Catch me on this week's Real Estate Talk show here where I discuss why inner- and middle-ring suburbs of the capital cities have and always will be the long term property market out-performers in Australia.
Click here to listen in.
The show goes on out on Brisbane's 4BC Radio at weekend and now has more than 40,000 online subscribers - check it out.
Inner or outer suburbs?
This is a subject I covered in some detail in Property Observer column back on May 20 here, to the usual protests.
The counter-argument is that everyone is going to become share traders or work from home and live out in the sticks, but that doesn't hold any credibility in my opinion.
The serious journos evidently also agree.
Since I wrote that piece, also check out Chris Joye's (as usual) excellent article in the Australian Financial Review on May 22 entitled "RBA: Buy in inner cities" here, where he notes:
"Locating on the fringe is relatively less attractive than it used to be because . . . many of the inner areas have become even greater job magnets in recent years.”
[The RBA's Luci Ellis] proves this point by comparing the prices of properties located in both the “inner” and “outer” rings of Australia’s cities. In Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide homes in the city’s inner ring are 1.5 to two times more expensive than those in the “outer ring”.
What is fascinating is that this inner-city price premium is expanding. “Inner-ring properties have, if anything, become more expensive relative to outer-ring properties in recent years,” Ellis says. “And the larger the city, the greater is that premium.”
The bottom line: target properties that are near major jobs markets."
And today Peter Martin in his Age column here:
"Stand by for a Melbourne of 8 million, a Sydney of 8 million. And that's just the moderate projection. The high projection is for a Melbourne of 9.1 million and a Sydney of 8.3 million by the middle of the century.