While financial frictions such as stamp duty and pension asset tests are widely acknowledged as impediments to housing market mobility, this report contends they are secondary to a more fundamental, physical handbrake: a structural mismatch between Australia’s available housing stock and the evolving needs of its population. This asset mismatch creates market-wide gridlock, trapping homeowners at various life stages and artificially constraining supply.

The analysis first examines the “Downsizer Dilemma,” where a chronic shortage of suitable medium-density housing, such as townhouses, villas, and larger single-level apartments, in the established middle-ring suburbs prevents older Australians from moving. These homeowners, who often wish to remain within their communities, are faced with an unpalatable choice: stay in oversized and increasingly unsuitable family homes or relocate to entirely new areas, severing crucial social and support networks. The available new housing supply, heavily skewed towards inner-city high-rise apartments and outer-fringe detached houses, fails to provide a viable alternative.

Compounding this is the “Renovation and Preparation Barrier,” a significant non-financial friction cost for long-term homeowners. The substantial time, upfront expense, and psychological stress involved in decluttering, repairing, and preparing a long-occupied home for sale acts as a powerful deterrent. This “preparation paralysis” is particularly acute for older or time-poor households, effectively locking a significant volume of housing stock off the market.

An investigation into the new housing supply pipeline reveals a critical failure to deliver the “missing middle” typologies required to unlock market mobility. Restrictive zoning, community opposition, and development economics have created a bifurcated supply that does not align with the latent demand from existing homeowners looking to move. Furthermore, the entire construction pipeline is beset by bottlenecks, meaning even approved dwellings are not being completed in a timely manner.

Ultimately, this report concludes that the physical asset mismatch interacts with and exacerbates financial frictions, creating a powerful, multi-layered trap. The lack of suitable housing options makes potential movers highly sensitive to financial costs, rendering policies that target financial levers alone insufficient. This gridlock prevents the efficient recycling of housing stock, restricting supply for younger families and undermining market fluidity. Addressing Australia’s housing portability crisis requires a strategic policy shift from a singular focus on the quantity of new homes to a nuanced approach that prioritises the delivery of the right type of housing in the right locations.

The decision for an older Australian to move from a long-held family home is complex, influenced by financial, social, and physical factors. However, a critical and often underestimated barrier is the stark lack of suitable housing alternatives in the very locations they wish to live. This scarcity of choice creates a dilemma that effectively traps many in homes that no longer meet their needs, acting as a primary handbrake on housing market mobility.

Housing Aspirations vs. Market Realities for Older Australians

Understanding the housing aspirations of older Australians is crucial to identifying the market’s failings. Research from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) provides a clear picture of their preferences. An overwhelming majority of Australians over 55 aspire to remain in some form of home ownership (80%), with a strong preference for detached dwellings (69%) containing three bedrooms (50%).¹ Their desired locations are predominantly the middle-to-outer suburbs of capital cities or small regional towns, reflecting a deep-seated desire to “age in place”.¹ This concept, however, is frequently misinterpreted as a desire to remain in the same

house. The evidence suggests it is more accurately a desire to remain in the same community, driven by the need for safety, security, and proximity to familiar services and social networks.²

The term “downsizing” itself can be misleading. A more accurate concept is “rightsizing,” which focuses on finding a home that better suits current lifestyle needs rather than simply being smaller.⁴ A 2024 study found that 82% of potential movers aged 55-74 identified the desire for an “easier property to maintain” as their top priority.⁴ This often means fewer bedrooms and less yard work, but not necessarily a sacrifice of internal living space, quality, or the capacity to host visiting family and pursue hobbies.⁵ The demand is for a smarter, more manageable home, not necessarily a miniature version of their current one. This distinction highlights a sophisticated demand for a specific type of housing product that the market is largely failing to supply.

The Geographic Trap: A Shortage of Suitable Typologies in Middle-Ring Suburbs

The fundamental problem lies in the physical composition of Australia’s housing stock, particularly in the established suburbs where most older Australians reside. According to the 2021 Census, 70% of all private dwellings are separate houses, with semi-detached homes and townhouses accounting for just 13% and apartments for 16%.⁷ This dominance of detached housing is even more pronounced in the middle-ring suburbs of major cities.⁹

This has led to the phenomenon of the “missing middle”, the conspicuous absence of medium-density housing options like townhouses, duplexes, villas, and low-rise apartment buildings that could bridge the gap between large detached homes and high-rise towers.¹⁰ The scarcity of this housing type is a direct consequence of decades of planning policy. Rigid zoning regulations in many middle-ring suburbs explicitly favour low-density residential use, making it either impossible or subject to a prohibitively long and complex approval process to build anything other than a single-family home.¹⁰ This is often reinforced by community opposition, or “NIMBYism” (‘Not In My Backyard’), from existing residents concerned about increased traffic or changes to neighbourhood character.¹⁰

The result is a geographic trap. The very locations where downsizers have spent their lives, built their communities, and wish to remain are the areas with the least diverse and most unsuitable housing stock. Planning policy, intended to preserve the character of these suburbs, has instead created a housing monoculture that cannot adapt to the changing demographic needs of its long-term residents.

Table 1: Housing Stock Composition vs. Downsizer Preferences

Sources: Data synthesised from Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) ⁷ and Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).¹ Note: Percentages are approximate, derived from multiple sources to illustrate the structural mismatch.

The failure to allow for gentle densification means that, as residents’ needs change, the housing stock cannot evolve with them. This forces a stark choice: stay in a home that is too large and difficult to maintain, or leave the community altogether.

The Compromise Cascade: Unpalatable Trade-offs in Location, Quality, and Lifestyle

Faced with a dearth of suitable local options, potential downsizers are forced into a series of unpalatable compromises. AHURI research shows that only 22% of households that downsize manage to do so within the same neighbourhood. The majority are pushed out, with 42% moving to entirely new areas and 37% relocating to places they knew previously, such as holiday destinations.¹³ This often means a move to coastal or regional centres like the Gold Coast, Geelong, or Mandurah, which are actively developing lifestyle communities targeted at this demographic.¹⁴ While these locations offer amenities, they necessitate a complete uprooting of one’s life, severing ties to established support networks, healthcare providers, and social circles at a vulnerable life stage.

The migration to regional areas is therefore not solely a “pull” factor driven by lifestyle aspirations. It is also a significant “push” factor, a direct consequence of the failure of metropolitan housing markets to provide appropriate accommodation. This, in turn, places additional demand pressure on housing and infrastructure in those regional centres.

The alternative, an apartment in the city, is often equally unsuitable. The development industry has identified a “painful shortage of quality downsizer apartment stock”.¹⁶ In Sydney, for instance, the 2021 census data revealed that less than 16% of new apartments had three or more bedrooms, a stark contrast to the 60% with two bedrooms.¹⁶ Developers report that the financial feasibility of building larger, high-quality apartments with the luxury finishes, security, and amenities that downsizers demand is challenging, especially in high-value locations.¹⁶ The market is instead geared towards smaller units for investors and first-home buyers.

This forces downsizers into a “compromise cascade.” To find the right type of dwelling, they must often sacrifice their desired location. To stay in their desired location, they must accept an unsuitable type of dwelling. This forced choice between an inappropriate home in the right place or an appropriate home in the wrong place is a powerful deterrent that contributes significantly to market inertia.

Beyond the challenge of finding a suitable new home, a second major physical handbrake on housing portability is the daunting process of preparing the existing one for sale. For homeowners who have lived in a property for several decades, the accumulated financial, logistical, and psychological costs of this preparation create a formidable barrier to entry for the selling process. This “preparation barrier” can be so significant that it leads to inertia, effectively locking households into their properties regardless of their suitability.

Quantifying the Friction: The Financial Outlay Before the Sale

The process of selling a home requires a significant upfront cash outlay long before any proceeds are realised. While agent commissions are the most commonly considered expense, they are only one part of a complex cost structure. A seller must budget for a range of “friction costs” that can accumulate rapidly.

These include essential administrative and professional fees such as legal and conveyancing services, which typically range from $800 to $2,200, and mortgage discharge fees from lenders, which can cost between $150 and $1,500.¹⁷ A comprehensive marketing campaign, now considered standard practice to maximise sale price, can cost between $4,500 and $10,000 in major metropolitan markets like Sydney and Melbourne.¹⁸ If the property is sold at auction, an additional auctioneer’s fee of $400 to $1,000 is also incurred.¹⁷

However, the largest and most variable costs are those associated with physically preparing the property. Decades of occupancy inevitably lead to wear and tear. To be competitive, a home often requires at least minor cosmetic updates, such as painting, which can cost between $2,000 and $4,000 for an average-sized home.¹⁹ More substantial renovations to dated kitchens or bathrooms, often necessary to appeal to modern buyers, can easily cost $20,000 to $40,000 or more.²⁰ Furthermore, professional home staging to present the property in its best light can add another $2,000 to $8,000 to the bill.²⁰

For many older households, who are often described as “asset rich but cash poor,” funding tens of thousands of dollars in pre-sale expenses is a prohibitive financial hurdle.²² This lack of liquidity creates a trap where they cannot afford to prepare their largest asset for an optimal sale, thus discouraging them from entering the market at all.

Table 2: Estimated ‘Friction Costs’ of Selling a Median-Priced Home (Sydney/Melbourne)

Sources: Data synthesised from multiple real estate industry reports.¹⁷ Costs are indicative for major capital city markets.

The Psychological Toll: Stress, Uncertainty, and Emotional Attachment

The financial costs are matched, and often exceeded, by a significant psychological burden. Selling a long-term family home is consistently ranked as one of life’s most stressful events, with some research suggesting it is more taxing than a relationship breakdown.²⁵ The process is frequently described as an “emotional rollercoaster,” characterised by persistent worry, a sense of being overwhelmed, sleep disturbances, and profound sadness.²⁶

This anxiety is multifaceted. It stems from a deep emotional attachment to a physical space imbued with decades of memories, making the prospect of letting go a grieving process in itself.²⁷ This is compounded by the uncertainty of the real estate market, the fear of not achieving a fair price or timing the sale incorrectly.²⁶ The sheer logistical complexity of the process, from coordinating viewings to managing negotiations, adds another layer of stress.

The physical act of decluttering and packing is particularly taxing. It forces homeowners to confront their past and make countless emotionally charged decisions about what to keep, discard, or pass on. For highly sensitive individuals, the process of dismantling a personal sanctuary can be “heartbreaking work,” leading to significant mental and emotional fatigue.²⁸ This anticipated turmoil can be a powerful deterrent, leading many to conclude that the emotional cost of moving is simply too high.

The ‘Too-Hard Basket’: How Preparation Paralysis Stifles Mobility

When the significant upfront financial costs are combined with the anticipated psychological toll and the immense logistical effort, the result is often “preparation paralysis.” The decision to sell is not a single event but the commencement of a long, expensive, and emotionally draining project. For older households who may lack the physical stamina, or for time-poor households juggling careers and family, the perceived effort can be overwhelming.²³

This creates a self-reinforcing cycle of immobility. The longer a household remains in a property, the more possessions accumulate and the more deferred maintenance builds up. This, in turn, increases the scale, cost, and stress of the preparation task, making a future move seem even more daunting. A home that might have been sold a decade earlier becomes progressively more difficult to prepare, entrenching the owners’ inertia.

This phenomenon means that a significant volume of potential housing stock remains off-market, not because the owners are content, but because the “activation energy” required to begin the selling process is prohibitively high. The property is placed in the “too-hard basket,” and a decision is deferred indefinitely. This artificially constrains the supply of established family homes in middle-ring suburbs, not as a reflection of a universal desire to stay, but as a symptom of a market failure where the friction costs of moving are simply too great.

A fluid housing market requires a responsive supply of new dwellings that cater to the changing needs of the population. However, an analysis of Australia’s new housing pipeline reveals it is fundamentally misaligned with the latent demand from existing homeowners, particularly potential downsizers. The industry’s focus on two extremes of the density spectrum, high-rise apartments and greenfield houses, has led to a scarcity of the “missing middle” housing required to unlock mobility in established suburbs. This mismatch in typology, location, and quality ensures that new supply fails to act as an effective release valve for the pressures building within the existing housing stock.

A Bifurcated Supply: The Dominance of High-Rise Apartments and Greenfield Houses

Data on building approvals and commencements over the past two decades illustrate a dramatic structural shift in the composition of new housing. While the number of new detached houses commenced has seen only modest growth, apartment commencements have surged, driven almost entirely by large-scale projects. Between the 2003-04 and 2017-18 financial years, the number of dwellings commenced in apartment buildings increased by 119%.²⁹ This growth was concentrated in medium-rise (4-8 storeys), high-rise (9-19 storeys), and super high-rise (20+ storeys) buildings.²⁹

Critically, during this same period, commencements of low-rise apartments (1-3 storeys), a key component of the missing middle, decreased by nearly 37%.²⁹ This has created a bifurcated or polarised supply pipeline. New construction is overwhelmingly concentrated in two distinct forms: high-density apartment towers, typically located in inner-city precincts, and low-density detached houses in new greenfield estates on the urban fringe.¹⁰ The development industry is delivering housing at the two extremes of the density spectrum, while largely ignoring the crucial middle ground.

Investigating the “Missing Middle”: Policy, Planning, and Economic Barriers

The “missing middle” is a term used in urban planning to describe the range of medium-density housing typologies, such as townhouses, duplexes, terrace houses, and low-rise, walk-up apartment buildings, that sit between the traditional suburban house and the modern high-rise tower.¹⁰ These housing types are essential for creating diverse, walkable neighbourhoods and providing more affordable housing options. Their conspicuous absence in Australia’s middle-ring suburbs is not an accident but the direct result of several interlocking barriers.

First, planning and zoning regulations have historically made medium-density development difficult or illegal across vast swathes of metropolitan areas. In many capital cities, the majority of residential land, particularly in the established middle suburbs, is zoned exclusively for low-density, single-detached homes.¹⁰ This effectively bans the construction of even a modest duplex or townhouse development.

Second, community and political opposition (NIMBYism) present a significant hurdle. Proposals for densification in established suburbs are often met with fierce resistance from existing residents who raise concerns about increased traffic, parking shortages, loss of neighbourhood character, and perceived negative impacts on property values.⁸ This creates political pressure on local councils to reject medium-density projects, even when they align with broader strategic planning goals.

Third, development economics often favour the extremes. It can be more profitable and less risky for developers to undertake large-scale, high-rise projects, which benefit from economies of scale, or to develop master-planned communities on the urban fringe where land is cheaper. In contrast, smaller-scale infill projects in middle-ring suburbs can be more complex, face higher land costs per unit, and yield lower profit margins, making them less attractive.¹⁰

In response, some state governments are attempting to force change. The New South Wales government’s “Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy,” for example, seeks to override local planning controls to permit missing middle typologies around transport hubs and town centres.³³ However, local government bodies have raised valid concerns that this top-down, “one-size-fits-all” approach fails to address the critical need for concurrent investment in local infrastructure, such as schools, roads, and water services, to support the increased density. Furthermore, these reforms often lack mandates for the inclusion of affordable housing, representing a missed opportunity to address housing stress for key workers.³³

Table 3: Key Barriers to ‘Missing Middle’ Development

Quality and Design Deficits: Does New Stock Meet Downsizer Needs?

Even where new housing is being delivered, its characteristics often fail to align with the specific needs of the downsizer market. As previously noted, there is a critical shortage of new apartments with three or more bedrooms, which many downsizers require to accommodate guests, family, or hobbies.¹⁶ While there is evidence that build quality and design have improved in the 2020s, with a greater focus on larger floor plans for owner-occupiers compared to the defect-prone, investor-grade stock of the 2010s, the dominant product remains ill-suited for the premium downsizer segment.³⁵ This niche market demands high-end finishes, robust security, and extensive amenities, features that are often not financially viable for developers to include at a price point that downsizers are willing to pay.¹⁶

Furthermore, the entire new housing pipeline is severely constrained by delivery bottlenecks. The current crisis is not one of planning approvals but of construction capacity. Across Australia, there are over 219,000 dwellings that have been approved but are stuck in the commencement or construction phase.³⁵ Labour shortages, elevated material costs, and stretched capacity within the building industry have caused completion times to lengthen significantly.³⁵ This means that even if the right type of housing were being approved, it is not being delivered to the market in a timely fashion. The intense focus on headline approval numbers by policymakers masks a deeply dysfunctional pipeline that is failing to produce the right product at the right time. The new housing stock is therefore not a viable substitute good for most potential movers, and cannot function as a “pressure release valve” for the established market.

The structural mismatch between housing supply and demographic need is not merely an inconvenience for a single cohort of homeowners; it is a systemic failure with profound, market-wide consequences. This asset mismatch creates a multi-layered trap, interacting with and amplifying existing financial barriers to create a state of gridlock. This inertia prevents the efficient recycling of housing stock, constrains supply for younger generations, and ultimately undermines the effectiveness of policies aimed at improving housing affordability and mobility.

The Vicious Cycle: How Asset Mismatch Exacerbates Financial Frictions

The physical and financial barriers to housing portability are not independent forces but are mutually reinforcing. Financial disincentives, such as significant stamp duty on property purchases and the potential loss of a full Age Pension due to the family home’s exemption from the assets test, are well-documented impediments.⁶ A homeowner selling a $1.5 million home to buy a $1 million apartment could face over $40,000 in stamp duty alone, in addition to other transaction costs.

However, the willingness to incur such a substantial financial penalty is contingent on the perceived value of the outcome. When the available housing options are unsuitable, whether due to poor location, inadequate size, or low quality, the motivation to move plummets. A household is far less likely to absorb tens of thousands of dollars in transaction costs and endure the stress of moving if the destination is a significant compromise on their lifestyle and needs. Research confirms this dynamic, showing that for most older Australians, non-financial factors like the desire to remain in their community and find a more manageable property are the primary drivers, with financial gain being a much lower priority.³

The lack of suitable physical assets makes potential movers acutely sensitive to financial costs. This creates a vicious cycle where poor housing choice devalues the proposition of moving, which in turn makes the financial hurdles seem insurmountable. Consequently, policies that focus solely on alleviating financial frictions, such as targeted stamp duty concessions for downsizers, are likely to have a limited impact. Without an appealing and appropriate physical product to move into, the financial incentive is not strong enough to overcome the powerful inertia created by the asset mismatch.

Market-Wide Gridlock: The Ripple Effects on Housing Affordability and Mobility

The immobility of established households, particularly older Australians in oversized family homes, creates a critical bottleneck at the top of the property ladder. Large, multi-bedroom houses in desirable, well-serviced middle-ring suburbs are not being released back onto the market at a rate sufficient to meet the demand from the next generation of growing families.

This artificial constraint on the supply of the most sought-after housing stock has significant ripple effects throughout the entire market. As multiple reports from institutions like the Grattan Institute have highlighted, Australia has failed to build enough housing to meet the needs of its growing population, leading to a structural decline in home ownership rates among younger cohorts and increasing rental stress.³⁹ The gridlock caused by the downsizer dilemma is a direct contributor to this shortage. It intensifies competition for the limited number of family homes that do become available, driving up prices in established suburbs. This, in turn, displaces younger families, forcing them further towards the urban fringe, often into areas with poorer access to jobs, transport, and essential services.³⁷

The asset mismatch is therefore not just a problem for downsizers; it is a systemic issue that fuels intergenerational inequality and is a primary, though often overlooked, driver of the broader housing affordability crisis. The failure to facilitate movement at one end of the market creates blockages and price pressures that are felt by all.

Policy Recommendations: Towards a More Responsive and Diverse Housing Supply

Addressing Australia’s deep-seated housing portability crisis requires a fundamental shift in policy focus. The current emphasis on high-level quantitative targets, such as the National Housing Accord’s goal of 1.2 million new homes, is insufficient.³⁷ The evidence presented in this report demonstrates that the

composition, quality, and location of new housing supply are as critical as the sheer volume. A successful strategy must move beyond a sledgehammer approach and employ a surgical focus on unlocking the right kind of supply in the right places. Based on the analysis, the following strategic directions are recommended:

1. Systematic “Missing Middle” Zoning Reform: Governments must move beyond piecemeal or pilot programs and implement systematic, widespread zoning reform in the established middle-ring suburbs of major cities. This involves changing planning schemes to permit, as-of-right, a range of medium-density housing typologies (such as townhouses, villas, and low-rise apartments) on land currently reserved for single-detached dwellings. To ensure community acceptance and high-quality outcomes, these reforms must be accompanied by mandatory design guides that address amenity, green space, and neighbourhood character.¹⁰
2. Integrate Densification with Infrastructure Funding: To overcome legitimate concerns from local councils and communities, state-level densification policies must be explicitly and transparently linked to committed, ring-fenced funding for upgrading local infrastructure. A clear mechanism is needed to ensure that for every increase in planned residential capacity, there is a corresponding and timely investment in the schools, public transport, parks, and utilities required to support it.³³
3. Incentivise the Right Type of Supply: Generic developer incentives that reward any type of new housing are inefficient. Financial and planning incentives should be specifically targeted to encourage the construction of high-quality, 2-to-3-bedroom, medium-density projects in middle-ring suburbs. This could include tax breaks, streamlined approvals, or direct subsidies for projects that meet defined criteria for the “missing middle” and are suitable for the downsizer market.¹⁰
4. Address the “Preparation Barrier”: The significant upfront costs and logistical burdens of preparing a home for sale represent a major market friction. Governments should investigate the feasibility of programs to reduce this barrier. Options could include government-backed, low-interest loans to cover pre-sale renovation and staging costs (repayable upon settlement) or the creation of a dedicated public service to provide logistical support and project management assistance for older Australians navigating the selling process.

By focusing on these four areas, policymakers can begin to dismantle the physical handbrake on housing portability. Unlocking the “missing middle” will not only provide suitable options for older Australians but will also free up established family homes, improve market fluidity, and make a meaningful contribution to addressing the housing affordability crisis for all Australians.

Works cited

1. (PDF) Older Australians and the housing aspirations gap – ResearchGate, accessed August 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334324514_Older_Australians_and_the_housing_aspirations_gap
2. The desire to age in place among older Australians (bulletin, 3 May version) (AIHW), accessed August 2025, https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/69a6b0b9-6f86-411c-b15d-943144296250/15141.pdf
3. Why older Australians don’t downsize and the limits to what the government can do about it, accessed August 2025, https://grattan.edu.au/news/why-older-australians-dont-downsize-and-the-limits-to-what-the-government-can-do-about-it/
4. Why rightsizing is taking over downsizing in Australia | Aussie Home …, accessed August 2025, https://www.aussie.com.au/insights/articles/why-rightsizing-is-taking-over-in-australia/
5. Downsizing your home – everything you need to know | DiJones Real Estate, accessed August 2025, https://www.dijones.com.au/library/blog/buying-property/downsizing-your-home-everything-you-need-to-know
6. What are the contributors and barriers to downsizing? | AHURI, accessed August 2025, https://www.ahuri.edu.au/analysis/brief/what-are-contributors-and-barriers-downsizing
7. Housing | Australian Bureau of Statistics, accessed August 2025, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing
8. Unlocking the missing middle in housing – HIA, accessed August 2025, https://hia.com.au/-/media/files/our-industry/advocacy/projects/missing-middle-housing-report/missing-middle-housing-report.pdf
9. Chapter 05 HOUSING CHOICE – Planning, accessed August 2025, https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/637911/southern_chapter05_housingchoice.pdf
10. The “Missing Middle” in Housing: Why Densifying and Gentrifying …, accessed August 2025, https://www.yourinvestmentpropertymag.com.au/expert-insights/michael-yardney/the-missing-middle-in-housing-why-densifying-and-gentrifying-our-middle-ring-suburbs-is-the-solution
11. Is it better to buy an apartment, townhouse, or house? – Savings.com.au, accessed August 2025, https://www.savings.com.au/property/apartment-townhouse-house-what-to-buy
12. Older Australians and the housing aspirations gap | AHURI, accessed August 2025, https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/317
13. POLICY EVIDENCE SUMMARY – The downsizing patterns and preferences of Australians over 55, accessed August 2025, https://www.ahuri.edu.au/sites/default/files/migration/documents/PES-325-The-downsizing-preferences-of-and-opportunities-for-older-Australians.pdf
14. Six Lifestyle Locations Set to Boom as Downsizer Destinations – Realestate, accessed August 2025, https://www.realestate.com.au/news/six-lifestyle-locations-set-to-boom-as-downsizer-destinations/
15. Where do households move over a lifetime? (continued) | AHURI – Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, accessed August 2025, https://www.ahuri.edu.au/analysis/brief/where-do-households-move-over-lifetime-continued
16. Downsizing shouldn’t mean downgrading: the missing market for Boomers – Domain, accessed August 2025, https://www.domain.com.au/news/downsizing-shouldnt-mean-downgrading-the-missing-market-for-boomers-1377836/
17. How much does it cost to sell a house? – Domain, accessed August 2025, https://www.domain.com.au/advice/how-much-does-it-cost-to-sell-a-house-1002254/
18. How Much Does It Cost To Sell A House? – Tips and Advice – Realestate, accessed August 2025, https://www.realestate.com.au/advice/how-much-does-it-cost-to-sell-a-house/
19. The True Cost of Fixing Up Your House Before Selling: Is It Worth It?, accessed August 2025, https://listingprofitremodeling.com/kitchens-and-dining-rooms-become-more-expensive-yet-beautiful/
20. What is the cost of selling a house in 2025? – OpenAgent, accessed August 2025, https://www.openagent.com.au/blog/cost-selling-house
21. Selling a House in Australia: How Much Does it Cost in Queensland? | Calibre Real Estate, accessed August 2025, https://www.calibrerealestate.com.au/selling-a-house-in-australia-how-much-does-it-cost-in-queensland/
22. Downsizing secrets unlock potentially massive savings – investment news – API Magazine, accessed August 2025, https://www.apimagazine.com.au/news/article/downsizing-secrets-unlock-potentially-massive-savings
23. New Data Shows Top Barriers to Downsizing, accessed August 2025, https://www.downsizing.com.au/news/1391/new-data-shows-top-barriers-to-downsizing
24. How much does it cost to sell a house? – Westpac, accessed August 2025, https://www.westpac.com.au/personal-banking/home-loans/next-home/cost-selling-house/
25. The Emotional Guide to Selling Your Home | Vermont ReaL Estate Company, accessed August 2025, https://www.vermontrealestatecompany.com/posts/the-emotional-guide-to-selling-your-home
26. Home Sale Anxiety: Psychological Impacts and Coping Techniques …, accessed August 2025, https://healingpcc.com/home-sale-anxiety-psychological-impacts-and-coping-techniques/
27. Stress While Selling a Home: 10 Tips for Managing the Pressure – Tribe Mind Body Wellness, accessed August 2025, https://tribemindbody.com/stress-while-selling-a-home/
28. How to Survive the Chaos of Selling Your House and Moving as an HSP – Sensitive Refuge, accessed August 2025, https://highlysensitiverefuge.com/selling-your-house-moving-hsp/
29. 8752.0 – Building Activity, Australia, Dec 2018 – Australian Bureau of Statistics, accessed August 2025, https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/8752.0Feature+Article1Dec%202018
30. Telling storeys – apartment building heights | Australian Bureau of Statistics, accessed August 2025, https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/telling-storeys-apartment-building-heights
31. Missing Middle Canberra, accessed August 2025, https://missingmiddlecbr.org.au/
32. Unlocking the missing middle | HIA, accessed August 2025, https://hia.com.au/our-industry/housing/in-focus/2025/05/unlocking-the-missing-middle
33. New ‘missing middle’ housing policy a missed opportunity | LGNSW, accessed August 2025, https://lgnsw.org.au/Public/Public/Media-Releases/2025/0221-missing-middle-housing.aspx
34. Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy – Planning.nsw.gov.au, accessed August 2025, https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/low-and-mid-rise-housing-policy
35. Rethinking the housing pipeline – Cotality, accessed August 2025, https://www.cotality.com/au/insights/articles/more-approvals-more-problems-rethinking-the-housing-pipeline
36. Housing approvals rise, but pipeline bottlenecks threaten delivery | Australian Broker News, accessed August 2025, https://www.brokernews.com.au/news/breaking-news/housing-approvals-rise-but-pipeline-bottlenecks-threaten-delivery-287774.aspx
37. National Housing Supply and Affordability Council calls for reform …, accessed August 2025, https://nhsac.gov.au/news/release-state-housing-system-report-2025
38. Downsizing in retirement – Moneysmart.gov.au, accessed August 2025, https://moneysmart.gov.au/manage-your-money-in-retirement/your-home-in-retirement/downsizing-in-retirement
39. How to make housing more affordable – Grattan Institute, accessed August 2025, https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/HoR-Tax-Inquiry-into-Housing-Supply-September-2021.pdf
40. Housing is less affordable than ever – Grattan Institute, accessed August 2025, https://grattan.edu.au/news/housing-is-less-affordable-than-ever/
41. How to tackle Australia’s housing challenge | Grattan Institute, accessed August 2025, https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/How-to-tackle-Australias-housing-challenge-Grattan-Institute-submission.pdf
42. Increasing housing supply | Treasury.gov.au, accessed August 2025, https://treasury.gov.au/policy-topics/housing/increasing-housing-supply
43. Melbourne’s Missing Middle, accessed August 2025, https://www.yimby.melbourne/missing-middle