Population growth exacerbates housing crisis - Bernard Salt

I can't believe how city based this forum is. There is a massive population shift going to regional areas, and no one here even see's it. Rural residential property prices have flogged the city in growth in recent times, and the reason for the rental shortage in the cities is because the housing construction moved to the bush. I see it in all the little towns I go through. There has been an explosion of houses and people moving to where it is cheaper and simpler to live.

Rural areas have also benefited from the soft and hard commodity booms much more than the cities, and I expect this to continue as well. I have a lot of mates who have gone from $600 a week wages to $2000 as they took up mining and contracting work related to mining.

I would bet the single best real estate investment in the last 5 years in Australia would be hobby farms and acreage on the edge of thriving regional towns.

See ya's.

Agree wholeheartedly.
Seems like some people just don't get out enough ( of the city limits)
Its a big country, and an even bigger world.

Seems like a population that was brought up on a pioneering spirit, has lost that sense of endeavour.

There are so many opportunities out there.
 
I'd be happy to move to Geelong if they end up getting the Bullet train to Melbourne via Tullermarine. Getting to Melb in 20 mins would be fantastic! The Melbourne 2030 Transit Cities plan looks good!

Something like this??

DSC000131.JPG
 
Of course supply and demand are important, but there is one other aspect you all seem to neglect:
The cost of owning leveraged property has gone up!
Interest repayments have increased by ~50% (and most rentals are IP's).
All other costs, council fees & rates etc have also gone up.
So if the cost of holding that property has gone up considerably, then what would happen if rents dont go up?
They would all get foreclosed, repoed for default.
So just like the whole supply chain of manufactured goods & services needs to raise prices to stay in business, so do landlords to pay their bills.
And as many come off fixed & honeymoon rates, those increases will still not be enough to keep up.
And what makes yield % look higher (for the journos & statiticians) is decreasing prices.
 
And LA Aussie. Other than the very low social demographics, the baby boom has been driven by economic success and the fact all the new mums are now in the mid thirties and keen to have kiddies.

Recent article in paper quoted stats as such and my experience is the same. In our playgroup for 2 to 3 year old bubs we have 12 mums: 2 mums are 40+, 9 are mid 30's and only 1 is under 30 around 29ish.
Regards

Peter 14.7

I wasn't referring to the baby boom Pete; there will always be the maternity clock ticking for the girls, so having babies as an ongoing thing is a given.

It's just the fact that the Govt has introduced a scheme where they will give you $3,000 if you have a baby.

They honestly believe that this is an incentive to get people do it where they might not otherwise consider it.

Even more scary is the element of society who would do it for only that reason.
 
I wasn't referring to the baby boom Pete; there will always be the maternity clock ticking for the girls, so having babies as an ongoing thing is a given.

It's just the fact that the Govt has introduced a scheme where they will give you $3,000 if you have a baby.

They honestly believe that this is an incentive to get people do it where they might not otherwise consider it.

Even more scary is the element of society who would do it for only that reason.

Hello LA Aussie,

That what I thought you said so my reply stands.

The baby bonus mum exists but it is largely a beat up of the media. They will always find some young teeneager who will go on camera ( no doubt for a few $$ in "expenses") and say " I have babies to get a Plasma".

But the vast majority of new mums it is simply something to pay for the prams, cots etc.. You could argue the growth in sales of designer $1k plus prams is helped by the BB but that off topic. Many see it as Claytons gov sponsored maternity leave. The fact they dont have maternity leave is because it would descrimiate against those mums not working.

And BTW it aint $3k any more it is $5k per child, so yes, twins get $10k.

I enjoy your posts, Peter 14.7:)
 
I certainly appreciated the $4k and i think it is a good way of getting the natural birth rate up. Mind you even this little perk has been taken away by Krudd, along with the lap top computer. and a decent car has now been unilaterally taxed. No point being in middle australia, you have to decide to be poor or try and climb up the ladder because the guys in th emoddle cop the lot.
 
There's a baby boom on now pure and simple because of the rather large demographic of Gen-Xers all hitting 30+ at once and breeding before their time runs out. Personally I refuse to have kids after 35, which makes me a minority. Also means I'm almost out of time too :eek:

Conversely, there's a baby boom down the road from me because it pays well, and you don't need to look for work that doesn't exist if you've got a kid under 8. Loads of teenagers with a small crowd of kids tagging along behind them down the street.

My little lump o' grump cost $500 on ebay to set up with most things, costs next to nothing to run, cost nothing at all in medical expenses to have. I spent most of the baby bonus on rainwater tanks. Government doesn't exactly hand out money so people can have clean drinking water.
 
True decentralion is the only way of making regional towns more attractive.

When you look at all the billions in govt funding thrown at the gov department head offices and parliaments, the arts, public transport, major sporting events and arenas, major hospitals, fed square, spencer st station, etc etc, it seems all the nice big attractive lures end up in the cities, while the country folk miss out all together.

You don't get value for your tax dollars unless you live in a big city.
 
True decentralion is the only way of making regional towns more attractive.

When you look at all the billions in govt funding thrown at the gov department head offices and parliaments, the arts, public transport, major sporting events and arenas, major hospitals, fed square, spencer st station, etc etc, it seems all the nice big attractive lures end up in the cities, while the country folk miss out all together.

You don't get value for your tax dollars unless you live in a big city.

I ue to do this for the Gov and you know what, the public servants dont want to go! Ironically this puts jobs in the bush. People dont want to move.

What we need to do, seriously do, is give preferances in uni places and $$$ assistance to kids form the Bush. Who is going to live in the Bush when there is no doctor, dentist, vets, etc..

It is proven kids from the bush may spend time in the city but return to the bush in time.

Peter

Peter
 
Growing concern: population boom expected

More on this topic from Bernard Salt...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24326606-25658,00.html


Growing concern: population boom expected

Bernard Salt, demographer | September 11, 2008

ABOUT two years after eash census is completed, the Australian Bureau of Statistics produces a set of population projections for all states, territories and capital cities.

This document provides one input to demand modelling by federal and state government departments.

Some states also produce population projections but they generally follow the lead set by the ABS.

In other words, you can't have a state government projecting growth on a trajectory fundamentally inconsistent with the view expressed by the ABS.

The ABS issued a new set of projections last week. It is an important document for anyone in property or, indeed, in business to understand (it can be downloaded at www.abs.gov.au).

And if you cannot be bothered wading through pages of demographic jargon and reams of figures, here are what I think are the key points.

The previous forecast, issued in June 2004 and based on the 2001 census, shows the Australian population rising from 20.6 million in 2006 to 28.2 million in 2051.

This medium-growth outlook assumed falling fertility and net annual migration of 110,000.

Both these assumptions more or less reflected the prevailing paradigm in fertility and migration trends from the late 1990s.

Under this outlook, Australia would add 7.6 million residents over 45 years: 1.5 million being added to Brisbane, 1.4 million to Melbourne and 1.3 million to Sydney.

Outside the capital cities, Queensland was to add 1.4 million residents (mostly on the Gold Coast).

And South Australia and Tasmania were to actually lose population by mid-century, a scenario that caused consternation at the time.

Indeed, South Australian Premier Mike Rann initiated a program of targeted population growth to which he boldly set metrics to measure the state's progress.

Well, Rann would be very pleased with the new projections released last week, which show Australia's population increasing from 20.6 million in 2006 to 34.2 million by 2051, reflecting net growth of 13.5 million.

This, too, is a medium-growth assumption.

Within four years the ABS has changed its medium-growth assumption from 110,000 migrants a year to 180,000 migrants a year.

Pushing the annual net migration assumption a further 70,000 over 45 years delivers an extra 3.2 million residents.

The fertility assumptions have also been raised from 1.7 to 1.8 births per woman.


The bottom line is that there has been a paradigm shift in the way demographers view Australia's future and the key difference is immigration.


Do you, as a business person, believe Australia can sustain an immigration program at an average rate of 180,000 a year when for the past 50 years this figure has averaged 110,000 a year?

If the answer is "yes" (which is my view) then you should start aligning your business agenda with the new demographic reality.

The reason why I think immigration will accelerate in the first half of the 21st century is that as the baby boomers retire later this decade they will leave a void in the workplace that will create demand for more workers.

Governments will support this flow because of their need to shore up the tax base: a workforce constantly rising converts to a rising tax base.

Economic migrants will, therefore, flow from the developing to the developed world to plug the workforce gap.

This outlook presents challenges for government and opportunities for business.

The challenge for government relates to the provision of infrastructure and the opportunity for business is to deliver the infrastructure.

But the business opportunities go way beyond this.

Under the old forecasts the ACT (effectively Canberra) was to add 74,000 residents by the middle of the century, which basically means the topping out of Gungahlin.

The new outlook has Canberra adding 161,000 residents, which means a new town (of 90,000 residents) will have to be developed to accommodate growth beyond Gungahlin.

The new forecasts lift the existing Melbourne and Sydney forecasts by about 1.4 million each.

The net addition of about 2.5 million residents to each city means (now calm down property people) development beyond the growth boundaries.

The Melbourne 2030 and City of Cities planning documents are not designed to accommodate growth at this scale.

Either Australians must "dense it up" to European proportions, or our cities must expand into greenfields locations and most likely within master-planned communities.

The outlook in the resource states is just as exciting.

Over the 45 years to 2051, Brisbane will add 400,000 more residents than had been previously planned, and Perth will up its projected population by a further 700,000.

I'm not quite sure where Perth will put its extra residents. Perhaps Perthlings will press inland instead of along the coast.

The new projections also bring demographic cheer to the regions.

Non-metropolitan Queensland (dominated by the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast) will accommodate not 1.4 million extra residents over the 45 years to 2051, but 2.3 million.

In just four years the outlook for regional Queensland has delivered a requirement to accommodate 900,000 extra residents.

The two "coasts" will accommodate a large chunk of this, but what does this mean for the supply of and demand for land and water in cities such as Townsville, Mackay, Cairns and Toowoomba?

Even the Northern Territory gets a shake-up in the new projections.

It was to add 145,000 residents over 45 years but the outlook now is for 170,000.

The net increase of 25,000 residents in the forecasts is big news in the Top End because it equates to the equivalent of three new towns the size of Katherine.

But I have, of course, saved the best for last.

Whereas the former projections showed regional Tasmania and South Australia going backwards, the new outlook shows nothing but growth.

Non-metropolitan Tasmania will not lose 50,000 residents as had been thought four years ago, it will in fact add 12,000 residents by 2051.

The Tasmanian seachange shift of 2003 must have set a trend that is expected to continue.

And the same goes for regional South Australia.

Instead of losing 36,000 residents between 2006 and 2051, the new outlook has this region adding 126,000 residents.

This intrigues me.

Apart from Mount Barker in the Adelaide Hills, Victor Harbour on the coast, Whyalla and Mount Gambier, there are few regional towns of any critical mass in South Australia.

The addition of 126,000 people within five decades suggests either the creation of new towns or the morphing of small places into large places in much the same way that Mandurah and Hervey Bay transmogrified in the past three decades.

Anyone up for a spot of new town formation in South Australia?

The new outlook for Australia's population and its distribution in the 21st century is an exciting paradigm shift for business and government.

At the very least, it requires all existing planning documents to be recast to accommodate growth on a hitherto unparalleled scale.

We need to think boldly about how we manage our burgeoning cities and regions in the future.

And as for business, the prizes will go to those who understand and respond quickest and best to the new paradigm of strong and dispersed population growth throughout the Australian continent.

Bernard Salt is a Partner with KPMG; [email protected]
 
supply and demand is there, just because the kids are living with mum&dad, they will be out soo as they are approaching the time to have their own familys, girls have a bit of a bodt clock thing happening too, and why wouldn't australia have some of the most expensive housed in the world, i considder this country, prime realestate, of the planet, and we are sooo young, the us and uk had a pop of 23,000,000 once upon atime too!
 
Gold, bloody gold!! :D

I love this stuff:

Bernard Salt said:
The new forecasts lift the existing Melbourne and Sydney forecasts by about 1.4 million each.
1.4 million extra people in Sydney and Melbourne. The mind boggles.

Ah well, my cumfy top-end townhouses in Mona Vale are looking more and more like a good investment in the medium to long term.

Whenever I think the fear-mongers might have a point, I stop and project forward the population growth expectations and suddenly want to buy a LOT more property...

Cheers,
Michael
 
supply and demand - yes - but from a decentralisation point of view, infrastructure and facilities have to be the number one and two priorities.

the commuter train from newcastle the sydney now take around 2.5 - 3 hours. a full half to one hour longer than 50 years ago. they really need a high speed train with minimal stops at key location that "have ample parking". the parking at the major train stations is woeful.

also, now in whyalla - the services are really really sad. okay, so everything one "needs" is here - but the shops are boring, the products are boring and very standard - most stores are chain stores - i really really miss my shopping as i like to buy things that are odd or unusual. any females that can afford it flies to melbourne or adelaide 3-4 times a year for shopping. there are no good cafe's for lunching - you have to go to the pubs (of which there are dozens) or the food hall in the shopping centre - and it's just really rather depressing.

i would love to live in the hobby farm 1hr drive from a major city (bring on the new zealand steel transfer!!) - the best of both worlds.

another thing about the lack of building - i don't think it's the interest rates, as bernard pointed out - rather the cost of building and expected returns on that cost. to build is so expensive at the moment, compared to rental returns or sale value, due to massive government fees and lack of skilled workers.

in newcastle i was paying $40/m cash for my tiler - in whyalla they cost around $80/m. there is such a lack of tradespeople here so that the build timeframe is around 14mths from preping the block to completion - and that is blowing out as i type. that is a long time to hold without any income.

just goes to show that there is no one factor that is causing the undersupply, but a wide and varying range that no quick fix will solve.
 
Again lizzie you are spot on ! the amount of down time due to tradies and the council delay adds to the risk factor on a builders return/bottom line. builders are being so carfull because is it takes a year from start to finnish, your selling in a compleatly different market, and if it don't sell ,no income and no income means the bank will just walk up and take it, most builders finance these from their own homes, too risky, thats why they sit home like me doing ss untill the market picks up.
 
the commuter train from newcastle the sydney now take around 2.5 - 3 hours. a full half to one hour longer than 50 years ago. they really need a high speed train with minimal stops at key location that "have ample parking". the parking at the major train stations is woeful.
Hi Lizzie,

Or you could just accept that this isn't going to be resolved any time soon and invest in locations close to major employment centres. I genuinely can't believe how high yielding some Sydney CBD units are now and why these aren't selling like hotcakes. I'm considering buying a resi off-the-plan unit in the new Barangaroo (sp?) development at Darling Harbour. A mate of mine bought one of the toaster units off the plan and made a killing. Just tossing the concept around, but it does hold some appeal. They're making nice big footprint commercial premises there and moving all the big banks out of the city central. A lot of wealthy merchant bankers will end up in those units and they could readily fetch mid-millions each.

Interesting times ahead...

Cheers,
Michael
 
newcastle itself is a major employment centre (250,000 people in greater ncle) ... i just know some people who commute to sydney - and the train example was merely an example of the poor infrastucture that does nothing to encourage people to want to live outside inner sydney (or melbourne or brisbane etc).

otp at darling harbour? do you have a link?
 
Go right ahead Michael. You can be the SS Barangaroo guinea pig.:)

Hi Lizzie,

I'm considering buying a resi off-the-plan unit in the new Barangaroo (sp?) development at Darling Harbour. A mate of mine bought one of the toaster units off the plan and made a killing.
 
Yes, any punt at Barangaroo is high risk but could also be high return.

The Toaster and others in the area all made massive stag profits. Interesting, the present market and cycle is very similar.... Mr Whyte may be onto something.

Peter 14.7
 
Back
Top