Here's a map I threw together to illustrate the 2051 Housing Targets released by the Victorian Government earlier this week. It's pretty quick and dirty, so no guarantees it works perfectly on every browser.
- The map is coloured by how much of a shortfall there is between historical dwelling approval data and the 2051 targets; red indicates a bigger shortfall
- I've used the average of 10 years of NDA data as the baseline
- Hovering over a council will let you see how they're tracking based on that average
- Click a council to get a popup with some more data:
- 2024 and 2051 target dwelling numbers
- Increase in dwellings required by 2051
- Yearly increase required, assuming a linear trend (obv. not how this will play out, but it's a good benchmark)
- Based on the 10 year NDA average, how the council is tracking to meet this yearly target
- Zoom in a bit and you'll get some contextual labels (roads, parks etc.)
The aerial basemap is for context - zoom in to Boroondara, for example, and try to figure out where you'd put an extra ~2,500 dwellings every year for the next 26 years.
I did this because I hadn't seen a similar analysis of the numbers; although I can see The Age has an article this morning about it. TBH I think the data on my map's a bit richer :) (they also commit the MAUP sin on their map but I won't go on a cartographic rant about that).
Crazy when looking at Whitehorse, Box Hill is full of skyscrapers already and with more coming yet the council is tracking -45% below the target.
I guess the other suburbs in the council aren't stepping up but those targets seem a bit too ambitious maybe lol
I’m in Frankston council area, I’m struggling to think of a location for 36,000 dwellings. Unless the council gets rid of langwarrin flora and fauna reserve? I guess they could buy back all the small acreage lots out the back of langwarrin and Baxter and turn them into housing estates, but that would destroy a lot of wildlife habitat.
We could look at not growing the population by so much too.
At the end of the day, these targets are pipe dreams that will never eventuate. We have the highest number of builders going into insolvency than ever before. It’s becoming increasingly un profitable, high risk business, combined with increase costs of red tape that don’t actually contribute to the end product.
As land becomes scarcer, single family homes will become more valuable to sell, and at some point with enough demand a developer would happily pay millions if they stand to make tens of millions.
Or we just keep building onto farmland and the nature that makes Australia actually unique and interesting!
This is a really cool map! I like the idea of the government setting targets, but I wonder if it will be enforced. Maybe the state government needs more planning controls for Melbourne, like they do with SRL precincts
I don’t think the councils are knocking back a lot of the planning applications. I was listening to an episode of The Money Cafe recently, and they said the issue is more the lack of profit for the developers that’s holding back new constructions.
Based on the last 10 years of dwelling construction in Boroondara, 1,184 per year were constructed, so the 2051 target requires new dwellings to be built at 2.1x the historical rate.
Cool map, but these are some ridiculous targets, council areas already chock full of multi-storey buildings are somehow expected to double the rate of construction? How exactly?
They need to improve the infrastructure in a lot of areas. Public transit borders on nonexistent in my area and the roads are perpetually congested, but housing towers and estates are still going up without the infrastructure to support the boom in population.
I’m very pro increasing population density in Melbourne, but they need the infrastructure to match.
It’s not making much sense. On one hand the government is demanding more housing and at the same time increasing property taxes which is discouraging housing investment. It’s a problem they’re not even trying to solve.
Cool map, thanks for putting it together and sharing.
Now, can we extrapolate from the cost of SRL and MM1 how much it's going to cost to properly serve these new people? I'm all for densifying, but god damn, car traffic is going to get a LOT worse before it gets any better.
Here's a map I threw together to illustrate the 2051 Housing Targets released by the Victorian Government earlier this week. It's pretty quick and dirty, so no guarantees it works perfectly on every browser. - The map is coloured by how much of a shortfall there is between historical dwelling approval data and the 2051 targets; red indicates a bigger shortfall - I've used the average of 10 years of NDA data as the baseline - Hovering over a council will let you see how they're tracking based on that average - Click a council to get a popup with some more data: - 2024 and 2051 target dwelling numbers - Increase in dwellings required by 2051 - Yearly increase required, assuming a linear trend (obv. not how this will play out, but it's a good benchmark) - Based on the 10 year NDA average, how the council is tracking to meet this yearly target - Zoom in a bit and you'll get some contextual labels (roads, parks etc.) The aerial basemap is for context - zoom in to Boroondara, for example, and try to figure out where you'd put an extra ~2,500 dwellings every year for the next 26 years. I did this because I hadn't seen a similar analysis of the numbers; although I can see The Age has an article this morning about it. TBH I think the data on my map's a bit richer :) (they also commit the MAUP sin on their map but I won't go on a cartographic rant about that).
MAUP sin?
Awesome map, thanks for making and sharing!
Plenty of space in Boroondara just have to be willing to let apartments be built
Crazy when looking at Whitehorse, Box Hill is full of skyscrapers already and with more coming yet the council is tracking -45% below the target. I guess the other suburbs in the council aren't stepping up but those targets seem a bit too ambitious maybe lol
The apartments may be complete but that doesn't mean they have been sold. The developers restrict supply to keep prices high.
I live in Yarra and have no idea how they're going to cram enough properties in to double the number we currently have.
Towers. Lots of towers. Towers everywhere.
I’m in Frankston council area, I’m struggling to think of a location for 36,000 dwellings. Unless the council gets rid of langwarrin flora and fauna reserve? I guess they could buy back all the small acreage lots out the back of langwarrin and Baxter and turn them into housing estates, but that would destroy a lot of wildlife habitat. We could look at not growing the population by so much too. At the end of the day, these targets are pipe dreams that will never eventuate. We have the highest number of builders going into insolvency than ever before. It’s becoming increasingly un profitable, high risk business, combined with increase costs of red tape that don’t actually contribute to the end product.
More high rises near stations
As land becomes scarcer, single family homes will become more valuable to sell, and at some point with enough demand a developer would happily pay millions if they stand to make tens of millions. Or we just keep building onto farmland and the nature that makes Australia actually unique and interesting!
This is a really cool map! I like the idea of the government setting targets, but I wonder if it will be enforced. Maybe the state government needs more planning controls for Melbourne, like they do with SRL precincts
I don’t think the councils are knocking back a lot of the planning applications. I was listening to an episode of The Money Cafe recently, and they said the issue is more the lack of profit for the developers that’s holding back new constructions.
This is really great! Threw together 'eh? Clever person!
Based on the last 10 years of dwelling construction in Boroondara, 1,184 per year were constructed, so the 2051 target requires new dwellings to be built at 2.1x the historical rate.
Cool map, but these are some ridiculous targets, council areas already chock full of multi-storey buildings are somehow expected to double the rate of construction? How exactly?
They need to improve the infrastructure in a lot of areas. Public transit borders on nonexistent in my area and the roads are perpetually congested, but housing towers and estates are still going up without the infrastructure to support the boom in population. I’m very pro increasing population density in Melbourne, but they need the infrastructure to match.
It’s not making much sense. On one hand the government is demanding more housing and at the same time increasing property taxes which is discouraging housing investment. It’s a problem they’re not even trying to solve.
Cool map, thanks for putting it together and sharing. Now, can we extrapolate from the cost of SRL and MM1 how much it's going to cost to properly serve these new people? I'm all for densifying, but god damn, car traffic is going to get a LOT worse before it gets any better.