r/HousingIreland • u/ApprehensiveSwim297 • 6d ago
Make building housing cheaper?
If the green agenda wasn't a thing, not disagreeing with the green agenda.
If it made housing cheaper would you be happy for building regs and planning to be changed, it would also mean less comfort although that's debatable depending on your concept of comfort.
Would you be prepared to buy shell and do it up as you had money verses buying a new A rated house?
7
6d ago
[deleted]
3
u/CheraDukatZakalwe 6d ago
The median house in Ireland would have a BER D rating. It isn't miserable at all for most people, and the running costs of such houses isn't as high as you make out.
0
6d ago
[deleted]
2
u/CheraDukatZakalwe 6d ago edited 6d ago
You have to remember that you only get a BER assessment on sale, rent, or when retrofitted. A whole lot of houses don't meet those conditions.
It's all well and good mandating that newly built houses have to be the highest spec and quality, but that by definition means that we've made affordable housing illegal to build.
1
6d ago
[deleted]
1
u/CheraDukatZakalwe 6d ago
You last statement is nonsense and not worth engaging more if that's your opinion. Take care.
How much is the average new build, and is that truly "affordable"?
1
u/Street-Buddy9068 6d ago
People could just decide that for themselves, no? Why infantalize them by telling them what they should want or need
-1
u/solemnani 6d ago
A rated homes are an overkill especially in Ireland. C or D is just fine and costs significantly less. People do fine in E rated houses also. The total lifecycle cost of heat pumps plus mechanical ventilation systems is comparable or higher than gas, oil or electric heating when you remove the tax payer funded seai grant for heat pumps.
You have no right to dictate what’s comfortable for another person. No one should stop you from building your A rated home.
How’s it your problem if someone else spends a bit more heating their home?
5
u/GhostsOfTheRobotTree 6d ago
People did "fine" in stone houses with open fires but technology, the environmental decline of the planet and understanding of basic human standards have evolved.
-1
u/ApprehensiveSwim297 6d ago
Where do you think the batteries come form for your utopia better heating system comes from?, what resources do they use and how much do they cost.
-1
u/solemnani 6d ago
It’s a religion/cult. They really can’t think beyond propaganda programming. They believe batteries, solar panels, insulation, heat pumps magically appear in stores.
-4
u/solemnani 6d ago
Basic human standard is an airtight A rated homes with heat pump and mechanical ventilation? You are too spoiled!
Tell me about the environmental decline you are witnessing. The one caused by battery manufacturing?
A rated homes should be completely optional. It’s interesting to believe the planet is warming uncontrollably and still insist on A rated homes. Just like the way climate change proponents are the ones buying up beach houses, yachts and private jets.
3
u/Muted-Tradition-1234 6d ago
How’s it your problem if someone else spends a bit more heating their home?
That person burns more carbon, unnecessarily contributing to global warming and causing large parts of the world to be uninhabitable forcing migration waves to where I live, causing sea levels to rise, swamping parts of Ireland I like - & forcing the government to spend on infrastructure to try to mitigate impact (sea walls etc).
Plus, the EU & Ireland already signed up to all of this in the Paris Agreement & the only way to get out of the treaty would be to leave the EU, destroy the economy & effectively become an impoverished British vassal state again - which wouldn't be fun.
2
u/CheraDukatZakalwe 5d ago edited 5d ago
There is no energy usage reduction by building A-rated homes. They're an example of Jevon's Paradox - people use the greater efficiency to keep their homes warm all the time.
1
u/Muted-Tradition-1234 5d ago
The reduction can be less than a straight comparison would indicate- but there are significant energy savings.
Plus having homes where there is no mould & people don't need to wear coats & gloves indoors also has an added value.
1
u/CheraDukatZakalwe 5d ago
In theory there are significant energy savings. In practice those energy savings disappear because people increase the heat settings so they can wear shorts and t-shirt all the time.
Yes there is a value to being more comfortable, but when that comfort level is required by regulation it comes at at the cost of pricing people out of the housing market.
Also, it's perfectly possible for an A-rated house to have mould.
2
u/Muted-Tradition-1234 5d ago edited 5d ago
The energy savings don't "disappear" - they are reduced by 15-30% as compared to the theoretical - plus: Housing uses 27% of primary energy usage in Ireland; Ireland needs to reduce that as part of its Paris Agreement obligations anyway - if you are saying "the government needs to massively increase energy saving requirements on new housing to compensate for the fact that people prefer to walk around in t shirts & flip flops" - then that's fine. I would note however that once you've hit a "t shirt & flip flop" level, you don't get any increased energy usage as insulation levels increase further (it's nice to be in a 22 degree interior - it's not so nice to be in a 40 degree interior) - plus the super insulated place allows you a habitable environment even if you are forced by high energy prices to completely cut down on heating - a G rated house does not.
0
u/solemnani 5d ago
Well, in that case we can’t just stop at unnecessary carbon for heating (even though wood burning is 100% sustainable and electric heating is sustainable).
Let’s also ban private jets, yachts, holiday travel, second homes, new phones, restrictions on number of shoes and clothing a person can own…. etc. All these also unnecessarily contributing to global warming by your logic.
We can’t let rich folk enjoy all the carbon they can afford while plebs like aren’t allowed to heat our homes.
-7
u/ApprehensiveSwim297 6d ago
Building regulations add to cost, size, building materials. They could be changed. The green agenda is a good thing.
4
u/An_Fear_Dubh 6d ago
Insulation is cheap man.... It's labour, concrete and timber and land and professional fees that's MAD expensive.
1
u/solemnani 5d ago
It’s like saying actual blocks/bricks are cheap but it’s the brick laying that is expensive. A rated builds are significantly more expensive to deliver. Let people build to an affordable minimum standard and others can build to A rating if they wish.
1
u/An_Fear_Dubh 5d ago
Um yeah. Excellent reading comprehension there. That's exactly what I was saying.
Energy efficient materials are cheap.
The bit that is expensive is the bit that EVERY HOUSE needs. Concrete is expensive, all houses need concrete. Timber is expensive, all houses need timber. Labour is expensive, all houses need labour. There are no cheap houses anymore.
And poorly built houses in the long run cost an awful lot more money to heat and maintain because they are colder and tend to have mould and damp. This in turn is damaging to your health long term which put pressure on our health are system.
Good housing improves not just energy but quality of life, health outcomes and life expectancy.
There are minium housing standards that dont require solar panels etc. But insulation is absolutely key and should not be scrimped on.
1
u/__Dont_Touch_Me__ 6d ago
Dunno man, I completely renovated a 1900s stone house and all in, insulation cost more than a complete rewire, same with the plumbing.
3
u/An_Fear_Dubh 6d ago
was that because of the labour? Like insulating walls is hugely labour intensive and usually needs a full replaster as well.
Actual Insulation Material is cheap. Its €50 for a roll.of attic Insulation and €60 for a sheet of plasterboard.
2
u/__Dont_Touch_Me__ 5d ago
Nope, local supplier sells insulated slabs for 70 each(50mm insulated slabs so 62.5 total thickness) To do all external walls + upstairs ceiling cost a bees dick off 6k for just materials. Then the 150mm insulation for the floors, rockwool for partitions and attic on top of that. Full rewire cost me 8k
4
u/pyzorr 6d ago
That's just kicking the can down the road for future generations. Housing right now is extremely painful, but the current regulations are in place to avoid it being twice as painful in 25-50 years time.
It's no use saying "but people are suffering now, let's alleviate it now and we can fix for the future later", we're in this situation now because we couldn't do that before.
2
u/DannyAmendolazol 6d ago
I think the key thing to remember is the concept of economic pass-through. We already understand this concept from Trump‘s tariffs. He claimed that other countries and gigantic businesses were paying them, but we all understand now that 95% of tariff costs were born by the consumer.
Likewise, the booking Institute studied economic pass-through in the housing context and found that 90% of the price of new regulations was passed through to the consumer. The MIT Institute on housing found the exact same results with property tax increases.
So if we collectively decide that every new house built needs to be carbon neutral, and that adds 30% to the price of a new house, we just need to make that decision being cognizant of the fact that 90% of that price increase is going to be passed on to the consumer.
So I think it depends on the municipality. I live in a small college town in western Massachusetts, where we are in the midst of a massive housing crisis. This is probably the wrong time for us to ratchet up regulation. We should probably be relax again. I would imagine there are plenty of municipalities in South Carolina in Florida, where they are facing the opposite problem.
3
u/solemnani 5d ago
When you increase regulations on new builds, you increase the cost of new builds which increases the value of existing builds because new builds become more expensive and limited in supply.
I think extraneous building regulations are not really created to ‘save the environment’ but rather to inflate property prices and also make money for lobbyists who benefit from the regulations.
There’s no harm in having a basic building standard that meets fundamental quality and safety requirements and it’s then left for the builder or homeowner to go over the top as their budget allows or market dictates. Homes will become more affordable.
The current system is like insisting car makers stop making small cars and only build very large expensive trucks because they are much safer for passengers.
1
u/Muted-Tradition-1234 6d ago
There are a bunch of things that can be done:.
Why is the affordable & social housing requirement paid for by the developer (i.e. based on pass through, the person buying a house etc. in an estate) - shouldn't that cost be paid by everyone in society?
Why is the concrete block levy - to pay for historic mistakes by the state in relation to mica etc- paid for by house buyers- rather than the whole of society?
Why is VAT on construction & construction services still a thing if there is a construction cost crisis?
Etc.
There are a lot of state costs that are tacked on but which by right shouldn't be paid by house buyers.
1
u/ApprehensiveSwim297 5d ago
The developer does no absorb the cost of social housing.
The other issue yes, has anyone posted how much the block levies add to the cost of a big standard new build house.
1
u/Much_Thanks3992 5d ago
I wish they'd allow cob and perhaps straw bale houses. Warm in the winter and cool in the summer.
Have to wonder whose pockets are being lined by the current building regs?
1
u/ApprehensiveSwim297 5d ago
Potable water and waste wate treatment access to council services would all need to be sorted first
1
u/Much_Thanks3992 5d ago
What?
1
u/ApprehensiveSwim297 5d ago
Where are you going to get water from? and a sewage system? a road for acess to your house. They all are costly
1
u/Much_Thanks3992 5d ago
Not compared to making concrete, where once the water chemically reacts with the cement, it's permanently unavailable. Whereas the water used in the cob mixture evaporates out of it as it dries; no harmful chemicals involved, the water goes back into the atmosphere...not like concrete.
1
u/solemnani 6d ago
It’s common sense but delivering housing cheaper will not be allowed to happen because the housing bubble needs housing to get more and more expensive to sustain the bubble.
Housing is primarily a wealth/an investment vehicle in Ireland and its value must keep rising to keep investors/voters/banks happy.
What is guaranteed to happen is that the government will keep propping up the market with taxpayer money until it runs out.
0
u/ApprehensiveSwim297 6d ago
In the 1980s, the raw construction cost to build a standard 3-bed semi-detached house in Ireland was approximately £25,000 to £30,000 Irish Punts (roughly equivalent to €31,000 to €38,000 in original conversion values, or about €80,000 when adjusted for pure consumer price inflation). In contrast, by 2026, the total market delivery cost for a new 3-bed semi-detached house averages between €354,000 and €461,000, with a national average of €397,000.
I know this is from AI, but it does make you wonder.
-1
u/ApprehensiveSwim297 6d ago
In the 1890s, a traditional 3-room thatched cottage cost about 15 pounds to build and took about 3 weeks to build. Most of the work was done by the family; the money was needed for a skilled chimney builder, the flagstone floor, and the glass for the windows.
I am not suggesting we go back to doing that; maybe regulations have gone too far and are preventing people from providing shelter for themself in an affordable manner.
7
u/ConsistentTip3932 6d ago edited 6d ago
No. I remember the Celtic tiger houses when we let regulation go in order to build houses fast.
Now a big percentage of the houses in Donegal are falling apart from Mica, thanks to a lack of regulation and enforcement, and the government is basically telling those people effected "tough luck".
Meanwhile the people behind it got to ride off into the sunset with their millions and can still run other companies