9 November 2008

Hoskins St, Franklin

| johnboy
Join the conversation
58

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.

Join the conversation

58
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
tylersmayhem8:23 am 11 Nov 08

I truly believe that when you hear that the government are releasing land and the Master Builders Association welcomes the move – you can be sure there are plenty of builders out there rubbing their bellies and rubbing their hands together, with no REAL interest on whether the housing ends up “affordable” or not. As long as their pockets are lined and the house get sold, they really don’t give a s**t.

ant said :

hax, (2 post nutbag), why has the gov’t got such a crazy policy? This serves to block lower income people out of the market: whereas before, they could get a basic house, maybe just conrete floors, no garage etc, and add those improvements when they could afford it. It’s crazy that people have to borrow up to the hilt, and one small problem can drive them bankrupt, plus think of all the extra interest they’re paying on that giant loan over such a long period.

It beggars belief, why have they done this?

It’s more a case of the left arm doesn’t know what the right is doing – it all gets put together, and the sum works out to be a pretty poor outcome. (the “affordable housing strategy” is just one of many parts that go into the mix, from yet another govt department).

Many of the rules by themselves are good, but with so many it all adds up, and half the conditions counteract others. (eg. houses jammed together on narrow blocks, with mandatory sunlight exposure requirements to fulfill, open space, mandatory garage that must be behind the front of the house so it “looks prettier” etc..). Too many things to mention.

On top of everything the ACT govt relies heavily on land revenue, so they’re not cutting anyone a break – while you’re the one who has to pay a lot more to meet the standards they set for the house. I’ve been told it’s harder to meet these requirements (such as energy efficient design) on smaller blocks because they’re so restrictive in freedom of design (without spending more money to compensate).

I don’t understand the negativity about the design of these houses. I’ll bet that Antill St in Downer, Carroll St in Hughes, and any other duplex-lined street looked exactly the same when they were established 40 years ago. Tiny blocks, as well. As for the dust and wind, sounds like a typical building site to me.

Also, all the Gungahlin bashers need to get some new material. Live & let live, I say.

hey llamafrog @9… i’ve seen those houses – the ones that inspired that ditty!

on a dusty hill outside san francisco, still ugly, still little boxes. didn’t look in to see if ticky-tacky filled them to this day but… a dusty hill, like out gunghalin way…

tylersmayhem3:37 pm 10 Nov 08

I wish Allhomes had a calculator thing on the side set for 20-year loans:

For now Ant, just use a standard mortgage calculator on most bank websites such as the St. George one. Type in your details, and you’ll be set.

As for the frustrations of breaking into the market, just sit tight, you’ll see house prices starting to slip further in the near future. Bad for investors, (finally) great for first home buyers to get a break for a change. Hold strong, refuse to pay high prices for substandard properties. If enough of you do it, you’ll slow the market. This happened when we bought our first home in August. Property slowed (albeit for a short period) and we snapped up a property that would usually be beyond reach.

Just stick to your guns first home buyers. Also keep in mind that there are plenty of Greyheads in this town. Many of which may (a) downsize (b) retire to the warmer climes or (c) sadly pass on. In our case, the previous owners were newly retired and keen to move closer to the rest of their family. They were committed on their end, needed a sale – the market slowed, we benefitted.

Good luck with your search – I know the frustration and annoyance well.

Yep. The new places always seem dodgy until they get settled in, the trees have a chance to grow, and people have an opportunity to get used to it.

I remember when Scullin was the end of the earth, and then when Tuggeranong was the butt of many a ‘white trash’ joke, and so on to Gonga Lyn and the rest.

Woden has always been a sh1thole though 😉

Holden Caulfield1:58 pm 10 Nov 08

Die Lefty Scum said :

Thank god some genious town planner came up with the idea of Gungahlin. Otherwise the whordes of soul-less white trash might still be permeating the nice suburbs.

It’s called character: it can’t be bought, it can’t be manufactured and Gungahlin has none of it.

OK clearly I’m no “genius” myself with spelling like that, but hopefully you get my point.

Just as with any town centre in Canberra, there are some very nice parts and some pretty dodgy parts. If you take off the dodgy glasses, Gungahlin is hardly any worse, or better, than anywhere else in town. It’s just newer, so its an easier target.

hax, (2 post nutbag), why has the gov’t got such a crazy policy? This serves to block lower income people out of the market: whereas before, they could get a basic house, maybe just conrete floors, no garage etc, and add those improvements when they could afford it. It’s crazy that people have to borrow up to the hilt, and one small problem can drive them bankrupt, plus think of all the extra interest they’re paying on that giant loan over such a long period.

It beggars belief, why have they done this?

Holden Caulfield1:54 pm 10 Nov 08

AG Canberra said :

Compare Jerrabombera to Gungahlin. Both built over the same period – but you don’t hear people saying “geez that Jerra is full of hideous houses….” They have generous block sizes and a range of houses.

Really, maybe you’re talking to the wrong people, or everyone is too busy complaining about the single lane road servicing the entire development, oh, and the air traffic noise. :p

Die Lefty Scum1:53 pm 10 Nov 08

Die Lefty Scum said :

Thank god some genious town planner came up with the idea of Gungahlin. Otherwise the whordes of soul-less white trash might still be permeating the nice suburbs.

It’s called character: it can’t be bought, it can’t be manufactured and Gungahlin has none of it.

OK clearly I’m no “genius” myself with spelling like that, but hopefully you get my point.

Yes Caf, Qbn’s the only market I have a hope of entering, being not a couple with 2 incomes and ineligible for any gov’t handouts, including first home owners money due to mistakenly having my name on a title deed to a house I get nothing from the sale of! No tax deductions (including the ultimate deduction, kids).

I wish Allhomes had a calculator thing on the side set for 20-year loans: it quite a handy little reckoner that tells you your monthly replayments on each property, but it’s based on 30 year loans, and taht ain’t me.

There was a “townhouse” in Qbn a while back, made of Besa Blocks, that was almost in my affordability range. it’s quite depressing to see “first homes” pitched that are luxo-palaces and priced accordingly. What about basic, small, bare-miniumum fitout type places, there has to be others like me who need that kind of place?

Its like this in braddon and ainslie too. It shocked me seeing all the for sale signs around.

Die Lefty Scum1:51 pm 10 Nov 08

Thank god some genious town planner came up with the idea of Gungahlin. Otherwise the whordes of soul-less white trash might still be permeating the nice suburbs.

It’s called character: it can’t be bought, it can’t be manufactured and Gungahlin has none of it.

Blame government restrictions and investors.

Investors want nothing less than 4 bedrooms out of obsession, and first-home buyers just can’t compete with the price investors are willing/able to pay. The price just keeps going up as investors fight amongst themselves with their increasing profits and equity, while first-home buyers struggle with no equity.

Gone are the days of doing what you can now, and e.g. building a garage later when you can. The rules dictate that every house must have a garage, and this, and that, right from the start. Gotta have it all, the rules say so.

Who is going to buy a 600sqm block of land for $250,000+ and build a < 120sqm house on it (to extend later)? You virtually can’t do that anyway, because of the requirements for the home to be close the boundaries. No extending a single garage to double later if you’re up against the fence, thats just 1 example.

Builders seem to build either a) what their clients (investors) want, or b) spec houses similar to what their clients want.. And because of land prices, people who need a reasonable sized home can only afford to do it on smaller block – which is yet another reason why virtually every house built consumes the maximum size, and first-home buyers don’t have access to the smaller “normal” blocks.

ant: House prices these days are really geared towards a couple with two incomes. Having said that, I can definitely tell you where the bargains are – Queanbeyan. About 50k to 100k cheaper, and first home buyers don’t pay stamp duty (a saving in itself of about 15k – 20k).

Man, lime would have been amazing! I have to say I am disappointed ….

Gungahlin Al said :

Cheers Sepi – we wanted a different colour for one of the fittings, but they stopped making them – transition for the red lounge we’ve ordered!

Noice. I was loitering over that lime lounge at Nick scali’s for weekends on end, but could not pluck up the courage to get it (and ended up with a cream Natuzzi copy from Frisco). It’s good to play with colour a bit.

Compare Jerrabombera to Gungahlin. Both built over the same period – but you don’t hear people saying “geez that Jerra is full of hideous houses….” They have generous block sizes and a range of houses.

Given they don’t have much meduim density however I still reckon Brinkmeyer did well out of that development…..

Gungahlin Al11:24 am 10 Nov 08

Cheers Sepi – we wanted a different colour for one of the fittings, but they stopped making them – transition for the red lounge we’ve ordered!

Nice house!

Much nicer than the sustainable examples we looked at in north watson.

– I love the long glass lights too. I have a spare bright red one if you ever want to change your decor – never used, and won’t fit in our house.

Holden Caulfield10:46 am 10 Nov 08

Haha, G Al, I agree with you, when we built our house in Nicholls (1999) skillion rooves were not allowed. :p

Gungahlin Al10:31 am 10 Nov 08

JJ: I think the loss of eaves started when many local government planning regs mandated boundary setbacks as applying to any part of the building – including eaves. Some to squeeze more in, the eaves were pulled back. And national builders used the same designs everywhere irrespective of different planning laws. Hence the eaveless designs all over the place…

But in Canberra the setbacks are to the wall, not the eave, so they are more common than elsewhere – check out Harrison and Forde for instance.

Gungahlin Al10:27 am 10 Nov 08

madocci, that is the north side in that picture. The wide eaves ensure no summer sun into those windows/doors during midday, when even summer sun is slightly north of directly overhead. Yet the house is drowning in sunlight in winter. Smaller eaves and windows around the west and south sides ensure very very little sun will enter the house during summer.

As to whether you like the style or not – your opinion is entirely yours to form. Personally the old hip-and-gable rooves everywhere given me the ribbets. Why pay a fortune for complicated trussing that only accommodates spiders and serves to further enclose suburbs and limit other people’s views of surrounding hillsides?

(Thanks Granny!)

Gungahlin Al said :

Try 1.5m (on the north side) 0.6 elsewhere

Niiiiice. You obviously went to a fair bit of trouble with that. And damn if it hasn’t paid off. Bravo!

The thing that kills me is that the little things (such as eaves) make such a big difference in the end (reducing power bills, making the place a lot more aesthetically appealing and giving it some personality – and hence increasing its salability), but all that gets ignored in the push to cram as much cheap brickwork onto as small a block as possible for a quick sale. I even had a painter mate who insisted that most new places would need to be repainted in about 3 years because the builders had skimped.

Granny: “Jim, is it *because* I’m living in Gungahlin now that I frequently hear people say, “Oh my God, that’s so ugly!” when a new building goes up?”

I suppose you’re right. It must be a sign of the times. There are some ugly houses in Sculling though – some of the tiny govvie boxes were always bad.

Holden Caulfield10:14 am 10 Nov 08

ant said :

Where are the modest homes? The ones that don’t cost half a million dollars.

Probably not in the suburbs you want to live in. 😉

The opportunities are few, but if you want control over building a new home you need to try and get the land first and appoint a builder second. The fact that so many people “have to” settle for a house and land package is what gives the builders so much control.

Holden Caulfield10:10 am 10 Nov 08

Gungahlin Al said :

HC: you may have got a bit more for the house, but it would have cost you at least that much more to build those extra rooms…

Well, not exactly. We had the room in the house to add those rooms, a couple of gyprock walls and one or two more doors weren’t going to add $30K to our construction costs. But, as you say, we had what we wanted and wouldn’t have changed a thing.

My point was, had we had the 4th bedroom our potential market would have increased and our sale price would have also increased accordingly. So, while builders may keep building the minimum 4 beddies its simply because that seems to be what the punters want.

Like you, I’m at a quandry as to why this is the case, when so many people seem to have a house full of empty rooms and dusty furniture.

Keeping up with the Joneses has a lot to answer for, I say.

The builders may be building “what the market wants”, I guess I’m speaking from the perspective of someone on the average wage, who can’t afford to get IN to the market. The costs of housing compared to wages have blown out in recent years. Housing has inflated, wages have not inflated to the same degree. Letting builders maximise their profit by building the biggest, fanciest house they can on the land they’ve got is making the situation worse. Where are the modest homes? The ones that don’t cost half a million dollars.

You’re kidding, right? Gungahlin Al’s house is awesome. I liked it from the second I saw it, and I really haven’t been in one nicer.

tylersmayhem9:44 am 10 Nov 08

I think (or certainly hope) it’s simply because people are now refusing to pay the grossly inflated prices being asked for these shoe boxes. The market is dropping, buyers know this, they are finally getting some power back. Developers have banked on getting the 2007 – early 2008 prices and are having trouble getting it now.

Sorry gunghalin al, but that is one ugly house! No offence!

Wouldnt it meant that its drenched in sun in summer as well, thus being really hot? Do those awning things actually stop hot summer sun… I am confused…

Gungahlin Al9:35 am 10 Nov 08

HC: you may have got a bit more for the house, but it would have cost you at least that much more to build those extra rooms. And then there’s the opportunity cost of that money tied up in the house, and the extra maintenance. As you said – you had exactly what you needed in the less larger rooms equation – as it is with us – we use every room every day. There are no dead zones.

The newer suburbs’ L&Ds don’t have overly restrictive house size requirements. Ours had a mandatory 2 storey need, but as previously said – only one room up there and that was OK.

JJ: When was the last time you saw a new house with eaves?

Try 1.5m (on the north side) 0.6 elsewhere. Is nice to leave windows open during rainfalls, particularly in summer – a trick learnt from Queensland. But yes our’s is an exception and your point is well made.

Jim, is it *because* I’m living in Gungahlin now that I frequently hear people say, “Oh my God, that’s so ugly!” when a new building goes up?

Gungahlin Al9:21 am 10 Nov 08

madocci said :

Can you now have fences in front yards? If not, why would your kids play in the front? This appears to be the weirdest peice of planning policy ever.

Nope. Same nothing past the building line rules apply. Wells Station won an award for estate design, and granted they did do a good job of preserving the old farm trees. But there is plenty to be disappointed with about the estate requirements. For instance the *requirement* that all the townhouses have dark concrete tile roofs – charcoal or chocolate depending on block. From an energy efficiency perspective that’s just dumb.

Granny said :

Holden, I was also in Scullin in the 70s and my recollection is that nobody said, “Gosh, look at all the ugly houses they’re putting up!” The houses were considered nice to normal for the era.

I dunno – it could be *because* you were in Scullin in the 70s (as was I) that you never heard anyone say anything too bad about it.

I do remember hearing people slagging off all the ‘wog’ houses up the road (Hawker mostly) back in the day.

That said, building standards do seem to have contracted. When was the last time you saw a new house with eaves?

Holden Caulfield9:04 am 10 Nov 08

Gungahlin Al said :

You are right Ant. Builders build 4 bed houses as a minimum, two dining, two lounge. And they try to do all that on a single level. This is why houses have no yard.

It’s not necessarily the builders fault though, is it. Sure they share a large part of the blame, but “people” obviously like 4 bedroom houses that are, for many, oversized.

Also, back to the L&D conditions, these usually specify a minimum dwelling size that has to be built. Although my experience is nearing 10 years since we built our place in Nicholls, we had to increase our plan size simply to meet the minimum size requirements of the home we wanted. In our case it wasn’t so bad because we were only a few sq metres under the ruling, however, we still had to alter our plan to meet the minimum size requirements, which for our block was around 175m2 for the house. I can’t quite remember the sizing.

Okay, that size isn’t a huge house, but it does point out that if people do want to build smaller houses there can sometimes be factors in the way preventing this.

In the end our 3BR house, with one living and one dining area was just what we wanted. A smaller amount of larger rooms, rather than a larger amount of smaller rooms.

When we sold the house a few years later we did quite well, but had we had a formal dining area and a 4th bedroom we know we could have got another $30K, at least, for our troubles.

Most builders build what the market wants. Anyone who has dealt with one knows they’re not always the sharpest tools in the shed when it comes to marketing and long term social responsibilities. Especially in the newer suburbs, it’s pump ’em out with the least amount of thinking required.

“Wells Station ( Harrison )the front setbacks were 6m ( normally 4m )and the fences were only supposed to be 1500mm ( most are 1800mm , no compliance again )for the sole purpose of people being more freindly with neighbours they could see and to use the front yard as the back yard ( no room in the back )”

Can you now have fences in front yards? If not, why would your kids play in the front? This appears to be the weirdest peice of planning policy ever. Quite similar to the ‘green frontage’ policy where you are forced to have hedges, but then you can’t water them!

Holden, I was also in Scullin in the 70s and my recollection is that nobody said, “Gosh, look at all the ugly houses they’re putting up!” The houses were considered nice to normal for the era.

Gungahlin is the only place I have ever lived where people thought it was ugly while they were building it.

Give it time and it will actually look like a slum.

Holden Caulfield8:45 am 10 Nov 08

grunge_hippy said :

i would not live in gungahlin for love or money. ugly houses, dusty, windy…

Wouldn’t that comment apply to pretty much any Canberra suburb when it was first established?

For example, in the early 70s when I was a wee tacker nobody wanted to visit our family all the way out in Scullin, probably much for the same reasons you wrote above. Moreover, Canberra is built on a big empty paddock. Housing in most suburbs has enough ugly houses to make your stomach churn, regardless of age, but its amazing what sins a mature garden will cover.

I’ll grant you the block size criticism, but that’s as much a market driven thing as it is a poor planning issue.

But really, give it time and most of Gungahlin will look just like Kaleen, Oxley and Fadden.

Bet you can’t wait for that, haha!

Oh, they’ve made a complete dog’s breakfast out of Gungahlin!

Jonathon Reynolds7:37 am 10 Nov 08

Gungahlin Al said :

And the LDA must stop selling job lots to single builders. While ever there is unmet demand from actual owners, they should get first dibs over builders wanting to spec build. Owners will always design a better house (with the right sort of guidance).

What Alan forgot to mention is that representatives of the LDA continue to “experiment” with land release in planning in Gungahlin.

At a recent meeting we both attended LDA representatives admitted that they wanted to experiment with a design concept they called “over & under” development. Effectively designing/releasing multi storey housing on blocks that could otherwise be separate title, thus making these blocks into strata units.

Gungahlin should not continue to be used as the guinea pig for their development designs. Enough of a mess has been made of the area already, it is obvious what doesn’t work. Unfortunately the bureaucrats involved have huge ego’s and want to make their own resumes appear impressive including supposedly new and innovative untried techniques. There is no way to hold them responsible or to account for their actions when things go horribly wrong.

Gungahlin Al6:13 am 10 Nov 08

You are right Ant. Builders build 4 bed houses as a minimum, two dining, two lounge. And they try to do all that on a single level. This is why houses have no yard.

You CAN preserve a yard on some of these smaller blocks – if you start off by carefully analysing exactly what you do need in the way of rooms.

For us with two children, the starting point was only three bedrooms. We hate the idea of a “formal” dining room that never gets used. So there’s about 80-90 square metres saved. We do have two living rooms, but the second is more of the old style rumpus room, that is part TV lounge, part study/office (half full of GCC stuff!). This room is placed upstairs, and that saves us another 50-odd sq m of land space. Going up a level is more expensive, but what price having a yard for kids to play in? It is the only room upstairs, making everything essential on the one level, step-free and therefore fully accessible if mobility should ever become an issue.

And the main living area is open plan – which further reduces space lost to walls and halls, and makes a very flexible and changeable space according to need.

We off-set this reduced room flexibility by making the kids’ rooms a bit bigger – they both take queen beds. That way visitors can take over that whole end of the house, and the kids can sleep upstairs. And the ceiling heights are a bit higher, which is an architect’s trick to give you a feeling of more space when there actually isn’t. Visitors always comment that our place is so big – when it isn’t.

So by careful selection of what we need, rather than what some builder thinks “the market” wants, we have taken a block of 569 sq m, on a corner (with the additional setback issues that entails) and preserved a yard that will fit a very large deck area, a small lawn, fruit trees, rotary clothes hoist, vege patch, and a garden, as you may be able to see on this picture. Careful design around two courtyards has reclaimed some of that front yard space that “affordable” mentions for private uses too. One can actually fit a small lap pool later if we wish.

The moral of my story is that small is then end of yards – design is. But only to a point. Some of these 250 – 400 sq m blocks now are ridiculous, and there’s no way you can do anything about passive solar design on them if coupled with the small size, their orientation is poor too.

And the LDA must stop selling job lots to single builders. While ever there is unmet demand from actual owners, they should get first dibs over builders wanting to spec build. Owners will always design a better house (with the right sort of guidance).

It’s just wrong when you have these big grand houses, specced to the max, in a dusty bare paddock, and people on the average wage can’t afford to live in them, and there’s no alternatives. They have got to stop letting developers get all the land… for them it is a no-brainer to put a massive monster house on the land. Too bad if most of us can’t afford it.. someone will buy it.

Jonathon

social engineering is correct, in Wells Station ( Harrison )the front setbacks were 6m ( normally 4m )and the fences were only supposed to be 1500mm ( most are 1800mm , no compliance again )for the sole purpose of people being more freindly with neighbours they could see and to use the front yard as the back yard ( no room in the back )

Sepi

The LDA wants the houses to look nice and uniform with environmental colours

Vic Bitterman9:00 pm 09 Nov 08

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

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_they_all_copy8:47 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.

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 Reynolds8:37 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.

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

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.

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 Al7:34 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.

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_hippy7:00 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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.