Highly restricted land
≈84% of Moncrieff’s residential land is highly restricted.
Driven mostly by 2-storey height caps. Moncrieff ranks #44 of 96 suburbs in Canberra, and #1240 of 1,972 capital city suburbs nationally.
Source: Geometric union of 2-storey, low-density, detached-only, and heritage controls across Moncrieff. ABS SAL code 80098. Methodology →
Note: Figures and the map cover only the parts of this area inside the capital’s Significant Urban Area; land beyond the SUA boundary is excluded from our modelling.
Where Moncrieff ranks in Canberra
Moncrieff ranks #44 of 96 Canberra suburbs for highly restricted residential land.
Highly restricted
Moncrieff: ≈84% · rank #44 of 96
2-storey cap
- 1. Banks≈100%
- 2. Dunlop≈100%
- ⋯
- 41. Downer≈85%
- 42. Fraser≈85%
- 43. Moncrieff≈84%
- 44. Yarralumla≈84%
- 45. McKellar≈84%
- ⋯
- 95. Franklin (ACT)≈0%
- 96. Greenway≈0%
Low-density
- 1. Banks≈100%
- 2. Dunlop≈100%
- ⋯
- 41. Downer≈85%
- 42. Fraser≈85%
- 43. Moncrieff≈84%
- 44. Yarralumla≈84%
- 45. McKellar≈84%
- ⋯
- 95. Franklin (ACT)≈0%
- 96. Greenway≈0%
Heritage
- 1. Forrest (ACT)≈68%
- 2. Red Hill (ACT)≈26%
- ⋯
- 71. Melba≈0%
- 72. Monash (ACT)≈0%
- 73. Moncrieff≈0%
- 74. Narrabundah≈0%
- 75. Ngunnawal≈0%
- ⋯
- 95. Whitlam≈0%
- 96. Wright≈0%
Highly restricted
- 1. Banks≈100%
- 2. Dunlop≈100%
- ⋯
- 42. Fraser≈85%
- 43. Yarralumla≈84%
- 44. Moncrieff≈84%
- 45. McKellar≈84%
- 46. Duffy≈84%
- ⋯
- 95. Franklin (ACT)≈0%
- 96. Greenway≈0%
Source: Moncrieff ranked against other Canberra suburbs on each restriction metric (ex-rural shares). Methodology →
Canberra context
Moncrieff ranks #44 of 96 suburbs in Canberra for highly restricted residential land.
- Banks ≈100%
- Dunlop ≈100%
- Ngunnawal ≈100%
- Nicholls ≈100%
- O’Malley ≈100%
- Oxley (ACT) ≈100%
- Palmerston (ACT) ≈100%
- Amaroo (ACT) ≈99%
- Ainslie ≈99%
- Higgins ≈96%
- Giralang ≈95%
- Crace ≈94%
- Richardson ≈94%
- Gordon (ACT) ≈93%
- Chapman ≈91%
- Calwell ≈90%
- Gowrie (ACT) ≈90%
- Rivett ≈89%
- Conder ≈89%
- Narrabundah ≈89%
- Chisholm (ACT) ≈89%
- Stirling (ACT) ≈89%
- Whitlam ≈88%
- Torrens ≈88%
- Red Hill (ACT) ≈88%
- Melba ≈88%
- Spence (ACT) ≈88%
- Watson ≈87%
- Farrer ≈87%
- Macgregor (ACT) ≈86%
- Campbell ≈86%
- Florey ≈86%
- Hawker (ACT) ≈86%
- Aranda ≈85%
- Evatt ≈85%
- Waramanga ≈85%
- Hackett ≈85%
- Isaacs ≈85%
- Fadden ≈85%
- Kambah ≈85%
- Downer ≈85%
- Fraser ≈85%
- Yarralumla ≈84%
- Moncrieff ≈84%
- McKellar ≈84%
- Duffy ≈84%
- Scullin ≈83%
- Bonython ≈83%
- O’Connor (ACT) ≈82%
- Hughes (ACT) ≈82%
- Isabella Plains ≈82%
- Theodore (ACT) ≈81%
- Wanniassa ≈81%
- Griffith (ACT) ≈81%
- Weston (ACT) ≈81%
- Monash (ACT) ≈81%
- Flynn (ACT) ≈81%
- Bonner ≈80%
- Latham (ACT) ≈79%
- Pearce ≈79%
- Gilmore (ACT) ≈77%
- Curtin ≈75%
- Kaleen ≈75%
- Cook ≈75%
- Denman Prospect ≈75%
- Fisher (ACT) ≈75%
- Garran ≈74%
- Casey ≈73%
- Charnwood ≈72%
- Holt ≈72%
- Lawson (ACT) ≈71%
- Holder (ACT) ≈71%
- Forrest (ACT) ≈69%
- Deakin ≈66%
- Wright ≈65%
- Weetangera ≈63%
- Chifley (ACT) ≈56%
- Mawson ≈55%
- Lyneham ≈54%
- Coombs ≈53%
- Lyons (ACT) ≈52%
- Turner ≈46%
- Forde ≈46%
- Macquarie ≈45%
- Taylor ≈36%
- Page ≈30%
- Braddon ≈28%
- Dickson ≈24%
- Harrison ≈19%
- Bruce (ACT) ≈18%
- Phillip ≈9%
- Kingston (ACT) ≈8%
- Gungahlin ≈6%
- Belconnen ≈0%
- Franklin (ACT) ≈0%
- Greenway ≈0%