It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionQuestion for my fellow Finnish people from Finland (real estate price)(52 posts)(52 posts)
(52 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted September 06, 2016
avatar
timppu: ... Also the things I heard about mortgages in Sweden... mortgages where the expected repayment time is 100-150 years, ie. ...
That's basically renting then. Nothing bad inherently about renting. Most people here do it and they are kind of fine with it.

I would say it is the entrepreneurial freedom to decide how long a mortgage should run or not. If there are investors willing to go along with such long mortgages why not. The only exception would be if the financial industry in Sweden is influenced by government to actually lower the standards there.

avatar
Nirth: ...Given that there's a huge lack of building going in Sweden (it was on the news recently; an expected 770 000 new apartments/small houses should be built in the Northern part where I live before 2020 but now they don't think we will even cover half of that) ...
In theory, but just in theory, this means that the rents aren't high enough. Otherwise there would be huge incentive to build that missing 700k apartments and small houses in order to make lots of profit.

I wonder though if these missing apartments or only in the 2-3 big cities or also on the countryside. Here we have the effect that the big cities are extremely expensive (Munich, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, even Berlin,...) while in the countryside you get cheap houses really cheap but no good jobs of course.

With more and more concentration of people in cities (Berlin grows by 200 persons every day) this is probably inevitable somehow.
Post edited September 06, 2016 by Trilarion
Posted September 06, 2016
avatar
timppu: ...Also the housing benefit system here unfortunately seems to raise to rent prices (me being a good example, the rent went up from my original 600€ to 700€ because apparently that is the maximum what the housing benefit by the social security covers at the moment), it should be changed somehow.
Hmm, in markets where the supply of apartments is limited this will always happen while if there would be more housing, this relation would obviously not hold.

Only solution out: Build more houses (and make everything as flexible as possible of course). The government should invest its money in building new houses (or incentivize building of new houses by reduced taxes, ...) instead of just paying the higher and higher rents within their welfare system. This would be public money well spent.
Post edited September 07, 2016 by Trilarion
Posted September 06, 2016
avatar
Trilarion: Hmm. There aren't many unemployed and 1000 is still much more than 450 and not working is very, very boring. So do we really wonder, I wonder.
You'd be surprised how many fill up pubs (ie drinking during the day instead of working) in my country with less than that... But probably the germans have a healthier attitude towards work then most of my fellow countrymen.
avatar
timppu:
Out of curiosity how much would an apartment like yours cost in Finland? I'm just wondering about the return rate.
avatar
Trilarion: Only solution out: Build more houses (and make everything as flexible as possible of course). The government should invest it's money in building new houses (or incentivize building of new houses by reduced taxes, ...) instead of just paying the higher and higher rents within their welfare system. This would be public money well spent.
They tried that in my country... Who do you think got those houses built by the government? If you answered the children/relatives of the local politicians, then we have a winner...
Post edited September 06, 2016 by blotunga
Posted September 06, 2016
avatar
Trilarion: That's basically renting then. Nothing bad inherently about renting. Most people here do it and they are kind of fine with it.
It's different to accept rent and never own your home but not being stuck in a loan than taking a loan that basically works as a rent but if the prices fall, you might end up with a loan even if after selling resulting in a new home rent + your old loan. Who wants that? :P

avatar
Trilarion: In theory, but just in theory, this means that the rents aren't high enough. Otherwise there would be huge incentive to build that missing 700k apartments and small houses in order to make lots of profit.
Or the expected/demanded profit margins are too high based upon historical or potential earnings. I for one don't want a society where more than 50% of a median salary goes towards residents. We need a new backing for the economy that doesn't directly affect basic living like shelter or sustanance.

avatar
Trilarion: I wonder though if these missing apartments or only in the 2-3 big cities or also on the countryside. Here we have the effect that the big cities are extremely expensive (Munich, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, even Berlin,...) while in the countryside you get cheap houses really cheap but no good jobs of course.
It's the same in Sweden but I don't think it's only just a lack of job that is the issue, its necessity to use a transport to and from work or the inner city that takes at least 1 hour per day that people might want to avoid, after all you just waste that time to nothing. Generally speaking, that seems to be a problem in most industrialized nations though. Excessive transporting and high prices close to town where the jobs are. And damnit, those traffic jams. It's amazing how much time we steal from each other with so many queues in society. It's depressing and no one ever mentions the issue of queues in the news or in political debate.

There definitely needs to be more 1-human studious being built everywhere. Statistics show that the majority of people live alone the majority of their time as adults. This should be reflected then to build many, many but smaller flats to accomodate that need. Problem is, to make a decent profit to justify it agencies might end up creating glorified Soviet housing, large and cheap, and that would probably indirectly harm people psychologically, adding another hidden cost to society. Also, large building projects cost enough money guaranteed profits need to be assesed, increasing protectionism and anti-competitive strategies.
Posted September 06, 2016
avatar
Tyrrhia: Yeah, that's what I meant. That's good to know. Because here in France, immigrants are like served on a silver platter, whereas our governments do practically nothing for our homeless people.
avatar
Antimateria: Well, I get the same feeling in here but perhaps that's just my bitterness thinking about stuff. =)
avatar
KneeTheCap: Immigrants are treated way better, but we're not allowed to talk about it.
I see. I guess it was too good to be true.

avatar
Trilarion: You can probably find out by searching for numbers of how much the Finnish government pays for the refugees/immigrants and how much it pays for the unemployed Finnish citizens. This should be public figures.
It's not so much about the amount of money given; it's about the following support. For example, in France, our government wants to find homes to put migrants in before destroying the Calais migrant camp for sanitary reasons, but doesn't provide homes for our homeless people (fortunately, there are associations for that, but it really shouldn't have to be done by third-parties).
Posted September 07, 2016
avatar
blotunga: ... You'd be surprised how many fill up pubs (ie drinking during the day instead of working) in my country with less than that... But probably the germans have a healthier attitude towards work then most of my fellow countrymen. ...
Not sure about that. Maybe they are just lucky that there are some more jobs and the government has more money to spend which probably just means more booze in the pubs (or better booze? or just more expensive booze?).

Living on welfare here means you have health care, housing and enough money for cheap food and clothing. It doesn't mean you can make a holiday or get a car or buy expensive stuff like a real gaming computer for example. Compared to someone with an average salary you are still quite poor. So there is enough incentive to get a job.

On the other hand, employers who have the choice will surely not choose the one who didn't work for a long time or doesn't have many qualifications. So it's not really easy to get a decent job for some either.

So, some of them kind of adapt to their miserable life and go to the pubs. I think it's not the best solution, but I don't want to condemn them much either. Sometimes life deals you a miserable hand or you had bad luck or you are just quite stupid. Digging yourself out of the hole isn't easy. So I'm all for being a bit more generous regarding welfare. Especially in regard to the kids of those living on welfare so that low social status doesn't inherit itself (which usually it does). That's what I most don't like about it.
avatar
Nirth: ...There definitely needs to be more 1-human studious being built everywhere. Statistics show that the majority of people live alone the majority of their time as adults. This should be reflected then to build many, many but smaller flats to accomodate that need. ...
Alternative would be shared apartments (like in the good old college times, only a bit more mature). I mean it would be a waste to have a tiny bathroom for everyone (or kitchen or balcony or fridge or TV which are all things you do not need the whole time anyway) if you can share it with 1-4 other single persons and have it big instead (a bit like in Big Bang Theory).
Post edited September 07, 2016 by Trilarion
Posted September 07, 2016
avatar
Nirth: There definitely needs to be more 1-human studious being built everywhere. Statistics show that the majority of people live alone the majority of their time as adults.
Here (in Helsinki area) I think they have restrictions that the constructors have to build also bigger family apartments to the apartment houses, not only small studios even though there is a higher demand for the latter, especially due to students, immigrants etc.

I think the reasoning is that they want to lure also families to those areas, not only singles. I guess they feel families living their "rush hours" are usually making, and spending, the most money, while singles are quite often poorer people who also spend less and pay less taxes (take for example the Iraqi migrant that I have as a tenant, and whose rent is paid by the social security system). So forcing contructors to build also bigger apartments is a way to lure better paying families to the area.

However, Vantaa (which is next to Helsinki, in the same metropolitan area) they are now also building very small studios for singles. They are only 15 m2 I think, in two floors, and have somewhat cheaper rent too (500€/month, which I guess is cheap for a brand-new apartment). You can see some pictures on the following page.

https://www.sato.fi/fi/asumisratkaisut/sato-studiokoti-kohtuuhintainen-vuokra-asunto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2I2c2njH4w

I think there was earlier a restriction that the minimum size for an apartment is 21 m2, so I am unsure how they got the exemption to build even smaller studios, and apparently the whole building is only those ultra-small studios.

There have also been talks of making cheap "temporary" apartments for students etc. into those containers you see on docks (I guess they would add insulation to make them warm, and add running water/plumbing and a window or two), but I think this proposal was rejected, maybe they felt it is inhuman and could create new slums.
Post edited September 07, 2016 by timppu
Posted September 07, 2016
avatar
Trilarion: Alternative would be shared apartments (like in the good old college times, only a bit more mature). I mean it would be a waste to have a tiny bathroom for everyone (or kitchen or balcony or fridge or TV which are all things you do not need the whole time anyway) if you can share it with 1-4 other single persons and have it big instead (a bit like in Big Bang Theory).
A self-cleaning bathroom and kitchen would be interesting, multiple TV rooms etc.. could probably be installed for everyone. There needs to be 1 room though that only 1 person decides what is what, I think that basic personal privacy and power is extremely important for mental health.

avatar
timppu: I think the reasoning is that they want to lure also families to those areas, not only singles. I guess they feel families living their "rush hours" are usually making, and spending, the most money, while singles are quite often poorer people who also spend less and pay less taxes (take for example the Iraqi migrant that I have as a tenant, and whose rent is paid by the social security system). So forcing contructors to build also bigger apartments is a way to lure better paying families to the area.
That makes sense. I wonder though if they could build smaller apartments that go together but there's a door between. So if a family wants to move in, they take at least 2 smaller, perhaps 3 and leave the doors open with the added space. If they move, 1 smaller family could move into 2 flats and 1 person could live in 1 of the flats. The problem is rent, it doesn't seem like those smaller apartments have decent rent per m^2. Then there's issue of ownership, if someone wants to tear down the door for a more vivid space as I imagine someone would want, it would destroy the consistency of the architectural design. Only partial ownership for the sake of lower rent or renting out would viable then.

avatar
timppu: I think there was earlier a restriction that the minimum size for an apartment is 21 m2, so I am unsure how they got the exemption to build even smaller studios, and apparently the whole building is only those ultra-small studios.

There have also been talks of making cheap "temporary" apartments for students etc. into those containers you see on docks (I guess they would add insulation to make them warm, and add running water/plumbing and a window or two), but I think this proposal was rejected, maybe they felt it is inhuman and could create new slums.
It would be fruitful to have a small trial, maybe even entice a few students to try and live their as a psychological experiment (might want to keep that from the students though) to assertain if an abnormally small living space is detrimental to one's health. Personally I wouldn't mind trying and if I were a student at the time, a few months or perhaps a year or two at the most might be doable. Long-term living might not work but then that wouldn't be necessary.
Posted September 07, 2016
avatar
timppu: There have also been talks of making cheap "temporary" apartments for students etc. into those containers you see on docks (I guess they would add insulation to make them warm, and add running water/plumbing and a window or two), but I think this proposal was rejected, maybe they felt it is inhuman and could create new slums.
I think I've already discussed about it in another old thread but the market for container-housings has greatly evolved in the past years and now offer affordable and qualitative solutions for regular housings (for 1-2 people maximum per container of course).

Example:
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/container-house-furnished_1996195171.html?spm=a2700.7724857.0.0.u7i5YY

There are even some on AirBnB:
https://fr.airbnb.be/wishlists/shipping-container-homes

And for full-disclosure, I'm a huge partisan of this new model of "real estate" as it's highly adaptable and can maximize the ratio surface/profits. I actually hope I can raise enough money in the upcoming years to open a dedicated "park" which could be rented to individuals or small offices (I guess I should retake my old signature "Capitalism Ho!" ^o^).
avatar
Nirth: It would be fruitful to have a small trial, maybe even entice a few students to try and live their as a psychological experiment (might want to keep that from the students though) to assertain if an abnormally small living space is detrimental to one's health. Personally I wouldn't mind trying and if I were a student at the time, a few months or perhaps a year or two at the most might be doable. Long-term living might not work but then that wouldn't be necessary.
No need for tests/trials as containers are just the modern way of "permanent caravaning" (where you setlle your caravan and rent a space in a camping for one year at least)
Post edited September 07, 2016 by catpower1980
Posted September 07, 2016
avatar
timppu: ...They are only 15 m2 I think, in two floors, and have somewhat cheaper rent too (500€/month, which I guess is cheap for a brand-new apartment). ...
But then shared apartments are really a much better deal and alternative. If only four students or immigrants or otherwise poor people who can only afford to spend 500€/month/person on housing get together, they could spend 2000€/month and that would get them here probably at least the rent of a 130m² house with a garden which would be much more value for the money.
Post edited September 07, 2016 by Trilarion
Posted September 07, 2016
Is there really a demand for tiny studios?

Or for cheap housing?

I think it's more the latter. The former is, of course, cheap. But I think it would be more humane to attack the price of housing in general rather than just build (relatively speaking expensive) tiny cubicles where you can't have much in the way of hobbies or social life or anything really. I feel like being forced to live in such a small space would really drive my mental health (which isn't so great to begin with) way under.

For a point of reference, I pay 530eur (plus water plus electricity plus parking space) for a two-room, 49sqm apartment. 500 for a <20sqm cubicle would be hell.

It still stings paying the rent and knowing that when I move (in 5 or 10 years? who knows?), I get nothing back. 10 years at this rate (which it won't be, as rent is tied to the cost of living index) would be 63.6kEur, which would be plenty of money towards buying a decent apartment or even your own house... which you could then sell for a good return when you decide to move somewhere else.

Actually, I think it could help if the housing benefits could be used for paying off your mortgage (as opposed to paying off your rent). Would that be a good counter to what the system now does, i.e. artificially increasing rent rates? That should incentivize the building of new housing for living instead of for renting out at the artificially inflated rates. Actually, (properly implemented) BI would work to the same effect; since you get it unconditionally and you spend it on whatever you like, you'd have the option to get a home instead of paying sick rent. That is assuming the banks are willing to loan for someone living on BI.

Properly implemented BI would be a godsend for me right now. I'm unemployed since last week... and I'd start my own company today. But in the current system, I have to apply for the startup fund, which involves a bunch of bureaucracy and other bullshit. Basically I have to make a convincing business plan and sell my idea to the not-private "investor" to get what amounts to unemployment benefits. Now I'm not a particularly charismatic person, I absolutely loathe marketing and selling and pretending and wearing suits and shit like that. I'd rather just start using the skills I have, the things I'm good at, to make a good product.

I don't know if I can afford to start my own company. I don't know if I can get the damn startup fund. In any case, the process is tedious and takes time (and taxpayer money....) too. So here I am basically waiting, my near future is a big question mark, and it's possible that my plans & dreams get completely trashed and I end up looking for yet another soul destroying day job. It's very stressful.

With BI I really would be doing something useful right now. :(
Post edited September 07, 2016 by clarry
Posted September 07, 2016
avatar
Trilarion: But then shared apartments are really a much better deal and alternative. If only four students or immigrants or otherwise poor people who can only afford to spend 500€/month/person on housing get together, they could spend 2000€/month and that would get them here probably at least the rent of a 130m² house with a garden which would be much more value for the money.
Maybe, depends. If and when I am single, I very much prefer having e.g. my own bathroom and kitchen, just so that I never get into arguments with others who should do dishes and who ate what and who didn't remember to flush and whose hair is in the bathroom. (I guess I have to do that now with my wife anyway, but at least I got to choose my wife and he is not just some stranger I try to cope with).

As long as I have a place to make food and wash dishes, a place for my laptop, a place to sleep and watch TV, and my own bathroom and I can even fit a small washing machine there... I am perfectly happy. For instance a 31m2 studio is plenty of room for me alone (lived in one for many years, the one I am now renting out), I could probably easily cut even 10m2 from that and still be happy.

Looking at that 15m2 studio I linked to, it otherwise looked perfectly ok to me, except that apparently I couldn't fit a washing machine anywhere to do my laundry. Oh well, then I'd have to agree when to do my laundry in a common washing room, I guess.
Post edited September 07, 2016 by timppu
Posted September 07, 2016
avatar
clarry: Is there really a demand for tiny studios?
Or for cheap housing?
Good point, but let's say a two room apartment costs 500€/month... then one would expect a smaller studio to cost less, e.g. 350-400€/month. Hey, that's still 100-150€/month extra money for other uses, so unless there is some compelling reason to have the bigger apartment, many people would still choose the smaller apartment, just because it is even cheaper.

avatar
clarry: For a point of reference, I pay 530eur (plus water plus electricity plus parking space) for a two-room, 49sqm apartment. 500 for a <20sqm cubicle would be hell.
Can I ask roughtly where (e.g. is it the Helsinki area, some smaller town or what), and how long have you been there? Is it from the private market, or from the state or e.g. HOAS?

avatar
clarry: It still stings paying the rent and knowing that when I move (in 5 or 10 years? who knows?), I get nothing back.
Yeah, that is why I at one point bite the bullet and bought my first apartment, after being years in a (biggish) rental apartment. I am glad I did, now I at least own something. All my expenses (mortgage payments, interests, the monthly housing costs ("yhtiövastike")) were something like 550€/month, ie. pretty much what I would have expected to pay rent for it. And I was able to pay it off in about 8 years (I did a couple of extra payments during that time, but the falling interest rates also helped me to shorten the payment time, which originally was probably calculated to be something like 15 years).

avatar
clarry: Actually, I think it could help if the housing benefits could be used for paying off your mortgage (as opposed to paying off your rent).
I think in Finland you can get housing benefits for paying for mortgage interest payments and the housing costs, but not for the loan payments (cutting down the mortgage). And that makes perfect sense to me as paying for the mortgage is in fact about buying property, so it would be odd if the housing benefit would cover that too.
Posted September 07, 2016
avatar
Nirth: ...There definitely needs to be more 1-human studious being built everywhere. Statistics show that the majority of people live alone the majority of their time as adults. This should be reflected then to build many, many but smaller flats to accomodate that need. ...
avatar
Trilarion: Alternative would be shared apartments (like in the good old college times, only a bit more mature). I mean it would be a waste to have a tiny bathroom for everyone (or kitchen or balcony or fridge or TV which are all things you do not need the whole time anyway) if you can share it with 1-4 other single persons and have it big instead (a bit like in Big Bang Theory).
I don't know about you, but I use my fridge 100% of the time to keep food from going bad before I get to it, and my kitchen every day because it's where I make meals.

Sharing a fridge and kitchen is a huge pain even with 1 roommate. I shared with 4 people once, and would never, ever do that again. I would have to BE paid to tolerate that, and to make up for all the cooking I wouldn't be able to do. I'd move back home first.

avatar
clarry: Is there really a demand for tiny studios?

Or for cheap housing?

I think it's more the latter. The former is, of course, cheap. But I think it would be more humane to attack the price of housing in general rather than just build (relatively speaking expensive) tiny cubicles where you can't have much in the way of hobbies or social life or anything really. I feel like being forced to live in such a small space would really drive my mental health (which isn't so great to begin with) way under.

For a point of reference, I pay 530eur (plus water plus electricity plus parking space) for a two-room, 49sqm apartment. 500 for a <20sqm cubicle would be hell.

It still stings paying the rent and knowing that when I move (in 5 or 10 years? who knows?), I get nothing back. 10 years at this rate (which it won't be, as rent is tied to the cost of living index) would be 63.6kEur, which would be plenty of money towards buying a decent apartment or even your own house... which you could then sell for a good return when you decide to move somewhere else.

Actually, I think it could help if the housing benefits could be used for paying off your mortgage (as opposed to paying off your rent). Would that be a good counter to what the system now does, i.e. artificially increasing rent rates? That should incentivize the building of new housing for living instead of for renting out at the artificially inflated rates. Actually, (properly implemented) BI would work to the same effect; since you get it unconditionally and you spend it on whatever you like, you'd have the option to get a home instead of paying sick rent. That is assuming the banks are willing to loan for someone living on BI.

Properly implemented BI would be a godsend for me right now. I'm unemployed since last week... and I'd start my own company today. But in the current system, I have to apply for the startup fund, which involves a bunch of bureaucracy and other bullshit. Basically I have to make a convincing business plan and sell my idea to the not-private "investor" to get what amounts to unemployment benefits. Now I'm not a particularly charismatic person, I absolutely loathe marketing and selling and pretending and wearing suits and shit like that. I'd rather just start using the skills I have, the things I'm good at, to make a good product.

I don't know if I can afford to start my own company. I don't know if I can get the damn startup fund. In any case, the process is tedious and takes time (and taxpayer money....) too. So here I am basically waiting, my near future is a big question mark, and it's possible that my plans & dreams get completely trashed and I end up looking for yet another soul destroying day job. It's very stressful.

With BI I really would be doing something useful right now. :(
In the US people often use personal debt to fund businesses, not government funds. Is that possible where you are?

I definitely agree on the need for cheaper housing. People don't want to live in smaller places, but they do need a place to live and it seems like the only way to stay in budget is to accept smaller and smaller places. Or buy a house and keep the same mortgage payment regardless of rent prices. That can backfire if rents fall, but works out pretty well usually because often rents rise.
Post edited September 07, 2016 by Gilozard
Posted September 07, 2016
avatar
Gilozard: People don't want to live in smaller places, but they do need a place to live and it seems like the only way to stay in budget is to accept smaller and smaller places.
What is the budget then? Wouldn't all want to live in some apartment for free if they could, just so that they'd have more money to spend on everything else, as long as the apartment met certain minimum requirements regarding the location, size, facilities etc.?

Maybe people are different then in such matters, but for me, I have certain minimum requirements for the apartment where I want to live, certain size and location being two of them. As long as the apartment meets those minimum requirement, great. Then all I want is that it is as cheap as possible, so that I have more money to spend elsewhere.

I lived as a tenant in a 89m2 apartment for years, I paid something like 900€/month for it (including water and a parking place). Living as a single that was even too much space for me, I felt I was paying for something I didn't need. The extra bedroom I had became a storage room where I started keeping crap that really belonged to the trashcan.

From there I moved to my first own apartment, the 31m2 studio apartment. I didn't feel like my standards for living really got any worse even though my home shrank from 89m2 to 31m2. And the main reason I wanted to move from a (pretty spacious) rental apartment to a small studio I had bought was that I would save lots of money in the long run. I would probably still live there if I was still a single.

I could have easily still afforded to live in that 89m2 apartment, but I just didn't see the point for paying extra for something that I felt I didn't really need (the size).
Post edited September 07, 2016 by timppu
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionQuestion for my fellow Finnish people from Finland (real estate price)(52 posts)(52 posts)
(52 posts)