Housing prices in the NorthCreated: 28 November 2012
This topic contains 4 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Adelaide Builder 5 years, 8 months ago.
November 28, 2012 at 10:52 am #1647
Northern Australia is an area of incredible potential, but without an increase in the availability of affordable housing this is a potential that will never be reached.
Although many landowners are reaping the rewards of high rents and soaring house prices, the lack of affordable housing is acting as a major disincentive to population growth.
Critical housing shortages have been a major problem in the Pilbara, for instance, for several years. Despite a slowdown in the resources sector, the September quarter saw house prices reach new record highs. Prices in Port Hedland grew 2.3 per cent, while South Hedland saw prices rise 7 per cent.
Darwin has also been the sight of housing shortages and ballooning rents. Australian Property Monitors (APM) recently released a study showing that rental prices rose nearly 8 per cent in the September quarter, becoming Australia’s highest.
APM senior economist Dr Paul Wilson noted that “the Darwin rental market continues to struggle with an underlying shortage of available housing.”
A huge growth in demand for housing is being driven – in both cases – by demand from the resources sector, and the use of fly-in fly-out workers in some areas.
While the government can’t and shouldn’t stop the use of FIFO workers, increasing residential land supply and streamlining planning approvals could encourage the creation of much more sustainable communities.
Otherwise inflated house prices provide a disincentive for people to transition to permanent residency.
More needs to be done to take advantage of the major employment opportunities available in the North, using this potential to create thriving regional cities. Releasing land for residential development might ruffle some feathers in the short term but without affordable housing, attracting the human capital necessary to achieve the North’s vast potential will remain just a dream.December 29, 2012 at 8:46 pm #1806
Agree that those towns all have different data pre-2000. The prbolem is that it doesn’t really exist at least it’s not published that far back by Case-Shiller. For what it’s worth, San Francisco prices peaked just above 200 on their metric, or double the Jan 1, 2000 price this is only slightly higher than the country as a whole, illustrated by the 20-city composite and also visible in the smaller, classic graphic.April 30, 2013 at 12:25 am #2262
Don’t forget the high cost associated with building code regulation.
There’s more red tape even after jumping through the planning hoops.
The worse part is that they keep moving the goal posts every year by revising the Building Code every year.
Howzat for certainty. Give a bureaucrat regulator a hammer and everything starts to look like a nail – and they don’t know how to stop. Since you can’t fire a bureaucrat, our tax dollars simply keep them there where they do maximum damage. It would be ok if our tax dollars simply paid them to sit there and do nothing, but they can’t stop hammering, after a while the whole thing looks like a dog’s breakfast and when SHTF the proposed solution is to hire more bureaucrats to fix the problem – none dare call it cancer, in more euphemistic terms it might be referred to as government failure… but hang on a minute they say, don’t you mean “market failure?”… just goes to show how…
Accreditation of trades and building professions in the NT are tightly controlled by government monopolies. Essentially a cartel. Have a look at the composition of the boards that issue these licences – two words – ‘vested interests’
The barriers are so high to get into any accredited discipline, you ask yourself why you would even bother.
If someone was to do a study on the economics and cost of planning and building regulation in the NT, I would wager a bet that the cost to the consumer is at least a quarter of the cost of buying a house up here.
Enough of the ranting… Queensland is looking more appealing by the day.May 20, 2013 at 2:35 pm #2317
RussellSeptember 19, 2013 at 1:10 pm #2816
Its very complicated building in Darwin.
Cyclone provisions are seriously restrictive which makes it to difficult build in general. There is a also a lack of competitive/innovative building products and new building methods entering the Darwin market. New products and methods have to go through an arduous amount of bureaucracy just to get started. The requirements demanded also seem to be over the top when compared with other generally accepted methods of building. This makes the antiquated status quo more financially attractive to buyers. This combined with time delays and an endless line of red tape makes it very difficult to compete. The whole system seems to be restrictive to new entrants and is bringing forward a skewed market place. The end result is investment into the Darwin market is stifled and competition destroyed. I can only put it down to small town mentality and the stick in the mud attitude of planning and building departments.
Some suggested solutions: Firstly shake up the planning department and simplify approval process. Next assist new entrants to negotiate the difficult engineering and building requirements.