- High life expectancy & good health outcomes
- High average incomes (often boosted by point below)
- Near-absence of a proletariot of unemployed, welfare recipients and single parents
- Largish block sizes and more houses than units
- Far more owner occupiers than transient renters
- More grass than concrete
- The lusher areas aspire to a clean/green image full of NIMBYs (though in these areas traffic congestion can be an issue as the aveage household in these areas has 3 cars)
- Either bush, river, or beach nearby
- Low percentage of single people
I believe that I have now deconstructed the Bankwest study, with them using the above or similar factors to get their list.
Having now looked at it in more detail, the criteria Bankwest used are remarkably similar to my guesstimates above, especially in relation to owner occupiers, houses and average incomes.
A major omission is availability of services - ie you could be 50km from the nearest dentist but still score at least middling.
What are some 'clusters' of high and low scoring areas and why?
* Declining wheatbelt towns where half the shops are empty. Score rather well. Why? Mostly owner occupiers and no units (apart from the aged persons hostel). Plus high volunteerism. The unemployment's low as most have gone to the big smoke.
* Mining towns. Despite high incomes don't score well. Why? Health outcomes not great (alcohol), heaps of renters, a fair number of units and lower rates of volunteerism.
* Coastal towns. Striking that coastal towns like Margaret River don't do too well. Even though real estate values imply high demand. My guess is more renters and not very high incomes (mostly seasonal/service industries) so affordability is poor. Plus some coastal towns (eg Mandurah) have high numbers of retirees so that depresses % in labour force.
* Inner suburbs of major cities. Way too many units and renters to score highly on this index. Also health outcomes/life expectancies of (say) St Kilda is way worse than (say) Eltham (which has no underclass, pushing averages higher). The apparently gentrified/trendy inner suburbs that were formerly working class industrial areas (eg Brunswick) also score low due to the above.
* Outer mortgage belt areas (eg Cardinia/Pakenham) do OK, mainly due to few units and high owner occupier rates. Incomes aren't right at the bottom and there is high labour force participation due to few retirees.
Yet almost EVERYONE considers the coastal towns more desirable than declining farming towns and population movements/land prices reflect this.
One thing that is striking though are variations in inland country areas between the states - country Victoria is very liveable, country Qld a bit less so with poor liveability in patches of country NSW & WA.
While the conclusions are variable, at least we know the reasoning behind it. And I cannot claim to be disappointed in buying a bottom 20% priced PPOR in a top 20% LGA!
Peter