The cricket pitch back yard (WA)

It is fairly evident with the way that the australian population is heading that there will be significant land supply shortages for housing around major cities. LGA's are hoping to prepare for this by changing zoning regulations and designing activity hubs with smaller lot sizes to increase density.

Directions 2031 indicates that Perth is expected to grow to over 2.2M people by 2031 and as such has set a target for 154,000 new dwellings to come from infill development alone.

You can see the type of stock that the effect of this (and other redevelopment policies) has with some of the current new homes being built on (tiny) subdividable blocks. Theyre white, cramped, and have a small brick patio to constitute the back yard.

I understand that these types of dwellings are necessary to meet changes in housing demographics and the increasing population, but does anyone actually want to live in these?

Whilst from an investor point of view the ability to subdivide your block is great in the short term, is everyone forgetting how much aussies value a back yard? Surely there is a case to discuss about the growth potential of infill properties that actually don't subdivide and keep the large blocks and gardens.

I'm interested to hear all of your thoughts on this.

 

Yeah its probably likely to be a thing.

You can see that sort of effect in some of the fancier suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney where the single big block is often a similar price as 2 smaller half lots.

I wouldn't count on it much though in Perth. Its still a good general rule of thumb that cutting blocks up will make better money.

 

When the back yard costs a million bucks...all of a sudden the infill looks pretty good!

Also worth mentioning that Higher density doesn't have to be horrible. Terrace houses (a la Sydney) and well - designed townhouses can be great!

 

I had a house with an old tennis court. It now has two houses. But both block are big enough that they have their own yards - one is enormous.

 

Good infill and good policies will allow for a range of densities in suburbs/LGAs to meet all housing appetites. Bad policy will give you a suburb of triplexes and all one zoning with little or no diversity to meet all requirements.

Small houses are popular with those starting out, those with no children, and those after children. They don't want/need the upkeep of a large garden. People with children also choose these types of houses as community ammenities are now getting so good that the humble backyard can't compare. Why have a large yard when you have a park like this across the road? Braithwaite Park Nature Play Area Mt Hawthorn

From my perspective, I've built 18 dwellings that range from 90sqm blocks up to 260sqm blocks and all are tenanted with people willing to live in them. If you count my client stuff on top of that then it's closer to 40.

Personally I love the wide open spaces so I moved onto 10 acres this year but before that I've lived in flats, villas, townhouses and houses. All had their time and place in my life. There will be a market for those that want those full sized blocks - they just need to pay more than a developer and they can have them. That is the luxury of a PPOR budget, it is not curtailed by feasibility. I've lost many a development site to a PPOR buyer who wants the land for a larger house.

 

Thanks, totally agree.

However i'm sure there will come a time that even the larger blocks that aren't currently subdividable, will be. And those that are now will be going vertical. Have you ever met an investor that hasn't subdivided a block if they could?

Understand too that any development must be being built and designed to meet a certain need or demographic, however retaining a larger block for that certain demographic is something that is a lot harder to get back once a site has been developed. Wouldn't this increase the scarcity of larger block and therefore demand/growth?

 

People complain about housing affordability, lack of essential worker housing near the cbd, high cost of rent, scarcity of land etc ad infinitum. When something is proposed to be done about it we complain that the blocks are too small, too expensive, lack services, poorly located etc.

 

Planners need to give it more thought and provide more guidelines and rules for developers. Otherwise like what is happening around me all 3x2 tri or quad plexs jammed onto smallest section of land allowed and a few higher density 2 storey unit developments/flats. Parking doesn't seem to be a factor. Every one has 2 cars even 1 bedroom flats and people start to park on the street.

 

Pick me! I hate mowing and would love a place with just a small brick patio

 

Planners ARE giving it more thought.

Was just at the Industry Forum for the Joondalup HOA revision yesterday - some of the concepts and ideas put forward would honestly align more with what the residents would want - and all the developers were nodding in agreement.

 

Do you think the new Medium Density code will help with this?

 

What were some of the things they were saying?

 

MDCode is about 5 years away so no point waiting.

Discussions around established tree retention, increased setbacks, different housing typologies, corrected verge parking, DSZs etc.

 

I would rather live in an apartment than commute two hours a day. That is just me.

There are many properties that are large, close to the ocean and close to the city. They are also expensive.

Just like anything life has trade offs; and every choice has a consequence.

If you want everything for a price point you can move to a regional city - and that has other consequences.

 

Gotta have room for a cricket pitch !