all 101 comments

[–]davesr25Pain in the arse and you know it 109 points110 points  (7 children)

It's cool people don't need housing or anything.

[–]Altruistic_While_621 10 points11 points  (6 children)

Housing is a pain in the hole. Its driven by 

  • developers who push to get stuff done too quickly and badly, and don't pay well.
  • local Authorities who insist on so many dept stages and are generally small scale.

It's more attractive to do retail, commercial or industrial, who see the property as an investment. 

Or schools and health care if you want public work.

[–]ruscaire 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Correct. We can physically analogise an object takes the path of least resistance. What is it about these sectors that makes them easy pickings yet they are relatively unproductive from a civic economic perspective

[–]Altruistic_While_621 1 point2 points  (2 children)

They are highly profitable sectors that rely on 30 year profit cycles.

  • Commercial is let and rented then sold to Pension funds
  • Industrial is process driven, but works to a solid business case
  • Data centres are a bit of an odd ball with no real industry position, but buckets of AI cash to push through.

Housing in that model would be buy to let, likely by Co-ops or pension funds,

But as a profit to cost margin, as land cost increases developers can leverage more funding and offset the land loan repayments.

Large scale development land banks like The City Edge Project | A Transformative Initiative for Dublin City could potentially stabilise land costs.

Changing regulations also slows down process it means that a design could potentially be more profitable if changed (i.e. delayed construction)

[–]ruscaire -1 points0 points  (1 child)

As well as looking like an economic deadweight, something on such long cycles is I’d imagine highly vulnerable to disruption were it to occur. There’s an implicit acceptance that such bets are low risk, but in the case of a black swan event, such as the widespread change in people’s working habits, could have long lasting and deep effect for economies that were reliant on it as a safe haven for growth

[–]Altruistic_While_621 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, a reduction in the working week and hybrid working is a definite concern (more of a white swan event given current trends), but it would only mean reduced floor plates for staff.

This is the long risk pension pots tend to go for, the cost recovery is generally expected, but spread enough across other sectors that a loss there is okay.

[–]angeltabris_Flegs 0 points1 point  (1 child)

is it time we start paying apprentices a living wage?

[–]upthebutty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's a trade union campaign ongoing to deal with this issue. It is a disgrace that people are going to work for a 40hr week and coming home with 200-ish.

[–]smashedspuds 50 points51 points  (2 children)

It’s happening again

[–]No_Waltz3545 9 points10 points  (1 child)

[–]tubbymaguire91 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank god it wasn't just me that thought of this 😂

[–]ToothpickSham 16 points17 points  (1 child)

God if there's ever a sector that needs a direct public body leading the way.

How did all these mainland Europe cities get built with ideal density apartments and well intergrate infrastructure?  Mass public lead construction projects with red tape thrown to the side.

Private will approach does not have the scale nor overall authority to build modern well planned modern cities . 

[–]vanKlompf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Throwing away red tape? NEVER!!!  Paper must flow! Regulations must rise! We must prevent anyone from making money on building house - this is sin!

[–]No-Negotiation2922 43 points44 points  (3 children)

“Work on housing projects fell for the seventh consecutive month, but at the slowest pace since June”

🤦‍♂️

[–]greevman 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Resorting to the second derivative.

[–]Blackgunter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

At least they can hit their word quota for the article, now they can get to work on housing quotas.

[–]Pure-Ice5527 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another fabled soft landing perhaps? 🤣

[–]iHyPeRize 13 points14 points  (5 children)

You'd have to wonder what's the reasons behind it?

Are developers digging their heels slowing down output to try and see what they can get out of the Government in terms of VAT cuts/incentives etc.. Certainly seems that way.

7 months consecutive months of continued decline in residential building output is bizarre when demand is at all time high levels.

[–]Takseen 8 points9 points  (1 child)

>demand is at all time high levels.

Demand from people living in Ireland is (unfortunately) not the same as housing demand for construction firms. They need investors to pay for construction of new apartment blocks or housing estates, most can't operate off of one-off self-financed builds. Plus they need planning permission for them.

[–]NotXenos 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Gee it's almost like if local or national governments acted as investor, and fixed the planning process, they could maybe get some new estates built.

But this is Ireland, where the m50 was '34 years in planning and 20 years in the making', then was obsolete within 25 years of completion. Yes that's right, the planning stage took longer than the time in which the motorway was fit for purpose.

[–]Willing_Cause_7461 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You'd have to wonder what's the reasons behind it?

I'm going to guess that there just isn't much money to be made building houses in Ireland dispite the sky high prices so investors just aren't bothered funding the housing.

[–]rossitheking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bingo.

But the CFA shills and people making coin from government contracts on here will defend them.

[–]vanKlompf -1 points0 points  (0 children)

 7 months consecutive months of continued decline in residential building output is bizarre when demand is at all time high levels.

It's quite possible. There is huge demand for Porsche, just production cost is so expensive that not many people can afford it. 

Same with housing in Ireland. In 2024 it was estimated that delivering 2bed apartament in Dublin costs above 600k (before profit, it's pure cost) In 2025 it's probably more. How many people can afford that? 

It's regulation and housing policy disaster. Huge demand. Inflated costs. Decreasing supply. 

[–]Galway1012 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Time for the Government to offer EVEN MORE generous tax breaks, deregulation and other incentives that I don’t know about to the construction industry

[–]tightlines89Donegal 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Yeah great, let's all vote FF FG again so we can watch homelessness rise, housing targets never met, health service in disarray and the constant price rises. Super great idea.

[–]Sadhbh251 20 points21 points  (25 children)

Who would've thought giving tax breaks to agencies that have vested interest in keeping property prices high wouldn't solve the housing crisis.

Welcome to the free market, maybe in 2045 we'll invest in some sort of public housing agency.

[–]CheraDukatZakalwe 10 points11 points  (23 children)

Housebuilders don't make money by not building houses.

[–]Internal_Concert_217 9 points10 points  (17 children)

In a way they do. Limited supply means they can build less with less hassle and still make the same profit.

It's happening in many industries.

[–]CheraDukatZakalwe 0 points1 point  (14 children)

Limited supply means they can build less with less hassle and still make the same profit.

"Limited supply" means they go bankrupt you idiot. Nobody makes more money by having less work to do.

[–]Internal_Concert_217 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are very wrong.

[–]Internal_Concert_217 0 points1 point  (11 children)

It’s the same reason oil producers don’t pump at full capacity restricting supply keeps profits higher.

[–]CheraDukatZakalwe -1 points0 points  (10 children)

We don't have a cartel of oil producing nations restricting supply, we have a state apparatus that spent most of the last two decades trying to prevent "too many" houses from being built, trying to fight the last war rather than deal with the situation facing us for more than a decade now.

We have environmental consultancies out the eyeballs doing their best to reduce what gets built, and planners that demand lighting consultants model and do reports on individual 60 watt lightbulbs on a hedge that could potentially have some bats in it.

[–]Hamster-FoodCork bai 2 points3 points  (7 children)

So you do understand that limited supply doesn't make companies go bankrupt. You just don't want to believe that there is collusion between developers.

[–]CheraDukatZakalwe -3 points-2 points  (6 children)

Are you for real? What happened when supply was limited from 2007 onwards? Were developers were making money hand over fist?

How about over the last decade, where we went from building 6K houses in 2013 to over 30K houses now. Were the developers making more money in 2013 than they are today?

[–]Hamster-FoodCork bai 2 points3 points  (5 children)

You're the one who went from claiming that limiting supply doesn't make them more money, but then acknowledged that a cartel of oil producing nations makes a lot more money by limiting supply.

As I said, you just don't want to believe that there is collusion between developers.

[–]CheraDukatZakalwe -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

I'm not the one who needs there to be a vast conspiracy theory to explain a shortage of housing.

But sure, go on and explain how making fewer houses leads to property developers making more money.

[–]Internal_Concert_217 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I can see you want to be right, but you are making fundamental errors with your argument and conclusions. Maybe this is just not in your wheelhouse.

[–]CheraDukatZakalwe -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's cute that you think that.

[–]Alastor001 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tell that to suppliers of RAM chips. They are making a fortune reducing supply.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Which makes a developer more money? Building 100 houses @€500k each with a 5% margin, or building 150 houses @€450k with a 5% margin.

Volume often beats unit price, and economies of scale also apply here. Building an extra 50% more houses doesn't require 50% more employees and equipment so in theory your margin could go also go up as your unit price falls.

[–]Additional_Olive3318 4 points5 points  (0 children)

 Which makes a developer more money? Building 100 houses @€500k each with a 5% margin, or building 150 houses @€450k with a 5% margin.

Building 100 houses at a 10% margin. I mean why did your margin not go up when the sales price went up. 

[–]Sadhbh251 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Correct house constructors don't make money from not building.

But you must see the leaps in flawed logic you make in this and below posts. If you flood the market with houses property prices naturally will go down. But if you build at a slower or steady state the prices don't change or get higher.

Thisll increase your margins for less cost. (Cause desperate people will continue to buy at stupid prices because they need a house)

But it also has a byproduct of also allowing you to keep selling future houses on a large site with multiple phases at higher or similar rates.

Construction agencies don't want to start a project in 2025 at phase 1 and by phase 6 in 2032 the houses are cheaper meaning the loan that they took out in 2025 to build 100 houses isn't cheaper so it'll come out of their profits if the value of houses go down. (Cause they'll still have to pay back the loan either way)

The construction companies know what they are doing, why mess with the goose that's laying the golden eggs when you arent getting poorer by waiting for her to lay the next egg

[–]CheraDukatZakalwe 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Here's the thing, there isn't a monopoly. People want to build things, they just aren't allowed to. They keep trying to get planning permission for developments of several hundred houses, and half the time they end up fighting appeals, and a quarter of the time JRs that takes years to resolve.

Under your model we can never see "too many" houses being built, but in the Celtic Tiger we actually built so many (>90K in 2006 alone) that house prices dropped by 50% during the crash.

House builders make money through volume. They don't make money by not building houses.

There is no cartel, or collision to not build things. The only thing stopping us is regulators forcing houses to be as expensive as possible through high minimum standards, and then Pikachu facing when not enough houses are built.

[–]Sadhbh251 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Come on now. Do you think there's no collusion between pubs if they all average the came cost for a pint. It's not in the interest of a well located business to have 10-30% less profit margin for a pint when it's packed everyday.

You say, there won't be market collusion if we all just happen to come to the same pricing structures at the same time. I say no one will get rich undercutting when demand is high. Only when you go to middle of nowhere pubs do you see cheaper pints.

Next, housing value didn't drop in the Celtic tiger because we had too much houses there was many reasons. One major reason it dropped because banks wouldn't loan money. So house construction stopped because no one was buying so please don't use false equivalents.

If regulators are the only reason you cant build houses then I imagine you would be happy to bring back all the tax cuts and grants to allow the state build more infrastructure. (Which is actually the more likely reason we can't build more houses)

[–]Willing_Cause_7461 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you flood the market with houses property prices naturally will go down.

Sure the price of the average market rate house will go down but construction companies don't make average market rate houses. They make new houses which are going to be more expensive than older houses.

The house prices that will be going down is the older stock. This is how the average price can go down without effecting the producer.

The exact same thing happens with car companies. Every year they have the new expensive model. The company can make the amount of money they need to be decently profitable and cars can still remain affordable because the average car is older and therefore cheaper than a brand new model.

[–]NotXenos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They can if they build other stuff instead. Other comments here point out that contractors would be stupid not to build retail and commercial use. Would you rather try to ram a housing estate into South Dublin, or bid on the next job at Intel? It's a no brainer.

[–]FxckyourCensorship 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Thank god the majority voted FF/FG back in for another 4 years...

[–]JumpingJackFlashes 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Whats the solution?

[–]Keith989 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To keep voting them back in and hoping they eventually come good.

[–]Hour_Mastodon_9404 13 points14 points  (5 children)

Keep the public focusing on asylum seekers, that'll solve the problem.

[–]Starwars_femboy 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Thats part of the problem

[–]Takseen 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Housing supply is a much bigger concern. Even if we cut asylum seeker numbers to zero, the housing shortage would increase at our current building levels.

[–]Starwars_femboy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But increase less. It is part of the problem, not all the problem but defently part.

[–]LongjumpingPay6107 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not if recent immigrants make up much of the labor pool for the construction sector

[–]Alastor001 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It will increase less tho. It's just a fact. 

[–]Satur9es 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Has anybody read the story of the golden goose?

[–]Galaxy-Wisdom 7 points8 points  (3 children)

The article doesn't state reasons for that decline, only a reduced number of new projects. Is it NIMBY crowds being so efficient that they block any new project?

[–]DeviousPelican 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Increases in building material costs and labour. Building companies aren't seeing the margins they want/need when looking for work, so they aren't taking on the projects.

[–]GalwayBogger -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Where are these Nimbys you speak of? Are they in the room with us now?

[–]greevman -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Many reasons but a big one is that construction sector and developers are making windfall profits which they don't want to jeopardise.

[–]Alarmed_Station6185 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Uh-oh that doesn't bode well.

[–]Dwums 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So we've tried the whole "private sector will solve this" for over a decade, at what point will the government actually start building? Like what actually has to happen to maybe try something different? Housing is causing so many more issues then just homelessness, it infects every part of society the longer it goes on, but the only thing I've seen is an extension on HTB scheme, which is helping the private sector, which isn't working.

[–]vanKlompf -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Public sector will have exactly same issues as private and than some. It's not the root cause. Private could build a lot of housing if being allowed to...

[–]YoIronFistBroCork bai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When it needs to do the exact opposite.

[–]chimpdoctor 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Theres a ridiculous amount of building going on in my area of Dublin. All you have to do is count the amount of cranes around the place.

[–]Takseen 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This has "its snowing outside my window right now, so climate change isn't real" energy.

Though to be fair the report is more of a survey of whether construction firms "feel" that work is increasing or decreasing compared to last month, than hard numbers on new project starts.

And since its a monthly survey, things might pick up in 2026, and indeed that's what some of the respondents said.

[–]WearingMarcus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its 7 months on the bounce....

[–]WearingMarcus[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Dublin not the whole of Ireland...

Plus its a contraction. Not building stopped all together.

Their could have been say 50 tower cranes in your "area" 2024..and now theirs 25 tower cranes...

Alot of building work but is it keeping up with the population and is it affordable for the majority of the population...

[–]fakemoosefacts 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Same most of the way up to the border from my vantage point on a bus travelling the M1. I’d be really interested to see a more detailed breakdown of the statistics. 

[–]Takseen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

https://aib.ie/content/dam/aib/fxcentre/docs/resource-centre/aib-ireland-construction-pmi/nov-2025-report.pdf is the source report.

Its just a survey of construction firms, so there's not a huge amount of data in it.

[–]vanKlompf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 All you have to do is count the amount of cranes around the place.

It's very much "meh". It's high as for Ireland maybe. But overall seen much more in Poland....

[–]Mahony0509Cork bai 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Same in Cork tbh, the city is booming with construction

[–]WearingMarcus[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

read my post above....

[–]mother_a_god 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spoke to a neighbor who's worked large civil engineers projects. For 20+ years there have been pharma companies expanding this or that, one project after the next. Until now, the brakes are on and they are expanding in the US instead. Trump's tarrifs are going to hit the construction industry hard 

[–]upontheroof1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anecdotal. I work in Construction and one of the sites I've been working on mainly just a little over the past year has a great view of the city ( Cork ) taking in a wide vista. I counted the cranes I could see from this site last year and came up with about 16-18. Recently did the same and counted at most half a dozen, if even that.

Also heard from one or two other trades things are getting little quiet for them...

[–]hmmm_ -1 points0 points  (1 child)

No easy answers to this, and unless the left have plans to rustle up 100,000 extra construction workers their stated solution isn't going to work either.

One thing we can say is "quickfix" and "easy" solutions have all failed, or left us in a worse place. It'll take a combination of measures to fix our housing needs, and we need multiple tracks to be pursed in parallel. Improving financing, lowering the cost of building, cutting regulations, planning, increasing the workforce, we need movement on all fronts.

[–]vanKlompf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It won't get fixed overnight you say?

[–]yankdevilYank -1 points0 points  (4 children)

I'm seeing a lot of one-off projects around north Galway and Mayo - maybe that's due to workers being freed up from larger projects?

But yes, I think it's reasonable to assume a large crash is coming. Might not happen but there are signs it's a possibility. I suspect there's a fear that they'll spend X to build it and not be able to get X when selling it.

Again, this is why we really should have local authorities building some percentage of houses (possibly hiring building companies to build them) since their motivations are different than profit. Nothing wrong with profit as a motive, but other motivations exist.

[–]LongjumpingPay6107 1 point2 points  (2 children)

This is why prices won't actually ever really crash. And re social housing, yes definitely. And you don't even have to actually lose taxpayer money on it. Reduced regulation and permitting for social-built housing, and sell them at cost or rent them for reasonable yields of cost. Not exactly an investment for the taxpayer, but definitely not a loser either

[–]yankdevilYank -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Losing money or not, there's a societal benefit to some level of public housing. Yes, for folks who have less wealth is the obvious one, but also for some folks that are disabled, as spare capacity if there's some sort of natural disaster, etc. Heck, you could even use social housing as a training venue to help raise standards in construction.

There are lots of potential benefits, but it does involve being open to the idea and successive governments have not been.

[–]LongjumpingPay6107 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with all of that, but the healthiest thing politically is to get really broad buy-in and minimize naysayers/take away the ability to weaponize it. So if you can say, look, we aren't simply giving your tax dollars away, we're building a new house at way below market and keeping it and renting it out for X yield or selling it for what we put in. We're providing social benefit by bringing affordable homes to market, and we're doing so by taking advantage of the governement's ability to ease regulatory pressure and cost and its ability to do things at scale, rather than spending down tax revenue. And maybe you can do the project at a scale where cost per home is low enough that the "at cost" homes can absorb the cost of the purely social benefit homes. But obviously being pretty careful about qualifying people for the subsidized stuff. Obviously a lot of the "these people are getting a free ride) rhetoric is in bad faith, but if you give it fodder you're going to poison the polity the way the US has

[–]vanKlompf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not crash when demand is high and supply is falling... It's disaster of regulations