First Home/Investment - St Kilda or Pakenham or Chelsea (VIC)

[Aaron_C]

Because when you borrow money together, both people are joint and severally liable for the debt. That means, that the bank can sue both of you, or only one of you to recover the debt.

What if your friend loses his job and can't afford the repayments? You'll have to pay 100% of the debt even though you're only entitled to 50% of the income. Plus, when you go for a new loan next time, the new bank will assume you have 100% of the debt even though it is a joint borrowing.

Borrowing jointly is fine for married/de facto couples because that is part and parcel of the relationship. When it comes to friends/associates, do not do it unless you know them very well, and they are in a strong financial position.

 

[RedCat]

I would go St Kilda over Chelsea but if you're set on Chelsea, Bon Beach is actually considered the "snobby part" but for the life of me I don't know why.

I lived in Bonbeach and all the locals got very upset when I called it Chelsea.

I lived in Chelsea 5 years ago so it might have changed but it was:
1. housing on the beach side of the road
2. Bon Beach
3. Rest of Chelsea proper
4. Chelsea Heights

If you're talking sub division etc remember the land is very sandy. So sandy our pool tiling caved in after a couple of months.

 

[toony]

So sandy our pool tiling caved in after a couple of months.

How can that happen? Sounds poorly built to me.

Oh, i would prefer a house in Chelsea, Edithvale thats walking distance to beach and station over a flat in East St Kilda.

 

[Peter Parker]

I would go St Kilda over Chelsea but if you're set on Chelsea, Bon Beach is actually considered the "snobby part" but for the life of me I don't know why.

I lived in Bonbeach and all the locals got very upset when I called it Chelsea.

Somewhat different demographics.

Chelsea has heaps of tired poky old rental villa units built in the '60s. Tenants are often pensioners. The proportion of units to houses is higher there than just about anywhere outside the inner suburbs.

The housing stock in Chelsea is a mixed bag - there's some nice streets (oddly enough further away from the beach eg Scotch Pde) but others have real hovels just waiting for Whelan the Wrecker. It doesn't have the sort of architectual unity you get in Mont Albert or Blackburn North - it was considered a resort town and there's still places that are little more than asbestos shacks.

Bonbeach seems to have a more family feel. There's significant new housing at Irish Court which have your double income types. But its location is actually inferior to that of much of less affluent Chelsea (can't quickly walk to beach & supermarket etc).

Having said that Bonbeach also has many units off Station St. Plus Bonbeach has a large trailer park village at 100 Broadway that depresses annual incomes (RE agents will advertise a 2 bedder unit for around $150k - which doesn't come with land). Before council clean up day each year the biggest pile of rubbish you'll ever see gathers at its entrance.

I lived in Chelsea 5 years ago so it might have changed but it was:
1. housing on the beach side of the road
2. Bon Beach
3. Rest of Chelsea proper
4. Chelsea Heights

That looks about right. Though for convenience Chelsea beats Bonbeach due to superior transport, shopping etc (a high proportion of homes in Chelsea don't need a car for this reason).

The beach side is good in that the streets all end in the dunes - so no need to cross the highway to go for a dip. This is one advantage that the Mordialloc - Carrum strip has over Mentone, Brighton, Frankston South etc.

But beach side is windy. And you get sometimes noisy yoof returning back from the beach. So if you want quietness but still proximity to everything the inland side of Station St can be good (you lose the views and direct access but the prices are much lower!).

 

[RedCat]

I lived on Scotch Parade. For me it was too far from shops and the train station. I don't drive so it felt very isolating.