The Art of Gen X/Y

[joeExpat]

I spent most of my life living in inner city 'dog boxes'. I hated it. For some people, the lifestyle is great. For others, it's entirely unsuitable.

The key to living in an apartment is to have a great view, this more than makes up for the lack of space. My place is very small, <35 m2 interior, but it has a large terrace with a view over the lake & mountains.

As for Gen Y, I think they have it much harder now than 20 years ago in Sydney. I bought a place on the beach in the Eastern suburbs in my 20s, that wouldn't be possible now for someone on a similar wage. Plus there is a lot more competition now from investors who often outbid owner occupiers, as mentioned in the article.
Generation X are probably OK if they got in early enough.

 

[Aaron_C]

Not sure why someone on a Gen Y average wage (60k) should be able to afford a place on the beach in the Eastern suburbs??

I lived in a 88 sqm apartment + balcony for 4 years - it got way too small after a while. Now I live in a 4 bedder house and I don't really know how I lived without it.

 

[joeExpat]

Not sure why someone on a Gen Y average wage (60k) should be able to afford a place on the beach in the Eastern suburbs??

The point was that 20 years ago a much larger proportion of younger buyers could afford to buy where they wanted to live, these days they have to compromise much more than earlier generations did.

 

[topcropper]

what do you expect? infrastructure is always going to cost more when is in the middle of nowhere and servicing fewer people due to the lack of density.

our forefathers would indeed shake their heads at people who expect the same level of infrastructure in the sticks.

Is this a fact? I'd have thought that a new bit of freeway or railway built in an already congested and highly populated and expensive piece of city would cost 10 times that of the same road or railway build on the edge of that city where land is cheap and you can build the infrastructure where you want? Before you even start, the land costs a gazillion dollars to buy, then you might have to knock down houses and business's to build the infrastructure.

The inner city is where you need expensive massive cement overpasses that cost millions. Then when it gets even more overcrowded you are talking tunnels that cost billions. Out in the suburbs instead of overpasses you can make do with a simple set of traffic lights, or better still a roundabout. Once in the new estate, land costs bugger all and infrastructure can go anywhere.

Traffic congestion and the costs to solve it increase exponentially. Something you inner city lovers forget sometimes.


See ya's.

 

[tambourineman]

Is this a fact? I'd have thought that a new bit of freeway or railway built in an already congested and highly populated and expensive piece of city would cost 10 times that of the same road or railway build on the edge of that city where land is cheap and you can build the infrastructure where you want? Before you even start, the land costs a gazillion dollars to buy, then you might have to knock down houses and business's to build the infrastructure.

i do this for a living - you're right, generally. but its also weather and jurisdiction dependent. in some states its a lot cheaper to build because regulations etc are a bit more relaxed and agencies are more cooperative.

 

[oracle]

The point was that 20 years ago a much larger proportion of younger buyers could afford to buy where they wanted to live, these days they have to compromise much more than earlier generations did.

The problem is 20 years ago there used to be X number of younger buyers competing to live in inner suburbs with Y number of properties. Today due to population growth and prosperity we probably have many multiple times of X number of younger buyers still competing to live in inner suburbs with maybe Y + some number of properties.

Unfortunately, something gotta give and in this case it's the price of properties, thereby making it only possible for very few younger generations people who can actually afford to live there.

Cheers,
Oracle.

 

[Dazz]

Umm. Yes and no.

Now there is a significant quote...

 

[Dazz]

i do this for a living

I sit on my bum and collect rent for a living....but it doesn't make me an expert.

Note to self - must get off the couch today.

 

[Deltaberry]

Yes but young people 20 years ago don't travel to France and Spain for a week to drink red wine and eat blue cheese.

 

[tambourineman]

I sit on my bum and collect rent for a living....but it doesn't make me an expert.

Note to self - must get off the couch today.

Good to see we are on the same page

 

[HiEquity]

TC I think you miss sanj's point, which is that while it may be cheaper to build the infrastructure, the problem is that relatively few people use it so it's far more expensive on a patronage basis. I sit overlooking the freeway running through Perth and I just spent a minute counting around 100 cars going past in that minute, in one direction alone, outside of peak hour. Never going to happen on the extremities of Perth.

BTW, this is a hugely complex issue. The fact is that single storey houses get built for around $800/sqm. Double storey / townhouses around $1500/sqm. High rise apartment blocks around $3000/sqm. Everyone wants lots of sqm, wherever they live. The house sizes of yesteryear have been forgotten in a haze of theatre rooms, alfrescoes, walk in robes and ensuites, for what they're really worth (not much to me). So the cheaper cost of construction of the single storey stuff in the middle of nowhere clearly does compensate a fair bit for the lack of amenity, infrastructure and increased transport costs and time. Otherwise people wouldn't be doing it as much as they do.

But this all has a limit. With the Perth metro area now over 100kms from end to end, we have reached that limit in my view. Otherwise when do you stop? When all the arable land has been put under low density subdivisions and roads to service them? And don't get me started on hobby farms with some hazelnuts and a few alpacas where productive farms used to sit...

 

[Aaron_C]

And don't get me started on hobby farms with some hazelnuts and a few alpacas where productive farms used to sit...

...but it's organic?

 

[tambourineman]

TC I think you miss sanj's point, which is that while it may be cheaper to build the infrastructure, the problem is that relatively few people use it so it's far more expensive on a patronage basis. I sit overlooking the freeway running through Perth and I just spent a minute counting around 100 cars going past in that minute, in one direction alone, outside of peak hour. Never going to happen on the extremities of Perth.

BTW, this is a hugely complex issue. The fact is that single storey houses get built for around $800/sqm. Double storey / townhouses around $1500/sqm. High rise apartment blocks around $3000/sqm. Everyone wants lots of sqm, wherever they live. The house sizes of yesteryear have been forgotten in a haze of theatre rooms, alfrescoes, walk in robes and ensuites, for what they're really worth (not much to me). So the cheaper cost of construction of the single storey stuff in the middle of nowhere clearly does compensate a fair bit for the lack of amenity, infrastructure and increased transport costs and time. Otherwise people wouldn't be doing it as much as they do.

But this all has a limit. With the Perth metro area now over 100kms from end to end, we have reached that limit in my view. Otherwise when do you stop? When all the arable land has been put under low density subdivisions and roads to service them? And don't get me started on hobby farms with some hazelnuts and a few alpacas where productive farms used to sit...

adopt the Tonny Abbot method and relocate all of the farming to Northern Australia and extent the Mitchell Freeway to Port Headland to service it!

 

[topcropper]

TC I think you miss sanj's point, which is that while it may be cheaper to build the infrastructure, the problem is that relatively few people use it so it's far more expensive on a patronage basis.:

Sometimes I wonder if all you pro "Stuff em all in even tighter" brigade are only thinking of your own back pockets. Obviously if sprawl is limited, then your own land holdings in the densely packed areas are worth more? Anyone want to fess up?

If people want to own big houses on big blocks of land, then good on em. And acreage too for a kids horse or something. I see great developments happening. Planned developments with green areas, shopping and such. Not everyone works in the CBD. Most don't. If you don't work in the CBD, why would you even want to be near it? Not everyone wants to live in those tiny overpriced flats and send their kids to school with a basketball court sized bit of cement for a play area.


See ya's.

 

[Fifth]

TC I think you miss sanj's point, which is that while it may be cheaper to build the infrastructure, the problem is that relatively few people use it so it's far more expensive on a patronage basis. I sit overlooking the freeway running through Perth and I just spent a minute counting around 100 cars going past in that minute, in one direction alone, outside of peak hour. Never going to happen on the extremities of Perth.

We all live in different cities so we're all talking about different situations. It depends on the area and also the nature of the infrastructure.

The parts of Melbourne I'm talking about do have the demand for infrastructure. Melbourne's growth corridor in the west is exploding in population. These aren't sparse semi-rural areas, they're metropolitan suburbs which are multiplying rapidly.

The railway extension I referred to in a previous post was in the north, not west, but it's a good example of how Melbourne's infrastructure is not keeping up with demand.

South Morang station in Melbourne was first promised during 1999 election. It was completed in 2012. It cost $498 million to add the station and the track, though that included revamping one or two of the pre-existing stations.

The near half a billion spent was the biggest addition to Melbourne's railway network since the early 80s. This was only extending the railway line by ONE station. Within the first week of opening the station was already exceeding capacity and the linking bus routes were overwhelmed because the line really should have been extended further.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/t...g-is-still-a-missing-link-20120426-1xo1s.html

You cannot say the demand isn't there, it clearly is.

The west has been promised railway lines/extensions/upgrades that dwarf the above track extension. How are these ever going to be completed given the time and cost involved in much smaller projects?

 

[tambourineman]

Sometimes I wonder if all you pro "Stuff em all in even tighter" brigade are only thinking of your own back pockets. Obviously if sprawl is limited, then your own land holdings in the densely packed areas are worth more? Anyone want to own up?

ofcourse it is - theyre the guys that want you to bid up the value of the inner ring housing - they dont want the money moving further out or to the developers.

its like the real estate instutute and spruikers whinging about the FHOG being withdrawn for existing houses - its the best decision the government ever made but all of those people will complain because they dont collect any benefit from it and increased supply only diminishes the value of existing stock.

 

[Deltaberry]

Nothing wrong with developing outer suburbs.

But when you do so without planning properly, and no one wants to move to these new estates you've developed, you've just wated a lot of money on infrastructure servicing these areas.

 

[topcropper]

Nothing wrong with developing outer suburbs.

But when you do so without planning properly, and no one wants to move to these new estates you've developed, you've just wated a lot of money on infrastructure servicing these areas.

Yep. If done properly. It must be multiples of times cheaper to do infrastructure once, properly in a greenfields type situation. My mind boggles when I think of what it costs to change a simple bit of roadway or any other type of infrastructure you can think of in a high density, highly populated city area that's been established for 100 years.


See ya's.

 

[Player]

Yep. If done properly. It must be multiples of times cheaper to do infrastructure once, properly in a greenfields type situation. My mind boggles when I think of what it costs to change a simple bit of roadway or any other type of infrastructure you can think of in a high density, highly populated city area that's been established for 100 years.


See ya's.

I agree.

TC, you've no doubt experienced the mess and bother whilst on holidays that GC is going through as they endeavour to retro-fit a light rail (tram) up the highway from Broadbeach, through Surfers, Southport and on to the Uni and new hospital. After years, it's only lately that the actual tram tracks are being laid. All the preliminary work was done beneath the ground to relocate services, utilities, drains, etc., etc. I wonder what the actual final cost will be?

Retro-fitting infrastructure (like a renovation and extension to an older property) is more expensive than a new build/construction that has been prudently planned and allows for future growth. Reminds me of Melbourne's Western and Northern ring road and the knuckle heads that designed it with only two lanes that were inadequate back in the 90's when it opened, let alone now that they've been widening it with regular roadworks for the past few years.

 

[Deltaberry]

Yep. If done properly. It must be multiples of times cheaper to do infrastructure once, properly in a greenfields type situation. My mind boggles when I think of what it costs to change a simple bit of roadway or any other type of infrastructure you can think of in a high density, highly populated city area that's been established for 100 years.


See ya's.

The benefit of building infrastructure in established areas is hard to measure because the flow-on effect could be much greater in the long run.

What's the benefit to society of building a train station to lead to Melbourne University, parts of RMIT, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Royal Melbourne Women's Hospital, Royal Children's Hospital, Eye and Ear Hospital (which are all in same area)?