BankWest's Quality of Life Index

- 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
 
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!

From those points you mentioned they rank the quality of life based on things like how many renters compared to o/o's, how much employment compared to unemployment and type of accommodation.

For me; none of those things make a quality of life rating for where I live. It's all about convenience, landscape, amenities.

We live near a beautiful beach, great views, no crowds, no traffic (one traffic light), no pollution, great shops and amenities, near transport, semi-country atmosphere with lots of trees, quiet and friendly, small community, near work (5 mins), near school (1 min) etc, and still 1 hour from the city.

I think these sorts of factors are what constitute quality of life.
 
The report refers to local government areas. ie Bayside is the Brighton/Sandringham area.
Tools

Yeah, I realised that after my post - I thought it referred to the whole of the Bay. I'm clueless.

Even so, I think their criteria needs to be looked at.
 
Here is the link to the article
http://www.bankwest.com.au/Media_Ce...ankWest_Quality_of_Life_Index_2008/index.aspx

Traffic is not a problem for everyone.
It also depends on where you live in relation to your work
My workplace is only 15-20 minutes away

Thanks BV,

I know traffic is not a problem for everyone, that's why I said that it was very subjective. My current workplace is about 30 minutes away if I leave home before 7.00am and over 45 if I don't. Even so, 30 minutes is way too long for me to be in traffic at any one time. I couldn't go back to Sydney and it's hour long commutes from Palm Beach to Brookfield let alone the city.

peastman said:
Thats just a bit extreme.

Of course it is, but in reality that's the way I feel about major cities. And yes before you ask I lived in Sydney for 7 years on the northern beaches and even that would be too busy and crowded for me these days. I wouldn't consider Melbourne at all and have actually declined a very well paying graduate role because it was based in Melbourne. Like I said, each to their own and certainly no offence meant.

L.AAussie said:
From those points you mentioned they rank the quality of life based on things like how many renters compared to o/o's, how much employment compared to unemployment and type of accommodation.

For me; none of those things make a quality of life rating for where I live. It's all about convenience, landscape, amenities.

We live near a beautiful beach, great views, no crowds, no traffic (one traffic light), no pollution, great shops and amenities, near transport, semi-country atmosphere with lots of trees, quiet and friendly, small community, near work (5 mins), near school (1 min) etc, and still 1 hour from the city.

I think these sorts of factors are what constitute quality of life.

Once again L.A you've hit the nail right on the head.
 
I reckon Sartor is doing his best to knock Ku-ring-gai off as number 1 though...

what he said!
I still dont get the rational to designate St Ives some sort of high rise area. No trains, woefull bus service and lots of appartments equals kaos. Punishment for being a safe Liberal seat perhaps.
 
Back
Top