43 Ailesbury Road, Ballsbridge (-6.4m, -75.3%)

Sold for “well over €8.5m” in 2007
irishtimes.com/newspaper/pro … 12210.html

Now asking 2.95m according to article.
irishtimes.com/newspaper/pro … 35207.html
3961 sq feet, €744/sq foot.

[Edit - added Daft link]
daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=5 … rch=1&ea=1

I have a contact willing to pay €6,000 rent a month for such a property.
Would hazard a guess and say thats pretty much the going rate.

So …

€6,000 x 12 = €72,000 p.a.

€72,000 / €2,979,500* = 2.42%

*€2.95m + 1% stamp duty.

Presumably for a property that is in walk in condition though. This has to be renovated.

*That’s 1% on the first 1M and 2% on the rest.

So it is still at more than twice the price it should be? (i.e. yield should be 5% min)

daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=573331

“Monthly Repayments From: €9,832.15”

thepost.ie/news/ireland/emba … 54244.html

The massive drop presumably has something to do with the fact that the last owner (I think Derek Quinlan) built a mews / house behind it and has killed the great back garden it would have had. Doubt it will go for much more than 2m at the end of the day and does appear to need significant work.

-350k

Now 2.6mln

myhome.ie/1247514

642 per sq ft, dream on

nice garden though :unamused:

Now 2.1m
myhome.ie/residential/brochu … -4/1247514

Why might the bricks be slightly darker in tone than the classic “red brick” colour of the houses to either side? Is it just dirt?

Another Derek Quinlan special. The man must have wandered around Dublin 4 buying every big house for sale, like a shiny-object-gathering-animal gathering shiny objects, paying far too much because he could and he knew better than the rest of us.

He left them idle, unrenovated with their value spiralling downwards.

I think they should be left idle with large black plaques attached as monuments to stupidity and greed: of developers, bankers and Fianna Fail and the Greens in bailing out the two groups with our money.

(Insert obligatory quote from Ozymandias here.)

And like 70 Park Avenue, Sandymount (viewtopic.php?f=23&t=38357), nearly an 80% drop, so far.

It’s like a reverse magic trick. Stuff the hat full of money and watch 80% of it disappear (through the real loss is much much greater, given the lost cost of funding/servicing, stamp duty and opportunity cost).

I know people can go overboard with fancy bathrooms and en-suites but there’s this is the other extreme - shower room and WC upstairs!

Perhaps because, in its former guise as the German embassy, it got blown up in the mid to late seventies with damage to the right hand Sid of the building as you view it from the road. Possibly had to use slightly different bricks for redo.

Masters of the Universe are too busy to take a dump.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by jxbr above. This configuration — a large, very run-down Victorian mansion with a ridiculously abbreviated garden, backing directly on to a site-hogging, newly built mews house — is just ridiculous. The mews is saleable but the main house is ruined by the back garden aspect.

Perhaps pull down the main house and sell the mews with a decent back garden?

The whole site is a monument to bubble mania bordering on mental illness.

:open_mouth: Eh !

Is this the mews behind it? - would be a waste of a decent back garden. Just pull the mews down and give the site back to the original house

thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=37874&p=503767&hilit=18+ailesbury+wood#p503767

Agreed. The Mews is complete rubbish. God help any sucker who forks out for that. The main house is a Nama/Receiver sale.

alex_a got the joke but to others – when I said rip down the main house and sell the mews with a big back garden, I was trying to be ironic. Probably a poor attempt at a joke. Obviously the way to save the site is to rip down the mews, but even that solution is such a shame and environmentally very wasteful.

In terms of livability the mews is a decent house on a quiet lane. Admittedly it hogs the site in an unattractive way, but that is not intolerable. The overall problem is what the relatively large and intrusive mews does to the historic property in front of it, by squatting all the way across the south-facing back garden. The big mews ruins the aspect from the back of the house, from all angles.

Perhaps the original house can be sold as an embassy or office building of some sort where the back garden does not matter. It is a real shame that we allowed a developer to ruin an historic property in south central Dublin in this way.

You are right. This place, in the current market, has almost no value.

See page 6 of Record of Protected Structures dublincity.ie/Planning/Herit … 1-2017.pdf.

This house is listed. This imposes restrictions (and thus increases the costs) on what can be done:

Buy a money-pit and fill it full of money.