Sustainability as a function not a necessity

[cleverproperty]

Hi All,

Just thought I would let you know about a development I have decided to purchase an apartment in.

For all intents and purposes this development is a unit development with 15 apartments in total.

A few years ago I had a look at a re-developed prison in Melbourne called "Pentridge". One of their big claims to fame was the 'green' element of the building (which was quite impressive). I was skeptical at the time that investors would pay more money for the 'green' element when the body corporate costs were similar in other Victorian high rises. But I thought that the green element could be good if it lowered the body corp costings.

I found a small development in Queensland which seems to take that idea further. The developer has filled the roof with solar panels, placed several water tanks under the driveway. In such a small set of apartments my conservative estimates place the body corporate at the lowest I have ever seen. And of course the water tanks are designed to return money to the sewerage and grey water outlets...

The apartments have a lift, but no pool, or large common areas. I think all the solar panels will use power for is the lift, intercom and a few lights.

Aside from that the development is also well placed for infrastructure and future growth - however I thought I would trigger the idea that perhaps as an IP group, sustainability functions can be used to lower body corp rates.

Let me know what you think!

 

[Aaron Sice]

Don't forget the body corporate will charge to do 90 day inspections and treatment of water tanks, 180 day solar panel inspections plus a sinking fund for their eventual repair and/or replacement.

But then, if you're taking the money you're saving from water and power bills and put it towards these costs, then you'd probably be neutral anyway.

 

[Macca]

I like the theory of it, if it saves money when used for a house it is going to work for a set of houses.

Not sure if I would want to live in a complex in QLD without a pool though

I am also a bit surprised that they would put water tanks under a driveway, this could create areas that will flex when heavy vehicles use the driveway resulting in cracked concrete. Furniture removalists will back right into your lounge room if you let them.

 

[Melbournian]

Hi All,

Just thought I would let you know about a development I have decided to purchase an apartment in.

For all intents and purposes this development is a unit development with 15 apartments in total.

A few years ago I had a look at a re-developed prison in Melbourne called "Pentridge". One of their big claims to fame was the 'green' element of the building (which was quite impressive). I was skeptical at the time that investors would pay more money for the 'green' element when the body corporate costs were similar in other Victorian high rises. But I thought that the green element could be good if it lowered the body corp costings.

I found a small development in Queensland which seems to take that idea further. The developer has filled the roof with solar panels, placed several water tanks under the driveway. In such a small set of apartments my conservative estimates place the body corporate at the lowest I have ever seen. And of course the water tanks are designed to return money to the sewerage and grey water outlets...

The apartments have a lift, but no pool, or large common areas. I think all the solar panels will use power for is the lift, intercom and a few lights.

Aside from that the development is also well placed for infrastructure and future growth - however I thought I would trigger the idea that perhaps as an IP group, sustainability functions can be used to lower body corp rates.

Let me know what you think!

owners corp is just a money making machine - unless you're running it whether you put sustainability options or not. they're find some other way to cost more. there are buidling managers who get paid 150-200K just sitting around not doing anything.