Australia's Regional Rent Markets Soared
Share Button

Australia’s Regional Rent Markets Soared

New data points to a rapid ‘tightening’ outside of capital cities.

By Terry Christodoulou
Wed, May 26, 2021 12:00pmGrey Clock < 1 min

Rent in regional markets has increased at almost three times the rate of capital city markets in the past 12 months.

That’s according to the Corelogic Hedonic rental value index, which tracks the combined value of rent estimates for all dwelling types. The index points out that all dwelling types increased 9.6% for regional rents, while capital city markets increased 3.3%.

“Of the 25 regions analysed, total available rent listings have, on average, halved during the year,” said Corelogic head of research, Eliza Owen.

“Across these regions, the average time a rental property spent on the market has declined from 25 days in the three months to April 2020 to 17 days during April 2021.”

According to Owen, factors that influenced the tightening of the regional rent market included less people leaving the regions – due to COVID-19, an influx of people moving to the regions, boosted domestic tourism markets and rising property values.

“Creating more affordable housing in regional Australia and major cities could ease rental conditions,” added Owen.

“Having well dispersed affordable housing options can also serve to restrict internal migration based on affordability constraints.”



MOST POPULAR

What a quarter-million dollars gets you in the western capital.

Alexandre de Betak and his wife are focusing on their most personal project yet.

Related Stories
Lifestyle
Chronic Wildfires Are Impacting California Home Values
By CHAVA GOURARIE 28/08/2024
Lifestyle
Dumpster Driving: Inside the Treasures From the Los Angeles ‘Junkyard’ Car Collection
By Jim Motavalli 23/08/2024
Lifestyle
Want to Ruin a Destination’s Appeal for Others? Take a Selfie and Post It
By HEIDI MITCHELL 22/08/2024

Report by the San Francisco Fed shows small increase in premiums for properties further away from the sites of recent fires

By CHAVA GOURARIE
Wed, Aug 28, 2024 3 min

Wildfires in California have grown more frequent and more catastrophic in recent years, and that’s beginning to reflect in home values, according to a report by the San Francisco Fed released Monday.

The effect on home values has grown over time, and does not appear to be offset by access to insurance. However, “being farther from past fires is associated with a boost in home value of about 2% for homes of average value,” the report said.

In the decade between 2010 and 2020, wildfires lashed 715,000 acres per year on average in California, 81% more than the 1990s. At the same time, the fires destroyed more than 10 times as many structures, with over 4,000 per year damaged by fire in the 2010s, compared with 355 in the 1990s, according to data from the United States Department of Agriculture cited by the report.

That was due in part to a number of particularly large and destructive fires in 2017 and 2018, such as the Camp and Tubbs fires, as well the number of homes built in areas vulnerable to wildfires, per the USDA account.

The Camp fire in 2018 was the most damaging in California by a wide margin, destroying over 18,000 structures, though it wasn’t even in the top 20 of the state’s largest fires by acreage. The Mendocino Complex fire earlier that same year was the largest ever at the time, in terms of area, but has since been eclipsed by even larger fires in 2020 and 2021.

As the threat of wildfires becomes more prevalent, the downward effect on home values has increased. The study compared how wildfires impacted home values before and after 2017, and found that in the latter period studied—from 2018 and 2021—homes farther from a recent wildfire earned a premium of roughly $15,000 to $20,000 over similar homes, about $10,000 more than prior to 2017.

The effect was especially pronounced in the mountainous areas around Los Angeles and the Sierra Nevada mountains, since they were closer to where wildfires burned, per the report.

The study also checked whether insurance was enough to offset the hit to values, but found its effect negligible. That was true for both public and private insurance options, even though private options provide broader coverage than the state’s FAIR Plan, which acts as an insurer of last resort and provides coverage for the structure only, not its contents or other types of damages covered by typical homeowners insurance.

“While having insurance can help mitigate some of the costs associated with fire episodes, our results suggest that insurance does little to improve the adverse effects on property values,” the report said.

While wildfires affect homes across the spectrum of values, many luxury homes in California tend to be located in areas particularly vulnerable to the threat of fire.

“From my experience, the high-end homes tend to be up in the hills,” said Ari Weintrub, a real estate agent with Sotheby’s in Los Angeles. “It’s up and removed from down below.”

That puts them in exposed, vegetated areas where brush or forest fires are a hazard, he said.

While the effect of wildfire risk on home values is minimal for now, it could grow over time, the report warns. “This pattern may become stronger in years to come if residential construction continues to expand into areas with higher fire risk and if trends in wildfire severity continue.”