Skip to content Skip to main navigation

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

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?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
46 Responses to
$373,000 is affordable for a new outer suburban home?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
arescarti42 11:10 am 10 Aug 12

Golden-Alpine said :

What I was getting at is if you are already paying $500 or close to in rent each week this is worth considering.

How do you figure loan repayments are dead money? Sure you end up paying a lot over the term of the loan but at least you have something to show for it at the end.

We like others bought what we could afford and slogged away at the mortgage for a couple of years. We were then in a position where we could buy our dream home. A little sacrifice and compromise goes a long way.

Interest on a loan is “dead money” in exactly the same way that rent is “dead money”. One is what you pay for using someone else’s house, the other is what you pay for using someone else’s money.

Sure, a small portion of your loan repayment goes to paying off the principal of the loan, but given the big difference in cost between renting and paying back a loan, for the same house, you could just as easily be saving the difference and building assets that way.

That said, I appreciate some people don’t have the discipline to save money, in which case being locked in to making loan repayments might be a better idea.

Golden-Alpine 10:13 am 10 Aug 12

chewy14 said :

Golden-Alpine said :

$373K house, 10% deposit, 6% interest rates, the repayments are getting pretty close to what people are paying for rent (money down the drain).

I know a few will have a dig about the 10% deposit, some banks will lend with 5% deposit. Yes even that is a lot of money but give up some luxuries, maybe pick up a second job for a year and you would probably make enough for the 5%. Well worth it.

Somehow I doubt these shitboxes will be renting for $550-$600 a week. Rent money is only dead money if you’re an idiot. You might as well say house loan repayments are dead money because of the interest.

What I was getting at is if you are already paying $500 or close to in rent each week this is worth considering.

How do you figure loan repayments are dead money? Sure you end up paying a lot over the term of the loan but at least you have something to show for it at the end.

We like others bought what we could afford and slogged away at the mortgage for a couple of years. We were then in a position where we could buy our dream home. A little sacrifice and compromise goes a long way.

Thumper 9:57 am 10 Aug 12

Got a spare $360-370K or so and I’ve got a three beddie upstair/ downstairs with a garage in Gungahlin just for you.

AG Canberra 9:41 am 10 Aug 12

You don’t have to go out Gungahlin for ‘afordable’ housing…..Here’s a 4 and 2 in the Molonglo Valley (Weston Creek) for under 400k. Catch is that it’s in the land rent scheme.

Good value?

http://www.allhomes.com.au/ah/act/sale-residential/14-chelmsworth-street-wright-canberra/1316785750011

watto23 9:19 am 10 Aug 12

I bought a 3bedroom townhouse years ago, when it was much more affordable and agree that it would be much harder for me to buy now, however I still bought something I could afford with the view of moving into something bigger when I could afford it. I can’t right now so will continue to pay off my current place, which due to increases in property has gained me a lot of equity.

The point is I get the impression also that many people are unrealistic. Yes prices are high, but if you settle for something less than ideal pay it off, get yourself into a good financial position, you’ll be able to afford something bigger and more to your liking.

rosscoact 7:43 am 10 Aug 12

Tetranitrate said :

rosscoact said :

Those whose earnings are in the lowest quartile are eligible for public housing. Unless their circumstances change dramatically (as some do) they will never be able to afford to buy their own dwelling. And why should they? Having a decent wage and savings patterns are a pre-requisite (or should be) for buying a major asset.

There’s enough public housing for the whole of the bottom income quartile? that’s news to me.

That’s because I said eligible not available, two different words, two different meanings

chewy14 6:45 am 10 Aug 12

Golden-Alpine said :

$373K house, 10% deposit, 6% interest rates, the repayments are getting pretty close to what people are paying for rent (money down the drain).

I know a few will have a dig about the 10% deposit, some banks will lend with 5% deposit. Yes even that is a lot of money but give up some luxuries, maybe pick up a second job for a year and you would probably make enough for the 5%. Well worth it.

Somehow I doubt these shitboxes will be renting for $550-$600 a week. Rent money is only dead money if you’re an idiot. You might as well say house loan repayments are dead money because of the interest.

Golden-Alpine 8:40 pm 09 Aug 12

$373K house, 10% deposit, 6% interest rates, the repayments are getting pretty close to what people are paying for rent (money down the drain).

I know a few will have a dig about the 10% deposit, some banks will lend with 5% deposit. Yes even that is a lot of money but give up some luxuries, maybe pick up a second job for a year and you would probably make enough for the 5%. Well worth it.

Tetranitrate 6:43 pm 09 Aug 12

rosscoact said :

Those whose earnings are in the lowest quartile are eligible for public housing. Unless their circumstances change dramatically (as some do) they will never be able to afford to buy their own dwelling. And why should they? Having a decent wage and savings patterns are a pre-requisite (or should be) for buying a major asset.

There’s enough public housing for the whole of the bottom income quartile? that’s news to me.

Kath 5:11 pm 09 Aug 12

trevar said :

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.

It depends on the house and location – I just had my dodgy 30 year old house valued at $370K. Biggish yard on it, too.

Clown Killer 3:15 pm 09 Aug 12

Affordable? They’re giving them away!

puggy 1:41 pm 09 Aug 12

Ko. said :

I know who he is, it’s just that it’s not a very appealling name for a suburb.

I suppose since we already have Tuggers, we may as well have a Jacka as well.

True on both counts, but I think he really does deserve a suburb named after him.

I think the worst suburb name is Harrison, named after Peter Harrison, a prominent Canberra town planner. A suburb, named after a town planner, in Gungahlin. That’s just a slap in the face.

StrangeAttractor 12:16 pm 09 Aug 12

Hey, that’s cheaper than my 30 year old house in an outer suburb was when I bought 3 years ago. 3bdr on 700m^2, the 700m^2 probably made the difference.

Genie 11:54 am 09 Aug 12

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Genie said :

Affordable housing usually equals investors buying them all up and renting the out for $500+ a week

Or are these actually going to be means tested ?

Why do you say that? As an investor, Jacka is the last place I’d be looking at.

I’ve been trying to buy in West Macgreggor for a few years now and it just seems that all their “affordable” housing is sold to investors and builders who then fancy the place up more and rent them out for $500-$600+ a week or try to then sell them for twice as much as their initial investment.

A 3 beddy property I was going to buy for $389k is now a 5 bedroom “mansion” that recently sold for $600K+

VYBerlinaV8_is_back 11:22 am 09 Aug 12

Genie said :

Affordable housing usually equals investors buying them all up and renting the out for $500+ a week

Or are these actually going to be means tested ?

Why do you say that? As an investor, Jacka is the last place I’d be looking at.

Ko. 11:20 am 09 Aug 12

puggy said :

Ko. said :

Wait, wait wait.

Jacka?

Yes, Jacka, Albert Jacka. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Jacka
Some respect would be nice.

I know who he is, it’s just that it’s not a very appealling name for a suburb.

I suppose since we already have Tuggers, we may as well have a Jacka as well.

puggy 11:06 am 09 Aug 12

Ko. said :

Wait, wait wait.

Jacka?

Yes, Jacka, Albert Jacka. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Jacka
Some respect would be nice.

Genie 10:42 am 09 Aug 12

Affordable housing usually equals investors buying them all up and renting the out for $500+ a week

Or are these actually going to be means tested ?

Ko. 10:08 am 09 Aug 12

Wait, wait wait.

Jacka?

chewy14 9:21 am 09 Aug 12

mmmich said :

chewy14 said :

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’

Read the description of the houses given by Arescarti.

Yep, Mcmansions those 250m2 blocks. Just huge.

Does it make it easier for you to think that poor people wanting somewhere to live are just greedy?

I earn below the median wage and I have just bought a 2 bedroom, one garage house on a block smaller than 250m2. Why should people expect the government to heavily subsidise a larger house on a larger block?
In a few years maybe I will be able to afford something larger. I certainly don’t expect things to be handed to me on a plate.

Can you point out where I said the government should subsidise anyone?
I don’t think the government should subsidise anyone, although its interesting that a very good argument could be put that the government are currently subsidising existing home owners by their actions propping the housing market up.

My point was that there seems to be a large proportion of people (nearly exclusively homeowners) who have this deluded notion that current generations are lazy/greedy when it comes to buying a house, when in reality, by any reasonable metric its significantly harder to purchase a property now. The property market is high for a number of reasons but to attribute it to people wanting mcmansions is completely wrong.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site