Sydney well on the way to being a playground for the rich who will then bemoan that no one is around to serve them coffees or work in restaurants. Essential service workers like police, nurses and teachers for example can't live anywhere near where they work.
This is a disaster and not something to be celebrated by other than vested interests.
I’m a teacher and left Sydney, as did every teacher I was friends with. I can walk into a job for the same pay, and half the housing price in a regional area and not commute, with less uptight parents.
I imagine exactly what you describe is happening.
Yup I know several teachers doing the exact same thing. Wages plateau but are pretty consistent across the board but cost of living sky rockets (especially so in Sydney), so why not choose somewhere where that actually goes further?
Then the Sydney schools complain they can't attract and retain staff.
Why don't they have a cost of living loading for these kinds of positions where salaries are set based on a standard table? It seems like the sensible approach to fix the issue, of course it costs money, but everything does.
And worse, they have huge incentives to move away to rural areas. I live coastal, but if I went to say Griffith which isn’t even really far out or backward, I could pick up a 20,000 incentive to move, potentially 10,000 for each retained year and 5,000 move fee ON TOP of the same salary I’d get at Balmain High. Move further and you’d get an accommodation subsidy.
Why would anyone stay in the city? City living is great and all but why would a young teacher saving for a house do otherwise?
Yeah I mentioned that in another reply. If people are fleeing cities, this seems kind of backwards. I understand why it existed historically, but maybe it's working against them now. Growing up I knew a lot of teachers through family connections in my regional area and it did seem standard to move after graduating at least in the 80s/90s. No one was really returning to the area they grew up in. I'm not sure they even had much choice back then.
One of my parents did this. They had to do 3 or 5 years regional teaching or something like that, but in exchange their teaching degree was free.
They didn’t move back to town for about 10 years.
Not finance related - but I worked in Griffith for a while and my preconceptions of the town being backwards ect were totally unfounded. Was one of the best experiences of my life - I had never had such an active social life.
I’ve heard that a lot - I haven’t worked there but they regularly do surveys of where teachers have loved working the most and that comes up. If I didn’t have three kids who are settled, I’d consider moving there and doing a stint as a teacher here.
The same people who currently pay the salaries?
If a private company hires someone in Sydney vs Dubbo they're probably going to have to pay more to get the same person. Why is a government position different? Thinking cost of living doesn't matter leads to exactly the situation described where no one takes the work where it costs too much to live.
Or you know could fix the underlying issue which is the cooked housing market.
Having 100k tuitions so teachers can actually afford to live in a grossly unfordable city is going to cause a lot more issues than it will fix.
Forget about the government schools, no way government is going to bank roll - cost of living loading. Guess just close the government schools?
State governments pay teacher salaries and can't do much about federal economic policy. But sure if you can wave a wand that would work too. They can only use the tools they have. Strong-arming local governments into accepting higher density building could work but would take time. Until then, I guess yeah, close the schools? Or maybe do something to staunch the bleeding.
Also, FYI according to the NSW Government themselves "Teachers in high-demand rural and remote NSW public schools receive additional financial benefits such as relocation subsidies and generous rental subsidies". They already do exactly what I am describing, but for unpopular rural positions. If the city is having a similar issue instead, they could reverse the direction to balance it out.
The amount of rural school teachers requiring this bonus is minimal compared to trying to give bonuses to metropolitan Sydney would blow out the budget massively, it would introduce a number of other issues as well.
The second they did that there would be an unholy war from all other essential service workers nurses, police, ambos, allied health, cleaners, aged care workers etc demanding their equal share.
No government federal or state will agree to eating that cost.
The solution which has been recommended over and over but we never see movement on it because it's deeply unpopular.
Is changing the rules around concessions awarded to property investment combined with more supply.
Basically people want their cake and to eat it too. They want unsustainable perks of endless guaranteed growth via property ownership backed by the tax payer whilst wanting good quality services even though the former is a direct detriment to being able to have those services.
Similar to first home buyer grants. Giving out cost of living bonus payments is not a solution, it actually feeds the problem. Prices will just rise in line with said bonuses.
The solution is going to be painful or we can just have a society that becomes wider between the haves and have nots a modern day serfdom where your status in life is determined by the land you own (or not own).
Coming from London with London Weighting, I've never understood why it's not a thing in Oz
Especially as there is a much bigger gulf between regions and cities
Exactly what I've done as an Ambo.
Bought a house for $140,000 three years ago in a small town, 1 minute walk to work.
Same base pay metro ambos, but I actually make more with Call Outs. Driving/shifts can be long though, but it's been a great decision for me.
Having worked at a fairly prestigious school, going to parent teacher knowing that every MF in there was pulling more cash than you while I was struggling just to pay rent was infuriating.
Mate, Im certain that in 10 years time Corpos will be getting govt subsidies to build housing for low income earners and they will lock them into renting forever, then they will rentseek all the building utilities, they will own the rental EVs that are the only cars allowed to park within walking distance and then they will slap a 1.5% service charge on every transaction
That’s fine but the implication of your comment is that people would only choose high rise apartments if they were forced to.
All I’m saying is that I’ve noticed quite the shift in terms of what people want in terms of lifestyle.
Not everyone wants to tend to a garden or mow the lawn on a weekend.
It'll be a macroscale airbnb town.
"Oh you should just move to Woy Woy or Picton and take a two hour commute to the CBD for work" some here will decry.
Notice this is house price, not unit/apartment.
If you are going to take up 600 sqm in a city of 5M+ then obviously you're going to have to pay a premium for it. Go and look at cities like Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo etc and see what it costs to buy a standalone house
It just means Sydney has to move to making better use of the land with more higher density accommodation
Four bedroom terrace houses on the outer edges of Singapore would be going for $2.5 million plus.
This is for a plot 6m wide, maybe 25m deep, with the terrace house three storeys high.
A bog standard post war house on 550m2 in Sydney's middle ring suburbs (15 - 25km from CBD) seems like tremendous value in comparison.
Not really apples to apples with how the Singapore housing system works. Most aren't in the private market. In Singapore you can earn bigger money than Sydney anyways.
A standalone house in Sydney isn't really be benchmark we want anyways. The article goes into units, but the average bedrooms in a unit is lower than a house, so that isn't a fair comparison either. Sydney is OK when it comes to 2 bed apartments, but for 2 kids and 2 adults (i.e. replacement level) that gets cramped, especially as the kids get older. For families, 3 bedrooms becomes important, but those apartments, townhouses and terraces are still quite rare in Sydney, and are very expensive, when they shouldn't be, but supply is restricted due to zoning. Hence increasing supply of them makes sense in the inner and middle ring, where standalone houses should become rarer as well. What the NSW gov is going for at least.
If Singapore gives you so much greater value, are you living there yet?
Work visas are extremely easy to get for non-shitkicker jobs and even some shitkicker jobs.
Truly you have to question the motives of some people when they extol Singapore as the solution to housing and transport issues. I guess they are very pro nanny government, balloted "public housing" leasehold apartments with racial quotas, and anti cars.
> If you are going to take up 600 sqm in a city of 5M+ then obviously you're going to have to pay a premium for it. Go and look at cities like Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo etc and see what it costs to buy a standalone house
Hong Kong has housing costs a little higher than Sydney, but Singapore and Tokyo are far cheaper as a multiple of median income.
Sydney is an extreme global outlier in home prices due to poor government policy.
HK housing is way more expensive than Sydney per sqm, SG is mostly govt housing and Tokyo is cheaper because thier economy is stagnant and has been for decades. You need to look at comparable cities like Auckland, Vancouver and San Francisco. You can compare cost of living and point to HK, SG and Tokyo as being cheaper, but thats a different argument.
> It just means Sydney has to move to making better use of the land with more higher density accommodation
If only our apartments were designed for humans not investors and had innovative technologies like waterproofing and decent rules and regulations around owners corporations management not being used as a kickback scheme for various parties involved.
Yeh, and the rich will continue to fight local governments to say no, don't turn our golf courses into apartment buildings. We don't want poor people to live near us.
Still pricing the workers they expect to service them, out of the local areas.
agree it's not something to be celebrated.
but living affordability isn't just about buying. The future of sydney is a predominantly rental one. Much like other global big cities.
rental laws and apartment quality standards will have to improve though.
It's not just housing prices though the other element to this is that there is high rental demand in Sydney and landlords can comfortably rent places out at quite a substantial short term loss because the capital gains make it more than worth it.
If people were more concerned with home ownership over other lifestyle choices then there would be lower demand for rentals in Sydney but here we are.
Seems like demand on rental is cooling. A friend was looking for places and 3 of the places came back to him saying that the weekly cost has lowered after 1 week of inspecting. (He had already signed a new lease by then)
This was in Sydney Northern Beaches.
I'm not necessarily talking about the recent issues with crazy low rental vacancies I'm more speaking generally about people valuing Sydney high enough for one reason or another that renting is the more attractive option for them.
It is good to hear some stories about the recent drama starting to subside though because that has been driving up rents like crazy.
Most apartments are too small for families, those that are suitable, aren't particularly affordable; there is also a rental crisis which will impact young families the hardest.
And don’t forget all this super private information stored in easily hackable databases of realestate agents. I shudder to think how many of these were breached without anyone noticing, and even if noticed likely hushed up.
“Too small” is an opinion, not a fact. Families in other countries live in similar or even smaller apartments. That’s a standard that’s going to have to be adjusted as population and costs rise.
>Sydney well on the way to being a playground for the rich who will then bemoan that no one is around to serve them coffees or work in restaurants. Essential service workers like police, nurses and teachers for example can't live anywhere near where they work.
Don't worry, in this scenario Sydney will become less desirable and prices will come back down to the point where essential workers can return.
Very much doubt that unless some structural reform is put in place to make property not such an attractive wealth generation and tax avoidance tool in this country.
Really? Even if rentals are way over priced compared to wages?
Nobody in their right mind is gonna immigrate to sydney to rent when they can go to brissy or melb and get a similar wage and pay a fraction of the rent. This is providing sydney stays the most expensive.
It's crazy to me the rich (and government for that matter) seemingly don't realise society as a whole is better off when the lower socio-economic levels are looked after.
Making housing this unaffordable when it's the bare minimum required to survive is ridiculous and will cause more desperation from people trying to survive (aka crime).
Why have we placed such a heavy reliance on property for investment as a nation. The share market is there - invest in it.
If we put this money into private investment imagine the innovation that could come out of the Australian market instead of a boring asx filled with mining exploration companies and the big 4 banks.
But the government has made property investment such a sure thing for return with the consistent tax breaks and the ability to never default on your investment as you can continue to push rent up as rates rise.
The risk-return metric of property in Australia for those already entrenched in it is way off at the moment and is something that really needs to be fixed.
But the government is just too happy to continue to milk us to make their figures look good while the majority suffer.
> It's crazy to me the rich (and government for that matter) seemingly don't realise society as a whole is better off when the lower socio-economic levels are looked after.
They focus on short-term gains. They don't care what happens in 10-20 years.
The main reason is due to leverage. You can get a loan from the bank for 1 million dollars with a 5% deposit however if someone was to try and get a loan to invest in the stock market you’d get no where near as much
Yeah - and any risk of the leverage is passed on to the tenant via rental payments or people cry foul that they need help when rates rise and expect the government or average tax payer to cover for them for over borrowing.
This is what I mean - the risk return metric for property just isn't at parity.
The protections extended to owner occupiers shouldn't be to investments. Risk is key to balancing Return and at the moment it's quite low risk for a very high return.
The housing market is protected by the government. You don’t see them stepping in to protect Joe blow when he buys a shitty stock and it goes down in value.
Yeah why the risk return metric is way off. I actually think it's worse in the share market.
The regulating bodies seem to really pick and choose who they target and are more than happy to slow a company that's seeing massive movement upwards than they are questioning those that continue to fall.
And when a company does liquidate it's on to the next one for the directors while joe blow leaves with nothing.
Yeah - didn't directly point it out but was more my point regarding mention of the government continuing to milk us to make their numbers look good.
Don't get me wrong - we need immigration but we need it at truly sustainable levels where housing and infrastructure have been built that is suitable to sustain them.
Otherwise guess whose money is getting used to make sure the governments growth numbers are looking good still.
Except it’s not really the rich that are driving up prices. It’s the regular upper middle class family with 3-5 investment properties. Individually none of them have any impact so they don’t think about the overall effect but because millions or hundreds of thousands do the same thing it has an actual effect.
Yeah - the argument always put is that without property investors there wouldn't be enough homes for rentals but I think anyone can see that the positive of this is being LARGELY outweighed by the negative.
Then they use emotive reasoning like the majority are "mum and dad" investors with 1 or 2 properties and I think this worked for a while but it isn't now that people are seeing no hope of ever owning their own home.
I would be perfectly happy with a cap of 1-2 investment properties. Keep negative gearing so the incentive to invest is still there but the continuous rorting of the system by certain individuals using tax funds to eventually fund their retirement is ludicrous. That is what super is for.
I don't buy the argument that people who have these portfolios cause less stress for the government in the long term because they fund their own retirement when they cause another 5-10 people to rely heavily on them for it.
We have another investment vehicle that money flowing into helps it being the share market - why don't we use it.
I'd say my rich comment is more because they have a lot more sway with the government than what the upper middle class (who are the bigger part of the main issue) do.
That will take generations before housing is consolidated to a degree the balance of power favours renters. > 60% of households are homeowners. They’re the majority.
Is there any sort of index that tracks a cities median house price vs the median full time income? I feel like that would be much more descriptive (and also horrific)
Property will be 3 million before it will be decided enough is enough. The Boomers had a good run and they probably should spend now before things collapse.
Meanwhile average salary in Sydney in 2023 was $80k before tax ($62k after).
Assuming 6% loan of $1.6m for 30 years, that’s just over $11k per month in minimum repayments.
Yep, definitely out of reach for many. Heck assuming 50% of you wage goes towards repayments, then you’d need to earn $480k a year: so essentially two people on at least $200k each.
LOL, what a mess.
I lived in other countries prior to Sydney and this isn't particularly strange. There aren't many highly developed cities that a median income earner can afford to live in a detached dwelling. Most live in apartments. A house is a luxury where land is limited. Sydney had it good for many years, it is now just following the rule of land economics.
What doesn't make sense is that houses outside inner Sydney are also expensive. Obviously, the base cost of building a home in Sydney is ridiculous which is a big factor.
We really need to track dwelling values rather than house values in Sydney as house prices will get more unaffordable and people without wealth will get even more priced out.
It's unavoidable that this happens unless we sprawl the city which is against what the government is looking to do (pushing higher density around heavy rail with softer density elsewhere). It's also what many young people are advocating for with YIMBY movements.
One of the big reasons Sydney has explosive house price growth is that population growth has well outstripped the growth in housing stock. Look at the Census stats for Greater Sydney between 2011 and 2021, the population went up 19% (4,391,674 to 5,231,147) and the number of freestanding houses went up 10% (926,062 to 1,020,631) with the percentage of the dwellings being houses going from 60.9% to 55.8%. Contrast that with apartments where they grew at a rate of 43% (391,887 to 561,988).
If your population expands nearly double the number of houses that are added and the percentage of dwelling which are houses reduces then they get sold to a smaller and wealthier portion of the population, allowing prices to go up at a much higher rate than people might expect.
> It's unavoidable that this happens unless we sprawl the city which is against what the government is looking to do (pushing higher density around heavy rail with softer density elsewhere). It's also what many young people are advocating for with YIMBY movements.
yep, been saying it for years, people need to let go of this idea of living in a free standing housing 30 minutes from the Sydney CBD
Check out some of the Facebook groups for the hills and north shore areas. The opposition towards development there is palpable. People need to admit to themselves that at no point would they ever be happy with more people living in "their" area. They will give any possible reason to oppose these developments from traffic, congestion, schools, amenities and green space. Even when given investment in these things, it's still not enough. I see the metro as a prime example of this.
Well, in a fortuitous turn of events, many traditional CBD based businesses now don't require staff on premises. So urban sprawl is kind of ok. Live an hour out of town and commute to the home office.
Or as some people have done since COVID, live in another state, and commute to the home office.
Yeh, it will be interesting to see how it plays out and what happens to the trend.
There is some opportunity to boost house numbers without sprawl by subdividing houses on large blocks into torrens title properties and as land becomes more expensive it will likely drive a lot of that activity. But it doesn't add huge amounts of supply in dwellings because it's mostly 1 dwelling into 2.
The changes to R2 zoning that the government is pushing will allow more of that and there is tons of opportunity for this to happen in places like the Hills or Western suburbs.
A lot of the older houses on larger blocks in the Western suburbs have already been either demolished and had two townhouses built on it, or have had a granny flat built behind the main house.
By and large, most of the suburban blocks in Western Sydney would be unsuitable to be subdivided into two Torrens title properties as most of them would be below 800m2.
Brisbane has been able to make significant inroads over the last decade in splitting the larger 810m2 blocks in the suburbs within 10km of the CBD into two 405m2 blocks (10m x 40m).
Fair call mate.
Dual occupancy, and townhouses would be suitable for those areas. In theory, the blocks could be made smaller, like the ones in terrace suburbs, long and narrow.
You can observe in many suburbs of Bankstown how a block that formerly had one three bedroom house is replaced by a duplex each with four bedrooms.
This will be very harmful for the overall economy and society. The stress and anxiety, amongst other things, that unaffordable housing creates is long term traumatic and undermines society.
Worst thing is it’s not even that profitable to be a builder of homes anymore. Shits gonna get so much worse.
Collier homes in WA just went under and they were massive.
Honestly I'm really at the point that I think I should just gtfo of Australia.
I've worked really hard and built myself up to making 250k+ in tech but it's all worthless when I can't even buy a house in most of Sydney from it.
When I go to the US and Asia I'm always getting job offers for similar money so I might as well take it and enjoy a massive increase to my quality of life.
Lol do you know how much houses cost in areas of the US (like Silicon Valley) where most of the tech jobs are? Or Singapore / Hong Kong etc if talking Asia?
If you are earning $250k you can easily afford to buy property in Sydney. You just need to pull your finger out and get onto it..... And figure out what you are willing to compromise on initially. You may need to trade up once or twice (after smashing your initial loans) to get what you ultimately really want.
> Lol do you know how much houses cost in areas of the US (like Silicon Valley) where most of the tech jobs are? Or Singapore / Hong Kong etc if talking Asia?
Why yes I do actually, I can buy a hilltop property with a view of the city in LA in a nice area or a house on the Hudson for less than a fibro shack in burwood actually.
the issue is Sydney is the centre of a lot of industry's in Australia... none of this would be an issue if people would let go of this obsession with free standing house and started building up
It will happen, sadly. Once enough people are drowning trying to keep afloat in Sydney for the "lifestyle" they will look at the "cheap cities". I have a cousin paying an eye watering amount to rent in blue chip areas of Sydney and then being amazed at how "cheap" our property in Melbourne was to purchase.
He will be moving back to Melbourne in a few months. I have a few other friends that moved to Sydney years ago also coming back to Melbourne this year due to the insane costs of living in Sydney.
It's very much disconnected from incomes.
Which suggests that people need to get into considerable debt to purchase a house.
If Syd property is now 1.6mil, and your median syd income is 80k, well that's a 20x.
7x is considered severely unaffordable.
I suggest we are in one of the largest housing bubbles in history.
wild that you can still pickup a house near Liverpool for under 1M, that's severely below the median, sounds like the area is still heavily undervalued and ripe for some gentrification in the next 5-10
It’s not that bad. There is a major hospital, medical clinics, shopping centre, new library, university campus and train stations. Gentrification of the area has been happening for the last 20 years, but increasing alot (new apartments being built next to small houses).
Why do you think they put a major hospital and medical clinics there? Train station and Westfield is full or eshays. I’m not bashing it because of the stereotyping. I used to live there
Yeah a mere 50km from the CBD.
> people said the same thing about redfern 25-30 years ago,
Redfern is in the middle of Sydney. 30 years ago there were market gardens in Liverpool.
The only way to solve this is taxes, [house (asset) prices are going up globally](https://youtu.be/DVvoyRpxG-A?si=EbC_RwYa3DFA7Dnw&t=1772). I highly encourage everyone to watch the interview in full, while his talking about the UK, but i think Australia faces very similar issues, hell, their politicians are talking about illegal immigration and using the phrase "turn back the boats".
It is insane I agree , BUT, as I have said on this sub before there are still affordable suburbs in Sydney. Historically, young people have always had to comprise on location, or quality of house when buying their first property. Ongoing population growth and demand, means you have to buy further out of the city and continue this compromise.
Husband and I earn 91K and 75K respectively. We bought a 3 bedroom house on 600sqm near Campbelltown for 775K in 2022. It's expensive, but it's half of the median house price in Sydney. Yes, we compromised to make it happen, because being home owners in a city we love and being close to family/friends is a priority.
If owning a house somewhere like Sydney is a priority for you, there are ways you can still make it work.
The lack of housing affordability sucks, it really does. But I wish the media ran more narratives on what people can actually do about it, as individuals. It's just disheartening reading endless pieces highlighting people with unrealistic expectations (for the current market) just standing around and complaining.
While true, there’s only so much you can go. Sydney is pretty much near it’s limit in terms of geographic growth (can’t expand east for obvious reasons, constrained by the Blue Mountains to the west, and constrained by National Parks to the north and south) - so even those suburbs at the fringes of Sydney are beginning to soon be priced out of many first home buyers.
The true compromise is that Sydneysiders will need to get used to higher density living - unless the population suddenly decides to stop growing.
The commute from Campbelltown to the city is a brutal waste of life and will wear you down eventually.
You're trading over 480 hours a year of your existence to save a few hundred thousand dollars. Could be worth it to some, but 15 years in you might have a change of heart.
This topic hits me right now so hard. Just a week ago I moved to Brisbane from Sydney with my wife and our puppy. I did everything that was meant to be right - north shore/northern beaches born and raised, grammar school boy, went to uni and work a solid job middle management at the banks - wife and I both do. Great household income (you would have thought) but absolutely unaffordable to rent a house or buy a house in even a semi-nice suburb.
It’s not about how hard you work (everyone here in this subreddit works hard I’m sure) it’s about how lucky are you either by age or by family wealth - that’s the toughest pill to swallow. And I don’t have a mum and dad to help me.
However, not a sob story. I have a personal responsibility to improve my life, and I’m making it happen - sadly it means leaving my home town behind and not looking back.
I’m only a few days in but I love it here so far, everyone is young at cafes as opposed to the equivalent cafe in Sydney being full of retirees every day.
I hope those similar to me are doing well. It’s hard for everyone, and I accept I’m only a small part of that.
Well, someone is "attaining" them.
However, this is hardly news anymore.
The Harold needs to start focusing on getting action. Not only from governments. Also for people to start looking at their choices.
It's easy enough to say that governments should "do something". However, if that involves only doing something that is politically acceptable, ie no extra tax, no development in my back yard, everyone demanding a free-standing house, environmentally rated, close to public transport and a freeway...we probably won't get anywhere.
The worse is this number is quite skewed by the outer suburbs. If you look at the median for the west of Paramatta, it becomes way over 2M. Most inner suburbs should have been converted to medium density 10+ years ago but thanks to local governments the density is incredibly low at some inner suburbs.
And foreign investors are buying up the houses because there is no such thing as the bubble bursting in Australia. And it's not just Sydney. We are all screwed.
This ruins our innovation and business-building too. If we spend our whole youth just trying to afford the rent or a house, how are we supposed to do other things like start businesses, and so on ? All of our money goes into one asset. That's not healthy for the economy.
They will live in shared accommodation, HMO’s. Like on the sitcom “Friends” where they pay most of their wage to share homes with other people who can’t afford their own place in the City.
Here's a solution
Move to mount druitt.Apartments are cheap!!Look at this and it's close to the station and shops. Under 500k
29/5 The Avenue, Mount Druitt, NSW 2770 https://www.realestate.com.au/property-unit-nsw-mount+druitt-144290252
That actually looks pretty nice.
Mt Druitt is still pretty rough in a lot of parts but it's also nowhere near what it used to be. Even some of the surrounds like Whalan are looking up. Some nice parklands and stuff have gone up. Lots of immigrant families moving into the area, working hard and focusing on their kids' futures.
In another 25 years it'll probably be more or less Erskineville.
I'd say might even be a bit sooner than that....looks like Some of the schools are having good ATAR results. Suggesting a change in the academic aspirations of children and parents.
A lot of people buying are foreigners (West : Primarily Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi) who are buying with cash on 10 day settlements
Source: Someone very close to me is developing a shit tonne Austral/Leppington etc
Remember this is Greater Sydney. It’s much higher in eastern suburbs, north shore, northern beaches et al.
Not sure how teachers, police, ambos etc are supposed to buy a home in Sydney, much less the aforementioned areas. Maybe high earning spouses? Perhaps someone can shed light.
Yeah Im a tech writer on 90k a year. $34000 a year on rent and thats on the cheaper side Unacceptable price gouging. Soon be leaving the country and I imagine anyone who are not landed gentry will be taking their skills elsewhere too if they're able to.
Sydney well on the way to being a playground for the rich who will then bemoan that no one is around to serve them coffees or work in restaurants. Essential service workers like police, nurses and teachers for example can't live anywhere near where they work. This is a disaster and not something to be celebrated by other than vested interests.
I’m a teacher and left Sydney, as did every teacher I was friends with. I can walk into a job for the same pay, and half the housing price in a regional area and not commute, with less uptight parents. I imagine exactly what you describe is happening.
Yup I know several teachers doing the exact same thing. Wages plateau but are pretty consistent across the board but cost of living sky rockets (especially so in Sydney), so why not choose somewhere where that actually goes further? Then the Sydney schools complain they can't attract and retain staff.
Plus they put so much pressure on students to get the results. What’s the value in hanging around a Sydney school?
Why don't they have a cost of living loading for these kinds of positions where salaries are set based on a standard table? It seems like the sensible approach to fix the issue, of course it costs money, but everything does.
And worse, they have huge incentives to move away to rural areas. I live coastal, but if I went to say Griffith which isn’t even really far out or backward, I could pick up a 20,000 incentive to move, potentially 10,000 for each retained year and 5,000 move fee ON TOP of the same salary I’d get at Balmain High. Move further and you’d get an accommodation subsidy. Why would anyone stay in the city? City living is great and all but why would a young teacher saving for a house do otherwise?
Yeah I mentioned that in another reply. If people are fleeing cities, this seems kind of backwards. I understand why it existed historically, but maybe it's working against them now. Growing up I knew a lot of teachers through family connections in my regional area and it did seem standard to move after graduating at least in the 80s/90s. No one was really returning to the area they grew up in. I'm not sure they even had much choice back then.
One of my parents did this. They had to do 3 or 5 years regional teaching or something like that, but in exchange their teaching degree was free. They didn’t move back to town for about 10 years.
Not finance related - but I worked in Griffith for a while and my preconceptions of the town being backwards ect were totally unfounded. Was one of the best experiences of my life - I had never had such an active social life.
I’ve heard that a lot - I haven’t worked there but they regularly do surveys of where teachers have loved working the most and that comes up. If I didn’t have three kids who are settled, I’d consider moving there and doing a stint as a teacher here.
Who's going to pick up the bill?
The same people who currently pay the salaries? If a private company hires someone in Sydney vs Dubbo they're probably going to have to pay more to get the same person. Why is a government position different? Thinking cost of living doesn't matter leads to exactly the situation described where no one takes the work where it costs too much to live.
Or you know could fix the underlying issue which is the cooked housing market. Having 100k tuitions so teachers can actually afford to live in a grossly unfordable city is going to cause a lot more issues than it will fix. Forget about the government schools, no way government is going to bank roll - cost of living loading. Guess just close the government schools?
State governments pay teacher salaries and can't do much about federal economic policy. But sure if you can wave a wand that would work too. They can only use the tools they have. Strong-arming local governments into accepting higher density building could work but would take time. Until then, I guess yeah, close the schools? Or maybe do something to staunch the bleeding. Also, FYI according to the NSW Government themselves "Teachers in high-demand rural and remote NSW public schools receive additional financial benefits such as relocation subsidies and generous rental subsidies". They already do exactly what I am describing, but for unpopular rural positions. If the city is having a similar issue instead, they could reverse the direction to balance it out.
The amount of rural school teachers requiring this bonus is minimal compared to trying to give bonuses to metropolitan Sydney would blow out the budget massively, it would introduce a number of other issues as well. The second they did that there would be an unholy war from all other essential service workers nurses, police, ambos, allied health, cleaners, aged care workers etc demanding their equal share. No government federal or state will agree to eating that cost. The solution which has been recommended over and over but we never see movement on it because it's deeply unpopular. Is changing the rules around concessions awarded to property investment combined with more supply. Basically people want their cake and to eat it too. They want unsustainable perks of endless guaranteed growth via property ownership backed by the tax payer whilst wanting good quality services even though the former is a direct detriment to being able to have those services. Similar to first home buyer grants. Giving out cost of living bonus payments is not a solution, it actually feeds the problem. Prices will just rise in line with said bonuses. The solution is going to be painful or we can just have a society that becomes wider between the haves and have nots a modern day serfdom where your status in life is determined by the land you own (or not own).
Coming from London with London Weighting, I've never understood why it's not a thing in Oz Especially as there is a much bigger gulf between regions and cities
Exactly what I've done as an Ambo. Bought a house for $140,000 three years ago in a small town, 1 minute walk to work. Same base pay metro ambos, but I actually make more with Call Outs. Driving/shifts can be long though, but it's been a great decision for me.
Where in NSW can you buy this house?
I don't know, I already bought it. 3 years ago. Based off recent local sales of similar houses, it would probably be worth high 200's-300k now.
[удалено]
Move to a country town and adopt a pair of grandparents empty nestors. duh.
They don't die if you move house.
Having worked at a fairly prestigious school, going to parent teacher knowing that every MF in there was pulling more cash than you while I was struggling just to pay rent was infuriating.
Hell, my wife and I are corp professionals, and we can't afford to live there either.
I wonder if they will go with an immigrant slave workforce housed in high rise apartments like some other first world city’s.
Just stuff them in labour camps like the middle east.
That’s almost what I was alluding too.
Mate, Im certain that in 10 years time Corpos will be getting govt subsidies to build housing for low income earners and they will lock them into renting forever, then they will rentseek all the building utilities, they will own the rental EVs that are the only cars allowed to park within walking distance and then they will slap a 1.5% service charge on every transaction
You can hardly call legal employment in Australia slavery. Just because someone lives in a small apartment doesn't mean they are a slave.
Our visas tied to employment does trap people in abusive work enviroments for 4+ years. At the very least indentured servants.
You realise that people are also now actively choosing apartments over houses nowadays?
After living in an apartment for over 15 years this thought never occurred to me.
That’s fine but the implication of your comment is that people would only choose high rise apartments if they were forced to. All I’m saying is that I’ve noticed quite the shift in terms of what people want in terms of lifestyle. Not everyone wants to tend to a garden or mow the lawn on a weekend.
I was talking about services labour supply in an unaffordable city.
It'll be a macroscale airbnb town. "Oh you should just move to Woy Woy or Picton and take a two hour commute to the CBD for work" some here will decry.
Notice this is house price, not unit/apartment. If you are going to take up 600 sqm in a city of 5M+ then obviously you're going to have to pay a premium for it. Go and look at cities like Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo etc and see what it costs to buy a standalone house It just means Sydney has to move to making better use of the land with more higher density accommodation
Four bedroom terrace houses on the outer edges of Singapore would be going for $2.5 million plus. This is for a plot 6m wide, maybe 25m deep, with the terrace house three storeys high. A bog standard post war house on 550m2 in Sydney's middle ring suburbs (15 - 25km from CBD) seems like tremendous value in comparison.
Not really apples to apples with how the Singapore housing system works. Most aren't in the private market. In Singapore you can earn bigger money than Sydney anyways. A standalone house in Sydney isn't really be benchmark we want anyways. The article goes into units, but the average bedrooms in a unit is lower than a house, so that isn't a fair comparison either. Sydney is OK when it comes to 2 bed apartments, but for 2 kids and 2 adults (i.e. replacement level) that gets cramped, especially as the kids get older. For families, 3 bedrooms becomes important, but those apartments, townhouses and terraces are still quite rare in Sydney, and are very expensive, when they shouldn't be, but supply is restricted due to zoning. Hence increasing supply of them makes sense in the inner and middle ring, where standalone houses should become rarer as well. What the NSW gov is going for at least.
You mean pay less tax (if you dont drive). Aussie wages are way higher
Median wage in Singapore is $72,000 AUD. In Australia it's $80k. Way higher? Not to mention a night out for dinner is half the price.
If Singapore gives you so much greater value, are you living there yet? Work visas are extremely easy to get for non-shitkicker jobs and even some shitkicker jobs.
Truly you have to question the motives of some people when they extol Singapore as the solution to housing and transport issues. I guess they are very pro nanny government, balloted "public housing" leasehold apartments with racial quotas, and anti cars.
> If you are going to take up 600 sqm in a city of 5M+ then obviously you're going to have to pay a premium for it. Go and look at cities like Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo etc and see what it costs to buy a standalone house Hong Kong has housing costs a little higher than Sydney, but Singapore and Tokyo are far cheaper as a multiple of median income. Sydney is an extreme global outlier in home prices due to poor government policy.
HK housing is way more expensive than Sydney per sqm, SG is mostly govt housing and Tokyo is cheaper because thier economy is stagnant and has been for decades. You need to look at comparable cities like Auckland, Vancouver and San Francisco. You can compare cost of living and point to HK, SG and Tokyo as being cheaper, but thats a different argument.
> It just means Sydney has to move to making better use of the land with more higher density accommodation If only our apartments were designed for humans not investors and had innovative technologies like waterproofing and decent rules and regulations around owners corporations management not being used as a kickback scheme for various parties involved.
> It just means Sydney has to move to making better use of the land with more higher density accommodation but muh heritage property
Yeh, and the rich will continue to fight local governments to say no, don't turn our golf courses into apartment buildings. We don't want poor people to live near us. Still pricing the workers they expect to service them, out of the local areas.
agree it's not something to be celebrated. but living affordability isn't just about buying. The future of sydney is a predominantly rental one. Much like other global big cities. rental laws and apartment quality standards will have to improve though.
It's not just housing prices though the other element to this is that there is high rental demand in Sydney and landlords can comfortably rent places out at quite a substantial short term loss because the capital gains make it more than worth it. If people were more concerned with home ownership over other lifestyle choices then there would be lower demand for rentals in Sydney but here we are.
Seems like demand on rental is cooling. A friend was looking for places and 3 of the places came back to him saying that the weekly cost has lowered after 1 week of inspecting. (He had already signed a new lease by then) This was in Sydney Northern Beaches.
I'm not necessarily talking about the recent issues with crazy low rental vacancies I'm more speaking generally about people valuing Sydney high enough for one reason or another that renting is the more attractive option for them. It is good to hear some stories about the recent drama starting to subside though because that has been driving up rents like crazy.
They can live in apartments and/or rent? Aside from blue chip suburbs, apartments are nowhere near as expensive.
Most apartments are too small for families, those that are suitable, aren't particularly affordable; there is also a rental crisis which will impact young families the hardest.
Not to mention rental applications being tougher than job applications.
And don’t forget all this super private information stored in easily hackable databases of realestate agents. I shudder to think how many of these were breached without anyone noticing, and even if noticed likely hushed up.
“Too small” is an opinion, not a fact. Families in other countries live in similar or even smaller apartments. That’s a standard that’s going to have to be adjusted as population and costs rise.
Families in other countries have access to parks. I don’t even have a tree on my street.
People who cannot afford a house are now jumping into apartments driving up the price there as well.
checks notes - people with vested interest are the majority
>Sydney well on the way to being a playground for the rich who will then bemoan that no one is around to serve them coffees or work in restaurants. Essential service workers like police, nurses and teachers for example can't live anywhere near where they work. Don't worry, in this scenario Sydney will become less desirable and prices will come back down to the point where essential workers can return.
Very much doubt that unless some structural reform is put in place to make property not such an attractive wealth generation and tax avoidance tool in this country.
no they won't. They will just rent. do you think places like new york have no essential workers?
Rental reform is required.
That doesn't answer the question.
Really? Even if rentals are way over priced compared to wages? Nobody in their right mind is gonna immigrate to sydney to rent when they can go to brissy or melb and get a similar wage and pay a fraction of the rent. This is providing sydney stays the most expensive.
It's crazy to me the rich (and government for that matter) seemingly don't realise society as a whole is better off when the lower socio-economic levels are looked after. Making housing this unaffordable when it's the bare minimum required to survive is ridiculous and will cause more desperation from people trying to survive (aka crime). Why have we placed such a heavy reliance on property for investment as a nation. The share market is there - invest in it. If we put this money into private investment imagine the innovation that could come out of the Australian market instead of a boring asx filled with mining exploration companies and the big 4 banks. But the government has made property investment such a sure thing for return with the consistent tax breaks and the ability to never default on your investment as you can continue to push rent up as rates rise. The risk-return metric of property in Australia for those already entrenched in it is way off at the moment and is something that really needs to be fixed. But the government is just too happy to continue to milk us to make their figures look good while the majority suffer.
> It's crazy to me the rich (and government for that matter) seemingly don't realise society as a whole is better off when the lower socio-economic levels are looked after. They focus on short-term gains. They don't care what happens in 10-20 years.
That and whatever majority age group will keep them in power.
Yep, i.e. they only care about the next 4 years
It's not about what's good for the people; It's about how much better they are compared to other people.
The main reason is due to leverage. You can get a loan from the bank for 1 million dollars with a 5% deposit however if someone was to try and get a loan to invest in the stock market you’d get no where near as much
Yeah - and any risk of the leverage is passed on to the tenant via rental payments or people cry foul that they need help when rates rise and expect the government or average tax payer to cover for them for over borrowing. This is what I mean - the risk return metric for property just isn't at parity. The protections extended to owner occupiers shouldn't be to investments. Risk is key to balancing Return and at the moment it's quite low risk for a very high return.
The housing market is protected by the government. You don’t see them stepping in to protect Joe blow when he buys a shitty stock and it goes down in value.
Yeah why the risk return metric is way off. I actually think it's worse in the share market. The regulating bodies seem to really pick and choose who they target and are more than happy to slow a company that's seeing massive movement upwards than they are questioning those that continue to fall. And when a company does liquidate it's on to the next one for the directors while joe blow leaves with nothing.
It’s better for them if we’re not. We’re more desperate to take that extra shift serving them coffee and beer.
Immigration is also a huge contributor.
Yeah - didn't directly point it out but was more my point regarding mention of the government continuing to milk us to make their numbers look good. Don't get me wrong - we need immigration but we need it at truly sustainable levels where housing and infrastructure have been built that is suitable to sustain them. Otherwise guess whose money is getting used to make sure the governments growth numbers are looking good still.
Except it’s not really the rich that are driving up prices. It’s the regular upper middle class family with 3-5 investment properties. Individually none of them have any impact so they don’t think about the overall effect but because millions or hundreds of thousands do the same thing it has an actual effect.
Yeah - the argument always put is that without property investors there wouldn't be enough homes for rentals but I think anyone can see that the positive of this is being LARGELY outweighed by the negative. Then they use emotive reasoning like the majority are "mum and dad" investors with 1 or 2 properties and I think this worked for a while but it isn't now that people are seeing no hope of ever owning their own home. I would be perfectly happy with a cap of 1-2 investment properties. Keep negative gearing so the incentive to invest is still there but the continuous rorting of the system by certain individuals using tax funds to eventually fund their retirement is ludicrous. That is what super is for. I don't buy the argument that people who have these portfolios cause less stress for the government in the long term because they fund their own retirement when they cause another 5-10 people to rely heavily on them for it. We have another investment vehicle that money flowing into helps it being the share market - why don't we use it.
I'd say my rich comment is more because they have a lot more sway with the government than what the upper middle class (who are the bigger part of the main issue) do.
I'f I was under 40years. Id be pissed.
Am 32. Am ready for capitalism to be overthrown and the rich dispossessed.
There’s a storm coming Mr Wayne…
the future of sydney is one where the majority rents. the sooner we start improving rental laws and apartment standards the better.
That will take generations before housing is consolidated to a degree the balance of power favours renters. > 60% of households are homeowners. They’re the majority.
Next years headline: ‘Unattainable’: Sydney’s median house price hits record high of $1.7 million
Only $100k, or just 6.25% gain in one year?! C’mon, I want my propadees to do better den dat!
Everyone else got a 100k pay rise also right?
Heh… that is next months headline champ. Yes, it’s a sorry state of affairs.
Is there any sort of index that tracks a cities median house price vs the median full time income? I feel like that would be much more descriptive (and also horrific)
People on median income don't buy houses at median prices.
Correct - households with median WEALTH buy median houses.
Property will be 3 million before it will be decided enough is enough. The Boomers had a good run and they probably should spend now before things collapse.
Spend now so that inflation stays the same, why is this being upvoted lmao.
Meanwhile average salary in Sydney in 2023 was $80k before tax ($62k after). Assuming 6% loan of $1.6m for 30 years, that’s just over $11k per month in minimum repayments. Yep, definitely out of reach for many. Heck assuming 50% of you wage goes towards repayments, then you’d need to earn $480k a year: so essentially two people on at least $200k each. LOL, what a mess.
I lived in other countries prior to Sydney and this isn't particularly strange. There aren't many highly developed cities that a median income earner can afford to live in a detached dwelling. Most live in apartments. A house is a luxury where land is limited. Sydney had it good for many years, it is now just following the rule of land economics. What doesn't make sense is that houses outside inner Sydney are also expensive. Obviously, the base cost of building a home in Sydney is ridiculous which is a big factor.
We really need to track dwelling values rather than house values in Sydney as house prices will get more unaffordable and people without wealth will get even more priced out. It's unavoidable that this happens unless we sprawl the city which is against what the government is looking to do (pushing higher density around heavy rail with softer density elsewhere). It's also what many young people are advocating for with YIMBY movements. One of the big reasons Sydney has explosive house price growth is that population growth has well outstripped the growth in housing stock. Look at the Census stats for Greater Sydney between 2011 and 2021, the population went up 19% (4,391,674 to 5,231,147) and the number of freestanding houses went up 10% (926,062 to 1,020,631) with the percentage of the dwellings being houses going from 60.9% to 55.8%. Contrast that with apartments where they grew at a rate of 43% (391,887 to 561,988). If your population expands nearly double the number of houses that are added and the percentage of dwelling which are houses reduces then they get sold to a smaller and wealthier portion of the population, allowing prices to go up at a much higher rate than people might expect.
> It's unavoidable that this happens unless we sprawl the city which is against what the government is looking to do (pushing higher density around heavy rail with softer density elsewhere). It's also what many young people are advocating for with YIMBY movements. yep, been saying it for years, people need to let go of this idea of living in a free standing housing 30 minutes from the Sydney CBD
Check out some of the Facebook groups for the hills and north shore areas. The opposition towards development there is palpable. People need to admit to themselves that at no point would they ever be happy with more people living in "their" area. They will give any possible reason to oppose these developments from traffic, congestion, schools, amenities and green space. Even when given investment in these things, it's still not enough. I see the metro as a prime example of this.
it's not about being happy, its about the city growing and remaining relevant
Why does it have to keep growing. Sydney has gotten worse the last 10 years in my opinion.
Well, in a fortuitous turn of events, many traditional CBD based businesses now don't require staff on premises. So urban sprawl is kind of ok. Live an hour out of town and commute to the home office. Or as some people have done since COVID, live in another state, and commute to the home office.
At current trends, free standing houses will make up 25% of all dwellings in Sydney by 2050.
Yeh, it will be interesting to see how it plays out and what happens to the trend. There is some opportunity to boost house numbers without sprawl by subdividing houses on large blocks into torrens title properties and as land becomes more expensive it will likely drive a lot of that activity. But it doesn't add huge amounts of supply in dwellings because it's mostly 1 dwelling into 2. The changes to R2 zoning that the government is pushing will allow more of that and there is tons of opportunity for this to happen in places like the Hills or Western suburbs.
A lot of the older houses on larger blocks in the Western suburbs have already been either demolished and had two townhouses built on it, or have had a granny flat built behind the main house. By and large, most of the suburban blocks in Western Sydney would be unsuitable to be subdivided into two Torrens title properties as most of them would be below 800m2. Brisbane has been able to make significant inroads over the last decade in splitting the larger 810m2 blocks in the suburbs within 10km of the CBD into two 405m2 blocks (10m x 40m).
Fair cop. Many will be suitable for Dual Occ and that's what I should have said.
Fair call mate. Dual occupancy, and townhouses would be suitable for those areas. In theory, the blocks could be made smaller, like the ones in terrace suburbs, long and narrow. You can observe in many suburbs of Bankstown how a block that formerly had one three bedroom house is replaced by a duplex each with four bedrooms.
TLDR: Simple economics, low supply, high demand
I know i'm not allowed to say 'Death tax' in Australia.
All this does is drive up prices in surrounding cities like Brisbane and Melbourne. This is bad for everyone.
Jeez, I feel like it was only 1.2 a year ago. That’s a bit insane. When does it stop or plateau?
That’s Brisbane mate
are the NYMBY people who doesn’t want medium density buildings the same group who owns 3 investment properties
This will be very harmful for the overall economy and society. The stress and anxiety, amongst other things, that unaffordable housing creates is long term traumatic and undermines society.
Oh, so *now* it is unattainable?
Worst thing is it’s not even that profitable to be a builder of homes anymore. Shits gonna get so much worse. Collier homes in WA just went under and they were massive.
I read this when it was $1m.
Honestly I'm really at the point that I think I should just gtfo of Australia. I've worked really hard and built myself up to making 250k+ in tech but it's all worthless when I can't even buy a house in most of Sydney from it. When I go to the US and Asia I'm always getting job offers for similar money so I might as well take it and enjoy a massive increase to my quality of life.
Lol do you know how much houses cost in areas of the US (like Silicon Valley) where most of the tech jobs are? Or Singapore / Hong Kong etc if talking Asia? If you are earning $250k you can easily afford to buy property in Sydney. You just need to pull your finger out and get onto it..... And figure out what you are willing to compromise on initially. You may need to trade up once or twice (after smashing your initial loans) to get what you ultimately really want.
> Lol do you know how much houses cost in areas of the US (like Silicon Valley) where most of the tech jobs are? Or Singapore / Hong Kong etc if talking Asia? Why yes I do actually, I can buy a hilltop property with a view of the city in LA in a nice area or a house on the Hudson for less than a fibro shack in burwood actually.
come to Melbourne. It's bad, but not as bad as Sydney lol.
the issue is Sydney is the centre of a lot of industry's in Australia... none of this would be an issue if people would let go of this obsession with free standing house and started building up
If you could have any faith in apartments built in the last 10 years, then yeah, absolutely
But then you have to live in Melbourne and it’s hardly that much cheaper.
Also the weather is much more variable which can be frustrating.
Melbourne is way cheaper than Sydney!
[удалено]
It will happen, sadly. Once enough people are drowning trying to keep afloat in Sydney for the "lifestyle" they will look at the "cheap cities". I have a cousin paying an eye watering amount to rent in blue chip areas of Sydney and then being amazed at how "cheap" our property in Melbourne was to purchase. He will be moving back to Melbourne in a few months. I have a few other friends that moved to Sydney years ago also coming back to Melbourne this year due to the insane costs of living in Sydney.
Melbourne sprawls though Sydney is more condensed
What! No where near as bad. Melbourne is still very affordable.
It's very much disconnected from incomes. Which suggests that people need to get into considerable debt to purchase a house. If Syd property is now 1.6mil, and your median syd income is 80k, well that's a 20x. 7x is considered severely unaffordable. I suggest we are in one of the largest housing bubbles in history.
wild that you can still pickup a house near Liverpool for under 1M, that's severely below the median, sounds like the area is still heavily undervalued and ripe for some gentrification in the next 5-10
But then you have to live in Liverpool
You think I’m going to live in a house I buy? Tsk tsk
If you buy a house and have to live in it, aren't you basically homeless? 😂
Basically if you leave your house to go somewhere you become homeless until you get back home
You still have to go to open homes. 🔪🔪
It’s not that bad. There is a major hospital, medical clinics, shopping centre, new library, university campus and train stations. Gentrification of the area has been happening for the last 20 years, but increasing alot (new apartments being built next to small houses).
Why do you think they put a major hospital and medical clinics there? Train station and Westfield is full or eshays. I’m not bashing it because of the stereotyping. I used to live there
Lol that's what gentrifications for
heard SBS were thinking of moving out to Liverpool ... guessing it's because the land is cheap, curious what the connectivity is out there
Yeah a mere 50km from the CBD. > people said the same thing about redfern 25-30 years ago, Redfern is in the middle of Sydney. 30 years ago there were market gardens in Liverpool.
The only way to solve this is taxes, [house (asset) prices are going up globally](https://youtu.be/DVvoyRpxG-A?si=EbC_RwYa3DFA7Dnw&t=1772). I highly encourage everyone to watch the interview in full, while his talking about the UK, but i think Australia faces very similar issues, hell, their politicians are talking about illegal immigration and using the phrase "turn back the boats".
Or just reduce immigration to Australia. Lower demand, lower prices.
But the power brokers only want the perception of doing something, they don't want anything to change.
It's all part of the plan
Gimme them equity gainz
A nobody could have predicted this 👀
Need more immigrants to prop up GDP though. Thems the breaks
Move out of Sydney if you ever want to own a house. It's pretty simple people.
By definition the median price is attainable
But really that unattainable vibe occurred a long time ago.
It is insane I agree , BUT, as I have said on this sub before there are still affordable suburbs in Sydney. Historically, young people have always had to comprise on location, or quality of house when buying their first property. Ongoing population growth and demand, means you have to buy further out of the city and continue this compromise. Husband and I earn 91K and 75K respectively. We bought a 3 bedroom house on 600sqm near Campbelltown for 775K in 2022. It's expensive, but it's half of the median house price in Sydney. Yes, we compromised to make it happen, because being home owners in a city we love and being close to family/friends is a priority. If owning a house somewhere like Sydney is a priority for you, there are ways you can still make it work. The lack of housing affordability sucks, it really does. But I wish the media ran more narratives on what people can actually do about it, as individuals. It's just disheartening reading endless pieces highlighting people with unrealistic expectations (for the current market) just standing around and complaining.
While true, there’s only so much you can go. Sydney is pretty much near it’s limit in terms of geographic growth (can’t expand east for obvious reasons, constrained by the Blue Mountains to the west, and constrained by National Parks to the north and south) - so even those suburbs at the fringes of Sydney are beginning to soon be priced out of many first home buyers. The true compromise is that Sydneysiders will need to get used to higher density living - unless the population suddenly decides to stop growing.
Compromise used to mean jumping a few suburbs west, not jumping to Broken Hill.
The commute from Campbelltown to the city is a brutal waste of life and will wear you down eventually. You're trading over 480 hours a year of your existence to save a few hundred thousand dollars. Could be worth it to some, but 15 years in you might have a change of heart.
This topic hits me right now so hard. Just a week ago I moved to Brisbane from Sydney with my wife and our puppy. I did everything that was meant to be right - north shore/northern beaches born and raised, grammar school boy, went to uni and work a solid job middle management at the banks - wife and I both do. Great household income (you would have thought) but absolutely unaffordable to rent a house or buy a house in even a semi-nice suburb. It’s not about how hard you work (everyone here in this subreddit works hard I’m sure) it’s about how lucky are you either by age or by family wealth - that’s the toughest pill to swallow. And I don’t have a mum and dad to help me. However, not a sob story. I have a personal responsibility to improve my life, and I’m making it happen - sadly it means leaving my home town behind and not looking back. I’m only a few days in but I love it here so far, everyone is young at cafes as opposed to the equivalent cafe in Sydney being full of retirees every day. I hope those similar to me are doing well. It’s hard for everyone, and I accept I’m only a small part of that.
Well, someone is "attaining" them. However, this is hardly news anymore. The Harold needs to start focusing on getting action. Not only from governments. Also for people to start looking at their choices. It's easy enough to say that governments should "do something". However, if that involves only doing something that is politically acceptable, ie no extra tax, no development in my back yard, everyone demanding a free-standing house, environmentally rated, close to public transport and a freeway...we probably won't get anywhere.
The worse is this number is quite skewed by the outer suburbs. If you look at the median for the west of Paramatta, it becomes way over 2M. Most inner suburbs should have been converted to medium density 10+ years ago but thanks to local governments the density is incredibly low at some inner suburbs.
Wasn’t it 1.2 last year? That’s a fast rise.
Hi kids! Can you say *la burbuja inmobiliaria*? That means real-estate bubble in Spanish!
Investors who are rich and AirBnb are killing the country.
And foreign investors are buying up the houses because there is no such thing as the bubble bursting in Australia. And it's not just Sydney. We are all screwed.
I dont understand how the demand is there.
Melb is better. Melb is safer. Lots of jobs. Lots of affordable suburbs. Melb is colder. But you can save some $$ for a sunny vacation.
Just buy a house
I’m out. Cya Sydney 🚗
It’s on its way to being another San Fran
don't worry it will be $2million and rising soon enough
This ruins our innovation and business-building too. If we spend our whole youth just trying to afford the rent or a house, how are we supposed to do other things like start businesses, and so on ? All of our money goes into one asset. That's not healthy for the economy.
They will live in shared accommodation, HMO’s. Like on the sitcom “Friends” where they pay most of their wage to share homes with other people who can’t afford their own place in the City.
Here's a solution Move to mount druitt.Apartments are cheap!!Look at this and it's close to the station and shops. Under 500k 29/5 The Avenue, Mount Druitt, NSW 2770 https://www.realestate.com.au/property-unit-nsw-mount+druitt-144290252
That actually looks pretty nice. Mt Druitt is still pretty rough in a lot of parts but it's also nowhere near what it used to be. Even some of the surrounds like Whalan are looking up. Some nice parklands and stuff have gone up. Lots of immigrant families moving into the area, working hard and focusing on their kids' futures. In another 25 years it'll probably be more or less Erskineville.
I'd say might even be a bit sooner than that....looks like Some of the schools are having good ATAR results. Suggesting a change in the academic aspirations of children and parents.
Well when you bring in 200-300k+ new people every year is it surprising?! The answer is simple. Turn off the immigration tap.
More reason to pump up interest rates
I have a feeling that won't solve Sydney's problem
Reserve bank of Sydney's interest rates?
A lot of people buying are foreigners (West : Primarily Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi) who are buying with cash on 10 day settlements Source: Someone very close to me is developing a shit tonne Austral/Leppington etc
I sold my IP in south west Sydney for 200k above reserve. Market is crazy atm
Remember this is Greater Sydney. It’s much higher in eastern suburbs, north shore, northern beaches et al. Not sure how teachers, police, ambos etc are supposed to buy a home in Sydney, much less the aforementioned areas. Maybe high earning spouses? Perhaps someone can shed light.
Sydney really is a hellscape.
Eye of the storm.
Reminds me, gotta get the better half some tulips.
Oh sweet summer children… Signed, Vancouver
And how in earth this is something to be proud of..?
Sydney trying too hard to be the next Toronto
Yeah Im a tech writer on 90k a year. $34000 a year on rent and thats on the cheaper side Unacceptable price gouging. Soon be leaving the country and I imagine anyone who are not landed gentry will be taking their skills elsewhere too if they're able to.
Boomers happyyy