teak wrote: Construction costs 1,500 per sq m;
house 200 sq m - build cost €300k -
cost of site 15 - 25% of build cost i.e. €50,000 - €75,000;
number of units 3,500 = range €175m - €262.5m
These figures are really nonsense, PVC.
However anxious you are and however strongly you feel on helping a resurgence in the economy, you have to do it with a coldly realistic head.
Burtonport co Donegal http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=340742&search=1
If sites are quoted at €45k in locations like this; commuter belt can acheive those types of valuation as an absolute floor if residential development is limited to zoned land only in future.
teak wrote: A builder who can't bring in a house for less than €100/sq ft (€80 for me) is going to be dog idle.
Houses like this will be nowhere near 200 sq m = 2,153 sq ft in size. 1,600 sq ft max more likly.
You could be right on build cost being deliverable at a lower price; however taking something well built with a feature staircase; quality bathrooms and kitchen you could easily hit that number; whilst labour costs have fallen materials haven't anywhere near as much and won't because most of the World is well on the road to recovery.
teak wrote: None of the one-off house people could -- nor would -- pay €50,000 - €75,000 for a village plot.
Moving into Sallins a single site is quoted at €185k http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=396198
Yes the site is bigger but the price is equivelent to 1/4 acre sites in the bubble years
Quality parcel of land extending to 4.25 acres / 1.72 hectares with good frontage being sold subject to planning permission to suitable applicants. This is a wonderful opportunity to acquire a beautiful property in a sought after setting.
One off house local FF mafia only need apply.
teak wrote:Don't you know yet that most people building in the countryside are doing so with a site given to them by their families ?
They could not afford to buy sites market rates for such a site in the last 12 years -- and have less chance now with cash being so scarce.
The options for those ion a budget are simple; buy an existing house in a foreclosure, buy a house from a developer who is discounting heavily or buy a site from NAMA; if sites in Burtonport are €45k then the market will dictate what sites are worth. Take average couples combined earnings as being €80k; modest build cost for 1,500 sq ft at your rate of €100 per sq foot and add €50k for the site and with a 10% deposit the loan to earnings is only 2.25:1. With supply controlled going forward they are a lot more likely to have an asset that will at worst be stable in value.
teak wrote:Owning a site with PP gives them enough leverage (via the site's collateral value) to raise a mortgage that might otherwise be beyond their ability. Local councillors understand this situation intimately.
They will never support an idea that would make it harder/longer for these people to start building their own house.
Not just for the family site owners but also for the sake of the small builders.
I think looking at the way the country has been run for the last 10 years we need to focus on the national picture and not the Kilgarvin way of running a country. The deficit needs to be cut and anything from NAMA that comes in will ensure that national services such as education, healthcare and policing will face less painful cuts.
teak wrote:That aside, you are still having fantasies about getting 8 houses per acre of village edge land.
The demand - which is largely unsupported by building lobbies, of course - to have land near villages for allotments, non-GAA pitches, tennis courts - even cricket greens for villages holding a share of Indian/Pakistani/Aus/NZ/ZA immigrants - and pram walks has to be taken note of by local councillors also.
Talking about master planned sites that equate to 'New Towns' such as the scale; I would fully agree with you; however the proposal is restricted to small holdings at the edge of existing towns no larger than 10 acres in size which would see a maximum of 80 houses not place much strain on a town with an existing population of 3,000 plus; these are all on lands that are effectively valued at nil. Bear in mind that developers were developing at 20 to the acre on similar sites only a few years ago; I would have more worry of the environmental lobby saying the densities are too low.
teak wrote:You have to realise that there is no quick asset-sale fix to our national property blowout.
The collapse of demand for property is largely now down to the high numbers of unemployed.
Getting people jobs has to come first before the property market, the new car market, the retail market or any other secondary sector of the economy.
87% of the population are still working; I know in the built environment field u/e is significantly worse than most sectors and it often feels like we have fallen off a cliff. However for those working for large successful companies many of them have never had it so good; wages in line with where they were 5 years ago but prices significantly cheaper. I am not saying for a second that we will hit medium term average output of 40,000 units inside the next 5 years.
What I am saying is that a significant factor undermining the market is that a planning free for all is removing 35% of actual demand at a time when confidence is in real trouble; if the 35% of demand going into one off houses were paying down loans it would eat into the supply over-hang which is keeping the market in a perilous state. You simply cannot create 3,500 new permissions each year on unzoned land without removing other supply if you want to see a sustainable recovery.