even if it is profitable? surely profit is all that matters, it could be backing onto a sewer and cemeaery for all i care
Would anyone buy on a railway line?
- Thread starter Tulamalula
- Start date
even if it is profitable? surely profit is all that matters, it could be backing onto a sewer and cemeaery for all i care
I'd buy in a cemetery, Karrakatta in Perth, Toowong in Brisbane - prime land, all gone to waste with monuments for the dead.
2 weeks pre auction for people to see the blocks cleared and be able to imagine their houses there. Because of train line this is not a professional builder's block. But it is cheapest land available in inner east. People who want to build 1st home or investors who have not built before can stand on a vacant block and imagine a house there much easier. That can be worth money. Some will never buy on a train line regardless of price but for some with a fixed budget who have a choice of going out much further or buying in coorparoo in a train line they may just buy on the trainline.
Profit matters yes but location impacts on profitability. By building / developing property in an unfavourable spot your end product becomes less desirable which limits the price you can ask. No matter how good your end product is there is always a cap when your location is not prime - yet your building costs are still the same. Plus greater downside risk if the market tanks.
I see, so no chance to renovate the actual house. Doesn't look like a good renovator anyway, and would have lower rent being on the train line. I actually like trains and the noise, my grandparents lived on the back of a railway line in Hobart and as a kid I found the noise of a night time train going by rather comforting.
no your building costs arent the same, in this case all that is being done is creation and sale of 2 lots.
it is a fallacy that sub prime lots cant be extremely profitable, all the downsides you mention are in deed downsides but if taken into account when working out purchase price it becomes almost a non-issue
In this particular example there is no construction but we all know that more money can be made from a full development rather than a simple subdivision due to the value-add of building new units.
Yes well you can make that argument about everything - get the price low enough and it makes money. That's obvious. I just feel that the downsides are too great for my appetite especially if I have a choice not to buy something like that.
This land will attract interest from first home buyers and investors alike due to its attractive price, but I hope they do their homework prior to purchasing as it may be a extremely costly exercise to build a house on the land.
As the land shares a boundary with the railway corridor, any proposed development will be subject to referral to the Queensland Government DSDIP and Department of Traffic and Main Roads for their approval. Any approval for a dwelling will be conditioned to meet very strict internal noise limits. These limits are near on impossible to achieve, especially so because diesel locomotives use the railway line - emitting loud, low frequency sound (the hardest to attenuate).
The land is also located in a Brisbane City Council Demolition Control Precinct (DCP), and development would be required to be constructed of lightweight materials - no good at attenuating sound.
The extra construction costs to comply with any internal noise condition imposed upon development will likely make developing a house on this land unfeasible.
I know this as I have too have a block abutting this rail corridor also in a DCP. My DA has been granted, however the State Government noise condition has stopped the development from proceeding for the time being. In my case, the increase to the construction costs to achieve compliance with the noise condition equates to approximately $450 per square meter.
I am assuming that your DA is for multiple dwellings as opposed to a House. Multiple dwellings trigger noise compliance under the LMR code.
No, my DA was just for a house.
The 'State Development Assessment Provisions' - Modules 1, 18 & 19 apply to any developments, including houses, with boundaries adjoining or within 25m of rail corridor land.
It's a ridiculous condition, and we are in the process of fighting it, currently negotiating directly with the state to have it removed.
A couple examples of some of the types of construction (for my house) to comply with the condition are as follows. As you can see - it's well above what would be considered 'reasonable'.
External Walls -
- External cladding consisting of 2 layers of 9mm compressed fibre cement
- Double stud timber wall with internal cavity of 160mm with infill of 75mm thick Rockwool
- Internal linings of 3 layers of 16mm fire rated plasterboard
Roof/Ceiling
- 2 layers of .42 BMT steel roof sheeting
- 9mm fibre cemenet sheet under the roof sheet
- R3.2 glass wool insulation in the ceiling void
- Ceiling consisting of 3 layers of 16mm fire rated plasterboard on resilient mounts
$10 for the sledge hammer?
Wow, that was helpful. Is this the level of professional insight you offer your finance clients?
Advertise it as a free alcohol and speed party on facebook and watch it get demolished for free.
Some of the old boys around town just take the doors and windows out to get "repaired" and then always seemed to run into trouble getting it done so they were out for a few months. House always seemed to get damaged beyond repair at that time and then they would apply to council for demolition.
Ouch. Needs to be in a noise corridor for mapping, this block still not showing that
I dont know the area and done any DD but I guess you have.
If you think its cheap in comparison to others its usually cheap for a reason. Probably due to its location you have highlighted.
Less demand.
