Malcolm Turnbull seizes housing affordability as key to his comeback

From The New Daily.

Malcolm Turnbull has seized on housing affordability as one issue that could help drag his government out of the electoral doldrums, according to sources close to the Prime Minister.

Treasurer Scott Morrison is currently in London with a mission to take a lead from Britain in finding ways to open up the housing market to more potential home buyers and help solve the crisis in Australian cities.

Add to that Mr Turnbull’s decision last week to appoint Victorian MP Michael Sukkar as Assistant Minister to the Treasurer with the task of tackling housing affordability, and it becomes clear the government is taking the issue seriously.

Mr Sukkar insists the housing crisis is an “extraordinarily high” priority for the Prime Minister.

That view was reinforced by another government source, who said the Prime Minister wants to be seen to be acting on the issue.

“Malcolm is genuine in wanting to see something done on housing affordability, but it has also become too much of a hot political topic for us not to be seen to be acting in this space,” the source said.

“We need something to help turn the polls around, and if we can make progress with housing, it could be a win-win situation.

“The problem is being able to achieve something substantial. Kevin Rudd promised the earth on housing when he was in opposition and then found out how hard it was to deliver once he got into government.

“We are under no illusion about how difficult this issue is, but we think something can be achieved.”

Mr Morrison is embarking on a string of briefings in the UK detailing how the Conservative government there opened up access to bank data and changed how that data is created and shared.

The so-called open banking standard will help more startups offer cheaper housing financing products.

Last year, an Australian parliamentary committee recommended banks here be made to, by July 2018, open up access to their customers’ data and thereby make it easier for them to switch financial institutions.

The Treasurer will meet with the Open Data Institute, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority while in Britain.

He will also meet with his UK counterpart, Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond.

But while the government seems keen to follow some of the examples the Brits are setting over housing affordability, abolishing negative gearing doesn’t appear to be one of them.

Mr Sukkar has already dismissed changing Australia’s negative gearing regime, while Labor is continuing its pledge to make significant changes to the system.

Shadow assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh said there was more to learn from the UK conservatives about housing affordability than just innovative financing methods.

You’ve got to distinguish between a policy which builds a small number of homes at the bottom end of the market and one which could make a difference right across the wide swath of the market,” Dr Leigh said.

“So sure, we should look at innovative financing solutions but let’s not pretend that that’s going to make it easier for middle Australia to buy a house.

“Here you need to look at something else the Conservatives have been doing over in the UK.

“In the 2015 budget the British Conservatives decided to make changes to negative gearing. The British Conservatives, against a scare campaign in which some of the tabloids said it was going to drive down house prices, saw through significant changes to negative gearing of the kind that Labor has been proposing in Australia.

I’m worried that the Treasurer will come back touting a plan which will really only help a few rather than one that will help many.”

New Home Sales Bounce Back in November

The HIA New Homes Sales Report – a survey of Australia’s largest home builders – shows a strong bounce in November 2016.

In November 2016 new detached house sales increased by 5.2 per cent, while sales of multi-units were up by 9.3 per cent. Seasonally-adjusted new detached house sales increased in four out of five mainland states in November 2016. New South Wales was the exception with a decline of 5.9 per cent. In November last year detached house sales increased by 17.9 per cent in Queensland, 4.7 per cent in Victoria, 4.2 per cent in Western Australia, and 4.0 per cent in South Australia.

The November update for the HIA’s monthly New Home Sales survey shows a 6.1 per cent bounce in seasonally-adjusted new home sales. Over the three months to November 2016 the total number of new home sales fell by 0.7 per cent to be down by only 0.2 per cent when compared to the same three month period in 2015.

“Following a dip to a two year low last October, the November bounce in new home sales is a reminder that the national new home construction sector remains in strong shape,” said HIA Chief Economist, Dr Harley Dale. “The sector may have just passed its peak, but the short term outlook is a healthy one, a conclusion supported by other leading indicators such as the ABS measures of Building Approvals and Housing Finance.”

“At this stage of the new home building cycle that’s a very impressive result – this is already the largest and longest national new home construction cycle in history.”

“A healthy outlook for new home construction in the first half of 2017 is good news for the Australian economy, because of the huge impact that new home construction has on broader economic activity.

Without the boost from housing over the last five years the domestic economy would have at some point slipped into recession.”

“You wouldn’t want to be seeing signals of an imminent and sharp slowdown in national new home building activity, and we’re not. Looking further out, the declines in construction activity will inevitably become chunkier,” concluded Harley Dale.

New Home Starts continue to Ease from Peak

ABS data on building activity indicate that new dwelling starts have passed their record peak, said the Housing Industry Association (HIA).

During the September 2016 quarter, only New South Wales (+5.4 per cent) and Queensland (+6.3 per cent) saw increases in new dwelling commencements. The largest decline was in the ACT (-39.6 per cent) followed by South Australia (-20.0 per cent). There were also large reductions in Western Australia (-13.6 per cent) and Victoria (-9.6 per cent). Falls in new dwelling starts also occurred in the Northern Territory (-7.6 per cent) and Tasmania (-0.6 per cent) during the September 2016 quarter.

“New dwelling starts hit all-time record levels during 2016, but today’s data provides further evidence that we’ve left the peak behind,” commented HIA Senior Economist, Shane Garrett.

During the September 2016 quarter, new dwelling commencements fell by 2.8 per cent in seasonally-adjusted terms to 55,070. Detached house starts were down by 1.8 per cent compared with the previous quarter, while multi-unit commencements dipped by 3.9 per cent. Over the year to September 2016, new dwelling commencements totalled some 229,336.

“The result for the September 2016 quarter represents the second consecutively quarterly decline in new dwelling starts, with a substantial portion of the reduction happening on the multi-unit side,” explained Shane Garrett.

“In contrast, detached house starts have been holding up quite well. The upturn in new home building between 2012 and 2016 was heavily influenced by increased apartment building with output more than doubling,” Shane Garrett pointed out.

“With new home building set to move lower over the next few years, we expect that the higher density market will have to absorb the bulk of the reduction. From a peak of over 230,000 starts during 2015/16, we anticipate that new home starts will continue to ease over the next couple of years and bottom out at around 172,000 during the 2018/19 financial year,” Shane Garrett concluded.

Home Lending On The Rise

The latest housing finance data from the ABS underscores the renewed momentum in home mortgage lending, especially in the investment sector, and there was also a rise in first time buyers accessing the market.

  • The trend estimate for the total value of dwelling finance commitments excluding alterations and additions rose 0.6%. Investment housing commitments rose 1.7%, while owner occupied housing commitments was flat.  In seasonally adjusted terms, the total value of dwelling finance commitments excluding alterations and additions rose 2.2%.
  • In trend terms, the number of commitments for owner occupied housing finance fell 0.1% in November 2016 whilst the number of commitments for the purchase of new dwellings rose 0.7%, the number of commitments for the construction of dwellings rose 0.2%, and the number of commitments for the purchase of established dwellings fell 0.2%.
  • In original terms, the number of first home buyer commitments rose by 13.4% to 8,281 in November from 7,302 in October; the number of non-first home buyer commitments also rose. The number of first home buyers as a percentage of total owner occupier commitments rose from 13.7% to 13.8%.

Total commitments in trend terms was $32.7 billion, of which $19.8 billion was owner occupied loans, and $12.9 billion for investment purposes. 39.5% of new lending was for investment purposes, and we see the proportion of investment loans continuing to rise, it is already too high.

Looking at the month on month movements, the seasonally adjusted changes highlight the rise in the investment funding for new construction, with a 40% rise on last month. Owner occupied refinancing fell.

The more reliable trend analysis shows the monthly movements, with a strong surge in investment loans by individuals, and a stronger fall in owner occupied refinancing.

Looking at total loan stock (in  original terms) around 35% of all loans outstanding are for investment purposes, and the slide we saw late 2015 appears to be easing.

Turning to the first time buyer, original data, the number of first time owner occupied buyers rose compared with last month, and the overall mix also increased.

Combining the first time buyer property investor data from our surveys, we see a spike in overall first time buyer activity.

Last month, around 1,100 more first time buyers entered the owner occupied market than the prior month (12%), and around 150 more in the investment sector.  We also saw a rise in the fixed rate loans, as borrowers try to lock in lower rates ahead of expected rises.

So overall, still strong momentum in the housing sector, and powered largely by an overheated investment sector.

 

UK Housing Construction Higher In November

Latest data from the UK’s Office of National Statistics shows that despite the overall fall in all work in November 2016, new housing continued to grow at an increasing overall rate of 1.2% in comparison with October 2016, representing the biggest increment since February 2016. A rise in affordable public housing is a significant factor. This has resulted in housing output reaching an all time high of £2,639 million, as seen in Figure 4.

The increase in housing has occurred in part as a result of the notable rise in public housing, which recovered from negative growth in October 2016 to increase by 5.5%. There was an increase of 13.7% compared with the same period a year ago, the largest month-on-year growth rise since December 2014. This high level of growth comes in the shadow of the government committing to “drive up the housing supply” by providing £8.0 billion to deliver over 400,000 affordable housing starts by 2020.

In addition, private sector housing continued to grow at a steady month-on-month rate of 0.6% compared with October 2016. However, similar to public housing, the private sector has experienced large growth in relation to the same period last year, at a rate of 12.5% which has been broadly consistent throughout 2016. This may be in part due to historically low interest rates facilitating borrowing for construction firms, coupled with the loosening of private housing planning restrictions, both of which could have contributed to the continued boom in private housing both in November 2016 and throughout the year.

Why bad housing design pumps up power prices for everyone

From The Conversation.

Whether you’re a boatie or not, everyone realises the importance of keeping the water on the outside when you go sailing or fishing. The less leaky the boat, the less you have to rely on devices like bilge pumps to stay afloat.

What does this have to do with houses? Well, Australia’s homes are notoriously “leaky” – allowing the uncontrolled flow of heat into and out of the building. Our answer has been to put in more and more pumps, in the form of air conditioning. This is often promoted as a feature, rather than an indication of a poor-quality building!

Air conditioning is promoted as a feature rather than a design flaw. Wendy Miller

This creates problems for everyone.

We all know that some houses are hotter than others in heatwaves, and that well insulated and designed homes cost a lot less to operate throughout the year because they don’t rely heavily on air conditioners or heaters to provide comfort.

But did you know that relying on air conditioners to stay cool on hot summer days affects the price of electricity for everyone, all year round?

Pumping heat from one place to another takes a lot of energy, which makes air conditioners particularly power-hungry appliances. The more leaky the house, the more heat needs to be pumped out. On hot days, when lots of aircon units are operating at the same time, this creates a challenge for the electricity infrastructure.

It costs money to build an electricity network that can handle these peaks in demand. This cost is recovered through the electricity unit cost (cents per kilowatt hour). We all pay this cost, in every electricity bill we get; in fact the cost of meeting summer peak demand accounts for about 25% of retail electricity costs. This is more than twice the combined effect of solar feed-in tariffs, the Renewable Energy Target and the erstwhile carbon tax.

A house that has been well designed for its tropical climate. Wendy Miller

This means that people living in houses that are built to handle their local climate are effectively subsiding those who live in poorer-quality buildings and relying solely on the air conditioning to stay cool. Perhaps even less fairly, those who struggle to afford air conditioning and have to cope with overheating are also paying this subsidy via the electricity they do use. All this is because many people still live in leaky, poor-quality buildings.

Does this mean that air conditioners are evil and should never be used? Of course not – there is a role for very efficient air conditioners (heat pumps) in extreme weather events. But it does raise some interesting questions. Can we design and build homes that are great to live in and don’t cost the Earth to run? And, if so, why aren’t these homes the norm, rather than the exception?

You get what you ask for

The good news is that comfortable, quality homes that put minimal strain on the electricity grid are certainly possible. What’s needed is a combination of design that takes account of the local climate, appropriate building materials and quality construction practices. Some homes consume less than a quarter of the energy of their contemporaries in the same climate – it’s just frustrating that they aren’t more common.

In the past, the housing industry would say that it’s simply building the homes that people want – that Australians are mainly interested in size and location, not energy performance. Recent research, however, seems to indicate that the perspectives of real estate agents and other property practitioners could be limiting how, or if, they promote energy efficiency and other sustainability features to potential clients.

Are Australians still mesmerised by the surface bling of granite benchtops, a theatre room, or automatic gadgets? Are we starting to consider weightier issues such as operation costs, resilience and comfort? Or are we waiting until the first heatwave or the first electricity bill to realise just how good or poor our purchase decision was?

Some savvy buyers – before they sign a contract – are starting to ask about insulation, but not the more fundamental questions, like “how hot does this room get?” or “can I afford to run this house?”.

The housing sector seems to assume that if you don’t explicitly ask for something, it is not important to you. They also seem to assume that the building regulations set the standard – despite the fact the building regulations are minimum requirements, not best practice for comfort and value.

Some also actively lobby for lower standards, arguing that energy efficiency has “questionable benefits” and that requiring information to be passed on to consumers is an “unnecessary burden”.

Buyer beware – you’re on your own

What does this mean? When buying a used car or a new phone, it’s relatively easy to get the information you need – and there are quite a few consumer protection laws in place. But when we inspect a home for sale or rent, we can see the number of rooms, test the taps and light switches, and measure how far it is to the shops or school or work, but there is a huge amount we can’t see and are not told.

A real estate agent is not acting in the prospective buyer’s interest (or even necessarily in the seller’s. The seller wants the highest price in the shortest time, and the agent wants the biggest commission for the least effort. And contrary to practices in the European Union, no one is obliged (in most parts of Australia) to tell prospective buyers or renters about the home’s running costs.

There have been successes and failures in state government attempts to ensure that home buyers and renters have access to information about comfort and running costs at the time of purchasing or renting. Queensland’s Sustainability Declaration, introduced in 2010, was very short-lived, with an incoming government declaring it “useless red tape”.

In contrast, the ACT government has required an Energy Efficiency Rating for the sale or rent of residential properties since 1999, with multiple reports showing the benefits to property value and to reduced running costs. New South Wales plans to introduce a voluntary disclosure scheme in 2018, and to make it mandatory in 2020.

These schemes not only make it easier to identify homes that cost less to run, but can also drive demand for energy-efficient renovations and put downward pressure on electricity prices.

The distribution of information about housing in Australia is flawed. Real estate agents, valuers, financiers and electricity industry operators are making decisions based on very little or no information about how the quality of houses impacts on their clients, their business processes and electricity infrastructure investment.

Most importantly, owners and renters are not being informed about the quality of the houses they are buying or renting, and the impacts that particular dwellings will have on their health, comfort and wallets.

What can you do?

So is the housing sector right? Do you care about the quality of the building you live in? What is a sensibly designed and well-constructed house worth to you? What dollar value do you put on your health, safety and comfort? What value is there for your family to able to cope with heatwaves, or to pay off the mortgage sooner because of the money you save on power bills?

Which house would you buy in this suburb? Wendy Miller

You don’t need to wait for government to act. If you are looking at buying or renting a new home or apartment, ask to see the energy certificate for the dwelling. Such a certificate would have been created as part of the building approval process.

It could also be useful to ask for a thermal imaging report and air leakage report. These are tests the builder can have done to prove his quality of construction.

Is the insulation properly installed? Wendy Miller

For existing homes, you can ask the seller for a Universal Certificate, or a copy of their energy bills, or evidence of features they have installed to enhance the comfort of the house (such as receipts for insulation or window tinting).

And next time you’re visiting a friend or neighbour with heat radiating from the walls, windows and roof, and the aircon cranked at full blast, enjoy the nice cool air – because you’re helping them pay for it.

Author: Wendy Miller, Senior Research Fellow, Queensland University of Technology

WA unveils boosted first home buyers grant

From Australian Broker.

The Western Australian government has announced a temporary boost to its long standing First Home Buyers Grant, increasing the total amount from $10,000 to $15,000.

The boosted payment will apply to contracts entered into between 1 January and 31 December next year for the purchase or construction of a new home. Builders who lay the foundations for their home between these dates will also be eligible.

“Homes must be completed within certain timeframes. If you enter into a contract to build a home, construction must start within 26 weeks from you signing the building contract, and the home must be completed within 18 months after construction commences. If you are an owner builder or purchase a new home ‘off-the-plan’, including apartments, construction of your home must be completed by June 30, 2019,” said WA Finance and Small Business Minister Sean L’Estrange.

However, the focus on newly constructed homes may inadvertently affect the state’s property market, said Hayden Groves, president of the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia (REIWA).

“As an institute we’re a little concerned that the gap between established property and new property for first home buyers is getting larger,” he told ABC News.

“$15,000 is a significant amount of money. Established property in areas that are traditionally first home buyers territory will no longer be as appealing, or even less appealing as they already are, and it will therefore add to additional supply onto the market, which you can argue we probably don’t need in this current market cycle.”

Groves suggested the government also offer the same incentive to first home buyers who eventually purchase existing homes as well.

“The positive side of it is it does bring more buyers into the market and so you do end up with more activity,” he said. “Over time the first home buyer becomes the secondary buyer.”

“But certainly the immediate impact could be a downward pressure on the median house price in Perth.”

Premier Colin Barnett was more optimistic, saying the measure would stimulate the state’s property market by allowing more first home buyers to enter.

“We are conscious about housing affordability and this boost will provide more families an opportunity to get into the housing market,” he said.

He expected an additional 650 first home buyers to buy or build a new home in Western Australia as a result of the boosted grant

Australia’s addiction to big houses is blowing the energy budget

From The Conversation.

Australia’s houses are getting bigger, but usually not more sustainable. In our recent study, we looked at the energy use of Australian houses, including the energy required to build, maintain and power our homes.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found that more energy goes into bigger houses. This is bad news not just for the environment, but also for our wallets. But these considerations are not always built into sustainability ratings.

So whether you’re building, buying, or just curious, what are the most important things to consider? And how much does house size affect total energy use?

Houses getting bigger

Over the past 60 years Australian homes have more than doubled in size, going from an average of around 100 square metres in 1950 to about 240 square metres today. This makes them the largest in the world, ahead of Canada and the United States.

At the same time, the average number of people living in each household has been declining. This means that the average floor area per person has skyrocketed from 30 square metres to around 87 square metres.

We know that larger houses require more heating and cooling and result in higher energy bills. They also need significantly more materials to build and maintain, and more energy to manufacture and replace these materials.

But how much more? That’s what we set out to find out.

Bigger houses, more resources

To systematically assess the relationship between house size and resource use, we analysed a typical new 6-star brick-veneer house in Melbourne’s climate.

We then modified the house size from 100 square metres to 392 square metres using 90 different size configurations (we’ve only shown four in the graphic below).

For each size, we measured both the energy embodied in the building materials and the energy required for replacing these over 50 years.

We also calculated the operational energy use over 50 years for two, three, four and five occupants. Finally, we accounted for energy losses across the energy supply chain.

Results show that larger houses use much more energy, but also that as size increases, the energy used in building and maintaining the house grows by more than the energy used to operate the house.

For instance, the energy embodied in a 392-square-metre house alone is larger than both the embodied and operational energy demands of a 100-square-metre house with three occupants, over 50 years. Logically, more occupants mean less energy per person, as the resources are shared.

The amount of additional resources needed for larger houses can be huge. Authors Own

Benefits of smaller, better-designed dwellings

Smaller dwellings tread more lightly on the planet and on your pocket. Based on data from Rawlinsons, each additional square metre of brick-veneer house in Victoria costs on average an extra A$1,245 for construction.

Combined with the resulting heating, cooling and lighting energy bills over 50 years, the total cost per square metre exceeds A$1,988. Removing a 12-square-metre bedroom from your next house can therefore save around A$24,000 and avoid the use of huge quantities of resources.

You might be thinking that smaller dwellings mean lower-quality dwellings. That’s not the case.

Examples of small, well-designed dwellings are all around us. These can be designed for durability and low energy use, as in-fill in dense urban surroundings, favouring natural daylight and ventilation, in symbiosis with nature or as smart urban apartments.

It is important for developers and architects to provide homes that are better designed for comfort and the environment while still being affordable.

The benefits of smaller dwellings go beyond the household itself and have repercussions at the city scale. Small homes – perhaps a mix of small houses on small plots, together with some larger apartment buildings – can save valuable space that can be used for communal infrastructure.

This would have to be done considering walkability, access to amenities and other factors, but can lead to much more efficient neighbourhoods from an infrastructure and transport perspective. So what needs to happen?

How do rules need to change?

Current energy efficiency regulations don’t account for the energy embodied in building materials, and so fail to adequately capture house size.

Most energy efficiency regulations also only measure energy use per square metre. Using this metric, larger houses appear to be more efficient because energy use increases at a slower rate than house size.

The Australian 6-star standard does include house size when considering heating and cooling, but other certifications don’t. Under these other certifications, a larger house would therefore be easier to certify, considering everything else constant.

This is ironic since larger houses use significantly more resources, both for construction and operation. We need to revise current energy efficiency regulations to include embodied energy and other measures of energy if we are to reduce the total energy and broader resource demands associated with buildings.

While our research investigated the relationship between house size and life cycle energy use, it did not consider apartment units. With a growing number of apartment buildings being constructed in Australia, the next steps include investigating a range of apartment design factors and their environmental implications.

By deepening our understanding of how to design better dwellings, we will ultimately help reduce resource use. We’ve studied house size, but that is not the end of the story.

Authors: André Stephan, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Melbourne; Robert Crawford, Senior Lecturer in Construction and Environmental Assessment, University of Melbourne

Neighbours’ fears about affordable housing are worse than any impacts

From The Conversation.

Housing affordability is a hot topic in Australia. Governments are increasingly recognising that more needs to be done to provide a greater range of affordable housing options, especially in the major cities. It is well documented, however, that proposals for affordable housing development often encounter opposition from host community members.

half-buit-house-pic-2

These community concerns tend to focus on the potentially damaging effects of such projects on property values and quality of life for existing residents. This is despite the public being generally supportive of affordable housing in principle. They would just prefer it wasn’t sited in their local area.

In reality, though, do the concerns that people have about affordable housing development materialise? Do property values go down? Does neighbours’ quality of life suffer?

Our case studies in Brisbane and Sydney provide evidence that, in most cases, they do not.

Testing for local property impacts

How did we test for the impacts of affordable housing projects? With thanks to Australian Property Monitors, we had access to property sales data throughout the Brisbane local government area (LGA), going back to 1999.

Using this data, we tested the impacts of 17 affordable housing developments on property sale prices through two different hedonic pricing models. The models were designed to test whether:

  1. The announcement and eventual construction of affordable housing projects had any impacts (positive or negative) on local property sale prices. Project announcement date was used to capture any “panic sales” that may have happened as a response to the announcements.
  2. The extent of such impacts depended on proximity to the development (by direct distance in 100-metre intervals, up to 500 metres away from the affordable housing project).

The two models were used to test these outcomes collectively for 17 affordable housing projects that were developed across Brisbane LGA between 2000 and 2009, and also on an individual project basis.

Collectively across the 17 projects, these had no significant negative impacts on local property prices. There were mild impacts on properties within 100 metres of affordable housing projects, but not at any statistically significant level.

We found that the characteristics of the individual properties sold (such as number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms) consistently had much greater influence on sale prices than proximity to affordable housing developments.

When looked at individually, the impacts of each project on local property prices were mixed. Some affordable housing projects had positive impacts and others negative.

Only a handful of the measured impacts were statistically significant, however. Even in these cases the impacts of proximity to affordable housing had much to do with other features of the neighbourhood (such as proximity to public transport hubs, water frontages and so on).

These two tests clearly showed that the impacts of affordable housing development on local property sales prices had been minimal. The impacts that were experienced were not universally negative (or positive).

Impacts on the quality of life of neighbours

What then of the impacts on neighbours’ overall quality of life? How does an affordable housing development affect things like traffic, crime, an area’s visual appearance, or sense of community?

To understand this, we conducted doorstep surveys with 141 residents who lived close to (within about 60 metres) eight affordable housing projects in Parramatta local government area.

These projects had been locally opposed but still completed. We selected the most-controversial projects and were able to achieve participation by between one-fifth and one-third of the 60 or so residents likely to have been most affected by those developments.

We wanted to know whether people’s fears at the planning stage had materialised once the developments were complete and occupied.

Across the eight projects, 78% of respondents had experienced no negative impacts as a result of affordable housing development. At only two of our eight sites had a significant number of neighbours experienced negative impacts. These impacts were mostly associated with the behaviours of a small number of individual residents.

At the other sites, the negative impacts were dispersed. Mostly, these related to minor issues such as parking and traffic.

Fears are an obstacle in themselves

Overall, our findings indicate that the feared impacts of planned affordable housing developments tend to be much greater than the impacts neighbouring residents actually experience once those developments are complete and occupied.

In other words, the perception of affordable housing is the key problem, not the affordable housing developments themselves. These are by and large unproblematic once completed.

These findings suggest that governments and developers need to devote much more attention to tackling negative public perceptions of affordable housing and its residents.

 

Authors: Gethin Davison, Lecturer in City Planning and Design, UNSW; Edgar Liu,Research Fellow at City Futures Research Centre, UNSW

 

NSW Tops latest HIA Housing Scorecard

New South Wales has widened its lead over Victoria in the latest HIA Housing Scorecard report released today. The HIA Housing Scorecard ranks each of the eight states and territories based on the performance of their housing markets.

hia-rankings-dec-16

“The large states dominate the top rankings in the latest HIA Housing Scorecard, with NSW extending its lead in first place thanks to a remarkable performance on the detached house side,” explained HIA Senior Economist, Shane Garrett.

“In second place on the HIA Housing Scorecard, Victoria was particularly strong for home renovations activity but also did well on the detached housing side,” continued Shane Garrett.

“In this edition of the HIA Housing Scorecard, Queensland grabbed the bronze medal with a solid showing on the multi-unit side,” Shane Garrett remarked.

“Outside of the Top Three, South Australia and the ACT occupied the mid-table positions. Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania are all neck-and-neck with declining market momentum on the HIA Housing Scorecard,” added Shane Garrett.

“Probably the starkest result from today’s HIA Housing Scorecard concerns the volume of First Home Buyer loans, which have fallen well below their long-term average in each state and territory. The obstacles to housing affordability for first home buyers merit a national-led response,” concluded Shane Garrett.