Capital city flight?

All our capital cities, and their outer conurbations, have a younger age distribution than the rest of their respective states or territories.  This reflects the pattern of young adults moving to capital cities for education and work purposes.

In addition, Tasmania has a lower proportion of people aged 20 to 44 years (30%) than Australia (35%) as a whole.  This, in part, reflects young adults pursuing education and employment opportunities interstate.

Tasmania also has higher proportion of people aged 45 years and over (47%) than Australia (40%).  This reflects a trend of older adults, moving into, or staying in the state.

These are long established trends.

Yet there have been plenty of claims in recent months that millennials (generally anyone born between 1981 and 1996 or aged 24 to 39 year of age) have been moving from our capital cities to regions.

Such assertions are influenced by the inclusion of a capital city’s outer conurbation as a ‘region’ – think the Gold Coast or Sunshine Coast for example.  When you exclude those ‘regions’ within a daily commuting distance from a capital, true regional locations, are losing millennials – and big time – to our larger urban places.

Now there has been some Covid-related demographic flight from our capitals to regional locations.  And there is little doubt that there is more to come.

However, here downsizers outweigh the other demographic segments – our recent work suggests – by a factor of ten to one.

In addition, the work from home trend has been more hype than delivery.  The fact that it now has its own acronym – WFH – speaks volumes.

Over the past four censuses the proportion of the workforce who said they worked from home has been under 5%.  That was despite the digital revolution in kit and internet pipes, such as the National Broadband Network.

Yet, some are now claiming that the proportion of people who work from home on a permanent basis will rise to 10%.   Several talking heads are stating it could be even higher.

True that many public servants and private professionals, who work for our larger service companies, are currently working remotely.   Many have been instructed to do so until early next year.  There seems to be a general consensus – maybe more like hope – that next year, things will be become more like normal again.

In the meantime, our CBDs and other professional based work locations are ghost towns.  The knock-on effect is substantial.

My comments 

To paraphrase Tom Dusevic from The Australian “many employers are worried about the sustainability of pyjama decision making; rising cost of vacant office space; a slide in productivity; lack of mentoring for disengaged staff and potential for sub-par work in the hermit land of Zoom”.

I couldn’t have said it better Tom!

Also, across many industries, working from home doesn’t work.  And in those industries which have seen some folks working from home, it takes a certain personality type, plus the right domestic situation, to produce an acceptable level of productivity.

There is also the issue of insurance.  Employers have to cover workers for any mishaps regardless of where they work.  Either this changes to include the home and with that all matter of impracticable contingencies or many WFH folk will have to become contract workers.  This in turn changes their employment status and tenure, opening up their labour to competition.

I reckon it is a safe bet to say that many who have been sent home to work this year really don’t understand how competitive the private contract business is.  I get daily emails and LinkedIn messages promoting a cheaper service; faster turnarounds and even free trial periods.  Plus, I have been a private contractor for over 20 years.  It isn’t for the faint hearted!

So, beware WFH aspirants.  To quote Joni Mitchell, “You don’t know what you’ve got. Till it’s gone”.

If we are truly going to embrace the WFH movement and with that population growth – and importantly millennial movement – to our regional centres, then we need substantial government action to make sure it happens.

This will need to include state and federal government department and service decentralisation; appropriate ‘carrot’ incentives like regional infrastructure expenditure as a priority over the current inner city largesse and ‘stick’ regulations like population caps on our capitals.

It doesn’t help when the capital cities get higher price thresholds when it comes to the Federal First Home Loan Deposit scheme.  Ships in the dark when it comes to public policies these days.

And yet some parts of regional Australia, filling jobs is a persistent problem — COVID-19 or not.  And despite high unemployment across the country, figures suggest in August there were more than 45,000 job vacancies posted in regional Australia.

Maybe some things just don’t change.  Midnight Oil sang it best, way back, in 1982.  “No one goes outback.  That’s that”.


The Australian government has predicted that immigration would fall by 15% during fiscal 2020 and would fall further again by the end of June 2021.  The 2021 financial fall could be as high as 85%.

This would represent a fall of almost 200,000 permanent overseas arrivals this financial year relative to fiscal 2019.

The decline will undoubtably result in a significant drop in household formation.

According to research commissioned by the National Housing Supply Council there are, on average, 3.3 people per immigrant household in Australia.  Applying this ratio,  the reduction in immigration between fiscal 2019 and 2021 would imply demand for around 60,000 fewer dwellings than would have otherwise been the case.

There have been recent reports of larger expected falls in new housing demand over the same time period, with some as high as 80,000.  Most of these forecasts are based on the lower 2.6 average Australian household size rather than 3.3 which applies to immigrant households.

Yet despite then higher number of people per household, some 50% of immigrants reside in apartments (this obviously takes into account overseas students), with 30% living in detached housing and 20% in townhouses or similar type housing.

So, as many have been stating, any fall in immigration is felt the most in the apartment sector.

In summary, Australia’s near future population will be smaller – and older – than we previously assumed because of the sharp drop we are likely to see in net overseas migration.

Just how long this will be the case is anyone’s guess.

My comments

The average age of an adult Australian immigrant is 34 years of age.  Fewer immigrants will see less first home consumers in the home buyer mix.

Also, in their absence – by default – the potential size of the downsizing buyer segment will be much larger in coming years.  Yet what often stops this market from shifting from their large homes to smaller dwellings is stamp duty.

We should be reducing – better still, removing – stamp study transfers.

The introduction of the GST was supposed to eliminate such taxes.  It is time action was taken.  Such action will see more people sell and downsize into smaller digs, which in turn will generate more new housing construction, thereby helping to reduce the impact of lower immigration on new dwelling starts.

What would also help would be that any extension of the HomeBuilder incentive embraces attached dwelling construction.

There will also need to be changes in the current, overly restrictive, town planning mindset regarding infill development in many local councils.

Another thing getting in the way of downsizers buying property – and in this case investment stock – is the recent changes in the way loans are accessed for folks over 50 years of age.  It is especially hard, given these changes, for those who are self-employed.

Since late July many lenders have demanded that older loan applicants nominate a date of for their retirement plus show evidence of their superannuation assets.  There is also the assumption that their super assets will not grow in value.

These rules apply to anyone whose retirement age may occur during the life of the mortgage.

At present the property market is struggling with the absence of investors – as opposed to owner-occupiers — yet the new policy cuts straight into the age group that traditionally provides the market with property investors.

And despite what you read in the papers, rental vacancy rates are very tight across much of Australia, including in many parts of our capital cities.  We need more investment housing.

Put simply, the odds have been raised against older investors entering the property market.

Hopefully this will be reassessed as part of Josh Frydenberg’s current lending leniency.


This week I have included two tables about the south east Queensland vacant land market.

Table 1: Residential land markets, select SEQ local authorities

Local authority


Vacant land sales Median


Median lot size (m2) Average price $/m2
Brisbane 1,950 $410,000 407 $1,007
Gold Coast 1,520 $290,000 429 $676
Ipswich 1,750 $210,000 420 $500
Logan 2,220 $229,000 424 $540
Moreton Bay 2,430 $274,000 404 $678
Noosa 125 $350,000 671 $522
Redland* 380 $275,000 425 $647
Sunshine Coast 1,890 $280,000 400 $700
Matusik Ready Reckoner Reports, table 5.  Financial 2020. * Excludes postcode 4184.

Table 2: Residential land markets, change over past decade

Local authority




Median lot size (m2) Average price $/m2
Brisbane 38% -20% 71%
Gold Coast 20% -36% 88%
Ipswich 18% -29% 65%
Logan 6% -30% 52%
Moreton Bay 30% -27% 79%
Noosa 53% -2% 57%
Redland* 0% -36% 55%
Sunshine Coast 12% -38% 80%
Matusik Ready Reckoner Reports, table 5.  Total change between June 2010 and June 2020.

* Excludes postcode 4184.

Some observations

Land sales are now increasing across south east Queensland.  In some cases, this increase is rapid.  Much of this momentum is due to the recent HomeBuilder incentive.  Demand is being brought forward.

Prior to this covid induced builder incentive, land sales were falling across many south east Queensland LGAs.  These falls were most marked in areas struggling with land supply.  This lack of subdividable land supply is the most acute on the Gold Coast, in Brisbane, Redlands and in Moreton Bay.

When casting a wider net, Toowoomba too is facing a lack of new subdividable land.

In all instances the local authorities – in cahoots with the Queensland state government – argue that there are adequate broad hectare subdivision supplies, but ground truthing finds the opposite.

The lack of land supply is evidenced by the rapid increase in the price per square metre of land sold across south east Queensland over the last decade.  Revisit table 2. 

Land is becoming less affordable.  This is part of the reason behind the fall in urban allotment sizes.  Again, revisit table 2.

Table 1 shows just how small lot sizes are these days across south east Queensland.

It amazes me that local authorities – and especially their planning departments – weigh in on land supply, often making the development approval process difficult, if not impossible, on the basis that they think there is enough housing supply.

Managing land supply is really the developer’s realm.  It involves substantial risk.  And by the way more supply typically means more competition resulting in keener allotment, and house and land package, prices.

One would think that the Queensland authorities would be increasing land supply -and given the current economic environment – that this task would have a high priority.

To find out more about the local land markets get a Matusik Ready Reckoner Report – new, improved and just $55 per report or $330 if you buy all eight SEQld reports, saving you 25%.

2% rental market trigger

This week I have included two tables about the south east Queensland rental market.

Table 1: Vacancy rate + Median weekly apartment rents, June 2020

Local authority


Vacancy rate Two bed apartments Four bed houses Three bed townhouses
Brisbane 2.4% ↓ $415 ↓ $520 ↓ $420 →
Gold Coast 3.2% ↑ $430 ↓ $520 ↑ $450 →
Ipswich 1.2% ↓ $260 ↑ $375 ↑ $325 ↑
Logan 2.3% ↓ $290 → $400 → $330 →
Moreton Bay 1.2% ↓ $295 ↑ $430 ↑ $350 ↑
Noosa 2.0% ↓ $420 ↑ $620 ↑ $585 ↑
Redland 1.1% ↓ $365 ↑ $500 ↑ $410 ↑
Sunshine Coast 1.2% ↓ $380 ↑ $540 ↑ $440 ↑
Matusik Ready Reckoner Reports, table 6.  Arrows indicate movement over the last 12 months.

Table 2: Change in median weekly rents over the last ten years

Local authority


Two bed apartments Four bed


Three bed townhouses
Brisbane 15% 16% 11%
Gold Coast 26% 18% 25%
Ipswich 8% 14% 10%
Logan 21% 11% 12%
Moreton Bay 13% 19% 13%
Noosa 31% 28% 38%
Redland 18% 14% 19%
Sunshine Coast 27% 26% 22%
Matusik Ready Reckoner Reports, table 6.  Total change between June 2010 and June 2020.

Our research has found that a vacancy rate under 2% suggests a significant shortfall of suitable rental accommodation.  Typically, when the vacancy rate is under 2% weekly rents start to rise.

This is lower than the usually promoted 3% to 4%.  This is because many tenants monitor vacancies proactively these days.  Digital technology helps facilitate this.  Gone are the days of a printed ‘for rent’ agency list being the main way renters found out about vacant accommodation.  Many tenants have the ability to pounce on available space; hence the vacancy rate trigger point has dropped to under 2%.

The rental market is also a key driver behind the local property cycle.

For example, during the stagnation phase, the rental vacancy rate is steady.  Yet a fall in rental stock availability is often the first trigger helping push a market into a recovery phase.

During the recovery phase, the rental vacancy rate starts to fall.   Weekly rents may still be falling or stagnant, but typically start to rise once the vacancy rate shows consistent falls and/or falls below 2%.

When the local market is in the upswing phase, the rental vacancy rate is often tight and weekly rents show regular annual growth.

And more often than not, when the vacancy rate rises and remains high, weekly rents start to fall, helping downturn the local housing market.

To find out more about the local rental market and property clock positions get a Matusik Ready Reckoner Report – new, improved and just $55 per report or $330 if you buy all eight SEQld reports, saving you 25%.

Back to the Future Part II

The sequel to the film Back to the Future tells the story of Marty McFly and Dr. Emmett “Doc” Brown and their travels from 1985 to 2015 to prevent Marty’s son from sabotaging the McFly family’s future.  Their arch-nemesis Biff Tannen steals Doc’s DeLorean time machine to alter history for his benefit – he purchases an almanac, containing the results of major sporting events from 1950 to 2000 – the duo must return to 1955 to restore the timeline.

Okay enough Hollywood preamble envisage you had a south east Queensland residential property almanac covering the ten years between 2010 and 2020.  Imagine if you could go back to 2010, where would put your housing dollar?

Two tables this post.

Table 1: Detached houses, south east Qld, 2010 v 2020

Local authority


2020 median price Ten year change
$ %
Brisbane $705,000 $170,000 32%
Gold Coast $665,000 $152,000 30%
Ipswich $359,000 $33,000 10%
Logan $435,000 $55,000 14%
Moreton Bay $479,000 $70,000 17%
Noosa $750,000 $230,000 44%
Redland $665,000 $95,000 17%
Sunshine Coast $630,000 $155,000 33%
Matusik Ready Reckoner Reports, table 3.

Table 2: Attached dwellings, south east Qld, 2010 v 2020

Local authority


2020 median price Ten year change
$ %
Brisbane $450,000 $40,000 10%
Gold Coast $440,000 $60,000 16%
Ipswich $326,000 $55,000 20%
Logan $267,000 -$13,000 -5%
Moreton Bay $347,000 $9,000 3%
Noosa $686,000 $251,000 58%
Redland $410,000 $50,000 14%
Sunshine Coast $435,000 $65,000 18%
Matusik Ready Reckoner Reports, table 4.

No need to comment, the tables speak for themselves.

Get a copy of your own SEQld almanac – a Matusik Ready Reckoner Report – new, improved and just $55 per report or $330 if you buy all eight SEQld reports, saving you 25%.


13 million!

COVID19 has reignited the debate about product size, with some jumping on the bandwagon advocating that there will be a lot more demand for smaller housing products and, in particular, studio and one-bedroom apartments.

Given it costs much more to build and supply small residences when compared to larger housing floorplates, I think it would make more sense to provide more homes that can be satisfactorily shared rather than single roosts.

Also, one place which seems to have escaped much attention is the underutilisation of our existing housing stock.

Three tables this post.

Table 1: Housing utilisation by product type, Australia

Housing product Bedrooms needed Spare bedrooms
One + None One Two Three +
Detached house 3% 13% 30% 37% 17%
Townhouse, villa or duplex 4% 22% 47% 25% 2%
Apartment 9% 44% 41% 6% 0%
Average 4% 18% 33% 32% 13%
Matusik + ABS 41300, table 7.1.

Table 1 tells me four out of five (78%) Australian households have one or more spare bedrooms.  Even smaller digs have spare capacity.

Table 2: Housing utilisation by tenure, Australia

Housing tenure Bedrooms needed Spare bedrooms
One + None One Two Three +
Owner resident 2% 12% 31% 37% 18%
Private landlord 7% 31% 37% 19% 4%
Public housing 6% 35% 41% 16% 2%
Average 4% 18% 33% 32% 13%
Matusik + ABS 41300, table 7.1.

Table 2 outlines, as one would expect, spare capacity in our owner resident homes, but private landlords have a lot of spare bedrooms too and many are not maximising their rental returns.

Table 3: Housing utilisation by household type, Australia

Household type Bedrooms needed Spare bedrooms
One + None One Two Three +
Family, dependent kids 6% 27% 43% 21% 3%
Multi-generational family 26% 35% 21% 12% 6%
Couple 0% 4% 19% 45% 32%
Lone person 0% 13% 30% 40% 17%
Average 4% 18% 33% 32% 13%
Matusik + ABS 41300, table 7.1.

Table 3 tells me that people living alone or in a couple household have a higher proportion of spare bedrooms when compared to families with children at home.

Table 3 also shows that one in four (26%) multi-generational homes want more sleeping quarters to house adult relatives.

End note

There are currently about 10 million households in Australia, which house about 13.5 million spare bedrooms.

We should be exploring housing incentives and relaxing regulations to maximise the use of our existing homes.

It would help if the town planning mindset changed from dwellings per hectare to people per hectare.  If such a measure was a planning benchmark, then we would do much more to capitalise on our existing infrastructure and underutilised existing housing stock.

Recent buyers

Many seem to confuse our demographic shape with housing market activity.

A classic example is that baby boomers – due to the large size of this demographic cohort – is a major home buyer group.

Yet an analysis of recent buyer trends tells a different story.

Three tables this post.

Table 1: Recent buyers by product type, Australia

Housing product First home buyer Changeover buyer
New dwelling Established dwelling New dwelling Established dwelling
Detached house 65% 80% 81% 85%
Townhouse, villa or duplex 22% 10% 8% 11%
Apartment 13% 10% 11% 4%
Matusik + ABS 41300, table 9.5.

Table 1 tells me that most buyers still prefer detached houses.  One exception is that more first home buyers are starting to buy something semi-detached or an apartment.

Table 2: Recent buyers by age group, Australia

Age group First home buyer Changeover buyer
New dwelling Established dwelling New dwelling Established dwelling
Under 24 years 3% 6% 0% 0%
25 to 34 years 53% 47% 12% 14%
35 to 44 years 30% 30% 26% 26%
45 to 54 years 12% 12% 20% 23%
55 to 64 years 2% 2% 16% 16%
Over 65 years 0% 3% 26% 21%
Matusik + ABS 41300, table 9.5.

Table 2 shows, as one would expect, that most first home buyers are aged between 25 and 34 years of age.

Most ‘changeover’ buyers are aged under 54 years, with empty nesters and baby boomers make up between 30% and 40% of the housing market depending on the age of the housing being purchased.

Table 3: Recent buyers by household type, Australia

Household type First home buyer Changeover buyer
New dwelling Established dwelling New dwelling Established dwelling
Family, dependent kids 52% 38% 44% 41%
Multi-generational family 5% 12% 9% 17%
Couple 23% 23% 29% 26%
Lone person 20% 17% 18% 16%
Matusik + ABS 41300, table 9.5.

Table 3 tells me that most home buyers are families with children at home.  Lone persons aren’t as active as their demographic shape would suggest.  And in contrast, multi-generational households account for more sales – and especially when it comes to established homes – than their cohort size.

Less is more

Below are three rare property market indicators – when they fall it is better than when they are increasing.

Chart 1 shows the number of dwellings approved, but not yet started.

Whilst the number of attached dwelling non-starts have fallen – which is a good thing – the 21,500 not yet commenced attached dwellings (which are mostly mid-to-high rise apartments) account for a third (32%) of all new attached dwellings approvals last year.

In contrast, the 9,000 approved but not yet started detached houses accounts for just 9% of last year’s total detached housing approvals.  And with HomeBuilder focusing, by default, on new detached housing builds I expect this spare capacity to drop dramatically over coming months.

Any future extension of the HomeBuilder incentive needs to embrace new attached dwelling supply and especially social housing.

 Table 1: Major SEQ municipalities: Attached dwellings approved, not yet started

Municipality 2011 2019 % change
Sunshine Coast 3,154 7,941 152%
Moreton Bay 5,042 8,020 59%
Brisbane 29,014 57,061 97%
Toowoomba 1,016 1,946 92%
Logan 3,716 7,917 113%
Ipswich 2,875 3,089 7%
Gold Coast 12,213 32,392 165%
South East Qld 59,998 121,578 103%
Matusik + Queensland Government.  Financial years.

Table 1 outlines the number of attached dwellings approved but not yet stated in 2011 and 2019 across the major municipalities in south east Queensland.  The size of these non-starts has doubled across SEQ since 2011, with the Sunshine and Gold Coasts seeing the biggest increases.

The relatively high construction costs of apartments means prices are often higher than the local market is accustomed to, rates of sale are slow, and rental yields generally poor.

In addition, there is a mismatch between the type of new attached dwellings being delivered and what the local market really wants.

As a result, many of these new attached dwelling projects are no longer viable.  They often need a major product and financing overhaul.

My third indicator is the number of new housing projects either postponed or abandoned since the start of the COVID19 restrictions.  Since March this year:

  • 488 new residential projects have been put on ice in New South Wales – of which 453 or 93% were for attached dwellings and just 35 involved land projects;
  • 512 new housing projects have stopped in Victoria – of which 463 involved attached dwellings (90%) and 49 (10%) were for subdivisions; and
  • In Queensland the number of postponed or abandoned new housing projects has totalled 244 since March, of which 204 (83%) involved attached housing and 40 were land based housing estates.

I expect these numbers to increase, as market demand contracts and developers face harder financial hurdles.

In all three cases, less is more.

Biggest impacts

According to a new release by the ABS, half (54%) of the Australian population think that things will return back to normal within six months.  The result was 51% in Victoria.  Only one in ten (11%) think that things will never return to what they were like before COVID19.

As that survey was a few weeks back, I wonder if we are that optimistic now.

Another survey, this one an established and, for mine, a more trusted poll shows that most of us think that the economy will remain in a poor state for the next 12 months.  Yet this ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence sampling suggests that very few think things will remain economically constrained in five years’ time.

So, things look very rough now, but most still believe conditions will improve in the future.  I too think this shall pass.  But when, and under what conditions, have always been important questions.

But for now, it remains hard, especially if you live in Victoria.  I have had to endure a travel related 14-day lockdown over the last two weeks.  It wasn’t a bed of roses.  But it’s all thorns if you have to ensure six-plus weeks of hard isolation.

In my recent Master Class I outlined the issues that experienced property industry practitioners anticipate will have the biggest impacts on the housing market over the next 12 months.  It started quite a debate.

This quarterly survey of 370 individuals by NAB allows for multiple responses and their June quarter poll found:

  • 80% believe that rising unemployment and job uncertainty will have the biggest short-term impact on the housing market, followed by
  • 76% said lower consumer confidence,
  • 60% difficulty in buyers (and developers) getting finance,
  • 60% the end (and tampering off) of JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments,
  • 48% lower migration,
  • 20% increased supply of rental as short-term rentals enter the long-term market,
  • 19% increased demand for regional living including lifestyle, sea change and tree change choices,
  • 18% downward pressure on construction activity from lower demand, and
  • 17% reduced demand for apartments and inner city dwelling due to increased working from home.

It is interesting what the housing industry thinks will have the most impact and which issues they consider to be less serious.

I would have placed ‘difficulties accessing finance’, ‘lower migration’ and ‘downward pressure on construction activity’ higher up my list.

And whilst I do think this impact will be a relatively short-term one in terms of its current volumes – and more concentrated on older households over the medium to long-term – many ‘lifestyle’ regions, aren’t ready for the influx and its potential impact.

In these lifestyle locations properties are currently selling within weeks, many via video inspections and almost all are being bought by eastern seaboard capital city buyers.


The third post of our three part series on SEQ urban land development.

This week I look at new land development supply in more detail.

Another three tables this week.

Table 1: Major SEQ municipalities: Total urban residential allotment approvals

Years ending


Sunshine Coast Moreton Bay Brisbane Redland
2016 2,513 6,371 2,639 458
2017 2,727 6,039 2,789 355
2018 1,361 3,585 2,797 660
2019 2,242 1,690 2,908 423
2020 890 1,592 2,230 548
Years ending


Logan Ipswich Gold


2016 3,475 3,315 2,189 20,960
2017 3,235 3,651 2,412 21,208
2018 5,418 2,598 2,165 18,584
2019 3,206 2,565 1,202 14,236
2020 4,960 1,205 279 11,704
Matusik + Queensland Government.  Total urban residential allotment approvals between 60m2 to <2,500m2 on a standard format plan intended for detached dwellings.

Table 2: Major SEQ municipalities: Total approved urban residential projects

Years ending


Sunshine Coast Moreton Bay Brisbane Redland
2016 79 187 532 89
2017 79 180 535 85
2018 92 144 560 65
2019 78 145 475 79
2020 64 101 471 69
Years ending


Logan Ipswich Gold


2016 139 83 117 1,226
2017 160 76 127 1,242
2018 144 92 108 1,205
2019 120 79 103 1,079
2020 77 59 80 921
Matusik + Queensland Government.  Total approved urban residential projects to supply new allotments between 60m2 to <2,500m2 on a standard format plan intended for detached dwellings.

Tables 1 and 2 tell me:  That new land development approvals have fallen substantially across SEQ over the last five years.  The fall in new future land supply is most marked in several municipalities including the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Moreton Bay and Ipswich.

There has been a fall in the number of new approved projects in Logan.

Table 1 outlines total residential allotment approvals whilst table 2 shows that number of new approved land projects.

Table 3: Major SEQ municipalities: Development approvals by size

Municipality Total approved allotments Total development projects
< 10 lots 11-50 lots > 50 lots < 10 lots 11-50 lots > 50 lots
Number of allotments + number of projects
Sunshine Coast 105 157 628 48 8 7
Moreton Bay 199 481 912 77 13 9
Brisbane 663 1,377 190 413 38 3
Redland 104 128 316 61 2 3
Logan 141 75 4,744 55 5 17
Ipswich 93 240 872 43 11 5
Gold Coast 120 159 0 76 4 0
South East Qld 1,425 2,617 7,662 773 81 44
% distribution
Sunshine Coast 12% 18% 70% 77% 13% 10%
Moreton Bay 13% 30% 57% 76% 15% 9%
Brisbane 30% 62% 8% 88% 11% 1%
Redland 19% 23% 58% 89% 7% 4%
Logan 2% 2% 96% 71% 7% 22%
Ipswich 8% 20% 72% 73% 19% 8%
Gold Coast 43% 57% 0% 95% 5% 0%
South East Qld 12% 22% 66% 86% 9% 5%
Matusik + Queensland Government.  Total urban residential allotment approvals between 60m2 to <2,500m2 on a standard format plan intended for detached dwellings. Year ending March 2020.

Table 3 tells me:  That most of the new land projects across SEQ are now small developments, with 86% holding under 10 allotments.  These smaller projects, however, hold just 12% of the total approved allotments.

Most new land – some 66% – is held in larger new projects, holding over 50 allotments apiece.  However, there were just 44 ‘large’ projects approved across SEQ over the last 12 months.

The average size of a new land estate across SEQ is now just 13 allotments!

Copy link
Powered by Social Snap