ONH: [Gilberton] 45 Park | 35m | 10lvls | Residential

[ozisnowman]

They should be forcing all developers to build at least six storey's because that way like you
said it would increase supply thus causing prices to go down. However how can you force
the developer to stop asking top dollar for their apartments??? Thats like saying to them
you can only make $20,000 profit from each property. That would be impossible to enforce
because corporations, banks, etc etc arent restricted in the amount of profit they can
make.

I read the other day most of the current home repossessions are not being advertised
as repossessions so that the banks can get more money for them by sucking in another
young first home buyer couple or over-extended investor. They are hence trying to
hide the problems that exist in the current housing market and trying to ensure that
house prices remain at their over inflated levels.

Here are a few things i believe need to happen in Australia to make housing more affordable,
what are your thoughts?

1. Splitting of the banking system in regards to Investors and Home Buyers.
Set of higher rates for Investors and lower rates for Home Buyers.
(Thus reducing the incentives for Investors to over-inflate the house market)

2. Increase the Capital Gains Tax on all property other than primary
residence
(Again reducing the incentives for Investors to over-inflate the house market)

3. Remove the ability to Negative Gear Investment Properties
(If you dont have enough money to buy it in the first place why
should other tax payers be paying for you)

4. Allow banks to offer loans to people who have 20% deposit (Banks should
be asking Show Us The Money regardless of equity of any current assets).

5. Ensure all repossessions are advertised as repossessions and not hidden
by the banks

[rhino]

Methinks perhaps you should go live in Cuba!

I am an owner builder. The only way I could see to have the house I wanted was to build it myself. When my kids came along, we went down to one income, and still had a mortgage to pay each month, but because I'd built the house myself I had a truckload of equity. This enabled me to start buying investment properties, which, in turn, allowed me to pay my mortgage off after about 3 years.

In your scenario, I would never be able to pay off my initial mortgage because my equity would not be taken into consideration to get a loan for investment property. I would never be able to save the 20% you'd require for an investment loan, because my mortgage would not be paid off until I retire.

Investment properties are not what is pushing up house prices. Demand pushes up prices.

[Edgar]

stumpjumper, this is not the only case. If you have notice the suburbs around the north western areas, you will be surprised to find out that land titles here have a larger size than the eastern or most of the southern suburbs. They usually comes in the size of 700sqm and above all up to 900sqm is all very common.

Every time a house goes on sale here, which falls under this category, as in, old house sitting on a big block of 900sqm, not many home buyers could afford them. Because the majority of time, it was sent into auction. And it is this auction that kills the housing affordability crisis that we currently experience, because an average you and me would lose out in the auction to these group of 'developers/builders' who are willing to bid for the highest possible price just to secure the property.

Not that they really care about the house, but the size of the land. Once they closed to deal, the old house is being bulldozed, and up you see a fence in the middle and split the land into 2, some even three, and build 3 houses in a once one-only house sitting on a total of 900sqm land. In a way, yes, it is good profit, secondly, it may also subject to increasing supply in the market that is deemed as lacking of residential properties.

So who is to be blamed here? The developers for changing the plan in order to supply for the increasing demand? The buyers for demanding more and jack up the prices? Or the government and council for failing to do something about the lack of residential apartments (in affordable price range) living?

Or indeed they are doing something about this, by allowing the changes in the development plans to help ease the tension in the market in another way. But no, people like stumpjumper disagree with this action and thought it's all selfish act between the planners and the developers.

And....

Stumpjumper
'Always in favour of good development'

You should see this changes in the development plan as a positive thing, not a joke in the planning system. Especially concerning the demand and pressure on supply of residential housings/apartment living, each time people like you comment on high density apartment living (such as the case of the Urban Construct redevelopments in the New Port Quays), you are contributing to the limitations of the supply in the market and driving the prices and the affordability up.

Maybe Channel 7 should have added a clause like: 'If the number of units to be built on the subject land while owned by this purchaser is increased from what is currently allowed then the purchaser shall pay to the vendor one half the increased value of the land.'

Maybe they should, but they didn't. It was a closed deal made 4 years ago.

[rhino]

Not that they really care about the house, but the size of the land. Once they closed to deal, the old house is being bulldozed, and up you see a fence in the middle and split the land into 2, some even three, and build 3 houses in a once one-only house sitting on a total of 900sqm land. In a way, yes, it is good profit, secondly, it may also subject to increasing supply in the market that is deemed as lacking of residential properties.

This is exactly what's going on - and I can't understand you guys complaining about it, considering you end up with 3 houses where there was one - medium density (which you all seem to love) from low density - and the cost is slightly less than the cost of the original 900 square metre place, the house is new with the mod cons which are expected these days, and in general, the new houses are also more environmentally friendly than the old one (all right, this last depends on the ethics of the developer). Personally, I wouldn't want to live in one, but it's what the market wants.

[Cruise]

Is any extra profit made from 6 story units going to be forwarded onto the customer? I think not.

All it will do is keep inflating the real estate market (at levels it can not continue at) and make those that are struggling to afford to put a roof over there heads harder.

See, this is why Economics should be mandatory at high schools, you've got the whole thing backwards! Increasing supply reduces prices, so the more they build the better it is for those "struggling to put a roof over their heads." It's the lack of supply that's causing prices to increase.

Why do you think businesses should act as charities?

Yes thats how it Should work but how come with increasing supply we havent seen price rises srtarting to slow off?

[AG]

Yes thats how it Should work but how come with increasing supply we havent seen price rises srtarting to slow off?

Because the demand for housing continues to outstrip supply, even with the increase.

[urban]

and in general, the new houses are also more environmentally friendly than the old one (all right, this last depends on the ethics of the developer).

Speculative developer housing is never more environmentally friendly than the house it replaces. Ad hoc small scale infill development of the type mentioned above predominantly delivers poorly designed, environmentally and aesthetically disastrous houses which have a negative impact on the character of an area and drive up prices with a minimal increase in density.

Large (20,000m2 plus) sites generally provide far better results in terms of urban design, environmental friendliness and increased density. This only happens though where councils demand that developments meet the standards that the community expects.

Council Development Plans are updated approximately every 5 years through community consultation (including developers). This does mean that there can be a lag between development plans and community expectations. Maybe the Channel 7 site fits into this category. If the developer of a large site feels strongly enough about a site's potential they can pay for a Plan Amendment Report (now has a new name) to have the zoning changed or wait for the next Development Plan review. If the developer wants to make additional money out of a site they should pay for the regulatory requirements that allow that extra profit. Why should we as taxpayers and ratepayers act as charities?

AtD & AG, Housing and urban development in general is far too complex to be dealt with by simplistic supply and demand economics. There are numerous hidden subsidies eg tax concessions which benefit the investor over the owner occupier.

[stumpjumper]

In principle, Edgar, I agree with you. Planners should respond to pressure from developers, but not on a knee jerk, individual basis. In our economy, developers perform a very valuable role. They are the means by which demand is satisfied. In responding to the demands of the market, developers make their own demands - on the planning system. And as mentioned, planners should and do respond.

Take the city/rural interface, if you can call it that. The minimum subdivision area in many areas zoned 'rural' is one 'section', say, 35 hectares. As you move closer to a town the section rule might give way to 4ha, zoned 'rural living', then to 800sqm 'township' allotments, then in certain medium density areas 250sqm per dwelling with attached or multiple dwellings allowed.

It's not quite the same situation as we're talking about at Gilberton, but it can be seen that an oprderly gradation frmo built up to open land is what the planners are after. If they let Farmer Joe build 50 units on a nice bit of his two 35ha sections just because he wants to.

So in the Gilberton case, the correrct response is to consider rezoning, but not the day after council gets the owner's letter. A PAR is the proper way to do it, and then everyone gets fair warning.

As for the clause requiring a rezoned purchaser to compensate the vendor, I've never seen one, although it may be possible to make one stick.


stumpjumper

fanatically in favour of lots of things

[Edgar]

I am getting confused here stumpjumper.

Are you arising concerns from the local community? Because that is what I assumed when you mentioned "every one". May be the council did consider rezoning, maybe they have been even before the developer demanded for the rezoning. Maybe they had foresee such possibilities and were hoping for the developers to come at the right time demanding for the rezoning.

I will see this as a positive move for both the council and the developer to aid the migration population into South Australia, which is far more important than say, developers power over rezoning issues.

[The Scooter Guy]

I know this thread is over a year old, but the building at Gilberton is now being demolished!

[DM8]

Went past there today, all gone and cleared

[The Scooter Guy]

Went past there today, all gone and cleared

Has anyone taken pics before, during & after demolition?
And BTW, bear in mind that the former Ch7 place used to house Ch10 until it subsequently changed the frequency!

[Xaragmata]

Went past there today, all gone and cleared

Has anyone taken pics before, during & after demolition?

From Monday, with just the frame remaining...

[ynotsfables]

Oh my god isn't that the end of an era. I remember going there to channel ten as a kid to be part of the Christmas appeal audience.

[The Scooter Guy]

What did the room with the 'big frame' have?
The rubble may sure contain asbestos!
It'll be great to have a worldwide asbestos ban!