Melbourne developer Spacious Group has completed Voyage Altona, one of the closest new apartment developments to Altona Beach.

Off the plan purchasers have started moving into the 49-apartment project on Pier Street, with the remaining move-in-ready one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments starting from just over $500,000.

Display apartments have now been fitted out, allowing prospective buyers to inspect the completed residences by appointment.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112195 project_image_fid=372638]

The completed apartments feature open-plan living and dining areas which extend onto private balconies and terraces, while full-height glazing maximises natural light throughout the interiors.&nbsp;

Hybrid timber-look flooring, stone benchtops, Miele appliances, porcelain-tiled bathrooms and generous storage feature throughout the building which also features landscaped communal areas, expansive shared terraces, lift access and secure on-grade parking.

Drawing inspiration from its bayside setting, Voyage adopts a restrained palette of warm neutral tones and textured finishes. Many of the apartments take advantage of views across Port Phillip Bay, while the indoor-outdoor living spaces have been designed to make the most of the coastal outlook.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112195 project_image_fid=3286]

Voyage was developed to address what Spacious Group identified as an undersupply of higher-quality apartment product in Altona, with a focus on owner-occupiers looking to remain within the bayside community.

"Voyage responds to very strong local buyer demand for quality, owner-occupier-focused product," says Barry Plant Projects Director Jarrod Farey, who has handled sales since the project's launch.

"The project delivers an elevated lifestyle proposition, with its design and quality of finish far exceeding anything previously produced in the area, as well as its proximity to Pier Street Village and the beach."

The majority of purchasers have been local downsizers and owner-occupiers looking to stay within the Altona community but who previously had limited opportunities to buy a brand-new apartment.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112195]

Joel Robinson

Spacious Group completes Voyage Altona in Altona's beachside precinct

Homecorp has secured approval for a $360 million apartment development at Budds Beach, paving the way for one of the Gold Coast's most amenity-rich residential projects to launch later this year.

Gold Coast City Council has approved Lýon Residences, a 32-level tower that will deliver 178 two and three-bedroom apartments across a prominent corner site at 8-10 Acacia Avenue and 25-27 Oak Avenue.

The approval comes as developers continue to invest in premium lifestyle-driven apartment projects on the Gold Coast, where owner occupiers are increasingly prioritising amenity as much as apartment size and location.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/l-on-residences-25-27-oak-avenue-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Lýon Residences</a> has been designed around a resort-style wellness offering, headlined by a Moroccan-inspired spa precinct featuring treatment rooms, a Nordic sauna and steam room, hot and cold plunge pools, a soaking pool and a residents-only juice bar.

The rooftop will include a heated infinity pool and spa, residents' lounge with private kitchen and bar, gymnasium, yoga and Pilates studio, outdoor entertaining areas and barbecue facilities overlooking the Surfers Paradise skyline.

<img alt="Lyon" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2d3e29af-8793-486e-a684-52cef862241f" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-07-15%20at%204.32.26%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=ayG2zpLf3SS6Zy8XmKDcQods4kVWb0gm" />

Homecorp Founder and CEO Ron Bakir said Budds Beach provided the ideal location for the company's latest luxury apartment project.

"Budds Beach represents one of the most unique and sought-after pockets of the Gold Coast, and Lýon Residences has been designed to reflect that sense of rarity and refinement," Bakir said.

The project arrives as wellness continues to become a defining feature of new residential developments both in Australia and internationally.

The latest Global Wellness Institute figures show wellness real estate remains the fastest-growing segment of the global wellness economy and is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion by 2030. Australia continues to rank among the world's 15 largest wellness real estate markets, with developers increasingly integrating health, recreation and community facilities into apartment projects.

Queensland is also experiencing strong population growth, with the Gold Coast continuing to outperform many other Australian cities as demand for new housing remains elevated ahead of the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Bakir said the project had been designed to respond to that shift in buyer expectations.

"Strong population growth and sustained demand across the Gold Coast continue to highlight the need for well-designed new housing supply. Lýon Residences responds directly to this demand while setting a new benchmark for residential living," he said.

Each apartment has been designed to maximise views across the coastline, the Nerang River and the Gold Coast hinterland.

Located just minutes from Surfers Paradise beach and the Broadwater, the development also offers easy access to the light rail network, Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads.

Early site works are underway, with construction expected to commence later this year.

Homecorp approved for Budds Beach apartment tower, Lýon Residences

New apartment developments with uninterrupted, north-facing views over Perth's Swan River are exceptionally rare.

Recognising just how limited those opportunities are, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/edge-visionary-living">Edge Visionary Living</a>, one of Perth's most respected builder-developers, targeted <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/applecross-wa-6153">Applecross</a>, assembling an unrepeatable 6,342 sqm riverfront site on the corner of Moreau Mews and Canning Beach Road to create one of Perth's only new north-facing apartment developments directly overlooking the Swan River.

Today, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/buildings/riviere-residences-applecross-59-canning-beach-road-applecross-wa-6153">Rivière Residences</a> offers buyers a unique opportunity to choose between completed residences ready to move into now and off-the-plan homes in the final stage, Rivière West.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=28384 project_image_fid=3823]

Across the completed East and Central buildings, residents are already enjoying the development's luxury amenity, while two of the precinct's hospitality venues are now open.

The completed component of the development gives buyers the advantage of experiencing the finished product firsthand, including its uninterrupted river views, while still having the opportunity to secure a residence in the final stage.

"People are wowed by the view and the quality of the apartments,"&nbsp;Edge Visionary Living Sales Executive, Holly McSweeney, says.

"They're looking for the convenience of lock-and-leave living, but they're not looking to downsize on quality."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=28384 project_image_fid=3826]

The rarity of the development hasn't been lost on prospective buyers, McSweeney says.

For McSweeney, it all comes back to a location that is becoming increasingly difficult to replicate.

"Location, location, location," she says. "We are nestled right on the front of the Swan River. You can never get built out, so wherever you are in Rivière Residences, you've got views of the river forever."

The unique waterfront position has resonated particularly strongly with local downsizers. McSweeney says many buyers are long-time Applecross residents looking to transition from large family homes into a luxury apartment without sacrificing space, quality or the lifestyle they've enjoyed for decades.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N_FowNW0wu8?si=vb25XFq1wZ-iufAW" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

A major focus for Edge in recent years has been resident amenity. Across its apartment portfolio, from beachfront developments in Scarborough to luxury towers in South Perth, the developer has increasingly invested in the spaces beyond the apartment itself.

The strategy has largely been shaped by downsizer demand. Many buyers are moving from large family homes with swimming pools and established gardens. While they're looking to leave the maintenance behind, they don't want to compromise on lifestyle.

At Rivière, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/hillam-architects">Hillam Architects</a> designed the resident facilities as an extension of each apartment. A 25-metre heated swimming pool takes advantage of the north-facing river outlook, complemented by a large gym, sauna and steam rooms, private dining spaces, residents' lounges, a cinema, games room, and dedicated wine and whisky rooms.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=28384 project_image_fid=372542]

The waterfront location has also proved to be a major drawcard. Residents are within walking distance of the Raffles Hotel, South of Perth Yacht Club, the Heathcote Cultural Precinct and the cafés, restaurants and boutiques along Ardross Street.

Beyond the location and amenity, McSweeney says many buyers take confidence from Edge's fully integrated development model.

Having delivered apartments across Perth for decades, Edge now designs, develops and constructs its projects in-house, giving the company greater control over quality, delivery and the finished product.

"What I love is when people walk through their apartment for the first time and say, 'This is better than what we imagined,'" McSweeney says. "We hear that all the time."

Completed apartments in the East and Central buildings are now available to inspect by appointment, while Rivière West, the final stage of the precinct, is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2027.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=28384]

North-facing Swan River views drive demand at Rivière Residences in Applecross

Nearly 60 per cent of apartments at McNab Group's $220 million The Tannery development in Brisbane's West End have sold ahead of the project's public launch, including a suburb-record $2.57 million sale for a two-bedroom apartment.

The early sales campaign has secured buyers for 50 of the project's 87 apartments, highlighting continued demand for larger owner-occupier apartments that combine generous floorplans with premium lifestyle amenities in one of Brisbane's most tightly held inner-city suburbs.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=143337 project_image_fid=374768]

McNab Group Executive Chairman Michael McNab said selling more than half the project before launch reflected changing buyer expectations.

"Selling more than half the project before public sales open tells us buyers are actively seeking apartments that offer something genuinely different," McNab said.

"Today's buyers are looking beyond four walls. They want homes that genuinely enhance the way they live, with spaces that support health, connection and everyday wellbeing."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=143337 project_image_fid=374767]

A key point of difference for the project is the adaptive reuse of the heritage-listed Dixon's Tannery building, which will become The Retreat, a residents-only wellness precinct rather than being redeveloped into additional apartments.

The Retreat will feature a sauna and steam room, hot and cold plunge pools, a commercial-grade gym, Pilates studio, cinema, library, co-working spaces and private dining room. Rooftop amenities will include a swimming pool, landscaped gardens, outdoor entertaining areas and dog-friendly spaces.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=143337 project_image_fid=374760]

Designed by Cottee Parker Architects with interiors by Tom Mark Henry and landscape architecture by Aspect Studios, The Tannery comprises 87 two, three and four-bedroom apartments across 11 levels overlooking the Brisbane River.

Cottee Parker principal Dee Passenger said preserving the original tannery building had been central to the project's design.

"The easy option would have been to maximise the site's development potential with additional apartments. Instead, McNab has chosen to preserve the original tannery as a shared wellness retreat, ensuring this important piece of Brisbane's history remains at the heart of the community."

Passenger said sustainability also played a key role in the design, with materials from the original industrial site salvaged and repurposed throughout the development.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=143337 project_image_fid=374761]

Motiv CEO Carly Cottam said buyers had responded strongly to the combination of larger apartments, wellness facilities and the West End lifestyle.

"We are seeing more buyers looking for homes in the sky that provide the space and functionality of a traditional home, while benefiting from the convenience and lifestyle that apartment living brings," Cottam said.

She said purchasers included both owner occupiers and investors, with demand coming from local buyers as well as interstate purchasers.

Coinciding with the public launch, McNab also announced a partnership with Queensland Ballet, whose neighbouring Thomas Dixon Centre shares historical ties with the original Dixon family.

Located on a 4,465 sqm site at 439 Montague Road, The Tannery overlooks the Brisbane River and is around 10 minutes from the CBD.

Construction is underway, with completion expected in the second half of 2027.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=143337]

More than half of residences sold before public sales as McNab announces significant partnership with Queensland Ballet

McNab's The Tannery nears 60 per cent sold before public release, sets two-bedroom West End record

Iwan Sunito's vision for a landmark mixed-use precinct in Sydney's Inner West has taken a major step forward, with approval granted for the $1.9 billion Five Dock development first unveiled earlier this year.

The approved scheme by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/one-global-capital">One Global Capital</a> will deliver an 80,500 sqm mixed-use precinct comprising 840 apartments, integrated hotel accommodation, commercial and retail space, alongside publicly accessible open space designed to create a new destination for the growing suburb.

"This is a significant milestone for One Global Capital and for the future of housing delivery in Sydney," Sunito said.

"The Housing Delivery Authority was established to identify major housing projects capable of delivering meaningful supply more efficiently, and we are delighted that Spencer Street has been recognised as one of those projects.”

He said the declaration reflected the rapid progress achieved since acquiring control of the site.

"In less than seven months we have progressed from taking control of the site to securing entry into one of the NSW Government's most important planning pathways. It reflects the experience of our team, the strength of our consultant group led by Urbis, and our long-term commitment to delivering transformational projects that contribute to Sydney's future."

When the project was revealed earlier this year, Sunito described the opportunity as one of the strongest development sites he had worked on.

"I probably hadn't appreciated the uniqueness of the site until more recently when putting together the concept plans," Sunito said.

"The proximity to the water, and the golf course opposite, is unlike any other part of Parramatta Road. We have a unique position and view corridors over the water that makes this one of the best sites I've worked on."

The development has evolved since its initial announcement, with the approved plans increasing the residential component from the originally proposed 750 apartments to 840 homes while retaining the project's focus on creating an integrated neighbourhood rather than a standalone residential development.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/a-city-within-a-city-iwan-sunito-flags-1-5-billion-mixed-use-precinct-in-five-dock">"A city within a city": Iwan Sunito flags $1.5 billion mixed-use precinct in Five Dock</a>

The precinct will combine apartments with hotel accommodation, commercial workplaces, retail offerings and public spaces, creating a mixed-use environment intended to serve both residents and the broader Five Dock community. The proposal also continues the collaboration between One Global Capital and internationally recognised architect <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/koichi-takada-architects">Koichi Takada</a>, whose previous work with Sunito includes Infinity, Arc and Skye North Sydney.

Takada previously said the design was driven by a philosophy of integrating nature into the built environment.

"The concept for this development is born from our design approach to naturalising architecture," Takada said.

"The public realm benefits from biophilic design that integrates generous landscaping, and the development is optimised for natural daylight, airflow and water views to foster wellbeing, sustainability and spaces that foster community interaction."

Sunito has consistently described the project as a "city within a city", with a strong emphasis on creating a destination that extends beyond housing.

"We want to create a development that's not only to be seen, but to be experienced by the whole local community," he said.

The approval comes as Five Dock continues its transformation ahead of the opening of the Sydney Metro West line, with the new Five Dock station set to significantly improve connections between the Inner West, Parramatta and the Sydney CBD.&nbsp;

The precinct will also benefit from its proximity to the Parramatta Road corridor, nearby waterfront parklands and established retail and dining offerings that have made Five Dock one of Sydney's most tightly held Inner West suburbs.

Iwan Sunito secures approval for $1.9 billion Five Dock mixed-use precinct

Negative gearing

<html><body>
Cameron Kusher of RP Data drew the ire of a few pundits recently as he highlighted a number of points as to <a href="/expert-insights/buying/slight-fall-in-number-of-negatively-geared-property-investors">why negative gearing won't be abolished</a>.
There are four main points which advocates put forward in favour of abolishing negative gearing:
<ol>
<li>
Rents wouldn't rise Nobody knows for certain whether this is actually true. But let's face it, the inevitable hand of self-interest means that if negative gearing rules were quarantined landlords would probably take the opportunity to at least try it on by jacking up their rental charges (cf. the colossal 57% increase in rents in Sydney last time the rules were tweaked, 1985-1987). Let's suppose for the sake of argument that rents stayed flat.... 
</li>
<li>
Government would save billions This was one of Kusher's main points:  "The government only owns and rents out 4.1% of the housing stock. Conversely dwelling approvals data shows that a very small proportion of new housing approvals are granted to the public sector." Common sense dictates that if the government scraps the prevailing negative gearing legislation it would have to step up its public housing expenditure. "If negative gearing was to be removed the government would likely have to play more of a role in constructing new homes and managing a portfolio of properties. On balance, they probably play see that foregoing almost $8 billion in taxation revenue is more cost effective than developing and managing a greater proportion of housing stock." <img src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HfOBu6rlp88/U24XeBqSg0I/AAAAAAAANGY/mV9lzdx4Ksg/s1600/camkusher.jpg"> So much for all the billions in tax savings: the biggest furphy of the lot. Indeed, according to contemporary commentary the principal reason that negative gearing rules were reintroduced in the first place in 1987 was the spiralling waiting list for public housing, particularly in New South Wales where numbers increased alarmingly by nearly 40% to 140,000. Again, let's suppose that the government recovered in full the foregone funds from its negative gearing subsidies and a grandfathering or quarantining of the prevailing rules proved to be fiscally neutral. 
</li>
<li>
Renters would buy up the properties sold Kusher again: <img src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_nBJi-3W908/U24KdlkeXuI/AAAAAAAANGI/Wmf9ohsWcg8/s1600/CKusss.jpg"> This is obviously true. If property investors sell their properties, are renters who have not been able to buy previously really going to be in a position to suddenly step in and buy them? That seems unlikely, unless renters already had pre-existing deposits and closing costs ready to roll. But again, let's suppose that investors sold their properties and renters somehow did find the deposits and the appropriate financing to buy up the surplus stock with no associated decline in lending standards (also unlikely).  This is where the housing affordability arguments become circular and contradictory... Higher home ownership rates? On the one hand, people say "we should be like Germany with its stable housing market where most people rent" and on the other they argue "renters should be able to buy into the property market". One or the other argument might make sense, but I can't see how they both can. Certain economists believe that artificially pumping up home ownership rates beyond their natural levels promotes boom/bust cycles.  Look at countries where home ownership rates are artificially high, such as Singapore, where dwelling prices are up by 60% since 2009. Hardly a model for affordable housing, and rents are preposterously high in the city too (at least, they have certainly seemed to me to be when I've visited friends in the city - I'm happy to stand corrected on this point if it's incorrect on a city-wide basis). Britain too experimented with making home ownership a part of the very fabric of society through Maggie Thatcher's selling off of council houses, pushing UK home ownership rates to exceptionally high levels of around 70% by the end of the century. This all seemed to be a tremendous success when house prices were booming in the 1980s (and again in the 1990s and first half of the 2000s) with the stakeholder economy benefiting from an unprecedented boom in credit and wildly exaggerated wealth effect. However, it's commonly acknowledged that the UK housing market has also been one of the most manic-depressive boom/bust markets in the world ever since ownership rates increased. Meanwhile, ownership rates until recently appeared to be in the process of heading all the way back down to from whence they came...until, that is, the government stepped in with its Help to Buy and Funding for Lending wheezes - the cycle repeats... 
</li>
<li>Negative gearing doesn't increase supply</li>
</ol>
This point is logical enough, since negatively geared properties are mostly comprised of existing housing stock.
<div>Let's disregard all of the above factors which are precluding the negative gearing rules from being quarantined.</div>
Suppose for a moment that:
(a) the negative gearing rules are quarantined or grandfathered out;
(b) a large number of property investors sell their properties;
(c) renters buy up the surplus stock increasing home ownership rates to 70%+;
(d) rents don't rise;
(e) a decline in lending standards doesn't lead to a mass of defaults when interest rates rise;
(f) no boom/bust market ensues; and
(g) dwelling prices fall by, say, 20% (which presumably is the main underlying point of this entire debate after all).
Ongoing supply? 
As I <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/search?q=construction+costs" target="_blank">looked at here</a>, our major residential developers in Australia are not generating strong margins. Far from it in fact.
So if dwelling prices are to fall, who is going to build the new housing stock? 
If you think developers are going to do anything other than maximise shareholder returns, as indeed they are compelled to do, then you likely also believe in tooth fairies.
The Reserve Bank itself highlighted the reason why margins on multistorey apartment block residential developments are so slender: construction costs on infill sites are too high for it to be otherwise.
<img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-g-Oo-rk32eU/UyzA8AHYD4I/AAAAAAAAL_o/UftvW2FtvtA/s1600/CC.gif">
This chart shows why a long drawn out fall in apartment prices in Sydney was never feasible since it would have quickly taken the price per dwelling below its equivalent replacement cost.
Land developer Stockland's (SGP) underlying profit in FY13 was hampered by weak housing conditions, with that financial period encompassing the period from 1 July 2012 when sentiment was  still in the process of picking up.  Stockland's (SGP) residentiual division recorded an EBIT margin of 19.9% in FY2013.
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HLTcTuf2p2A/Uyz4daslyXI/AAAAAAAAMAM/OZEeDiagq_k/s1600/stockland+resi.jpg"> The Mirvac Group (MGR) managed to improve group gross margins on its residential developments to just 22% from a desperately poor 18% in the prior year.
 <img src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jAnKNC6uhSY/Uyz3uhTUatI/AAAAAAAAMAA/bqbqdKWpz8w/s400/Mirvac+margins.jpg">
<div>Lend Lease might yet prove to be the biggest basket case of the lot, the group reportedly struggling to turn a decent worthwhile ROI on some of its resi developments even at today's higher dwelling prices.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Lend Lease's (LLC) entire Australian geographical segment is recording EBITDA of only $500-$600 million and NPAT of around only $400-$500 million from colossal annual revenue streams of  $7.5 billion plus.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> <img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DE-MRz3KKWI/Uyz5EFxBebI/AAAAAAAAMAo/hRJtqfrVRQs/s400/LL.jpg">
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm sure that $7.734 billion top line figure is keeping a few execs living in the manner to which they have become accustomed, but those kind of net margins are hardly likely to see shareholders sending the champagne corks flying.</div>
Even back up at a PE of above 14, the share price is still at only at around half of its former glory.
<img src="https://chartbigchart.gtm.idmanagedsolutions.com/custom/etrade-australia/chart.asp?symb=LLC&amp;time=10yr&amp;freq=1dy&amp;type=1&amp;compidx=aaaa%3a0&amp;uf=0&amp;ma=2&amp;maval=25&amp;lf=268435456&amp;style=2061&amp;size=1&amp;comp=">
Lend Lease's FY14 H1 results for its Australian geographical segment have disappointed as development and construction profits have once again slipped back.
<div>
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TkgUgqpwV68/Uyz6QeInzXI/AAAAAAAAMA0/h1MHVaibJqE/s1600/LLAustralia.jpg"> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Implications</div>
If you're not familiar with accounting convention, what this means simply is that if dwelling prices fall, developers ain't barely going to be making a profit even before financing charges, and it will almost immediately be a case of 'see you later new dwelling supply'.
Say, for the sake of argument dwelling prices fall by 20%.
You can be more or less certain that absent new subsidies, major developers would instantly put any new planned projects on ice until upwards price pressure returned. In case it's still not clear why, this table explains the basic maths:
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="205">
<div> </div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="48">
<div align="center">FY13 </div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="47">
<div align="center">FY??</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="205">
<div>Turnover</div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="48">
<div align="center">100</div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="47">
<div align="center">80</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="205">
<div>COS</div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="48">
<div align="center">(80)</div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="47">
<div align="center">(80)</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="205">
<div>EBIT margin</div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="48">
<div align="center">20</div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="47">
<div align="center">-</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
In our cities with booming population growth this would be disastrous for renters. 
<div>Even in the event of interest rates remaining at their lowest levels in a generation, developers would soon have zero incentive to build since if dwelling prices are sliding, since they'd only be breaking even before financing charges were booked. </div>
There would be no corp tax to pay since there wouldn't even be a net profit upon which to raise tax, so the government would be getting zinged on its own revenues there too...and zinged again would they be on stamp duty foregone as the supply of new dwellings evaporated.
So much for all the billions in tax savings. As for the capital gains tax take, which forms a part of the individual income tax assessment: when prices are falling...oops there goes another revenue stream
So <a href="https://www.stockland.com.au/assets/crs2013/financial-report-2013.pdf" target="_blank">when Stockland discussed in 2013</a> "the prolonged downturn in the Australian residential land market" as adversely impacting results, they aren't being facetious.
They are simply noting what is plainly the case for developers in their resi divisions - there ain't barely no money in it, which is why it has taken a significant upturn in Sydney's prices to see dwelling approvals at last begin to flow through, after a woeful lull across the past decade.
Conclusion
If dwelling prices fall over any meaningful period of time in a city such as Sydney, we would quickly see supply dry up and with a population growing at 80,000 plus per annum we'll be back into chronic undersupply territory in just a few short years.
This is why negative gearing rules probably won't be quarantined or grandfathered out.
And this also why, if affordable housing is considered to be a genuine target, the government would probably need to look at tackling supply through subsidies as I posted about <a href="/expert-insights/buying/how-to-fix-australias-affordable-housing-problem">here</a>, while at the same time easing demand through considering other property tax reform and not the NG rules.
As I've noted before though, I'm sceptical as to whether there is any real desire to make housing more affordable from those in power.
You can visit <a href="https://allenwargent.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">AllenWargent</a> property buyers (London, Sydney) or Pete's <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">blog</a>.
His new book '<a href="https://www.bigskypublishing.com.au/Books/General-Interest/Four-Green-Houses--and-a-Red-Hotel/1015/productview.aspx" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Four Green Houses and a Red Hotel</a>' is out now.
</body></html>

pwargent-M4siyDbqQY

If negative gearing is quarantined cities like Sydney will be facing chronic undersupply

<html><body>
The property market is displaying all the typical signs of a slowdown, according to Propell National Valuers.
Citing increasing unemployment levels and federal budget expectations, national research manager Linda Phillips says that housing demand is likely to drop.
“Forget the past. It is now May and the market faces headwinds in the form of the traditionally slower winter months, the painful federal government budget and rising unemployment”, said Phillips.
“Any impetus from the declining interest rates of last year has now worked through the market. The federal budget is likely to impact badly on consumer confidence and strip demand from the market which may need a further lowering of interest rates to restore spending.”
This is contrary to the expectations of many high profile economists and commentators, many of <a href="/expert-insights/finance/interest-rate-stays-on-hold-did-our-experts-get-it-right">whom predict that interest rates</a> are <a href="/expert-insights/finance/rba-expected-to-keep-rates-on-hold-for-now-hsbc">likely to rise</a> before the end of the year. 
According to Propell, increasing property listings this month will be “trading in the face of negative headlines about what the federal budget might include,” and, after May 13, adjusting to the announced budget.
Propell National Valuers itself notes that it was “first to highlight the risk of the abolition of negative gearing in the budget”, but that it appears now that “the housing market itself will not be the subject of direct attacks in the budget.”
However, the company’s researchers do not rule out the possibility of other housing related adjustments in the federal budget. But the greatest budgetary impact on the housing sector will come from the expected reduction in government spending, tax increases and employment levels, according to Propell. The property research firm expects that tightening measures will increase unemployment through the reduction of the public sector and soften consumption, leading to a decrease in real estate demand. It predicts that some states will see median price reductions through the winter months. 
</body></html>

jrichardson-uRX5hFdKfN

Housing boom coming to an end: Propell

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Abolishing the sacred cow of negative gearing - where losses can be used as a deduction against other income - is considered by governments of all persuasions as electorally unpalatable.
But this part of the income tax system is one of the few areas left which confers this highly favourable treatment. In many other important areas of our public finance and income tax system, negative gearing is effectively abolished in favour of quarantining of losses.
Negative gearing is allowed on passive rental property and share investments and for “large” businesses. Both the pros and cons of negative gearing are well-known. Its most immediate advantage is allowing taxpayers to use a loss on one investment as a deduction against a profitable investment, or other source of income. But it is accepted that it undermines the progressive nature of the income tax, does little to increase housing supply stock and is a significant cost to government revenue.
In contrast to negative gearing, quarantining is where the loss on an investment cannot be used in the year it is made, but can be used in future years, against profits from the same investment from which the loss arose. Usually, but not always, if the investment is sold while there are quarantined losses, these can be used to reduce the taxable profit on exiting the investment.
In our tax system, quarantining is used when determining whether a taxpayer is liable to pay the Medicare levy surcharge; for loan repayments under the higher education loan program (HELP); and assessment of income under the child support regime, particularly Family Tax Benefit Part A and B.
Quarantining also applies when the tax office is assessing means-tested concessions such as the dependent (invalid and carer) tax offset, or senior and pensioner tax offsets.
Small businesses that make a tax loss in a non-corporate form are not permitted to use that loss against other profits (so-called non-commercial loss rules). While these measures are in part a response to the ridiculous hobby tax loss claims of the past, these rules apply quarantining to genuine small businesses, including those in the start-up phase. Quarantining also applies to certain boating activities.
In the social security system, quarantining applies where a particular benefit is means tested, such as Seniors Health Care Card, or the parental income test for dependant youth allowance. Like the income tax though, quarantining is not universally applied under this legislation (for example, it does not apply to the income test for aged pensioners). Also, the current paid parental leave scheme also uses quarantining in its relevant income measurement.
So one can see that quarantining applies in numerous areas of our public finance system. The starting point for debate should focus on economic capacity. By allowing negative gearing, the loss is being treated as a genuine signification of reduced economic capacity to either contribute income tax (or other contribution), or to receive welfare assistance. On the other hand, if quarantining applies, the loss is not regarded as signification of reduced economic capacity to either contribute tax or to receive welfare assistance.
Unfortunately, there are credible arguments both ways. And the fact that countries around the world do not take a uniform approach to the issue under their respective income tax systems supports this.
However, our public finance framework ought to be internally consistent so that similar things are treated in a similar manner, unless there is a sound explanation for differential treatment. This should be the case within the social security and income tax system, as well as across both, as the social security system is the mirror of the income tax system, or a negative income tax.
Both systems have economic capacity at their foundation. Those with sufficient economic capacity make an income tax contribution, and those who lack it receive payments (and other non-money benefits) for economic support. Given the shared foundation of the income tax and social security systems, or that they are really one system, it is hard to see why a different measure of economic capacity should be used within each system or across systems.
Another lesser dimension is that tolerating negative gearing in parts of the income tax and social security systems, but not tolerating it in others parts of those systems, adds complexity. Differential treatment of the same thing necessarily adds to administration and compliance costs.
In the end, there is a real argument that negative gearing should either be restored in the areas where it is currently prohibited, or should be scrapped across the board.
Given where the debate is now, I doubt anyone will seriously argue the former. That tends to leave movement towards the latter, because no one would seriously argue that the current differential treatment is a principled position with credibility.
Dale Boccabella is associate professor of taxation law at <a href="https://www.asb.unsw.edu.au/Pages/default.aspx" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">Australian School of Business</a>.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/24265/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="line-height: 1.3em;">
Dale does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

jake-cSmGT7VXVf

Why it’s time to quarantine negative gearing

<html><body>
The factor overlooked in the “debate” about tax benefits for property buyers is that the amount taken from real estate by government is considerably more than the amount given back.
Real estate is the cash cow of choice for all three levels of government – including through stamp duty, land tax, capital gains tax, rates and infrastructure charges.
The appeal for governments of taxing real estate transactions and ownership is so great that we’ve just seen a government with a multi-billion dollar budget surplus (thanks to revenue from a rising real estate market) introduce a new tax on real estate construction to help fund its attempt to buy the upcoming state election.
The Victoria state government is able to spend big in an election year thanks to real estate and the increased tax take via stamp duty on increased sales levels and land tax helped by rising property values.
<blockquote>
Abolishing negative gearing would ultimately cost government more than it saves, while resulting in a dramatic escalation in residential rents, especially in the major cities.
</blockquote>
The amount of stamp duty ripped out of each real estate transaction by state governments is so obscene ($27,000 on the average purchase in Sydney) that it’s a wonder citizens aren’t marching in the street – particularly as we were told the introduction of a GST would result in the elimination of stamp duty.
But governments never eliminate existing taxes. They only introduce new ones – even governments like that of Tony Abbott who promised repeatedly before the federal election he would never do so.
Land tax is an example of an impost that was introduced for a specific purpose and then became entrenched as a convenient revenue source. It was introduced in the nineteenth century specifically to break up large land holdings, which were considered a problem at the time, and remains a blight on the property landscape 130 years later.
So we can be sure that the new tax in Victoria – which has started life as a tax on the construction of buildings costing more than $1 million to fund a new bureaucracy, the Metropolitan Planning Authority – will still be around a century from now, but with much broader application that in 2014.
The Property Council of Australia’s executive director in Victoria, Jennifer Cunich, says: “A government projecting multi-billion dollar surpluses shouldn’t be introducing new property taxes.”
Well of course they shouldn’t, but they can’t help themselves. It’s like telling a rodent that’s been raiding your kitchen every night that it can’t eat the chocolate mud cake you left sitting on the bench.
The total tax take from real estate is around $33 billion per year. The cost to the federal budget from negative gearing is around $4 billion a year.
Abolishing negative gearing would ultimately cost government more than it saves, while resulting in a dramatic escalation in residential rents, especially in the major cities. There would only be losers from such a move.
You can contact Terry via  <a href="https://mailto:ryder@hotspotting.com.au" target="_blank">email</a> or on <a href="https://www.twitter.com/hotspotting" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.
</body></html>

terryryder-YECXbqmri2

Governments take out a lot more through property tax than is given back

<html><body>
Whenever there's a perceived crisis in real estate, those who enjoy blame games will demonise negative gearing.
Top of the list of crises that exist in the minds of the paranoid and the misinformed is the affordability crisis. Affordability for buyers and affordability for renters.
There's a vast pile of research data disproving the idea of an affordability crisis for buyers - an idea that's largely the result of Sydney-centricity in mainstream media.
Equally, there is no rental affordability issue, except for people living on welfare benefits or the minimum wage, as outlined by Kasy Chambers of Anglicare Australia in a interview on ABC News 24 earlier this week.
One of the most interesting of current real estate phenomena is the lack of rental growth in capital cities in the past 12 months and in the past three to four years. Only Darwin and Perth have had strong rental growth in recent years and even there it has dissipated in the past 12-18 months.
One of real estate' core issues is the low level of residential yields in the major cities. This is because residential rents are too low, relative to sale prices.
<blockquote>
Eliminating negative gearing may slow down investor buying, but it won't cause prices to fall.
</blockquote>
But perceptions of poor affordability persist.
The cure-all beloved by many with loud voices attached to soft brains is to eliminate negative gearing tax benefits.
In terms of my personal situation, I don't care whether negative gearing exists or not because I don't own negatively geared properties. I prefer assets that pay their way.
But removing negative gearing would solve nothing. Rather, it would make many matters worse.
The fuzzy logic that leads some to believe it would do good is that price rises are caused by investors - and that property investors are essentially driven by negative gearing benefits.
But price rises are not caused by investor activity, in most cases. Investors are a minority force in the market and are motivated to buy, without emotion, at the lowest possible price.
The biggest force in residential real estate, and the sector with the motivation and financial capacity to pay a high price, is the group known as 'next time buyers' - i.e. home buyers other than first time buyers. People upgrading to a better home, often driven by emotion. If anyone drives up prices it's them.
So eliminating negative gearing may slow down investor buying but it won't cause prices to fall.
What it will do is cause rents to rise - a lot. Without the tax offset, residential property as an investment will lose its appeal for some, especially those buying in the major cities. A shortage of rental properties will develop quite quickly, as happened last time negative gearing was eradicated (before being rushed back in). Sharp rises in city rents will follow.
I note that Kasy Chambers of Anglicare, in calling for government action to improve rental options for those on very low incomes, <a href="https://www.anglicare.asn.au/site/medrel_5.php" target="_blank">stopped short of advocating an end of negative gearing</a> because she recognised the problems it would cause.
The other factor never discussed in this increasingly wacky debate is the longer-term impact for the nation. Australia wants its citizens to invest to create retirement nest-eggs, thereby easing the growing budget burden from paying pensions to an aging population.
I’ve heard people argue that the federal budget could save billions each year if it wasn’t paying out on negative gearing tax breaks, but the long-term cost would be far greater if Australians stopped investing in residential property to provide for their retirement.
You can contact Terry via <a href="https://mailto:ryder@hotspotting.com.au" target="_blank">email</a> or on <a href="https://www.twitter.com/hotspotting" target="_blank">Twitter</a>. 
</body></html>

Removing negative gearing would only make matters worse

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
<ol>
<li>When it was introduced, mortgages were 15% while rental income was 5%. Back then it was needed to encourage investment. Now, mortgage rates are around 5% while gross rental income is around 5%. If you are ever going to remove negative gearing, the time to do it is when the mortgage rate is at its lowest. Put simply, it is not needed anymore. </li>
<li>House prices have been going up in the last year, rapidly in the case of Sydney and Melbourne. Removal of negative gearing may cause house prices to fall a few percent in the short term, but in the context of an average price increase of 10.7% in the past year, the market would be able to absorb such a short term loss. </li>
<li>If house prices fall as a result of the removal of negative gearing, then the Reserve Bank may feel that it can reduce interest rates further, which would offset some of the impact and have the added bonus of reducing the Australian dollar exchange rate, which would be seen as a win-win situation. </li>
<li>A reduction in house prices, combined with lower mortgage rates would be popular with first home buyers who have been increasingly squeezed out of the market by existing price levels. </li>
<li>The proportion of investors buying in the market has increased dramatically in the past year, and it would be of benefit to owner occupiers and first-time home buyers to reverse this trend and restore more normal proportions of buyers.</li>
</ol>
Source: Propell National Valuers
</body></html>

Five reasons the government might consider changing negative gearing this year

<html><body>
Slated negative gearing and property tax changes are discussed almost every year, but it is increasingly likely that the upcoming May budget is one of the most likely to include changes to this policy.
Property Observer reported a year ago that <a href="/expert-insights/finance/government-not-contemplating-changes-to-negative-gearing-wayne-swan">former treasurer Wayne Swan was not contemplating any changes at the time</a>, despite much discussion about negative gearing alterations. It appears that current treasurer Joe Hockey, however, may have different ideas.
But who is going to get stung by changes, if there are any? Propell National Valuers shares their thoughts about how residential real estate may see its owners becoming stung with the implications.
They point to the following:
1) WHAT: The exemption of the family home from asset calculations when achieving the pension may come under scrutiny.
WHY: It can encourage retirees to be asset rich and income poor, encouraging them to own and live in a property that's bigger and more expensive than they need. This will become even more pronounced if the <a href="/expert-insights/joe-hockey-flags-plans-to-raise-retirement-age">extra five years in the workforce, as suggested by Joe Hockey, is brought in</a>.
THE IMPACT: Retirees with properties above the median price may look to then sell these properties, cash out and downsize. This would be a one-off market impact that would soften prices in some sectors over the short-term, but would "likely be absorbed within a year," according to Propell.
2) WHAT: Taxation allowances of negative gearing could be abolished or curtailed.
WHY: The introduction in 1985 has seen tax revenue grow, from reducing personal income tax by $600 million originally to close to $4 billion, according to the Grattan Institute.
THE IMPACT: There would be enormous short-term political backlash. It would potentially result in the transfer of wealth from "one class of people to another and the losers have been first home buyers in particular", providing a benefit to our FHBs.
OTHER OPTIONS: Grandfathering negative gearing out, limiting it to new properties (both of which have been suggested on SBS), phasing it out or toughening the rules. The limitations of negative gearing to new properties has been suggested heavily in the media lately (citing off the record comments from different government departments). If you are an investor using negative gearing to offset your loss, then there is a chance here that you will find yourself facing a greater shortfall.
However, "If the system is not changed this year, then property investors can probably relax in the knowledge that it will become a permanent feature of the investment landscape," Propell suggests, noting that this year is the most likely in which it will happen.
We've previously taken it to the experts and <a href="/expert-insights/finance/should-negative-gearing-be-changed-the-experts-have-their-say">asked, 'Should negative gearing be changed?' Here are their opinions</a>.
</body></html>

Negative gearing

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Negative gearing

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News