MartinLuther

Here's a report that may be useful for people trying to choose a suburb. It ranks the suburbs of the different capitals by something called the deprivation index. Band 1 = poor, Band 6 = rich.

It's a large pdf and you'll probably want to skip over the technical stuff at the beginning. You'll probably just want to look at Table 13 onwards.

I would say avoid Band 1, choose Band 6 if you've got the money and want to hang out with nobs. Bands 3, 4 and 5 would suit most people and there's potential in Band 2.

http://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/ur..._BAUM_Body.pdf

MartinLuther

I'll bump this up just in case people missed it. Otherwise I'm surprised that people are not interested in a useful tool in the search for a suitable suburb.

Grayling

I thought it very useful but did not really have much to add.

I doubt if it will make much difference to a lot of people as the higher rated suburbs will be more expensive anyway.........and many people seem to be more bothered about the cost of housing than the 'desirability' of the suburb.

G

MartinLuther

If it stops people buying in a bogan area because they've been dazzled by the low cost of housing then I think it would be useful. I wasn't working on the assumption that people want to live in the most 'desirable' location hence my comments in the OP.

Grayling

Not suggesting you were

....but we often see on here that people will even think of moving to different cities, or even states, because housing is cheaper.....regardless of work prospects etc.

G

MartinLuther

True.

But I must admit that Melbourne's housing being cheaper than Sydney was a plus point (among many). Workwise it didn't matter which city I was in. Melbourne, for me, turned out to be the right choice.

rebnatoli

I think it would be useful particularly to people looking at the cheaper housing - I've seen a few posts where people have asked about certain suburbs because they have seen cheaper property on the Internet - especially people moving from one area in Oz to another - who would be able to recognise their local areas so would know really what a band 1 vs a band 4 area would be. I'm in a band 4 so just about right I think!

I think the thread title would put people off - I clicked by accident!

Laura and Tom

Thanks for posting that....It was nice to see that I'd been looking in the right areas...kind of middle of the road!!

MartinLuther

My thoughts exactly. I live in a band 3 but I'd be happy living in a band 3, 4 or 5 (based on the Melbourne info).

I also think that you're right about the title but I can't bring myself to do a "Where to...." type title.

BadgeIsBack

We're Band 4 - but I would not be surprised if was 3 (along way from city) but 5 (nice place to live no deprivation to speak of and attracts people who if had more money would be in 5+).

It's very subjective despite being obviously objectively assessed(!) - there are places in Band 4 I would consider very average, and places in 5 and 6 which seem highly placed.

quoll

How very interesting. Canberra fares very well with only one suburb being band 1 - and that is because no one actually lives there. Our most daggy suburb (no one in their right mind would actually buy a house there) is a band 3 (the only one) and all our other suburbs are 4, 5 & 6. (Mine's a 5 which is a surprise given the lower SES from a cohort of retirees).

BadgeIsBack

I suppose this index does what it says on the tin, it measures deprivation per a set of citeria,and not ''desirability''. Lots of places in Melbourne SE are measured 4 which indicates that there is money to pay for services, and the provision of said services (yadda yadda) but some would say they are lacking in character or cultural significance. Seems that Level 5 places indicate the political and social clout associated with those areas - even if its not measured.

Carlton home to Melbourne's gentrified elite is 1 due to the levels of students living in absolute deprivation- bet they wouldn't see themselves as completely at a loss!