I'm sure there's a variety of reasons.
But where do we want new builds. Where there's an existing surplus or a shortage.
Irish Times: "Banning of bedsits set in train housing disaster"
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
I'm sure there's a variety of reasons.
But where do we want new builds. Where there's an existing surplus or a shortage.
That was the problem during the boom, as pointed out by Ronan Lyons in the article I linked to, building was driven by tax breaks, not market demand.
We need building where there is demand but what's really needed is new residential units. The grants being given out for home retrofits are great but a similar scheme to convert the semi-used over the shop type units would could be very good value for money. That would also create supply at the lower end of the market, in areas with existing population density and near public transport links.
Edit: Apparently there are plans afoot for that very thing.
They are pushing up house prices, which you said wasn't the case. They are pushing up rents at pace in the main urban centres.
They are buying higher priced units. There's no evidence that they are pushing up prices.
From your link "Mr McCartney said those properties might not have been developed if those arrangements had not been in place."
The issue is lack of supply. I don't understand the hostility towards capital in-flows that fund extra supply.
Pointing out what's happening is not hostility.
Supply without context is meaningless
Prices are rising. What other proof is needed?
The causes are multifaceted. But in the context of rent controls, they haven't worked. Partly because they favor the new rental over an existing one. They favor a large landlord over a small one. Thus ultimately don't stop price rises in fact they encourage.
If I'm a landlord with a property on a low rent. I makes sense for me to sell up, no one else can raise the rent on that property. I can then create a new rental somewhere else and raise the rent. There are costs to change. But in a constantly rising market. All I'm doing is adding value on my investment. I will get more rent and the property will be worth more.
If I think the risk of the price falling or a problem tenant is too high. I can simply leave the market. I would prefer to be in market with modest income for modest risk. Is that the market that exists. Its debatable.
That's the landlords perspective. Is it aligned with what renters want. Is it aligned with solving the rental crisis. I suggest it isn't.
For me it's someone else's problem. It's just interesting watching it play out.
.
Sorry, I meant the general hostility, not from you.
None; supply and demand drive everything.
Rent controls never work.
True, but as you say there are costs involved and it's a large amount of capital.
Renters want more for less, landlords want the opposite. The interests of the seller and buyer are rarely aligned in any one-off transaction.
It is indeed. Viewing economic basics through the prisms of ideology or political populism is never a good idea and that's what's happening here.
Opportunity Declined! - Next Generation Visiting Sunday Drives from The Pale should be very interesting (and long).
Its hard to avoid though if that what successive Govts have been doing.
You would assume it would be wise to take some heat out of the market instead of continuing to pump it. Slow and steady rather than boom and bust.
If I was financially savvy I should be able to take advantage. But I'm not.
I think that governments since the boom have behaved quite responsibly. They faced massive pressure to try to raise the Central Bank borrowing limits and have resisted it. They have mostly resisted demand-side stimulus. I do have a big problem with the State buying and renting from the existing private housing stock in order to provide public housing. In effect they are pricing private buyers and renters out of the market with their own money. That's a result of a very populist opposition and their "useful idiots" in the media.
The heat in the market is driven by a doubling of the global money supply since 2012. When capital is flowing into the market (because there's been no returns on bonds) and supply isn't increasing at the same pace then prices go up. That capital isn't just institutional investors, it's bloated private pensions and capital appreciation in private property creating large inheritances and "Bank of Mum and Dad" scenarios. Around 1% of the residential property stock changes hands each year so very small changes in supply and demand and very small changes in capital availability cause massive changes in overall values.
Same here!If I was financially savvy I should be able to take advantage. But I'm not.
Ronan Lyons talked about the huge volume of houses built in the likes of Leitrim and fields in the countryside rather than in the cities. He said this was largely driven by tax breaks.
Therefore most of the building output during the boom was a waste of resources. In the UK and most of Europe its almost impossible to get permission to build on greenfield sites in the country .Almost all their building activities are focused on urban areas. In Ireland it's almost the opposite we are still too fond of building on greenfield sites in the country. Our construction industry does not have the expertise to do high density construction in the cities
Therefore most of the building output during the boom was a waste of resources. In the UK and most of Europe its almost impossible to get permission to build on greenfield sites in the country .Almost all their building activities are focused on urban areas. In Ireland it's almost the opposite we are still too fond of building on greenfield sites in the country. Our construction industry does not have the expertise to do high density construction in the cities
It's very difficult to get permission to build on greenfield here unless the LA has specifically zoned the area for residential development, and that doesn't happen quickly with how long it takes to go through the public consultation process.
I don't think the issues with high-rise here are down to lack of expertise, it's more that planning regulations don't allow it and locals don't want it.
But look at the St James hospital build and the massive Intel construction site ,the only contractor that was able to do it was BAM the big Dutch company. When Leo had a row with them over the escalating price he had to back down because BAM threatened to walk away and nobody else was in a position to take it on (also the fact that the state itself was largely culpable in the escalating costs)
We don't have a construction industry capable of doing large urban developments on brown field sites. Its still mostly small scale builders building one off houses or housing estates on the edge of towns.
We don't have a construction industry capable of doing large urban developments on brown field sites. Its still mostly small scale builders building one off houses or housing estates on the edge of towns.
RetirementPlan
Registered User
- Messages
- 429
Is that really true? What about builders like Paul, Sisk, Rhatigans, Walls doing very large developments, hotels, apartment blocks and more?
Last edited:
Building a hospital or a semi-conductor fab are very specialised jobs. Housing is simple by comparison.
When you say we can't do high-density. What exactly is it you mean by high density?
I mean 6 story streets throughout all the main business districts like you see in every other European city. The only genuine high density building was done by the Georgians and victorians in Dublin. They built most of the city centre in Dublin, we built all the low density suburban areas in cabra, drimnagh ,coolock , tallaght ,blanchardstown etc
That's nothing whatsoever got to do with the capability of builders here, we have plenty of buildings here taller than than, but the development plans in most areas prohibit that scale of development.
Undertook a DCC Living Over the Shop construction project in Dublin 8 around 2005/2006, where a 3 story over retail that contained 5 bedsits was converted into 3 large large apartments. Took a lot of work, time and chasing people , but all worked out fine in the end. You could effectively write off c.40% of the construction price against future rental income so this was the primary driver. Asked around the area at the time, but very few others were interested in doing it at the time fire to hassle of getting construction team involved / architects / bank debt / potentially dealing with bad tenants / older people owing the buildings and not bothered. So you can have all the incentives you want to economically incentivise people to undertake the refurbishment of the space over shops in cities / towns but the vast majority of owners will not get involved due to the amount of work it takes
Looking at this and other threads recently on AAM I get the feeling there is no hope whatsoever on the housing front for the next generation and many in the current generation. There will be no revival of bed-sits, landlords are exiting the business and it appears this will get worse if anything,o decrease. With a housing "NCT" on the horizon and particular Ber ratings along with all the other hoops a landlord has to negotiate. Rental prices are now dearer than mortgage outgoings.
Just when we thought it couldn't get worse - are trailer parks coming?
Just when we thought it couldn't get worse - are trailer parks coming?