Hi all,
I'm looking at buying a property mid next year for me and the dog. Hubby and I recently split but we've agreed to operate as business partners meanwhile and retain our IP bought about a year ago. As such the property we plan to purchase (maybe through a trust) is for me to live in and carry most of the mortgage while he manages the other and we both have a long term steak in each (with exit plans in place).
The maximum I will be able to spend will be 350k on my grad wage. I am looking to buy something run down but structurally sound in a decent capital growth area. The idea is that I can get boarders in and do it up as cash allows, then move on to a more desirable property and do the same until I reach the Scarborough area/coast one day! I would like your opinion on whether it is a better strategy to buy smaller houses closer to the city or land content further out to achieve the goal of living in a more desirable area? My initial research suggests:
North west corridor of Perth: villa in East Osborne Park, rare villa in Doubleview, Scarborough 1 brm. 2 brm unit Glendalough/Wembley/Herdsman Lake area with large enough outdoor area for dog.
North east corridor: House in Girrawheen, Koondoola, Lockridge, Eden Hill, Mirrabooka, Beechborough, Marangaroo. Villa Dianella, Maylands, Tuart Hill, Morley
South east corridor: Forget Gosnells, I'm not doing it! House in Thornlie, Langford, Lynwood, Cannington, Beckinham, Cloverdale, duplex/villa Queens Park, Bentley, East Vic Park, Belmont, Carlisle
South west corridor: Hamilton Hill, Spearwood, Coolbellup, Yangebup – all houses/strata.
Ideally I'd love to live closer to the CBD, but if it makes more sense to buy bigger, further out then it will help me narrow down my research. I would like to become more of an expert in less areas so that I can nab a bargain in 6 – 8 months.
Many thanks for your opinions.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
