Housing Affordability time bomb (apparently)

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.

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!