It's a long-running debate in Australia - which suburbs should you look at for long-term capital growth from property?
My view has always been the same: the well-located and landlocked suburbs closer to the city next to great transport links are the winners.
Simply geometry dictates that there is less land available in the constrained inner and middle ring.
These are the suburbs where people more than ever before want to live, close to the city, this puts upwards pressure on dwelling prices.
It was interesting to note that this week, the guy who should know the answer to this question since he works with the stats (Cameron Kusher of RP Data), put forward his own viewpoint:
I tend to agree as I've covered in previous blog posts.
New stock in the outer suburbs can distort median price data, but actual capital growth over time is likely to be lower.
It's pretty obvious if you think about it.
Prices in Sydney's eastern suburbs didn't get to where they are with sluggish capital growth and these areas remain popular with higher income earners.
Like it or not, the big dollars earned by investment bankers flow in to the inner cities, creating iniquitous 'cones' of wealth, a trend which can be seen across many of the world's large capital cities.