In another thread ( http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24906 ) Monoply said:
The thought then ocurred to me that the so-called 'riff raff' still need houses.
So where do they go?
It's very common sport here for people here to spot 'gentrifying' suburbs with better than average growth prospects.
However by definition, 50% of suburbs will have below median growth performance. Some might be only a percent or two pa down and catch up in the next cycle.
Others may exhibit more sustained underperformance (over 20 - 40 years or more).
I will call these the 'degentrifying' suburbs.
Though there's not much talk of it here, there must be a fair number of these 'degentrifying' suburbs.
This may not be obvious if the houses are solid reminders of a more prosperous past. Or, if a newish estate, the mod-cons on houses may convey the impression that the suburb is pretty swish.
In Victoria, the change in income distribution of areas like Moe and Morwell show unmistakable degentrification in the last 30 years. Long-term changes in relative property prices in areas like Dandenong may also indicate degentrification there (not that Dandenong had much of a gentry to begin with!).
Anecdotally, a work colleague said that she liked living in Hoppers Crossing 10 years ago, but moved out recently due to crime and delinquent adolescents. She thought that this area was degenerating.
New estates in areas like Cranbourne North (rated last in last year's 'Age' liveability survey) may or may not follow this path. If it does, then this too could be a degentrifying suburb.
Established suburbs also have varying fortunes. In Melbourne, studying the changing fortunes of suburbs like St Kilda, Richmond and South Yarra could be instructive.
For evey gentrifying suburb, there must be one degentrifying suburb. I'd be interested to hear some examples, and, even better, how to spot them.
Peter
Yes, a lot of people have had great capital gains in commission areas. As good people slowly move into the area, prices rise, and the riff raff cannot afford those areas, so they continue to get better and better.
The thought then ocurred to me that the so-called 'riff raff' still need houses.
So where do they go?
It's very common sport here for people here to spot 'gentrifying' suburbs with better than average growth prospects.
However by definition, 50% of suburbs will have below median growth performance. Some might be only a percent or two pa down and catch up in the next cycle.
Others may exhibit more sustained underperformance (over 20 - 40 years or more).
I will call these the 'degentrifying' suburbs.
Though there's not much talk of it here, there must be a fair number of these 'degentrifying' suburbs.
This may not be obvious if the houses are solid reminders of a more prosperous past. Or, if a newish estate, the mod-cons on houses may convey the impression that the suburb is pretty swish.
In Victoria, the change in income distribution of areas like Moe and Morwell show unmistakable degentrification in the last 30 years. Long-term changes in relative property prices in areas like Dandenong may also indicate degentrification there (not that Dandenong had much of a gentry to begin with!).
Anecdotally, a work colleague said that she liked living in Hoppers Crossing 10 years ago, but moved out recently due to crime and delinquent adolescents. She thought that this area was degenerating.
New estates in areas like Cranbourne North (rated last in last year's 'Age' liveability survey) may or may not follow this path. If it does, then this too could be a degentrifying suburb.
Established suburbs also have varying fortunes. In Melbourne, studying the changing fortunes of suburbs like St Kilda, Richmond and South Yarra could be instructive.
For evey gentrifying suburb, there must be one degentrifying suburb. I'd be interested to hear some examples, and, even better, how to spot them.
Peter