Capital growth rates of between 100 and 150 percent over the last 10-years were produced in umpteen townships, while poorly chosen property assets are worth less today than a decade ago in numerous parts of Sydney, Melbourne, Darwin and Perth.
Despite population increasing by a staggering 42 percent in Melbourne’s inner 8-kilometre ring, the median value of the homes occupied by their 200,000 residents is now 16 percent less than 10-years ago.
Over the same period, the value of a standard house in Broken Hill increased by 115 percent while its population declined by 5 percent.
Propertyology’s analysis of property market performance in each of the 536 municipalities across Australia confirms (once again) that population mass, plentiful cafes and restaurants, public transport and affordable properties is not a formula for property market success.
The fact that the very worst performed real estate in Australia had all the aforementioned secret-herbs-and-spices is an important reminder that, whilst humans live in property, an overwhelming majority of humans are completely clueless about housing demand and bona fide drivers of property markets.
Statistical evidence confirms that, of the 137 capital city municipalities and 399 in regional Australia, 12 of the worst 15 property market performances over the last decade were in so called ‘popular’ capital city jurisdictions.
Conversely, the best-performed property markets over the same 10-years were an eclectic mix of lower-profile regional townships, various outer-ring capital city communities, and a few luxury lifestyle hotspots.
The value of a standard house increased by 150 percent or more in the Tasmanian coastal townships of Strahan, George Town and St Helens, in Queensland’s inland rural precincts of Kilcoy, Gatton and Gympie and in the Victorian alpines of Bright and Myrtleford.
A similarly spectacular capital growth rate occurred for 3 and 4-bedroom houses on a standard suburban block in Adelaide’s outer-north and Brisbane’s outer-west, in Noosa and in the northern NSW region of Tweed.
Australia’s Biggest Loser is Lego Tower Living
The absolute worst real estate in Australia over the last 10-years was located within an 8-kilometre diameter of the heart of Australia’s second largest city, the municipality of the City of Melbourne.
Within that 8-kilometre ring are 135,000 residential dwellings, making it the 8th highest density out of 536 municipalities across Australia.
The City of Melbourne includes high profile suburbs such as Carlton, South Yarra, Flemington, Docklands, East Melbourne, Kensington, West Melbourne, North Melbourne, Parkville, Southbank and the CBD.
Its population growth rate of 42 percent over the last decade was nearly 3-times the national average of 15.9 percent, making it is one of the biggest and fastest growing city councils in Australia.
Yet the median value of homes plummeted 16 percent over decade to mid-2026.
The extra 54,000 people added to this jurisdiction’s population in just 10-years is enough to fill an entire city the size of 140-year-old Noosa.
98 percent of homes for the 200,000 people who live in Melbourne’s inner-ring are apartments.
This time 10-years ago, the median value of a typical Melbourne inner-city apartment was $560,000, while Brisbane and Sydney’s median house prices were $530,000 and $950,000, respectively.
Back then, home loan interest rates were 5.5 percent, inflation was just 1 percent, the Victorian government had just raked in a $9.7 billion windfall from privatising the Port of Melbourne, state Premier Dan Andrews was facing pressure over declining community safety and rising crime, and the Western Bulldogs broke a 62-year AFL premiership drought.
Today, those soleless concrete cupboards in Melbourne’s sky are worth $470,000.
Restaurants, cafes, pubs, retail strips, proximity to oodles of white-collar jobs and Australia’s best public transport clearly is not a ‘secret sauce’ for capital growth.
Capital Growth Ladder
Official property data confirms that a capital growth rate of 100 percent was a mid-table performance for the 10-years to mid-2026.
The bookends of the eight (8) capital cities were Greater-Melbourne with only 25 percent increase in its median house price and Greater-Brisbane’s 125 percent.
Darwin (45 percent), Sydney (70 percent) and Canberra (80 percent) were in the bottom half of locations all over Australia.
The capital growth rate for houses across Greater-Perth was bang-on par (100 percent), while Adelaide and Hobart (both 120 percent) were among the top half.
Umpteen so-called ‘blue-chip’ municipalities produced well below par capital growth rates for apartments. Examples include:
- Melbourne inner-east municipality of Boroondarra, includes the popular suburb of Hawthorn (15 percent)
- Sydney municipality of Inner West, includes Balmain (25 percent)
- Sydney municipality of Mosman, includes Balmoral (40 percent)
- Sydney municipality of Waverley, includes Bondi (60 percent)
- Adelaide City (55 percent)
- Perth municipality of Victoria Park, includes Burswood (35 percent)
Reviewing both houses (‘H’) and apartments (‘A’), the property market performance of each of Australia’s 536 municipalities were analysed by Propertyology.
Below is a list of the ‘15 Best and Worst’ growth rates for the 10-years to mid-2026, along with some interesting demographic data:
Australia’s Worst
- Melbourne, City (A)
- Capital growth: -16%
- Population density ranking: 8/536
- Population growth: 42%
- Mount Isa (H)
- Capital growth: -14%
- Population growth: -9.7%
- Darwin (A)
- Capital growth: -11%
- Sydney, Parramatta (A)
- Capital growth: -5%
- Population density ranking: 26/536
- Population growth: 22.6%
- Homeownership rate: 54%
- Melbourne, Stonnington (A)
- Capital growth: -2%
- Population density ranking: 11/536
- Population growth: 6.3%
- Melbourne, Port Phillip (A)
- Capital growth: +3%
- Population density ranking: 5/536
- Homeownership rate: 49%
- Sydney, Strathfield (A)
- Capital growth: +3%
- Population density ranking: 23/536
- Sydney, City (A)
- Capital growth: +5%
- Homeownership rate: 36%
- Population density ranking: 1/536
- Alice Springs (H)
- Capital growth: +5%
- Sydney, Burwood (A)
- Capital growth: +5%
- Population density ranking: 4/536
- Port Hedland (H)
- Capital growth: +6%
- Homeownership rate: 33%
- Sydney, Ryde (A)
- Capital growth: +7%
- Population density ranking: 24/536
- Homeownership rate: 58%
- Perth, City (A)
- Capital growth: +7%
- Population density ranking: 40/536
- Homeownership rate: 36%
- Population growth: 36.7%
- Darwin, City (H)
- Capital growth: +10%
- Melbourne, Maribyrnong (A)
- Capital growth: +12%
- Population density ranking: 28/536
- Homeownership rate: 57%
Australia’s Best
- West Coast TAS (H)
- Capital growth: +193%
- Population growth: 0.5%
- Population density ranking: 536/536
- Homeownership rate: 75%
- Playford SA (H)
- Capital growth: +179%
- Population growth: 30%
- Homeownership rate: 64%
- Noosa QLD (H)
- Capital growth: +172%
- Population growth: 11.3%
- Homeownership rate: 80%
- Break O’Day TAS (H)
- Capital growth: +161%
- Population growth: 15.6%
- Tweed NSW (H)
- Capital growth: +160%
- Population growth: 9.5%
- Tenterfield NSW (H)
- Capital growth: +158%
- Ipswich QLD (H)
- Capital growth: +154%
- Population density ranking: 123/536
- Population growth: 38%
- Gympie QLD (H)
- Capital growth: +152%
- Population density ranking: 243/536
- Population growth: 18%
- Homeownership rate: 78%
- Snowy Monaro NSW (H)
- Capital growth: +150%
- Population growth: 9.4%
- Somerset QLD
- Capital growth: +150%
- Lockyer Valley QLD
- Capital growth: +150%
- Alpine VIC
- Capital growth: +146%
- Population growth: 6.5%
- Murray Bridge SA
- Capital growth: +145%
- Population density ranking: 443/536
- Population growth: 11.6%
- George Town TAS
- Capital growth: +145%
- Population growth: 8.2%
- Homeownership rate: 63%
- Salisbury SA
- Capital growth: +144%
- Population growth: 8.9%
As always, the capital growth rates vary widely across the different municipalities, but the best-performed property markets were among regional Australia.
House value growth rates in Western Australia ranged from 50 percent in Broome to 110 percent in Busselton.
A standard house in the NSW regional city of Armidale (80 percent) enjoyed more capital growth than Sydney (just 28 percent for apartments and 70 percent for houses).
Dubbo (90 percent), Newcastle (110 percent), Bega (130 percent) and countless other regional NSW jurisdictions performed better than Sydney.
Spectacular growth occurred all over Queensland, ranging from 70 percent in Port Douglas, to 120 percent in Scenic Rim (Beaudesert) and 140 percent in Fraser Coast (Maryborough and Hervey Bay).
Bendigo and Bairnsdale (both 90 percent), Ararat (100 percent), Wodonga (110 percent) and Mildura (120 percent) more than tripled Greater-Melbourne’s 25 percent capital growth rate for the decade.
Tasmania was the strongest state overall, with Devonport, Burnie and Launceston all producing 130 percent capital growth.
These official property market results illustrate that society has a very poor understanding of growth drivers, market risk and performance.
The masses are serial offenders of group think mythical madness. Their collective false assumptions include nonsensical references to regions versus capital city, train stations, population mass, coastal versus inland, CBDs, and warm versus cool climates.
What can be learned?
Analysis of nationwide property market performances across the last decade merely reconfirm common denominators which had the biggest influence on the best and worst performers in previous eras.
From year to year, there is a direct link with the quality of each state economy and to localised employment strength within each city and town.
Local economic conditions have a big influence on the household confidence of a critical mass of each jurisdiction.
Over the decade, population growth of Greater-Melbourne (18 percent) was significantly more than the national average and superior to 5 out of the 8 capital cities.
Yet Melbourne’s property market performance was abysmal because its economy was adversely influenced by a collection of nasty state government decisions.
For much of the last decade, household confidence (and thereby buyer activity) was stronger throughout Tasmania, South Australia, Queensland and regional NSW than it was in Sydney, Melbourne, Alice Springs, Canberra, Darwin and Mount Isa.
In each town and city across Australia, detached houses typically produced significantly higher capital growth rates than apartments.
Regardless of how affordable they might be, very (very) few owner occupiers will use their hard-earned money to buy a real estate asset which does not have sufficient living space, storage and connection to natural lifestyle elements such as yards and neighbourhood greenspace.
Therefore, the gap between the best and worst performed pockets within each city widened with higher density and below average homeownership rates.
The current median value of $470,000 for a property in the City of Melbourne is among the cheapest of all jurisdictions in Australia (capital cities and regions).
Despite this incredible affordability and proximity to an abundance of amenities, the homeownership rate is a pathetic 29 percent (compared to 66 percent nationally).
Bottom line, 1 and 2-bedroom apartments in soleless blocks of concrete score a big fat ‘F’ for failure to meet the core fundamentals of a long-term home.
Profiling the municipality of the City of Melbourne reveals a youthful demographic with a median household age of 30 (compared to a national average of 38 years of age).
63 percent of households in Melbourne’s inner 8-kilometre ring are couples without children.
Only 25 percent are married (compared to the national average of 46 percent).
And 62 percent are born overseas (national average is 33 percent).
Throughout Australia, jurisdictions with the highest density of population have an embarrassingly low homeownership rates and well below par capital growth rates.
Research insights: SUBSCRIBE HERE
Invest with the best: CONTACT US
Propertyology are national buyer’s agents and Australia’s premier property market analyst. Every capital city and every non-capital city, Propertyology analyse fundamentals in every market, every day. We use this valuable research to help everyday Aussies to invest in strategically-chosen locations (literally) all over Australia. Like to know more? Contact us here.
Here’s how we combine our thought-leading research with Propertyology’s award-winning buyer’s agency services.
