Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off housing

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:56 pm

teak wrote:
ONQ, what in the hell are you saying about developers having good noses
for housing sites ?
Are you blind or what ?
Look at the placement of estates in town and city suburbs over the last
10 years and see how the only available amenity area land for existing
nearby estates got bought by some greedyarse "developer" so he could put
another 100 ugly identical houses on it.

The only thing developers have a nose for is making a lot of money from
making ugly estates that any decent person wouldn't even dream of .


You seem to be confusing the design of estates, which rest with the quality of the engineer/technician/draughtsman who was used to design them instead of an architect [something I would criticize some developers for] and the planning officer who didn't seek higher standards - with my point which related to their location.

From your gripe it sounds like to have had some unkempt field near you sold to a developer by the council that you had assumed was open space but wasn't.
I've come across this before down near Smurfits in Donnybrook when we were trying to get permission for Beave Row - an endless Appeal by a lone gunman resident who didn't know his facts about the land.
The world an his wife thinks they "own" this land but have neither title nor rights of way not rights of access to it.

If my assumption is correct, then my advice to you Teak is - suss out who owns the land before you assume its Open Space.
Look at the development plan - the yellow A or A1 zoning on it is a dead giveaway.

And BTW the concept of developing open space deemd surplus to requirements was probably generated by the council, not the developer.
Lets face it, you seldom get land better serviced, more accessible or more sustainably densified than an unassigned open area in the middle of an existing residential estate.
It ticks all the boxes.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby teak » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:14 pm

I am a great fan of wind energy but in two circumstances; one where it is either off shore or somewhere like a disused bog and secondly where the government creates a false market; the government can't afford a false market and the costs of connecting small numbers of turbines exceed the payback; if oil gets over $200 then you may be right but we are a long way from that point.

I see nothing wrong with self-generation in rural areas.
The appearance of the turbine need not be as ugly as some existing ones.
The argument that you give on creating a false market is not really all of
the story.
Many of us would say that the existing electricity market is patently false
in terms of unit prices. I think these would drop for everyone,especially those
industrial users of close to wind generators, had we only better energy
planning and more control over the ESB.
Saving carbon (and a lot of other more dangerous SOx & NOx) emissions from
Moneypoint may be cheaper to the national economy than saving it from the
burps of our national animal -- upon whom the livelihoods of maybe 200,000
households directly depend . . .

I do not think that acceptance of people's right to live in a rural area will
cause failure to a scheme of NAMA plot sales along the lines indicated by
you because the price of these plots would be much cheaper.
People with the desire to have a healthy home environment without the
squinting windows of neighbours will pay an extra premium.
A possible issue not raised is design harmony amongst the various new
home built on the same area of land.
Left to the individual homesteaders, it is likely that there would be a
lot of different shapes and sizes of homes (designed by some local "builder's
draughtsman") with little relation between them and no coherent landscaping
plan for the whole scheme. I don't want to deny anyone design freedom or
their right to hire whoever they want but some lines have to be drawn for
the landscaping at least .
teak
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby tommyt » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:26 pm

@Teak- Having never lived in a rural area is it common for country folk to live in a permanent state of mild paranoia ,assuming anyone who lives within earshot or spitting distance of a neighbour will 'know all yer bizniss'.

I'm genuinely intrigued as it obviously has a material influence on spatial policy within our society in your view.
tommyt
Member
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: D5

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:35 pm

teak wrote:
I see nothing wrong with self-generation in rural areas.
The appearance of the turbine need not be as ugly as some existing ones.
The argument that you give on creating a false market is not really all of the story.
Many of us would say that the existing electricity market is patently false in terms of unit prices. I think these would drop for everyone,especially those industrial users of close to wind generators, had we only better energy planning and more control over the ESB.
Saving carbon (and a lot of other more dangerous SOx & NOx) emissions from Moneypoint may be cheaper to the national economy than saving it from the burps of our national animal -- upon whom the livelihoods of maybe 200,000
households directly depend . . .


For turbines to be effective they have to be of such a significant scale that you couldn't live beside one or within hundreds of meters of one such is the noise they emit; I have no objection to farmers building wind turbines outside areas of outstanding natural beauty or important bird habitats. What I am against is the site farming industry; which leads to largely urban dwellers buying sites with or without planning consent and producing significantly more carbon in a year by their extended commute than any token windmill would produce in 1,000 years.



teak wrote:I do not think that acceptance of people's right to live in a rural area will cause failure to a scheme of NAMA plot sales along the lines indicated by you because the price of these plots would be much cheaper.
People with the desire to have a healthy home environment without the squinting windows of neighbours will pay an extra premium.
A possible issue not raised is design harmony amongst the various new home built on the same area of land.
Left to the individual homesteaders, it is likely that there would be a lot of different shapes and sizes of homes (designed by some local "builder's draughtsman") with little relation between them and no coherent landscaping plan for the whole scheme. I don't want to deny anyone design freedom or their right to hire whoever they want but some lines have to be drawn for
the landscaping at least .


Nobody is proposing to stop anyone from purchasing an existing dwelling in a rural area, or any farmer from building a new house on their farm. The aim of the policy is to see the supply input in the housing market restricted to only land considered suitable for development by professional planners as being possible to develop unless the applicant works the land. To ensure that people that want to self build continue to have the ability to do so it is proposed that NAMA make land available. The only losers in this are those that made a living from site farming i.e. securing consent to build and then selling the consent to a third party or those who bought unzoned land as opposed to zoned land for a multiple of its true worth as agricultural land.

The national interest dictates that the oversupply in the housing market is corrected; the economy is essentially mired in a property recession and having 30% of planning consents or real demand constituting new supply under those circumstances is gross economic mismanagement when one piece of legislation could net close to €200m p.a. to service the NAMA loanbook.


@Teak- Having never lived in a rural area is it common for country folk to live in a permanent state of mild paranoia ,assuming anyone who lives within earshot or spitting distance of a neighbour will 'know all yer bizniss'.

I'm genuinely intrigued as it obviously has a material influence on spatial policy within our society in your view.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby teak » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:14 pm

What is proposed is not that people be forced to buy anything; it is simply that the government would ban one off houses on unzoned land and that NAMA would make available for sale in each town plots for sale of up to an eighth of an acre for people to do their own thing with; but bearing in mind these people would be in a very strong position to gain consent given that the land is zoned resi and it would be very difficult against over development of the subject plot and that they would be stregnthening the town.

If this became government policy, it would clearly inhibit the granting of PP by planning officers to people who own a plot (naturally still zoned agricultural) in the countryside.
Functionaries need clear lines of decision-making.
I think that they'd end up making it harder for people with a desire to "go country".

That aside, I feel that your sums are very hopeful.
Presumably, you think that demand would be stimulated by the existence of the new NAMA plots for sale.
Frankly, all that will stimulate demand - from those who may have the means - is a damn cheap price.
1/8 acre plots would be lucky to get €25,000 right now.
Please explain how you get the handsome figure of €200 million per annum.

I've got nothing against more construction action if there is demand for it.
But investment in productive (and employment-generating) enterprise seems to me to be a better way -- you get the money to swirl around through more people that way.
And, frankly, once you get outside of Ireland whose finance lenders seem both intoxicated by their own importance and deluded in their valuation of real estate, it is easier to raise capital for good manufacturing ideas.

@ tommyt :
A sense of privacy ought be a consideration for spatial planners.
I know that we can't go on making more strings of houses along country roads, I accept that.
But if we are to have cluster development then we ought not be heaped upon one another.
There is enough land around for some space for all of us.
Neither ought rural amenities be neglected, as it is usually the absence of these that provokes such a strong interest by some people in other peoples' affairs.
I am sure that if you talk to friends who grew up in rural villages, they will echo my concern for a good measure of personal & family privacy in any village house they had to live in.
teak
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:57 pm

teak wrote:
If this became government policy, it would clearly inhibit the granting of PP by planning officers to people who own a plot (naturally still zoned agricultural) in the countryside.
Functionaries need clear lines of decision-making.
I think that they'd end up making it harder for people with a desire to "go country".


In no other country in Northern Europe can you simply build a house in the middle of the country unless you are a farmer; if you work in a town you are urban and your needs need to reflect that unless you wish to purchase an existing house in the country.

teak wrote:
1/8 acre plots would be lucky to get €25,000 right now.


That is the exact problem and why the market is so weak; there is no value attached to a planning consent; a house in an entirely unsuitable location 3 miles from anywhere has a similar value to a site at the edge of a town where development is suitable. By creating a clear set of rules the market can discount to agricultural values land of that class and apply residential values in a safer fashion without a third of all demand being new supply on unzoned land.


teak wrote:Please explain how you get the handsome figure of €200 million per annum.


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


teak wrote:I've got nothing against more construction action if there is demand for it.
But investment in productive (and employment-generating) enterprise seems to me to be a better way -- you get the money to swirl around through more people that way.
And, frankly, once you get outside of Ireland whose finance lenders seem both intoxicated by their own importance and deluded in their valuation of real estate, it is easier to raise capital for good manufacturing ideas.


When the state has purchased loans with a face value of €77bn it is not like you can just write it off; the state needs to recover its money; it is worth holding land that will have a real value such as large city centre development sites such as the Opera Centre in Limerick or Liam Carrolls holdings in North Wall into the medium term; when you are holding a landbank where an average of a €1m per acre was paid for land that could only be described as wildly speculative; you need to get a return from it; in this case by carving it up into a new class of land; sites with OPP to give people the freedom to engage a designer and select their own construction team. Unlike tenanted commerical property land doesn't pay much rent if any; with most of this land if this isn't its use there will not be a use for decades.

The choice is simple does the taxpayer need to be forced to hold land it doesn't want just to allow people to build in places they would not have been allowed to in any other northern European state; each one off built removes demand for one NAMA site except in very specific circumstances.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:35 am

Okay, time for a reality check here.

Once off houses may represent 30% of the housing market, but essentially these are two storey developments with around 30% site coverage and a plot ration of less 0.5 : 1

To get any really decent return on the land you need your plot ratio up at a multiple of your site - 3.5 to 5 :1

With 50% site coverage and a plot ration of 5:1 to one that's a ten storey tower - now ye're talkin'!

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:59 am

onq wrote:Okay, time for a reality check here.

Once off houses may represent 30% of the housing market, but essentially these are two storey developments with around 30% site coverage and a plot ration of less 0.5 : 1

To get any really decent return on the land you need your plot ratio up at a multiple of your site - 3.5 to 5 :1

With 50% site coverage and a plot ration of 5:1 to one that's a ten storey tower - now ye're talkin'!

ONQ.



I would roughly calclulate an acre as 4,166 sq m and allow 516 sq m for roadway/ paths, planting etc; each plot would therefore be 450 sq m; which I would configure in plots of 15m frontage and 30m depth; this would allow 8m for a front garden / driveway; 12m depth assumed build area of 180sq m or say 165 sq m when circulation is allowed for at ground with a smaller first floor of 135 sq m.


This would be a site coverage of 0.367 and a plot ratio of 0.66. Taking private open space requirements at 25 sq m per bed room the site with 285 sq m of private open space would have enough space for an 11.66 bedroom house to give a true sense of rus en urbe. To address town densities a certain portion of any holding of this size could be retained to construct higher density units down the line when a solid floor has been put under the market and lending is back to normal levels.

In terms of return; the state is well protected on most of this land in that whilst the banks lent about €1m per acre on it the book value of it at purchase was probably a discount of 70% of that costs if that OR €300,000 per acre; if the state sold 8 plots at an average of €50,000 after roads were put in then €400,000 would be the net return or put another way any net price above €37,500 after legal and agents fees breaks even from the component of the portfolio where analysts have pencilled in a near 100% loss of acquisition costs.

One stroke of a pen to get rid of 3,500 plots a year; and no over dependence on any individual holding should land be made available on the edge of every town where NAMA has holdings; which as we know from the Ghost Estate map is just about everywhere outside Tehran.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby teak » Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:08 pm

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.

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.
None of the one-off house people could -- nor would -- pay €50,000 - €75,000 for a village plot.
You will not get 3,500 takers per year at the present state of employment.
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.
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.

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.

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.
teak
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:36 pm

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.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby teak » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:41 pm

You have a very great deal to learn about the world if you still buy CSO statistics on employment and incomes.
To say nothing of Irish auctioneers' quoted prices.

Were I cynical, I'd just ask you to lead us all out yourself and buy such a plot, build a stylish house on it financed on your €80,000 annual household income and then sell it on at a profit in 5 years time, when sustained recovery will have set in.
But I know what it is to be pinned down in life by debt.
And I would not wish it on anyone, however wrong or however loud they were.
It's a show-stopper.
And a cruel waste of life.

I hope that you cop yourself on with this idea.
teak
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:48 pm

The idea is basic restrict supply; ban one off houses; watch the oversupply on the market see all demand directed towards it. Negative equity will persist until such time as the over-supply is drained down.

The idea on making large sites available is a carrot for those that cannot accept developer led product and feel the need to instruct their own design team; giving local agents copies of land registry maps with a basic road layout and an indicate plot carve up would cost very little money.

Why I wouldn't go down this route is that I live in an apartment and will develop two houses next year as buy to let investments; an urban setting is always better for getting solvent tenants. I don't expect everyone to live in the middle of a city; hence why I propose a choice for those who want a reasonable amount of space. Just not at the cost of adding further unwanted supply to a dramatically over supplied market.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:06 pm

I can't help feeling that this principle of yours is missing something obvious.

The whole point of NAMA was that it bought assets at a discount.

The idea was it would hold these assets and then dispose of them.

It was subsequently revealed that we had paid more than we should.

If we hadn't the banks would have had to raise more capital.

Your suggestion seems to be sell now at any cost because the land is worthless.

I thought the principle was to wait until the values rose taking a long term market view.

Because otherwise we'll have bought at a discount and sold at a loss, making the NAMA process a failure.

Correct me if I've missed something here PVC King...

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:32 pm

The idea behind NAMA was to take all large scale property loans off the banks balance sheet; when the initial due diligence samples were taken it was quickly realised that marking the loans to net present value would put the banks out of business; hence the flawed concept of 'medium term value' or in plain english what the loans may at some future point be worth when the market recovers closer to a more long term equilibrium position. Just to be clear this only relates to the development land portfolio and not the wider portfolio involving completed buildings and property investments which were in the main I understand marked to market.

The valuation of property is problematic at the best of times in that it relies entirely on comparable transactions to establish what a willing buyer may pay a willing seller having acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion. In short no transactional evidence existed for the period late 2008 through mid 2010; that could prove that any transaction on any development land at the speculative extreme of the market; was in accordance with the principles of prudence in terms of buying into a massive supply overhang; or sellers acting prudently selling into a market where only fire sale offers were available. Outside prime city centres you probably could systematically apportion a nil value to virtually the entire NAMA commuter belt portfolio in its current use; i.e. to be sold for redevelopment by a professional developer.

Where the proposal I have is entirely different is that it involves changing the land use sub-class from medium scale professional developer holding to a semi finished product where consumers of 'buy to occupy property' could buy in accesible plot sizes which would be much smaller chunks than are currently available on zoned develpment land and then engage their own design team to convert from OPP to FPP and a place to call home. It is about taking an asset sub-class where there is no demand and altering the subject properties to one where demand can be created by turning off the most comparable supply which currently undermines the market to the extent of 35% of all planning consents granted.

Any clearer?
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:30 am

Not really.

I understand what you mean, but my point is that you seem to be willing to sell the land now at a low price for relatively low density development instead of waiting for the market to recover and going for higher density development.

That means that land bought for a haircut price, but still over-valued possibly will be sold befroe its value has recovered.
Thats the financial end of it compromised.

Then you're proposing single dwellings on the land.
This is despite all best practice urging us to develop at higher densities.

To give effect ot this strategy, you are telling people [correct me if I'm wrong here] that they can only build on NAMA'd land.
I don't think thsi strategy will fly.

I would like to offer a different scenario.

NAMA'd lands are reassessed to see whether high density development is viable on them - then accord them that status.
There is an embago on granting one off permissions on unservices and unzoned land remote from schools and amenities etc.
One off housing is only allowed on already zoned land, but not necessarily NAMA'd land.

There is a risk that whatever strategy is adopted, costs will rise - in the sense that many of the above get the sites for little money because its their families' agricultural land or because its unzoned, etc.
I'm worried that raising costs for whatever reason will mean that the one off housing market /self build market will simply stop and that will put an end to the domestic construction sector.

My own views is that if NAMA'd land is to be used at all, even at this low price point, we should be seeking the highest possible densities commensurate with residential amenity and build them to the highest sustainable standard.
That way, even if the initial price is low, the quality of the built work and its "sustainability index" will be high.
This will be a Good Thing in time.

ONQ.
Last edited by onq on Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:38 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Sat Jan 15, 2011 1:06 pm

I understand what you mean, but my point is that you seem to be willing to sell the land now at a low price for relatively low density development instead of waiting for the market to recover and going for higher density development.

That means that land bought for a haircut price, but still over-valued possibly will be sold befroe its value has recovered.
Thats the financial end of it compromised.


The financial end of it is already completely compromised; an Article in the IAVI in late 2004 titled "Faith, Hope and Charity" basically celebrated all that was wrong in Irish land markets, Faith being unlimited economic growth, hope being buying unzoned land at inflated values outside the development frontier and charity being the rezoning taking place; sadly there is enough zoned land in most locations to last 30 years at medium term development levels and in some for up to 100 years. I will outline below where I see higher density being appropriate and where the taxpayer should simply try to unwind the collosal losses currently consituting a massive hole on the Irish Banking sector following transfer to Nama which was inflicted by the "Faith, Hope and Charity" philosophy.

Then you're proposing single dwellings on the land.
This is despite all best practice urging us to develop at higher densities.


Probably 75% of the value is in holdings that will over the next 5 - 20 years be suitable for for higher density development; these lands must be retained for development on conventional developer led lines through masterplans such as Adamstown. The other 25% which should never have been rezoned if development plans were prudent should be divided up in to plots for sale; to put how small an mount of land we are talking about into context; at an eighth of an acre to make 3,500 plots available per year you are talking about less than 450 acres or 4,500 acres across 26 counties over a 10 year period. In total you are talking about slighly more than one third of total unit completion in 2007. With one off housing the equivelent number would be somewhere between 50,000 - 70,000 acres over an equivelent period.

To give effect ot this strategy, you are telling people [correct me if I'm wrong here] that they can only build on NAMA'd land.
I don't think thsi strategy will fly.


All zoned land can be built upon once the planners give FPP; it is simply to correct the situation where the country has completely over-zoned development land and yet government policy allows additional development on unzoned land. Does that not strike you as totally nuts?

NAMA'd lands are reassessed to see whether high density development is viable on them - then accord them that status.


I totally agree with this; hence the 75% retain : 25% alter asset sub-class proposal.

There is an embago on granting one off permissions on unservices and unzoned land remote from schools and amenities etc.
One off housing is only allowed on already zoned land, but not necessarily NAMA'd land.


Agreed subject to local planning consent being forthcoming; this accomplishes the goals of reducing the over-hang of zoned land and the perception that development land has reached a maximum level that is being reduced and not that all land in the state is capable of development.

There is a risk that whatever strategy is adopted, costs will rise - in the sense that many of the above get the sites for little money because its their families' agricultural land or because its unzoned, etc.


If it is zoned it is rightly or wrongly deemed fit for development; the market will find its own level and one would expect that in the context of a glut of development land on the market that prices will be reasonable; you may see site prices in Donegal or Leitrim at €25k for a site and in the hinterland of Dublin at €75k. Affordability is no longer the issue it was; a freind recently went to Barcelona to buy a flat; found one liked it; went to a bank and they declined the loan but said have a look at these 20 similar properties we will fund any of these which in the end he bought one of at a not disimilar price. Designing ones home is a privilage it is not a right and there is no question that there are plenty of existing homes available at very attractive prices.

My own views is that if NAMA'd land is to be used at all, even at this low price point, we should be seeking the highest possible densities commensurate with residential amenity and build them to the highest sustainable standard.
That way, even if the initial price is low, the quality of the built work and its "sustainability index" will be high.


For the majority of lands this is appropriate particularly those driven by transport improvements i.e. Adamstown, Middleton etc which have seen substantial public transport improvements. The disposal prices in some locations will be only a small part of the equation; take a site sold for €25k in an area where valuers attribute nil value; that is a gain of €25k to the exchequer, apportion a €100k build cost; €13,500 in vat; €10,000 in professional fees which at least €3k will be paid in income tax. Add in a builder who earns €40k and pays €10k tax as opposed to taking €20k in benefits . That is a net €71,500 to the exchequer.

The current scenario sees sites in Donegal at €45k and Sallins at €185k with probably much of the design work done as nixers, without PI cover in many cases. Ask your self the question do you want a floor under the real estate market, do you want everything in the open or do you want a free for all with most of the action in the shadows?
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:38 am

I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet PVC King - its mainly a matter of getting the harmonies right.
I'll add to that, that the designing needs to be done by competent designers and we need to be using Smart Growth principles to design townscapes not housing estates - not anymore.

This will incur commmttments to fund public sector activities in new communities, like Garda stations, clinics, fire services, etc.

:)

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Sun Jan 16, 2011 12:11 pm

By increasing the population of towns it makes it a lot harder not to retain essential community assets such as fire and police stations and when the health sector gets reformed primary healthcare centres.

In terms of townscapes I fully agree that this will happen for the reason that unlike the bubble years you will not with the exception of maybe 10 large new towns / major inner city regeneration schemes see phases of 100 houses / flats delivered at a time in individual phases; how many developments of 300 plus units were sold off plans in their entirity before the first units were delivered? This will not happen becuase developments on this scale will probably be sold in tranches of 10% yoy so that design standards will need to be much higher as the consumer will see how eacwith the exception of the first phase see how each subsequent phase looks in reality vs renders and more critically the build quality.

Higher standards will have higher build cost making it vital that a floor is put under land price market to allow for higher quality.

There is a once in a generation opportunity to change the nature of the residential housing industry by changing

1. One off houses to edge town zoned land; closer to essential services
2. Commuter belt development from frenetically developed 1980's South East of England type estates to 21st century townscapes
3. New towns / large urban regeneration to be plugged into new transport infrastructure
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:42 pm

I think we need to start with

1. A root and branch review of the National Spatial Strategy.
2. A reduction in total numbers of Councils and members of Councils.
3. The appointment of a Director for National Spatial Strategy.
4. The development of a National Economic Strategy - as opposed to a 4-year Budget
5. The appoinment of a Director for National Economic Strategy.

I suggest the last point to implement point nubmer 4.
I suggest both to keep the meddling hands of Gombeen men politicians away from the means of returning our economy to health.

The first three points are related to the concept of planning development on a national level.
The lack of a Director of National Spatial Planning shows what a lame-duck paper exercise the original plan was.
It opened the floodgates for Gombeen Counsellors in every botharín hamlet to outrageously grand development that was unsustainable.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:11 pm

New Paulson fund seeks dollars in the desert
Firm raised about $315 million in late 2010 for real-estate bets

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — John Paulson, head of hedge-fund giant Paulson & Co., turned bullish on the U.S. housing market in early 2010. Now he’s got a fund that’s betting on a rebound.

One of the firm’s latest projects has taken it into the Sonoran Desert in the American Southwest, in search of empty residential-development lots.

In November, the firm finished raising capital for the Paulson Real Estate Recovery Fund, gathering roughly $315 million in commitments from investors, according to two people familiar with the situation.

Bay Area luxury homes are hot sellersHouses selling for more than $2 million spiked in 2010 in the San Francisco Bay Area, with the most pricey home sold in San Francisco for $15.5 million. Pui-Wing Tam talks with Stacey Delo.
The vehicle is a private-equity fund, rather than a hedge fund. This means Paulson makes capital calls to investors when opportunities arise. It also means investors are locked in for many years.

Paulson seeded the fund with some of his own money and brought in Michael Barr, a former real-estate, private-equity specialist at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. /quotes/comstock/11i!lehmq (LEHMQ 0.04, 0.00, -0.94%) , to run it.

One of the fund’s main strategies is to buy undeveloped tracts of land that already have environmental and building permits. Roads, sewers and electricity may also be in place, but not homes, according to one of the people familiar with the fund.

If the real-estate market recovers enough for developers to start building more new houses, this may be the type of land they buy first. That’s because a lot of the costly, time-consuming preparation work already has been done, the person explained.

Such a recovery may take years to materialize, if at all. TrimTabs Investment Research warned Thursday that the housing market is unlikely to recover for five or six more years.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-pa ... 2011-01-27

A paved road is surrounded by weeds in an unfinished subdivision in Coolidge, Ariz.
In the meantime, the Paulson fund has the flexibility to hold onto land. That’s because investors in the fund are committed for multiple years and the land is purchased with no leverage, the person added.


It is pretty logical that they are buying land that is already zoned and serviced versus the faith, hope and charity nonsense that has destroyed the irish land market.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:50 pm

Totally agree, so long as the services themselves have been placed on appropriate tracts of land.

There is a tendency to place zonings on a pedestal, but they have to be carefully considered.

There is even a whole school of though that they are crude instruments for planning work.

They may promote single use developments when mixed use is known to work better.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Previous

Return to Irish Planning Matters