Can you afford a home?

pgj2015

L1011 wrote: »

There are more Michelin starred restaurants in Ireland outside of Dublin than in Dublin.

There are Starbucks fecking everywhere. But the number in Dublin City Centre has been declining for years.

Country living is ok but come on city living is very attractive to younger people especially. its easy to meet people of the opposite sex in a city by far compared to a town down the country.

Tony EH

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Time will tell.
WFH is still a novel concept. Employee engagement, especially new hires who have never stepped foot in an office or met a coworker in real life, will have to be monitored and measures.

Honestly, I don't think it's here to stay. Businesses will want a hybrid model (which my own employer is going for) but honestly that's the worst of both worlds IMO.

This is correct. Time will tell. But WFH is ONLY here because of Covid and, more than likely, it'll be whipped away once Covid is eliminated.

I think too many people look around at what they have right now and think that this is the way things are going to be from now on. But that's never the case and it never has been.

The "hybrid model" is only a temp measure, because Covid is still with us and probably will be from some time to come. But it won't be here forever...

...and neither will WFH.

I'm sorry to say.

Hello Moto GP

Tony EH wrote: »

This is correct. Time will tell. But WFH is ONLY here because of Covid and, more than likely, it'll be whipped away once Covid is eliminated.

I think too many people look around at what they have right now and think that this is the way things are going to be from now on. But that's never the case and it never has been.

The "hybrid model" is only a temp measure, because Covid is still with us and probably will be from some time to come. But it won't be here forever...

...and neither will WFH.

I'm sorry to say.

Thats just your opinion, the hybrid model will 100% definitely be hear to stay.

Whether its one day, two days or three days in the office it is here and is here to stay, especially in tech. Maybe some other industries it won't be such as finance and accountancy but it most tech companies there going to offer some sort of a hybrid model.

PauloMN

Tony EH wrote: »

This is correct. Time will tell. But WFH is ONLY here because of Covid and, more than likely, it'll be whipped away once Covid is eliminated.

I think too many people look around at what they have right now and think that this is the way things are going to be from now on. But that's never the case and it never has been.

The "hybrid model" is only a temp measure, because Covid is still with us and probably will be from some time to come. But it won't be here forever...

...and neither will WFH.

I'm sorry to say.

WFH was growing before we ever heard the word "Covid". The pandemic just accelerated the inevitable. Too many gains for employers not to expand it, esp international companies. That's why all the big companies have already offered it on a permanent basis if it suits the role.

Less costs also, half the number of desks in shiny Dublin office buildings. Once pandemic is over, lots of office space will be for hot-desking.

Tony EH

Hello Moto GP wrote: »

Thats just your opinion, the hybrid model will 100% definitely be hear to stay.

Whether its one day, two days or three days in the office it is here and is here to stay, especially in tech. Maybe some other industries it won't be such as finance and accountancy but it most tech companies there going to offer some sort of a hybrid model.

And that's just your opinion.

See how redundant that line is?

You sound terrified that WFH will be taken away from you. I understand that.

Tony EH

PauloMN wrote: »

WFH was growing before we ever heard the word "Covid".

On a low scale. A VERY low scale. I should know, I've be doing it years and pre-Covid everyone was jealous of it.

But it won't last in general. We just don't have the trust of employers to allow it to. Padre Pio is entirely correct. We'll see people gradually pulled back into the office. Based largely on bogus reasons of course. But it will still happen.

Hey, I'd be delighted if it didn't. But the odds are very much against it.

irishproduce

Realistically, single people are up against people who have managed to pair off and settle down the traditional way. Couples buying together ensure the prices remain high.
Might be time to think of matching off with a like minded person.

Hello Moto GP

Tony EH wrote: »

And that's just your opinion.

See how redundant that line is?

You sound terrified that WFH will be taken away from you. I understand that.

Nope my company employs 7,000 and allready have been told we are going hybrid post covid and numerous emails been sent out to all staff on it.

They are also after getting an agency who are going to inspect our home offices to make sure they are suitable working for working from home.

Why would I be worried

The Mighty Quinn

Tony EH wrote: »

We're in a country where most employers think that if you're "working" from home, you're really just **** on the web all day.

Rumbled. It's not all day, just some of the day, I'm not 22 any more ya know.

Get the daily procrasturbation outta the way to clear the mind and focus it

PauloMN

Tony EH wrote: »

On a low scale. A VERY low scale. I should know, I've be doing it years and pre-Covid everyone was jealous of it.

But it won't last in general. We just don't have the trust of employers to allow it to. Padre Pio is entirely correct. We'll see people gradually pulled back into the office. Based largely on bogus reasons of course. But it will still happen.

Hey, I'd be delighted if it didn't. But the odds are very much against it.

Well we'll have to disagree. I've been remote working 3 days a week for 15 years. More and more of my friends in different companies across different industries over that time have gone remote for 3 or 4 days per week. I'd say when I started WFH, I knew only 2 or 3 other people doing so.

Up to just before Covid, probably 50% of my friends are now doing WFH to some degree. Obviously at the moment that's probably around 75%. The rest are generally non-office jobs who can't remote work (teachers, drivers, factory workers, builders, hotel/leisure, healthcare etc.).

It will drop back a little once the pandemic is fully over, as roles which are not really suitable for WFH go back to the office, but the general trend is an increase in WFH for suitable roles, and that's undeniable really.

Tony EH

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

Rumbled. It's not all day, just some of the day, I'm not 22 any more ya know.

Get the daily procrasturbation outta the way to clear the mind and focus it

So long as it's during your lunch hour, I'd say you're grand.

mcmoustache

Tony EH wrote: »

It's certainly understandable. I work from home and have done since before Covid. My wife does now too, but her employer has already started the "we want you back in the office a couple of days a week", despite the fact that she doesn't need to be there at all. Working from home allows you a freedom that's fantastic.

But it's a fantasy that WFH will become the norm for everyone. It's just not going to happen.

And I MOST DEFINITELY would not be thinking of buying a house with that even remotely factored in.

When the company sent around a survey, I opted for 2 days in three from home. Then they sold the Dublin and London offices and changed my contract to a permanent home worker. It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts or our desire to work from home though. Our output is easily quantified as developers and nobody needs to see me in person so I've no doubt that this was purely financial.



That's very specific to my role in that industry though. My partner in the same industry will be going back to work at some point because there's more human-to-human stuff in her role.

Rikand

Everytime we get close to having enough money to own the house we want, the price has gone up. At this point, we're just gonna sit tight and hope that the crash comes soon

Tony EH

mcmoustache wrote: »

When the company sent around a survey, I opted for 2 days in three from home. Then they sold the Dublin and London offices and changed my contract to a permanent home worker. It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts or our desire to work from home though. Our output is easily quantified as developers and nobody needs to see me in person so I've no doubt that this was purely financial.

That's very specific to my role in that industry though. My partner in the same industry will be going back to work at some point because there's more human-to-human stuff in her role.

The vast majority of people didn't work from home pre Covid and the vast majority of people won't work from home post Covid either.

Frankly, I'd like to see WFH be a permanent situation for everyone. But it's not going to happen. We're still in Covid, so that's a factor. When we're out of it, things will start springing back to the way it was.

I've had a number of people (including the Mrs.) already tell me that their company's have floated the idea of going back in (with the sweetener that it's "only" a couple of days a week). Absolutely nobody is that enthused by the idea. And we're not even out of the Covid woods yet and won't be until next year probably.

When Covid is eventually gone, I have no doubt that we'll see things change.

Green Mile

Amazes me that people think the next recession will mean property prices will fall.
There won’t be a property crash anytime soon. There’s simply no supply to meet demand and demand is growing much faster than people want to believe.
High profile investment managers, investment companies and pension fund managers know this all too well and where are they putting their clients money? Irish property.
Even if the government gave away land to developers for free, gave them tax breaks and physical cash to build, where will they get the skilled labour? Building materials increasing in price is another factor. It’ll take years for supply come around.
If people want to wait for a crash, fair play, it releases some pressure for those who are currently buying.

Padre_Pio

PauloMN wrote: »

Well we'll have to disagree. I've been remote working 3 days a week for 15 years.

Bit of a redundant argument.
When you started WFH, you'd be hard pressed to stream YouTube on the average Irish internet.

WFH will stay for some, hybrid for others, but millions will be pulled back into offices over the next few months. Slowly but surely. People keep referencing MNCs and tech companies, but there are a huge minority of employers in the country.

For every Google and Facebook there's a thousand small companies who need people back in the offices, even if it's to train and oversee new hires, pass on skills etc.

Tony EH wrote: »

I've had a number of people (including the Mrs.) already tell me that their company's have floated the idea of going back in (with the sweetener that it's "only" a couple of days a week). Absolutely nobody is that enthused by the idea. And

Exactly this.
Your company will do what it wants to do. Not what the employees want. I want to live in Spain and work 2 days a week. My employer will tell me to f*ck off and get back to work.

I would encourage anyone making any life decisions to get WFH guaranteed in your contract immediately.

I've started a thread a month back where we're "encouraged" to WFH so the company can downsize their premises which many employees love.

People are talking about buying houses down the country etc, but none of this is set in stone. There's already rumours of 2 days in office a week required.

Hybrid working IMO is the worst of both worlds. You have to live within commutable distance and also give a portion of your home over to office space.

Gekko

Around 2009 when prices were at rock bottom after the crash was the time to buy…if you had the cash - which I didn’t

Prices have rocketed by 25-35% in places in Ireland in the past few years. It’s shocking

Meanwhile inflation is creeping up and people can get no interest - or negative interest if you’re wealthy - on their savings.

Pay doesn’t really seem to be going up either

It’s a triple or even quadruple whammy

Dublin offers very poor value. Compare it to certain parts of the UK, or Lisbon or Berlin, and compare the amenities and quality of life, and rarely if ever does Dublin come out better if you don’t have a specific reason to be there

Other cities and provincial towns much more attractive as long as they had good broadband, even better if they have a train station

Potential-Monke

I had a home once. Could I afford it then (2009)? Not really, but I still got it. I could have afforded the repayments if they didn't nearly double in a few years, but it got to the stage where I had to cut my losses and take the hit, mainly because in order to keep up the repayments, I would have had to rent out a room, and that completely defeats the purpose of having my own house.

I really shouldn't have got it though, there was some very grey area stuff that happened regarding the deposit, as advised by the credit union. Being younger and more carefree, I didn't cop the full extent of what I was doing. I 90% regret buying a house. The house itself was lovely, semi-d with, thankfully, excellent neighbours just slightly older than me. Estate was lovely, 95% owner-occupied and the rest privately rented. No issues, 2 min drive to the "city" centre but because it's across a bridge it was "out of town". Loved it and the freedom of owning you own house. Only took about 12 months for reality to kick in the front door and make itself at home. And 12 months after that it all went downhill from there, mortgage kept going up due to changing from fixed to variable as per contract. Faults started to show themselves, the realisation of all the costs of owning coming in at once... I wasn't prepared. I'm sure even if I knew all this was coming, it wouldn't have mattered.

I loved living there, but in the end I had to sell for my own mental health on top of everything. Unless I could straight up buy a house with no mortgage, I would never buy a house again. Maybe if the mortgage was, for some unknown reason, ~50k, I'd be tempted. I prefer the freedom of renting, but I'm basing that on pre-mortgage as I've been living at home since I had to sell, so I really don't know what the rental market is like right now, and I'm pretty sure I'd have a miserable existence trying to afford it by myself, or having to share. With other people. And I'm 38.

My only hope of having my own place now is when the parents pass, they are leaving me in the house to live as long as my 4 siblings don't mind. And they've all said they don't, and we're a pretty cool family insofar as we don't annoy each other too much. But, all that could go tits up when the allure of €40-60k is there. If that happens, will have to sell because I'm not dealing with family fallout over property. My own amount would be enough for a deposit if some financial institution is stupid enough to offer me a mortgage, but that would mean getting a mortgage in my (hopefully) mid 40's up. What's the point at that stage?!

Burt Renaults

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Single people in Dublin pretty much don't stand a chance. If you're on 60k a year, you'll get a mortgage of 210k. A 30k deposit means you can afford a place that costs 240k. What the fúck can you get in Dublin for that?

A quick search of houses for sale in South County Dublin reveals 169 with asking prices of less than €250,000. Broadening that search to cover all of Dublin (including... urgh... the northside... *vomits*), there are 448 houses for sale for <€250k. Everything from well-built former council houses to Celtic Tiger apartments.

jimmycrackcorm

Padre_Pio wrote:

Why should people compete to buy a place to live? Since when does the build cost of a house have anything to do with the sale price?

Actually the build cost is a very significant part of the cost. If you don't believe me then do as I have done which is find out for insurance purposes how much a rebuild cost is if you have a your house destroyed by fire.

And in the real world, people do compete to buy a place, it's not as if houses get handed out.

HalfAndHalf wrote:

I can’t work out if this is a joke or not?

There was a time when houses were of a reasonable enough price (as they should be) that YOU could buy it as a single applicant. But now that shouldn’t be the case?

No they weren't. My parents house was dirt cheap but their income was poverty line.

HalfAndHalf wrote:

Am I reading this right? So you’re basically saying you were alright but why should anyone else be? That’s just an insane mindset.

I never said anything of the sort. I just questioned why some one considers it an automatic right for a single income earner to own a house. Because that's not the real world. I'm open to correction, but I'd like to see how that works for someone in Dublin on an income of 25k for example...

The DayDream

Nope and I never will.

My parents always rented and we lived in a different country for a while. Nothing about home ownership was ever explained to me growing up. I moved out started renting at 19. When we moved back to Ireland the 08 recession followed quickly.

I've never had the opportunity to save a deposit, everything went to rent and bills and life is expensive. I earn a modest wage and am single, 40, no kids. I can't even afford a 1 BR fkin apartment.

As a kid I never would have imagined an adult with a job would be in this position. Even if I could afford a house I'd be disgusted with what you get for your money here, half a mill for houses where the bedrooms are basically the size of a bed and enough room to walk around the bed, sometimes just one side of the bed, no basement no garage, you still need to have your kitchen double as a laundromat or use the spare room for ironing.

Oh, and theyre all riddled with damp.

The future is going to be even more dystopian. These vulture fund fks are going to build communal living spaces for all the middle aged people like me to live like kids in college dorms.

It's pretty disheartening. If you don't have a well paid job in tech, finance, or medical field you better get coupled up or you're pretty screwed.

Jim2007

The DayDream wrote: »

It's pretty disheartening. If you don't have a well paid job in tech, finance, or medical field you better get coupled up or you're pretty screwed.

The need to own ones home is an anglosphere thing. There are millions of people all over Europe how don’t own their own home, will never own their own home and don’t even have such an objective.

How exactly is a housing policy based on requiring people to take on huge debt or rely on social services to put a roof over one’s head a smart idea?

Convincing people that renting is dead money, it brings no utility or satisfaction was brilliant marketing on the side of the building industry. Of course if you really believed in the concept of dead money, there is a lot more pressing expenditure that the concept should apply to.

Actually if people did apply the concept of dead money to all their expenditure, they might be in a better position to own a house.

Mister Vain

Potential-Monke wrote: »

My only hope of having my own place now is when the parents pass, they are leaving me in the house to live as long as my 4 siblings don't mind.

Same here. I always had a job until Covid. Currently training for a job that would pay more, but even at that I'd only really have enough to afford rent.

galson

I can't, because I can't save for the deposit because I have to pay high rent because me and my family have to live somewhere. Otherwise I'd save for a nice deposit within two years. It's a vicious circle. And depressing really.

I dont think anyone knows the answer more so for a person buying on their own on average salaries.

Those I know who purchased recently were a couple and one spent 3 years living with parents to save for a deposit. They had very average salaries as well.


No one is going to have any sympathy for someone who is picky, won't compromise, has to live in a certain area, or who starts saying it's always better somewhere else.

One of the better commentators on this is Rory Hearne, but even he sometimes goes for the housing market is a free market conspiracy to make fat cats fatter which it is not.

The first person/politician who says it's a very complex issue with no easy answers and someone's going to lose out will get my vote because it's honest.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/rory-hearne-some-serious-political-noise-needs-to-be-made-if-our-dysfunctional-housing-system-is-to-be-fixed-38539234.html

PauloMN

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Bit of a redundant argument.
When you started WFH, you'd be hard pressed to stream YouTube on the average Irish internet.

WFH will stay for some, hybrid for others, but millions will be pulled back into offices over the next few months. Slowly but surely. People keep referencing MNCs and tech companies, but there are a huge minority of employers in the country.

For every Google and Facebook there's a thousand small companies who need people back in the offices, even if it's to train and oversee new hires, pass on skills etc.

It's not a redundant argument, if you read it in context. The point is the number of people I knew WFH back then compared with just before Covid. Significant increase in numbers. Of course internet speeds have helped, that's one of the driving factors.

As for referencing big tech companies, the point is they tend to set the bar in the industry for employee packages. Other smaller companies will need to offer similar WFH/hybrid working to get employees, it's as simple as that. Companies are struggling to get employees, if they don't offer WFH or hybrid working when they can, they will lose out on employees. For what it's worth, I work in a small company (less than 20 employees) and pre-Covid, probably 90% of the staff were either fully remote or doing 1 to 2 days in the office - so there are small companies offering these things already.

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Hybrid working IMO is the worst of both worlds. You have to live within commutable distance and also give a portion of your home over to office space.

It's not so binary though, it's not just a case of a house in a city vs. a house in the arsehole of nowhere. There are plenty of nice towns and villages within commutable distances of bigger towns and cities where jobs are, that will allow for a reasonable commute once or twice per week, with WFH the rest. You can probably get twice the space for the same money in those locations (or a much cheaper house of the same size if money is an issue). It's all about balance. Best of both worlds rather than the worst of both worlds imo, but it all depends on your perspective I suppose.

Padre_Pio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Why should people compete to buy a place to live?
Since when does the build cost of a house have anything to do with the sale price?

Since always, any news article about building in Dublin has builders saying its not economical to build houses for less than 350, due to land prices, building costs, fees etc.

I used to work for a larger house builder years ago, and while they add a GOOD chunk onto the sale price, they did also have 30% most building costs in Dublin vs lets say Limerick. I remember back in 2006, a 2 acre plot in Dublin going for 500k, out beyond drumcondra, cant remember the area.

Padre_Pio

Skyrimaddict wrote: »

Since always, any news article about building in Dublin has builders saying its not economical to build houses for less than 350, due to land prices, building costs, fees etc.

I used to work for a larger house builder years ago, and while they add a GOOD chunk onto the sale price, they did also have 30% most building costs in Dublin vs lets say Limerick. I remember back in 2006, a 2 acre plot in Dublin going for 500k, out beyond drumcondra, cant remember the area.

There's your issue then.

Why does a 2 acre site cost 500k?
2 acres of agricultural land costs maybe 25k in Dublin county.

Because the seller knows that if you build 8 houses on it you can make X amount of money.
So the seller prices your potential profit into his sales price.

You take on the risk, the seller profits immediately.

AlmightyCushion

Burt Renaults wrote: »

A quick search of houses for sale in South County Dublin reveals 169 with asking prices of less than €250,000. Broadening that search to cover all of Dublin (including... urgh... the northside... *vomits*), there are 448 houses for sale for <€250k. Everything from well-built former council houses to Celtic Tiger apartments.

Another person who does a quick search and thinks every thing is grand without actually looking at the data. Properties are going way over asking. If you have 240k to buy, you really need to be looking at places around 210k max to allow for bidding to push the price up.

If you look at 210k and under, you are talking about 100 places in all of Dublin. Of that 100, about 6 are sites that would need a significant amount of money to build something on. A few more are student apartments which you can't actually live in and are only for investment so they are out. A couple more are auctions where the AMV is typically advertised very low so usually go over so they are likely out as well. So, that leaves about 90. Of that 90, a lot of the actual places are not great. One is only a 27m squared studio. A lot would either be in pretty bad areas, are small 1 beds (Some, if not all, banks require a 30% deposit for 1 beds) or ages away from the city centre on public transport.

TP_CM

Another thing which has changed is people's expectations of what they need to get sorted in their 20s. Previously people were settling down, or houses were on their mind aged 22 or 23 because their 'home home' was either too religious or restrictive or was full to the brim of other kids and the idea of living abroad was too obsurd. Whereas now there's a "I could be anywhere in the next few years" mindset. Even going to Europe on hols back then was fairly exotic, whereas now a lot of 20-something year olds are paying thousands going to South America, Asia, America/Canada. Then in their 30s they're suddenly realising that they want a home and they've no money despite the fact they've been of working age for over a decade.

If a person leaves college now, they're made to believe they've wasted their 20s if they save any money towards a deposit instead of going out to see the world. There's benefits to both, I definitely get the idea of going fruit picking down in Oz for a year or whatever the lads were doing. You keep those memories and that experience with you forever. My own approach was to gamble and do some version of all that travel in my 50s. So I saved for a house from age 21. They've loads of amazing memories from around the world, I have nothing really but late nights in a back office in Dublin. But they're back, living at home, and I've the mortgage half paid off. They'd love what I have now, but they wouldn't trade any of their memories for it.

Tony EH

Jim2007 wrote: »

The need to own ones home is an anglosphere thing. There are millions of people all over Europe how don’t own their own home, will never own their own home and don’t even have such an objective.

While owning one's home is very much a Thatcherite ideal and wasn't as widespread before the 80's, you aren't comparing like with like with regards to renting.

Renting in Ireland is a disastrous enterprise and only done when there's no choice, which for far too many of our people is the case. Nobody in their right mind would actually want to rent long term in this country as it's just not viable. Land lords are charging Manhattan style prices for mickey mouse properties and tenants subjected to 12 month leases that only exist to allow a land lord to up the rent every year. You're never sure where you are going to be living from one year to the next when you rent privately in Ireland. And that's no use at all when you reach a certain age and settling down becomes part of your life. Dicking about here and there in your 20's is fine. In your mid 30's and up, you start thinking seriously about where you are going to live, work, send the kids to school and whole lot of other stuff that requires a stable home.

It's a bloody joke.

In Europe (Spain, France, Germany) I know people from families that never owned their own house/apartment, but have still lived in their HOME for generations. It used to be like that here too for a lot of people. But that was 30 years ago. These days the Irish tenant is at the mercy of a land lord class that's probably the worst of its type in Europe and stuck in the worst type of renting arrangement too.

That's why in Ireland the desire to own one's home is an "objective" that isn't a necessity on the Continent. It's because the alternative is shit.

Creamy Goodness

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Another person who does a quick search and thinks every thing is grand without actually looking at the data. Properties are going way over asking. If you have 240k to buy, you really need to be looking at places around 210k max to allow for bidding to push the price up.

If you look at 210k and under, you are talking about 100 places in all of Dublin. Of that 100, about 6 are sites that would need a significant amount of money to build something on. A few more are student apartments which you can't actually live in and are only for investment so they are out. A couple more are auctions where the AMV is typically advertised very low so usually go over so they are likely out as well. So, that leaves about 90. Of that 90, a lot of the actual places are not great. One is only a 27m squared studio. A lot would either be in pretty bad areas, are small 1 beds (Some, if not all, banks require a 30% deposit for 1 beds) or ages away from the city centre on public transport.

Yup the asking prices are an absolute sham, PPR is the only real answer.

Adding a data point here; house in my estate is being sold already, original owners bought for €x amount in 2018 (PPR confirmed), it went on daft asking for €x + 105k, it sold for €x + 175k (PPR confirmed). It was sold within 7 days (according to sold sign outside the house) to a cash buyer (confirmed with the seller). Basing anything of asking prices especially in high demand areas is totally missing the real issue.

vixdname

Yes, I can afford my own house, but luck has been good to me over the years.

I originally bought a 3 bed semi with my wife in a small town 10 mins outside Waterford city in 2004.

A year later I sold it with a 70k profit.

I moved further away from Waterford, 25 mins, and bough a 2000 sq ft house on circa .9 of an acre for 33k more then I had sold my little 3 bed semi.

We weathered the storm of the financial crash of 2008 onwards and never went into negative equity.

Now in 2021, my home has just sold leaving me a clear profit of 157k, Im investing in an old house (50s built) in a very nice part of the city suburbs but literally 10 mins by car to the city centre with, as lots of old properties have, a huge garden (.15 acre) with lots of room for an extension.

It needs doing up but I'll hold off until raw materials prices lessen from their current highs and will throw about 100k into modernizing it.

So revamped house, smaller mortgage, house with great excellent growth potential and cash left over.

Try to do any of the above on our salaries in Dublin.....not a chance

Padre_Pio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

There's your issue then.

Why does a 2 acre site cost 500k?
2 acres of agricultural land costs maybe 25k in Dublin county.

Because the seller knows that if you build 8 houses on it you can make X amount of money.
So the seller prices your potential profit into his sales price.

You take on the risk, the seller profits immediately.

Oh, I agree fully, the price goes up because the seller has something they know is wanted, the land, and the price shoots up. I mean, when I was young we had 2.1 acres of land at the home house, for one house, and while big it wasn't massive.
You're actually dead right, 8 three beds were built on the land, cost of around 300K per unit at the time, nice houses and a few mins out from town, but tight on space. Overall profit on the job was around 280K.

I know myself also, from when the help to buy scheme was ( or is ) running, estate agents and builders very literally just added the extra costs on to the sale price, knowing full well the new homeowner would pay, thinking they got a deal at 5% of the deposit needed.

No one gets into house building for the fun of it, but the price of houses is fueled by ALL OUR greed and then driven by even more greed.
Let's be honest, I bought my house for 180K years back. I have put around 50k into it to make it bigger and nicer. Im in the hole for 230K.
My house value now is around 380K give or take, and if I sell I will want that. That is me looking to maximise my profit, and we all do it the same. But that means for what I got for 230 overall will make me another 150K.

Id love to be noble enough to think I will sell to a nice family and take the basic price, but we wont, we all want to be rewarded for the house we built and loved.
that then means that a new family who my house would be ideal for, now cant afford it !

Yellow_Fern

Padre_Pio wrote: »

There's your issue then.

Why does a 2 acre site cost 500k?
2 acres of agricultural land costs maybe 25k in Dublin county.

Because the seller knows that if you build 8 houses on it you can make X amount of money.
So the seller prices your potential profit into his sales price.

You take on the risk, the seller profits immediately.

The 2 acres are intrinsically more useful than farmland. I am pretty sure the seller is taking on the risk, if the markets turns he wont be able to sell the houses. Now there is a model where the seller would buy the site in an estate and then develop it and its popular in one part of the Netherlands but it is quite unusual.

Mimon

Just about could. Bought 5 years ago just before they started rising sharply.

Even then couldn't afford to buy near work so have to commute 45km.

steddyeddy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Originally we had single-income-wife-at-home purchasers of houses. Then things progressed so for a long time, it was dual-income couples who bought houses. Where did the idea come from, that it should revert to single-income buyers being able to?

I suppose some people would think it doesn't have to be an either or situation. Couples don't deserve it more than singles and vice versa.

Padre_Pio

Skyrimaddict wrote: »

Id love to be noble enough to think I will sell to a nice family and take the basic price, but we wont, we all want to be rewarded for the house we built and loved.
that then means that a new family who my house would be ideal for, now cant afford it !

Thank you for the refreshingly honest response.

This is the core of the issue.

People have been told for 50 years that if you buy a house, it will appreciate and you can retire or pass on the money to your kids.

But we're at a point where buyer can barely afford housing without 3+ years of living at home and saving, and mortgaged to the hilt.

So 80% of properties are for sale in the 200-600k region.

200k because that's around the max your average first time buyer couple can afford.

600k because that's the max that most people in Ireland(even those trading up) can afford.

So 80% of properties, regardless of size, location, age, maintenance etc are in that bracket. It has little to do with the cost of materials or labour. It has everything to do with how much money can be squeezed out of buyers.

It's the same with the example of 2 acres in Drumcondra. Agricultural land is 15k an acre in Dublin. The same land rezoned for residential is worth 250k an acre.

It's like a farmer selling wheat for the same price as a loaf of bread.

jester77

Bought 8 years ago, and only really bought because we were starting a family, so having some extra space and a garden were the major influences. I had been working around 15 years at that stage so had a decent 6 figure deposit available. I thought the house prices were mad at that time, but now the prices are just stupid. Nothing under 700k where I live, and yet people are paying that. Their kids will have to inherit their mortgages.

Yellow_Fern

Tony EH wrote: »

While owning one's home is very much a Thatcherite ideal and wasn't as widespread before the 80's, you aren't comparing like with like with regards to renting.

Renting in Ireland is a disastrous enterprise and only done when there's no choice, which for far too many of our people is the case. Nobody in their right mind would actually want to rent long term in this country as it's just not viable. Land lords are charging Manhattan style prices for mickey mouse properties and tenants subjected to 12 month leases that only exist to allow a land lord to up the rent every year. You're never sure where you are going to be living from one year to the next when you rent privately in Ireland. And that's no use at all when you reach a certain age and settling down becomes part of your life. Dicking about here and there in your 20's is fine. In your mid 30's and up, you start thinking seriously about where you are going to live, work, send the kids to school and whole lot of other stuff that requires a stable home.

It's a bloody joke.

In Europe (Spain, France, Germany) I know people from families that never owned their own house/apartment, but have still lived in their HOME for generations. It used to be like that here too for a lot of people. But that was 30 years ago. These days the Irish tenant is at the mercy of a land lord class that's probably the worst of its type in Europe and stuck in the worst type of renting arrangement too.

That's why in Ireland the desire to own one's home is an "objective" that isn't a necessity on the Continent. It's because the alternative is shit.

Thatcher was right about owning a home. Selling off council housing was always done but is increased a lot in in the 1990s and it gave a great leg up to a lot of working class people. It wasnt a mistake.


I don't agree with your assessment. In any rural area in France or Germany homeownership is a common goal. Its just not reasonable in very expensive cities. It is true that Irish prices have jumped like crazy but that is partially due to our crazy population growth rate

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?end=2020&locations=IE-FR-DE&start=1989

fret_wimp2

pgj2015 wrote: »

I have to agree. most landlords are greedy misers who wont even fix your shower if it breaks but still expect you to pay your rent and suck it up.

I must be very lucky. Have lived in 5 rented properties, one was with a live in landlord.

Every one of them was very fair, quick to fix issues and the last one even kept the rent artificially low by quite a bit as she said it was better having good tenants than higher rent but being constantly worried about the place or rent being paid.

No doubt there are some negligent landlords, but my experience says they are in the minority. Perhaps I'm a statistical anomaly.


To the OP, yes i can afford a home in a decent place. Its not my first choice of location or house, but that was out of the price range so i adjusted expectations accordingly.

divillybit

As another poster mentioned, I think people in their early 20's need to very conscious of starting to save for a property as soon as they start their working career... for most it's the age when they have the most disposable income. I had this mindset from my early 20's, as I saw my siblings houses went into negative equity. A book by Derek Braun called Irelands House Party was the best book I ever bought as it got me into the mindset for buying a house and learning about interest rates, negative equity, etc. When I started working in 2008 as the crash was accelerating I wasn't on great money but I did all the overtime I could, and had a good night out every week or two to keep me sane. I bought a new build house in a nice easte in the Midlands in late 2015, by that time I had 80% of the price of the house in savings. Getting a good chunk of money saved in my 20's enabled me to buy my house and I had it paid off by the time I was 33.. Had I gone travelling in my 20's it probably would have set me back buying a place by several years. Alot of my mates went travelling and pricking about, they enjoyed themselves for sure but it set them back alot in terms of their work experience and what they could have saved, and being able to buy a place when property prices were more reasonable. But each to their own.

Burt Renaults

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Another person who does a quick search and thinks every thing is grand without actually looking at the data. Properties are going way over asking. If you have 240k to buy, you really need to be looking at places around 210k max to allow for bidding to push the price up.

I didn't say everything is grand, just that it's not as bleak as it's sometimes painted. Also, thanks to improved transport and communication, buying outside of Dublin isn't as big a deal as it once was. And this is far from a new phenomenon. Forty years ago, my parents (both Dubs, on decent salaries) were "forced out of Dublin" by house prices.

Physeter

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

Terrible, awful idea. You'd have people building fire hazard death traps, or people building freezing crap buildings to rent to desperate people.

This wouldn't really be a problem though.

A landlord is smart enough not to invest in some log cabin build that is under minimum square footage as a credible addition to their portfolio. A cabin or bespoke build under minimum square footage can be perfectly safe to live in?

kippy

Jim2007 wrote: »

The need to own ones home is an anglosphere thing. There are millions of people all over Europe how don’t own their own home, will never own their own home and don’t even have such an objective.

How exactly is a housing policy based on requiring people to take on huge debt or rely on social services to put a roof over one’s head a smart idea?

Convincing people that renting is dead money, it brings no utility or satisfaction was brilliant marketing on the side of the building industry. Of course if you really believed in the concept of dead money, there is a lot more pressing expenditure that the concept should apply to.

Actually if people did apply the concept of dead money to all their expenditure, they might be in a better position to own a house.

We live in a country where renting longterm is not an ideal scenario for any number of reasons (unlike some of the countries you may be thinking of) Until that changes its preferable for most to buy.
It's not necessarily dead money, you are paying for a service after all, but that service is not necessarily suitable for everyone at every life stage.
The building 'industry' don't really care of the end owner of the property they are building plans to live in it long term or rent it out long term. It literally makes no odds to them(particularly in the current market) - everyone needs a roof over their head.
The 'rent is dead money' folks are mostly an older generation who had things MUCH tougher than almost anyone of my own generation that I know of and who have a point depending on your standpoint

em_cat

This thread irks me somewhat, I can afford my home and it is mine, not the banks as I’m not mortgaged. I also own outright a small 2 up 2 down that has a small family in it, since 2008, they rented it unfurnished, it truly looks & feels like their home and I don’t charge extortionate rent nor do they want to move so it’s a win win for both of us.

I’ve an an incredibly difficult time finding sympathy for people who are complaining that they are priced out of the Dublin market, it’s like they don’t get the whole supply vs demand and live within your means.

Burt Renaults

em_cat wrote: »

I’ve an an incredibly difficult time finding sympathy for people who are complaining that they are priced out of the Dublin market

I've removed the superfluous part of your post.

We probably need two streams of discussion, one for the Dublin/ Greater Dublin Area, and one for the rest of the country. There are parts of the country where you could get a mortage approval on a single, average-industrial salary. That's as it should be.

I have/had (selling) a home in Dublin based on a swap with a relative who'd retired and wanted to relocate to her homeplace. If it wasn't for that, I couldn't have afforded a house in Dublin in a month of Sundays. Couldn't even afford something on the edge of the city.

Even so, the mortgage repayments at fair value would be cheaper than the rent I was paying on a small flat in the same location.

It's a bit of a sickener. The only people under 40 whom I know, who are living in 3-bed semis are doing so because of similar switches, usually with their own parents. That's no way to organise a community.

The present situation rewards inheritance instead of hard work, which is a recipe for disaster, politically and socially.

In Dublin Bay South, for example, Fine Gael had 2 TDs in the previous Dail term. After the next by-election, there's a real chance of two SF TDs, or at least no FG representatives. That's a reflection of how pissed-off people are becoming, especially those with growing families.

Jim2007

Tony EH wrote: »

That's why in Ireland the desire to own one's home is an "objective" that isn't a necessity on the Continent. It's because the alternative is shit.

And it will remain so, so long as the voter believes that improving and repeating the same failed housing policy is the solution. I have no idea how bad things have to get before people start demanding alternative solutions, but I have a it going to be some time.