The power of property...

[clowboy]

Professor Frink

No offence but that just makes me laugh.

It is getting developed and that is what scares me.

Drive 2-2.5hrs north of perth and you will hit the "Boom" central of the north coast, called jurien bay. It's a great little seaside town, just the kind of place you might want to retire, now I only ever went there about 3 months ago so I don't know what it use to look like but given that everything looks brand new (roads, shops, kerbs, footpaths, everything) I said damn this place is really booming. Now if you had nothing to do with your time and could travel back to the big smog at a pins drop and didnt mind that there is only one supermarket (a big deli) and a couple of other shops you would probally love living there. But with a population of a couple of thousand and a 2+ hour drive back to civilization I shudder at the asking price of a block of land. Ocean views demand prices in excess of 500k(and Im being conservative here). Sure the views are nice and all that but that is a heck of a lot of money for a slab of dirt in the middle of next to nowhere.
Hell drive another 1-1.5 hrs and you will hit dongara where there are land releases coming out of there but's (at least it is less than an hour to gero) and the price tag's ar'nt much cheaper. Everthing in between is doing pretty much the same, only on a lesser scale.

I mean the joke in perth these days is that if you go to the most northern suburb your in south Geraldton. while it is,nt quite that bad it is pretty bad.

Also what isn't getting developed is still farm land.

What's my point?

Well basically I think to myself wouldn't it be nice to live in a place like this (if you are able to, eg retired), and I answer yes, then I ask myself, I a block of dirt 2hrs from perth really worth more than $500k? I don't think so. If things turn around and my 350k property 6km's from the CBD becomes worth 250k, what will that 500k block of dirt fetch?

Probally I could trade my place for two or more blocks of dirt.


Anyway that's just what I think, could be that China and commodities are stronger for longer and those blocks end up fetching 3-4 million each.

 

[Realist]

Why are these types of areas not being developed so that people can live there?

Because living on an empty coast is completley overrated. And despite what everyone thinks, few people actually want to live on the coast. People want to live near people, jobs, excitement, friends, events, etc.

Most people in the world live in large crowded cities, despite there being ample coast that is empty.

If you built a massive new Island, with room for 10M people and you put 1M people on it, I suspect 900,000 would cram together at one corner, 80,000 would live near them but not with them, and 20,000 would spread out to the empty spots and they are probably the old buggers ready to die. Later as it grew another city would form but 90% of the land would remain unused. If you added many more people they'd build towers - still not using the empty land.

People and animals in general like to live together. Hence a crappy part of Sydney is still worth more than some empty coast which in most peoples opinions is much nicer.

1/4 of NZ live in Auckland, 1/4 of Australia live in Sydney or Melbourne, alot of the US live in the worst part, the north east. etc..

 

[professor_frink]

Professor Frink

No offence but that just makes me laugh.

Glad I'm entertaining you
Which part in particular made you laugh? I've posted a few things in this thread. Which comment are you talking about specifically?

Because living on an empty coast is completley overrated. And despite what everyone thinks, few people actually want to live on the coast. People want to live near people, jobs, excitement, friends, events, etc.

And that's why I rephrased my earlier comment. Not that many people want to live too far away from the major cities. Hence land that most people want to buy is limited.

 

[Realist]

The question then is Prof Frink, where to buy next as an investment?

And my thoughts are Sydney.

Because it was the first to boom, everywhere else has followed leaving bargain opportunities few and far between, it has been the first to fall (creating a bit of value and other places are due for a fall), the money and population are there, land is scarce unlike virtually everywhere else, and if a mining crash happens Sydney has the jobs. It has overseas buyers as well.

And because it has gone down for the past 3 years, it is getting close to having some value properties.

Not yet though, but soonish...

 

[clowboy]

the not being developed part, only because I recently went travelling up the WA coast and the development is absurd. No stop's complaining about urban sprawl over here.

 

[professor_frink]

The question then is Prof Frink, where to buy next as an investment?

And my thoughts are Sydney.

Because it was the first to boom, everywhere else has followed leaving bargain opportunities few and far between, it has been the first to fall (creating a bit of value and other places are due for a fall), the money and population are there, land is scarce unlike virtually everywhere else, and if a mining crash happens Sydney has the jobs. It has overseas buyers as well.

And because it has gone down for the past 3 years, it is getting close to having some value properties.

Not yet though, but soonish...

Personally, when it comes to property, I'd always look locally, or fairly close to it. That's just a personal preference, as I'd like to be fairly familiar with the area I would be buying in- I know 10 times more about areas from Sydney-Queensland border, as this is where I've spent most of my time.
There's no way I'd be looking interstate, unless I'd been visiting there on a regular basis.

At least if I'm buying in an area I know, I can feel a bit more confident about any decision I make. Not sure if it would help the performance of the investment at all, but I'd feel more confident doing it that way.
Last thing I would want to do, is buy an IP in an area that turned out to be that area's equivalent of Lakemba/Redfern, or Windale(Newcastle)

the not being developed part, only because I recently went travelling up the WA coast and the development is absurd. No stop's complaining about urban sprawl over here.

Sorry. I was just going on what Juddy said.

 

[cogidubnus]

Because living on an empty coast is completley overrated. And despite what everyone thinks, few people actually want to live on the coast. People want to live near people, jobs, excitement, friends, events, etc.

Most people in the world live in large crowded cities, despite there being ample coast that is empty.

If you built a massive new Island, with room for 10M people and you put 1M people on it, I suspect 900,000 would cram together at one corner, 80,000 would live near them but not with them, and 20,000 would spread out to the empty spots and they are probably the old buggers ready to die. Later as it grew another city would form but 90% of the land would remain unused. If you added many more people they'd build towers - still not using the empty land.

People and animals in general like to live together. Hence a crappy part of Sydney is still worth more than some empty coast which in most peoples opinions is much nicer.

1/4 of NZ live in Auckland, 1/4 of Australia live in Sydney or Melbourne, alot of the US live in the worst part, the north east. etc..

You are correct. I am old fart and I do not like towns, because kids mug me when I go to the shop. They steal my money. Everyone moves quickly and noone cares about my well being. I am safer living in a smaller community or out in the bush. I can drive and not get hassled. I can play golf go fishing lawn bowls stroll on the beachetc. Big cities are for young people who can defend themselves or have lots of friends to mingle with and are up and commings.. They enjoy living in small cramped places because they are gregarious like budgies. they need to communicate and spin **** to survive. Chirp chirp little birdies.