IP in Hoppers Crossing/Werribee (VIC)

[sash]

Okay....I'll buy your argument....for the moment.

So how many properties have you personally been able to buy in Brighton, Toorak, Carlton, Kew, etc.?

Look forward a reply back...on this.

I agree, definitely entertaining and funny considering some people are either too thick or refuse to acknowledge the simplicity and validity of my arguments.

Saying that people are willing to pay $600K for a house in Werribee is choice? hahahaha...that is because Werribee offers you the most for $600K. I'd like to see Spiderman buy a big house for $600K near water on big land closer to the city. Sigh...

 

[DeeHwa]

Okay....I'll buy your argument....for the moment.

So how many properties have you personally been able to buy in Brighton, Toorak, Carlton, Kew, etc.?

Look forward a reply back...on this.

You should know Sash!

Only the one house in Brunswick.

However, as you probably already figured out, I am not preaching my own success, but rather, trying to point out the fact that one could have reaped greater rewards had they invested in those suburbs you mentioned (i.e. Toorak, Carlton, Kew etc...) 10, 20, 30 years ago when it was possible to buy in such when these suburbs (except for maybe Toorak) were worth the same as places like St Albans, Doncaster, Keilor Downs (of course, there were trade offs though). We had a family friend that bought a house on 800sqm of land in Balwyn (within high school zone) for $50K nearly 20 years ago. They recently sold it for $1.6mil. My parents bought at the same time for $80K, a house in Keilor Downs (first ever home) and despite selling it many years ago, it would probably only be worth $400k max (rough guess). It is also based on this, that I believe investment in these suburbs (even units/flats) would outperform houses in places like Hoppers/Werribee when buying NOW. I guess the whole impetus of my arguments surrounds the fact that I PERSONALLY think a greater proportion of the population would for X dollars live in a flat inner city or the most run down house ever, than a house in Hoppers/Werribee. If I am wrong, you guys win...if I am right...well, lets just say I told you so!

Good luck

Deehwa

 

[mrsdawnrazor]

I PERSONALLY think a greater proportion of the population would for X dollars live in a flat inner city or the most run down house ever, than a house in Hoppers/Werribee.

You dont have kids do you - there are many lifestyle choices that would preclude a shoe box in the city when you could buy a 3 bed house with land for the kids to play, access to the country or coast, whilst still having easy connections to the city. The issue here is that you do not seem to be able to appreciate different choices and that the beauty of property investing is that most OO's buy on emotion, and buy a lifestyle which is ultimately what drives up the prices for the investors out there.

 

[Tuppence]

You dont have kids do you - there are many lifestyle choices that would preclude a shoe box in the city when you could buy a 3 bed house with land for the kids to play, access to the country or coast, whilst still having easy connections to the city. The issue here is that you do not seem to be able to appreciate different choices and that the beauty of property investing is that most OO's buy on emotion, and buy a lifestyle which is ultimately what drives up the prices for the investors out there.

This comment is great. You've nailed it (and the poster) I reckon. Kudos to you!

 

[DeeHwa]

This comment is great. You've nailed it (and the poster) I reckon. Kudos to you!

nope...haven't nailed me at all. Far from it in fact.

Speaking of property prices in Melbourne, it is proof that inner city shoe boxes have risen more than houses in Hoppers/Werribee historically. As I and many others have highlighted, once upon a time, the small shoe box in Fitzroy was worth the same, if not less, than the new built in St Albans. Sure, we don't know the future, although it is my prediction that this would continue to be the trend.

Mrsdawnrazor's comments disregards several important issues. Firstly, the assumption that lifestyle is all about having land, a backyard for kids to play with and near the coast is flawed. In fact, as proven by property price movements occur the past decades, and for Melbourne's case, over the past year, the lifestyle choice of 'buying and living close to the CBD' is the greatest consideration of all. This is what the media and some property experts coin as the 'ripple effect' which I assume you already know what it is, so I won't discuss further. I don't know about the Brisbane way of investing, but I can guarantee you, through price evidence, that on the balance of probability, there are more people out there that are willing to live in shoe boxes (but inner city), than in houses with big land, big backyards etc...(but in Hoppers/Werribee) or any other fringe suburb that requires crossing farmland and paddocks to reach the CBD.

Also, appreciation of different choices (i.e. buying Hoppers/Werribee) is largely irrelevant for the purposes of the argument because we are discussing about what the majority of people would do, with say, $600K, and it is my belief that the majority would be more willing to live in shoe boxes in Richmond, than buy a big house+land+near water in Werribee. Sure, there will always be people who value the lifestyle of big house+land+near water in Werribee > shoe box in Richmond, but as proven by price movements and historical capital growth, the majority of people would value the lifestyle premium of proximity > anything Werribee can offer for the same price.

Btw, I know heaps of families with kids that live in shoe boxes and would not trade for a larger place further out like Werribee, Melton etc...These people, at auctions, tell me they like the fact their kids are close to quality primary schools (which I doubt Werribee has), close to quality cafes (which I doubt Werribee has, nightlife (which I doubt Werribee has), the city, parks and all the quality amenities (which I doubt Werribee has).

 

[mrsdawnrazor]

Btw, I know heaps of families with kids that live in shoe boxes and would not trade for a larger place further out like Werribee, Melton etc...These people, at auctions, tell me they like the fact their kids are close to quality primary schools (which I doubt Werribee has), close to quality cafes (which I doubt Werribee has, nightlife (which I doubt Werribee has), the city, parks and all the quality amenities (which I doubt Werribee has).

And there's the rub - you dont know, you doubt, you assume. And why are cafes and night life the key for all families? As a working mum with 2 kids, I can tell you that cafes and night life is not high on my agenda - but I accept that is just me.

There are 'heaps' of families that do exactly the opposite of what your 'heaps' of families do. Its horses for courses. The whole point of resi property investment is that you are working in a market that is not logical, because 70% of the players are OOs. Also the 36,000 living in Werribee have made choices - they may be different to yours or mine but they are living in Werribee, 27% of them are renting and that is my pool of income. Will more people move there, yup - Vic is the fastest growing state in terms of development and not everyone will want an inner city shoe box, so established houses on larger blocks in certain areas of Werribee will increase in price.

Anyhoo - I am happy with my investment strategy. It has delivered over and above the returns I expected. I will / am looking in Werribee, have done my research, know what the schools, transport links etc are like, know the kind of people who have chosen to live there, etc. Werribee fits my strategy as I dont want 1 or 2 expensive IPs with the issues that they bring, I want more entry level ones for a multitude of reasons, including risk diversification. CG is not the only driver of my strategy.

So my comments are based on my actual experience, research and action. For anyone else looking at the Western suburbs - go for it - if it fits YOUR personal strategy and circumstances.

 

[Norwester]

DH,

Can't believe you're still banging on about this........

However, as you probably already figured out, I am not preaching my own success, but rather, trying to point out the fact that one could have reaped greater rewards had they invested in those suburbs you mentioned (i.e. Toorak, Carlton, Kew etc...) 10, 20, 30 years ago when it was possible to buy in such when these suburbs (except for maybe Toorak) were worth the same as places like St Albans, Doncaster, Keilor Downs (of course, there were trade offs though).

I think you may need to check your facts..........

ciao

Nor

 

[JIT]

DeeHwa, Deltaberry... not sure if you're the same people, but you sound the same.

I hope you realise that people are only reading this thread for entertainment value now, as there's nothing particularly intelligent or revealing about these discussions/your arguments.

As a side note, if you agree with and understand the ripple effect, then there shouldn't be any argument over what is better ie. inner or outer. They both have their place, at the right times, and if you have any clues you'll take advantage and profit from this.

To me it seems like you've been reading a bit too much Yardney/Wakelin babble... ie. ''it's always a good time to buy inner city", what rubbish!

 

[Edmond Dantes]

DeeHwa, Deltaberry... not sure if you're the same people, but you sound the same.

I hope you realise that people are only reading this thread for entertainment value now, as there's nothing particularly intelligent or revealing about these discussions/your arguments.

I'm loving it!!

 

[RightValue]

greater rewards had they invested in those suburbs you mentioned (i.e. Toorak, Carlton, Kew etc...) 10, 20, 30 years ago when it was possible to buy in such when these suburbs (except for maybe Toorak) were worth the same as places like St Albans, Doncaster, Keilor Downs (of course, there were trade offs though). We had a family friend that bought a house on 800sqm of land in Balwyn (within high school zone) for $50K nearly 20 years ago. They recently sold it for $1.6mil. My parents bought at the same time for $80K, a house in Keilor Downs (first ever home) and despite selling it many years ago, it would probably only be worth $400k max (rough guess).
Deehwa

I hate to agree with Deehwa on principal but ..

Earlier this year I valued a house in Delahey that sold for just under $300k. They had bought it in 1993 for $128k.

I noticed that because that was the same year and pricce my ex bought our house in Ivanhoe - what was a year earlier called West Ivanhoe.

Well I checked the other day and in January she sold that house for $530k.

Today the Delahey house would be worth about $30k more, the Ivanhoe house about $70k more.

It is the difference of being 10k's from the city as opposed to 20k's in today's market and traffic and travelling times.

To help illustrate the point further ...... a 2 bed old house on 102 sqm of land in Nth Fitzroy 2.8km for the centre of the city on a Tram line will sell for $600k when a 2 bed house on 600sqm of land in Ivanhoe 10km.s for the city sell for $600k in todays market.

cheers

RightValue

PS you are rght about the Keilor Downs value .. not too many above $400k

 

[wylie]

Mrsdawnrazor's comments disregards several important issues. Firstly, the assumption that lifestyle is all about having land, a backyard for kids to play with and near the coast is flawed.

This just proves that you don't have kids .

In fact, as proven by property price movements occur the past decades, and for Melbourne's case, over the past year, the lifestyle choice of 'buying and living close to the CBD' is the greatest consideration of all.

For whom? Certainly not if it means cramming three boys into a flat.

This is what the media and some property experts coin as the 'ripple effect' which I assume you already know what it is, so I won't discuss further. I don't know about the Brisbane way of investing, but I can guarantee you, through price evidence, that on the balance of probability, there are more people out there that are willing to live in shoe boxes (but inner city), than in houses with big land, big backyards etc....

Nobody I know with families is living in inner city shoeboxes. I don't know what type of families you know.

Also, appreciation of different choices (i.e. buying Hoppers/Werribee) is largely irrelevant for the purposes of the argument because we are discussing about what the majority of people would do, with say, $600K, and it is my belief that the majority would be more willing to live in shoe boxes in Richmond, than buy a big house+land+near water in Werribee.

I don't really think you have much of an idea of what the "majority" of people would do. Maybe wait until you have a couple of kids and then see what your thoughts are?

Sure, there will always be people who value the lifestyle of big house+land+near water in Werribee > shoe box in Richmond, but as proven by price movements and historical capital growth, the majority of people would value the lifestyle premium of proximity > anything Werribee can offer for the same price.

Btw, I know heaps of families with kids that live in shoe boxes and would not trade for a larger place further out like Werribee, Melton etc...These people, at auctions, tell me they like the fact their kids are close to quality primary schools (which I doubt Werribee has), close to quality cafes (which I doubt Werribee has, nightlife (which I doubt Werribee has), the city, parks and all the quality amenities (which I doubt Werribee has).

Being close to quality cafes, nightlife and the city are WANTS for ADULTS. My kids wanted a yard to kick a ball in. I don't think you have much idea of what people want really.

Would love to see you crammed into a shoebox with three boys wanting to kick a ball on your tiny balcony and you saying "come on Johnny, we will all go and have a latte" .

I'm sure your little Johnny would be quite happy with that..... pfftt!!!

 

[forumite]

there are more people out there that are willing to live in shoe boxes (but inner city), than in houses with big land, big backyards etc...(but in Hoppers/Werribee) and it is my belief that the majority would be more willing to live in shoe boxes in Richmond, than buy a big house+land+near water in Werribee. I know heaps of families with kids that live in shoe boxes and would not trade for a larger place further out like Werribee, Melton etc.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...ofspace-odyssey/2007/10/05/1191091367540.html

THE idea was that we would forgo the backyard and sedan in favour of a pad by the train station surrounded by cool cafes. It was Melbourne 2030, the State Government's ambitious plan to transform a sprawling metropolis into a compact city. But five years on, the strategy is in trouble, with the home by the station proving either too squashed, or too expensive — or both — for most Melburnians.....For Monash University sociologist Bob Birrell, the figures support his long-held view that 2030 is failing because Melburnians prefer detached housing. But Property Council executive director Jennifer Cunich said: "The problem is, who is going to go and pay for a two-bedroom apartment when you can buy a three-bedroom house for the same price?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-snobbery-of-melbourne-2030/2007/07/03/1183351204866.html

The State Government refuses to accept that Melbourne's families want to live on a quarter-acre block in a house with a backyard. Further proof of this came last week with the release of the 2006 census data. Our fastest growing suburbs, such as Melton, Whittlesea, and Pakenham, are those where people live in houses, not apartments. In these areas, the increase in population has been much faster than the Government predicted.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...1209839653614.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Patrick Troy, from the Australian National University’s Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, while no champion of the McMansion, says the consolidation argument is built on a series of false assumptions, including the belief Melburnians would take to apartment living. "The great majority of people who live in flats are renters, and around 85% of them want to live in a house. The history of our civilisation is the deeply ingrained desire that, as you could afford it, you could make yourself more comfortable, with more space. When you try to stop that, you (are) trying to stand against the tide of history." Kingsley Andrew, of developer Stockland, says economic stress is not likely to break the great Australian dream of home ownership. People, especially young families determined to own their slice of suburbia, will compromise rather than consider apartment living or renting.............Economic stress due to rising housing prices and a succession of interest rate rises means, however, the days of the McMansion are numbered. Andrew believes that in five years they will be seen as a remnant of an unprecedented boom time.

 

[sash]

Boom....boom.....

Keep it coming forumite....very soon you may not need our advice.

Also Wyndham is the first or second fastest growth area in Australia....at something like 6.5% growth....that means the current 65K people will double by 2020!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...ofspace-odyssey/2007/10/05/1191091367540.html

THE idea was that we would forgo the backyard and sedan in favour of a pad by the train station surrounded by cool cafes. It was Melbourne 2030, the State Government's ambitious plan to transform a sprawling metropolis into a compact city. But five years on, the strategy is in trouble, with the home by the station proving either too squashed, or too expensive — or both — for most Melburnians.....For Monash University sociologist Bob Birrell, the figures support his long-held view that 2030 is failing because Melburnians prefer detached housing. But Property Council executive director Jennifer Cunich said: "The problem is, who is going to go and pay for a two-bedroom apartment when you can buy a three-bedroom house for the same price?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-snobbery-of-melbourne-2030/2007/07/03/1183351204866.html

The State Government refuses to accept that Melbourne's families want to live on a quarter-acre block in a house with a backyard. Further proof of this came last week with the release of the 2006 census data. Our fastest growing suburbs, such as Melton, Whittlesea, and Pakenham, are those where people live in houses, not apartments. In these areas, the increase in population has been much faster than the Government predicted.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...1209839653614.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Patrick Troy, from the Australian National University’s Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, while no champion of the McMansion, says the consolidation argument is built on a series of false assumptions, including the belief Melburnians would take to apartment living. "The great majority of people who live in flats are renters, and around 85% of them want to live in a house. The history of our civilisation is the deeply ingrained desire that, as you could afford it, you could make yourself more comfortable, with more space. When you try to stop that, you (are) trying to stand against the tide of history." Kingsley Andrew, of developer Stockland, says economic stress is not likely to break the great Australian dream of home ownership. People, especially young families determined to own their slice of suburbia, will compromise rather than consider apartment living or renting.............Economic stress due to rising housing prices and a succession of interest rate rises means, however, the days of the McMansion are numbered. Andrew believes that in five years they will be seen as a remnant of an unprecedented boom time.

 

[Deltaberry]

Deltaberry,

Lets change the direction slightly shall we??......can you elaborate what you have bought and talk in specifics about what you have done in the inner city market.

Given this is a property forum....out fellow SSers including myself would be interested in the details.

This takes all the BS out of the equation and let the hard facts speak for themselves.

Are you up the challenge??

Pointless comparison. As I said I know what I'm worth and I don't need to rub my own ego by telling people on a forum how many millions of dollars my assets have gone up by.

But if you really like I'll use one little story. I went into a JV with my family a while back and bought some commercial buildings in the CBD for a few million back in around 2001.

Perhaps I should stop there... see how pointless this is? What do you want me to say? Tell you what their council valuation is today? If I told you they're worth $10m (which they probably are), and my stake is say 20%, I've just got $2m there. So what does this story do to further our discussion? Don't even know why I bother with this.... it's clearly a conversation with damaged egos and people are scraping every last ounce of effort to defend it.

Oh and yes I put in my share of the deposit yadayadaya.

 

[Deltaberry]

And you meaning YOU, not mummy and daddy...

Hah the sour grapes. As I said, damaged egos all abound.

 

[Deltaberry]

Ia it so ridiculous to ask a person to back up his sweeping statements with hard facts?

You know a person's credibility from what he said.

I know a person's net wealth from their investment philosophy.

Hah

 

[Deltaberry]

DeeHwa, Deltaberry... not sure if you're the same people, but you sound the same.

I hope you realise that people are only reading this thread for entertainment value now, as there's nothing particularly intelligent or revealing about these discussions/your arguments.

As a side note, if you agree with and understand the ripple effect, then there shouldn't be any argument over what is better ie. inner or outer. They both have their place, at the right times, and if you have any clues you'll take advantage and profit from this.

To me it seems like you've been reading a bit too much Yardney/Wakelin babble... ie. ''it's always a good time to buy inner city", what rubbish!

You and sash sound the same too. Are you the same person? What a silly argument to make. Nothing intelligent about making a sweeping statement like that.

The only rubbish are those who cannot accept that people have different views, and you obviously can't accept that if you think anyone who doesn't share your view is the same person.