Best Canberra suburbs for families?

Leon Arundell said :

Two important questions are (1) does it have a primary school? and (2) how many places are within walking distance? Your child will make almost 3,000 trips to and from primary school. If there isn’t a primary school within walking distance, that will mean a lot of unnecessary driving. To answer (1) go to http://www.education.act.gov.au/school_education/directory_of_schools/primary_schools_act_government. To answer (2) type your suburb (or ideally your prospective address) into http://www.walkscore.com. Based on that information Nicholls would be the pick of those suburbs. It has a public primary school and its walkscore is a “car dependent” 29. Harrison has a primary school but its walkscore is only 15. Forde has a walkscore of 35 (still car dependent) but it doesn’t have a public primary school. Casey doesn’t have a public primary school and its walkscore is only 22. Crace doesn’t have a public primary school and its walkscore is only 18.

100% agree and great comment Leon. Follow that advice as a young family buying a home in canberra and you won’t go wrong.

If you can afford the inner suburbs with their great infrastructure and continued government investment then go for it. If you can’t afford that area go for the suburbs where you have schooling and public transport locked in for a couple of decades.

Leon’s recommended suburbs fit that bill.

Leon Arundell said :

Two important questions are (1) does it have a primary school? and (2) how many places are within walking distance? Your child will make almost 3,000 trips to and from primary school. If there isn’t a primary school within walking distance, that will mean a lot of unnecessary driving. To answer (1) go to http://www.education.act.gov.au/school_education/directory_of_schools/primary_schools_act_government. To answer (2) type your suburb (or ideally your prospective address) into http://www.walkscore.com. Based on that information Nicholls would be the pick of those suburbs. It has a public primary school and its walkscore is a “car dependent” 29. Harrison has a primary school but its walkscore is only 15. Forde has a walkscore of 35 (still car dependent) but it doesn’t have a public primary school. Casey doesn’t have a public primary school and its walkscore is only 22. Crace doesn’t have a public primary school and its walkscore is only 18.

Very good advice. That’s basically how I picked where I would live. Could I walk to the local shops – yes, tick. Was I a short walk from a bus that would take me to a large shopping centre – yes, several ticks, more than one. Was I on a direct bus route to work, walking or cycling distance – yes, tick cycling distance.

In your case you should aim to be able to check the school tick too.

Two important questions are (1) does it have a primary school? and (2) how many places are within walking distance? Your child will make almost 3,000 trips to and from primary school. If there isn’t a primary school within walking distance, that will mean a lot of unnecessary driving. To answer (1) go to http://www.education.act.gov.au/school_education/directory_of_schools/primary_schools_act_government. To answer (2) type your suburb (or ideally your prospective address) into http://www.walkscore.com. Based on that information Nicholls would be the pick of those suburbs. It has a public primary school and its walkscore is a “car dependent” 29. Harrison has a primary school but its walkscore is only 15. Forde has a walkscore of 35 (still car dependent) but it doesn’t have a public primary school. Casey doesn’t have a public primary school and its walkscore is only 22. Crace doesn’t have a public primary school and its walkscore is only 18.

Hi! Welcome to Canberra.

As a resident of Gungahlin, I would also like to welcome you to the constant bickering/turf wars we all have here about our various locations. Really, Canberra is okay everywhere, we just like to talk big about the horrors we don’t actually have in comparison to other cities.

I love living in Gungahlin, but the comments about schools is really important. If you play your cards right, your kids can walk to a school. Most schools up here are pretty good, but they can get a bit full, so if you pick a place with a school nearby, you’re on a winner. (that is if you choose to go public. Private, prepare to drive and be stuck in the 3pm hell of drop off’s. Which is nothing in comparison to Sydney and Melbourne!)

Casey is a lovely suburb, especially if you get into Spring Valley Rise. The local shops there are really great. But schools wise, Harrison school is wonderful, and it would be a great option. Gold Creek is also good, IMO, and Nicholls is more established, so lots of lovely trees and little construction site risks like the newer suburbs. (And a great chip shop with awesome chicken burgers.)

Honestly, nothing is really that far away, none of the suburbs have anything really negative about them. If you find a house you love, and the neighbours aren’t hoarders, I think you’ll be okay.

Maya123 said :

Masquara said :

Maya123 said :

I am surprised about the pool statement, as many people at the lower end of the market are younger first home buyers who I would have thought would enjoy a pool, and their children would too. As long as the house is not more expensive because of it. However I do know a pool can be a turn off for many people, but I would have thought this feeling would have been stronger in older age groups, who are less likely to be looking at houses in the cheaper end of the market. Pools are another thing that you have to clean though and that eats into your leisure time…and reduces the time you have to enjoy it.

There are turn-offs about pools for many buyers. Pools develop leaks and cracks, and either the seller or buyer will need to pay for an engineering inspection. Ask any young buyers and they’d probably rather put their early mortgage money into paying off the capital (or it could even tip them into a better housing area) and put in a pool when they can afford to. I’m not sure that older buyers are less likely to buy in a cheaper area. Lots of downsizers are buying a place at the coast and a smaller house in town. Or buying a cheaper house and going on good holidays. On balance, I don’t think a house with a pool is a good investment unless it’s a high-end house.

I agree with what you are saying. I’ve never wanted a pool…until I heard of the pool that had been converted into an underground rainwater tank, and got approved for the rebate. Then I thought, well maybe…

I did write, “However I do know a pool can be a turn off for many people”, but I thought many (not all) younger buyers might like one, if they didn’t have to pay extra for it and it came with the house. I doubt many people who would want and buy a house with a pool, think of the maintenance costs; it’s just nice, being able to sit around it and drink beer with the mates, jump in occasionally on a hot day. And then later for the children to swim in it with their friends.

The biggest turn off for a lot of young families – such as mine – is that pools pose some serious risks which have to be mitigated (as much as they can be). Great for older kids perhaps, but not when there are babies/toddlers/preschoolers present.

Back to the OP, well, you couldn’t pay me to live in Gungahlin with a young family, but I agree with Miz that I’d be looking to the established suburbs like Nicholls. You would get better value for money in Woden/Weston Creek (excellent for schools) or Belconnen, and easier living all round.

pink little birdie said :

Of those I would choose Nicholls. It’s the oldest suburb of that lot so bigger blocks and better quality buildings I would consider Kaleen, McKeller and Evatt for that area

The issue of quality of construction in newer areas is well made. I know 3 people who have purchased new homes/units in “new” areas over past 2 years. All have significant build quality issues. Kaleen is a good suburb.

Gungahlin not a good long term plan. Block size better almost everywhere else.

Of those I would choose Nicholls. It’s the oldest suburb of that lot so bigger blocks and better quality buildings I would consider Kaleen, McKeller and Evatt for that area

Masquara said :

Maya123 said :

I am surprised about the pool statement, as many people at the lower end of the market are younger first home buyers who I would have thought would enjoy a pool, and their children would too. As long as the house is not more expensive because of it. However I do know a pool can be a turn off for many people, but I would have thought this feeling would have been stronger in older age groups, who are less likely to be looking at houses in the cheaper end of the market. Pools are another thing that you have to clean though and that eats into your leisure time…and reduces the time you have to enjoy it.

There are turn-offs about pools for many buyers. Pools develop leaks and cracks, and either the seller or buyer will need to pay for an engineering inspection. Ask any young buyers and they’d probably rather put their early mortgage money into paying off the capital (or it could even tip them into a better housing area) and put in a pool when they can afford to. I’m not sure that older buyers are less likely to buy in a cheaper area. Lots of downsizers are buying a place at the coast and a smaller house in town. Or buying a cheaper house and going on good holidays. On balance, I don’t think a house with a pool is a good investment unless it’s a high-end house.

I agree with what you are saying. I’ve never wanted a pool…until I heard of the pool that had been converted into an underground rainwater tank, and got approved for the rebate. Then I thought, well maybe…

I did write, “However I do know a pool can be a turn off for many people”, but I thought many (not all) younger buyers might like one, if they didn’t have to pay extra for it and it came with the house. I doubt many people who would want and buy a house with a pool, think of the maintenance costs; it’s just nice, being able to sit around it and drink beer with the mates, jump in occasionally on a hot day. And then later for the children to swim in it with their friends.

Maya123 said :

I am surprised about the pool statement, as many people at the lower end of the market are younger first home buyers who I would have thought would enjoy a pool, and their children would too. As long as the house is not more expensive because of it. However I do know a pool can be a turn off for many people, but I would have thought this feeling would have been stronger in older age groups, who are less likely to be looking at houses in the cheaper end of the market. Pools are another thing that you have to clean though and that eats into your leisure time…and reduces the time you have to enjoy it.

There are turn-offs about pools for many buyers. Pools develop leaks and cracks, and either the seller or buyer will need to pay for an engineering inspection. Ask any young buyers and they’d probably rather put their early mortgage money into paying off the capital (or it could even tip them into a better housing area) and put in a pool when they can afford to. I’m not sure that older buyers are less likely to buy in a cheaper area. Lots of downsizers are buying a place at the coast and a smaller house in town. Or buying a cheaper house and going on good holidays. On balance, I don’t think a house with a pool is a good investment unless it’s a high-end house.