Home truth about affordable suburbs in Melbourne sees travel costs play a leading role
Melbourne suburbs with the most affordable living aren’t always where you would think. Find out where families get the best bang for their buck once housing and transport costs are factored in.
Victoria
Don't miss out on the headlines from Victoria. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Low-income families chasing cheaper housing on Melbourne’s south and eastern fringes end up being hit with higher living costs than those on similar wages in middle and inner suburbs.
A new analysis of housing and travel costs stacked against income pinpoints where residents get the best bang for overall buck — busting the myth that affordable housing necessarily leads to affordable living.
The KPMG report shows southeast and eastern suburbs have lower cost housing but an “increasing imbalance between where people live and where people work” has distorted their travel expenses.
The analysis, which urges policymakers to focus on “affordable living, not just affordable housing”, also warns that the aftermath of COVID-19 could exacerbate problems for lower income families in high cost areas because they can’t often work from home.
It provides a blueprint for where to develop housing that would link to transport, education and — importantly — jobs.
Praveen Thakur, a KPMG partner specialising in transport and infrastructure, said low income families in outer suburbs servicing two or three cars faced mounting bills.
“For those who are the most vulnerable, then they are having to choose between having a car and fuel for the car, versus having fuel for their stomach and their kids,” he said.
He said the report suggests “where should we, from a public policy point of view, provide affordable housing”, while also pointing to where transport links were most needed.
Examples in the report of hard-pressed suburbs are Cranbourne, Knoxfield and Rowville
where families have “high living costs, despite more affordable housing”.
“This indicates that high transport costs in these suburbs are outweighing the benefits of relatively affordable housing,” it says.
To illustrate this point, the report shows a typical supermarket shelf stacker in Casey spends $333 a week on housing, and $170 on transport. This leaves about $200 for food, utilities and education.
In comparison, suburbs such as Essendon and Richmond tend to have a better overall result.
Amy and James La Verde, who moved into their Essendon home two months ago, said it’s the ideal suburb for young families because “everything is here for us”.
“We have great cafes, primary schools and public transport all close,” Ms La Verde said.
She said being able to get into work on public transport meant the family saved money on travel.
Sunbury, which is further from the city, also ranks well, suggesting residents are “less likely to travel long distances for work and are able to access their daily needs locally”.
Areas with more diverse transport links but which rank poorly include Mount Waverly and Blackburn where housing costs are too high to outweigh travel benefits.
Worryingly, the report suggests that 18 per cent of Melbourne’s turbocharged population growth will move to the 10 most unaffordable areas over the next decade.
Mr Thakur said many families in areas pinpointed as least affordable worked in retail, hospitality, manufacturing and service delivery — which can’t be done remotely during COVID-19 lockdowns.
This is likely to “exacerbate” the gap between vulnerable and other Victorians as the state recovers from the current economic slump.
The report points to the Andrews Government’s recent announcement of a $500 million package to boost community and public housing as an opportunity to refocus on areas that have better affordable living outcomes.
It recommends a two-pronged approach involving better transport links in areas deemed the least affordable, combined with more housing in affordable areas.
“A two-pronged approach to living affordability will help make Australian cities more resilient to similar economic shocks in the future,” it says.
MORE NEWS
VICTORIA’S HIGH-RISK COVID-19 SPOTS REVEALED
MORE THAN 600 FRANKSTON HOSPITAL STAFF IN ISOLATION
STATE OF EMERGENCY MAY BE EXTENDED IN COMPROMISE
– with Alexandra Gauci