I cannot work in rural areas permanently. There is simply not the required availability of work in my career. I have to work in the city which means if I don't want a long commute, I have to live in the city.
I do, however, completely understand where he is coming from in the article. There is no way a couple on a combined income of 100K could afford a mortgage of anything near what is required to buy a house (or apartment) within 10kms of Melbourne CBD. At least not the eastern side.
That's a good point Divvy. With my career, if I want to advance much further I have to move to Adelaide, after that Melbourne. I really don't want to, so I guess I sacrifice job prospects. Not that it's a sacrifice for me anyway, it's just not what I want.
And there seems to come with that an assumption that if you don't work in a big city, then you don't have a worthwhile career. Careers are available everywhere - city dwelling lifestyles aren't, there's the difference - have it all and pay for it or have some of it and get more value for your dollar is what it boils down to I suppose.:
I'm sorry, I don't buy that people are tied to the city due to their careers. That's why people commute
I know people who drive an hour both ways every day for their career.
Well all those studies that have been done into affordable housing with a key component being about affordable housing for key workers (teachers, nurses, policemen, firemen etc) must be wrong then. It is very easy to look at individuals and say well they could just move rural - but it just won't work if everyone did.:
Apart from key workers until the head offices of big companies move to more rural locations there are many jobs that you can't do in a more rural area - persuade an Optus or a Telstra to move head office to Ballarat or other regional location and some other companies may follow - that sort of strategy is probably part of the solution (and indeed is discussed in many of the affordability studies that federal and state governments waste money on commissioning and then ignore).
Lots of IT work that used to be done in more rural locations has been centralized, and that is usually to head office, which is usually in a capital city.
There are plenty of jobs in areas such as sports events management,entertainment, theater etc that only happen in big cities.
As for just commute - some jobs you have to be able to be called into work and get there within a set time. How long is a reasonable commute? Why should we expect nurses to get spend two hours travelling to work at the RCH for example - or force them to drive.
I just don't get it - why don't people want housing to be affordable in the inner suburbs?
we are total tree dwellers who live on an acre in the bush in a 1950s cottage, but the downside is the commute that my dh has to make when he has to work on jobs in the cbd or northern/western suburbs. the bottom line is that you can't have it all( unless you are a multi-millionaire), so you have to decide what is most important to you and where you are going to sit.
It's not that I don't want housing to be affordable in the inner-city it's just that, in the spirit of accepting what I can't change, I prefer to accept that it's the reality of life in nearly every major city in the world and deal with it.
If ones' career doesn't provide one with fulfilling choices then why not change career? I didn't pay a lot of attention to the careers counselor at school but I do remember the class where he said that many people change careers during their working life.
Life will never be perfect or fair. We always have to compromise somewhere but there seems to be an entire industry built around people writing articles in which they whinge that life's not fair.
I don't think there is an assumption that a career is not worthwhile if you don't work in a big city - is certainly not one I have come across. Yes careers are available everywhere - but not every specific career is available everywhere - hats off to those of you who 'chose' right and ended up in a career where you can work anywhere. Stupidly both DH and I ended up doing something (different things) we are good at, interested in - and city based - we should have thought more carefully all those years ago and given ourselves more options :-):
Who's saying they don't want affordable inner suburb housing?! I haven't heard anyone express that thought here at all.:
I personally would LOVE to skip the 1 hour each way commute by living closer to town. But the reality is we have urban layouts that were largely designed a century or more ago. The solution isn't to slash negative gearing & deflate the whole housing market. The solution is to integrate what we know about liveability into all aspects of development & design, so that all of our suburban areas enjoy a greater number of amenities, regardless of where they are.
And teleworking. If they could just built that bloody NBN already, more of us could integrate aspects of teleworking into our lives. That would even out the playing field a lot.
Not in so many words but we have heard - "just commute further" "change your career" "can't believe there are careers that are tied to the city" "it is the reality of life and can't be changed just live with it" in addition to the mentality that those in the city just want to "have it all" The overall sentiment of this thread is definitely - a) either it isn't an issue or b) it is an issue which can be ignored - which is what the author is saying politicians do. I can now see why they can get away with ignoring it.:
At 12KM out it and in what is considered inner suburb - it takes me an hour each way to work too.:
I read the recommendations about affordability housing that the author talks about - none of them talk about slashing negative gearing and deflating the whole housing market - there was a series of measures to be implemented over time to mitigate against deflating the whole housing market. The impact would not be immediate. Of course it has to be a many pronged approach, and all of our suburban areas should have the amenities required (and the amenities there from the beginning in the case of new suburbs, not the schools train stations etc being created years and years after most of the households have moved in) - but why continue to expand out placing the stress on the public transport and infrastructures when we are not making the most of the inner suburban areas we have.
If you read any of the planning literature certainly in our area there is plenty of talk of high density zones near public transport - but what this actually means is one or two bed apartments - why no provisions for family housing (three bed 1 bath townhouse) near public transport routes (as in can get on public transport within a 10 min walk of your house) - or is that having a sense of entitlement families thinking they should be able to live that close to public transport? Many of the planning laws make putting 3 bed apartments in difficult because they want two car parking spaces for a 3 bed - so then an exemption has to be applied for - two car parking spaces for a 3 bed is not a necessity.
There are so many things that could be done to improve affordability in inner suburbs, which would reduce the dependency on cars (I was horrified to read that in my suburb which has fantastic public transport a train plus 3 tram lines that only 20% of people travel to work on public transport with over 50% driving - but if you look at one of the suburbs that is always advertised on TV as "living the dream" that declines to 6.8% with over 70% driving) and increase the level of environmental solutions put into new properties (few new one, two bed properties include water tanks, solar panels, decent insulation, double glazing etc - because developers know that the majority of these will go to investors who have little interest in such things compared to home owners) - but if housing affordability is not even recognized as an issue then nothing happens.
I am sure teleworking would work for many people, although I am not quite sure how it would bring about changes in housing affordability - people moving out of the city, because no longer have to be close to work? Allowing key workers for whom teleworking is not likely to be an option to move in?:
But if housing in the inner suburbs was cheaper, wouldn't that have a flow on effect to the outer suburbs- causing the outer suburbs to experience price drops?
I'm not sure I understand - how do you make property cheaper?
I am sure there are plenty of people that wish coastal property were cheaper too as an example, but it's location dictates it's price.
Only a few decades ago inner city living wasn't that desirable and property was quite affordable - it's supply and demand. If people suddenly decide an area is more desirable, naturally the price rises accordingly. I'm not sure who is supposed to change that?
TBH I think people tend to feel a bit differently about affordability once they are in the market. Anyone with an investment in real estate has a vested interest in seeing it retain its value. That includes, indirectly, the superannuation of most of Australia.
As for sustainable building, I have no idea about Victoria but in NSW all new development has to meet Basix targets regardless of whether people are investing in property to live in it or rent it.
Yes, the author would perhaps have a different opinion in 10 years time if he had finally managed to secure his ideal piece of real estate and then it suddenly became worth less than what he paid for it because it was decided to make property more affordable for everyone.
The point I'm trying to get at here, is that housing price is very location dependent. One of the determinants of how attractive a location is, is it's level of "amenity". Closeness to high-work areas is one aspect of amenity - and certainly a big factor in driving up the price in inner suburbs. If there was a greater degree of amenity in outer suburbs (better developed facilities, community hubs, good infrastructure) the difference in amenity between inner and outer suburbs would decrease - except for closeness (for a large number of people) to work. Having flexible work arrangements and teleworking could potentially reduce the impact of living a longer distance to work. I'm not suggesting that everyone should work from home, but being able to do it for a day or two each week increases the "liveability" of where you're at and makes those outer suburbs more attractive. The could reduce the price-pressure on those coveted inner-suburbs.:
I am sure teleworking would work for many people, although I am not quite sure how it would bring about changes in housing affordability - people moving out of the city, because no longer have to be close to work? Allowing key workers for whom teleworking is not likely to be an option to move in?
FWIW in Adelaide there has been lots of "backfilling" where medium-density housing is replacing older lower-density housing, and a many of those are well designed so they can provide for family needs while not gobbling up huge amounts of space.
From what I have seen the states have differing requirements - I think VIC is called 5 star or something like that - but the targets for multi-dwelling proposals do not seem to go to the same extent as those for single dwellings. Certainly the new multi-dwelling developments I have seen don't include double glazing, water tanks, solar panels - and the main concession is about the orientation of windows for heat transfer. Once you live in those blocks it is extremely difficult to get anything put in - and the logic of individual households doing it instead of developers is silly. For example if I wanted to get anything put in about water saving - you would have to get agreement from the 24 units - we can only get 3 of the 24 owners to the annual body corporate meeting to show any more interest than just paying the body corp fees - so no chance. If blocks had more like 50% owner occupier things would be more achievable. These days new developments advertise while selling how many have been bought by owner-occupiers because the high percentage is viewed as a positive attribute and it is quite rare.:
Is great what is mentioned about Adelaide, but here in the inner suburbs is not true along public transport routes - standard lots which could take 4 townhouses - get replaced with 14, 2 and 1 bed 'luxury' apartments for example (big developments might have a 3 bed but that is normally the penthouse so has highly inflated price tag). Where there are townhouses, because there are so few of them, the price of these is over-inflated too - so the jump in the market from a 2 bed unit to a 3 bed is huge (double often) - these are not places that are gobbling up huge amounts of space (generally only have small courtyards no lawn (you wouldn't get a trampoline or a swing set in them for example).:
I agree with what you are saying about teleworking and amenity - one of the largest reasons people do want to live near to city is the closeness to work because of the lifestyle benefits that offers in terms of time savings - it isn't because they are an "inner city hipster" at all - so the ability to work from home a couple of days a week I do think could reduce the pressure - and open up the choice to people of living in inner and reduce the environmental problems of the enforced sprawl.
I am a home owner (our flat) and have superannuation - so my perspective is from someone who does have an investment in the housing market - but still I think there is a medium ground, and I think that any time housing affordability is mentioned, mentioning collapse of real estate and peoples real estate becoming worthless is scare tactics (in fact you could argue that a reduction in investment properties by people /companies that hold many is more likely to have a protective effect against issues in the financial markets - home owners are not so ready to off load their homes due to share price collapse, tightening of financial market etc as investors are likely to offload a few properties during tight times) - there are baby steps that can be taken to improve things and the approach for the major cities might need to be different to regional areas but seems to me that just like most of the environmental issues it is being put in the "too hard basket". (and yes I would take a hit on the value of my real estate if it was part of a realistic solution for Melbourne which will benefit future generations)