Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Part of the Canberra community
for over 30 years

$373,000 is affordable for a new outer suburban home?

By johnboy - 8 August 2012 46

Andrew Barr has proudly announced more of what he calls “affordable housing” in the Gungahlin suburb of Jacka:

The ACT Labor Government is committed to ensuring all Canberrans have access to affordable and appropriate housing, and this sale in the suburb of Jacka represents another success.

Jacka will see the construction of more than 200 new homes with more than 60 of them to be priced between $340,000 and $373,000.

The land, comprising two packaged lots for single dwellings and six multi-unit sites, sold for more than $11.4 million and was subject to a competitive tender process which attracted more than 30 bids.

The successful tenderers were the locally based Village Building Company, Gracious Living Constructions and Elevated Constructions Pty Ltd.

I am proud of the extensive work undertaken by this Government to address housing affordability.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
46 Responses to
$373,000 is affordable for a new outer suburban home?
mezza76 6:38 pm 08 Aug 12

devils_advocate said :

there are 60 homes – dunno if that amount of supply will actually affect “affordability” except for the 60 specific families that get those houses.

I note the press release is conspicuously silent on:
1) whether the “homes” are separately titled houses, or units
2) how much land is included in them
3) what size the actual houses are (tiny, with one bthrm and single garage? or something useable)?

So I am assuming postage stamp land, tiny house, unit title and sharing walls with neighbours.
And living out in the sticks as well.

So you want something that’s 900 sq M, in the heart of Griffith for under $200,000?

nyssa1976 5:52 pm 08 Aug 12

Nice. If you a) want to live on the Northside and b) on a block of land no larger than a dog’s kennel.

Tetranitrate 5:37 pm 08 Aug 12

A: housing in Australia is still extraordinarily overpriced and can go nowhere but down.
and
B: Tony Abbott will in all likelihood be Prime Minister by the end of next year.

You’d have to be a real sucker to buy a house in Canberra right now.

tnpf 5:35 pm 08 Aug 12

screaming banshee said :

devils_advocate said :

3) what size the actual houses are (tiny, with one bthrm and single garage? or something useable)?

My house has one bathroom and a carport, and its suits our family of four with two small kids just fine. Why the hell does everyone think they should start out with a bloody 4 bedroom mcmansion with home theatre room and if they cannot afford it then housing is ‘unaffordable’

Agreed,

The real issue is the houses themselves. Though I haven’t seen them, I can only imagine they are the standard quarter acre dream if they are costing that much, that far from the city. Is Barr getting behind developers/ architects willing to tackle inner city affordability?

screaming banshee 4:43 pm 08 Aug 12

devils_advocate said :

3) what size the actual houses are (tiny, with one bthrm and single garage? or something useable)?

My house has one bathroom and a carport, and its suits our family of four with two small kids just fine. Why the hell does everyone think they should start out with a bloody 4 bedroom mcmansion with home theatre room and if they cannot afford it then housing is ‘unaffordable’

VYBerlinaV8_is_back 4:33 pm 08 Aug 12

Chop71 said :

Was this part of the lego challenge?

Well played!

EvanJames 4:17 pm 08 Aug 12

How does “average ACT income” prove that these are affordable? How are averages arrived-at? is everyone on the “average”? No, to get the average, significant numbers are below the average.

Serves them right, I guess. Losers. How dare they expect their own homes. Build a bridge… for them to live underneath. And all the people doing those low-income jobs, in hospitality and retail and allied services, they can drive an hour or so each morning and night, commuting in from Goulburn, Yass, Cooma, Braidwood.

p1 4:09 pm 08 Aug 12

Grail said :

Average household salary is around $100k, this is only 4 years worth of dual income salaries. Compare that to house prices way back when average household salaries were $8k.

Of course, when I was a child (one of four) my parents child care costs were precisely zero per cent of that household income.

Chop71 3:19 pm 08 Aug 12

Was this part of the lego challenge?

rosscoact 3:17 pm 08 Aug 12

wow, glass half empty much?

trevar 3:17 pm 08 Aug 12

Grail said :

Average household salary is around $100k, this is only 4 years worth of dual income salaries. Compare that to house prices way back when average household salaries were $8k.

I wasn’t sure about your maths, so I followed your instructions and made that comparison, and you’re quite right. The average household income was around the $8k mark in about 1975 (lucky my guess at the date was within a decade of that otherwise I’d have been looking for ages), and the median house cost at the time was $33k; again four years worth of salary (ish), same as your calculation for today, and that surprised me.

BUT then I realised that when Mr Barr says these are ‘affordable’ houses, what he means is they’re the cheapest, not the average. And it’s not as if you can get a thirty-year-old house any cheaper. So the comparison of the cheapest housing now available with the current average income doesn’t make perfect sense.

The relationship between the national average house price in 1975 and the national average income in 1975 (ACT specific data is not available for 1975) is roughly equivalent to the relationship between the cheapest ACT house price in 2012 and the average ACT income in 2012, whereas comparing averages with averages makes this a far less favourable comparison.

I still agree that housing at that price is pretty decent, but I don’t think the comparison stacks up. The average time to earn the cost of an average house is double what it was in 1975. Of course the average 2012 house is twice as good, too, so that’s not bad at all!

devils_advocate 2:47 pm 08 Aug 12

there are 60 homes – dunno if that amount of supply will actually affect “affordability” except for the 60 specific families that get those houses.

I note the press release is conspicuously silent on:
1) whether the “homes” are separately titled houses, or units
2) how much land is included in them
3) what size the actual houses are (tiny, with one bthrm and single garage? or something useable)?

So I am assuming postage stamp land, tiny house, unit title and sharing walls with neighbours.
And living out in the sticks as well.

Mysteryman 2:31 pm 08 Aug 12

Is that the full price for the house and land? Or is that just for the house alone, with the land having to be paid off later via the land-rent scheme?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back 2:20 pm 08 Aug 12

Based on the median income of a family in Canberra, I’d say that it is indeed affordable. Of course you will need to save up a bit first, and the first few years will be a bit lean.

For those who think it is too expensive, the price charged for land by the ACT govt is a major factor here.

Grail 2:08 pm 08 Aug 12

Average household salary is around $100k, this is only 4 years worth of dual income salaries. Compare that to house prices way back when average household salaries were $8k.

Yes, <$400k is "affordable". Blame the dual-income families.

If you are single, live in a group house. Save up some dosh, buy a rental investment when you can afford to. Then a few years down the track you will have the equity for your own place.

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site