House prices

mariaalice

Came across this yesterday I did a historical calculator on the 1967 cost and in today's money and the cost is about it's about 53,000.

I am self-isolating and a bit bored:pac:

https://brandnewretro.ie/2015/04/11/house-of-the-year-1967-willow-park-grove-ballymun/

mariaalice

Also today they would be anything from 500k to 550k depending on how much work was done to it.

mloc123

It has also moved from Ballymun to Glasnevin in that time

gaming_needs90

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUFZ1_fC3Kw

Great video above on the housing crisis, from a world view. Basically housing used to be seen as a commodity really and wasn't the largest part of a persons spending. Mad to think of it that way now!

Also, the style of that house is the stuff of nightmares!

Allinall

The standards of kitchens have gone to hell in modern houses.

I've yet to see one of the new fancy kitchens in which a housewife would be happy to spend all day.

Where have we gone wrong?

mariaalice

mloc123 wrote: »

It has also moved from Ballymun to Glasnevin in that time

In fairness, the ad does say it's either Finglas or Glasnevin, or Ballymun.

What I am curious about is how difficult would it have been in 1967 for the average couple to buy a house that cost 3,950 with a 500 deposit.

Atlantic Dawn

It would be interesting to get a breakdown of materials costs back then and now to see if the level of those mirrors the cost of the house in today's money.

Allinall

Biggest driver of house prices back then was domestic rates.

They could often be 10% of the cost of a house. Each year!

gaming_needs90

Allinall wrote: »

Biggest driver of house prices back then was domestic rates.

They could often be 10% of the cost of a house. Each year!

I suppose as the relative price of the loan is low, the interest needs to be high to have a good profit. Again, as the loan is so low, the customer should be well able to pay the interest. As the price of loans went way higher, the rates came down.

What I am saying is I suppose its all relative at the end of the day

Marius34

mariaalice wrote: »

Came across this yesterday I did a historical calculator on the 1967 cost and in today's money and the cost is about it's about 53,000.

I am self-isolating and a bit bored:pac:

https://brandnewretro.ie/2015/04/11/house-of-the-year-1967-willow-park-grove-ballymun/

How did you end up with this costs? What's included in the price?

mariaalice

Marius34 wrote: »

How did you end up with this costs? What's included in the price?

http://www.hargaden.com/enda/inflation/calculator.html

I might have got it slightly wrong by not including the deposit but not by much

listermint

gaming_needs90 wrote: »

I suppose as the relative price of the loan is low, the interest needs to be high to have a good profit. Again, as the loan is so low, the customer should be well able to pay the interest. As the price of loans went way higher, the rates came down.

What I am saying is I suppose its all relative at the end of the day

Actually I doubt it's relative tbh.

Padre_Pio

listermint wrote: »

Actually I doubt it's relative tbh.

It's really not relative at all.

Marius34

mariaalice wrote: »

http://www.hargaden.com/enda/inflation/calculator.html

I might have got it slightly wrong by not including the deposit but not by much

link is just a calculator. Doesn't say anything what's included in the price. Does it includes house?

listermint

Marius34 wrote: »

link is just a calculator. Doesn't say anything what's included in the price. Does it includes house?

The price of the house is in the original image on the first post .........

Lmkrnr

The magazine rack cost £10 and house £1950. So the house was the same price as 195 magazine racks. How many racks would you get in today's market for the same house.

Marius34

listermint wrote: »

The price of the house is in the original image on the first post .........

Thanks! See now.
Calculator gives different:
£3950 in 1967 was worth about €80305.98 in 2020.
Obviously, still many times less from current price.
Not sure what's that mean "annual ground rent: £18"

listermint

Marius34 wrote: »

Thanks! See now.
Calculator gives different:
£3950 in 1967 was worth about €80305.98 in 2020.
Obviously, still many times less from current price.
Not sure what's that mean "annual ground rent: £18"

Very common back then to not own the freehold to the land the house was on. Often paying ground rent to land owner . Land owner could be historical or even the developer.

Marius34

Marius34 wrote: »

How did you end up with this costs? What's included in the price?

The price is on the ad. About £4K.

handlemaster

Allinall wrote: »

The standards of kitchens have gone to hell in modern houses.

I've yet to see one of the new fancy kitchens in which a housewife would be happy to spend all day.

Where have we gone wrong?

Wouldn't that go for everyone. Not many people would want to spend the whole day in a kitchen unless it was their employment

mariaalice

Anyone have any clue what sort of people would have been able to afford a house like that in 1967, was it considered expensive.

mariaalice

A glance through the employment advertisements in The Irish Times of January 1967, show wages that seem cruelly low. A salesman aged 25 could expect to earn £1,000 a year, one with more experience earned a mere £2,000.

County councils advertising for a temporary engineer were willing to pay just £1,490, office managers commanded £1,600, and Irish solicitors and barristers willing to work in South Africa for the year were being paid £3,000.

On these figures, then, a reasonable salary for a young professional was £1,500.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/you-have-had-it-so-good-in-1967-1.24919

listermint

mariaalice wrote: »

A glance through the employment advertisements in The Irish Times of January 1967, show wages that seem cruelly low. A salesman aged 25 could expect to earn £1,000 a year, one with more experience earned a mere £2,000.

County councils advertising for a temporary engineer were willing to pay just £1,490, office managers commanded £1,600, and Irish solicitors and barristers willing to work in South Africa for the year were being paid £3,000.

On these figures, then, a reasonable salary for a young professional was £1,500.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/you-have-had-it-so-good-in-1967-1.24919

So house was worth 2.5 times the average professional salary.

some random drunk

mariaalice wrote: »

Anyone have any clue what sort of people would have been able to afford a house like that in 1967, was it considered expensive.

My parents, then aged 25 and 23 bought a small 3 bed semi in what would have been considered the edge of Rathfarnham (ie the cheap part) for the same price (£4k) in the same year on a single income. It was still reasonably expensive and they could only afford to furnish the house one room at a time and initially had "the shame" of bare floorboards ( in a time when carpets were the fashion). But it was certainly a lot more doable than today even on 2 salaries for people in their 30s or 40s.

Philo62

mariaalice wrote: »

Came across this yesterday I did a historical calculator on the 1967 cost and in today's money and the cost is about it's about 53,000.

I am self-isolating and a bit bored:pac:

https://brandnewretro.ie/2015/04/11/house-of-the-year-1967-willow-park-grove-ballymun/

This is an interesting post.
I’m bored too, but remember my parents talking about these prices back then!

53k is off the mark though more like 102k
3,950 punts in euro is 5,012 & using inflation calculator would be almost 102,000 in today’s money

Other things to remember back then, interest rates way higher & max term on loan 20 years v 35 + nowadays. So much lower purchase prices but repayments i.e. affordability would be a lot closer.

mariaalice

Philo62 wrote: »

This is an interesting post.
I’m bored too, but remember my parents talking about these prices back then!

53k is off the mark though more like 102k
3,950 punts in euro is 5,012 & using inflation calculator would be almost 102,000 in today’s money

Other things to remember back then, interest rates way higher & max term on loan 20 years v 35 + nowadays. So much lower purchase prices but repayments i.e. affordability would be a lot closer.

Yeah, I might have been a bit of with calculation to modern prices but still seems to be a lot more affordable than it would be today.

Philo62

mariaalice wrote: »

Yeah, I might have been a bit of with calculation to modern prices but still seems to be a lot more affordable than it would be today.

Yes agree, houses are totally overpriced due to many reasons main one being supply currently far exceeding demand. We need government initiatives based on addressing supply not ones based on making houses more affordable. Making them more affordable simply means helping buyers pay these inflated prices & puts all burden on the poor buyers. Not a great time to have to buy in my opinion, we are at top of curve.

jimmycrackcorm

Philo62 wrote:

Yes agree, houses are totally overpriced due to many reasons main one being supply currently far exceeding demand. We need government initiatives based on addressing supply not ones based on making houses more affordable. Making them more affordable simply means helping buyers pay these inflated prices & puts all burden on the poor buyers. Not a great time to have to buy in my opinion, we are at top of curve.

Our STV political system makes it impossible to fix this problem as it reinforces parish pump politics over the common good.

It's the reason that politicians from all parties are objecting to developments on behalf of constituents instead of acknowledging that unpopular decisions need to be made.

Wesser

Beautiful house. Beautifully decorated with alot of style.