<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-5" data-turn="user" data-turn-id="e65dbe94-e3b6-47f7-b62a-9cbb30c9bf79" data-turn-id-container="e65dbe94-e3b6-47f7-b62a-9cbb30c9bf79" dir="auto">Time &amp; Place’s plans to transform the former David Jones factory building in Surry Hills into a mixed-use residential precinct have gone on exhibition through the NSW Government’s In-fill Affordable Housing pathway.</section>

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:f4d533b7-64a5-413d-86fd-5c99649c2b73-2" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:f4d533b7-64a5-413d-86fd-5c99649c2b73-2" dir="auto">
The Marlborough House proposal, lodged for the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/marlborough-house-47-97-marlborough-street-surry-hills-nsw-2010">47-97 Marlborough Street</a> site, would see the adaptive reuse of the heritage-listed warehouse building alongside the construction of new residential additions and a separate apartment building on the northern portion of the site.

The proposal seeks approval for 172 apartments across three buildings, including 15 per cent affordable housing managed by a community housing provider for at least 15 years from occupation.

<img alt="Marlborough" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="5d1d3c2a-bf13-47d6-a335-7c01102cdee1" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.29.36%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=cjMYrbR.BLUlWH4dar0RVDDo0bG.u2YT" />

Interior view from the Northern Building Penthouse overlooking the park

&nbsp;

The redevelopment is planned for the prominent 3,413 sqm site bounded by Marlborough Street, Goodlet Street and Lansdowne Street, directly opposite Eddie Ward Park and around 200 metres from the Surry Hills light rail stop.

Time &amp; Place acquired the former David Jones building in 2024, marking the first time the property had changed hands in around 50 years.

Designed by Wardle, the proposal centres around the adaptive reuse of the former David Jones factory, originally constructed between 1913 and 1935 in the Inter-War Chicagoesque architectural style.

Wardle noted in its Architectural Design Report that the building “occupies a significant place in the industrial and cultural history of Surry Hills” and at its peak was “the largest department store manufacturing facility in Australia, employing over 800 people and fuelling the growth of Sydney’s fashion and retail industries.”

The practice said the project positions itself “not as an isolated intervention, but as a contributor to the civic, social, and architectural grain of the precinct.”

The proposal would deliver 75 apartments within the retained southern heritage building, 59 apartments within the central addition, and a further 38 apartments within the new northern building fronting Lansdowne Street.

Planning documents show the scheme would comprise a mix of heritage apartments, new-build apartments, townhouses and penthouses.

<img alt="Marlborough" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="57758518-40a3-4b83-958c-d06e96a2cffa" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.29.42%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=VerlX9ST5xgBi8.1_YRsqdWTJeT6ygjs" />Interior View of the Heritage Building Apartment

The development would also include a ground-floor retail tenancy on the corner of Marlborough and Lansdowne streets, rooftop communal open space, a landscaped pedestrian link along the western edge of the site, and basement parking accessed from Lansdowne Street via a car stacker system.

&nbsp;

The scheme emerged from a competitive design process run by Urbis, with Wardle ultimately selected as the winning architect ahead of FJC Studio, TZG, Architectus and Wilkinson Eyre.

The Design Integrity Panel later described several aspects of the Wardle scheme as fundamental to the project, including “the stepped character of the new addition to the north of the site”, the landscaped western pedestrian link, and the “garden arrival” experience separating the original Marlborough House from the heritage addition.

Wardle’s design heavily references the site’s industrial and heritage history, while also responding to the surrounding Surry Hills streetscape.

The Architectural Design Report describes Surry Hills as “a finely grained neighbourhood with beautiful and expressive brickworks throughout the suburb,” with the proposal introducing a material palette intended to sit comfortably alongside the existing warehouse fabric and neighbouring terraces.

The report also outlines the project’s relationship with Eddie Ward Park and the broader landscape context of the area.

“Marlborough House occupies a site of deep cultural memory and the neighbouring Eddie Ward Park is of local ecological significance, where natural systems, topography, and stories have long shaped human experience,” Wardle noted in the report.

The architects said the proposal sought to “rebind built form to Country” through landscape, materiality and the adaptive reuse of the heritage structure.

<img alt="Marlborough House" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="9ae3f2f9-c85f-477a-a6f8-b43f6cb97c41" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.29.53%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=B.qUCLqRvJOR.n9CvYcTpaknIX9LuqKZ" />

The project is also being progressed under the NSW Government’s in-fill affordable housing provisions, allowing developments that include affordable housing to access additional height and floor space incentives.

Under the plans, 2,593 sqm of the project’s floor space would be dedicated to affordable housing, slightly exceeding the required 15 per cent threshold.

In its Design Excellence Strategy, Urbis said the project aimed to “sensitively adapt and enhance the heritage-listed building on site through alterations and additions that preserve its historical significance” while delivering “high-quality market and infill affordable housing development in Surry Hills.”

Time &amp; Place has been one of the most active developers nationally in the last 12 to 24 months. Late last year they completed&nbsp;The Queensbridge in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/southbank-vic-3006">Southbank</a>, a mixed-use tower with 353 apartments and a hotel. They are currently selling Park Modern, 246 apartments near the famous Botanic Gardens in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/south-melbourne-vic-3205">South Melbourne</a>, and have future projects, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/the-wilmot-173-burke-road-28-hope-street-glen-iris-vic-3146">The Wilmot</a>&nbsp;in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/glen-iris-vic-3146">Glen Iris</a>, the redevelopment of the Northcote Plaza, and another tower in South Melbourne.

The developer broke into Sydney just a few years ago with Two Tides in Manly. They have another project nearby, which is at the ultra-luxury end of the market on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/buildings/shoreline-manly-beach-89-90-north-steyne-manly">North Steyne</a>, fronting the beach.

It is also continuing to work through the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-time-place-settles-on-design-for-the-chimes-potts-point-redevelopment">redevelopment of The Chimes building</a> on Macleay Street in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/potts-point-nsw-2011">Potts Point</a>, as well as a project on <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/time-place-to-take-on-mosman-apartment-market">Mosman's Redan Street</a>.
</section>

Joel Robinson

First look: Time & Place unveils Marlborough House redevelopment designs for former David Jones warehouse in Surry Hills

The residential transformation of St Kilda Road is set to continue into with more new apartment plans for the sought-after boulevard.

Wing Tai Asia has lodged plans for a major residential tower at 464-466 St Kilda Road, replacing the former VACC House with an 18-storey mixed-use development designed around a retained heritage podium and a sculpted contemporary tower.

The proposal, prepared under Victoria’s Significant Residential Development with Affordable Housing pathway, would deliver 325 apartments and ground-floor retail across the prominent 4,653 sqm boulevard site in Melbourne’s St Kilda Road North Precinct.

The project centres on the adaptive reuse of the site’s heritage-listed VACC Building, an eight-storey office designed by Bernard Evans that has occupied the address for decades. Planning documents state the development would involve “carefully dismantling and conserving off-site the original metal fabric of the podium visible from St Kilda Road,” before reinstating it as the defining frontage of the new scheme.

Above the restored podium, Wing Tai is proposing a curvilinear residential tower. The scheme includes 172 one-bedroom apartments, 63 two-bedroom apartments, 66 three-bedroom apartments, and 24 four-bedroom apartments, alongside two ground-floor food and beverage tenancies fronting St Kilda Road.

The tower has been designed with substantial articulation and variable setbacks to minimise perceived bulk and maintain view corridors along the boulevard. Urbis, which prepared the planning report, said the design “has been significantly articulated through a curvilinear design” with “an interplay with materials, façade expression and depth” to create visual separation and visual interest.

The proposal also includes 254 basement car spaces, landscaped pedestrian links connecting St Kilda Road and Queens Lane, and a biophilic landscape strategy featuring canopy trees, raised planters, cascading greenery and a glass oculus pool overlooking the eastern frontage.

Planning documents confirm the $270.1 million development will contribute 3 per cent of project costs to the Social Housing Growth Fund as part of the application process.

Wing Tai acquired the St Kilda Road property in 2018 alongside Abacus Property Group for $95.38 million, before later consolidating ownership of the site. The property previously served as the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce headquarters for around 60 years.

The transformation of the St Kilda Rd boulevard is already beginning to materialise, with a number of high-profile projects recently completed, launched, or approaching launch as developers continue to back the long-term appeal of the precinct.

Among the most notable recent completions is Louise by Samuel Property Group, just off the strip on Queens Lane, the same pocket Hirsch &amp; Faigen recently launched The Queensbury. Mirvac is too on the same street with The Albertine, which is approaching completion.

Dexus recently secured approval for its slice of St Kilda Road, while Gurner also has approved plans for the precinct.

Wing Tai unveils 325-apartment St Kilda Road tower on former VACC House site

Malaysian developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/s-p-setia">SP Setia</a> is the latest to jump into St Leonards booming Transport Oriented Development precinct.

The developer, which has previously delivered Sapphire by the Gardens apartment development in Melbourne, identified the Atchison Street site in 2023. It filed a Scoping Report around 12 months ago, and now has revealed the designs for the new&nbsp;40-storey mixed-use tower.

The State Significant Development Application covers <a href="https://next-portal.urban.com.au/projects/14650/summary">20-22 Atchison Street</a>, a 1,374 sqm site positioned between St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">COX Architecture</a>, the project would deliver 181 apartments, above a four-storey commercial podium, five basement levels, and new public domain works along Mitchell Street. The apartment mix comprises 35 one-bedroom apartments, 39 one-bedroom-plus-study apartments, 85 two-bedroom apartments, and 22 three-bedroom residences.

The proposal has been lodged as a shop-top housing development under the NSW Government’s TOD planning pathway, which allows increased density around key transport infrastructure. The site sits within the recently rezoned Crows Nest Accelerated TOD Precinct.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b799673d-48e2-46b0-801a-0e33a9330100" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20site.png?VersionId=dPh0UfwfaHpbFL1R7H1cbZNbIW0CHbCC" />

SP Setia acquired the Atchison Street site as part of its continued expansion into the Australian apartment market. In comments made to City &amp; Country (The Edge Malaysia) in 2023, SP Setia President and CEO Datuk Choong Kai Wai described the acquisition as “a strategic move” aligned with the group’s post-pandemic market recovery strategy.

“Our target for this exceptional development is local and overseas buyers, including first-home buyers, downsizers and investors,” Choong said.

The tower has been designed as a slender vertical form rising from a mixed-use podium, with COX Architecture positioning the development as a response to the evolving St Leonards and Crows Nest skyline.

“The purpose of the project is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality housing at a strategically located site and deliver a built tower outcome that is consistent with the desired future character of St Leonards and aligns with the TOD controls,” the design report stated.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b1a85eee-76f7-436c-a6da-73ba827b9b13" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20entry.png?VersionId=dA9jHGPMcm.dDbwk4QfxqWiY5bfh3UVt" />

The podium would incorporate retail uses fronting Atchison Street, commercial tenancies, landscaped communal areas, and pedestrian improvements along Mitchell Street. Vehicle access and loading would be consolidated via Atchison Lane.

Residents would have access to more than 665 sqm of communal indoor and outdoor spaces, while the development proposes 96 parking spaces across five basement levels.

The proposal also includes a commitment for 10 per cent of residential floor space to be allocated toward affordable housing through a monetary contribution.

COX said the tower form responds directly to the emerging high-density character of the precinct while seeking to maximise solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook from apartments.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2163f85c-f63b-4be3-aafa-f8763976cec5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Article%20Feature%20Image%20%28Grid%29_5.png?VersionId=WiAmtIKJ6.ZQ41EtYEQ1fol7AeorKBlL" />

“The building is orientated towards north,” the Apartment Design Guide compliance report noted, adding that the tower’s slim form was driven by the constrained inner-urban site dimensions.

The design also incorporates landscaped setbacks and communal open space at podium level, intended to soften the interface with surrounding streets and improve pedestrian amenity.

The project adds to a growing wave of redevelopment proposals reshaping St Leonards and Crows Nest following the opening of the Sydney Metro City line and the NSW Government’s push for higher-density housing around major transport nodes.

Last week Stockland filed plans just down the road. They want to build a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/601-pacific-highway-st-leonards-nsw-2065">52-storey tower on Pacific Highway</a>.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">First look: Stockland plans 52-storey, 538-apartment St Leonards tower&nbsp;</a>

First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> has revealed plans for a new mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, advancing a proposal that would reshape the southern gateway to Newcastle’s city centre with one of the city’s tallest residential buildings.

The State Significant Development proposal, now on exhibition, seeks approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/bowline-10-dangar-street-wickham-nsw-2293">43-storey tower</a> immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange. The project would deliver around 200 apartments, including 42 affordable housing dwellings, alongside 99 co-living units, a 171-room hotel, retail space, and new public domain integrated through the site.

The scheme marks a significant escalation of plans previously approved for the site. Urban Property Group took over the prominent 2,904 sqm parcel, where excavation and demolition had already commenced under an earlier consent for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="58a96dd9-407f-4d20-86b4-94e4bfeef74b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20podium.png?VersionId=LGlf08pdFGAZDzvx_CXC4XakHNZRuEE0" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/sjb-architects">SJB</a>, the tower has been conceived as a landmark transit-oriented development anchored to the Newcastle Interchange precinct. The proposal includes 245 build-to-sell apartments across a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom residences, as well as two penthouses. Fifteen apartments and one operational unit are earmarked for NDIS housing. The co-living component would add a further 99 units, while the podium would accommodate retail uses and hotel facilities.

SJB said the site presents “a valuable opportunity to anchor the precinct by setting the standard for design, active ground planes and character at the key southern gateway.”

The architecture responds directly to the site’s position beside major transport infrastructure and within one of Newcastle’s fastest-evolving urban renewal precincts. The tower form sits above a sculpted podium designed to frame new public spaces, including a through-site pedestrian link connecting Station Street to Hannell Street, landscaped plazas, and activated retail edges.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a7bd6ff0-f7db-4ce8-a6dc-ea56e72c6149" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20lanne.png?VersionId=xzf39VADyhj7zBQY2I9fx9vI62u2tuSb" />

The design report describes the project as part of the broader transition of Wickham into “a vibrant, high-quality mixed-use urban precinct” that leverages proximity to the station, open space, and regional connectivity.

A detailed public art strategy has also been prepared for the development. The strategy positions the project as “a transit-oriented development of state significance at the gateway to Newcastle’s city centre” and outlines a series of integrated artworks responding to Newcastle’s industrial and transport heritage.

Creative Road’s curatorial framework for the project, titled Unveil, draws on “stratified surfaces, carved volumes, and light-filled apertures” while referencing Newcastle’s transformation from an industrial city into a contemporary education and technology hub.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="77a882bb-14b1-4d28-99ff-9438e39508c0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20site.png?VersionId=cevgo_vN0eKPK78P8YcEu3mKPLkpFqE7" />

The proposal is being advanced through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway after being declared State Significant Development in June 2025. The accompanying scoping report states the development aims to “maximise the site’s proximity to the Newcastle Interchange by delivering transit-oriented development” while increasing housing supply and affordable housing provision within the Newcastle LGA.

Urban Property Group’s plans align with the long-term strategic vision established under the Wickham Master Plan, which identified the interchange precinct as suitable for substantial uplift in height and density. The current proposal would significantly intensify that vision, positioning the tower among the tallest developments proposed for Newcastle.

The site sits immediately north of the Newcastle Interchange, bounded by Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing cluster of residential towers and mixed-use projects that have emerged following the completion of the light rail and transport interchange.

First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s latest tower at Wickham interchange

Bottega House has completed settlement of a landmark riverfront site in Macquarie Street, St Lucia, representing its first major Brisbane development.&nbsp;

Positioned on the banks of the Brisbane River, the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/180-macquarie-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">premium site at 180 Macquarie Street</a> features uninterrupted river frontage in one of Brisbane’s most tightly held residential precincts.&nbsp;

The proposed development, currently under assessment with Brisbane City Council, has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/plus-studio">Plus Studio</a> with interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/mim-design">Mim Design</a> and will deliver a boutique collection of premium residences positioned specifically for owner occupiers and downsizers.&nbsp;

The residences are set to redefine luxury apartment living in the area, with a focus on architectural quality, refined finishes, landscape integration and elevated amenities including curated wellness facilities, resort-style pools and recreation spaces rarely seen in the local market.&nbsp;

Exclusive sales for the project will be led by Keenan &amp; Byrne, ahead of an anticipated launch later this year.&nbsp;

Bottega House Managing Director Nick Malloch said the project reflects the group’s ambition to deliver a highly curated residential offering within one of Brisbane’s most tightly held precincts.&nbsp;

“This is an incredibly rare riverfront opportunity and one we have approached with a long-term perspective,” Malloch said.&nbsp;

“Our vision from the outset was to create a boutique collection of residences that feel more like private homes than traditional apartments, with generous proportions, refined finishes and exceptional amenity throughout."

Malloch says there is a&nbsp;lack of premium owner-occupier stock of this quality in the market, particularly for downsizers wanting space, privacy and a true lifestyle offering without compromise.&nbsp;

"Demand is expected to be strong given the scarcity of premium riverfront opportunities of this nature within Brisbane’s inner-west."&nbsp;

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
At the end of 2016, 7.6 percent of suburbs nationally had a median house value under $200,000 and 5.9 percent of suburbs had a median unit value below $200,000.
To put these figures into some perspective, 11.4 percent of suburbs had a median house value of at least $1 million and 3.0 percent of suburbs had a median unit value of at least $1 million.
Mr Kusher found that over the five years to the end of 2016, a substantial decline occurred in the proportion of suburbs with a median value below $400,000.
As a comparison, at the end of 2011, 53.5 percent of suburbs had a median house value of less than $400,000 and 69.8 percent of suburbs had a median unit value of less than $400,000. By the end of 2016, the proportion of suburbs with a median value of less than $400,000 fell to 41.0 percent for houses, and 55.3 percent for units.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-16%20at%2011.20.39%20am.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/02/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-16%20at%2011.20.39%20am.jpg" alt=""> 
Looking back at the individual capital cities over the past five years highlights a significant shift in the proportion of suburbs with a median value under $400,000, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne.
Today’s analysis revealed that five years ago, with the exception of Darwin and Canberra, every capital city had at least 20 percent of its suburbs with a median house value of less than $400,000.
At the end of last year, it was virtually impossible to find houses for less than $400,000 in Sydney, Darwin and Canberra while less than 7% of suburbs had a median house value below $400,000 in Melbourne.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-16%20at%2011.20.46%20am.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/02/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-16%20at%2011.20.46%20am.jpg" alt="">
We noted that across each city there has been a substantial decline in affordable housing over the past year despite the fact that outside of Sydney and Melbourne there has been only moderate value growth over the period.
Even units recorded a fairly substantial decline in the proportion of suburbs with a median value of less than $400,000 over the past five years.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-16%20at%2011.20.54%20am.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/02/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-16%20at%2011.20.54%20am.jpg" alt="">
For those earning a relatively low income in Sydney and looking to buy a house or unit, they are competing for a rapidly declining pool of housing stock across the city.
The pool is also declining across the remaining capitals, albeit not at the same pace of decline as in Sydney.
Key Findings:
• At the end of 2016, looking at both houses and units, 20.5 percent of Sydney suburbs had a median value of less than $600,000 compared to 38.5 percent of suburbs having a median value of at least $1 million. To further highlight deteriorating housing affordability in Sydney, 34.6 percent of suburbs had a median unit value of less than $600,000 at the end of 2016. In each other capital city, a higher proportion of suburbs had a median house value of less than $600,000 than the proportion of suburbs with a median unit value of less than $600,000.
• In 2011, the proportion of total suburbs with a median house value below $400,000 across each capital city was: 21.2 percent in Sydney, 28.9 percent in Melbourne, 40.9 percent in Brisbane, 40.5 percent in Adelaide, 31.1 percent in Perth, 69.2 percent in Hobart, 2.1 percent in Darwin and 1.1 percent in Canberra.
• Units offered a more affordable option highlighted by the proportions of suburbs values below $400,000 at: 38.8 percent in Sydney, 48.2 percent in Melbourne, 81.7 percent in Brisbane, 94.3 percent in Adelaide, 59.8 percent in Perth, 92.7 percent in Hobart, 53.3 percent in Darwin and 44.6 percent in Canberra.
• The proportion of suburbs with a median house value of less than $400,000 at the end of 2016 was recorded at: 0.1 percent in Sydney, 6.3 percent in Melbourne, 29.2 percent in Brisbane, 28.0 percent in Adelaide, 18.9 percent in Perth, 52.1 percent in Hobart and 0.0 percent in Darwin and Canberra. For units the proportions were recorded at: 6.5 percent in Sydney, 31.8 percent in Melbourne, 62.7 percent in Brisbane, 85.1 percent in Adelaide, 46.4 percent in Perth, 88.4 percent in Hobart, 57.6 percent in Darwin and 45.8 percent in Canberra.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-16%20at%2011.21.01%20am.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/02/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-16%20at%2011.21.01%20am.jpg" alt="">
Cameron Kusher is research analyst for CoreLogic. You can contact him <a href="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/about/">here</a>.
</body></html>

ckusher-ujnxiKuFQs

The heightened decline in suburbs under the $400,000 median: Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
Over the five years to December 2016, the number of suburbs nationally with a median value of at least $1 million has increased by 176%.
There was a time in which having a dwelling worth $1 million or more meant that the property was exclusive and rare. 
Today dwellings with a $1 million valuation are becoming much more common. 
At the end of 2016, there were 760 suburbs nationally that had a median value of at least $1 million. 
This figure has increased from just 275 suburbs nationally five years earlier.
Units have been the big mover with the number of $1 million suburbs increasing by 479% over the five years compared to a 160% increase for houses.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/07/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-07%20at%207.24.28%20pm.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/02/07/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-07%20at%207.24.28%20pm.jpg" alt="">
Some 87% of the suburbs nationally that had a median value of at least $1 million were located in either New South Wales (70.3%) or Victoria (16.7%) up from 75.6% in New South Wales (60.4%) and Victoria (15.3%) five years earlier.
The combined capital cities accounted for 93.5% of all the $1 million suburbs in 2011 and this increased marginally to 93.6% in 2016. 
This is representative of the higher cost of housing in capital city markets. 
It also highlights the relatively weaker value growth performance of regional housing markets throughout recent years.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/07/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-07%20at%207.27.45%20pm.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/02/07/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-07%20at%207.27.45%20pm.jpg" alt="">
Escalating dwelling values in Sydney, and to a lesser degree Melbourne, have resulted in an increasing proportion of the suburbs with a median value of at least $1 million over the past five years. 
At the end of 2011, 57.8% of the suburbs nationally with a median value of at least $1 million were in Sydney, by the end of 2016 the proportion had risen to 65.4% of suburbs nationally. 
The proportion of $1 million suburbs in Melbourne has increased to 16.4% of suburbs nationally at the end of 2016 from 15.3% at the end of 2011.
Further highlighting the rapid increase in values over recent years is the data for suburbs with a median value of at least $2 million.
At the end of 2011, 39 suburbs nationally had a median value of at least $2 million. 
By the end of 2016, this figure had risen to 136 suburbs nationally, an increase of 249% over five years. 
At the end of 2011, 30 of the 39 suburbs were located in Sydney and by the end of 2016, 115 of the 136 suburbs were located in Sydney.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/07/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-07%20at%207.28.30%20pm.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/02/07/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-07%20at%207.28.30%20pm.jpg" alt="">
While rising housing values increase the asset wealth of owners, it is also reflective of the fact that for those who don’t yet own a home it is becoming increasingly difficult to save a large enough deposit in order to purchase a home. 
This is particularly the case in Sydney and Melbourne where over the past five years, dwelling values have increased by a total of 68.1% and 43.3% respectively. 
Meanwhile, wages are increasing at their slowest pace on record and housing affordability is once again a central them in the political debate. 
The rise in suburbs with a median value of at least $1 million over recent years is reflective of the growing chasm between those that own homes and those who don’t.
Cameron Kusher is research analyst for CoreLogic. You can contact him <a href="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/about/">here</a>.
</body></html>

Number of million dollar suburbs surges to 760 during 2016: CoreLogic

<html><body>
Dwelling sales hitting the $2 million mark have trended substantially higher over recent years according to CoreLogic’s latest weekly report.
While driven largely by sales in Sydney and Melbourne housing markets, CoreLogic research analyst Cameron Kusher said, “A home selling for or in excess of $1 million was once the domain of the wealthy and indicative of the luxury housing market, sales of or in excess of $1 million are becoming much more regular.”
<a href="/images/2016/10/27/Annual%20number%20of%20dwellings.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/27/Annual%20number%20of%20dwellings.jpg" alt="">
Over recent years Mr Kusher noted a substantial rise in sales of homes at or above $2 million however even though they remain a much smaller proportion of overall sales than sales between $1 million and $2 million. “Perhaps $2 million is the new $1 million?” he says.
Key Findings:
• Over the 12 months to June 2016, there were 11,319 houses and units sold nationally for at least $2 million. Note: while there has been some decline over recent months however, this could also be reflective of some transaction details having not yet come through;
• Over the previous 12 months, there were 10,668 dwellings sold for at least $2 million, 10 years earlier there were 3,254 sales and 20 year earlier there were just 236 sales.
<a href="/images/2016/10/27/Annual%20number%20of%20houses%20and%20units.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/27/Annual%20number%20of%20houses%20and%20units.jpg" alt="">
A split between houses and units nationally shows that there were 9,882 houses and 1,437 units sold for at least $2 million over the past year.
As shown in today’s above chart, the number of units selling for at least $2 million is still lower than its peak in late 2007.
Mr Kusher said, “It should be noted that the data is based on settled sales so does not include yet to settle off-the- plan unit sales. Once settled, they will be included in the data at their contract date.”
<a href="/images/2016/10/27/Annual%20number%20of%20houses%20and%20units%20NSW.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/27/Annual%20number%20of%20houses%20and%20units%20NSW.jpg" alt="">
As can be seen in the third of the above charts, that highlights the number of sales of at least $2 million for New South Wales and Victoria versus the other states and territories.
The surge in sales at that price point has largely occurred in the two largest states. In fact, in the other states and territories the number of sales of at least $2 million is still lower than the previous peak.
A similar story exists for sales of, or in excess of, $2 million in Sydney and Melbourne compared to the other capital cities.
Sales at this price point have surged substantially higher across the two largest capital cities over recent years while they remain lower than their previous peak across the combined other capital cities.
Over the 12 months to June 2016, there were more units sold for at least $2 million in Sydney and Melbourne than houses sold above that price point across each of the other capital cities.
<a href="/images/2016/10/27/Annual%20number%20of%20houses%20and%20units%20Sydney.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/27/Annual%20number%20of%20houses%20and%20units%20Sydney.jpg" alt="">
Sales of properties at a price point above $2 million are becoming a much more regular occurrence in Sydney and Melbourne while they are much rarer elsewhere in the country.
According to Mr Kusher, this is just another example how the cost of housing in our two largest capital cities is detaching itself from the rest of the country.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

The rising prevalence of sales of $2 million or more: Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The almost 4.5 year growth phase in capital city home values have driven prices higher and this week we look at the now significant premium for housing in Sydney and to a lesser degree the premium in Melbourne.
CoreLogic calculates capital city median selling prices on a rolling three month basis. 
As at September 2016, the combined capital city median house price was recorded at $600,000 and the median unit price was $510,000. 
Importantly, because a median is based on sales and transactions that are mostly occurring in Sydney and Melbourne, this figure is heavily influenced by these two cities.
<a href="/images/2016/10/25/Quarterly%20median%20house.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/25/Quarterly%20median%20house.jpg" alt="">
With home values rising at a much stronger rate in Sydney and Melbourne there is increasingly a significant premium for housing across these two cities. 
The median house price in Sydney is recorded at $890,000 and the median unit price is $675,000.  In Melbourne, median price are recorded at $641,500 for houses and $485,100 for units.
<a href="/images/2016/10/25/Sydney%20Vs%20Melbourne%20units.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/25/Sydney%20Vs%20Melbourne%20units.jpg" alt="">
The second chart highlights Sydney median unit prices and Melbourne median house prices over time.  Interestingly, Sydney units have regularly been more expensive than Melbourne houses and this remains the case currently. 
In fact, Sydney median unit prices have consistently been higher than Melbourne median house prices since February 2012.
Looking at median selling prices of houses over the September quarter across the individual capital cities shows a substantial premium in Sydney. 
Across the cities, median prices were recorded at: $890,000 in Sydney, $641,500 in Melbourne, $505,000 in Brisbane, $440,000 in Adelaide, $480,000 in Perth, $349,500 in Hobart, $500,000 in Darwin and $625,000 in Canberra. 
The median house price in Sydney is 39% higher or $248,500 more expensive than median prices in the second most expensive city, Melbourne. 
Although the premium for Sydney housing is rising and wide on an historic basis, the Sydney premium (in percentage) terms was higher than it is currently for all capital cities back in late 2003.
<a href="/images/2016/10/25/Quarterly%20median%20selling%20house.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/25/Quarterly%20median%20selling%20house.jpg" alt="">
Turning to the median selling price of units, we’ve already noted that Sydney median unit prices are higher than median house prices in all other capital cities at $675,000. 
Elsewhere median unit prices are recorded at: $485,100 in Melbourne, $390,000 in Brisbane, $351,500 in Adelaide, $410,000 in Perth, $283,000 in Hobart, $440,000 in Darwin and $421,000 in Canberra. 
Sydney’s median unit price is $189,900 or 39% higher than Melbourne’s. 
As with houses, although the Sydney unit premium is substantial, in percentage terms it has been greater in the past.  
<a href="/images/2016/10/25/Quarterly%20median%20selling%20units.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/25/Quarterly%20median%20selling%20units.jpg" alt="">
Although the gap in housing costs has been greater in the past, in dollar value terms it is substantial.
And is likely to be a challenge in the future. Housing in Sydney and Melbourne has become more expensive than elsewhere in the country due to much stronger job and broad economic conditions.
Despite these factors we anticipate that the substantial cost of housing in Sydney will make it a less desirable location for people to migrate to. 
The latest demographic data shows that a greater number of net overseas migrants are choosing to move to NSW rather than Vic. 
Meanwhile, net interstate migration into Vic is at a record high while the outflow from NSW is historically low but has started to pick-up.
We expect that migration, particularly interstate migration, into Vic (which is a proxy for Melbourne) will continue to rise while over the coming years while it is anticipated to slow into NSW (as a proxy for Sydney).
Housing costs are likely to be one of the key drivers of this change. While both economies are strong and creating jobs we expect that more interstate migrants will be attracted to Melbourne due to its substantially more affordable housing costs, rather than Sydney.
Outside of Sydney and Melbourne, cheaper housing alone is proving not enough to attract people to these cities.
This highlights the importance of a strong economy with decent employment prospects and shows that housing affordability alone is no longer enough of a lure to attract migrants to a region.
Cameron Kusher is research analyst for CoreLogic. You can contact him <a href="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/about/">here</a>.
</body></html>

Analysing the Sydney housing price premium: Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released building approvals data for March 2015 yesterday. 
The data showed that over the month there were 19,419 new dwelling approvals which was a record high and 2.8% higher than levels in February. The data highlights that approvals and subsequently new housing construction is continuing to surge across the country.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4655" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-1.jpg" alt="Chart 1" width="500" height="158">
In March there were more units (9,767) approved for construction than there were houses (9,651). Although this may not sound like a big deal, this has only occurred on two previous occasions. 
House approvals were 0.5% higher over the month and are 1.3% higher year on year. In comparison, unit approvals rose 5.3% over the month and are 57.9% higher year on year. Keep in mind that the number of unit approvals tend to be more volatile than houses however, the surge coupled by the fact that there were more approvals for units than houses shows a growing tendency toward new unit construction.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4656" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-2.jpg" alt="Chart 2" width="500" height="159">
Over the past 12 months, there have been a record high 210,484 dwellings approved for construction which is 11.2% higher than at the same time last year. Over the period, there have been 114,874 houses approved and 95,608 units. Although house approvals outnumber unit approvals on an annual basis, unit approvals accounted for a record high 45.4% of all dwelling approvals over the past year.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4657" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-3.jpg" alt="Chart 3" width="500" height="180">
While there is a growing prominence of units approvals, so too is there a growing prominence of these approvals being for high density stock. Over the 12 months to March 2015, a record high 60.5% of all unit approvals were for units in a block of four or more storeys. To put this surge into perspective, 10 years ago just 39.7% of unit approvals were for units in these higher density buildings. You only have to drive through inner city areas of Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane to see that there is a current shift towards much higher density living and today’s data shows there is plenty more in the pipeline.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4658" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-4.jpg" alt="Chart 4" width="500" height="158">
The capital city data isn’t seasonally-adjusted so it doesn’t line-up with the national data however, over the month there were 15,349 dwellings approved for construction across the combined capital cities. Like the national figures, this was also a record high number of approvals following a 9.7% monthly increase and a 33.5% year on year increase.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4659" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-5.jpg" alt="Chart 5" width="500" height="159">
Looking at the split between capital city house and unit approvals there were 6,709 houses and 8,640 units approved for construction over the month. House approvals were 7.5% higher over the month and 9.0% higher year on year. Unit approvals increased by 11.5% over the month and by 61.8% over the year. Although total approvals were at a record high neither houses or units recorded their highest month for approvals.
Across the capital cities, dwelling approvals increased over the month in all capital except for Melbourne and Darwin. year on year approvals are higher in each capital city except for Canberra.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4660" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-6.jpg" alt="Chart 6" width="500" height="157">
Looking at annual approvals across the capital cities, annual approvals are at a record high in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane as well as being just shy of a record high in Perth. Hobart (40.4%), Melbourne (25.5%), Brisbane (25.1%) and Darwin (12.1%) have recorded the greatest increases in approvals over the year. Dwelling approvals have fallen -36.8% in Canberra over the year, while increases in Sydney (4.9%), Adelaide (10.3%) and Perth (11.4%) have been relatively moderate.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4661" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-7.jpg" alt="Chart 7" width="500" height="156">
Annual house approvals were higher in March 2015 than a year earlier in all cities except for Adelaide (-1.3%) and Canberra (-9.0%). Across the remaining cities the annual increases in house approvals were recorded at: 16.5% in Sydney, 14.6% in Melbourne, 29.6% in Brisbane 6.1% in Perth, 54.0% in Hobart and 6.9% in Darwin. What is noticeable from the above chart is that Melbourne (the 2nd largest city) has approved substantially more houses (22,878) than Sydney (the largest city) (13,776). Similarly, Perth (the 4th largest city) has approved far more houses (19,783) than both Sydney and Brisbane (the 3rd largest city) (10,826).
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4662" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-8.jpg" alt="Chart 8" width="500" height="156">
While annual capital city unit approvals have risen by 15.2% over the year, across the capital cities unit approvals were lower over the year in Sydney (-0.2%), Hobart (-6.9%) and Canberra (-49.9%). Elsewhere the annual increases in unit approvals have been recorded at: 35.2% in Melbourne, 21.7% in Brisbane, 36.5% in Adelaide, 28.4% in Perth and 16.6% in Darwin.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4663" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-9.jpg" alt="Chart 9" width="500" height="181">
When we look at the annual approvals picture, more than half of all approvals over the year were for units in Sydney (66.2%), Melbourne (56.9%), Brisbane (58.6%), Darwin (56.2%) and Canberra (53.9%). Over the past 12 months, a record high 52.7% of all capital city dwelling approvals were for units. Unit approvals have accounted for more than half of all approvals in Sydney, Darwin and Canberra for many years however, it is a relatively new phenomena in Melbourne and Brisbane. 
In our opinion this raises some concerns given the rapid ramp-up in unit approvals in these two cities. Although lifestyle preferences are changing we have some concerns about an oversupply of units in these markets. Especially when you consider that unit stock is generally favoured by investors and rents are already growing at their slowest pace in a decade. 
Furthermore, capital growth for units is lower than that for houses across four of the five cities in which there have been more unit approvals than house approvals over the past year, the exception is Darwin. Value growth for units over the year has been particularly sluggish in comparison to house value growth in Melbourne and Brisbane.
The data is encouraging; there remains a large volume of new house and unit developments being approved for construction. Much of the new unit stock is high density which by nature means most of it is taking place in inner city areas. 
Although there is a strong pipeline of construction we continue to have concerns of a new unit oversupply in certain areas, particularly in inner city Melbourne and Brisbane. There are some concerns a record-high level of approvals, should they ultimately end up constructed, should alleviate some of the housing shortages and contribute to a slowing of the escalation in home values. What is somewhat worrying is that the Sydney market, where home values are escalating rapidly on the back of low overall housing supply, is not experiencing as significant a ramp-up of approvals as we are experiencing across most other capital cities. 
</body></html>

Dwelling approvals hit new record highs in March 2015: Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
Measuring the cost of housing and housing affordability is such an abstract idea because it is not a one size fits all measure and there are so many factors which contribute to affordability or unaffordability.
Most of the common measures have one or a number of glowing weaknesses which I will cover.
<ul>
<li>Interest rates</li>
</ul>
What interest rate do you use when a typical mortgage is 25 to 30 years? Most measures utilise the current mortgage rate and while that may tell you what affordability is like now affordability is important to analyse throughout the life of the mortgage not just as you purchase. With generational low mortgage rates right now, affordability in many areas looks good but if rates were to normalise affordability would look very different.
<ul>
<li>Household income</li>
</ul>
What figure do you use for household income? Much like interest rates household incomes will fluctuate over the 25 to 30 year cycle of a mortgage. Given this, are household income measures appropriate or is it better to assume a single or dual income household? Furthermore, outside of the Census, which is conducted every five years, this data is only published semi-regularly and at a state level. Housing markets and income levels are very different across different regions of the country.
<ul>
<li>International comparisons</li>
</ul>
Is a home in Australia the same as a home anywhere else in the world? In the sense that it provides shelter it is, however, tax regimes, the cost and scarcity of developable land, the provision of infrastructure and the availability of jobs are all other factors that contribute to the cost of housing. Furthermore, most comparisons are not apples with apples. Australian housing markets are dominated by detached houses whereas markets like Tokyo, Singapore, Hong Kong and Manhattan are largely apartment markets while London for example is predominately attached housing types (what we would call terraces or townhouses). The fact that Australian homes are, at least for the large part, detached and the largest in the world will also contribute to a higher cost.
Ryan Fox and Richard Finlay from the RBA wrote an excellent paper back in 2012 which provides an overview of some of the challenges around blending household income data with housing prices which is available <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2012/dec/2" target="_blank">here</a>.
CoreLogic RP Data don’t regularly publish a measurement of housing affordability, however, a different perspective on housing affordability is to look at the cost of renting relative to the price of a home. Using our data on advertised median rental rates and median selling prices of homes we can determine how many years difference there is between the cost of renting and the cost of a home. This analysis focusses on the relative affordability between the two primary means of shelter; renting or owning a home. This analysis doesn’t factor in interest rates or household incomes and doesn’t compare internationally. What it does do is look at the difference between the two forms of housing residents have, to rent or to purchase.
With rental growth at its lowest level in more than a decade, we would expect that the number of years of rent required to purchase a home will rise over the coming year. As a result we may see more residents choosing not to purchase their own home despite the low mortgage rates available.
<img src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/chart-1.jpg" alt="chart 1" width="500" height="181">
Across the combined capital cities, the annual rent for a house is $25,552, for a unit it is $24,013 and for combined houses and units (dwellings) it is $25,311. In comparison, the median house price is $559,000, the median unit price is $470,000 and the median dwelling price is $530,000.
Based on this data, to buy a house would take 21.9 years of rental payments, to buy a unit requires 19.6 years of rent and a dwelling would take 20.9 years of rental payments. As the chart shows, the differential has been greater at the end of 2007 and there has been little change over recent years. In saying this, in March 1997, the differential was much lower at 10.8 years for houses and 11.7 years for units.
<img src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/chart-2.jpg" alt="chart 2" width="500" height="182">
In Sydney, the cost of a house is equivalent to 24.6 years of rents and the cost of a unit is 21.7 years of rent.
<img src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/chart-3.jpg" alt="chart 3" width="500" height="182">
Across Melbourne the median house price is equivalent to 23.8 years of rent while the cost of a unit equates to 21.3 years of rent.
<img src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/chart-4.jpg" alt="chart 4" width="500" height="181">
A typical Brisbane house costs 20.9 years’ worth of rent while the typical Brisbane unit costs 17.7 years of rent. Note that the 17.7 years is the lowest since July 2004.
<img src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/chart-5.jpg" alt="chart 5" width="500" height="183">
The median house price in Adelaide is equivalent to 22.0 years of rent and the unit price amounts to 20.6 years of rent.
<img src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/chart-6.jpg" alt="chart 6" width="500" height="182">
The median Perth house costs 21.0 years’ worth of rent while the median unit costs 19.1 years’ worth of rent.
<img src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/chart-7.jpg" alt="chart 7" width="500" height="183">
A typical house in Hobart costs the equivalent of 18.9 years of rent while a unit costs 17.0 years of rent.
<img src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/chart-8.jpg" alt="chart 8" width="500" height="183">
A house in Darwin costs 18.4 years’ worth of rent while a unit costs 18.9 years’ worth of rent.
<img src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/chart-9.jpg" alt="chart 9" width="500" height="182">
The median house price in Canberra is equivalent to 22.6 years of rent while the median unit price is 19.7 years of rent.
<img src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/chart-10.jpg" alt="chart 10" width="500" height="232">
It is also interesting to look at the relativity between cities. The way to read this chart is if you use Sydney as an example, rents are on the left and purchase prices are at the top. Given this, if you rent in Sydney and want to purchase in Sydney it costs 22.4 years of rent, whereas if you live in Sydney but want to purchase in Melbourne it is equivalent to just 16.8 years of your Sydney rent.
The table shows that those renting in the more expensive cities would have a much easier time entering into home ownership outside of these cities. On the other hand, if you are thinking about buying in Sydney but are currently renting in another city you could be in for a nasty shock when you go to purchase.
By no means do I think this analysis is a perfect picture of housing affordability however, I do think it is a different way to measure it. It still has the weakness of using medians and of course, very few people purchase the median home and in particular first time buyers should be looking to purchase below the median price. Nevertheless it does show the difference in the cost of renting and housing and potentially provides some food for thought for those looking to enter into home ownership.
</body></html>

Measuring the relativity of housing costs: Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for the March 2015 quarter recently.
The data showed that over the quarter, headline inflation was recorded at 0.2% taking annual inflation to 1.3%. The Reserve Bank’s (RBA) preferred measures of underlying inflation, the trimmed mean and weighted median, were recorded at an annual rate of 2.3% and 2.4% respectively. Headline inflation is well below the RBA’s target range of 2% to 3% however, underlying inflation is towards the bottom of the RBA target range.
From a housing market perspective, it is useful to understand the real change in home values. We all know that the Sydney market is recording strong rates of value growth at the moment while most other capital cities are seeing more moderate growth. When you take the impact of inflation into consideration, growth is generally much more tepid.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4534" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-14.jpg" alt="Chart 1" width="500" height="181">
Over the 12 months to March 2015, nominal home values across the combined capital cities increased by 7.4% however, including inflation, real home value increases have been recorded at 6.0%.
Across the individual capital cities, real home value growth over the past year has been below 1.5% in all cities except for Sydney (12.5%) and Melbourne (4.2%).
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4535" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-25.jpg" alt="Chart 2" width="500" height="498">
When you compare the annual change in real capital city home values to the 10 year real annual change it shows that only Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane are outperforming the decade average. Elsewhere real home values have increased at a rate which is below the decade average.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4536" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-33.jpg" alt="Chart 3" width="500" height="182">
Over the past five years, real combined capital city home values have increased by 1.2% per annum compared to 2.2% per annum over the past decade and 4.3%pa over the past 15 years.
Over the past five years, real home values have increased at a rate of 4.0% per annum in Sydney and by 1.3% per annum in Melbourne. Every other capital city has recorded real value falls over the period with values down -2.3% per annum in Brisbane, -1.3% per annum in Adelaide, -1.0% per annum in Perth, -3.9% per annum in Hobart, -1.6% per annum in Darwin and -1.2% per annum in Canberra.
Even over the past 10 years home values have fallen in real terms in Hobart whilst they have recorded gains elsewhere. Over the longest time frame shown, 15 years, Perth has recorded the strongest annual value increases at 5.5% per annum, followed by: Melbourne (5.0% per annum), Brisbane (4.8% per annum), Hobart (4.7% per annum), Canberra (4.6% per annum), Adelaide (4.5% per annum), Darwin (4.2% per annum) and Sydney (3.5% per annum).
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4537" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-43.jpg" alt="Chart 4" width="500" height="179">
One of the features of the capital city housing market has been the strength of growth in home values across Sydney and Melbourne since the end of 2008 following value falls during the financial crisis in 2008. From December 2008 to March 2015 nominal home values have increased by 40.2% however, in real terms value growth is much more moderate at 18.2% over the period. Over this period real home values have recorded falls in Brisbane, Adelaide and Hobart while Perth, Darwin and Canberra have each recorded real home value growth of less than 10%. Only Sydney (42.0%) and Melbourne (26.9%) have recorded any significant real increases in home values over the period.
Earlier this week RBA Governor Glenn Stevens noted that there is generally too much attention on the Sydney housing market which ignores the 80% of Australians that don’t live in that city. Looking at the real change in home values really highlights this point; value growth has been comparatively very strong over recent years in Sydney, while most cities have actually recorded real declines in values.
What’s also interesting is that although Sydney is seeing a strong rise in both nominal and real home values currently, over the past 15 years it has been the overall weakest performing capital city housing market.
</body></html>

Inflation adjusted home value growth changes the narrative: Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
The last Census showed that across Australia we have ample bedrooms to cater to our population yet the lack of new housing supply over recent years along with increasing demand for homes has resulted in increases in home values. 
Particularly in Sydney and Melbourne the escalation in home values over recent years has been strong while most other capital cities have largely remained on the sidelines.
The 2011 Census showed that at that time there were 21,507,717 residents of the country. The data also showed that there were 7,760,320 private dwellings which were occupied at the time with a further 10.7% unoccupied. Given this, and if we assume that everyone has a dwelling to live in, each occupied dwellings would have an average of 2.77 residents.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4530" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Number-of-bedrooms.jpg" alt="Number of bedrooms" width="1349" height="680">
According to the Census data, on average occupied dwellings in Australia have 3.1 bedrooms which is theoretically more than ample bedrooms to house the population. 
The above table which is lifted from the Census shows that there are far more bedrooms than required across the country. In fact, if we exclude those labelled as ‘none’, assume the four bedrooms or more category is just four bedrooms and exclude those where the number of bedrooms aren’t stated there were 22,866,601 bedrooms at the time of the 2011 Census. When you consider that many married couples sleep in the same room there is actually a substantial oversupply of bedrooms nationally.
The problem is we have a housing market and taxation system which largely discourages home owners from moving to more appropriate accommodation as their lifestyle evolves. Furthermore, the high cost of housing makes it difficult for some younger home owners to move into more appropriate accommodation as their family grows.
 First of all, home owners are taxed via stamp duty when they buy a new home, if they also sell they incur agent commissions. Both of these factors act as a disincentive for home owners to move on a more regular basis. 
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4531" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-24.jpg" alt="Chart 2" width="500" height="180">
The disincentive for home owners to move on a more regular basis is highlighted when we look at the turnover of house and unit stock. On a monthly basis, the record-high number of sales occurred in July 2003 when there were 59,414 sales over the month. In comparison over the past 12 months there has been an average of 40,561 dwelling sales a month which is -32% lower than the peak.
While sales volumes peaked in July 2003, the national population was recorded at 19.7 million persons at the end of June 2003. The latest data to September 2014 shows that the national population was 23.6 million persons which is 3.9 million more persons than there were in June 2003. Despite the fact that the population is substantially larger than it was in 2003 there are now fewer homes selling. 
Housing is one of the most heavily taxed asset classes; the most recent data for the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) showed that over the 2012-13 financial year, $35.931 billion in property related taxes were collected by state and local governments. Looking at the breakdown of this data, property related taxes were collected from the following sources: 17% was land taxes, 40% was municipal rates, 36% was stamp duty on conveyances, 3% was government guarantee borrowing levies and 4% was from other sources. 
Stamp duty in particular is the most contentious of these taxes because it is only collected from homes which are transacted rather than being broadly taxed on all homes. Over a typical year only around 5% to 7% of properties nationally are sold, given this more than a third of all property related revenue is collected based on how many homes are sold in a given year. As I have mentioned previously, in my opinion shifting away from a turnover dependent tax such as stamp duty to a more stable and broad tax such as land tax would seemingly make sense as well as potentially improve labour mobility and encourage residents to shift into more appropriate accommodation.
While investment properties incur capital gains tax, the sale of a home that is owner occupied doesn’t incur any capital gains tax. If the owner occupied home is sold, agent commissions are payable and if a new home is purchased stamp duty would be payable. This is probably one of the major reasons for the excess number of bedrooms across the country, after the children move out of home there is simply no real incentive to downsize. Furthermore, many homes have seen significant value appreciation over the past 25 years so there is substantial equity in these homes which can be withdrawn by the owners.
As owners of owner occupied property enter into retirement, their tax-free home is also currently not included in the pension asset test. Essentially this means that if an owner has held their home for say 25 years they have likely seen a significant rise in the home’s value and can then retire and still receive the pension. Again, if they were to sell and re-purchase they would incur stamp duty so there is little incentive to do so. Most people enter retirement with little or no mortgage so excluding the family home from the pension asset test seems counter-intuitive as it creates an additional cost to the government for people who can afford to sell or take out a reverse mortgage in order to fund their own retirement. On the other hand, there is the argument that some pensioners have very little other than their home to fund their retirement so there would likely need to be some balancing with regard to this policy. You also don’t necessarily want to put pensioners in a position where they have to sell their home to fund their retirement and as a result have to move further away from their support network.
Australia needs to investigate ways to encourage greater household mobility along with encouraging people to shift over time into more appropriate housing. The removal of stamp duty would seem like an easy place to start along with including the family home in the pension asset test for retirees. Stamp duty removal would make it easier for home owners to move into more appropriate and suitable accommodation as their family life cycle changes. Including the family home in the pension asset test may act as a disincentive for retirees to stay in their large tax-free homes and would also reduce the impost on the Government to pay a pension to these retirees, many of whom have the equity in their home to fund their own retirement or could release the equity to fund their retirement by moving to a smaller home.
The data clearly shows that there isn’t an undersupply of bedrooms, it is simply that many of these homes are locked away from the market because there is no incentive to move homes. Incentivising home owners to shift to more appropriate accommodation could go a long way to improving supply-side issues in the housing market.
</body></html>

Australia has a glut of bedrooms but a dearth of policies: Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
Earlier this week the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released building activity data for the December 2014 quarter. 
The data includes quarterly figures for dwelling commencements and dwelling completions. With a record number of dwelling approvals coming through the system, it is important to track this data as it provides insight into how many of these approvals are ultimately being constructed.
Over the past 30 years, approvals and commencements have been highly correlated with the vast majority being approved and commenced in the same quarter. If we look at the relationship between approvals and completions, most houses are completed two quarters after approval while most units are constructed three quarters after being approved. 
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4516" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-13.jpg" alt="Chart 1" width="500" height="179">
Based on this data over the past 30 years, 96.5% of house approvals have moved to the commencement phase and 96.2% of unit approvals have been commenced. 
Looking at the completion rate for houses based on a two quarter lag, 95.1% of houses which have been approved are ultimately completed. For units the completion rate has been somewhat lower. Using a three quarter lag between approval and completion, 86.9% of units approved for construction have been completed. 
On this logic, detached housing approvals are much more likely to result in a completed product, with a fallout rate of just 5%, while apartment approvals are less likely to ultimately be constructed, with a dropout rate close to 15%.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4517" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-23.jpg" alt="Chart 2" width="500" height="179">
The results are much different over the past five years with the correlations not as strong as they have been over the longer term, particularly for apartments. 
The commencement rate for properties approved for construction over the past five years has been stronger than it has been over the past 30 years. Over the past 30 years, 96.5% of houses approved had been commenced in the same quarter compared to 98.1% over the past five years. For units, the commencement of approvals has typically been a quarter later over the past five years however, the likelihood of commencement has increased from 96.2% over the past 30 years compared to 97.8% over the past five years. 
Looking at the completion rate of approvals over the past five years, with a lag of two quarters 96.7% of houses approved for construction have been completed over the past five years. For units, based on a three quarter lag 85.1% of units approved have been completed. Note that the completion rate of houses over the past five years has been stronger than over the past 30, while the unit approval to completion rate has been slightly lower.
One of the possible reasons for the reduced completion rate of units is likely to be the increasing level of high density unit construction. While the data indicates a lag of three quarters from approval to completion the reality is higher density unit construction takes significantly longer to complete often a number of years. 
The data highlights, whether you look at it over the longer or shorter timeframe, that houses which are approved for construction are ultimately more likely to be completed than units. With a record-high number of unit approvals currently there is no guarantee that they will all end up constructed. The long term and short term averages indicate we should expect around 15% of apartment approvals won’t transition to a completed product.
The more timely dwelling approvals data showed an all-time high number of approvals in January and the second strongest month on record in February. The data clearly shows that the pipeline of housing construction is continuing to grow and that commencements will likely remain high for most of 2015 while the heightened level of completions is likely to extend out over the next few years at least.
</body></html>

The relationship between dwelling approvals, commencements and completions: Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
Regional population growth data was recently released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for the year to June 2014.
By combining this data over time with dwelling approvals over time we can derive localised information to approximate the extent of oversupply and undersupply in the capital city housing markets.
The combined capital cities recorded an increase in population over the 12 months to June 2014 of 288,994 persons, down from an increase of 308,206 persons the previous year. While the population increased by 288,994 persons, there were a record-high 145,268 dwelling approvals over the year. The population increase was -6.2% lower over the year while the number of dwelling approvals was 25.6% higher. Based purely on a ratio of population growth to dwelling approvals there was one dwelling approved for construction for every 1.99 residents added to the capital cities. This represents a significant improvement on the ratio of one dwelling approval for every 2.66 new residents over the previous year.
The 2011 Census reported that across the nation, households had an average of 2.6 persons. Based on this figure, we have approved significantly more homes than required based on population growth over the past year. Unfortunately, measuring housing demand is not quite so simple. We must also consider how much of the new demand is from overseas migration compared to natural increase as well as factors such as demolitions and holiday home demand.
I haven’t found any literature on housing demand from overseas migration compared to natural increase however; I think it is a reasonable assumption that overseas migration creates a more immediate addition to housing demand than natural increase. There has been a noticeable slump in net overseas migration to Australia over the past year. Although it is a little bit old now, the former Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank (RBA) gave a speech entitled ‘Housing and the Economy’ to the National Housing Conference in November 2009. Two of the most interesting and relevant points to housing demand from the speech were:
<ul>
<li>A higher proportion of the new dwellings built are simply replacing existing homes that have been demolished. The RBA estimated that between 2001 and 2006, around 15% of new dwellings built replaced those that had been demolished; 10 to 15 years earlier that figure was less than 10%. </li>
<li>A significant proportion of dwelling investment appears to have gone into holiday homes or second homes. Census data (2006 Census) shows that the number of dwellings built has exceeded the increase in the number of households by a large margin. As a result, the ratio of the number of dwellings to the number of households has been rising over time; as at 2006, there were 8% more dwellings in Australia than there were households. Presumably, most of this surplus reflects holiday homes and second homes.</li>
</ul>
Based on these two points from the former Deputy Governor’s speech, in order to cater to dwelling replacements and secondary homes we should construct 23% more dwelling than the previous simplistic analysis of measuring the rate of population growth compared to approvals. There are a few points and assumptions to keep in mind here:
<ol>
<li>This analysis is based on approvals not completions and approvals won’t necessarily become a completion; based on our calculations completion rates are historically 98% for houses and 85% for units. </li>
<li>The heightened level of inner-city unit development in most instances would see fewer homes demolished to make way for this new construction. </li>
<li>Holiday and second homes ae generally more likely to be located outside of the capital city than within. </li>
<li>Anecdotally activity from foreign buyers is increasing, a proportion of these homes sit unoccupied and don’t even enter into the rental market. So while the supply of housing has increased if the property sits vacant it is more reflective of secondary homes.</li>
</ol>
Given these qualifications, the point about holiday and second homes is likely to be less relevant here, but in the absence of more up-to-date data we will still allow for the 15% of homes which have been demolished when looking at the approvals data.
The 2011 Census reported that on average, Sydney, Brisbane and Darwin had 2.7 persons per household, Melbourne, Perth and the ACT had 2.6 persons per household and Adelaide and Hobart had 2.4 persons per household. Returning to the original findings, over the year to June 2014 the capital city population increased by 288,994 persons and 145,268 dwellings were approved for construction.
If we adjust these figures based on the average household sizes as at the 2011 Census, based on population growth the capital cities required 109,825 new homes. If we further adjust for the assumption that the country needs to approve 15% more homes to replace demolitions, the capital cities required 126,298 new homes last year. Given this, 18,970 more homes were approved for construction than were required over the year compared to a deficiency of 19,076 homes the previous year.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4473" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-11.jpg" alt="Chart 1" width="500" height="181">
The above chart shows that new dwelling approvals were typically sufficient for the rate of population growth throughout the 1990s however, since the beginning of the 2000s population growth has boomed while new approvals have largely been unresponsive. Dwelling approvals are now climbing on the back of rising home values and increasing demand for homes. Keep in mind, the heightened level of dwelling construction will have to persist for a number of years to make up for the cumulative effect of the insufficient supply response over the past decade or so.
Over the past year, each capital city had more homes approved for construction than was required based on population growth. While dwelling construction is a positive outcome for the economy, it is important to note that an approval doesn’t necessarily translate into a completion. Furthermore, there is a time lag between approval and completion; these homes are required right now, not in a year or twos time (or longer in some unit developments).
The following charts track the annual population growth and annual number of swelling approvals across each of the capital cities.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4474" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-21.jpg" alt="Chart 2" width="500" height="180">
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4475" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-31.jpg" alt="Chart 3" width="500" height="179">
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4476" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-41.jpg" alt="Chart 4" width="500" height="178">
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4477" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-51.jpg" alt="Chart 5" width="500" height="179">
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4478" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-61.jpg" alt="Chart 6" width="500" height="179">
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4479" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-7.jpg" alt="Chart 7" width="500" height="180">
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4480" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-8.jpg" alt="Chart 8" width="500" height="181">
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4481" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-9.jpg" alt="Chart 9" width="500" height="179">
The above charts show that the disconnect between new dwelling approvals and population growth since the beginning of the 2000s has been largest across the four most populous capital cities. These four cities are also home to a majority of the national population and have also been recording the greatest increase in residents over that period.
A further important consideration for housing supply and demand is the type of new product that is being built. While the city-wide analysis can be useful it should be remembered that new housing is typically either new detached houses on the outskirts of the city or medium to high density product within the inner city areas. We are seeing over time a shift from greenfield and brownfield detached housing development to inner city infill and higher density development across most capital cities. In fact, over the past year more than half of all capital city dwelling approvals have been for units as opposed to houses.
Article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
The analysis shows that within the four largest capital cities there has been a deficiency of dwellings approved for construction over recent years compared to the rate of population growth.
Over the past 24 months or so there has been a surge in dwelling approvals, at the same time the rate of population growth has slowed. The RBA has spoken many times about looking to extend this period of heightened construction activity for a number of years. Not only would this have a multiplier effect throughout the economy but it would also help to improve the undersupply of housing which currently exists.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4482" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-10.jpg" alt="Chart 10" width="500" height="182">
In 1991, 29.9% of all dwelling approvals across the combined capital cities were for units showing an overwhelming majority of approvals were for houses. Over the most recent year, 51.6% of capital city dwelling approvals were units. In 2013 (50.1%) and 2014 (51.6%) it was the first time that there were a greater number of capital city unit approvals than house approvals. The above chart shows that since 2010 when 38.1% of all approvals were for units, there has been a strong trend towards a smaller proportion of house approvals.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4483" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chart-111.jpg" alt="Chart 11" width="500" height="180">
Over the past 12 months, each of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Darwin and Canberra have approved more units than houses. Sydney, Darwin and Canberra have approved a majority of units for more than a decade however, in Melbourne and Brisbane the rising prominence of unit approvals is a relatively new phenomena. Adelaide, Perth and Hobart have each recorded a significantly lower proportion of unit approvals, in fact as a proportion, Perth and Hobart had fewer unit approvals last year than they had 20 years ago.
Data from the 2011 Census showed that across the separate house category, the most prevalent number of bedrooms is three bedrooms (49.6%) and four bedrooms (32.4%). When you combine the Census data for semi-detached and units, the most prominent number of bedrooms in two bedrooms (50.1%) and three bedrooms (28.6%). To look at it another way, 88.8% of detached houses have three bedrooms or more compared to 66.9% of units having two bedrooms or fewer. The point being that more units are being approved (and constructed) however, they typically have fewer bedrooms and are likely to have a smaller average household size than a detached house would. Given this, it is likely that as more units are constructed, we will actually need more housing than we would have if houses had been exclusively built because of the potential smaller household size. The challenge of course is that while the pipeline of approvals is very strong, there are more unit approvals than houses and ultimately these units are less likely to be built than houses.
The other feature we are seeing in the market is the rise and rise (and rise) of the investor segment. In fact the value of loans to investors has been greater than new loans to owner occupiers over each of the past six months and that has never happened before. A lot of the new unit construction taking place is to cater to demand from the investment segment of the market. The important thing to note is that while investment style detached houses are fairly similar to houses for owner occupiers, the same is not necessarily the case for units. The type of unit that someone is willing to live in while they are renting is often quite different to what they would be willing to live in as an owner occupier. This is largely in relation to internal floor area, kitchen size and design and balcony size. With investment purchases surging, a large proportion of the new unit development is targeted at that market while units for owner occupation are not as prevalent.
Of course developers build what product is going to sell. The potential cause for concern is that many of these investors exit the housing market when the returns aren’t as strong as they currently are. What could then happen is a lot of investment stock hits the market at a time of falling demand coupled with a product offering which is not what the market wants.
Despite this potential cause for concern, it is very encouraging to see an improving relationship between housing demand and housing supply. With population growth looking likely to slow further it would be encouraging, particularly from a housing affordability perspective if the heightened level of approvals persisted. More importantly of course will be that we see these approvals ultimately constructed, particularly in our largest capital cities where housing deficiency has been greatest.
</body></html>

Cameron Kusher

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Cameron Kusher

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News