Yeah, I don't think they would touch anything sensitive with a 10-foot pole, especially if they wanted the polls to work for them.

That's where government subsidised housing comes in. In Singapore, the average house IS over a million dollars. Government subsidised housing is in little flats all over the island, where frequently two individuals on salary of $30K a year each might live. These little flats of course, still cost $200K as a conservative estimate, and get higher towards even $500K for the more luxurious ones.

And these, for what they are, are still like apartments. Plus the title is on lease from the government. Usually, in 99 years, it reverts back to belonging to the government at no compensation to the owner. How's that for harsh!

In a way I'm hoping for the bubble to deflate/ burst. When that happens I'll be swooping down to grab my dream property, or to scoop up cheapies by the handful. Overseas investors will no doubt suck up cheaper properties by the bucketload, where land here is still seen as being cheap compared to where they live. An average 3 bed/ 1 bath house on 700-800sqm of land here could be bought for certainly less than 500K, whereas the equivalent in Singapore would be worth millions.

In my opinion the raising of interest rates by the Reserve Bank to combat house prices is not justified. Do this and potential first home buyers will put off their purchases for a number of years more, while those already in could be forced to sell out. Then it hurts the banks because people no longer think about buying houses and don't take any loans. Overseas investors however, are coming here either with cheap credit or able to pay in cash, gladly taking up prime property in blue-ribbon suburbs.

In short, put up interest rates to control house prices, and all they're hurting is the working class people of Australia. Higher interest rates here will not stop overseas investors and neither are they likely to stop local investors. They'll just put the rent up. Will we have people living in tents eventually? Will we have high class people owning bucketloads of property, the middle class renting, and the lower class completely homeless?

Thanks for the link. The information within is expected. There have been numerous articles elsewhere citing the reasons for the price rise, and the potential bubble building up because of unaffordability.

Unaffordability is a relative thing. Back in Singapore where I was born, buying a house anywhere on the island is akin to looking at a blue ribbon inner suburb or a choice coastal area. A very unexciting, old side terrace house- double storey, 4 bed/ 3 bath (ie. one with ensuite), 1 living area, on 350+ sqm of land- will set you back $1.4 million dollars. Or how about a 3 storey house, 5 bed/ 4 bath (ie. 3 with ensuite), 1.5 living areas, on approx. 400 sqm of land? That's $3 million dollars.

Even the shabbiest Housing Development Board (HDB- or government subsidised housing) flat in what could be considered a 'suburb' in Singapore would still be around $200K. Or you could buy supposed 'houses in the sky', or large flats in 25 storey buildings that have 3 beds/ 3 baths (ie. two with ensuite), 1 living area, 1 dining area, one example slated for enblock previously and worth over $1 million close to a prime location…

Furthermore, a lot of the land in Singapore is on a 99 year lease, or more rarely, 999 year lease. So once that time period is up the land reverts back to belonging to the government and you don't own or expect compensation for that land or the property sitting on it.

In essence, the $4 million that would buy a mansion here on a substantial quarter acre block in a blue-ribbon suburb, with a pool, games room, 4-5 beds/ 3 bath, maybe a tennis court, would buy you only a Mc Mansion in Singapore…a large house on a shabby little block of land. The neighbours are so near you could hear them praying by the altar, see, smell and hear them cooking (and flushing the toilet)! A house in the median price range in Melbourne at around $450K could be a 3 bed/ 1 bath brick veneer on 750sqm of land, whereas the same house in Singapore would be worth many millions of dollars.

The other key difference between Singapore and say Melbourne, however, is the difference in their size, and the quality of the infrastructure. If they actually improved public transport here significantly and made it more comfortable, quicker, more efficient and timely, people would be more willing to live further from the city. Simply subdividing land on urban fringes ain't gonna solve the problem. We need to make people want to live out there, not put up houses in some hole that's two hours drive from the city, with cars plodding along bumper to bumper to get into the CBD. The joy in Singapore is that you could walk to shopping districts and eating places in most parts of the island, or do away with the car as well in most cases.

The reason why Singapore's roads are still clogged with cars despite the superb public transport, is because some people at least, view cars as status symbols, buy them, and then drive badly on the road.

Just went on RE.com and did a search on Geelong. There's some nice houses there for under 400K, generally the two-bedroom variety it seems. It'd be nice to live close to the water. Geez, I remember the days when Geelong was a sleepy little town. Like someone once said, 'If you bought anywhere in Melbourne 5 years ago, you'd made big bucks by now.'

Speaking of prices…a number of years ago a friend was lamenting spending 560K+ on a house in Templestowe (east Melb), saying she overpaid. Well, a few days ago a house just a few doors away sold for 1.2 mil. Goes to show that even if she did some basic renovations, her house would probably go for over 800K. Time does heal most wounds it seems, unless the choice of area is drastically wrong. Another example is a house we used to rent in Balwyn North (also east Melb). It sold for 550K maybe 7 years ago. It was opposite the park, and although an ugly house, I begged my parents to buy it. We didn't of course, because not only was it ugly. It was riddled with damp in the rumpus downstairs.

Still, the land would be worth a pretty penny now. Knock down that house (still perfectly livable), put up a modern 4 bedroom 2 bathroom, DLUG and it'd be worth at least 1.5 mil.

On the General Property forum there was recently a thread on which areas people speculated would record good gains in the not-so-distant future.

The response (or rather the relative lack of it) is disappointing. My guess is that human nature takes precedence. If people think a particular area is going to boom, they're not going to let fellow investors get wind of it. In other words, you got to do the research yourself.

I'm a newcomer to the world of property and essentially still a first home buyer. But here's my two cents worth: when searching for a home to buy in Melbourne's outer east (proximity to my parents' home and workplace taking precedence), I chose Croydon over Ringwood, Bayswater, Boronia and Ferntree Gully.

Ringwood is pretty pricey these days for an average first home buyer, and perhaps a little 'busy' and congested for me. One of my workmates in particular told me not to buy in Ringwood. But Ringwood north is very nice, if you can still find a detached house on substantial block of land that's not under transmission lines, within your price range, consider that. Boronia seemed nice and even Bayswater was decent but was told by numerous people to avoid buying in these areas. To be honest though, any of the areas you could buy into at under 500K would have a stigma of some sort. That's the impression I'm getting. Even Croydon used to have a bad rap, from what I've heard and read.

Ferntree Gully…some told me it's a nice place and I saw a few houses there myself while shopping for a first home, but it's bordering on becoming a little too far from the CBD. If I wanted to live as far as FTG, I'd rather be looking even further out at say, Sassafras, which although is out in the sticks, is a beautiful tree-lined area, winding roads and general seclusion. In essence, it's actually special and has something going for it.

The options under 500K in the outer east expand considerably if you're looking for something like a unit/ townhouse. But for a detached house with land in that budget, it gets a little harder.

In the days when I was looking, Heathmont was my top choice, and it's had good apparent growth since then, pricing out the sub 500K buyers. Of course, I wanted to get something in Mitcham, Nunawading and even Vermont South, but I'd be hard-pressed to find something livable (and with land) in those areas under 500K.

Croydon is quiet and livable, is serviced by rail and buses, easy access to shopping, lots of schools including some prestigious ones. I like the area north of Maroondah highway, near Croydon Hills and Warranwood. In essence it is like being in the country and being able to drive to something more city-like (ie. Ringwood, Boronia) in minutes.

There's a book I've been reading that talks about buying average 3 bedroom houses on a 'family-sized block' in a 'working class area'. I think Croydon would qualify as 'working class', and you can probably still find such houses on blocks of land 800sqm or above, and for under 500K. To me that sounds like a decent buy. Maybe it's something that my Dad drilled into me, but as you can see I'm a big fan of actually owning land. If you wanted to buy into a unit, townhouse, apartment etc I'd be searching hard in the middle and inner suburbs. But good luck finding even a unit under 600K in Doncaster, Balwyn or Templestowe!!

Also, I'd rather be living in an older house in Croydon than a brand new house in say, Cranbourne, Berwick or Lyndhurst, or Hampton Park, even though you would certainly be able to afford land in both instances.

But remember again, I'm just a first home buyer looking to turn into an investor. Just thought I'd give you one opinion since you're getting none otherwise!

Note that the West is something I haven't researched into, but there is apparently good potential there also, so have a look into it…areas such as Werribee or Hoppers Crossing…Tarneit…

Maybe higher capital gain is the norm in Victoria…

That statement should provoke some responses!

Oh, I was quite the idiot when starting out in property. The first house my Dad and I went to look at was in Mitcham. That was back in March/ April last year I suppose. Average house, 'quite crappy' (my Dad's words), perfectly liveable. $438K it sold for. Another of the houses not long after that was one in Vermont South, similarly average, good deal of cracks in the wall and we were worried about the grouting. Sold for $451K. Needless to say I then unhappily watched as prices in these suburbs soared into the 500's and 600's.

Even in Croydon there was a house I liked and offered on. Quoted at 385-420K and sold at 488K. Geez…thank goodness the search is over, at least for now.

In Melbourne, at least in the cheaper outer East, one of them might be (or at least I hope) Croydon, particularly the area north of Maroondah Highway, bordering on Ringwood, Warranwood and Croydon Hills/ Croydon North. Short drive to the train stations, and with buses to commute to either Ringwood or Croydon station. Close to prestigious schools: Yarra Valley Grammer, Luther College, Rudolf Steiner…quiet and country-like compared to neighbouring Ringwood.

I'm putting money where my mouth is in this instance because I actually just bought my first property there and am betting for it to go up. It was also stated as being one of the suburbs to do well in 2010 in an article from Domain (a liftout from The Age). Not that I believe it has the best potential in Melbourne, but on a budget in the outer East, I reckon it's a good place to buy.

Values in next-door Ringwood have gone up a good deal of late, pushing us average folk further out. Other first-home buyers with my level of average salary have generally talked about buying in Bayswater, Boronia and Ferntree Gully. In that sense Croydon seems to have been forgotten. It's almost a crossover from city into country, yet it has ready access to Eastlink, shopping centers and also schools. The houses on some of the streets here are quaint, older, single-storey weatherboards often on big blocks of land 800sqm or larger. That's some serious family-sized backyard there.

The original houses have great charm, and rows of these look just beautiful from the street, particularly with the majority of them looking very well-maintained. But any willing person could knock it down and build a mansion or possibly subdivide. It will be a matter of time I think, before these bigger blocks start disappearing and give way to units.

Either that, or I bought wrong and I just have a vested interest in writing here… I'll be hanging onto this place for sometime, so hopefully at least time would fix my mistakes.

I'll be very interested to see what other areas are mentioned here…unless they're red herrings.

Okay, I know this has been discussed many times before so I beg your pardon. I'm desperately saving in the hope of getting another property before the end of this year. One of the places I was looking at was Frankston South (if I could still afford a detached house then). I was even considering a cheapie unit in Mt Eliza…but is there much potential growth for units in Mt Eliza?