Was just having a read through this and thought I'd share.
http://www.thevine.com.au/life/thoughts/215-a-week-to-live-on-a-balcony
http://www.thevine.com.au/life/thoughts/215-a-week-to-live-on-a-balcony
The Vine: $215pw to live on a balcony
- Thread starter Jake D
- Start date
It's expensive rent for a 2 bedder, and more so if it's a crappy location (if it isn't then there's nothing stopping him from moving somewhere cheaper) BUT there are only 3 of them and he has chosen to sleep on the balcony over sharing a bedroom or using the living room which he gave as possible alternative arrangements.
Oh please.
The article has turned it into a whole 'poor young people' thing when these hipsters want and choose to live the trendy urbane faux-poverty lifestyle. For the same price he could have rented a whole house or unit in an unfashionable suburb. But that wouldn't be very becoming of an artistic soul, would it now? God forbid should a struggling artist come into contact with the suburban working classes.
The hipster pictures accompanying the article say it all. Trendy self-satisfied indie poopoo.
The article has turned it into a whole 'poor young people' thing when these hipsters want and choose to live the trendy urbane faux-poverty lifestyle. For the same price he could have rented a whole house or unit in an unfashionable suburb. But that wouldn't be very becoming of an artistic soul, would it now? God forbid should a struggling artist come into contact with the suburban working classes.
The hipster pictures accompanying the article say it all. Trendy self-satisfied indie poopoo.
As distasteful as it is, living in the burbs and catching a train to work with all the plebs would hardly make for the same headlines
.
Young journo on a slow news day decides to write about his/her hipster mates? "This will totes get you more gigs for your band omg"
As distasteful as it is, living in the burbs and catching a train to work with all the plebs would hardly make for the same headlines
True, my daughter made the choice to commute from family in Wollongong rather than pay stupid rents in Sydney when she did her internship a few years back. Limited funds call for drastic measures sure, but it is their choice.
Everyone should be able to rent 5 bedroom houses for $500 in Paddington and Newtown. And agents should be banned from checking credit history.
Oh and the Prime Minister shouldn't receive a salary. You're doing it for the people, not for money.
Oh and the Prime Minister shouldn't receive a salary. You're doing it for the people, not for money.
Even if you want to stick close to the city, many times it's only a case of going out 3 to 5 kms for a drop in rent, or like half of Australia you live in the suburbs.
Twice I shared 2 bedders; once with my husband and another couple, and another time with 6 people (made the kichen a lounge/kitchen and the lounge a 3rd bedroom - where a friend a I slept).
One had a balcony but I never entertained the idea of sleeping there, and i certainly didn't think of contacting the media with a sob story
.As distasteful as it is, living in the burbs and catching a train to work with all the plebs would hardly make for the same headlines
So that's why none of the major papers have picked up my eye-opening (and dare I say masterful) investigative piece entitled 'I Caught the Train and Was Sneezed Upon'. And here I was aiming for a Walkley.
I dare say we are heading down that path.
The other day I read that a Deloitte study on affordability of electricity was done which showed families with children who spend a lot of time playing computer games are feeling the stress of increased electricity bills, and I half expected headlines to follow with a sob story of young, long faced Jayyden, in front of his disconnected 42inch and PS4
.While I agree with you about the importance of choosing housing that is within your budget, I think the whole "if you don't have (enough) money, you have to live in the middle of nowhere" mentality in Australia to be quite disappointing.
Instead of attacking people for wanting to live in such areas, maybe a better approach is to look at what exactly makes these areas so popular? The answer is pretty simple - they have walkable neighbourhoods; better public transport; varied employment options within close proximity; lots of amenities such as retail, restaurants and bars close by; a better cultural scene; nicer parks and so on. So why not try and replicate these things in as many suburbs as we can so that there is not a massive monopoly among such a small number of suburbs? That way, much more people would be able to enjoy the benefits of living in active and dynamic communities. After all, these places are expensive for a reason.
Also, many people make the mistake of equating living in the outer suburbs with living a cheaper lifestyle which is actually somewhat false. You need to look past the cheaper purchase price (or rent) and consider the true cost of living in these areas. It's not as affordable as many make out.
It's quite funny because my (now) husband and I were discussing this many years ago when he was quite new to Australia and he didn't believe me when I told him that housing in inner-city areas was more expensive than the suburbs. He spent most of his life on the east cost of USA and Canada and it's largely the opposite in these cities!
He can rent my balcony for $200 p/w. Better view and more room, and a heater in the wall.
Screaming kids running around under your feet are free.
Living in the middle of nowhere because you have no money, or living in squalor nearer to the action, has been the standard for generations of Aussies.
All those early migrants (my PIL's for eg) who came out here with nothing back in the 50's and 60's lived on the fringes of society, or in slum-like conditions and welfare army-style corrugated bungalows until they could afford better accommodation.
The only difference is they didn't whine and bleat; they got on with it.
I've lived in both city, rural and now on the Mornington peninsula (sorta still rural, but not) locations, and the cost of living for general items is the same.
Cheaper if you don't particularly have to shop at designer or boutique grocery and clothing shops etc. Aldi does it for us just nicely.
Housing is arguably cheaper when comparing apples to apples, and in my case; my commute is about 1 minute, my wife's is about 20 mins on a freeway, so our fuel bill is next to nothing.
Screaming kids running around under your feet are free.
I think the issue with all this is the guy is publicly complaining about the cost.
Living in the middle of nowhere because you have no money, or living in squalor nearer to the action, has been the standard for generations of Aussies.
All those early migrants (my PIL's for eg) who came out here with nothing back in the 50's and 60's lived on the fringes of society, or in slum-like conditions and welfare army-style corrugated bungalows until they could afford better accommodation.
The only difference is they didn't whine and bleat; they got on with it.
It is if you don't have to commute.
I've lived in both city, rural and now on the Mornington peninsula (sorta still rural, but not) locations, and the cost of living for general items is the same.
Cheaper if you don't particularly have to shop at designer or boutique grocery and clothing shops etc. Aldi does it for us just nicely.
Housing is arguably cheaper when comparing apples to apples, and in my case; my commute is about 1 minute, my wife's is about 20 mins on a freeway, so our fuel bill is next to nothing.
Last edited:
I dare say we are heading down that path.
The other day I read that a Deloitte study on affordability of electricity was done which showed families with children who spend a lot of time playing computer games are feeling the stress of increased electricity bills, and I half expected headlines to follow with a sob story of young, long faced Jayyden, in front of his disconnected 42inch and PS4
Electricity usage equals higher electricity bill. Who would've thunk it, eh? Next we'll be told that children who spend a lot of time playing video games are more likely to be unfit and overweight. That will be quite the heart-wrenching revelation.
While I agree with you about the importance of choosing housing that is within your budget, I think the whole "if you don't have (enough) money, you have to live in the middle of nowhere" mentality in Australia to be quite disappointing.
Instead of attacking people for wanting to live in such areas, maybe a better approach is to look at what exactly makes these areas so popular? The answer is pretty simple - they have walkable neighbourhoods; better public transport; varied employment options within close proximity; lots of amenities such as retail, restaurants and bars close by; a better cultural scene; nicer parks and so on. So why not try and replicate these things in as many suburbs as we can so that there is not a massive monopoly among such a small number of suburbs? That way, much more people would be able to enjoy the benefits of living in active and dynamic communities. After all, these places are expensive for a reason.
Also, many people make the mistake of equating living in the outer suburbs with living a cheaper lifestyle which is actually somewhat false. You need to look past the cheaper purchase price (or rent) and consider the true cost of living in these areas. It's not as affordable as many make out.
It's quite funny because my (now) husband and I were discussing this many years ago when he was quite new to Australia and he didn't believe me when I told him that housing in inner-city areas was more expensive than the suburbs. He spent most of his life on the east cost of USA and Canada and it's largely the opposite in these cities!
I agree that we should try to make every suburb as livable as possible and that a handful of wealthy suburbs shouldn't have a monopoly on livability but the truth is that there will always be suburbs which are more desirable thus more expensive than others. What constitutes a desirable suburb changes over time (e.g. inner suburbs used to be undesirable and are now highly sought after), but the disparity between desirable and undesirable always exists.
The guy who chooses to live on a balcony when there are far more humane options and openly admits that he thinks it's 'cool' to do so has chosen his lifestyle and that's fine, just don't expect people to cry him a river. Clearly, to him, being 'cool' is the better lifestyle option.
A hundred bucks says he's only been sleeping on the balcony over the summer and will scurry inside when winter hits.
I agree that everyone should be able to choose a lifestyle that suits, to each their own and all that jazz. I think that he's the focal point of an article drawing attention to the plight of housing (un)affordability for youths might be construed as complaining. Maybe he had no idea what the article was about (doubtful) or maybe he didn't care so long as he was in an article (possible), I don't know.
That's not really an argument. Just because something has been done "for generations", doesn't mean that it's the best possible setup. To me, it doesn't make sense to put people with limited financial resources in places with limited services, infrastructure or employment.
Yes, but a very large number do have to commute, especially in the newer housing estates in the outer suburbs. I lived with my parents in such a suburb before moving out and the lifestyle is terrible. I had to commute for two hours each day to go to/from work (equates to 1 month per year, in case you're wondering) and by the time you get home, you have no time to do anything. Your day pretty much consists of work and travelling to and from work. And we wonder why obesity and mental health problems are increasing. Sure, you can buy a big house for cheaper than elsewhere but how much is your time/health/family relationships worth? Thanks but no thanks.
It's all about choices.
Hard to believe but people choose to live in the suburbs over cramped city living. Some are happy to trade the cramped living for the commute, although many find work nearer to their homes.
Jobs and facilities exist in the suburbs too.
Regardless of where you live very few people live close enough to their job to not to commute at all, even those that live relatively close.
You don't have to live a 2 hour commute away to save on rent either.
A few bus stops away often means less rent. Tough if it's not cool.
I cannot think of any reason why that guy would have to work in retail there. Retail jobs are not restricted to Newtown.
And I really don't see how he's had it tougher than most - keep in mind he's made his 'choices' and he chooses to live on the balcony.
