With overseas holidays off the table for the foreseeable future, and the cafes with their exorbitantly priced avocado toast facing restrictions on how many millennials they can let through the door, the next generation of Australian homebuyers may finally be able to join their boomer parents on the property ladder.
From Brisbane to Melbourne to Adelaide — and of course the first-homebuyer-friendly city of Sydney — some absolute gems have been offered up in recent times. Here’s a list of what you’ve just missed out on, so you can know what to expect when you begin your search with a fistful of COVID-19 savings.
Renovator’s delight
This snug little charmer on Eton Street in Camperdown, Sydney, has plenty of natural light thanks to holes throughout the interior and exterior — plus the interior design is stunning, with debris elegantly strewn throughout the dwelling. It’s a renovator’s delight — you literally cannot live in it without extensive renovations.
The best part is that it’s completely affordable. The house went for $1.6 million which, at 127 square metres, means it cost $12,756 per square metre — a higher per-square-metre price than Australia’s most expensive house.
Living with nature
For those looking for a house set deeper in nature, this four-bedroom family home in Armadale, Melbourne, features glossy mould patches on the ceiling, climbing plants that snake naturally through the cracks in the wall (putting potted house plants to shame), and rotting floorboards that waft a strong earthy smell throughout.
Its listing described it as a genuine “once-in-a-100-years opportunity”, perhaps because that’s how long it will take you to wade through the litany of heritage protections that come with it. The lucky buyer snagged it for $5.8 million, a mere $1.8 million above the reserve price.
Unconventional living for conventional prices
Don’t be boxed in by what society expects of you. This South Sydney house sees through societal constructs and says “no” to both a kitchen and a toilet. With your cooking and, er, toileting time freed up, you’ll have the space to lovingly restore the water and electricity — neither of which are connected.
Perfect for millennial buyers who think of themselves as pure Slytherin, the backyard comes fully equipped with a snake infestation for you to enjoy, all for a cool $4.705 million.
New Farm for old times
If you think such gorgeous properties are only available in Melbourne and Sydney, think again. In Brisbane’s trendy suburb of New Farm, this quaint cottage went for $2 million, and it’s easy to see why.
The rustic charm oozes out of the property through a back door that doesn’t exist, and you’ll be taken back to the time it was built — the 1920s — every day, thanks to a total lack of electricity. The listing describes the dwelling as an “extremely rare offering”, while The Courier-Mail lovingly labelled it an “uninhabitable dump”. Imagine all this being yours.
The most liveable house in the most liveable city
The country’s most liveable city, Adelaide, is also throwing its hat into the property ring with this Italian-style cottage. Leaning walls propped up with sticks can replace that Tuscan holiday you had planned, and all for the bargain price of $2 million.
Honestly, the relative liveability of this house really might convince you that Adelaide is the most liveable city.
Inner-city convenience
Busy millennials who don’t have time to rush between their bathroom and their closet will be charmed by this South Yarra apartment where the bathroom is inside the closet.
This one-bedroom one-bathroom/closet is creatively designed around several nooks and curves — in fact, it’s all nooks and curves, with the kitchen essentially propped up in an alcove — and could have been yours for just $400,000.
Drug den chic
This is the kind of Darlinghurst den you would write home about. Spanning four levels with stunning water damage evident on every single level, this Sydney terrace will knock you off your feet. Seriously, if you don’t fall through the rotting floorboards then the fallen-in ceiling will get you.
Step (very carefully) out onto the collapsed balcony and take in the street, or enjoy a calm cuppa in your backyard (currently fenced off with ominously official-looking red tape). This darling sold for $4.6 million.
Glorious views
Just think, if COVID had put a stop to your frivolous millennial spending several years earlier, you could have got your hands on this other Darlinghurst treat — a 14-square-metre apartment for just $350,000. The spacious bathroom takes up the full back wall, with a kitchen-facing lavatory to keep an eye on your eggs during your morning rush.
This shoebox may be on the smaller side, but it has loads of storage space under the bed that you have to pull from the wall every night before you go to sleep.
Your Kew to buy
If none of the previous options have you tempted, this one will. Nestled in the inner eastern Melbourne suburb of Kew, this retro building with stunning pinks, greens and browns is calling your name. Perfect for the young couple who enjoy spending weekends scrubbing floors, walls, cupboards and tiles, this house needs a touch of work and is just waiting for the right buyer to sparkle.
Steal of the century
Finally, one you can actually get you hands on! Fresh on the market on June 10, this derelict 1850s-era cottage in Sydney’s Paddington last traded for $28,000 in 1976 and now it’s back on the market with a tiny $1.87 million mark-up.
This property is the fresh slate you’ve been dreaming of. A place where you can truly bring your own imagination, because almost every single piece of it will need repairs, from the single toilet (currently outside) to the numerous holes in the floor, walls and ceilings. And bonus — you can even use your own imagination on the electricity, thinking creatively about how exactly to connect it to your new portfolio prize.
Getting on the property ladder really isn’t that hard if you knuckle down and save, and don’t mind a bit of a fixer-upper — just ask your nearest boomer.
I know this a comedy article, but it really is depressing. I can barely afford to rent in a sharehouse – having what might be politely called ‘a complex set of circumstances’. But this article shows me how out of reach the dream of owning my own house is – and thereby joining 2/3 of the population. To make matters worse, the examples illustrate how even complete hovels go for eye-watering amounts.
At this point, the lack of affordable housing is blatantly obvious. No one can really say they’re unaware of the gravity of this problem.
Year after year, the issue is ignored and the solutions proposed don’t actually do much to address it.
2021 will be another year the problem is swept under the rug while house prices, and rents, are left to become more and more exorbitant. And this will remain another society-wide problem our liberal democracy is not equipped to fix.
It makes you want to scream.
Interested in the long term effects of negative gearing and franking credits in an era of cheap money? Here we go. When interest rates go up there’s going to be a lot of people with negative capital around. I’m a Boomer and I think this is absurd. As a parent and grandparent I think it is a tragedy. But there are too many business and political snouts in the trough for any serious systemic response which just leaves the potential for a crash, more housing pressure with medical consequences (check out that mould – seriously, look for it), moving out of cities and working online and even more serious poverty and homelessness. I grew up in a concrete nasty in the Housing Commission suburb of Broadmeadows. At least the state did public housing in those days even if they did it badly – poorly designed houses and zero social planning. ‘What’s a park Daddy?’
At this stage I can only see four options open to govts to assist a disadvantaged demographic to live with dignity. 1. Release great swags of land in potential sister cities eg Lithgow, connected with high speed rail. We just know that won’t happen. 2. Make it very attractive for businesses to decentralise. 3. Embark on massive social housing program and 4. introduce meaningful rental regulations similar to what most other 1st world countries already have. Of course there’s option 5 which both major parties seem most comfortable with and that is to do nothing. Even Labor’s social housing proposal is so pathetic as to be laughable.
All true, except for the last point. It would at least be a start in the right direction if they just did nothing. Instead the two major parties regularly boost house prices behind a bipartisan sick-joke facade of “helping” first-time buyers. Their policies increase demand without affecting supply and so raise prices; the benefit goes to house sellers, not buyers. All the buyers get is even more debt.
Disagree. Labor’s policy works out at about 2 apartments per year for every town and city in the country. Nsw alone is right now some 200,000 homes below market demand. 50,000 on the waiting list for social housing. I don’t expect anything from the libs, but, as I said, Labor’s proposal sounds good superficially but is in fact pathetic.
Back in the 80s, after the death of my father, I attempted to get my mother onto Sydney’s housing list.
The wait was 6-8 years….in 1988.
After 6 years of waiting and hearing nothing, we persuaded her to move in with us.
Actually my last reply wasn’t aimed at your comment, but ended up here. Weird. I actually agree with you what you said here :-).
Fair enough, I did wonder. My comment would have been clearer anyway if I’d referred to point 5 rather than “your last point” which could easily be taken to mean your last sentence.
Option 5 to win, by several furlongs.
Like a lot of boomers I’ve watched this slow motion train wreck for 50 years. The government did it with the tax laws, mainly. Then by throwing money at people for the mortgage, eg time was when women couldn’t work, then they could, and now they have to. Child care so they can. Seen from above it looks like big future slums; seen from afar it looks a bit like slavery. The government saves money on training and education by importing the skilled people but with no housing increases for the rapidly increasing population. And lots more, all with the same result. No supply, big demand with lots of money. The bottom half of earners more and more desperate – to the politicians’ shame (or should be). NLP and Labour alike; the former for greed, the latter for fear.
The fix is simple: change the shonky tax laws, and build lots more housing.
A government for everyone would be nice for a change. Some social justice. Lots more equality, which benefits both rich and poor (this is true – the rich benefit greatly too).
But what would I know? I live in a tin shed, shower outside under the water tank and my car is over 20 years old. But like me it’ll go anywhere. I’m neither rich nor poor, because I’m out of all that. I suppose I’m just about OK. Needs: met. Wants: none. Projects: many. It’s a boomer thing.
I agree drastic, I’m in a similar situation, except I inadvertently (30 yrs ago) bought a place that has absolutely skyrocketed in price in the last 10 years. Nothing to do with the dwelling, just the position. My wife and I are comfortable right now, but the downside is that none of our children or their friends can afford to live anywhere near here. Yes in one way we’re lucky, but we’ll have to give up our paradise and move when the grandchildren come along. I would much rather more land could be released to facilitate lower price housing in our area (there’s plenty of it), but it seems that’s not how things are done now.
It truly is a mess and it’s near impossible for “young” people (and by young, I mean 30 year old with a full-time job) to get into the property market. I honestly think the only ‘meaningful’ intervention the Government can do at this point is confiscating property from landlords who are effectively asset squatting. I’m in the north of Melbourne and it’s disgusting the sheer amount of empty property that is clearly being unused and just exists to appreciate in value.
Give a landlord a hard time limit to do something with the land, if this passes, confiscate it and raffle it off to those least able to afford it.
Would be interesting to assess what the appreciation of value is…. many owners or investors do not understand, and while nominal prices can increase, even significantly, this may not represent any real increase in asset value in real terms….. could actually be declining in real value (but that requires a more complicated calculation that is beyond the understanding of most…including RE media).
Today’s younger generations only need to look what it took in the 60s in Europe to make politicians take notice. They started squatting with the argument that the housing stood empty and they were homeless, AND the courts more or less took their side. I don’t know if modern youth have the guts or that present day, politicised (corporate friendly?) courts would take their side these days. One thing we do know, in the current climate nothing will change.
Too extreme in my opinion. Limit the number of investment properties a trust or individual can own. Taper down negative gearing over a few years to eventually zero to give current investors time to sell their properties because the profitability and tax advantage will decrease.
Normalise the market over a few year period and in the background boomers will start to move into aged living or to die so the number of available dwelling will increase.
A calm rational plan could be a win win for all, but I doubt we’ll see it.
It sounds like it’s time to revive the once vibrant Melbourne squatting movement!
“Don’t let houses rot – squat!”
Even the 60s Dutch Krakers had evaporated by the end of the 80s because of the increased use of “anti-kraak” occupants. Anti-kraak occupants are basically tenants who are denied tenant’s rights, and serve as security guards.
As the 19thC US railway robber baron Jay Gould pointed out “I can easily hire enough of the working class to protect me from the rest of their fellows.” (My emphasis.)
All the while singing the age old words, to the tune of the L’ Internationale – “the working class/can kiss my a*se/I got the foreman job at last!”
That’s similar to Margaret Thatcher’s (and subsequently, Howard’s) strategy – if you buy 51% of voters, you can trample the other 49% into the dirt with impunity. It pretty much sums up the current government’s approach too.
It doesn’t need 51% of voters in the UK with their iniquitous FptP voting – Thatcher never received within cooee of a majority of the votes cast, even in 1979 and even that percentage declined at every subsequent election.
As for a majority of the electorate, fuggedaboutit – rarely can 2/3 be bothered to vote.
Their highest turnout in a century was the Brexit vote of just under 72%.
As for the number required to intimidate or coerce the citizenry, well under 10% suffices, even when the only weapon is a cudgel.
That’s why we have surveillance laws (approved by “Labor”) so even that number is now otiose.