Dublin condos at 62 days: active-listing bias or a real shift?

[NimblePlan]

Waiting could improve our negotiating position, but it also risks losing a suitable home in one of the two neighbourhoods we actually want. The Dublin condos I have tracked between €614,600 and €921,800 appear to take about 62 days to secure a buyer, although a few long-running cases seem associated with transaction fees.

I do not trust a citywide figure for this decision. Would you compare these active listings with recent completed sales using the original marketing dates, or is the sample still too distorted by condition and stale stock to guide an offer?

 

[mina_grove]

Listings still online will naturally overrepresent properties that have not sold, so 62 days could be measuring the stubborn stock rather than typical demand. Recent completed deals would help, but compare their original listing dates rather than completion dates alone. Completion can add delays unrelated to how quickly a buyer was found.

 

[daan_rose]

How are you drawing the two neighbourhood boundaries? A few streets can change the mix of condition, size and asking price. I would also separate properties needing work from those ready to occupy. Otherwise the slower condition category may be driving your 62-day result.

 

[anika_equity]

Completed sales are useful, but they are backward-looking. The specific concern is that terms may have been agreed before the conditions visible in today’s listings developed.

It is tempting to treat completions as the correction for active-listing bias, yet neither group should stand alone. I would first separate newly listed, sale agreed, completed, withdrawn and still available properties, then compare their original dates and price changes. That sequence should show whether 62 days reflects current demand or a residue of older stock.

 

[finn.dove]

If the fee explanation is wrong, you could misclassify the slow properties and make an offer based on a false pattern. I understand why transaction fees look important, but are they disclosed consistently across all the listings?

Where the information is available, record the type and amount alongside condition, price changes and marketing time. Where it is missing, mark it unknown rather than assuming there was no fee issue. That keeps the properties in the sample without treating an unevenly reported detail as the cause of the outliers.

 

[walksAndEcho]

A simple property-by-property table would be more revealing than one average: first listed date, original price, latest price, date marked sale agreed, withdrawal date if applicable, condition and exact neighbourhood. Then calculate both the median and the range. Ten ordinary listings plus two very stale ones can produce a misleading headline number.

 

[alba.wood]

The property-by-property table is sensible, but it will still give a skewed picture if the supply entering the sample has changed. A quiet month for suitable condos would leave older stock making up more of the visible pool, even if buyer demand had not weakened.

Add weekly counts of fresh listings within the same two neighbourhoods and the €614,600–€921,800 range. The listing dates already being collected should provide that evidence. Then compare those counts with sale-agreed and withdrawal activity before interpreting the 62-day figure.

 

[alba.wood]

Following @streetlight_felix’s table idea, withdrawals need their own category. A withdrawn property did not necessarily find a buyer, but excluding it makes the market look faster than it was. Relisted properties are another complication because the current listing date may hide an earlier marketing period.

 

[alba.wood]

Price cuts should be timed, not just counted. A reduction after 20 days tells a different story from one after 90 days. I wouldn’t restart the clock when the price changes; keep total marketing time and add a second measure for days between the latest reduction and sale agreed.

 

[alba.wood]

Seller motivation may explain some of the spread without being directly observable. Repeated reductions or a quick relisting can be clues, but they are not proof. Buyer financing can also extend the path after interest appears, so “found a buyer” needs one consistent event—ideally the first sale-agreed date rather than completion.

 

[flag.neat]

With only two neighbourhoods, matched comparisons may be better than chasing a bigger citywide sample. Pair similar condos by size, condition and location, then compare asking changes and time on market. A small clean sample can be more useful for an offer decision than a large mixed one.

 

[aisha_questions]

I’d use the 62 days as a prompt, not a conclusion. First verify whether it is a median or average, add withdrawn and relisted stock, and split new listings from older inventory. Then compare recent completed properties with current ones of similar condition inside the same boundaries. If the long marketing times cluster around particular fees, condition issues or ambitious initial prices, that is more actionable than a single Dublin-wide number.