A housing target is only as useful as the places it lands. New research into where Australian homes were built between 2006 and 2021 suggests the 1.2 million homes target may be chasing the wrong problem, or at least only half of it. Volume is one test. Location is the other, and the early evidence on location is patchy.
The work looked at construction against access to jobs, schooling and services. The lead researcher, an academic economist, said the country is clearly off course for the raw number. Major building and property bodies are already projecting fewer than 1 million completions. The bigger warning was about who ends up where: average earners could be nudged toward suburbs that are poorly connected to the things that make a home useful.
Why the 1.2 million homes target is a two-part test
The pledge is for well-located dwellings by 2029, not just any dwellings. That wording matters. A home built on the urban fringe, far from work and transport, adds to the national count but does little for a worker who needs to be near a hospital, school or office.
The historical pattern is the best guide we have to how future supply might land. If 15 years of construction produced a lopsided result in some cities, there is no obvious reason a faster build would fix that on its own. Faster building in the wrong place can simply move the problem outward.
City by city: where supply landed well
Sydney came out on top. About 46.2 per cent of its new supply sat in top-tier locations, and only 2.2 per cent was poorly placed. Brisbane also scored strongly.
The counts of well or very well located homes show the scale of the difference between capitals:
- Sydney: 296,311
- Melbourne: 232,179
- Brisbane: 209,391
- Perth: 119,177
- Adelaide: 42,996
- Canberra: 34,039
- Hobart: 10,208
Those are raw counts, so bigger cities naturally sit higher. The share figures tell the sharper story, and they are less flattering outside Sydney.
Key numbers
- 46.2 per cent: Sydney’s share of new supply in top-tier areas
- 2.2 per cent: Sydney’s share in poorly placed areas
- 32.8 per cent: Geelong’s share of new homes in second-worst locations
- About one in four: Adelaide’s share in weaker locations
The regions where the gap widens
Geelong placed 32.8 per cent of its new homes in second-worst locations. Adelaide’s share of weakly placed supply was about one in four. Those are the kinds of numbers that matter for anyone assessing where a supply boom will actually help renters and first-home buyers, and where it may mainly produce stock that is cheaper to build than it is useful to live in.
For investors, the implication is practical. Not every new dwelling competes on equal terms. Stock with strong access to jobs and services tends to hold tenant demand more easily. Stock that sits in a poorly connected pocket can face longer vacancy and a thinner buyer pool at resale. That is a general pattern, not a forecast for any one suburb, so it is worth checking transport, schools and employment access street by street.
Why developers keep building where they do
Developers pointed to three things that shape where projects get built: uncertain construction costs, slow infrastructure delivery and difficult councils. Each pushes activity toward sites that are easier to approve and service, which are not always the best-connected ones.
That is the catch with a pure supply push. Planning reform can speed approvals, but it does not change what a project costs to build or how long a road, rail line or water connection takes to arrive. Our guide to housing supply, approvals and building costs walks through how those pieces fit together.
Costs, rates and the 2029 deadline
The researcher doubted that planning reforms would deliver their full effect by 2029. Construction costs, in that view, are rising faster than buyers are willing to pay, and higher interest rates make the squeeze tighter. A project that no longer stacks up on paper does not get built, however good the zoning.
The wider policy debate also bears on this. Tax settings influence who buys new stock and where, which is why the discussion around CGT changes and the housing supply fight is closely tied to whether a build target can be met.
What this means for readers
The base case is that completions fall short of the headline number, and that the homes which do get built are unevenly spread across cities and suburbs. Sydney and Brisbane look best placed on the historical record. Geelong and Adelaide show more exposure to weaker locations. Other regions will vary.
There is room for the picture to improve. Infrastructure spending can lift a location’s connectivity over time, and council reform could shift where approvals flow. But those are long-dated fixes against a 2029 deadline.
If you are weighing a new-build purchase, start here: check access to jobs, transport and services before you look at price or incentives, and treat location as the main driver of long-run demand.
If you want the weekly signal, subscribe to the free newsletter.
General info, not financial advice.
