Perth houses are currently as affordable as they were in 2003 and 1996

The other side of this coin is that Mossie Park, Cott, etc with their public transport and commercial hubs are logical candidates for further infill. Good for investment of course but no good if you like to live on a quarter acre block, in a quiet residential neighbourhood.
 
Remove a car from the equation and most suburbs in perth catering to families (like the western suburbs) will fail.

I was talking about the areas as places to live in, not investments. That being said though, you can often pick up a quick million or so when the market finally improves
 
The other side of this coin is that Mossie Park, Cott, etc with their public transport and commercial hubs are logical candidates for further infill. Good for investment of course but no good if you like to live on a quarter acre block, in a quiet residential neighbourhood.
Unfortunately for the local nimbys the needs for the greater community outweighs theirs. The whole I'm not anti density just anti it next to me debate is going to be harder to defend in the coming years imo
 
The other side of this coin is that Mossie Park, Cott, etc with their public transport and commercial hubs are logical candidates for further infill. Good for investment of course but no good if you like to live on a quarter acre block, in a quiet residential neighbourhood.
...which is why you would choose an area like City Beach / Dalkieth etc which has a preventative R10 / R12.5 zoning.

my point is from investment, most POVs are from living.

finding the balance between where you want to live and a 'good investment' is generally mutually exclusive - but it can work.

i worry that a lot of people are going to have stagnant equity positions over the coming years as public transport continues to be underfunded and populations need it more and more.

the shiny appeal of the under-provided western suburbs - from a public facilities point of view - will start to hamper it's prospects as a good investment as they become a suburb - and nothing else.

increasingly this is becoming less and less appealing - but again, i don't make these comments from a personal point of view.
 
...which is why you would choose an area like City Beach / Dalkieth etc which has a preventative R10 / R12.5 zoning.

my point is from investment, most POVs are from living.

finding the balance between where you want to live and a 'good investment' is generally mutually exclusive - but it can work.

i worry that a lot of people are going to have stagnant equity positions over the coming years as public transport continues to be underfunded and populations need it more and more.

the shiny appeal of the under-provided western suburbs - from a public facilities point of view - will start to hamper it's prospects as a good investment as they become a suburb - and nothing else.

increasingly this is becoming less and less appealing - but again, i don't make these comments from a personal point of view.
Do you think the Reid Highway project currently underway will make much of an improvement for the Northern suburbs?

Do you think Mitchell freeway extension further North will create more traffic congestion around Reid Highway intersection?

Trying to get my head around if they will be improvements or not for the area.
 
Unfortunately for the local nimbys the needs for the greater community outweighs theirs. The whole I'm not anti density just anti it next to me debate is going to be harder to defend in the coming years imo
I hope we don't get to the point where the only way to live on a decent sized block is either in the hills or in a rural area. It would make a mockery of the idea of "choice" in how we wish to live.

I don't want to live in a city where everyone is on a sub 500sqm block, which is where we are heading with the idea that everyone should pull their weight with maximum density.

I'm all for increasing density overall but it makes sense to do that around public transport hubs and activity centres, where the higher construction costs of higher density living can be adequately defrayed. But there should still be some choices available for people who want to live on bigger blocks in dormitory suburbs.

Aaron - I actually agree with you from an investment POV - the premium of the western suburbs is likely to decrease as the density increases and it becomes more and more like anywhere else in terms of access to services as well. Other than proximity to the beach / city, the only thing left is not being at the mercy of the freeway but hopefully uber will reduce the number of cars on the road so even that will have less of an impact. I actually think the importance of PT will become less and less as uber becomes more popular.
 
terrible ideas, Linda.

I speak from experience with the Connolly Dr / Burns Beach Rd intersection being hell - but a simple ring-route peak hour CAT service could save more headaches than a stupid freeway extension.
 

Attachments

There will always be choice HE, it will just become a more and more expensive choice, as it should be.

Agree with you that density should be applied at the correct spots but ultimately we can no longer afford to keep spreading out.

Do you know the Ellenbrook line, if built, would end up costing nearly $50K per household?? All because some ars#hat decided it was a good to create an entire massive community in the middle of nowhere
 
terrible ideas, Linda.

I speak from experience with the Connolly Dr / Burns Beach Rd intersection being hell - but a simple ring-route peak hour CAT service could save more headaches than a stupid freeway extension.
Thanks. I thought extension was a bad idea also.
 
LOL @ ars#hat!

Ellenbrook line doesn't just serve Ellenbrook though - also The Vines, Henley Brook and Dayton (most R30-R60 through there).
 
There will always be choice HE, it will just become a more and more expensive choice, as it should be.

Agree with you that density should be applied at the correct spots but ultimately we can no longer afford to keep spreading out.

Do you know the Ellenbrook line, if built, would end up costing nearly $50K per household?? All because some ars#hat decided it was a good to create an entire massive community in the middle of nowhere
Don't get me started on Ellenbrook!

Agree we shouldn't have spread out anywhere near as far as we have already. I just think we should have areas of much greater density rather than continuing with the single house resi model like we have. Across the entire value chain of councils, developers, builders and residents, Perth has been too slow to adopt apartment living near train stations and buzzing commercial centres.

So many opportunities for this have been squandered - eg Subi redevelopment was far too low density, just like Joondalup and Claremont. The place should be buzzing but it's too low density - trying to give everyone a rear loaded double garage just means you don't get a critical mass in terms of activity. Burswood peninsula is getting better but still a long way to go. we have enough railway lines and locations but we just can't get out of the vanilla townhouse / small block for everyone concept.

I would just like to see a far greater variety of real density choices out there rather than this idea that everyone should subdivide to postage stamp blocks...
 
Oh yeah we're definitely on the same page here. So much wasted opportunity it does my head in. Subi is a prime example, as is the epra debacle.

Problem is we have morons who scream high rise when a 5 storey building is proposed (eg cott and subi) and make things so difficult councils end up going with the easy option instead of the appropriate one
 
+3

Hey Aaron,

In my readings on somersoft over the years it has appeared to me that you need 728sqm to do a nice triplex.

There is a 699sqm triplex block for sale at the moment on a corner block. Would this be comparable to a 728 with no R.O.W. Etc.....

Cheers
 
Assuming R40, 728 is not enough for a single storey 3x2 triplex. It may pass in Balga but no where else.

699sqm will give you no common property which is good but you are still limited to a 128sqm house (95 internal plus 33 garage) which is too small for a 3x2 unless you are doing 2x2's or 2 storey (again assuming R40)
 
Cheers Tano,

Yeah r40....

ok so two storey might be workable. But single storey 3x2 would be a bit of a push by the sounds of it.
on blocks that are roughly 660-690sqm around my area you see people mixing it up, this could be an option...e.g. 2x 3x2 single level with a 3x2 townhouse at the back
 
Last edited:
+3

Hey Aaron,

In my readings on somersoft over the years it has appeared to me that you need 728sqm to do a nice triplex.

There is a 699sqm triplex block for sale at the moment on a corner block. Would this be comparable to a 728 with no R.O.W. Etc.....

Cheers
Corner should be okay - could do a 2x2 footprint and put a third bedroom as part of a loft - just timber framed, timber staircase etc.

would be something different to put to market. A loft like that would be quite cheap to do, especially all trusswork.
 
Top