Aus car parks: The new frontier in property investment
Thinking about diving into real estate investing but feeling a bit short on funds?
Or perhaps you're looking for a low-risk way to dip your toes into the market?
There's a world of options out there, especially if you're willing to think beyond the traditional four walls and a roof.
Real estate investments come in various shapes and sizes, and one intriguing option gaining traction is carparking spaces.
Investing in a set of painted white lines might sound a bit out there, but it's all about crunching the numbers.
Whether it's a single spot or part of a larger complex managed by a company, buying a car space at the right price can offer a low-cost, low-maintenance entry into the property market.
To help investors crunch the numbers on where to park their hard earned cash, Ray White Commercial has provided an in-depth look on how car parks perform across capital cities and where buyers stand to drive home the biggest investment returns.
Here is what the data had to say.
MORE NEWS
Is your home the real breadwinner?
$100k pay: Woman buys 3 vending machines
11 homes by 40: Migrant reveals Aus secret
BRISBANE
Brisbane CBD retains its position as Australia's most expensive parking market for the second consecutive year, with daily casual rates now averaging $80.84, surpassing Sydney's $77.00. This marks a significant shift in the Australian parking landscape, where Sydney had historically dominated as the premium market.
The change reflects broader shifts in office attendance patterns and CBD vibrancy across Australian capital cities as workers continue adjusting their commuting habits post-pandemic.
Brisbane's pricing strength stems from limited parking supply coupled with stronger office attendance, demonstrated by its relatively contained vacancy rate of 10.2 per cent and positive occupied stock change.
What makes this even more remarkable is that Brisbane continues to command premium parking rates despite the Crisafulli Government making 50 cent public transport fares permanent across all TransLink networks in Queensland.
However, beneath headline rates, Brisbane operators still offer substantial discounts of 55.5 per cent for online bookings and 57.9 per cent for early bird parkers, revealing continued competition for regular commuters despite the market's apparent strength.
Read the full story here.
MELBOURNE
Melbourne presents perhaps the most concerning trajectory among major markets.
Current daily rates of $64.43 have fallen below 2013 levels ($65.00), producing a negative growth rate over the 12-year period.
This decline mirrors Melbourne's struggling office market, which maintains the highest vacancy rate among Australian CBDs at 18.0 per cent and continues to experience negative occupied stock change.
Melbourne operators have responded with the country's deepest early bird discounts at 62.9 per cent, though online discounting remains surprisingly modest at just 15.1 per cent, suggesting a focus on capturing the dwindling population of regular commuters.
Read the full story here.
SYDNEY
Sydney's market shows signs of recovery but remains below its 2023 peak of $85.05.
With a 12.8 per cent office vacancy rate and positive, albeit modest, absorption figures, Sydney's parking ecosystem appears relatively balanced but lacks the growth momentum seen before the pandemic.
Sydney maintains significant discounts for both online bookings (-43.5 per cent) and early bird parking (-54.9 per cent), indicating ongoing competition despite the market's gradual improvement.
Read the full story here.
ADELAIDE
Adelaide has recorded the highest 12-month growth rate in parking at 11.3 per cent, despite a high office vacancy of 16.4 per cent.
Its discounting strategy remains moderate, with 15.5 per cent for online bookings and 37.4 per cent for early bird, indicating a market finding equilibrium.
Read the full story here.
PERTH
Perth continues its steady improvement with 3.8 per cent annual daily rate growth and relatively substantial discounting for both online (-30.5 per cent) and early bird (-44.8 per cent) options.
HOBART
Hobart's parking market has experienced a concerning downward trend, with current rates at $18.83 sitting below 2013 levels ($21.00) and showing a negative 12-year annual growth rate of -0.86 per cent. The market offers modest online discounts of 20.4 per cent but notably provides no early bird options, reflecting its unique position as a smaller capital with limited commuter patterns despite having the lowest office vacancy rate among all Australian CBDs at just 3.6 per cent.
CANBERRA
Canberra presents an interesting case with modest but steady growth in parking rates to $21.64, despite ongoing decentralisation of government departments away from the traditional Civic centre. Operators in the capital offer minimal discounting compared to other markets, with online rates discounted just 9.9 per cent and early bird options at 13.8 per cent, suggesting less pressure to fill capacity despite the 9.2 per cent office vacancy rate.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
13 minutes ago
- Perth Now
AUKUS defence pact 'being reviewed' by US government
The US government is reportedly reviewing the AUKUS trilateral defence agreement between Australia, the UK and the US. The decision to conduct a review has been reported by multiple news outlets including Reuters, which cited US defence officials without giving further details. The review will reportedly examine whether the pact is in line with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy, according to the ABC which also cited a Pentagon source. AUKUS is a three-nation security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US agreed in 2021 under the prime ministership of ex-Liberal leader Scott Morrison. It was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats. The deal is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, although the first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. Australia, which in February made the first of six $US500 million (about $800 million) payments to the US for the boats, is expected to initially buy between three and five off-the-shelf Virginia-class boats. At the time, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said Mr Trump was supportive of the AUKUS deal. "The president is very aware, supportive of AUKUS," Mr Hegseth said after a meeting with Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles. "(He) recognises the importance of the defence industrial base." Mr Marles responded that the pair had discussed how the US and Australia could advance their longstanding diplomatic relationship in terms of national security, including AUKUS. Australia's military budget is expected to rise to 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product, or output, by 2034. The US regime has already called for Australia to increase that spending to around 3.5 per cent. Australia tore up its $90 billion diesel-powered submarine deal with France to sign on to AUKUS and is contracted to buy several off-the-shelf submarines costing about $US4 billion each, before making its own. The first Australian-made boats are not due to be operational until the 2040s.
West Australian
17 minutes ago
- West Australian
AUKUS defence pact 'being reviewed' by US government
The US government is reportedly reviewing the AUKUS trilateral defence agreement between Australia, the UK and the US. The decision to conduct a review has been reported by multiple news outlets including Reuters, which cited US defence officials without giving further details. The review will reportedly examine whether the pact is in line with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy, according to the ABC which also cited a Pentagon source. AUKUS is a three-nation security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US agreed in 2021 under the prime ministership of ex-Liberal leader Scott Morrison. It was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats. The deal is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, although the first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. Australia, which in February made the first of six $US500 million (about $800 million) payments to the US for the boats, is expected to initially buy between three and five off-the-shelf Virginia-class boats. At the time, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said Mr Trump was supportive of the AUKUS deal. "The president is very aware, supportive of AUKUS," Mr Hegseth said after a meeting with Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles. "(He) recognises the importance of the defence industrial base." Mr Marles responded that the pair had discussed how the US and Australia could advance their longstanding diplomatic relationship in terms of national security, including AUKUS. Australia's military budget is expected to rise to 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product, or output, by 2034. The US regime has already called for Australia to increase that spending to around 3.5 per cent. Australia tore up its $90 billion diesel-powered submarine deal with France to sign on to AUKUS and is contracted to buy several off-the-shelf submarines costing about $US4 billion each, before making its own. The first Australian-made boats are not due to be operational until the 2040s.
The Advertiser
33 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
If we're doomed to incremental tax reform, we need to pick the best change first
The business pages are getting very upset about the government's new tax arrangements on superannuation balances over $3 million. It's fine to be annoyed. Nobody likes paying more tax, even if you are (*checks statistics*) very rich. And taxing unrealised gains is particularly annoying. What's not fine, however, is that the people attacking the Treasurer and suggesting that this reform will end the Australian economy as we know it are the same people who constantly wonder out loud: why won't the government implement more ambitious, wide-ranging tax reform? The answer is obvious: if this is how business commentators react to a relatively minor reform that only impacts very wealthy people, imagine the reaction to holistic tax reform which, if previous tax reviews are anything to go by, would involve abolishing negative gearing, the capital gains tax discount and franking credit cash refunds, while increasing and broadening the GST and creating a super profits tax and a carbon tax. The result of hysterical backlashes like what we are seeing around superannuation is incremental tax reform: where governments pick off one reform every three years, if you're lucky. Reform at a snail's pace is a bad outcome. But it raises a key question: if we're going slow, what reform should be prioritised? The tax system is very broken, so there are plenty of options. But I would argue that there is one thing which makes many existing problems worse: trusts. To see why, I'm reminded of when a friend from Europe once asked me: how much tax do you pay on your income in Australia? It's a simple question. It should have a simple answer. Sadly, however, the answer is anything but simple. The answer goes something like this. If the income comes from a wage, then the top marginal tax rate is 47 per cent. If the income comes from renting out an investment property, the tax rate is probably negative if you have a mortgage (thanks to negative gearing) or still much less than your marginal rate if you don't have a mortgage. If the income comes out of (or is generated within) your superannuation account, it can be anything from your marginal rate to 22 per cent, 15 per cent or zero. If the income comes from a capital gain, the tax rate is 50 per cent, unless you held the asset more than 12 months (then the tax rate is 25 per cent) or if the asset is the family home (then the tax rate is zero). If the income is from a company (i.e. dividends), then the company pays 30 per cent and you only pay the difference between that and your marginal rate (thanks to franking credits) - unless your marginal rate is zero in which case the government gives you free money for some reason (thanks to franking credit cash refunds). If the income comes from an inheritance, the tax rate is zero. The list goes on and on. MORE FROM ADAM TRIGGS: The moral of the story is that although, generally speaking, income should be taxed at the same rate regardless of where it comes from, the reality is that income is taxed at a patchwork of different rates. This is where trusts come in. Trusts, particularly when combined with a corporate structure, allow people to shift income from high tax channels to low tax channels. For example, if your taxable income is in the highest tax bracket and your partner's taxable income is zero, it would be better if any of your additional income goes to your partner rather than you since less tax will be paid. Trusts allow this to happen. Instead of the income being paid to you, it can be paid (tax free) into the trust. The trust can then distribute the money to your partner at their much lower marginal rate (or zero for the first $18,200). In sum, trusts (combined with a corporate structure) allow you take advantage of Australia's patchwork of tax rates. It is this patchwork of tax rates which is the core problem, but trusts are one of the key vehicles that allow people to exploit the problem. Trusts can purchase investment properties, they can purchase an owner-occupier property, they can purchase shares, bonds and currencies. When it comes time to cash-out those returns, the money can be directed to the person with the lowest tax rate, or it can be tied up for so long that by the time it gets paid out you are retired and your taxable income is low or zero. ANU Professor Bob Breunig has a clean solution: have a rule which says that any money which comes out of a trust is taxed at either the company income rate (30 per cent) or the recipient's marginal tax rate (up to 47 per cent), whichever is higher. As Professor Breunig notes, "this will disable most trust-related tax dodges without undermining trusts' legitimate roles". Reigning in trusts will raise billions each year. More importantly, it means we can reduce the burden on taxing workers while improving the integrity of our tax system. The business pages are getting very upset about the government's new tax arrangements on superannuation balances over $3 million. It's fine to be annoyed. Nobody likes paying more tax, even if you are (*checks statistics*) very rich. And taxing unrealised gains is particularly annoying. What's not fine, however, is that the people attacking the Treasurer and suggesting that this reform will end the Australian economy as we know it are the same people who constantly wonder out loud: why won't the government implement more ambitious, wide-ranging tax reform? The answer is obvious: if this is how business commentators react to a relatively minor reform that only impacts very wealthy people, imagine the reaction to holistic tax reform which, if previous tax reviews are anything to go by, would involve abolishing negative gearing, the capital gains tax discount and franking credit cash refunds, while increasing and broadening the GST and creating a super profits tax and a carbon tax. The result of hysterical backlashes like what we are seeing around superannuation is incremental tax reform: where governments pick off one reform every three years, if you're lucky. Reform at a snail's pace is a bad outcome. But it raises a key question: if we're going slow, what reform should be prioritised? The tax system is very broken, so there are plenty of options. But I would argue that there is one thing which makes many existing problems worse: trusts. To see why, I'm reminded of when a friend from Europe once asked me: how much tax do you pay on your income in Australia? It's a simple question. It should have a simple answer. Sadly, however, the answer is anything but simple. The answer goes something like this. If the income comes from a wage, then the top marginal tax rate is 47 per cent. If the income comes from renting out an investment property, the tax rate is probably negative if you have a mortgage (thanks to negative gearing) or still much less than your marginal rate if you don't have a mortgage. If the income comes out of (or is generated within) your superannuation account, it can be anything from your marginal rate to 22 per cent, 15 per cent or zero. If the income comes from a capital gain, the tax rate is 50 per cent, unless you held the asset more than 12 months (then the tax rate is 25 per cent) or if the asset is the family home (then the tax rate is zero). If the income is from a company (i.e. dividends), then the company pays 30 per cent and you only pay the difference between that and your marginal rate (thanks to franking credits) - unless your marginal rate is zero in which case the government gives you free money for some reason (thanks to franking credit cash refunds). If the income comes from an inheritance, the tax rate is zero. The list goes on and on. MORE FROM ADAM TRIGGS: The moral of the story is that although, generally speaking, income should be taxed at the same rate regardless of where it comes from, the reality is that income is taxed at a patchwork of different rates. This is where trusts come in. Trusts, particularly when combined with a corporate structure, allow people to shift income from high tax channels to low tax channels. For example, if your taxable income is in the highest tax bracket and your partner's taxable income is zero, it would be better if any of your additional income goes to your partner rather than you since less tax will be paid. Trusts allow this to happen. Instead of the income being paid to you, it can be paid (tax free) into the trust. The trust can then distribute the money to your partner at their much lower marginal rate (or zero for the first $18,200). In sum, trusts (combined with a corporate structure) allow you take advantage of Australia's patchwork of tax rates. It is this patchwork of tax rates which is the core problem, but trusts are one of the key vehicles that allow people to exploit the problem. Trusts can purchase investment properties, they can purchase an owner-occupier property, they can purchase shares, bonds and currencies. When it comes time to cash-out those returns, the money can be directed to the person with the lowest tax rate, or it can be tied up for so long that by the time it gets paid out you are retired and your taxable income is low or zero. ANU Professor Bob Breunig has a clean solution: have a rule which says that any money which comes out of a trust is taxed at either the company income rate (30 per cent) or the recipient's marginal tax rate (up to 47 per cent), whichever is higher. As Professor Breunig notes, "this will disable most trust-related tax dodges without undermining trusts' legitimate roles". Reigning in trusts will raise billions each year. More importantly, it means we can reduce the burden on taxing workers while improving the integrity of our tax system. The business pages are getting very upset about the government's new tax arrangements on superannuation balances over $3 million. It's fine to be annoyed. Nobody likes paying more tax, even if you are (*checks statistics*) very rich. And taxing unrealised gains is particularly annoying. What's not fine, however, is that the people attacking the Treasurer and suggesting that this reform will end the Australian economy as we know it are the same people who constantly wonder out loud: why won't the government implement more ambitious, wide-ranging tax reform? The answer is obvious: if this is how business commentators react to a relatively minor reform that only impacts very wealthy people, imagine the reaction to holistic tax reform which, if previous tax reviews are anything to go by, would involve abolishing negative gearing, the capital gains tax discount and franking credit cash refunds, while increasing and broadening the GST and creating a super profits tax and a carbon tax. The result of hysterical backlashes like what we are seeing around superannuation is incremental tax reform: where governments pick off one reform every three years, if you're lucky. Reform at a snail's pace is a bad outcome. But it raises a key question: if we're going slow, what reform should be prioritised? The tax system is very broken, so there are plenty of options. But I would argue that there is one thing which makes many existing problems worse: trusts. To see why, I'm reminded of when a friend from Europe once asked me: how much tax do you pay on your income in Australia? It's a simple question. It should have a simple answer. Sadly, however, the answer is anything but simple. The answer goes something like this. If the income comes from a wage, then the top marginal tax rate is 47 per cent. If the income comes from renting out an investment property, the tax rate is probably negative if you have a mortgage (thanks to negative gearing) or still much less than your marginal rate if you don't have a mortgage. If the income comes out of (or is generated within) your superannuation account, it can be anything from your marginal rate to 22 per cent, 15 per cent or zero. If the income comes from a capital gain, the tax rate is 50 per cent, unless you held the asset more than 12 months (then the tax rate is 25 per cent) or if the asset is the family home (then the tax rate is zero). If the income is from a company (i.e. dividends), then the company pays 30 per cent and you only pay the difference between that and your marginal rate (thanks to franking credits) - unless your marginal rate is zero in which case the government gives you free money for some reason (thanks to franking credit cash refunds). If the income comes from an inheritance, the tax rate is zero. The list goes on and on. MORE FROM ADAM TRIGGS: The moral of the story is that although, generally speaking, income should be taxed at the same rate regardless of where it comes from, the reality is that income is taxed at a patchwork of different rates. This is where trusts come in. Trusts, particularly when combined with a corporate structure, allow people to shift income from high tax channels to low tax channels. For example, if your taxable income is in the highest tax bracket and your partner's taxable income is zero, it would be better if any of your additional income goes to your partner rather than you since less tax will be paid. Trusts allow this to happen. Instead of the income being paid to you, it can be paid (tax free) into the trust. The trust can then distribute the money to your partner at their much lower marginal rate (or zero for the first $18,200). In sum, trusts (combined with a corporate structure) allow you take advantage of Australia's patchwork of tax rates. It is this patchwork of tax rates which is the core problem, but trusts are one of the key vehicles that allow people to exploit the problem. Trusts can purchase investment properties, they can purchase an owner-occupier property, they can purchase shares, bonds and currencies. When it comes time to cash-out those returns, the money can be directed to the person with the lowest tax rate, or it can be tied up for so long that by the time it gets paid out you are retired and your taxable income is low or zero. ANU Professor Bob Breunig has a clean solution: have a rule which says that any money which comes out of a trust is taxed at either the company income rate (30 per cent) or the recipient's marginal tax rate (up to 47 per cent), whichever is higher. As Professor Breunig notes, "this will disable most trust-related tax dodges without undermining trusts' legitimate roles". Reigning in trusts will raise billions each year. More importantly, it means we can reduce the burden on taxing workers while improving the integrity of our tax system. The business pages are getting very upset about the government's new tax arrangements on superannuation balances over $3 million. It's fine to be annoyed. Nobody likes paying more tax, even if you are (*checks statistics*) very rich. And taxing unrealised gains is particularly annoying. What's not fine, however, is that the people attacking the Treasurer and suggesting that this reform will end the Australian economy as we know it are the same people who constantly wonder out loud: why won't the government implement more ambitious, wide-ranging tax reform? The answer is obvious: if this is how business commentators react to a relatively minor reform that only impacts very wealthy people, imagine the reaction to holistic tax reform which, if previous tax reviews are anything to go by, would involve abolishing negative gearing, the capital gains tax discount and franking credit cash refunds, while increasing and broadening the GST and creating a super profits tax and a carbon tax. The result of hysterical backlashes like what we are seeing around superannuation is incremental tax reform: where governments pick off one reform every three years, if you're lucky. Reform at a snail's pace is a bad outcome. But it raises a key question: if we're going slow, what reform should be prioritised? The tax system is very broken, so there are plenty of options. But I would argue that there is one thing which makes many existing problems worse: trusts. To see why, I'm reminded of when a friend from Europe once asked me: how much tax do you pay on your income in Australia? It's a simple question. It should have a simple answer. Sadly, however, the answer is anything but simple. The answer goes something like this. If the income comes from a wage, then the top marginal tax rate is 47 per cent. If the income comes from renting out an investment property, the tax rate is probably negative if you have a mortgage (thanks to negative gearing) or still much less than your marginal rate if you don't have a mortgage. If the income comes out of (or is generated within) your superannuation account, it can be anything from your marginal rate to 22 per cent, 15 per cent or zero. If the income comes from a capital gain, the tax rate is 50 per cent, unless you held the asset more than 12 months (then the tax rate is 25 per cent) or if the asset is the family home (then the tax rate is zero). If the income is from a company (i.e. dividends), then the company pays 30 per cent and you only pay the difference between that and your marginal rate (thanks to franking credits) - unless your marginal rate is zero in which case the government gives you free money for some reason (thanks to franking credit cash refunds). If the income comes from an inheritance, the tax rate is zero. The list goes on and on. MORE FROM ADAM TRIGGS: The moral of the story is that although, generally speaking, income should be taxed at the same rate regardless of where it comes from, the reality is that income is taxed at a patchwork of different rates. This is where trusts come in. Trusts, particularly when combined with a corporate structure, allow people to shift income from high tax channels to low tax channels. For example, if your taxable income is in the highest tax bracket and your partner's taxable income is zero, it would be better if any of your additional income goes to your partner rather than you since less tax will be paid. Trusts allow this to happen. Instead of the income being paid to you, it can be paid (tax free) into the trust. The trust can then distribute the money to your partner at their much lower marginal rate (or zero for the first $18,200). In sum, trusts (combined with a corporate structure) allow you take advantage of Australia's patchwork of tax rates. It is this patchwork of tax rates which is the core problem, but trusts are one of the key vehicles that allow people to exploit the problem. Trusts can purchase investment properties, they can purchase an owner-occupier property, they can purchase shares, bonds and currencies. When it comes time to cash-out those returns, the money can be directed to the person with the lowest tax rate, or it can be tied up for so long that by the time it gets paid out you are retired and your taxable income is low or zero. ANU Professor Bob Breunig has a clean solution: have a rule which says that any money which comes out of a trust is taxed at either the company income rate (30 per cent) or the recipient's marginal tax rate (up to 47 per cent), whichever is higher. As Professor Breunig notes, "this will disable most trust-related tax dodges without undermining trusts' legitimate roles". Reigning in trusts will raise billions each year. More importantly, it means we can reduce the burden on taxing workers while improving the integrity of our tax system.
