Downsizing

<html><body>
<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/is-australia-ready-for-smaller-footprint-apartment-living">Downsizing to apartment-living</a> is growing in popularity due to housing affordability and the attractive low-maintenance living on offer. <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0~2016~Main%20Features~Apartment%20Living~20">The Australian Bureau of Statistics</a> 2016 survey found there was around one occupied apartment for every five occupied houses in Australia, compared to one for every seven back in 1991. The dramatic shift is also prevalent across the board with families, retirees and <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/first-home-buyer-guide-24-simple-steps">first home buyers</a> showing an increased demand for apartment living.

In 2016, the census also showed a 56% increase since 2011 in families with children living in high-rise apartments across Australia. The <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/214">Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute</a> also found 43% of Australians aged 50-59 have opted for a smaller dwelling or different location as they neared retirement.

<h2>These trends lead us to question, why the shift?</h2>

Soaring house prices 

The <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments">affordability of new apartments</a> greatly outweighs the cost of detached dwellings. The price combined with community-centric living, premium amenity and low maintenance modern design, makes opting for a smaller scale home a smaller price to pay, literally. 

Preference shift

<blockquote>
“People are busier than ever and a big house on a large lot means more upkeep. People are eating out more, participating in more cultural activities and drawing on more health and community services. As a result, families are trading private space for better access.”
</blockquote>

- SGS Economics &amp; Planning, <a href="https://www.sgsep.com.au/publications/changing-face-apartment-living-1">The changing face of apartment living</a>

<h2>So it’s time to declutter, but where to start?</h2>

For those looking to downsize their home for apartment living, you’re going to need to know where to begin the decluttering process. We reached out to three decluttering and home organisation companies to find out their top tips for the monumentous task ahead of many Australians.

<h2>Firstly, what are the three golden rules are for embarking on the decluttering process?</h2>

Lynne Trevail from <a href="http://www.unstuff.com.au/">Unstuff</a>:

<ul>
<li>
	Firstly, declutter before you move. 
	</li>
	<li>
	Start in a non-emotional area to begin the process. Bathroom and kitchen are good starting points.
	</li>
	<li>
	Only work in a small area to begin. One drawer at a time. Overwhelm happens when you contemplate the whole house!
	</li>
</ul>
Susan Williams from <a href="http://www.ftouch.com.au/">The Finishing Touch</a>:

<ul>
<li>
	Set aside a block of time to declutter with a distinct start and finish time. Ideally, declutter when other members of the household are out. Kids in particular always show renewed (brief) interest in anything you plan to give away or throw out.
	</li>
	<li>
	Have a specific goal in mind and a plan to achieve it, ie clear out and reorganise wardrobes, tidy garage or sort and tidy kids toys. If this involves any new equipment like coat hangers or storage containers, purchase them before you start so you can complete the entire task in the time you have allocated. 
	</li>
	<li>
	Be realistic. Separate, small projects will be achievable and satisfying. Expecting to complete the whole house in a day is not and will leave you disheartened.  
	</li>
</ul>
Lee Hamlin from <a href="https://www.movinghouse.com.au/">MOVINGHOUSE</a>:

<ul>
<li>
	Start early - slowly assess your actual needs for your lifestyle by going through room by room.
	</li>
	<li>
	Stop buying when you decide to downsize.
	</li>
	<li>
	Measure all furniture you wish to take to your new home and make sure it fits into the spaces (draw up a floor plan)
	</li>
</ul>
<h2>What is the best way to decide what to keep and what to part with?</h2>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/decluttering.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="387" src="/s3/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/decluttering.jpg?itok=A0TPHxXw" width="580"></a></figure>Lynne from Unstuff suggested following Marie Kondo’s advice by asking yourself, “Does it give you joy?” to each item you have not used in the last year. 

<blockquote>
“Does it serve any purpose? If not it is probably time to let it go.”
</blockquote>

Susan from The Finishing Touch also shared a good technique for identifying which clothes you should keep, and which are ready to go. 

<blockquote>
“With clothing, if you are unsure, turn all your coat hangers around to the opposite way to normal, then when you wear an item, turn the coathanger around. If after 6 months, or a season you haven’t worn the garment (so its hanger is not turned), then you no longer wear or need that."
</blockquote>

Lee from MOVINGHOUSE creates an inventory of each room at a time, using three columns:

<blockquote>
(a) Keep - things you absolutely know you need.

(b) Items you could live without - ask yourself would you replace these if there was a fire.

(c) Replace/Sell - these things can be donated, sold or stored.
</blockquote>

<h2>What are some innovative ways to store sentimental items?</h2>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/joanna-kosinska-290213-unsplash.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="387" src="/s3/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/joanna-kosinska-290213-unsplash.jpg?itok=jeS8m8Fg" width="580"></a></figure>Sentimental items are the most challenging to part with as they are more than just an inanimate object. Instead, they have feelings, emotions and memories attached to them and sometimes there are items we just can’t say goodbye to – especially when it comes to photos and family heirlooms.

Lynne from Unstuff explains that rather than colour coding and alphabetising documents and photos, the most important thing is that the items are easily accessible.

Another great idea is digitising physical photographs and storing them on a cloud-based platform.

<blockquote>
“This is great for photos, school paintings, special documents.  Many online companies can assist with this and create beautiful digital keepsakes for you, or you could photograph and store them yourself. Then you can just physically keep the most special items.”
</blockquote>

- Susan Williams, The Finishing Touch CEO

Susan also suggests putting sentimental items on display so that you can enjoy seeing them on a daily basis. 

However, if you do have items which need to be stored in a cupboard, Lee from MOVINGHOUSE suggests using plastic containers so you can see what's inside, and to also make sure they are clearly labelled.

<h2>Should you keep something of value if you don’t particularly like it, in case it increases in worth?</h2>

A common response when you ask a family member why they’re keeping something is, “It’s worth a mint!” or “It’ll be an antique one day”, which is not exactly what you want to hear when you’re decluttering. The best way to solve this is to deal with the item immediately by taking it to get valued, or assessing whether it’s cost-effective to put it in storage. 

<blockquote>
“If it takes up space you don’t have, then it may have to go into a storage facility, that can cost you thousands of dollars. Save yourself money by getting rid of it now. If it’s costing you money, it is losing value instantly."
</blockquote>

- Lynne Trevail, Unstuff

Susan from The Finishing Touch also concluded that insurance and storage costs may outweigh the possible increase in value. And if your big ticket item sells, Lee from MOVINGHOUSE suggests using the money for something you really need or taking a holiday!

<h2>So what is the main reason people seek ‘decluttering’ services?</h2>

Lynne Trevail from Unstuff: Overwhelm. People try and declutter in one go, and they become confused. Indecision stops items leaving the home, so they call for professional assistance.

Susan Williams from The Finishing Touch: Many people come to the realisation that they need or would like some help to declutter their homes for lots of reasons.  Some put it off unless they have enlisted professional help, many people don’t have the time to declutter themselves, or like the assistance of professionals who are independent in their assessment on what you should keep, and are also experts at organising. 

Lee Hamlin from MOVINGHOUSE: We offer unbiased, upbeat support in decision making, motivating the client and offering emotional support during the process. Occasionally clients seek our help after moving, they are usually distressed and they wish they did downsize prior to the move.

<h2>Has anyone ever acquired your services right after moving into a new house/apartment and deciding they had brought too many possessions?</h2>

Lynne Trevail from Unstuff: It does happen. Again indecision stops them getting rid of items before they move. Waiting until they move becomes a procrastination technique.

Susan Williams from The Finishing Touch: We are frequently asked to assist people who have moved into their new home and realised they need to declutter or risk filling their beautiful new home with too many belongings. This is because sometimes people are not very organised before their move and end up having to pack everything to transport, rather than having the time to cull and sort before they pack up their home. It’s far better to declutter before moving as you save on transportation of items you are not going to keep and are far more efficient in your unpack.

<h2>So where do all the discarded goods end up?</h2>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/thriftstore.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="387" src="/s3/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/thriftstore.jpg?itok=V_5ZC6Qn" width="580"></a></figure>We were pleased to hear that all companies follow a sustainable approach where if the item is in good condition, it's donated to charity. If not, then it's recycled. Other options include donating to specific charities, listing items on eBay or gumtree, visiting an auction house or holding a garage sale. 

<blockquote>
“Decluttering in Winter is a good time as they can participate in the national Garage Sale Trail in Spring and the hard rubbish collections around that time. Plus it's a satisfying way to spend a cold, wet day indoors.”
</blockquote>

- Susan Williams, The Finishing Touch CEO

<h2>Finally, once you’ve decluttered, what is the most effective way to organise your wardrobe? </h2>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/priscilla-du-preez-228220-unsplash.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="387" src="/s3/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/priscilla-du-preez-228220-unsplash.jpg?itok=gEdg93ZL" width="580"></a></figure>Susan Williams from The Finishing Touch suggests dividing your clothes into Winter/Summer, Formal/Casual or arrange by colour, and to utilise most of your wardrobe space for items you wear currently while saving a small section for pieces you can’t let go of any items you’d like to sell. 

Lee Hamlin from MOVINGHOUSE encourages clients to ask themselves, "Does it fit?" "Have you worn it in the last year?" "Do I feel good in this?" and suggests using hanging shoe storage, matching hangers and folding knitwear. 

And Lynne Trevail from Unstuff has one simple rule to follow,

<blockquote>
“If you are buying new clothes, work on the adage, one in, one out. That way you stop your wardrobe exploding.”
</blockquote>

Thank you to the Susan Williams CEO at <a href="http://www.ftouch.com.au/">The Finishing Touch</a>, Lee Hamlin Director of <a href="https://www.movinghouse.com.au/">Moving House Pty Ltd</a> and Lynne Trevail at <a href="http://www.unstuff.com.au/">Unstuff</a> for your great advice. 
</body></html>

Olivia Round

Decluttering experts share effective downsizing advice for apartment living

<html><body>
Elwood House, an innovative apartment development for downsizers that upsizes luxury and lifestyle, has taken out Victoria’s top property award.
The developer Piccolo was presented with the Property Council of Australia’s Rider Levett Bucknall Victorian Development of the Year award.
The 1,400 sqm site, previously occupied by the former Elwood RSL club, has been transformed into Elwood House, a low-lying brick building featuring 30 apartments and three retail tenancies.
“Elwood House emphasises quality of life with a stunning design in harmony with the local community,” says the Property Council’s Victorian executive director Cressida Wall.
“While Elwood House is a modern design, the development reflects the local context of the historic precinct.' 
Designed in collaboration with Woods Bagot and Hecker Guthrie, Elwood House was completed in 2017.
RLB has partnered with the Property Council to present the awards program since its inception in 1982.
Piccolo’s previously took home the award in 2013 for the Garden House in North Carlton.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Piccolo's Elwood House, upsizing luxury for downsizes, wins prize

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/82579/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Various government policies have fuelled the demand for housing over time, expanding the wealth of older home owners and pushing it further and further beyond the reach of young would-be home buyers. 
A new study highlights this divide between millennials and their boomer parents.
The study is part of a Committee of Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) report called Housing Australia. It compares trends in property ownership across age groups over a period of three decades. 
Between 1982 and 2013, the share of home owners among 25-34 year olds shrunk the most, by more than 20%. On the other hand, the share of home owners among those aged 65+ years has risen slightly. 
The rate of renting has spiralled among young people. By 2013, renting had outstripped home ownership among 25-34 year olds.
<h2>Same policies, different impacts on generations</h2>
There is undoubtedly a growing intergenerational divide in access to the housing market. The timing of policy reforms has been a major driver of this widening housing wealth gap. 
Negative gearing has long advantaged property investors, potentially crowding out aspiring first home buyers. While negative gearing was briefly quarantined in 1985, this was repealed after just two years. 
The appeal of negative gearing grew as financial deregulation spread rapidly during the 70s and 80s. This deregulation widened access to mortgage finance, but also pushed real property prices to ever higher levels. 
In 1999, the Ralph review paved the way for the reform of capital gains tax on investment properties. Instead of taxing real capital gains at investors’ marginal income tax rates, only 50% of capital gains were taxed from 1999 onwards, albeit at nominal values. 
The move, designed to promote investment activity, actually aggravated housing market volatility. The confluence of negative gearing benefits and the capital gains tax discount encouraged investors to go into more debt to finance buying property, taxed at discounted rates. The First Home Owners Grant, introduced in 2000, was another lever that increased demand. In the face of land supply constraints, these sorts of subsidies were likely to result in rising house prices.
Other policy reforms, while not directly housing related, have also affected young people’s opportunities to accumulate wealth. 
The Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) was introduced in 1989, at a time when many Gen X’s were entering tertiary education. This ended access to the free education that their boomer parents enjoyed. 
HECS parameters were tightened over time. And in 1997, HECS contribution rates rose for new students and repayment thresholds were reduced.
Of course, the 1992 introduction of the superannuation guarantee would have boosted Gen X’s retirement savings relative to boomers. However, these savings are not accessible till the compulsory preservation age, so can’t be used now to buy a house. 
All these policies have clearly had varying generational impacts, adversely affecting home purchase opportunities for younger generations while delivering significant wealth expansion to older home owners. 
<h2>An intergenerational housing policy lens</h2>
A new housing landscape has emerged in recent years. It is marked by precarious home ownership and long-term renting for young people. 
It’s also dominated by a growing wealth chasm – not just between the young and old – but also between young people who have access to wealth transfers from affluent parents and those who do not.
The majority of housing related policies do not consider issues of equity across generations. There are currently very few examples of potential housing reforms that can benefit multiple generations. 
However, there is one policy that could - the abolition of stamp duties. It would remove a significant barrier to downsizing by seniors.
The equity released from downsizing would boost retirement incomes for seniors, while freeing up more housing space for young growing families. Negative impacts on revenue flowing to government could be mitigated by a simultaneous implementation of a broad based land tax. This would in turn push down house prices. 
As life expectancies increase, the need for governments to take into account policy impact on different generations is critical. On the other hand, policies that take a short-term view will only worsen intergenerational tensions and entrench property ownership as a marker of distinction between the “haves” and “have nots” in Australia.
Rachel Ong is deputy director of the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rachel-ong-113482" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

How governments have widened the gap between generations in home ownership

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/80895/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
It’s time to debunk the myth of zero housing costs in retirement if we want to understand why retirees resist downsizing. Retirees have at least five reasons to be wary of the costs of downsizing.
Retirees living in middle-ring suburbs face frequent calls to downsize into apartments to free up larger allotments in these suburbs for redevelopment. Retirees who fail to downsize into smaller units and apartments are viewed as being a greedy, baby-boomer elite, stealing financial security from younger generations. 
It also makes sense to policymakers for retirees to move into less spacious accommodation and make way for high-density housing. Housing think-tank AHURI fosters this view. Yet seniors remain resistant to moving, in part because of the ongoing costs they would face.
The concept of zero housing costs in retirement is based on a 1940s view of a well-maintained, single dwelling on a single allotment of land where the mortgage has been paid off. This concept is incompatible with medium- and high-density housing and refusing to acknowledge ongoing housing costs may cause significant poverty for retirees. 
<h2>Reason 1 – upfront moving costs are high</h2>
When a house is sold the owner receives the sale funds minus the real estate and legal fees. When the same person then buys a different property to live in, they pay legal fees plus stamp duty. 
For cities such as Melbourne and Sydney, these costs are likely to exceed A$70,000. 
These high transfer costs may mean it is not cost-effective for the person to move. 
<h2>Reason 2 – levies are high</h2>
Because apartment owners pay body corporate levies, people often assume this is just the same as periodic payment of rates, water, insurance and other costs. It is not. 
Fees remissions for low-income retirees for rates, power, insurance and water are difficult to apply within a body corporate environment. As a consequence, these are usually not applied to owners of apartments.
The costs of maintaining essential services, such as mandatory fire-alarm testing, yearly engineering certification, lift and air-conditioning inspections, significantly increase ownership costs. 
When additional services are supplied, such as swimming pools, gyms and rooftop gardens, these also require periodic inspections. Garbage collection, cleaning, gardening, concierge and strata management services also must be paid. 
Owners of standard suburban homes choose whether they want these services, with those on fixed incomes going without them. 
Annual levies for apartment buildings vary, but expect to pay between $10,000 and $15,000. They may be more than this.
<h2>Reason 3 – costs of maintenance</h2>
Lift maintenance is one of many costs that suburban home owners needn’t worry about. 
Apartments are often sold as a maintenance-free solution for older people. The maintenance is not free. It needs to be paid for. 
Maintenance costs are higher in an apartment than a standard suburban home because there are more items and services to be maintained and fixed. Lifts and air conditioning need periodic servicing and fixing. This is in addition to the mandatory inspections listed above.
<h2>Reason 4 – loss of financial security</h2>
It is a mistaken belief that the maintenance costs that form part of the body corporate fee include periodic property upgrades. This relates to items that are owned collectively with other apartment owners. 
Major servicing at the ten-year mark and usually each five-to-seven years after that include painting, floor-covering replacement, and lift and air-conditioning repair or replacement. 
Major upgrades may also include garden redesign or other external building enhancement including environmental upgrades. All owners share these upgrade costs. 
Costs of upgrading the inside of an apartment (a bathroom disability upgrade, for example) are additional again. 
Once the body corporate committee members pledge funds towards an upgrade, all owners are required to raise their share of the funds, whether they can afford it or not. Communal choice outweighs an individual owner’s need to delay upgrade costs. 
Owners who buy apartments that are part of a body corporate effectively lose control of their future financial decisions.
<h2>Reason 5 – loss of security of tenure</h2>
Loss of security of tenure is usually associated with renters. However, the recent introduction of termination legislation in New South Wales gives other owners the right to vote to terminate a strata title scheme. When this occurs, all owners, including reluctant owners of apartments within that scheme, are compelled to sell.
There are valid reasons why termination legislation is desirable, as many older apartment complexes are reaching the end of their useful life. 
Even so, as termination legislation is rolled out across the states, owner- occupiers effectively lose control of how long they will own a property for. They no longer have security of tenure, which means retirees may face an uncertain housing future in their old age.
Because current data sets do not adequately take account of ongoing costs associated with apartment living, the effect of downsizing on individual households is masked. 
Downsizing retirees into the apartment sector creates ongoing financial stress for older people. Creating tax incentives to move does not tackle these ongoing costs.
Centrelink payments for of $404 per week are well below the poverty line. Yet we expect retirees to willingly downsize and to be able to cede most of their Centrelink payments to cover high body corporate costs. 
Requiring retirees to downsize for the greater urban good will shift poverty onto retirees who could barely manage in their previously owned standard suburban home. 
Failing to understand the effect of high ongoing costs associated with apartment living and reinforcing the myth of zero housing costs in retirement will continue to lead to poor policy outcomes.
Erika Altmann is Property and Housing Management Researcher, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888" target="_blank">University of Tasmania</a> and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Downsizing cost trap awaits retirees – five reasons to be wary

<html><body>
Developer Tim Gurner has sold almost all the apartments in his off-the-plan Albert Park Residences Melbourne high-rise project.
It saw strong interest from downsizers.
Gurner sold 97 percent of the apartments in <a href="https://www.gurner.com.au/the-collection/bowen" target="_blank">Albert Place Residences</a> on Bowen Crescent in South Melbourne in just two weeks, The Australian Financial Review reported.
The tower had originally featured 160 apartments, but was reduced to 140 after downsizers chose to combine apartments to create large residences.
The result was eight half-floor residences all ranging between $4.5 million to $5.5 million. The total sales sat at $140 million.
Gurner said he took a calculated risk by offering a third of the apartments in the tower, designed by Elenberg Fraser, as three-bedders to "test the scale and breadth of the downsizer market" but that it had "paid off in spades”, the BRW Rich Lister was quoted by the AFR as saying.
Albert Place Residences is expected to be complete by 2019. 
"People have been talking about the downsizer market for years and I never believed it as we were not seeing it on the ground," he said.
Demand is being fuelled by a surge in house prices which has seen many homes in Toorak, South Yarra and Albert Park literally double in value in the past three to four years.
"Houses that were worth $3 million to $8 million in these suburbs are now worth $6 million to $15 million and this means wealthy downsizers have $6 million to play with now rather than $3 million from the sale of their family home," he said.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Gurner's South Melbourne high-rise a hit with downsizers 

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/76931/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Encouraging senior Australians to downsize their homes is one of the more popular ideas to make housing more affordable.
The trouble is, incentives for downsizing would hit the budget, but make little difference to housing affordability.
It sounds good: new incentives would encourage seniors to move to housing that better suits their needs, while freeing up equity for their retirement and larger homes for younger families. 
But the reality is different. Research shows most seniors are emotionally attached to their home and neighbourhood and don’t want to downsize. 
When people do downsize, financial incentives are generally not the big things on their minds. And so most of the budget’s financial incentives will go to those who were going to downsize anyway.
Financial barriers to downsizing
There are three financial hurdles to downsizing. Downsizers risk losing some or all of their Age Pension, because the family home is exempt from the pension assets test, but any home equity unlocked by downsizing is not. 
Downsizers also have to stump up the stamp duty on any new home they buy. For a senior purchasing the median-priced home in Sydney that’s now A$32,000. Finally earnings from the cash released are taxed, whereas capital gains on the home are not.
The Turnbull government has flagged the possibility of financial incentives in next week’s federal budget for superannuants and pensioners to downsize their home. 
One proposal would exempt downsizers from the A$1.6 million cap on super balances eligible for tax-free earnings in retirement, or from the A$100,000 annual cap on post-tax contributions. But this would benefit only the very wealthiest retirees – just 60,000 retirees have super fund balances exceeding A$1.6 million. 
More seniors would benefit from a proposal to exempt them from stamp duty when purchasing a smaller home. And many would benefit from a Property Council proposal to quarantine some portion of the proceeds from the pension assets test for up to a decade. 
The trouble with all these proposals is that they would hit the budget – because everyone who downsized would get the benefits – but they would not encourage many more seniors to downsize. 
Staying - or downsizing – is seldom about the money
Research shows that for two-thirds of older Australians, the desire to “age in place” is the most important reason for not selling the family home. Often they stay put because they can’t find suitable housing in the same local area.
In established suburbs where many seniors live, there are relatively few smaller dwellings because planning laws restrict subdivision. And even if the new house is next door, there’s an emotional cost to leaving a long-standing home, and to packing and moving. 
And so, few older Australians downsize their home. According to the Productivity Commission, about 20% aged 60 or over have sold their home and purchased a less expensive one since turning 50. Another 15% have “strong intentions” to do so in the future. 
When older Australians do downsize, their decision is dominated by non-financial considerations, such as a preference for a different style of house and living, a concern that it is getting too hard to maintain the house and garden, or the loss of a partner.
These emotional factors typically dwarf financial considerations. According to surveys, no more than 15% of downsizers are motivated by financial gain. Stamp duty costs were a barrier for only about 5% of those thinking of downsizing. Only 1% of seniors listed the impact on their pension as their main reason for not downsizing.
There are better and cheaper ways to encourage seniors to downsize
If governments do want to use financial incentives to encourage downsizing, budget sticks would be cheaper and fairer than budget carrots. Even if they have little effect on downsizing rates, at least they would contribute to much-needed budget repair and economic growth.
The federal government should include the value of the family home above some threshold – such as A$500,000 – in the Age Pension assets test. This would encourage a few more seniors to downsize. More importantly, it would make pension arrangements fairer, and contribute up to A$7 billion a year to the budget. 
Asset-rich, income-poor retirees could continue to receive a full pension by borrowing against the value of the home until the house is sold. The federal government would then recover the cost from the proceeds of the sale. If well designed, this scheme would have almost no effect on retirees – instead it would primarily reduce inheritances.
State governments should abolish stamp duties on property, and replace them with a general property tax, as the ACT Government is doing. This would encourage downsizing, although only at the margins. 
But the real policy justification is that it would help working age households to take a better job that’s only accessible by moving house, and so improve economic growth. It’s a big prize: a national shift from stamp duties to broad-based property taxes could add up to A$9 billion a yearto the economy. 
In short, the downsizing debate is a prime example of how governments prefer politically easy options with cosmetic appeal, but little real effect, on housing affordability. If they’re serious about making it easier for young Australians to buy a home, they will have to make tougher policy choices.
Brendan Coates<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-coates-154644" rel="author"> </a>is fellow, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-coates-154644" target="_blank">here</a>.
John Daley is Chief Executive Officer, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Why older Australians don’t downsize and the limits to what the government can do about it

<html><body>
The LJ Hooker-Seniors Housing Online survey found 38.3 percent of respondents were living in properties with two spare bedrooms.
Furthermore, almost one in five (18.6 percent) had three or more unused bedrooms in their family home. 
Incentivising seniors to downsize to more appropriate accommodation would benefit wider housing affordability, according to LJ Hooker and Seniors Housing Online.
Ahead of the release of a joint company white paper this month which canvasses the housing concerns of over-50s across Australia, the leading real estate network and retirement property portal encouraged the Federal Government to make downsizing more attractive in the May Budget, saying its benefits would extend far beyond seniors.
Mathew Tiller, LJ Hooker’s head of research said policy which gave seniors the confidence to move on from the family home to more appropriate lodgings would benefits the real estate market’s ‘ecosystem’.
“Supply is the centrepiece of affordability, and in 2016 there was a 9.2 percent reduction, year-on-year, in the number of properties which changed hands in Australia,” said Mr Tiller.
“New development helps supply but encouraging the sale of properties in the secondary market – where the market’s focus is - would make prices more sustainable.
It would help the real estate ecosystem, allowing second, third or fourth family home buyers to upgrade.
“Across Australia, there’s dust gathering in unused bedrooms of seniors who would rather be living in something that better suits their mobility and is more affordable, and would happily do so if their interests were considered.”
Preliminary findings of the LJ Hooker-Seniors Housing Online survey found three-quarters of respondents wanted to downsize.
Amanda Graham, Co-CEO of Seniors Housing Online welcomed the Treasurer’s speech, saying it was good to see recognition of how the housing market situation is impacting on retirees, including more older people renting, bigger mortgages taking longer to pay off, and the use of super to pay down mortgages.
“Downsizers play an important role in unlocking property supply with flow on benefits to those on every other step on the ladder, including first home buyers.”
</body></html>

Downsizer incentives would aid affordability: LJH

<html><body>
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
Who'd have thought downsizing and the issue of empty bedrooms in suburbia will soon become a red hot 2017 Federal Budget issue.
Its because the government is looking at proposals to encourage ageing homeowners to downsize to free up more affordable stock for young families.
The likely May budget package was first floated two years ago by Scott Morrison when he was social services minister.
It is hoped breaking down a few barriers will encourage older Australians to down­size homes, thereby releasing more stock to the market and also unlocking billions in capital.
The government has advice from the Productivity Commission that estimates 15 per cent of older Australians want to move.
But seemingly not until the government addresses one of the big impediments on why they stay in large homes long after their children have left. 
After selling their home the elderly can lose some of their part-pensions under the asset test. 
The latest thinking is that some of the windfall sale proceeds pocketed after selling could be quarantined from the assets test.
There's also prospective exemptions coming to the $1.6 million cap on tax-free super retirement funds, and the $100,000 annual cap on non-concessional contributions.
Research from the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), says some 80 per cent of retirees own their home with the overwhelming majority having no mortgage, so their prospect of surplus funds is real.
The CIS estimate the amazing value of pensioner home equity at $625bn - which is around a third of the countries' superannuation savings pool. 
Scott Morrison won't force older Australians to move house, given the emotional and ­financial investment in family homes, but incentives could free up an estimated 50,000 properties a year.
His focus will be on removing disincentives along with measures to boost the supply of enticing over-55s housing.
Obviously there's more than just these impediments as I recently noted stamp duty is a barrier, but that is a matter for the states since stamp duty didn't disappear after Canberra introduced the gst.
It will be interesting whether the package addresses the big difference in house prices - and prospect of easier surpluses - across Australia. CoreLogic puts Sydney's median house price at $895,000, compared with $680,000 in Melbourne, $635,000 in Canberra, $530,000 in Darwin, $520,000 in Brisbane, $500,000 in Perth, $455,000 in Adelaide and $383,000 in Hobart.
The Property Council of Australia calculates there are 530,000 seniors who receive the full-rate age pension, who are aged over 75 and own their homes exempt from the asset test. If they sell, these seniors lose $3 a fortnight for every $1000 of assets over the asset test threshold, which is $250,000 for singles and $375,000 for couples, and higher for non-home owners.
Exempting $100,000 of the house sale proceeds from the asset test would encourage about 17,000 house sales annually, the PCA suggested, rising to 50,000 houses if the exemption was $200,000.
 This article first appeared in the Daily Telegraph.
</div>
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
 
 
</div>
</body></html>

Downsizing a red hot 2017 Federal Budget issue

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Australia’s housing stock is not meeting the demands of older Australians, according to a new report released by the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC).
The report features findings from a BCEC Housing Affordability Survey, which captures the housing experiences and affordability perceptions of more than 4,300 people across New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland.
Older householders aged 55 years or over were asked a series of questions relating to downsizing, including motivations and barriers. Around 16 percent of those aged 55 to 64 and one-quarter of those aged 64 or over reported they had already downsized. The most commonly cited reasons for downsizing, as shown in the figure below, were to live in a smaller house that is easier to maintain and to reduce housing costs.
Older Australians want options that allow them to downsize in areas that suit their lifestyle. This includes being close to family and friends while having access to quality amenities.
Main reasons for downsizing
<h4><a href="/images/2016/06/14/image-20160606-26003-1j0d161.PNG" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></h4>
<img src="/images/2016/06/14/image-20160606-26003-1j0d161.PNG" alt="">
<h2>A growing mismatch between housing stock and demand</h2>
Among those aged 55 years or over who had not downsized, more than 80 percent said they would certainly do so in the future. However, around 40 percent of those who had not downsized felt there weren’t enough suitable or affordable housing options in the areas where they would choose to downsize.
Perceived barriers to downsizing
<h4><a href="/images/2016/06/14/image-20160606-26010-10q9jmn.PNG" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></h4>
<img src="/images/2016/06/14/image-20160606-26010-10q9jmn.PNG" alt="">
This identifies a mismatch between demand and existing housing stock. And it’s likely to get worse, with the proportion of older and lone-person households <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3236.0Main%20Features42011%20to%202036?opendocument&amp;tabname=Summary&amp;prodno=3236.0&amp;issue=2011%20to%202036&amp;num=&amp;view=">set to increase significantly</a> over the next 20 years.
Most of Australia’s dwelling stock is made up of separate houses with at least three bedrooms. Small dwellings with one or two bedrooms are still relatively scarce.
According to the 2011 Census, three-quarters of the nation’s dwelling stock is made up of separate houses, compared to just 14 percent flats, units or apartments. There are, however, some stark differences across cities.
Census data show that more than 25 percent of Sydney’s housing stock is made up of flats, units and apartments. Other cities lag behind. In Melbourne, only 15 percent of the housing stock are flats, units and apartments, in Brisbane 12 percent and in Perth only 9 percent.
Semi-detached, row or terraced houses provide smaller alternatives to the detached house. Yet, with the exception of Perth, the proportion of such dwellings is even lower than flats, units and apartments.
The lack of housing diversity compels older Australians to continue living in larger dwellings than they would prefer, and often for longer than they would prefer.
In Western Australia, where four out of every five dwellings are separate houses, more than one-quarter of households aged 55 years or over live in dwellings with three or more spare bedrooms.
<h2>So, what housing solutions are possible?</h2>
As population ageing drives a long-run demand for smaller dwellings, the mismatch between preferences and housing supply will grow unless a significant shift in the diversity of dwellings happens across the country.
This does not simply mean delivering more one-bedroom apartments. Increasing dwelling diversity takes time, planning and commitment. Strategic planning documents across the country recognise the need for change, yet the housing market in its current form appears unable to deliver diverse, affordable housing options on anything close to a sufficient scale.
The lack of suitable homes is not the only factor that discourages older Australians from downsizing. The BCEC Housing Affordability Survey shows that 58% of would-be older downsizers thought the costs of downsizing – such as stamp duty and real estate agent fees – were simply too high to make downsizing worthwhile.
Making downsizing less costly is likely to be “doubly beneficial”. This is because it would free up existing housing stock for younger families, thus revitalising an ageing housing stock, while allowing older households to reduce their housing costs. Stamp duty reforms targeted at older Australians, such as those already implemented in Victoria and the ACT, would remove a significant barrier to downsizing and potentially deliver benefits to the economy.
However, tax reforms must be accompanied by flexible housing solutions. These need to increase the supply of diverse housing forms, not just in terms of house type but also tenure, in the locations where older people want to live.
Older Australians want innovative solutions that offer more than traditional retirement housing options. Vertical villages, which offer activated internal corridors, flexible living spaces and areas to entertain the grandchildren, are starting to appear.
Alternative tenure options such as the “land rent” model create housing solutions in which costs are reduced because the occupant does not need to buy the land. Such models represent forward thinking, but existing policy settings present major challenges to such innovation.
Governments need to work with industry to deliver solutions that meet the housing needs of older Australians. These solutions are required now more than ever.
 
Rachel Ong is deputy director, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rachel-ong-113482" target="_blank">here.</a>
Alan Duncan is director, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre and Bankwest Research Chair in Economic Policy, Curtin University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alan-duncan-100759" target="_blank">here</a>.
Steven Rowley is director - Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute - Curtin Research Centre, Curtin University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/steven-rowley-201914" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation. 
The authors would like to thank Amity James, of Curtin University, for her contributions to the administration and analysis of the BCEC Housing Affordability Survey.
</body></html>

Downsizing

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Downsizing

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News