It’s impossible to know without knowing the condition of the main house (or indeed anything about it), but let’s assume it’s in good nick but needs 300k to upgrade. If sold on 0.5 acre it might fetch 1.2 million. Two large houses each on 0.3 acres? Might cost 400k-450k each to build and finish to very high spec, and might sell for 750k?
So, how does that work out?
Site Cost = Assumed Completed Sale Value - (Renovation + Build Costs + Finance)
Site Cost = (1.2million+750,000+750,000) - (300,000+850,000+150,000)
Site Value = 1.4million.
That allows for no contingency, no fall in values, and no profit.
Thats why its challenging, the value as I see it depends on what use you have for the property. If you want a nice big house you have to renovate the existing so the fact that there is planning is irrelevant, nobody wants 2 houses built in their garden right?
The answer is that it is worth the higher of either:
a) the profit from doing up the listed house and selling with its one acre garden
b) the profit from building 2 houses, doing up one and selling all three.
The profit depends on the future price of property.
Coles2 is thinking the right way. Might only be worth a million.
Assuming that the buyer had the money or finance available, I think in the current climate very few people would be willing to risk €1 million for the development potential. If the selling prices decline further, which most commentators believe they will then a builder could get badly burned if they paid that price.
I would appreciate any ideas as to what the house would be worth if the “potential” was disredarded.
Its good to know I’m not the only one who thinks a million for this gaff is rich.
The property is protected and has to be converted from its current setup ie offices. I would imagine that there are a small number of people who would even consider taking this on, as such, anything more than €300k - €400k seems reckless.
This rather imposing house and gardens has been vacant for some years now and is fraying at the edges.
I`m always somewhat bemused at the “Preserved” or “Protected” tag as applied by well meaning bodies to building such as this,as one usually finds it ends up referring to a smoking ruin.
The general area of Clonskeagh is like much of Ireland,in a state of flux with few appearing to have a grasp of reality.
Not too far away on Roebuck Road,( opposite the Little Sisters of the Poor ) there are three brand new houses languishing unsold for over a year now after a fine bit of plannery which involved accquiring and demolishing some older stock and erecting the brave new concept which has as yet failed to find any biyers !
Perhaps a candidate for some Social & Affordable or a particularly savvy purchase by the Local Authority in order to promote the Social Diversification Milleu…???
Building is between the old “Philips Building” entrance and the Clonskeagh Gate to UCD. Was formerly Gypsum Industries or something along those lines Head Office. Land backs on to the College, BOI Branch, and some apartment blocks. The building itself requires ALOT of restoration. Would need to be surveyed, and the listing I think would make all work v expensive.
WIW? Have not got a clue. Road is busy but the house is set well back from it, lots of students, and IMO the bank makes it a bit of a security risk (would never live next door to a bank)… I do like the building myself, I think it is beautiful, and has lots of potential as a home, but only after spending shed loads on it.
mr.agent, please don’t take the following as a personal slight. My criticism is directed at the estate agent/valuer trade specifically and also, in general, at the bulk of the Irish house buying population.
I find your valuation method predictable and frustrating in equal measure. Your methodology is predictable in that it is the same technique I would expect to see applied by any valuer presented with this scenario. My frustration is that the price is determined based on the maximum potential return for a purchaser which if taken to a logical conclusion implies that there is no profit motive for the purchaser at that price. Indeed, it values the work undertaken by anyone in renovating a property like this as literally worthless, providing them with a nil return for their efforts.
I contend that it means there is no financial incentive in this country to properly maintain properties. When 2 otherwise identical properties in differing states of repair are offered with a price differential equal to the cost of the repairs, it implies there is no premium (or discount) for proper property maintenance and no opportunity for the purchaser to add value by rectifying the neglect.
On the occasions I have raised this with those in a property occupation I tend to be met blank piscine stares or the dreadful truism “That isn’t how property works in this country”. The tragedy of this situation is that this innumeracy was and is generally blithely accepted by the body public.
Anyway, rant over. I think I just needed to vent that.