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

Bass Reeves

Hubertj wrote: »

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/redbarn-youghal-cork/4510589

This could be stunning when fully refurbished.

100-150k would do a stunning job on it. I say the lower figure would suffice. Dry line the external walls with 50mm of Kingspan insulation. Rewire and re plumb. Insulate attic. You may have to remove skates and replace them again due to nail failures at present. You could conside digging out ground floors and insulating and replacing them. G
Under floor heating would be an option then. Other option would be tradition radiators and a wood pellet boiler. After that it flooring, painting and fitting out.

You would have some place at that stage small slatted unit and a few Friesian bullocks and you are a gentleman farmer

I do it think Youghal is that bad it just it's a bit delapitated as traditionally it was a tourist area for Cork city. With working for home area like that will develop fast. It gives a good lifestyle choice. Most amenities but a bit away from the hustle and bustle

MacronvFrugals

Bass Reeves wrote: »

100-150k would do a stunning job on it. I say the lower figure would suffice. Dry line the external walls with 50mm of Kingspan insulation. Rewire and re plumb. Insulate attic. You may have to remove skates and replace them again due to nail failures at present. You could conside digging out ground floors and insulating and replacing them. G
Under floor heating would be an option then. Other option would be tradition radiators and a wood pellet boiler. After that it flooring, painting and fitting out.

You would have some place at that stage small slatted unit and a few Friesian bullocks and you are a gentleman farmer

I do it think Youghal is that bad it just it's a bit delapitated as traditionally it was a tourist area for Cork city. With working for home area like that will develop fast. It gives a good lifestyle choice. Most amenities but a bit away from the hustle and bustle

Use 100mm on the externals and get a heat pump that would be a proper job!

mcsean2163

150 off this today. Only on the market recently...

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/pollardstown-house-stud-pollardstown-the-curragh-co-kildare-r56-y658/4510414

mcsean2163

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Use 100mm on the externals and get a heat pump that would be a proper job!

Will be a lovely house when sea levels rise.

hometruths

cnocbui wrote: »

Both my children had their schooling in a smallish semi-rural village. No complaints from a parent's perspective, quite the reverse - highly recommended!. The schools were great and both kids did very well in the LC.

Would you be looking to camp out on the streets of Youghal or would you be spending 99% of your time in your non-kip nicely renovated house?

It's the far sighted individulas who pioneer the gentrification of places who gain the most.

Totally agree with this. Unfortunately my wife is not yet convinced! Have had the discussion with her numerous times, about various locations.

cnocbui

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Will be a lovely house when sea levels rise.

Current rate is 1m per 290 years. If you plan on living till you are 700, I can understand being concerned.

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

I was looking at that just this morning, thinking exactly the same thing.

Then I suddenly found myself checking out schools in Youghal!

Unfortunately I think Youghal is a bit of a kip.

that location is something else to be fair.

tobsey

cnocbui wrote: »

I live in a one off house. I didn't build it, because that's a priveledge reserved for the land owning classes in Ireland, and only locals at that, but I bought it semi-finished.

How is it an environmental diaster? There were electricity and phone lines running down the road for half a century before it was built. There is no wtaer main along the road. So the impact of this house to society is nill. I paid for a phone connection to line that was already there. I paid for a well to be drilled, the builder paid for the electricity to be connected to lines already there.

What I have done is help amortize the cost of provisioning utilities to the farms that are along the road and for which the utilities were originally provided for.

You need a private car to go anywhere, even for basic groceries never mind amenities. The utility lines may have been there anyway, but I guess you have a septic tank that needs to be maintained. The carbon footprint on all that is massive compared to an urban dwelling.

PropBuyer101

tobsey wrote: »

You need a private car to go anywhere, even for basic groceries never mind amenities. The utility lines may have been there anyway, but I guess you have a septic tank that needs to be maintained. The carbon footprint on all that is massive compared to an urban dwelling.

huh? so you have a problem with this guy building his own house in a rural community? my goodness what is the world coming to. we all have to live a massively over priced urban lifestyle do we. ok.

tobsey

PropBuyer101 wrote: »

huh? so you have a problem with this guy building his own house in a rural community? my goodness what is the world coming to. we all have to live a massively over priced urban lifestyle do we. ok.

Never said we had to. However less dense housing has a higher impact on the environment. If carbon taxes go higher then people will pay for the privilege but that'll go down like a lead balloon.

cnocbui

tobsey wrote: »

You need a private car to go anywhere, even for basic groceries never mind amenities. The utility lines may have been there anyway, but I guess you have a septic tank that needs to be maintained. The carbon footprint on all that is massive compared to an urban dwelling.

How many people living in Dublin, Galway, Cork or Limerick own and use a private car? The idea of a majority of urban dwellers not owning or using a private car is an eco-myth.

Anyway, you and your ilk would continue to object if my house was built to passive standards and I installed large sewage holding tanks and had them pumped a few times a year and bought a Tesla model 3 Performance and a vast swathe of solar panels to charge it with on non-cloudy days. If that was the price for living here, I'd gladly loosen my tightly tied purse strings and shell out the necessary. But it's not really about the carbon, it's about being able to afford to live beyond the rat-race and not having to share accommodation with an opinionated sweaty cyclist who hogs the shower the washing machine and blocks the hall and stairs with his titanium/carbon two wheeled eco charriot.

Anyway, without a private car, I couldn't reach my 2.5 hours away one-off holiday home. I really should get a helicopter, which would cut the journey to about 20 minutes. Plenty of land at either end for a pad.

PropBuyer101

tobsey wrote: »

Never said we had to. However less dense housing has a higher impact on the environment. If carbon taxes go higher then people will pay for the privilege but that'll go down like a lead balloon.

people in the cities are like sardines in a can and the property supply here is dwindling. people cant even buy apartments as everything being built goes to corporations renting them out.



ireland needs to move away from this urban mentality and go rural again - people need to spread out.



4 million people on a rock in the middle of the atlantic ocean crammed into one main city.


come on - we need to invest more in rural development. carbon taxes is something to discuss alright but young people's priority at the moment is housing.


this is the generation that will be paying the older generation's state pension after all - they deserve to get on their feet too. only way to do that is spread out more.

tobsey

cnocbui wrote: »

How many people living in Dublin, Galway, Cork or Limerick own and use a private car? The idea of a majority of urban dwellers not owning or using a private car is an eco-myth.

Anyway, you and your ilk would continue to object if my house was built to passive standards and I installed large sewage holding tanks and had them pumped a few times a year and bought a Tesla model 3 Performance and a vast swathe of solar panels to charge it with on non-cloudy days. If that was the price for living here, I'd gladly loosen my tightly tied purse strings and shell out the necessary. But it's not really about the carbon, it's about being able to afford to live beyond the rat-race and not having to share accommodation with an opinionated sweaty cyclist who hogs the shower the washing machine and blocks the hall and stairs with his titanium/carbon two wheeled eco charriot.

Anyway, without a private car, I couldn't reach my 2.5 hours away one-off holiday home. I really should get a helicopter, which would cut the journey to about 20 minutes. Plenty of land at either end for a pad.

I don't really care whether you live in a rural setting. Most of my extended family do. I'm simply pointing out that there's a higher cost to the environment relative to a similar urban house. You're right that urban dwellers own and use cars as well but the mileage on them is generally far less than a rural car. From my experience I'd say the average is 15k km in Dublin vs 25k outside per year. That's a lot of extra fuel.

Carbon tax is probably the best solution to it. People can choose to pay higher consumption taxes in return for the quiet lifestyle.

jill_valentine

Don't know if it's a glitch or if everyone just got the same idea at once but today I've gotten notifications for several houses in Dublin in my low budget filter, and when you click the link to the ad itself, it's quickly updated by a zero. So you get a notification for a 77k property, click in and find a 770k one.

It's not like it can be an bid driver either I'd have thought, because surely those are two very separate markets?

Do agencies get any benefit from click numbers alone? I wouldn't have thought so.

cnocbui

tobsey wrote: »

I don't really care whether you live in a rural setting. Most of my extended family do. I'm simply pointing out that there's a higher cost to the environment relative to a similar urban house. You're right that urban dwellers own and use cars as well but the mileage on them is generally far less than a rural car. From my experience I'd say the average is 15k km in Dublin vs 25k outside per year. That's a lot of extra fuel.

Carbon tax is probably the best solution to it. People can choose to pay higher consumption taxes in return for the quiet lifestyle.

I am glad you don't care, that matches my sentiments exactly, so we are in agreement on outlook.

For people who can work from home, and live in a rural one-off, their annual milage would be less than for an urban dweller who commutes. There is no fuel if you own an EV.

Have you discussed with your extended family your ambitions to increase their living costs? Were they overjoyed and fully supportive? /s

mcsean2163

Myhome showing 11628 on a first page all option search. That's the lowest I've seen for a while. I guess it's summertime..

Not long until August and the great market crash heralded by propqueries.

hometruths

handlemaster wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-has-opposed-building-of-6-000-homes-across-dublin-1.4602893?mode=amp

No wonder there are so few new homes been builth when you have a party thats always banging on about free homes opposing their co construction

Re opposition to these developments, as ever it's worth looking at the detail. Good article in today's Indo, that provides some of that detail -
Why the word “affordable” is the great cop-out of this Government’s failed housing policy

The Irish Times article says:

The Fine Gael document also references the O’Devaney Gardens which is to comprise 1,047 residential units across 10 apartment blocks.

Sinn Féin has said it believes the proposed development does not go far enough in terms of delivering affordable homes for local people.

The Indo says:

At another publicly owned site at O’Devaney Gardens in Arbour Hill, Dublin 7, a plan had been tabled for a total of 300 homes on a site that was previously the location of 100pc social housing. This plan envisaged a mix of 30pc social housing, 20pc “affordable”, and 50pc private, the latter amounting to 526 homes.

Again, when the council was ultimately pressed to define what “affordable” prices were for this site (where there was a 40pc ‘market discount’) it emerged that some of “affordable” apartments were to be priced at €420,000.

On the basis that you can actually buy an apartment in Ranelagh for less, we could take “affordable” in this case to mean: “more expensive than its equivalent in Dublin 6.”

So SF was voting against a proposal in which the developer was buying public lands at a 40% discount in Dublin 7 and in return providing "affordable housing" in Arbour Hill in excess of the market value in Ranelagh.

If I'd been a councillor I'd have voted against it too. And shame on anybody who supported it.

There is more.

The Irish Times says:

The Fine Gael document also references the Oscar Traynor site in north Dublin. Councillors last November voted 48 to 14 against the plan to sell the site in Santry, just east of the entrance to the Dublin Port Tunnel, despite warnings from the council’s head of housing Brendan Kenny the project would “have to be abandoned” if they did so.

Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald said councillors were right to vote down the transfer of public land at Oscar Traynor Road to a private developer as it “represented a bad deal for those in housing need”.

The Indo says:

For example, late last year Dublin City councillors asked their own housing department “how much is affordable?” in regard to homes then planned at a publicly owned site at Oscar Traynor Road in Coolock where councillors were being asked to hand over 17 acres of State-owned land worth €40m to a private developer. At this point, the plan was for 428 private homes for profit, and 253 small social and affordable housing apartments.

When asked what the specific prices were for the 172 “affordable” units proposed, DCC’s housing department said they were €260,000 for one-bed apartments, and €300,000 for two-bed units.

So in an area where existing two-bed apartments were on offer at that time from €135,000 to €145,000 and existing three-bed houses were priced at €255,000, the DCC housing department’s definition of an “affordable” one bed apartment can, in this case, be interpreted as: “more expensive than an existing three bed house in area (Coolock).”

I agree with Mary Lou, this was a bad deal for those in need of housing. And the taxpayer. As a taxpayer I thank SF and any other councillors for voting against this.

The whole article is well worth reading. Basically highlights the nonsense talked about affordable housing.

“Affordable” (per Irish Government housing policy): Indefinable smoke and mirrors term designed to conceal sweetheart deals on public land assets.

PropBuyer101

“affordable” apartments were to be priced at €420,000.


joke. this is not malibu people its Dublin. the place has gone mad.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Re opposition to these developments, as ever it's worth looking at the detail. Good article in today's Indo, that provides some of that detail -
Why the word “affordable” is the great cop-out of this Government’s failed housing policy

The Irish Times article says:



The Indo says:



So SF was voting against a proposal in which the developer was buying public lands at a 40% discount in Dublin 7 and in return providing "affordable housing" in Arbour Hill in excess of the market value in Ranelagh.

If I'd been a councillor I'd have voted against it too. And shame on anybody who supported it.

There is more.

The Irish Times says:



The Indo says:



I agree with Mary Lou, this was a bad deal for those in need of housing. And the taxpayer. As a taxpayer I thank SF and any other councillors for voting against this.

The whole article is well worth reading. Basically highlights the nonsense talked about affordable housing.

So its better that nothing gets built. That makes sense.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

So its better that nothing gets built. That makes sense.

Agreed

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Agreed

While it’s likely not a “good deal” it’s really the best that can be expected. The majority of our public servants are/possess
- at best of average intelligence
- little to no commercial acumen
- poorly managed/not managed at all
- no real conception of what a “budget” is
- are not accountable
- little interest in public service.

Another government can’t change that. Are Sinn Fein going to undertake a massive overhaul of how public services are delivered? Are they going to take on trade unions? Are they going to remove incompetent staff? It’s not like they can make people “disappear”

They can’t even use a calculator or Excel..

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/opw-criticised-over-86m-garda-hq-that-is-too-small-for-all-staff-1.4576830?mode=amp

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

Re opposition to these developments, as ever it's worth looking at the detail. Good article in today's Indo, that provides some of that detail -
Why the word “affordable” is the great cop-out of this Government’s failed housing policy

The Irish Times article says:



The Indo says:



So SF was voting against a proposal in which the developer was buying public lands at a 40% discount in Dublin 7 and in return providing "affordable housing" in Arbour Hill in excess of the market value in Ranelagh.

If I'd been a councillor I'd have voted against it too. And shame on anybody who supported it.

There is more.

The Irish Times says:



The Indo says:



I agree with Mary Lou, this was a bad deal for those in need of housing. And the taxpayer. As a taxpayer I thank SF and any other councillors for voting against this.

The whole article is well worth reading. Basically highlights the nonsense talked about affordable housing.

Are there new build apartments in ranelagh for 420k?

Yurt2

Hubertj wrote: »

While it’s likely not a “good deal” it’s really the best that can be expected. The majority of our public servants are/possess
- at best of average intelligence
- little to no commercial acumen
- poorly managed/not managed at all
- no real conception of what a “budget” is
- are not accountable
- little interest in public service.

Another government can’t change that. Are Sinn Fein going to undertake a massive overhaul of how public services are delivered? Are they going to take on trade unions? Are they going to remove incompetent staff? It’s not like they can make people “disappear”

They can’t even use a calculator or Excel..

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/opw-criticised-over-86m-garda-hq-that-is-too-small-for-all-staff-1.4576830%3fmode=amp

It really doesn't need any of the above. It takes a Minister of Housing and Local Government who has a spine and understands the implications of these deals to direct City Chief Executives and County Managers (appointed by the minister essentially as the top civil servant of local authority) to stop cutting them.

The buck stops with the Minister on this. It's a matter of policy.

Hubertj

Yurt! wrote: »

It really doesn't need any of the above. It takes a Minister of Housing and Local Government who has a spine and understands the implications of these deals to direct City Chief Executives and County Managers (appointed by the minister essentially as the top civil servant of local authority) to stop cutting them.

The buck stops with the Minister on this. It's a matter of policy.

I agree that it is a matter of policy and ministers and senior civil servants should be accountable but I don’t believe our public servants have the competence to implement and execute the policies.

You could put Alex Ferguson in charge of the Ireland team but they are still going to be sh*t….

Bass Reeves

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Use 100mm on the externals and get a heat pump that would be a proper job!

Usually not an option. On old houses like that there is no facia and soffit. Slates overhang the stone walls by 2-3 inches. This hoses straight into gutters. I have seen a botch job done on such a house where they put in 100mm insulation and sat the gutters on top it was f@@king awful looking.

At a guess that is a stone build house. There is 600 mm(2') thick walls on it. It's rendered with a lime plaster. Ideally lime wash the outside. Dry lining and internal insulation is the only option

Bass Reeves

tobsey wrote: »

You need a private car to go anywhere, even for basic groceries never mind amenities. The utility lines may have been there anyway, but I guess you have a septic tank that needs to be maintained. The carbon footprint on all that is massive compared to an urban dwelling.

No it isn't the house exists, from this thinking do we abandon all housing on the countryside. For that matter with electric cars after you buy one it nearly immaterial how much you drive it if you charge it on night time electricity.

Public transport will be an issue from.now on with loadings. COVID has not gone away it will be with us and social distancing will be with us for the next 5+ years. There is 16 acres with the house one septic tank in that area is nothing, better than all the raw sewage pumped out to sea from.many costal towns and villages like Youghal.

From the overhead photo it on the virtual outskirts of tbuild up area. You entrance is from the edge as far as I can see. You probably nearer the center of Youghal than tallagh is from O'Connell street

Sweet.Science

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2155-1-2-W-Kent-Ave-Missoula-MT-59801/2069967069_zpid/

It really seems to be a worldwide crisis

A shed for 250k

Yurt2

Sweet.Science wrote: »

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2155-1-2-W-Kent-Ave-Missoula-MT-59801/2069967069_zpid/

It really seems to be a worldwide crisis

A shed for 250k

Cash-rich Californians fleeing the Golden State after selling their jacked-up priced properties, bringing their problems with them. Montanans hate it. Montana is beautiful though, would move there in a heartbeat if I had American citizenship and Missoula is a lovely university town with a lot going on for its size.

Just noting the $203 dollar a month property taxes on that too.

You probably could expect a property tax bill of about $5000 per year for a modest family home in that town so.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

While it’s likely not a “good deal” it’s really the best that can be expected. The majority of our public servants are/possess
- at best of average intelligence
- little to no commercial acumen
- poorly managed/not managed at all
- no real conception of what a “budget” is
- are not accountable
- little interest in public service.

Are you really saying that whilst you recognise it is a bad deal, we cannot expect our elected representatives to recognise it is a bad deal, and thus we should be just accept that they will vote for these deals?!

And on top of that, we have councillors who recognised it was a bad deal, and voted against it, but you are saying they should not have done so? Should they just have realised that the other councillors were of lower intelligence and with poor commercial acumen, and voted with them nonetheless?

Utterly bonkers.

Beigepaint

cnocbui wrote: »

How many people living in Dublin, Galway, Cork or Limerick own and use a private car? The idea of a majority of urban dwellers not owning or using a private car is an eco-myth.

Anyway, you and your ilk would continue to object if my house was built to passive standards and I installed large sewage holding tanks and had them pumped a few times a year and bought a Tesla model 3 Performance and a vast swathe of solar panels to charge it with on non-cloudy days. If that was the price for living here, I'd gladly loosen my tightly tied purse strings and shell out the necessary. But it's not really about the carbon, it's about being able to afford to live beyond the rat-race and not having to share accommodation with an opinionated sweaty cyclist who hogs the shower the washing machine and blocks the hall and stairs with his titanium/carbon two wheeled eco charriot.

Anyway, without a private car, I couldn't reach my 2.5 hours away one-off holiday home. I really should get a helicopter, which would cut the journey to about 20 minutes. Plenty of land at either end for a pad.

Total nonsense. Can we put aside your creative writing homework and return to the facts?

Rural housing costs a fortune - whether it’s roads, water, power lines etc - all of this maintenance costs a fortune. Then we have the carbon taxes your countrymen are paying for your neighbours to shuttle their kids around.

It costs you nothing so you think it’s free. That’s called an externality.

Nobody but farmers should be living any more than 3km from a village, town, settlement.

PropBuyer101

Beigepaint wrote: »

Total nonsense. Can we put aside your creative writing homework and return to the facts?

Rural housing costs a fortune - whether it’s roads, water, power lines etc - all of this maintenance costs a fortune. Then we have the carbon taxes your countrymen are paying for your neighbours to shuttle their kids around.

It costs you nothing so you think it’s free. That’s called an externality.

Nobody but farmers should be living any more than 3km from a village, town, settlement.

Nobody but farmers should be living any more than 3km from a village, town, settlement. so whats your idea for the future of this country so - people competing for a small bit of real estate and crammed in like ants fighting over square feet - i cant believe the ridiculous of this statement. tell me whats your idea for the future of this country? where are people going to live when we run out of space? inspire us with your creativity. sky rise buildings that wont last 50 years before they collapse? whats the vision?

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Are you really saying that whilst you recognise it is a bad deal, we cannot expect our elected representatives to recognise it is a bad deal, and thus we should be just accept that they will vote for these deals?!

And on top of that, we have councillors who recognised it was a bad deal, and voted against it, but you are saying they should not have done so? Should they just have realised that the other councillors were of lower intelligence and with poor commercial acumen, and voted with them nonetheless?

Utterly bonkers.

Those tasked with delivering the deal are not capable of interested in delivering a better deal.

So nothing at all gets built and that’s better. Utterly bonkers.

Yurt2

PropBuyer101 wrote: »

Nobody but farmers should be living any more than 3km from a village, town, settlement. so whats your idea for the future of this country so - people competing for a small bit of real estate and crammed in like ants fighting over square feet - i cant believe the ridiculous of this statement. tell me whats your idea for the future of this country? where are people going to live when we run out of space? inspire us with your creativity. sky rise buildings that wont last 50 years before they collapse? whats the vision?

I agree with the bolded statement. Ireland is fairly unique in Western Europe the extent to which we've allowed people with no connection to the land to lash up houses willy nilly in the countryside. Provision of services (national broadband plan anyone?), the cost of roads, environmental burden, electricity prices and even the price of a postage stamp are negatively affected by this dispersed settlement pattern.

Not sure why people rush to call Blade Runner cities on pushing back on one-offs. How about, I dunno, live on the direct outskirts of a village instead of a pebble dashed monstrosity plonked in the middle of nowhere chewing up what could be good farmland or wilded land?

am_zarathustra

PropBuyer101 wrote: »

Nobody but farmers should be living any more than 3km from a village, town, settlement. so whats your idea for the future of this country so - people competing for a small bit of real estate and crammed in like ants fighting over square feet - i cant believe the ridiculous of this statement. tell me whats your idea for the future of this country? where are people going to live when we run out of space? inspire us with your creativity. sky rise buildings that wont last 50 years before they collapse? whats the vision?

It's not a binary option between high rise and a country cottage. I grew up in a love detached bungalow, on a road of lovely detached bungalows, in a town, 5 minutes walk from a shop and with plenty of space to run around. Towns/villages will die off if one off housing is allowed continue. We need to get people back into the towns/villages to keep a sense of community.

The ecological side is phenomenally well studied and there are myriad papers on this. Google is your friend if you don't believe people on here. The government arent tightening rules for the craic.

Bass Reeves

PropBuyer101 wrote: »

Nobody but farmers should be living any more than 3km from a village, town, settlement. so whats your idea for the future of this country so - people competing for a small bit of real estate and crammed in like ants fighting over square feet - i cant believe the ridiculous of this statement. tell me whats your idea for the future of this country? where are people going to live when we run out of space? inspire us with your creativity. sky rise buildings that wont last 50 years before they collapse? whats the vision?

I be happy with 3 clicks. I have 8 acres within 2clicks of one village and 60 acres with in 2clicks of another village, it a small town in matter of fact.

I only want 2-3 sites for my kids

cnocbui

Beigepaint wrote: »

Total nonsense. Can we put aside your creative writing homework and return to the facts?

Rural housing costs a fortune - whether it’s roads, water, power lines etc - all of this maintenance costs a fortune. Then we have the carbon taxes your countrymen are paying for your neighbours to shuttle their kids around.

It costs you nothing so you think it’s free. That’s called an externality.

Nobody but farmers should be living any more than 3km from a village, town, settlement.

All complete garbage. Did you know that the damge caused to a road by a vehicle is a function of it's weight, and that the relationship is not linear? It's not even exponential; it's not even cubed, it's an incredible 4th power relationship.

That means that the large milk tanker that blasts up and down past my house most days to collect milk from the farms, does around 160,000 times as much damage as a car. Each tractor that passes my house does 900 times as much damage as my car. A single tractor driving past my driveway does more damage than my car would do in two years.

So on a slow day, with only 8 tractor passings and one milk tanker - Thats about 165,000 times as much damage to the road as my car does.

Now as for water - rural dwellings like farms and one-off houses usually have wells which the owners pay for themselves; in provisioning, maintainace and running costs. The cost to your precious pocket is a big fat zero.

The power lines mention is an equally ignorant hoot.



This is an ESB crew upgrading the power lines because my son installed a Rizen 9 processor and a new graphics card in his gaming development rig - knocked out the whole road.

Only kidding. They were installing a new transformer for some power hungry equipment that was recently installed at that farm.

So just like the damage to roads, the elctricity infrastructure maintainance and uprgardeing is all down to the needs and practices of farms. One off houses don't even move the needle.

Your thinking is founded on a basis of pure ignorance.

Yurt2

cnocbui wrote: »

All complete garbage. Did you know that the damge caused to a road by a vehicle is a function of it's weight, and that the relationship is not linear? It's not even exponential; it's not even cubed, it's an incredible 4th power relationship.

That means that the large milk tanker that blasts up and down past my house most days to collect milk from the farms, does around 160,000 times as much damage as a car. Each tractor that passes my house does 900 times as much damage as my car. A single tractor driving past my driveway does more damage than my car would do in two years.

So on a slow day, with only 8 tractor passings and one milk tanker - Thats about 165,000 times as much damage to the road as my car does..

Garbage as you'd say yourself:


"An analysis of this data and an approximate local authority one-off housing rate based on 2011 POWCAR data reveals that there is a clear correlation between high levels of per capita spend on road maintenance and high rates of rural one-off housing within local authority areas. For example, 10 of the 31 local authorities in Ireland are estimated to have greater than half of housing classed as rural one-offs. All of these local authorities have an annual per capita spend on road maintenance of between €144 and €336 (€194 average). In contrast to this, 6 local authorities have a rural one-off rate less than 4% with per capita annual spend on road maintenance of between €49 and €92 (€60 average)."

cnocbui wrote: »

The power lines mention is an equally ignorant hoot.



This is an ESB crew upgrading the power lines because my son installed a Rizen 9 processor and a new graphics card in his gaming development rig - knocked out the whole road.

Only kidding. They were installing a new transformer for some power hungry equipment that was recently installed at that farm.

So just like the damage to roads, the elctricity infrastructure maintainance and uprgardeing is all down to the needs and practices of farms. One off houses don't even move the needle.

Your thinking is founded on a basis of pure ignorance.

Once again, garbage as you'd say:


"Due to the low density of population and housing, Ireland has the most extensive network per customer in the EU, resulting in high transmission losses. ESB networks is forced to maintain more than three times the length of distribution circuit per customer as compared to, for example, the UK. To avoid voltage drop over this extended network, at least one transformer for every square kilometre is needed in almost 75% of Ireland. This means that Ireland has almost one-third the number of transformers as in the UK despite having a total distribution network of just half the size and 6% of its population"



https://kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/YourCouncil/Publications/Planning/DevelopmentPlans/KildareCountyDevelopmentPlan2017-2023/Kildare%20Rural%20Housing%20Report%20Airo%20March%202016.pdf

Courtesy of: the National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis and the All Ireland Research Observatory.

Next time you call something garbage and try to turn reality on its head, do some homework instead of talking about your kid's graphics card (which has nothing to do with the price of turnips). The economic externialities of one off housing and the burdens shifted elsewhere are overwhelmingly documented at this juncture. If you're going to be aggressive and rubbish other posters on proven reality, at least come prepared and not with photos of your boreen.

Bass Reeves

Yurt! wrote: »

Garbage as you'd say yourself:


"An analysis of this data and an approximate local authority one-off housing rate based on 2011 POWCAR data reveals that there is a clear correlation between high levels of per capita spend on road maintenance and high rates of rural one-off housing within local authority areas. For example, 10 of the 31 local authorities in Ireland are estimated to have greater than half of housing classed as rural one-offs. All of these local authorities have an annual per capita spend on road maintenance of between €144 and €336 (€194 average). In contrast to this, 6 local authorities have a rural one-off rate less than 4% with per capita annual spend on road maintenance of between €49 and €92 (€60 average)."





Now as for water - rural dwellings like farms and one-off houses usually have wells which the owners pay for themselves; in provisioning, maintainace and running costs. The cost to your precious pocket is a big fat zero.



Once again, garbage as you'd say:


"Due to the low density of population and housing, Ireland has the most extensive network per customer in the EU, resulting in high transmission losses. ESB networks is forced to maintain more than three times the length of distribution circuit per customer as compared to, for example, the UK. To avoid voltage drop over this extended network, at least one transformer for every square kilometre is needed in almost 75% of Ireland. This means that Ireland has almost one-third the number of transformers as in the UK despite having a total distribution network of just half the size and 6% of its population"



https://kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/YourCouncil/Publications/Planning/DevelopmentPlans/KildareCountyDevelopmentPlan2017-2023/Kildare%20Rural%20Housing%20Report%20Airo%20March%202016.pdf

There are lies, dam lies and then there are statistics. You can get statistics to say what every you want

Are the figures you quote per person in the county. I lay odds that these 10 counties are mainly along the west coast. More prone to weather events. Many of the one off houses are holiday homes not used all year around.

Because off the scenic area's there are more KM of roads per person than average. Along with that you get an influx of tourists for the summer. There are two main types of tourists those that use cars but there is a large portion that travel by Bus and we are back to bigger vehicles cause more damage.

Because of farms you would have a lot of those power line anyway and guess what a lot of the transformer's as well. As you say they are installed on a per area basis. Large parts of the UK are not inhabitated, the Welsh mountains, the Scottish Highlands, the Yorkshire Dales, the Pennines. We do not have the same amount of uninhabited area's in Ireland. There is historical reasons for this

Cromwell cleared all the better land and forced a lot of the Irish population to move to the west Coast. UK land was owned by the English and Scottish nobility for centuries, some still is. The Highland's in Scotland were cleared of there population the early 1800's and stocked with sheep. It now a kind of playground for them for shooting and fishing.

Because Ireland in the late 1800's forced the English LL's to sell the land to tenant farmers we have a different population spread and because we have a smaller population density we have as a percentage more people working in Agri and Tourism in Ireland.

We have the highest amount of road in Europe on an area basis. This did not happen this year or last year. Most were tracks and paths that are there since historical times. Because of the natural ability of the land Ireland could sustain its larger numbers of people in smaller area's. Pre Famine we were one of the most densely populated areas of Europe



So you are just posting more garbage

Yurt2

Cromwell and scenic areas. I'll leave you to it if you think you're making anything other silly argument that's been debunked over and over and only pushed by folks that love the chape site and pushing economic burdens on to people that live sustainably and actually in a community instead of just talking big about it in a pebble dashed monstrosity as far away from their neighbours as they can get.

Only a tiny sliver of one off dwellers have anything to do the agricultural economy. Your linking of that settlement pattern to the health of our primary industries is extremely spurious and one commonly made by chape site proponents.

I call it "keepers of the flame" myth. That somehow ribbon development keeps rural Ireland alive, when it actually crushes the the rural villages and towns that it purports to be saving.

If we want to make rural communities sustainable - the first thing that needs to be done is clamp down radically on one offs and encourage development only in the immediate hinterland of villages. It means the end of the chape sweetheart site from the parents /uncle but I'm not sure why anyone else who cares about the survival of communities should give a sh*te about that.

ml100

Yurt! wrote: »

Cromwell and scenic areas. I'll leave you to it if you think you're making anything other silly argument that's been debunked over and over and only pushed by folks that love the chape site and pushing economic burdens on to people that live sustainably and actually in a community instead of just talking big about it in a pebble dashed monstrosity as far away from their neighbours as they can get.

Only a tiny sliver of one off dwellers have anything to do the agricultural economy. Your linking of that settlement pattern to the health of our primary industries is extremely spurious and one commonly made by chape site proponents.

I call it "keepers of the flame" myth. That somehow ribbon development keeps rural Ireland alive, when it actually crushes the the rural villages and towns that it purports to be saving.

If we want to make rural communities sustainable - the first thing that needs to be done is clamp down radically on one offs and encourage development only in the immediate hinterland of villages. It means the end of the chape sweetheart site from the parents /uncle but I'm not sure why anyone else who cares about the survival of communities should give a sh*te about that.

New one off houses are built by people looking to provide themselves with a family home and they pay for it, most of the communities you speak of are made up of at least 10% social housing that the tax payer pays for, get over your jealously of the site from the parents.

Yurt2

ml100 wrote: »

New one off houses are built by people looking to provide themselves with a family home and they pay for it, most of the communities you speak of are made up of at least 10% social housing that the tax payer pays for, get over your jealously of the site from the parents.

They don't pay for the ancillary costs, both economic and environmental. One off housing exists on transfers from others essentially and the people that seek to live that way bury the lead on those costs. They are in fact a burden on other citizens who actually live in communities. I'm not jealous in the least, I have my own set-up.

The national broadband debacle is a classic example of the consequences. People in one-offs in the middle of nowhere on a huge whinge about not having fibre optic cable for Netflix. Many people predicted accurately that the provision of national broadband couldn't be delivered at reasonable cost, and lo and behold, all but one of the tendering parties pulled out. Who picks up the tab for the metastasising costs due to dispersed development? Johnny taxpayer of course. Deco in his council house indeed.

fergus1001

Yurt! wrote:

The national broadband debacle is a classic example of the consequences. People in one-offs in the middle of nowhere on a huge whinge about not having fibre optic cable for Netflix. Many people predicted accurately that the provision of national broadband couldn't be delivered at reasonable cost, and lo and behold, all but one of the tendering parties pulled out. Who picks up the tab for the metastasising costs due to dispersed development? Johnny taxpayer of course. Deco in his council house indeed.

if the people living in rural areas work as part of the rural economy then they should be there,

the real problem is people being giving permission to build where they are teachers or professionals and have no need to live there at all

I'm building a one off house in the country, I am a forester so I am a net benefit to the rural economy

Hubertj

Hubertj wrote: »

It took me 5 weeks. Why did it take you so long? Was it an old house the the solicitor had difficulty perfecting the title? I’ve only heard of such long delays with new builds or old houses and issues with title.

Probably when solicitor or property agent got all my money on account he was playing on stock market or was buying bitcoin or borrow them to his friend builder which was using them to build house for sale.Free money for 7 months ! With no interest !

fergus1001

fergus1001 wrote: »

if the people living in rural areas work as part of the rural economy then they should be there,

the real problem is people being giving permission to build where they are teachers or professionals and have no need to live there at all

I'm building a one off house in the country, I am a forester so I am a net benefit to the rural economy

But what if someone just prefers living rurally? I think that's good enough reason.

Yurt2

fergus1001 wrote: »

if the people living in rural areas work as part of the rural economy then they should be there,

the real problem is people being giving permission to build where they are teachers or professionals and have no need to live there at all

I'm building a one off house in the country, I am a forester so I am a net benefit to the rural economy

No issue there. If you are a genuine part of the primary economy in rural Ireland(as you are), few people would have objections to you living in proximity to your work.


The problem has always been the urban generated one-offs.

cluelessbuyer9

Do people on this thread think prices may stall or deflate somewhat in the short/medium term.

Utterly depressed at the moment have lost over a dozen bidding wars for sub par property and it really is discouraging.
Thankfully, i am able to stay with family for a few years so saving is not an issue but ideally i would like my own place again soon. Deposit of 190,000 after a separation which led to family home sale, i am getting anxious leaving the money sit in savings accounts but don't want to get burned in property as it looks like a bubble and i cannot win a bidding war as all properties are going for tens of thousands more than asking.

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

But what if someone just prefers living rurally? I think that's good enough reason.

Well, I'd have a preference to build a Disney Castle and a rollercoaster surrounding it in the middle of a roundabout.
The planning system has always, and should always, take into account and respect the broader social and economic impact of any development - be it residential or commercial. This is particularly acute when it's acknowledged that the cost of provision of services to rural one-offs far outstrips the same provision to urban, suburban and peri-urban residents.

Another example: The An Post has undergone massive and controversial restructuring in recent years. It is a hard economic and social fact worldwide that the most expensive part of delivery and postal services is the last mile. An Post literally can't turn a buck anymore because of dispersed development, prompting the consolidation of post offices countrywide.

Rural Ireland cries: "Where are my post offices gone!"

Rural Ireland is killing rural Ireland. If you demand a god-given right to plonk a house wherever you see fit, please please don't crow when the consequences of you and others like you doing so comes come to roost.

Now if rural dwellers by and large settled in some reasonable proximity to the nearest village, not only are you giving the economic life of the village a shot, but your post office may just survive as it's actually viable.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

Well, I'd have a preference to build a Disney Castle and a rollercoaster surrounding it in the middle of a roundabout.

Middle of the roundabout is a safety hazard, so can't do that. However, if Mr. Tayto can plonk a rollercoaster in a field in Meath, I'm sure you can, too.

Most people, from what I can see, consider "rural" to be a detached house with a bit of space. Enough space that next doors music at 2am isn't audible, you can't smell their obvious drug use through the walls, you can have several visitors without worrying about parking, you can do naked somersaults on a trampoline and no one cares, etc.

I'd imagine most people would be happy to have that house right next to a village as the services are closer to them. However, funds sometimes means they're buying further out. For those that are building, I believe the rules are generally heavily stacked against them anyway. The vast majority of people that seem to build, are doing so on family-owned land where an existing house is a stone's throw away, anyway.

cluelessbuyer9 wrote: »

Do people on this thread think prices may stall or deflate somewhat in the short/medium term.

Everyone is saying we're in a bubble at the moment. But people have been saying that for years. I'm looking to buy, and my deposit is not far off being about 10% of your deposit, so perhaps expand your search area a bit, would be my advice.


For what it's worth, I've been looking at property in my area (Drogheda) and prices went a bit mental from about February - April. It seems to be slowing a little bit at the moment, but there are a couple of houses that sold in that time frame, where there must be serious buyers remorse going on.

There wasn't a new build house to buy in that period in Drogheda, and now that some of those sales are coming to a close, contracts signing, etc. there are a few new phases in developments after opening up.

For me, the biggest 'bubble' sign was an 80's ex-council terraced house in an area where property rarely ever reached 200k, sold for 250k.

Now you can get a new build for 300k (including 30k from HTB) with all the new heating systems etc. a 2 minute drive away. I'd say they're sick to their stomach.

For me, personally, I know a house is coming up for sale soon, and I'm gonna attempt a 'private sale' if i can get a decent AIP amount from Rebuilding Ireland. If I can't get that particular house, I might also join the list of people that'll wait til next year and have more saved. Of course, everyone else who's waiting til next year will also have more saved, and we'll be competing with each other again. :rolleyes:

Amadan Dubh

cluelessbuyer9 wrote: »

Do people on this thread think prices may stall or deflate somewhat in the short/medium term.

Utterly depressed at the moment have lost over a dozen bidding wars for sub par property and it really is discouraging.
Thankfully, i am able to stay with family for a few years so saving is not an issue but ideally i would like my own place again soon. Deposit of 190,000 after a separation which led to family home sale, i am getting anxious leaving the money sit in savings accounts but don't want to get burned in property as it looks like a bubble and i cannot win a bidding war as all properties are going for tens of thousands more than asking.

We're FTB couple but like you can wait a few years, in fact targeting 2-6 years of waiting as we want somewhere we'll stay for the duration of the mortgage ideally. I know people say there is a cost to waiting in the rent we lose and maybe house prices won't have dropped much.

But to be honest the main reason we're waiting is because we are waiting for greater supply and choice. I don't just mean new builds which will come on market, but also waiting for post-covid and post-Brexit sellers to start to put their properties on the market as they would've held off for these two big events the last 2 years. Combined with the new supply coming to market, while prices may not be much lower, at least there will be a bigger selection!

It's so easy to get sucked in to the hype of buying right now but you only have to look on MyHome to see what poor value places are available. Without wanting to wait forever, a few years on the fence will be beneficial, if not from a price perspective but nearly guaranteed from a supply perspective (including having a bigger deposit to be able to buy a more expensive place than we could buy if we bought now).

wassie

I don't disagree with all you are advocating, but I would take exception with a couple of statements you are using in support of you argument:

Yurt! wrote: »

The national broadband debacle is a classic example of the consequences. People in one-offs in the middle of nowhere on a huge whinge about not having fibre optic cable for Netflix. Many people predicted accurately that the provision of national broadband couldn't be delivered at reasonable cost, and lo and behold, all but one of the tendering parties pulled out. Who picks up the tab for the metastasising costs due to dispersed development? Johnny taxpayer of course. Deco in his council house indeed.

Is this not essential infrastructure that also contributes to increased productivity within in the economy? Surely the last 12 months (think WFH) has shown we need good broadband wherever we live. Its not all about streaming services. I would be of the view it the job of Government to fund infrastructure when the private sector wont because its not profitable/viable for them to do so.

Do you think the same argument was had with the electricity and telephone networks when they were rolled out?

Yurt! wrote: »

Another example: The An Post has undergone massive and controversial restructuring in recent years. It is a hard economic and social fact worldwide that the most expensive part of delivery and postal services is the last mile. An Post literally can't turn a buck anymore because of dispersed development, prompting the consolidation of post offices countrywide.

You are suggesting An Post has been forced to restructure due to the 'last mile' is misleading at best. Its always been this way and An Post are very efficient thanks to decades of experience delivering to the 'last mile'.

Like every other postal service in the developed world, An Post has been forced to restructure its business thanks to the internet. Consumers have been moving for the last two decades from traditional mail to digital communications. This is termed in the industry as “e-substitution”. Online shopping has resulted in more parcels. This is evidenced buy the the closure of the letter sorting facility at Cork 2 years ago and a new automated Dublin Parcels Hub near the airport last year.