Commentary
Housing supply, planning, tax and feasibility — analysis written by Max and republished from LinkedIn.
-
Housing supplyDomain reported last week on Melbourne’s median house price dropping over the course of 2024.
It’s not due to “high” interest rates; if rates were the primary reason you would not have seen rapid growth in Perth, Adelaide and SEQ over the same period.
-
Many in the development industry have a view on the Nightingale model which I’m not here to address. Other things in the article really struck me.
-
Planning and related requirements have grown exponentially over the last few decades, yet resourcing to deal with said regulations has not grown to match.
-
It boils down to “how can things get any worse” than they were in 2024? That’s no given.
-
2024 was a mixed bag for development. Some of the country sustained an extended sales and delivery cycle, with challenges.
-
His words confirm, in no uncertain terms, that his opposition to a (compliant) subdivision application had nothing to do with that particular application.
-
Here’s an uncomfortable truth: Prices simply cannot drop if you also want to stimulate new supply*. Why?
-
Aspirations to foster investment won’t turn to reality without suitable land supply or allowing industry to get on with delivering it.
-
As Jeroen Weimar noted, around 70,000 new homes were completed in Victoria in the first 14 months of the housingstatement. Approx.
-
15,498 dwellings were approved in October across Australia – 9,191 houses and 5,859 units.