Western Sydney suburbs - Is this the boom area for Houses???

Do you think the suburbs mentioned in this post are boom suburbs in the future?


  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
growth??? $0

id stay clear, my golden rule, is buy bread and butter, everyone needs staples.

I'm not sure I agree, Glebe is a pretty good performing suburb and 1 bedrooms are becoming more and more acceptable by young couples & professionals; who are the perfect match for the locality and type of property.

I would make sure that it isn't missing anything it should have to comparable properties in the area i.e carspace or int laundry.

If it ticks all the boxes on what you need, or more, then I think they can be good investments.

P.s when buying units always check the strata levies and sinking fund contributions, last thing you want to do is to buy into an old block and cough up 30k unexpected renovations

P.P.S ** If you are looking at one bedrooms, try and make sure its a seperate bedroom. Although studios are great, you may have problems getting a high LVR loan with a unit thats less than 30sqmtrs
 
Hi what do you guys think of Forest Lodge/Glebe for 1 bedder?

Good growth and area to buy?

Thks :)

Hanyipee

Forest Lodge/Glebe are close to Sydney Uni and the RPA hospital so 1 bedders should be very popular. Not a bad area but it can be difficult to find parking so it's one of the areas I avoid. :D

Regarding growth I believe that if suburb A goes up in price then suburb B will follow so IMHO it doesn't matter in which suburb you buy your IP's in.

If you like the area go for it but IMHO good returns and low holding costs are very important so don't overpay. Buy within your budget and negotiate hard for the best possible deal.

Good luck
 
Is the lodge not the old myer that was divided into 100+ 20sqm studio apartments? that sell for $100k for the last 10 years? its the UniLodge yeh?

Glebe 1 bedder is good, however if its the unilodge id stay clear, do your own research though, you will see why.
 
Thanks guys,

The unit i was looking at had secure carpark and internal is around 40sqm. Close to Annandale village.

Anyway i did not go ahead as i wasnt so sure about the area but now i feel like i have missed out on it.

Many ppl had said to me when i find the right one i will feel it. Do you guys had such feeling when you first bought your own place?

Thx
Hannah
 
Thanks guys,

The unit i was looking at had secure carpark and internal is around 40sqm. Close to Annandale village.

Anyway i did not go ahead as i wasnt so sure about the area but now i feel like i have missed out on it.

Many ppl had said to me when i find the right one i will feel it. Do you guys had such feeling when you first bought your own place?

Thx
Hannah

Hi Hannah,

You will probably thank yourself for not going along with that purchase. When you purchase a property under 50m2, it is VERY difficult to get finance (over 80%) - and therefore difficult to pull out your equity in the future, if you see any growth - properties under 50m2 generally show far less growth than larger properties. As the banks won't loan a high LVR on such properties, it indicates they see them as much riskier investsments compared to units over 50m2 - that says quite a bit really!

Keep looking - you'll find something!! :D

Cheers,
Jen
 

Jacque

Thanks for that.

I am copying the relevant section here because I am sure
some people are accidentally going to miss your link
;)

"Sydney
The best capital growth performers between 1995 and 2005 all averaged better than 13 per cent growth per year, according to RP Data figures.

They include humble locales in the far western and southwestern suburbs such as Holsworthy (averaging 15 per cent, with a 2006 median house price of $375,000), Bonnyrigg Heights (13.5 per cent, $386,000), Busby (13.3 per cent, $272,000), Tahmoor (13 per cent, $290,000) and Glen Alpine (14.1 per cent, $498,000).

The standout performer is extremely humble North St Marys, with a 2006 median house price of just $255,000, despite growth of 18.6 per cent a year over 10 years.

Compare that with some of the so-called prime suburbs, all with median house prices above $1 million: Artarmon 9 per cent, Bellevue Hill 5.1 per cent, Bronte 5 per cent, Coogee 11.4 per cent, Cremorne 7.2 per cent, Gordon 9.4 percent, Kensington 8.1 per cent, Mosman 5.8 per cent, Paddington 10.5 per cent, Palm Beach 7.8 per cent, Queens Park 5.4 per cent, Randwick 8.5 per cent, Rose Bay 10.6 per cent and Woollahra 11.1 per cent.

The flag-bearers for the “better” suburbs are Vaucluse and Collaroy, which both delivered 15.5 per cent capital growth over 10 years. Manly also did well, with a 13.7 per cent average. "

Cheers
 
Last edited:
The standout performer is extremely humble North St Marys, with a 2006 median house price of just $255,000, despite growth of 18.6 per cent a year over 10 years.

I'm positive on Western Sydney suburbs but I always wonder about statistics like that, well any CAGR statistics really. There's has been quite a bit of new development going on out there over the past few years which would skew the figures dramatically.
 
I'm positive on Western Sydney suburbs but I always wonder about statistics like that, well any CAGR statistics really. There's has been quite a bit of new development going on out there over the past few years which would skew the figures dramatically.

Shady

I agree but as the article states, the idea that blue-chip inner-city property will always show better capital growth than property in the outer suburbs is a myth.

And this as an investor makes me wonder this.

Why should I suffer higher costs and have lower returns when in the long run the capital gain for the same size portfolio will be similar?

cheers
 
Do you know those suburbs? They're all new suburbs. They start off as pieces of dirt worth $80k. Then houses get built and they sell for $200+.

It's a convenient piece borne out of intent to mislead, or poor inconsidered research.

You can't tell me that established out suburbs over the long term have had higher growth than your Cottesloes, Point Pipers, Tooraks etc.
 
Do you know those suburbs? They're all new suburbs. They start off as pieces of dirt worth $80k. Then houses get built and they sell for $200+.

It's a convenient piece borne out of intent to mislead, or poor inconsidered research.

You can't tell me that established out suburbs over the long term have had higher growth than your Cottesloes, Point Pipers, Tooraks etc.

Well North St Mary's I believe was established around the 1950's. Not really that new. This was the suburb that was mentioned in the article as the standout performer.
 
Well North St Mary's I believe was established around the 1950's. Not really that new. This was the suburb that was mentioned in the article as the standout performer.
18.6% pa over 10 years? That means in 1996 the median house had to be worth approximately $30k.

Do you believe that?

Let me go check some sales history.

-----------------------------------
8 CATALINA ST, NORTH ST MARYS, 2760
Sale Price: 39,000
Sale Date: 15/10/86
Area: 626 m²
------------------------------------
9 CATALINA ST, NORTH ST MARYS, 2760
Sale Price: 76,000
Sale Date: 24/07/89
Area: 619 m²
-------------------------------------
22 CATALINA ST, NORTH ST MARYS, 2760
Sale Price: 109,000
Sale Date: 27/09/94
Area: 626 m²
-------------------------------------


I'm not going to bother looking for anymore but it appears a few of you have been sold a lemon. You ignored common sense and believed it because you wanted to believe it. You used emotion instead of logic.
 
i had property in liverpool in last decade and it did well, bought 80k 1991, sold 300k 2001. if i had to invest in sydney at the moment i'd buy something in the burbs. i think this ripple effect theory is true sometimes and not other time. north and eastern suburbs did well in the last year because of the stockmarket. they are not doing hot now but neither is the west.

the best return i reckon in the last 10 years has actually been in canberra and perth. mining town and government coffers growing from the terms of trade. sydney is a financial hub, we are in a savings and loan crissis, that's not a positive. Also the infrastructure in the city is seizing up and the state government has been so bad. Melbourne is a better place to invest other than it has had a mini run of late and has crap weather. but compared to the transport in sydney, it is miles ahead. sydney is being strangled by its transport problems and that idiot bob car's idea to put up a sign saying don't come here anymore because it's full (of what??). Well it is choking now, and i don't see that turning around soon. instead i'm gonna buy me some real estate in QLD and WA...
 
Buck

ok something is not right with the quoted 10year growth figure for St Marys but the 10 year average is not a good indicator anyway, it's the long term average I am interested in.

Generally, the long term growth of property in a capital city irrespective of where it is located it is a few % above CPI levels.

The only better performers are the exclusive properties in rich suburbs or in unique locations and they are not suitable for my portfolio anyway.

The rest will compare with the following example.
If someone bought 3 properties in Sydney's west 20 or so years ago or 1 which was of equivalent $ value closer to the city and did a price comparison after the recent boom the capital gain of the 3 vs 1 will be similar. I know because I've done that comparison.

Also, what people forget is that the yields for the 3 properties will be 2% higher than the yields of the 1 property (right now it is 5 to 6% out west or 3 to 4% closer in) so your long term savings will be higher and on 1 mil $ loan it's a $20K saving.

Since my out of pocket component will be smaller with cheaper properties I may even be able to afford 1 more IP so I can have a bigger portfolio than if I had bought 1 single expensive property.
The lower out of pocket component means that those properties will become +ve geared quicker and this will allow me to grow my portfolio faster than if I had 1 single and highly unaffordable property.

Vacancies is also another thing to consider.
If you had a bad tenant or suffered a long vacancy with the 1 property it will kill your budget.
A vacancy on a cheaper property means you've only lost 1/3 of your rent and the tenant pool is much higher so you will quickly find a new tenant.

Finally I'd like to say that it's up to each individual to choose what and where they buy and how they want to structure their portfolio.
You do it your way and I do it my way but don't tell me that your way is better because it's not.
It's just different to mine.
 
Last edited:
Buck

ok something is not right with the quoted 10year growth figure for St Marys but the 10 year average is not a good indicator anyway, it's the long term average I am interested in.

Generally, the long term growth of property in a capital city irrespective of where it is located it is a few % above CPI levels.

The only better performers are the exclusive properties in rich suburbs or in unique locations and they are not suitable for my portfolio anyway.

The rest will compare with the following example.
If someone bought 3 properties in Sydney's west 20 or so years ago or 1 which will be of equivalent $ value closer to the city and did a price comparison after the recent boom the capital gain of the 3 vs 1 will be similar. I know because I've done that comparison.

Also, what people forget is that the yields for the 3 properties will be 2% higher than the yields of the 1 property (right now it is 5 to 6% out west or 3 to 4% closer in). so your long term savings will be lower and on 1 mil loan it's a $20K saving.

Since my out of pocket component will be smaller with cheaper properties I may even be able to afford 1 more IP so I can have a bigger portfolio than if I had bought 1 single expensive property. The lower out of pocket component means that those properties will become +ve geared quicker and this will allow me to grow my portfolio faster than if I had 1 single and highly unafortdable property.

Vacancies is also another thing to consider.
If you had a bad tenant or suffered a long vacancy with the 1 property it will kill your budget. A vacancy on a cheaper property means you've only lost 1/3 of your rent and the tenant pool is much higher so you will quickly find a new tenant.

Finally I'd like to say that it's up to each individual to choose what and where they buy and how they want to structure their portfolio.
You do it your way and I do it my way but don't tell me that your way is better because it's not. It's just different to mine.


BV i agree, thats y i stick to the bread and butter...

some think otherwise, its clear and the writing is on the wall...

makes me think how many people on SS nowdays, actually own property...
 
Finally I'd like to say that it's up to each individual to choose what and where they buy and how they want to structure their portfolio.
You do it your way and I do it my way but don't tell me that your way is better because it's not.
It's just different to mine.
What makes you think you are doing any different to me? I proved that the data supplied is a load of bollocks so now you're taken the high road and intimated that I am saying my way is better whilst you are not claming the same thing?

I'm here to discuss the pros and cons of WS vs other alternatives, but everytime you here something you don't like you start with "you look down on WS" or "you're the only one saying your view is better".

I'm only here to discuss real estate. I'm not here to go to great lengths to justify my views. Show me the money and I'll jump on the WS bandwagon. So far no one has shown me anything to suggest WS gets better long term growth than closer suburbs.
 
makes me think how many people on SS nowdays, actually own property...
Clearly that's a stab at me amongst others. Maybe you overlooked two very important questions:

1. Why was I the only person to pick the stats in that article as a fraud? Everyone one else gobbled them up as fact.
2. Where did I get those purchase prices from? What are the chances a cheerleader has access to that data?

It is actually possible that someone with an alternate view to you may be more sophisticated that you. Food for thought.
 
Clearly that's a stab at me amongst others. Maybe you overlooked two very important questions:

1. Why was I the only person to pick the stats in that article as a fraud? Everyone one else gobbled them up as fact.
2. Where did I get those purchase prices from? What are the chances a cheerleader has access to that data?

It is actually possible that someone with an alternate view to you may be more sophisticated that you. Food for thought.

Leaving this topic!

goodluck with your investing hey.

Hope you do well out of you inner city stuff.
 
Back
Top