My opinion is that when you are young, you want the best house that you can afford to impress your friends and relatives about how well you are doing. But it is not until you actually live in one of these big houses on the little blocks that you experience all the problems that go with living in them and, as you get older, and your nerves are shredded by the stresses, then you realise that something not so closed in is really more desirable. Also, it is not until you get into your 40s and 50s and your knees start going, that you realise that running up and down those stairs is not something you want to do for the rest of your life.
A General Rant about Block Sizes and Ugly Housing Estates
- Thread starter MishMash
- Start date
chook said:
Which all add up the conclusion that McMansions are lousy investments, for the following reasons:
1. Small land area & value component (compared to established suburbs)
2. No subdivision potential
3. Location may be less handy than older suburbs
4. Dearer than houses in older suburbs
5. Stairs (given the ageing population)
6. Likely zero capital growth in first few years (which as discussed previously is the most critical time for an investor to be building capital)
About the only circumstance where a McMansion might be worth it is (i) it's near the suburb's amenities, (ii) it could easily be divided into two townhouses, and (iii) it's cheap!
All things considered, about the most suitable housing option for many middle-income retired people would be a single level 2 or 3 br villa unit (or duplex) with office area, garage, workshop space, storage, security and small front and rear gardens.
Peter
Small blocks of land...
I've been reading all the previous posts with much interest. I work for one of the large developers that subdivides these smaller blocks (some larger ones too). From what I've been able to learn, it comes down to a few reasons. Firstly, we keep getting told that land in the Sydney basin will become rare in the next 10 years. Developable land therefore is highly sought after, therefore those selling it sell it to the developers at the highest price. For each block subdivided, the developer needs to make a $50K contribution to the government. This gets added straight onto the price of the land. Then you have the development costs such as roads, sewer, water, electricity, community centres, bike paths, parks, street planting, Council contributions, consultants fees, staff fees and the list goes on.
I hear it from a project managers point of view on a daily basis, but as I am interested in property investment, I understand it from both points of view. And it becomes very simple as well, as the influx of people continues into Sydney, they have to move somewhere and if you can't move out any further, then you must move up...
I have been involved in the project home industry for nearly 20 years now and I have watched the house sizes grow and the Council rules change. It appears that the majority of people nowadays want to build their McMansion. Personally, I don't understand it as my first house and current PPOR is a 2 bed fibro, ex-housing commission house with a granny flat attached. My intention at the time (10 yrs) ago was to get into the market. I grew up in Baulkham Hills but was not able to afford the house prices there at the time as they were double what I was able to borrow.
One thing that does interest me is some first home buyers stating that they can't afford to buy into the market. I've been looking at some open homes in my area and while they are pretty terrible in yield for a IP, they are fantastic for a first home buyer.
You have large blocks of land, 35 mins by freeways to the city, access to lots of large shopping centres and so much more for a minimum price of $270-280K at the moment. As the original poster stated, this is the cost of land in some estates. There is even one house advertised for $250K although I think it would need some painting.
I was looking at a place with a friend the other day who wanted something like her mums house, but she forgets that her mum worked long and hard to get where she is. If she bought approx. 2-3km further away, she could save up to $100K. Of course she would need to do some work on the house (painting and carpet) but for that much saving it's worth it...
But, enough of my rant... I suppose what is good for one, isn't good for others. I like my little "shack" as it does sit on 750sqm and has a huge reserve out the back. I wouldn't swap it for a McMansion anyday
I've been reading all the previous posts with much interest. I work for one of the large developers that subdivides these smaller blocks (some larger ones too). From what I've been able to learn, it comes down to a few reasons. Firstly, we keep getting told that land in the Sydney basin will become rare in the next 10 years. Developable land therefore is highly sought after, therefore those selling it sell it to the developers at the highest price. For each block subdivided, the developer needs to make a $50K contribution to the government. This gets added straight onto the price of the land. Then you have the development costs such as roads, sewer, water, electricity, community centres, bike paths, parks, street planting, Council contributions, consultants fees, staff fees and the list goes on.
I hear it from a project managers point of view on a daily basis, but as I am interested in property investment, I understand it from both points of view. And it becomes very simple as well, as the influx of people continues into Sydney, they have to move somewhere and if you can't move out any further, then you must move up...
I have been involved in the project home industry for nearly 20 years now and I have watched the house sizes grow and the Council rules change. It appears that the majority of people nowadays want to build their McMansion. Personally, I don't understand it as my first house and current PPOR is a 2 bed fibro, ex-housing commission house with a granny flat attached. My intention at the time (10 yrs) ago was to get into the market. I grew up in Baulkham Hills but was not able to afford the house prices there at the time as they were double what I was able to borrow.
One thing that does interest me is some first home buyers stating that they can't afford to buy into the market. I've been looking at some open homes in my area and while they are pretty terrible in yield for a IP, they are fantastic for a first home buyer.
You have large blocks of land, 35 mins by freeways to the city, access to lots of large shopping centres and so much more for a minimum price of $270-280K at the moment. As the original poster stated, this is the cost of land in some estates. There is even one house advertised for $250K although I think it would need some painting.
I was looking at a place with a friend the other day who wanted something like her mums house, but she forgets that her mum worked long and hard to get where she is. If she bought approx. 2-3km further away, she could save up to $100K. Of course she would need to do some work on the house (painting and carpet) but for that much saving it's worth it...
But, enough of my rant... I suppose what is good for one, isn't good for others. I like my little "shack" as it does sit on 750sqm and has a huge reserve out the back. I wouldn't swap it for a McMansion anyday
demoman said:
A woman i work with lives in Cecil Hills in an absolutely monstrous white brick box. 6 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and they have only 2 kids and no plans for more. They have no backyard!! It's ridiculous. It would be a bitch to clean, shame they can't afford a cleaner because their mortgage is huge.
Write to your local Minister(s) and to other State Ministers requesting they review the minimum Block size for these Estates (or any any subdivision)
I think the Minimum should be 650 -700m 2. They WILL wake up one day and realize what a collossal screw up the recent planning rules have been with these tiny 450 -550m 2 blocks BUT we will have to live with the legacy for many years.
There is No incentive for developers to make the block sizes larger.
Write write write and write more letters.
SW
I think the Minimum should be 650 -700m 2. They WILL wake up one day and realize what a collossal screw up the recent planning rules have been with these tiny 450 -550m 2 blocks BUT we will have to live with the legacy for many years.
There is No incentive for developers to make the block sizes larger.
Write write write and write more letters.
SW
you could always demand that house sizes be smaller ... impossible. the market will meet somewhere between what people buying demand and developers can provide. i currently live on an 800m block and like the space, but there is already hot demand for my incomplete two story, four bed/2.5bath on a 220m block because of it's prime location.Splinter Wood said:Write to your local Minister(s) and to other State Ministers requesting they review the minimum Block size for these Estates (or any any subdivision)
I think the Minimum should be 650 -700m 2. They WILL wake up one day and realize what a collossal screw up the recent planning rules have been with these tiny 450 -550m 2 blocks BUT we will have to live with the legacy for many years.
There is No incentive for developers to make the block sizes larger.
Write write write and write more letters.
SW
lizzie
MishMash said:
You may also enjoy a book I'm reading at the moment. It's called Affluenza. Read about it here. It's a little bit academic with lots of figures and analysis but has some great discussion on McMansions (with empty bedrooms on the side), the pursuit of affulence and what it's costing us.
