Housing crisis

There’s a lack of concrete evidence.

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Nothing I can do except let out a big durty fart

Ah!!! Have you been huffing and puffing and blowing the houses down?

Theys gone with the wind

van_beano wrote: »

...or a condominium crisis :cool:

..or a mews...people need more mews (not to be confused with Muse - no-one needs more Muse)

Maybe if Irish people didn't have such an elitist view when it comes to owning a house and would actually be happy with apartments, like most countries are, then there wouldn't be a crisis. Anything that is being built in Dublin is usually some massive housing estate that's just a complete waste of valuable land.

Considering the population of Dublin is predicted to grow by about 500,000 in the next 30 years then I don't see any of this getting solved anytime soon unless there's actually a proper effort put into building high-rise apartments.

Berserker wrote: »

It won't. It'll be health followed by personal debt.

The problems within the health sector are worse but for a smaller proportion of the population. I would agree that it is more hard-hitting but transport will affect more people on a day to day basis, and so will be picked up by the media before health. For example, there's a huge health crisis as we speak but the media is mostly favouring the housing crisis instead (in terms of coverage).

Edit: Regarding personal debt, struggling mortgages will be fine once the market reaches full employment and the properties hit the previous prices. I think rising wages will help that and also decrease the personal loan and credit card market.

This is a 30-year-old housing crisis.

Back in the late 80's/early 90's Ireland began to modernise rapidly. While much is documented about the massive social changes and improvement in standard of living, a huge change was never planned for, nor is it even being planned for today - the massive increase in urban population and modern living/work patterns.

Dublin was not suitable in 1990, and for it to double in population since then with very little change to the make-up of the city is the reason it is the disaster it is today where people pay several hundred thousand for a poorly built shoe-box that's over an hour's commute from their place of work.

Since 1990, Ireland has not just grown from a population of 3.5 million to 4.8 million (an extra 1.3 million people), there are a huge number of other factors:

• Modern work life tends to be city-based. As jobs (especially high-paying jobs) become more and more skilled and specialised, the more they need to be city-based to ensure a larger pool of potential employees. For example, a Software Company looking to hire 200 people is not going to set up in some town. While there may be 200 unemployed people in the town, there is no chance in hell that there will be 200 highly trained/experienced software developers/testers/managers etc. In the modern era, the purpose of a city is a place for potential employee and potential employer to come together. As a result, internal migration has resulted in a larger proportion of the population moving to our cities
• It's not just an extra 1.3 million people, the average household size has decreased. With the changes to social and financial circumstances, people are having less children, elderly relatives are more likely to live independently (and not with their adult children), parents no longer necessarily live together. As a result, a lot more houses are needed per 1,000 people than in 1990.
• Not only has Dublin been horribly unplanned, but it has become the focus of much of the growth. Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford still remain provincial towns compared to a modern city. Had there been even a little strategic thinking, these cities would be twice their current size and with far superior infrastructure. Instead, they are just mini-Dublins.
• Dual-income households are now the norm. Up to the 80's, the average family was only a single (probably low) income. Dual income households could often enjoy a very good standard of living. But, as it became the norm over the past 30 years, the bulk of that doubling of household income has gone towards bidding (be it rent or purchase) for the extremely limited number of suitable housing, resulting in rent/prices rocketing.
• In the absence of strategic urban planning, Dublin has simply sprawled. The more we tack housing estates on to the edge of Dublin, the worse the problem becomes. Cities are supposed to go up, not out. The more the sprawl, the more people need to travel to get to work, but without the density, there is no ability to support decent public transport. Hence Dublin relies pretty much on cars and ****ty bus service. Had Dublin been planned, the city center would hold at least 100,000 people more than it does today and the non-center city an additional 250,000. Not only does this result in more people being walking/cycling distance from their place of work, but it also justifies proper public transport due to the density. Imagine if Dublin had 3 underground train lines and 5 luas lines, all very fast, frequent and reliable, all interconnected, and the majority of the population living/working close to a stop. Car and buses would only be for the few people who live outside the city or have a non-standard route.

How long will their be a housing crisis? I predict at least another generation. it takes many years/decades to see the results of strategic planning. Given that we haven't even started yet, don't expect the situation to resolve itself any time soon.

Does that mean there won't be crashes etc? Of course. House prices don't reflect reality. As demand for the suitable housing drives up prices, people spend a greater percentage of their income on trying to get "somewhere livable". Likewise, the national mantra becomes "house prices/rent increases", and thus both buyer and seller (landlord and renter) settle for higher prices for accommodation that is not in short supply. There is no viable reason why house prices have been increasing in rural areas over the past 30 years. In many cases, the population has been decreasing (or growing an extremely slow pace). It is simply buyers/renters willing to pay large amounts, because they assume that they have to when it is not necessary (they are probably the only one bidding!). This keeps going until the bubble bursts. But once the bubble does burst, it starts over again (as we go back to "well, there is still a critical shortage of ideal housing!").

It's not just higher prices that are a result of the lack of strategic planning, its:

• people living in unsuitable/small housing
• people spending a huge proportion of their working day "commuting". Anything more than half an hour's commute should be viewed as the exception, not the norm. In dublin, commutes in excess of an hour have become "acceptable".
• a massive over-reliance on cars/oil. A modern city should see the majority of people take mass transport/walk/cycle to work/schools/shops/bars.
• a massive problem with anti-social behaviour. Much of the most desirable land (city centre) is in the hands of the non-working population who live in 2-story houses right bang where large office/apartment complex should be. This is no place to raise children - there is no hope for th vast majority of children raised in these circumstances. As a result, much of Dublin city center problem-areas are multi-generational.
• the introduction of "commercial parks" on the outskirts of the city. There really is nothing worse. Industrial parks make sens for factories that require huge horizontal space and large trucking both incoming and outgoing. Retail Parks makes sense for the large DIY/Furniture stores etc (along with the trucking required). But commercial offices are people-centric. The main focus points of where to place an office are:
  • somewhere where the vast majority of the city can easily commute to (if you place your office in an unsuitable location like city west, blanch or sandyford, you do not have a pool of 2 million potential employees, you have a tiny fraction of that who can easily commute to your stupid location.
  • excellent transport options that can handle the peak traffic hours (industrial/retail will be spread out throughout the day)
  • somewhere with a large selection of restaurants, bars, shops etc to support the human function of office work. The amount of people who work in these places who commute to the gray estates, work, go to the one nearby coffee shop, and commute home again in the evening. Compare that to their colleagues who work in city center offices who will often go out for lunch with colleagues, pints on a Friday evening, pop out to the shops/bank etc at lunch time or immediately after work.

emilymemily wrote: »

Is there anyway of solving it? whats causing it?

(1) Yes, reduce land and building costs, so as to boost supply.

(2) Demand exceeds supply.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Would helping to raise those asset prices cause problems for those that don't already own homes but would like to, and who truly gains from these rising asset prices, and what role does the financial sector play in all of this?

The only beneficiaries I can see from the housing crisis is the government's finance department and their exposure to bad loans, as well as the vulture funds (and lucky people) that snapped up the market between 08-13. That's not to mention the 50% of TDs who own property themselves. The financial sector is a business who will make as much money as legally possible. They will point to their regulators as a central governing body because if they don't they will lose their competitiveness.

whisky_galore wrote: »

So that's ok then... shur it'll be grand. Only those people who get sick with no health insurance, that must be a small number.

It's not like anyone's going to die or anything...

Sorry do you think I want one crisis over another? If you're asking me which should be fixed first, I will say health sector for the reasons you've indirectly outlined. If you're asking me which will get more publicity as being a 'crisis', and therefore more attention from the public and politicians, I'm afraid I feel it will be transport because the media and politicians work on the loudest problems, which are not necessarily the most severe.

Cina wrote: »

Maybe if Irish people didn't have such an elitist view when it comes to owning a house and would actually be happy with apartments, like most countries are, then there wouldn't be a crisis. Anything that is being built in Dublin is usually some massive housing estate that's just a complete waste of valuable land.

Considering the population of Dublin is predicted to grow by about 500,000 in the next 30 years then I don't see any of this getting solved anytime soon unless there's actually a proper effort put into building high-rise apartments.

part of the issue there is the state of renting in this country. In many European countries a tented home is just that - a home. You can decorate as you like, you supply your own furniture: you can more or less treat it as your own in that regard. Here you can’t even have a pet in rented accommodation. Rents are exhorbitant, there’s no security, and the state of some places is revolting.

Why should we build higher?

As houses are expensive now, people are forced to live in 60 - 80 sqm shoeboxes with tiny gardens. We better give them 60 - 80 sqm flats with balcony at the same costs.

As there is no densification, there is no real public transport to connect it. We better build towers of flats in city centre so people can walk and they don't need public transport at all.

As there is lack of skilled workforce building even simple house is expensive and poor quality. We better go for expensive high structures where there are much more quality factors like balconies or fire protection for example.

There is resistance for providing social housing because of social problems it can generate especially if densified. So we better provide those poor people with decent houses to help them to pursue working class we want to put into flats.