to take the heat out the market IMO.

Does that CPI figure exclude property prices?