Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Quality childcare in a
welcoming & supportive environment

Hoskins St, Franklin

By johnboy - 9 November 2008 59

In a recent discussion on Canberra real estate “Affordable” suggested driving down Hoskins Street in Franklin:

    if you want to see how the market is going, drive down Hoskins street Franklin, looks like the sub prime streets you see in America, every house is for sale.

So this afternoon I did just that.

The number of for sale signs are certainly striking, but is this unusual in a new development?

And does anyone else find themselves humming the theme song from “Weeds” while out in these dusty windswept developments?

Slideshow below.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
59 Responses to
Hoskins St, Franklin
Vic Bitterman 9:00 pm 09 Nov 08

Looking at the slideshow reminds me of that classic Aussie movie “Emoh Ruo”!

affordable 8:59 pm 09 Nov 08

Al

like most lease conditions, Actpla treat them as a guide, or appears to because of lack of compliance after initial approval.
turning a block from 4 to 6 units , I assume they also have to pay another 50% for the block.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_ 8:47 pm 09 Nov 08

Having driven through there, no way known would I live there. Still, if you want to spend crazy money on a postage stamp block with a poorly built mcmansion, be my guest.

sepi 8:41 pm 09 Nov 08

Why would the govt mandate rendered exteriors – are they trying to create a special feel for the suburb or something? Plain bricks last much better.

Jonathon Reynolds 8:37 pm 09 Nov 08

Welcome to the new slums of Canberra.

Postage stamp size (supposedly affordable) blocks where experimentation and social engineering is at its best by bureaucrats that can not be held responsible for their actions.

rosebud 8:26 pm 09 Nov 08

We can’t all live in Yurts and eat organic spelt for breakfast.

LlamaFrog 7:55 pm 09 Nov 08

fine leave it to me:

Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of tickytacky
Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes all the same
There’s a green one and a pink one and a blue one and a yellow one
And they’re all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses all went to the university
Where they were put in boxes and they came out all the same,
And there’s doctors and there’s lawyers, and business executives
And they’re all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

And they all play on the golf course and drink their martinis dry,
And they all have pretty children and the children go to school
And the children go to summer camp and then to the university
Where they are put in boxes and they come out all the same.

And the boys go into business and marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

affordable 7:53 pm 09 Nov 08

Spectra
the houses in Hoskins street were sold by the LDA as lots to builders being 4-6 houses in a lot
with mandatory requiremnets, such as 2 storey, rear access, 2700mm ceilings and rendered brickwork with the obivious higher prices for these requirements, I beleive all these properties are for sale for over $750,000
like all the government / ACTPLA / LDA policies they are designed to increase the price of housing.
also have a look at Forde, every week there is more homes for sale on Allhomes, as a general rule land is $30,000 dearer then Franklin with mandatory requirements that make houses there also more expensive to build then elsewhere.
land at Dunlop was also the same price as Franklin, Franklin is an inner suburb compared to Dunlop.
some people need somewhere to live, when Stanhope starves the industry of land ( when the LDA promised and failed to supply )and land prices rise, sometimes the house is better then the gutter.

Gungahlin Al 7:34 pm 09 Nov 08

These places are only just being finished now, so of course there are sale signs on them.

Perhaps the question should be why aren’t they pre-sold, given demand is still high?

Well maybe because Hoskins Street is going to end up a major rat run between the Mitchell industrial area and the town centre? (Tried unsuccessfully to get ACTPLA to change the street layout to prevent this.)

Maybe because whole strips of them have been sold to single builders and therefore have near identical designs, with very minor facade tinkering? How did this happen, when the LDA’s L&Ds specifically prohibit builders with multiple adjoining blocks from building “cookie cutter” outcomes? That is a question we asked of Andrew Barr, Neil Savery and the LDA recently when a DA was advertised for 6 units on a block designed and authorised for just 4 units. We are still waiting for feedback on this.

farq 7:19 pm 09 Nov 08

grunge_hippy said :

…stick your hand out the window and shake hands with your neighbour. ugh.

About right.

These suburbs are pockets of cramped claustrophobic development surrounded by all most endless open paddocks. I’m sure we could do better.

grunge_hippy 7:00 pm 09 Nov 08

i would not live in gungahlin for love or money. ugly houses, dusty, windy, no space, you could stand in your toilet, stick your hand out the window and shake hands with your neighbour. ugh.

Spectra 6:47 pm 09 Nov 08

Not that unusual of new suburbs, but it does show how the government’s “Affordable” housing strategy is failing. I’d take a bet that none of those properties would be priced below $500,000.

Two things – first, your argument about the government’s policy failing is predicated on the fact that you’d take a bet on the prices of these houses. Do you have any data to back this up, or is your claim basically that you think they’d be expensive, therefore the government has failed to make them cheap?

Second, even if your bet is accurate (and it may well be, but you’ve provided no evidence), you can’t take one particular area’s prices as an indicator of the overall availability of houses at a particular price point. Otherwise I could simply say “well, I bet nothing in the nice areas of Red Hill is under $1M – see? The government’s affordable housing policy has failed dismally.”

The second is to provide some degree of mortgage releif in place so that the people who did pay $400,000 for a house, because that was the asking price aren’t screwed over when their house drops down to $200,000 – aka a more reasonable price.

It was people being willing to buy at that price that allowed the prices to get to that point. Why should the very people who created and perpetuated the problem be effectively rewarded for their over-spending?

harvyk1 6:12 pm 09 Nov 08

If they where serious about making housing “affordable” they would need to do two things, the first make it illegal for developers to “trickel” land onto the market, this is when you see “hurry, only 2 blocks left for stage 6” type signs, it pushs the market up. The second is to provide some degree of mortgage releif in place so that the people who did pay $400,000 for a house, because that was the asking price aren’t screwed over when their house drops down to $200,000 – aka a more reasonable price.

BenMac 5:57 pm 09 Nov 08

The number of for sale signs are certainly striking, but is this unusual in a new development?

I wouldn’t think so. Don’t developers buy these blocks in bulk, build on them (or sometimes not) and then sell them straight away. If there was a problem here, you would see this in most Canberra suburbs

bd84 5:53 pm 09 Nov 08

Not that unusual of new suburbs, but it does show how the government’s “Affordable” housing strategy is failing. I’d take a bet that none of those properties would be priced below $500,000.

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