Building a new station is less expensive than building a new house, says a new study.
The study found that building a station costs around $30,000 more than a house and $400,000 less than building an office building.
The finding suggests a new construction boom is under way in the construction industry, which is booming at the moment.
But it also comes as the federal government is launching its own housing affordability drive to build thousands more homes.
The cost of a new dwelling is set to climb to around $1.2 million per person by 2026, with more than 60 per cent of people living in housing affordability zones.
The government has also pledged to create 1,000,000 new jobs, with the construction sector expected to take the biggest hit.
But many of the jobs will not come at the expense of the construction boom.
The new study looked at the cost of building a house, office building and other properties to determine whether or not it is a good investment.
The study, conducted by economists at the Australian National University, looked at five different projects to determine what would happen to the value of existing properties and the impact on property prices.
The researchers looked at a house for about $150,000 and a new office building for $200,000.
They looked at different types of housing, with a new home costing about $1 million more than the existing building.
But they also looked at two existing buildings, a new apartment building and a rental property, and looked at each one separately.
The authors found that, on average, the total cost of construction for a new, built-to-suit-the-people home was about $300,000 compared to about $500,000 for an office or rental building.
However, the study found, for properties built in a new way, the overall cost per unit was around $400.
The report also found that the average cost of an apartment building was $1,700, while the average rental was $2,200.
However, there were some exceptions.
The average cost per square foot of an office and rental property was about 15 per cent lower, compared to the average of about 30 per cent for a home built in the new construction style.
But for a two-bedroom apartment building, it was about 25 per cent higher than the average apartment building for all properties.
The overall cost of the new building was more than $500 per square metre compared to $350 for the old building.
While the overall average cost was higher, it fell short of the $1m mark.
“Our analysis shows that a new and larger building with lower-density buildings will have more impact on home values and rents,” said Dr David Henderson, the paper’s lead author.
It was a similar story for new office buildings, where the cost per floor rose from about $2.5 million to $4.4 million.
The difference in the cost was largely driven by the cost to build the office, which fell from $1 billion to $1billion.
However for a rental unit, the cost fell to $2 million.
Henderson said the results suggest that there is a “very high degree of competition for new building permits in the housing market” and that a number of projects were likely to take longer to complete.
He also noted that many of these projects were not designed with people living close to the site in mind.
But while the study does suggest that building new homes is less costly than a home, there is still a lot of room for the boom to continue.
Dr John Llewellyn, from the University of Technology, Sydney, said the finding of a cheaper housing cost was not surprising given the recent trend in Australian house prices.
Mr Llewelyn said the study “is a reminder of just how little money people are spending on housing, given the price of a single-family house has increased by more than 25 per-cent in the past three years”.
“We’ve had some pretty significant increases in the value and availability of land in the last few years and it’s only going to get worse,” he said.
He also said the paper suggested the housing boom could be “stalled” if there was “no serious consideration of how much housing is needed”.
He said the housing cost slowdown may be temporary, given that the Federal Government has set aside $30 billion over three years to “stimulate the housing supply market”.