Not surprisingly......many people do
Continuation of Property Values??
- Thread starter jmillar
- Start date
Not surprisingly......many people do
Exactly. The individual property over a period of time can go from an outer suburb to a middle suburb and eventually be considered an inner suburb. But the median price includes all suburbs. 100 years ago, most cities would only be about 10km radius but now 50km. Who's to say in another 100 years it could be 250km, and a house 50km from the cbd could be considered "inner city".
A city that is 50 km radius has 25 times the land area of one that's 10km radius. One that's 250km radius is a further 25 times bigger.
To fill it at the same density as now means that Sydney and Melbourne increase to more than 100 million population each, in other words about the same population as Japan.
Bear in mind that historically Australian urbanisation was fuelled by (1) high birth rates causing significant natural increase, (2) people moving from country to city, (3) high immigration.
Of these only immigration appears dominant today (birth rates have fallen in the last 50 years and country areas are relatively sparesely populated now).
Still it could happen. But it would need immigration increases from (say) 1% of the population per year (which it has been roughly for the last 60 years) to (say) 10% of the population per year (ie several million migrants settling per annum).
You'd need the big rivers in Bangladesh, China or India to flood and unprecedented people flows. Even if only a minority ended up in Australia that could provide those sorts of flows.
An Australian government that has been democratically elected is unlikely to consent to such immigration increases. The events of the last 10 years have shown that Australians only tolerate immigration if the people believe that our government has control over who comes as settlers (although the large temporary people flows due to students, tourists etc have been much less controversial). We can be humanitarian but only in small numbers at a time.
It is quite likely that the ethnic composition of Australia in 100 years time will be drawn more from our region. Those entirely of European stock will be a minority. The largest group will be those claiming both European and Asian heritage. However as long as we have higher incomes than countries that supply us migrants, those here will want a firm immigration policy, no matter their heritage.
Of course there is the possibility that Australians lose control of their continent. We are by a long shot the least populated continent and protests that most is arid don't wash. Such a loss of control could conceiveably be through:
* Our government voluntarily cedes power like European governments have towards some sort of regional or world government
* A nominally national government but as a Vichy-like puppet of a larger regional power
* We are on the losing side of a potential world war
So I'm not saying it's impossible, but that it's a bigger shift than many might envisage. Cities that extend 250km out rather than 50km out are not 5 times bigger but 25 times bigger.
And that does not include potential for densification even in the inner 10 or 20km ring. People like Rod Adams have shown that by building 5 - 6 storey buildings along our tram lines Melbourne could accommodate millions more without any more outer urban sprawl.
Rob Adams would be more qualified to be Planning Minister than the kid or footballer we had
Pointless question to ask in here though if you ask me
welcome to itchy and scratchy land... where nothing can possiblye go wrong...
