Your arguments regarding infrastructure are partially true and, I suspect your arguments concerning the government giving up on that nasty socialist enterprise, public housing, may also have a grain of truth.
The main difference however has become land prices. Data from the HIA clearly indicate that the price of housing per se has no increased proportionally to land. For example a new house and land in Sydney in 1993 was $107,000 for the land and $121,000 for the house. In 2003 it was $128,500 for the house and $460,600 (!) for the land.
I have links to a couple of Housing Industry Association pdf on my journal a couple of weeks back; grab them - they make fascinating reading for something that is dry as tables and numbers.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-25 10:23 pm (UTC)Your arguments regarding infrastructure are partially true and, I suspect your arguments concerning the government giving up on that nasty socialist enterprise, public housing, may also have a grain of truth.
The main difference however has become land prices. Data from the HIA clearly indicate that the price of housing per se has no increased proportionally to land. For example a new house and land in Sydney in 1993 was $107,000 for the land and $121,000 for the house. In 2003 it was $128,500 for the house and $460,600 (!) for the land.
I have links to a couple of Housing Industry Association pdf on my journal a couple of weeks back; grab them - they make fascinating reading for something that is dry as tables and numbers.