Field vs Salt Creek
Salt Creek skews owner-occupied (100%), Field runs more rental-dense (68% owner).
Buying in Field or Salt Creek?
The free buying guide: what you can really spend, the schemes and stamp duty in your state, inspecting, and making the offer.
Get the free buying guideSelling in Field? The free selling guide
Field and Salt Creek side by side
| Measure | Field | Salt Creek |
|---|---|---|
| Renting | ||
| Owner occupied | 68.0% | 100.0% |
| Renter occupied | 32.0% | – |
| Schools | ||
| Schools nearby | 2 | 0 |
| Average ICSEA | 942 | – |
| Lifestyle and people | ||
| Walk score | – | 0 |
| Transit score | – | 0 |
| Bike score | – | 0 |
| Population | 83 | 32 |
| Median age | 43 | 55 |
| Climate | ||
| Annual rainfall | 457 mm | 488 mm |
| Mean max, January | 28.0°C | 27.0°C |
Green dot: better on that measure (lower price, higher growth, higher walkability, lower risk). Each suburb’s profile gives the source and period of its figures.
Which suits whom
- For buyers
- We don't yet have verified suburb-level medians for one or both of these suburbs. Check the individual profiles for the data we do publish, and the methodology page for how we source it.
- For investors
- Rental or growth data is incomplete for one or both suburbs. Look at the full investor view on each suburb profile for a complete picture.
- For families
- Salt Creek has a heavier family-household mix (122% vs 68%), which typically signals stronger demand for family-amenable infrastructure (parks, schools, supermarkets).
Keep comparing
The two suburbs
Compare Field with
Choosing between Field and Salt Creek?
The free buying guide: budget, schemes, inspections and how not to overpay.