{"id":182434,"date":"2024-10-25T14:30:03","date_gmt":"2024-10-25T03:30:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/propertyupdate.com.au\/?p=182434"},"modified":"2024-10-07T14:19:58","modified_gmt":"2024-10-07T03:19:58","slug":"unpacking-australias-population-growth-capitals-vs-regional-realities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/propertyupdate.com.au\/unpacking-australias-population-growth-capitals-vs-regional-realities\/","title":{"rendered":"Unpacking Australia\u2019s population growth: capitals vs. regional realities"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post\u00a0is about the most recent annual ABS population growth figures.<\/p>\n

Well, most of Australia\u2019s population growth takes place in our capital cities.<\/p>\n

Table 1<\/strong> shows that some 82% (or 517,000) of the country\u2019s 634,500 annual population increase last year took place across our eight capitals.<\/p>\n

\"Australia<\/p>\n

Yet when you remove the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Newcastle, Wollongong, and Geelong (which really aren\u2019t true regional urban forms anymore) from the regional count the share of regional growth drops to 11% to just 68,250 peeps last year.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

My chart in this post shows how population growth in the capitals and their immediate urban surrounds (as defined above) dominates.<\/p>\n

Over the past twenty years, this area averaged an annual increase of 290,000 people or 83% of Australia\u2019s total change.<\/p>\n

\"Annual<\/p>\n

The chart about how COVID changed our population distribution \u2013 as I have tried to point out across several posts in recent years \u2013 has been largely noise.<\/p>\n

\"Australian<\/p>\n

Table 2<\/strong> outlines the top 30 urban areas in terms of last year\u2019s population growth.<\/p>\n

\"Top<\/p>\n

It shows that these major urban areas hold 92% of the country\u2019s growth.<\/p>\n

Several areas - as one might expect given the table shows 30 urban areas - are regional cities and towns.<\/p>\n

But most of these are well established and have been growing for a long time.<\/p>\n

Two regions that are relatively new to this top 30 list include Warragul in Victoria and Morisset in New South Wales.<\/p>\n

Warragul is outside of Melbourne, on the capital\u2019s western flank.<\/p>\n

Whilst it is a nice regional town, the major population driver is that its housing stock is relatively affordable when compared to Bendigo, Ballarat, and Geelong.<\/p>\n

Ditto when it comes to Morisset, which is south of Wollongong.<\/p>\n

It is cheaper than living in the \u2018Gong\u2019 and especially \u2018The Shire\u2019.<\/p>\n

Yet if population growth is to continue in such regional locales, then new residents need to be \u2018pulled\u2019 there rather than \u2018pushed\u2019 from somewhere else.<\/p>\n

The current \u2018push\u2019 is dwelling prices and rents.<\/p>\n

\u2018Pull\u2019, and despite the working from home movement, typically involves locally based work.<\/p>\n

And I can tell you that living in a true regional town is not for everyone.<\/p>\n

My final point is that most population commentary seems to be based on the percentage change rather than the actual numbers.<\/p>\n

This helps make a media splash but really doesn\u2019t mean much.<\/p>\n

An increase of 100 people in a location with 2,500 residents means a 4% lift but give me 20,000 new people in a location of 500,000 any day.<\/p>\n

A hundred new residents mean there is a need to build some 40 to 45 new homes \u2013 a big ask, true, in a small regional town \u2013 but a 20,000 annual population lift translates to 8,500 to 9,000 new dwellings.<\/p>\n

It's actual bums on seats that count.<\/p>\n

And if you wanted to make population growth comparisons between locations \u2013 and whilst this way shows a percentage change in a different way \u2013 most people better appreciate the increase per 100 residents rather than a less unambiguous percentage change.<\/p>\n