ESRI: 2/3rds of people living in houses too big for their needs

[Purple]

Irish Times Article, More than two-thirds of people are living in homes too big for their needs, ESRI research finds.


In 1991 the average household size was 3.34 people. It is now 2.7. With a population of 5 million that means we need 1,852,000 housing units. If we had the same average household size as we did in 1991 we'd need 1,500.000 housing units or around 350,000 less than we have now. In other words due to the reduction in household size we've spent around a hundred billion euro building homes without housing any more people.

I've commented frequently here that the reduction in the average household size over the last 30 years is a major driver in our housing shortage. The reduction in household size alone has consumed around half of all of the accommodation we've built in the last 20 years. My contention is that there's no solution to our housing shortage without better utilisation of our existing housing stock and that can only be achieved with a significant increase inn property tax.

 

[TRS30]

Irish Times Article, More than two-thirds of people are living in homes too big for their needs, ESRI research finds.


In 1991 the average household size was 3.34 people. It is now 2.7. With a population of 5 million that means we need 1,852,000 housing units. If we had the same average household size as we did in 1991 we'd need 1,500.000 housing units or around 350,000 less than we have now. In other words due to the reduction in household size we've spent around a hundred billion euro building homes without housing any more people.

I've commented frequently here that the reduction in the average household size over the last 30 years is a major driver in our housing shortage. The reduction in household size alone has consumed around half of all of the accommodation we've built in the last 20 years. My contention is that there's no solution to our housing shortage without better utilisation of our existing housing stock and that can only be achieved with a significant increase inn property tax.

People are having smaller families.

Our neighbours, exact same size house had 7 kids, so 9 of them in total. We have 3 kids so 5, nearly half the household size.

Apologies for costing the state billions

 

[Premos]

In the survey, they don't take into consideration the Irish obsession with the number of rooms. Until recently at least, houses needed to have kitchen, dining room, sitting room... While open plan was already there in terms of continental Europe. Same thing in terms of bedrooms. I visited show houses where you couldn't fit a standard single bed.

 

[The Horseman]

Irish Times Article, More than two-thirds of people are living in homes too big for their needs, ESRI research finds.


In 1991 the average household size was 3.34 people. It is now 2.7. With a population of 5 million that means we need 1,852,000 housing units. If we had the same average household size as we did in 1991 we'd need 1,500.000 housing units or around 350,000 less than we have now. In other words due to the reduction in household size we've spent around a hundred billion euro building homes without housing any more people.

I've commented frequently here that the reduction in the average household size over the last 30 years is a major driver in our housing shortage. The reduction in household size alone has consumed around half of all of the accommodation we've built in the last 20 years. My contention is that there's no solution to our housing shortage without better utilisation of our existing housing stock and that can only be achieved with a significant increase inn property tax.

Typical Irish response lets punish those with tax rather than look at other alternatives. Why not just build smaller properties? Oh yet everybody wants a three bed semi and don't want to live in apartments.

Maybe a cultural change is whats needed rather than lets take the easy route and tax our way out of the situation.

 

[Purple]

People are having smaller families.

Our neighbours, exact same size house had 7 kids, so 9 of them in total. We have 3 kids so 5, nearly half the household size.

That's just one of the reasons.
Houses are bigger, families are smaller, there are fewer multigenerational households and people are living longer so older people end up living in large houses.

Apologies for costing the state billions

Children cost the State a fortune so thank you, there's a big saving there. It's far cheaper to import adults than grow them domestically from birth.

 

[Purple]

Typical Irish response lets punish those with tax rather than look at other alternatives. Why not just build smaller properties? Oh yet everybody wants a three bed semi and don't want to live in apartments.

We need smaller housing units in existing suburbs, not an easy task. We also need the incentive to encourage people to downsize into them.

Maybe a cultural change is whats needed rather than lets take the easy route and tax our way out of the situation.

How do we change the culture without some element of social engineering?

 

[T McGibney]

Houses are bigger, families are smaller, there are fewer multigenerational households and people are living longer so older people end up living in large houses.

Those trends won't reverse no matter how high you hike property tax.

If property tax were to be abolished tomorrow, the housing stock would soon increase.

How do we change the culture without some element of social engineering?

Over the past 15 years, the various attempts at social engineering in relation to housing have been disastrous failures.

 

[TRS30]

Over the past 15 years, the various attempts at social engineering in relation to housing have been disastrous failures.

Agreed, the best thing the government could do in the next 15 years is, nothing.

 

[T McGibney]

Agreed, the best thing the government could do in the next 15 years is, nothing.

It really has to reverse several of the worst policies it pushed during the past 15 years.

The over-elaboration of building standards, the heavy taxation of development gains, the other disincentives to new housing, and the various rent control measures all have to go.

 

[The Horseman]

We need smaller housing units in existing suburbs, not an easy task. We also need the incentive to encourage people to downsize into them.

How do we change the culture without some element of social engineering?

You hit the nail on the head "incentivise" not "punish".

Maybe people are held responsible for their actions and not everything is the States responsibility to provide. I will keep this specifically on housing my Dad's family (Dad is 85) grew up in council housing. First thing paid was the rent, it was the same with the vast majority of the neighbours if you did not pay you were evicted to a local army barracks where you shared all facilities with everyone. it did not take years to evict someone it was a relatively fast process. How long and drawn out is it now? I know of my local authority where tenants are in arrears to over €20k and the council need to go to court for the eviction process. How long has it taken to amass arrears of €20k taking account of the fact social/hap etc max rent contribution is €200 per week.

Is the current situation a result of social engineering as you suggest or people taking the easy way out because its allowed? Why did our culture change?

 

[Purple]

Those trends won't reverse no matter how high you hike property tax.

What evidence do you base that on?

If property tax were to be abolished tomorrow, the housing stock would soon increase.

Same question, what data led you to that opinion?

Over the past 15 years, the various attempts at social engineering in relation to housing have been disastrous failures.

What social engineering have they attempted? What I've seen is the State do the following;

• Throw money at the supply side while simultaneously becoming the biggest competitor to private buyers
• Increase the cost of building by increasing the State's burden on the developer
• Do nothing to reduce administrative delays an burdens caused by the State
• Exacerbate labour shortages in the construction sector by incentivising labour to move to retrofitting.

None of that is an attempt at social, it's knee-jerk populism and a failure to address the State's inefficiencies.

My post above was to highlight that our housing issues are not the result of a lack of building but rather a lack of utilisation of our current housing stock. One can say that's just the way it is and the cost of changing that puts an unacceptable burden on existing home owners and/or encroached too much on citizens property rights and they are all legitimate arguments, but lets not ignore the facts.

 

[T McGibney]

What evidence do you base that on?

I don't need evidence to know that a crippling increase in property tax is not going to encourage people to have larger families.

Same question, what data led you to that opinion?

I don't need data to know that property tax and various State charges are currently a disincentive to the restoration of currently uninhabitable buildings.

What social engineering have they attempted? ;

The most obvious one has been the facilitation of mass immigration without adequate measures to accommodate those who immigrate here.

 

[Purple]

You hit the nail on the head "incentivise" not "punish".

Maybe people are held responsible for their actions and not everything is the States responsibility to provide. I will keep this specifically on housing my Dad's family (Dad is 85) grew up in council housing. First thing paid was the rent, it was the same with the vast majority of the neighbours if you did not pay you were evicted to a local army barracks where you shared all facilities with everyone. it did not take years to evict someone it was a relatively fast process. How long and drawn out is it now? I know of my local authority where tenants are in arrears to over €20k and the council need to go to court for the eviction process. How long has it taken to amass arrears of €20k taking account of the fact social/hap etc max rent contribution is €200 per week.

I agree 100%

Is the current situation a result of social engineering as you suggest or people taking the easy way out because its allowed? Why did our culture change?

We are now a rights based society (with, it seems, no corresponding responsibilities) and we are the most socialist country in the EU. I don't like either of those things but that's the reason. I want to see lower income taxes and higher property taxes. I think that's fair and socially desirable if we want aa society based on equality of opportunity rather than inherited wealth. In economic terms what we have in our housing stock is hundreds of billions worth of badly utilised capital. We are seeing the social consequences of that every day.

 

[Purple]

I don't need evidence to know that a crippling increase in property tax is not going to encourage people to have larger families.

"Crippling" is a meaningless term in the context of this discussion. The objective is to get people to move to appropriately sizes homes, not to have larger families.

I don't need data to know that property tax and various State charges are currently a disincentive to the restoration of currently uninhabitable buildings.

Property tax is absolutely not a factor on the long list of disincentive to the restoration of currently uninhabitable buildings. Plus this is not a discussion about currently uninhabitable buildings, it's about the efficient utilisation of the current housing stock.

The most obvious one has been the facilitation of mass immigration without adequate measures to accommodate those who immigrate here.

The data shows us that we have more than enough accommodation, we just utilise it badly. Measures to better utilise that housing stock would be measures to adequately accommodate those immigrants.

 

[odyssey06]

A common factor in that article is apartments... which affects lack of downsizing options and the preference for housing.

Our apartment stock is awful compared to the other countries, and our regulations for dealing with issues a joke, everything is a civil matter.

If you want to tackle the issue properly look at that, property tax will not do it.

Another point is the government push to working from home, which increases the number of rooms utilised, something which the ESRI report did not factor in at all.

 

[T McGibney]

"Crippling" is a meaningless term in the context of this discussion. The objective tis to get people to move to appropriately sizes homes, not to have larger families.

Okay, leave it out and my point still stands - The trends to which you refer won't reverse no matter how high you hike property tax.

Property tax is absolutely not a factor on the long list of disincentive to the restoration of currently uninhabitable buildings.

The laws of economics suggest otherwise.

Plus this is not a discussion about currently uninhabitable buildings, it's about the efficient utilisation of the current housing stock.

It is to the point that parts of the current housing stock are clearly falling into dereliction.

The data shows us that we have more than enough accommodation

In your opinion.

I consider personal independence and family life to be too valuable to even countenance being forced either to share my home with neighbours or strangers or to move in with them.

Measures to better utilise that housing stock would be measures to adequately accommodate those immigrants.

Horses and stable doors come to mind.

 

[Purple]

A common factor in that article is apartments... which affects lack of downsizing options and the preference for housing.

Our apartment stock is awful compared to the other countries, and our regulations for dealing with issues a joke, everything is a civil matter.

If you want to tackle the issue properly look at that, property tax will not do it.

I agree. There's lots of things required to solve the problem.

Another point is the government push to working from home, which increases the number of rooms utilised, something which the ESRI report did not factor in at all.

Good points but how many people who work from home have a dedicated office?

 

[Purple]

The trends to which you refer won't reverse no matter how high you hike property tax.

What date leads you to that conclusion?

The laws of economics suggest otherwise.

I disagree.

It is to the point that parts of the current housing stock are clearly falling into dereliction.

A very small part. It's illogical to address that while we under utilise our existing suitable stock.

In your opinion.

Based on the date I presented.

I consider personal independence and family life to be too valuable to even countenance being forced either to share my home with neighbours or strangers or to move in with them.

Same here.

Horses and stable doors come to mind.

So should we spend tens or hundreds of billions building more under occupied homes?

 

[The Horseman]

I agree 100%

We are now a rights based society (with, it seems, no corresponding responsibilities) and we are the most socialist country in the EU. I don't like either of those things but that's the reason. I want to see lower income taxes and higher property taxes. I think that's fair and socially desirable if we want aa society based on equality of opportunity rather than inherited wealth. In economic terms what we have in our housing stock is hundreds of billions worth of badly utilised capital. We are seeing the social consequences of that every day.

How do you plug the gap of lower income tax revenue? You increase property taxes it then becomes uneconomic to house yourself (why bother) so how or who houses you? The State? then are we not becoming more socialist?

Access to education has never been easier to avail of, I grew up in the 80's and access to college was for the rich only. Now even one can access third and fourth level education (I did part time while working full time in the late 90's and into the early 00's) which helped me advance in my career.

Its easy to say there is a gap because of inherited wealth but while that may play a part in some situations it does not in the vast majority of situations.

 

[S class]

The average Irish bedroom can easily accommodate 2 bunk beds.
Therefore the average Irish 3 bedroomed house can easily accommodate 12 people.

My guess is that 99.9% of Irish homes are under utilised.