Q & A: Airports, Unit Booms, Land vs Market Strength & Cheap Markets

Question 1: Has infrastructure like a new metro line or airport driven growth in Western Sydney, in areas like St Marys and Austral?

The question points to strong growth in Sydney around areas near new metro lines and the upcoming airport, using St Marys as an example, and asks for the hosts' thoughts.

Damien starts with Austral, in Sydney's south-west, describing a suburb dominated by land development and house-and-land packages, no longer cheap, with some medians he describes as staggering. Looking at the platform's August 2026 data, Austral shows a typical value of close to $1.2 million, a DSR3 of around 67 (a good score), and a gross yield of about 3.5%, decent for that price point. Its statistical reliability is high, which Jeremy attributes to its size: with a dwelling count of 6,448, it's a very large suburb, generating plenty of sales data.

However, several other metrics in the same snapshot raise concerns. Rental growth over the past year is around 5%, vacancy is somewhat higher than expected, and stock on market sits at roughly 15%, against a typical level of around 1% for houses, a pattern Damien reads as likely reflecting a large number of house-and-land packages still being marketed. Jeremy adds that vacancy specifically can be unreliable here, since there may not be many rentals in the market to begin with, making that single metric volatile on its own. Market cycle timing sits around 70, which Jeremy explains is notably high, since the national average is below 50, partly because Austral hasn't experienced the kind of rapid recent growth markets like Perth have (just 1% growth over the past year, and around 31% over five years). Even so, Jeremy flags the conflicting signals within the same suburb (very high vacancy and stock on market alongside a strong score) as a sign that something unusual is going on, and Damien says that as an owner-occupier buyer, he'd see better value in an already-established western Sydney suburb, near the M4, rather than paying a premium for new housing he compares to "Legoland."

On the airport specifically, Jeremy walks through satellite imagery of Western Sydney showing the large built-up area in the middle and substantial vacant land further west, particularly around Badgerys Creek, where thousands of additional homes could eventually be built. He frames this as the central conundrum: the airport is a massive infrastructure project that will create jobs and drive movement of people, but the potential for additional supply to counteract any demand benefit is enormous. In his view, buying because of the airport is a speculative play with both opportunity and risk, and he'd prefer to buy in already built-up markets where demand consistently exceeds supply. Both acknowledge that some people have likely made fortunes banking on it already.

Jeremy also points out that growth around the airport hasn't been uniform: St Marys hasn't seen significant capital growth, the Penrith SA3 has had poor growth, while the Fairfield SA3 (including Fairfield West) has seen excellent growth, despite all sitting within a stone's throw of the airport. In his view, this undermines any clear-cut link between the airport and capital growth, and he stresses that, as always, the data can show how much growth has occurred, but not what caused it. Damien adds that perceived stigma around areas like St Marys and Mount Druitt hasn't stopped them keeping pace on capital growth with more prestigious suburbs like Bondi, Bronte, and Randwick.

Damien suggests an owner-occupier considering stretching their budget to $1.2 million in a newer area might instead look at nearby established pockets (such as St Clair) with bigger blocks and existing dwellings that could be renovated, potentially saving around $200,000 while retaining growth potential. Jeremy adds that $1.2 million in this part of Sydney isn't actually that expensive compared to markets further north (he cites Orchard Hills and Cecil Hills as examples with much higher medians), though his overall conclusion remains that the area is speculative, requires significant on-the-ground research, and isn't something he'd bank on given its proximity to vacant land.

On more affordable options in Sydney for those who no longer want to rent, Damien notes unit markets around North Rocks, Telopea, and Dundas can be found for under $600,000, in older, low-rise, two- or three-storey walk-up complexes, a style both hosts prefer over high-rise developments in Parramatta or North Parramatta, noting these smaller complexes combine very high demand relative to supply with affordable pricing.

Question 2: Why have units with little land value doubled in Perth and Townsville if land-to-asset ratio matters?

This question, referencing Expert Busting Series episode 3 (new versus old), agrees with the depreciation examples covered there, but asks why apartments with little land value have doubled in value within three years in Perth and Townsville.

Damien first clarifies the hosts have never said units or apartments are bad investments, they're affordable and can see strong demand, particularly when affordability pressure from soaring house prices pushes buyers toward cheaper options. Jeremy adds that for someone priced out of the market, or planning a shorter-term hold, there's nothing wrong with buying a unit or townhouse, but says the real point of the original episode was land-to-asset ratio.

Looking at the Perth significant urban area for units (August 2026 data), Damien shows a DSR3 of 64, a typical value around $716,000, a gross yield of roughly 5%, reliable data, low vacancy, good rental growth, low stock on market, and a very low market cycle timing, reflecting around 100% growth over five years. There are approximately 140,000 units in that significant urban area. Townsville units tell a similar story: 108% growth over five years, a typical value around $489,000, a 5.5% yield, and a still-strong DSR3, though with a low market cycle timing, meaning an investor would be more likely buying near the peak of that growth phase than the start of it. Damien suggests better unit markets exist elsewhere based on current data.

Asked whether he'd buy one house or two units in two different markets with a five-plus-year hold, Jeremy says he wouldn't be afraid of holding a unit, but would want high demand relative to supply, and likes the diversification two units would provide, along with typically higher unit yields if cash flow is a concern. Damien adds that the accumulation phase is going to be much harder for investors now than previously, since negative gearing credits previously helped with borrowing capacity but no longer do, which he says is why many investors have left the market.

Jeremy comes back to clarify the original land-to-asset ratio concept: it isn't about units versus houses or square metres, it's the value of the land as a percentage of the property's overall value. Historical data shows properties with a higher land-to-asset ratio perform better, but he stresses it's only one of many factors, and he's never found a single variable that's completely faultless. He compares this to the lottery: examine all historical lottery data and the general rule is that you play and you lose, yet some people win, they're the exceptions. The goal, he says, is to establish a general rule for each metric and then combine them all into a single score (the DSR) to give investors the best chance of picking a good market. Low-land units in Perth and Townsville that outperformed the broader market did so because of other variables, not because of land-to-asset ratio, and exceptions will always exist regardless of the variable.

Question 3: Would you rather buy a townhouse or unit in a stronger market, or a detached house on a larger block in a slightly weaker one?

The question asks whether to choose a townhouse or unit in a stronger market (DSR Plus of 65 to 70) or a detached house on a larger block in a slightly weaker market (DSR Plus of 60), and, for a five-to-ten-year hold, how to weigh a 10-year-old townhouse in a DSR Plus 70 market against a 50-year-old house on a 600-square-metre block in a DSR Plus 60 market.

Damien leans toward a house if he has the option and a longer-term view, but wouldn't buy in a market that's already had massive recent growth, saying he'd probably look at a Melbourne house for a longer-term hold, while acknowledging Melbourne's lower yields compared with, for example, a Perth townhouse with a stronger DSR3 on an $800,000 budget. He adds that when shortlisting, he'd look at average block sizes across a cluster of suburbs and lean toward areas with bigger blocks at similar prices, which could allow for a granny flat, townhouse redevelopment, or duplex down the track.

Jeremy agrees, and says the key is time frame. For a buy-and-hold, set-and-forget strategy (even one passed down as inheritance), historical data shows houses have outperformed units over the long term, so he'd choose the house. For a get-in, get-out strategy, there's no harm in a townhouse or even a unit. He also points out that the DSR Plus referenced in the question is behind the times: the original DSR launched in 2010, DSR Plus replaced it in 2015, and DSR3 replaced DSR Plus in 2025, so investors should use the current version. He adds that a difference of 65 versus 60 is small enough that he wouldn't be confident one market is clearly stronger, while 70 versus 60 is more meaningful.

Jeremy also notes the right answer may depend on ownership structure: someone holding in their own name under the new tax regime could face a very large capital gains tax bill on sale, so for a get-in, get-out strategy, the choice of investment vehicle (company or personal name, and the investor's marginal tax bracket) becomes relevant. For a five-to-ten-year hold, he notes booms typically occur over around three years, so a get-in, get-out approach would probably favour the 10-year-old townhouse in the stronger market, with affordability a further consideration, since the townhouse may be considerably cheaper than a 600-square-metre established house.

Damien adds that a townhouse might offer a little extra yield for cash flow, though strata costs need to be factored in, and over five to ten years there's also depreciation to potentially claim, so the right choice comes down to how tight the investor's cash flow is, and how much a purchase will cost to hold each week.

Question 4: How do cheap markets stay cheap if they always perform, and when don't they perform?

This question, referencing Expert Busting Series episode 16 (Cheap Markets: Why They Fall the Least), asks how cheap markets remain cheap if they always perform, and when they don't.

Jeremy clarifies that cheap markets don't always outperform, and that's not the point of that episode. The point is that cheap markets don't perform poorly in tough times: when prices fall across the broader market, they tend to fall less than expensive markets, while expensive markets tend to climb faster than cheaper ones in good times. That, he says, is where the balance takes place, so it isn't a conundrum. Expensive markets can be great to buy at the start of a boom, while cheaper markets tend to hold their value better when conditions are tough.

Question 5: Does how much the economy is able to purchase, such as the effect of inflation, also play a role in future price growth?

This question, referencing Expert Busting Series episode 19 (Desirable Areas: They Don't Deliver the Best Growth), agrees supply and demand are fundamental to future price growth, but suggests how much money the economy is able to purchase also plays a role, asking for the hosts' thoughts.

Jeremy agrees it's a good question, and that inflation can erode how much a dollar buys, but points out that from a suburb selection point of view, many of these factors are national, broad market forces that don't help determine where to buy. This is why the DSR focuses on suburb-level demand and supply, designed to identify where the strongest local pressure is pushing prices higher. He adds he hasn't looked closely at the historical role of inflation in capital growth, but because it's so broad-based, it usually doesn't affect the specific local markets being targeted. As an example, he notes that at the time of recording, Sydney, Melbourne, and most of the country are going backwards, while Darwin is booming and Hobart is showing signs of building momentum in certain pockets.

Damien adds that it's easy to focus on a single data point (the economy, unemployment, crime statistics) and always find a reason to doubt a purchase, but things change month to month, and once an asset has been bought, it can't be changed if conditions shift a few months later. That's why they focus on the DSR3 as the main metric, alongside price point, shortlisting, and then holding and largely forgetting. He also reiterates the importance of diversification, noting that accumulating a portfolio will be much harder now, and suggesting the days of owning four, five, six, seven, or eight properties are potentially gone unless an investor has a very successful business and plenty of profit to fund purchases.