I’m pretty sure they plan on selling the apartments. an article I read describes them as premium apartments which make more sense to sell I think.
But even if they weren’t selling them, woolies (group) is just capitalising on the land they already (or will) own. I.e subsidising the cost of building a Woolworths store. It’ll be run as a business through a real estate agent with all the protections you already have. Probably be better for the tenant as there isn’t an owner with an ego on the other end.
And there’s nothing stoping you from getting groceries where ever you want. You could even get coles delivery if you wanted.
Either way, I’m all for it. I see nothing but advantages.
One of the main reasons I need a car is to get to/from the shops with my stuff. This would alleviate that requirement entirely.
The land is already in-use. No more land is cleared to build these apartments.
Woolies won’t allow AirBnBs in these apartments. So the apartments are added to the overall housing pool, reducing costs for everyone.
Woolies will either manage the Strata or be a major player in the strata - so it will be run properly and not by a cabal of retirees dictating terms to the time-poor.
I don’t see any disadvantages here. Am I missing something?
If you started at an “either way” to the “built to buy or built to rent” question, this matters. If it’s built to buy Woolies can’t really do much to stop AirBnBs. They don’t own the apartments once it’s been sold off. And I’m not convinced that a strata by-law against short-term accommodation would even be legal, let alone practically enforceable. From that perspective, build-to-rent might be superior.
I’m personally not entirely convinced either way about whether build-to-rent or the more standard build-to-own is better (certainly, build-to-rent affordable homes is better than build-to-buy luxury ones, but build-to-buy affordable homes should also be in the mix—as should, to a much much greater degree than at present, State-owned housing, which I guess is a subset of build-to-rent). It kinda just feels wrong on a gut level (I guess it “doesn’t pass the pub test”) to have housing that’s literally impossible for an individual to buy and live in because of corporate ownership. And I think I’d rather rent from a good individual landlord than a corporation, but the corp is likely to be more consistent and much better than many of the worst landlords. Assuming they use good agents.
But I do think it’s worth recognising what potential upsides are to each, and “it prevents AirBnBs” does not, I think, work as an advantage for build-to-own, and is more likely (though not guaranteed) to work in the case of build-to-rent.
Is this built to buy or built to rent?
Always get nervous when companies are setting themselves up to be providers of food and homes…
Doesn’t feel right when one company provides all your basic needs at a price
I’m pretty sure they plan on selling the apartments. an article I read describes them as premium apartments which make more sense to sell I think.
But even if they weren’t selling them, woolies (group) is just capitalising on the land they already (or will) own. I.e subsidising the cost of building a Woolworths store. It’ll be run as a business through a real estate agent with all the protections you already have. Probably be better for the tenant as there isn’t an owner with an ego on the other end.
And there’s nothing stoping you from getting groceries where ever you want. You could even get coles delivery if you wanted.
Coles is trying to do basically the same thing with the store they own across the road.
Either way, I’m all for it. I see nothing but advantages.
I don’t see any disadvantages here. Am I missing something?
If you started at an “either way” to the “built to buy or built to rent” question, this matters. If it’s built to buy Woolies can’t really do much to stop AirBnBs. They don’t own the apartments once it’s been sold off. And I’m not convinced that a strata by-law against short-term accommodation would even be legal, let alone practically enforceable. From that perspective, build-to-rent might be superior.
I’m personally not entirely convinced either way about whether build-to-rent or the more standard build-to-own is better (certainly, build-to-rent affordable homes is better than build-to-buy luxury ones, but build-to-buy affordable homes should also be in the mix—as should, to a much much greater degree than at present, State-owned housing, which I guess is a subset of build-to-rent). It kinda just feels wrong on a gut level (I guess it “doesn’t pass the pub test”) to have housing that’s literally impossible for an individual to buy and live in because of corporate ownership. And I think I’d rather rent from a good individual landlord than a corporation, but the corp is likely to be more consistent and much better than many of the worst landlords. Assuming they use good agents.
But I do think it’s worth recognising what potential upsides are to each, and “it prevents AirBnBs” does not, I think, work as an advantage for build-to-own, and is more likely (though not guaranteed) to work in the case of build-to-rent.