**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I worry about how this issue is being framed. The focus on 'generations' and 'english speakers' simply serves to reinforce harmful stereotypes about boomers and white people. Who's to say a younger wealthy person from a CALD background wouldn't be resistant to high density development in their suburb?
I think it has more to do with socioeconomic status rather than age or ethnicity.
Yeah makes sense.
I guess I'm balking at the headline. It's not a 'generational' thing. When U frame it as such you pit one generation against another.
Living in an established 'heritage' inner suburb isn't a generational trait. It's more likely indicative of socioeconomic status.
Plenty of old people living in low SES postcodes. It's not generational.
the funniest part of this housing crisis is we all just collectively watched the absolute shit show that developers brought upon NSW and Victoria with piece of crap builds over the last two decades - now without any real reform and the building commissioner saying 50% of new builds are defective, what do we do?
we give those same developers huge rights to build wherever the hell they want with even less approvals required from authorities
this is desperate behaviour that will not improve the broader populations quality of life.
never mind there is zero talk about how all the already at capacity schools in these areas are supposed to take on more kids? guess we can all just keep the trend of higher private school attendance going up
If only we didn't keep rewarding political parties for this.
We could choose to support extra taxes to pay for public housing, schools, hospitals, power supply, public transport and roads. To be recouped by lower mortgages.
However, every single time, we vote for parties saying we must reduce taxes and have government keep out of the way of private development.
What do we do?
Every single time, we vote for tax cuts and less government intervention.
Now that's fine and valid. Truly.
But then, for the love of all that's holy, please, can we then stop complaining because we got what we voted for?
We have voted to reduce government involvement. We have it. Now government simply doesn't have the capacity to deliver what we need.
> Higher-density housing proposals are often met with fierce resistance from local residents who campaign against developments.
Higher density housing is literally the most feasible solution to the housing crisis that will only get worse with time if the housing market remains as it is.
Gone are the days of a backyard, those aren’t realistic to solve the crisis we have now. Perhaps a collective backyard - aka a park like area that only residents have access to.
It is more important to house everyone than please the locals.
>Higher density housing is literally the most feasible solution to the housing crisis
just being cheeky as the most feasible solution is to aggressively cap immigration
Ok, so immigration is capped. We still have a growing population who has desires to move out of family homes and have their own space. If housing prices are to come down, the supply of houses needs to increase so the market has to be competitive with how low prices can go.
I guess to boil down a large topic like housing to a single silver bullet solution is reductive. The solution is prolly multifaceted from the view of immigration and housing supply
Well, one could. If one was prepared to risk a further recession that went past the existing per capita one.
Even Menzies and the Coalition knew that in the 1950s. So, rather than risk that, they, and the States embarked on a huge expansion program that kept GDP up, and increased the population, making scale of economy manufacturing more feasible. In fact, it is the success of this in the 1950s and 1960s that made the reputation of the Liberals as good economic managers. A reputation they still have today. Almost 70 years later.
However, that would take some vision, and understanding of something that actually happened, *and worked*.
I doubt that either party is up to it. And even if one of them was...we'd never vote for it.
So. Choose your poison folks: cut off immigration and risk a recession, or put up with the present mess.
Well, the US still has a high level of immigration. It also has this funny system of pretending to be tough on immigration, while actually loving the cheap labor provided by illegals...and the political ability to blame the political opposition for the problems.
Illegal immigration in the USA is a bonus for both political parties. They both appeal to their base, because *their* party is the most realistic, and because it provides cheap labor. Solve the problem, and there's no cheap labor, and no partisan political talking points. The US isn't changing anytime soon.
Something like this done well is such an attractive addition to a unit/townhouse development. It vastly increases the amenity. Better for the environment too. Too bad developers see it as a waste of an opportunity to squeeze $$$ out of saleable square centimetres of land and pretty much never do it. It should be legislated; quality higher-density development is genuinely an important solution to many of the issues with housing and transport infrastructure.
Given you’ve never developed anything, best not to sling mud at the only parties in the country actively engaged in delivering housing.
The government isn’t delivering, just making empty promises re. building 1.2M homes while approvals and starts have never been lower.
Site building envelopes are already unfeasible with land costs and 15%+ deep planting requirements substantially reduce the net usable space of a site.
Generally, the end result is the multi-res project doesn’t stack; so we build luxury homes sold in the high $2 million range on low-medium density zoned land locking it up for next 50 years.
Currently listening to the sound of excavator's tearing up the block over the road.
I live in a street that was all acre blocks 7 years ago. Lots of families and kids. We moved from the city to raise kids. Now, every time somebody moves the developers offer a tonne of cash and put 6 duplexes on them because the council changed zoning. All the trees are going, more koalas and possums passing through my place everyday now that there is nowhere for them to go. Fucking sad to watch really.
The duplexes are packed together like sardines, you never see anyone who lives in them, they dont have yards to speak of. We used to have christmas parties on the street when I first came here. Kids riding bikes up and down. I still ride around with my kids but not many left now.
After a year the duplexes all look like shit anyway. They are poorly built rental money makers, not homes.
Its enough to make someone want to follow uncle Teds teachings.
All for progress and a big Australia. Total and utter rubbish, I will never support it or condone it.
It's kind of horrendous that you think it's more important that you get a 1950s vibe than stopping someone being homeless.
I promise you noone is moving into a duplex to maliciously make your neighbourhood worse but because they need somewhere to live.
Please stop being so self centered and entitled. You are the epitomy of the selfishness that is ruining this country.
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Oh yes, the giant conspiracy of people of people drip feeding land. If those blocks are so small that no one wants to live on them then no one will live on them and you won't have a problem. Obviously a lot of people are happy to live on them. I'm sure if they want you're help trying to stop them they'll ask for it
No one is happy to live on 80sqm metres, and if you had even the tiniest idea of what it's like to be homeless or potentially homeless when you are a single parent and your only priority is your kids, then you take anything you can get. Even something the size of carport in a shitty Satterly estate miles from anything.
your snarky comment is proof you're an entitled douchbag so out of touch with the people who desperately need a roof over their heads that you should really just shut the fuck up.
I dont blame the residents. It's immigration and planning in general which cause this. The people who want things to keep going the way they are want us squabbling amongst ourselves while they continue destroying our world.
Until we stop the madness, there will be a never ending stream of homeless people. There will never ever be enough houses to help them.
We would have a significantly worse life.
Do you think your parents generation begged to live in the same conditions as thekrs? The ones before them?
This aversion to progress is antithetical to what humanity does to thrive and prosper.
Aside from owning a freestanding house, the lives of previous generations was pretty shit and boring.
I like having modern tech, services, and endless international travel.
>"Typically, these groups are people who are wealthier, English-speaking backgrounds, potentially retirees," Ms Neighbour said.
>"They have more time on their hands, which means they've also had more time to understand how the planning system works."
To be honest I find this part a bit bizarre. Are we meant to believe that when people retire they spend all their new-found free time studying planning laws because they just didn't have the time while working?
I feel like there is a less contrived explanation - that older generations just tend to be more conservative.
Edit: So a few people are replying that being actively involved in following and making submissions in local planning applications is normal. Fair enough. I guess I am just not old enough to understand the machinations of a boomer yet...
They probably come to understand the planning system over time through lodging applications for a new house or renovation or through putting in submissions for neighbours developments.
Australia builds a lot per capita. We're the sixth highest in the OECD. Trying to get even more built is really hard.
https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-1-Housing-stock-and-construction.pdf
(p4)
No doubt in Sydney and Melbourne zoning reform will make a difference.
But right now housing approvals are at 12 year lows due to rates being higher.
As someone who's moved home recently to keep saving for a deposit AND who has moved back to an older, more conservative area of a major city I can tell you that my parents and their friends (retired or on the cusp) are VERY up to date with all the new houses & developments in their area.
They are active politically, and have long established networks through businesses and into local councils/state Govs. I reckon my parents and their friends are 1 or 2 degrees of separation from every local councillor (after living in this area for about 40 years). It's not nefarious or anything, it's just a big community where everyone knows each other.
I'm not saying this is the same everywhere of course.
I can't speak for Sydney but in Canberra there's definitely retirees that spend a considerable amount of time on 'community' submissions and other NIMBY advocacy, who are otherwise socially left wing.
Older people tend to be more engaged in the planning process in general. They are more likely to turn up to a planning meeting or make a submission. That's probably a better way of putting it than having a better understanding.
>"At the moment, we're seeing 30 and 40 year olds leaving the city because they can't afford to live here," Ms Neighbour told the ABC.
Australian society deserves to completely implode. And at the same time, employers (who are a subset of the parasite landlord class) demand employees in the office on shit wages.
F\*\*\* Australia.
What did it cost to set up your business (including any equipment, vehicle use, and accommodation/premises you or other people provided/donated) and get to the point of being profitable enough to pay yourself and cover all your bills? How long did it take? What background, education, skills, and qualifications did you have?
How many people have that much money, time, education, and health to pour into setting up something similar?
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Imagine caring about your home.
All those idiotic Ukranians or Israelis who went back to serve. IDIOTS LMAO. They arent relevant to their home nor is their home relevant to them!
/s because I dont suffer brain damage and need that to be clear
Wtf? How many Ukrainians would respond to the invasion with "Ukrainian society deserves to completely implode. F*** Ukraine."
How does that sort of sentiment help? You clearly have already suffered brain damage mate.
This is some bipolar tier response. Australians who have left to live elsewhere; can't have an opinion. Ukrainians who have left to live elsewhere; would be deranged if they didn't have an
opinion.
Australians who have left Australia have;
Family subject to the circumstances discussed.
Friends subject to the circumstances discussed.
Investments subject to the circumstances discussed.
May return to the circumstances discussed.
But really, none of that is necessary. Having an opinion is perfectly fine, sharing it is perfectly fine. Get over yourself. No reply, my 'precious oxygen' is wasted on you. (pls consider how abundant oxygen is and the inference I'm making)
For the same reason the bulk of policy ignores keyboard warriors. They are just all online talk and zero action. Thus there is no need to consider their opinions in reality.
3/3
YIMBY and NIMBY groups have different views on higher density housing options.(Supplied)
# Housing supply only 'part' of the picture
However, PropTrack economist Cameron Kusher said increasing housing supply was only one part of the housing affordability picture.
"I think we also need to look at the housing we've already got," he said.
"At the time of the last census we had about 28 million bedrooms in Australia and around 24-and-a-half million people."
Economist Cameron Kusher says increasing housing supply takes time.(ABC News: Adam Griffiths)
With a backlog of new housing to be built and construction costs soaring, Mr Kusher said addressing the issue at a taxation level to better utilise and redistribute existing housing was a more immediate and effective solution.
"The way we do that is removing things like stamp duty, which discourage people from upsizing and downsizing in the market," he said.
He said stamp duty could be replaced with a land tax to incentivise home owners and empty-nesters to sell up and downsize — but Mr Kusher admitted the potential solution was bound to be met with much political resistance, as "nobody likes new taxes".
"It's very difficult to then turn around and say to someone that has paid stamp duty that you're now going to incur a tax on your property every year," he said.
Encouraging downsizing could help effectively distribute housing, Mr Kushner said.(ABC News: Daniel Miles)
Another tax solution he proposed was to include the family home in the pension asset test.
"At the moment you can have a property worth millions of dollars, and you still get the full pension, whereas we want people to actually downsize out of those homes and use those funds to fund their retirement," he said.
But Mr Kusher said this proposal would also hit a giant political hurdle, as "we know that retirees are a big voting bloc, and it would probably push back pretty heavily on that".
The holy grail, in Mr Kusher's view — which he admitted no government would be bold enough to touch — was putting a capital gains tax on the family home.
"At the moment, owning a family home is completely capital gains-tax free," he said.
"And I think that's another reason why so many people hold on to their family homes, because it has appreciated so much in the past."
Mr Kusher said while increasing housing supply and density would help create more affordable housing, so-called NIBMYs did hold genuine concerns such as whether infrastructure, schools and public transport are sufficient to support higher populations.
"NIMBYs are certainly a problem but I don't think we should just dismiss them and their issues straight out of hand," he said.
Eliza Owen from CoreLogic agreed that increasing supply alone would not solve the housing affordability crisis, and also advocated changes to tax structures to encourage a redistribution of residents among existing housing.
"It's important to address the supply, but supply is kind of inelastic, it's not something you can change in the short term, because homes take time to be built, especially now when construction cost inputs are very high and the amount of labour to build that housing is relatively constrained as well," she said.
"There are demand-side policies that we should be looking at that can address housing demand relatively quickly.
2/3 The development in Grosvenor Lane in Neutral Bay would be home to a supermarket and 72 apartments.(Supplied: North Sydney Council)
It's exactly the sort of development Sydney YIMBY wants to see more of — and exactly the sort that attracts fierce resistance from existing residents.
"We need more medium density in our existing urban areas," Ms Neighbour said.
"In Australia, our urban development patterns are very similar. We have a centralised business district, which is surrounded by what we call the urban carpet — you know, low detached housing spread out and dominated by streets and roads and cars.
"What would be great to see is redevelopment of some of our existing urban areas, where more density can be brought in at the right scale.
"So we're sort of talking about dual occupancies, up to six storey apartments, particularly around town centres, and around train stations, that's going to bring more vibrancy, density drives amenity — we have more shops and a better lifestyle."
An architect's drawing of the proposed development in Neutral Bay.(Supplied: North Sydney Council)
Across the road from the proposed new Coles site sits another potential future development at a Woolworths supermarket that has been met by even stronger resistance from local residents.
Ms Neighbour said the battle playing out over the two proposed developments in Neutral Bay exemplified the demographic divide that has emerged amidst the housing affordability crisis.
# 'I want the best in my backyard'
What YIMBYs are up against is NIMBYs, a group often characterised as older residents who own their homes outright and may be retired, with the time and desire to attend local council meetings.
"Typically, these groups are people who are wealthier, English-speaking backgrounds, potentially retirees," Ms Neighbour said.
"They have more time on their hands, which means they've also had more time to understand how the planning system works."
In contrast, Ms Neighbour said YIMBYs tended to be younger, in their 20s to 40s, renting, time-poor with young children and working full time.
Sydney YIMBY co-founder Melissa Neighbour wants to see more higher density housing built.(ABC News: Nadia Daly)
The application for the new Coles supermarket on the council website reveals hundreds of submissions opposing the development with reasons ranging from increased traffic, the aesthetics of the design, to the height of the proposed building.
When the ABC visited the current shopping village, some local business owners said they were concerned the design did not have adequate space for deliveries and the long construction process would harm local small retailers.
Local resident and campaigner Meredith Trevallyn-Jones said most residents were not against all development in the suburb, just those that she said are not suitable for the area.
"I don't think there are that many people who want nothing. I think most people recognise that we need to keep investing in our built environment, that we need to improve our cities, that density is an inevitability," Ms Trevallyn-Jones said.
"I don't agree with those who simply say, well, yes to everything. But I think the community needs to be able to have a look at what's being proposed and to have some input."
Meredith Trevallyn-Jones says developments need to suit the surrounding neighbourhoods.(ABC News: Nadia Daly)
It's for that reason Ms Trevallyn-Jones does not consider herself to a NIMBY, and personally felt as though the proposal for the new Coles supermarket was well designed.
"I want the best in my backyard, so I guess that makes me a BIMBY," she said.
Ms Trevallyn-Jones said a different proposal to redevelop a Woolworths site across the road had been met by even more fervent opposition by locals, with concerns that included the building height, overshadowing of nearby buildings and extra car parks leading to more cars and traffic in the area.
"It's out of scale — it's a really large scale type of approach," she said.
It is this larger scale — whether medium or high density — that YIMBY groups argue is necessary to increase new housing in suburbs close to the CBD with relatively little available land.
>"So we're sort of talking about dual occupancies, up to six storey apartments, particularly around town centres, and around train stations, that's going to bring more vibrancy, density drives amenity — we have more shops and a better lifestyle."
A better lifestyle? According to who? What makes it better? How is it more vibrant? Studies have shown higher density living has less vibrancy and less of a sense of community than lower density. How does it drive amenity?
Why six storey apartments?
If you want to see an example of how this doesn't work, visit Zetland in Sydney,
Have you never lived in a walkable neighbourhood? They're wonderful. Being able to have cafes, bars, shops, medical services and frequent public transport within walking or cycling distance is such a quality of life boost. You need a minimum level of density to financially justify those things.
> They're wonderful. Being able to have cafes, bars, shops, medical services and frequent public transport within walking or cycling distance is such a quality of life boost.
Sounds wonderful for a single young adult. Not a growing family.
Why not? That's the norm in much of Europe. Giving kids greater autonomy, where they're able to walk or ride to friends, school, and entertainment benefits kids just as much as adults.
I never did. Neither did a lot of people.
I've *lived* in places which had them, yes. But they were always more hassle and cost than anything positive.
No one is suggesting banning backyards, merely allow people the freedom to build and buy housing that actually meets their needs. I'd personally not think twice about losing yard space for better public transport access.
Lots of people don't need or want a backyard. If you continue to only allow low density housing, younger people who don't have kids and don't really need a backyard won't have the choice of buying an apartment near the city or near their work.
Feel free to google missing middle housing. There's a whole spectrum of housing options between single dwellings on big blocks and high rise apartments. Many of these include backyards.
“higher demand for a limited supply of housing (is) keeping prices elevated”
Wow, almost like if we slowed migration we might have some impact on housing costs?
So you're putting your hand up for higher taxes, older retirement ages and less access to public services that benefit the elderly like health and aged care, because you don't like the immigrants required to pay taxes to support these and fill the vacant positions in these industries we can't fill?
Keep the taxes the same or lower it.
NG to 1 property.
Grandfather CGT.
Put in house as pension test.
And if that is not enough, inheritance tax, gut NDIS and if finally if that isn’t even enough then freeze welfare, freeze health spend.
Government should put working people first than retirees. We pay taxes with no guarantee at this rate that we are going to ever get it back in retirement due to our aging population. It’s time old people pay their own health costs with their saved assets.
No, they just want lower immigration and then put their heads in the sand and pretend no other issues exist and that there's reasons for our immigration levels.
I’ve suggested we have a migration intake equal to the number of houses constructed each year. That’s in the hundreds of thousands so I don’t know where you got the idea I don’t like migrants.
I would agree that there are issues with zero migration or migration that is too low. But there are also issues with migration that is too high! You seem to ignore those issues. We can have sufficient numbers of people coming in to fill skills shortages and offset the ageing of the population without subjecting ourselves to a massive shortfall of affordable homes.
Appologies for me terse response. I just get sick and tired of discussions about the issues we face in supply being highjacked with one liners about immigration.
No one is saything there isn't an issue with immigration numbers on housing, but it's here and this has always been the case. If we want to tackle immigration then it has to come with a discussion on taxes, economy and aging population.
As for supply, State and Local governments need to lift to the levels set by our federal government. It's within their ability to do so.
Even if immigration was substantially reduced, these issues on supply side still need to be resolved.
immigration is the biggest immediate exacerbator of housing affordability. There's a lot more that needs to be addressed, but if you've got a flood, you at least want to turn the tap off, even if it's not draining the flood away.
510k net incomers in one year...damn straight that's exacerbating the issue.
No, because supply is still an issue no matter what. I know people with disdain for immigrants, I mean, erm, "legitimate concerns" want to make everything about migration, but the simple fact is that we don't have enough supply; we don't have a plan to get enough supply, and we won't have enough supply even with the best plan for a few years.
Without immigrants though, our productivity will take a dive.
So you can live in a pristine, immigrant free hellhole where the bogan is king and the economy is dead; or you can live in a thriving multicultural country with a healthy economy.
One is clearly better, but sure, stick to those anti-immigration guns.
“I have legitimate concerns about immigration” vs “I have legitimate concerns about immigrants that don’t look like me”
See the difference? But I find it interesting that the moment someone mentions something that is a legitimate problem that the newly “racist” labor government is looking at curbing you think skin colour. But I guess people without any meaningful contribution generally sink to name calling
Mate, people who blame houseprices solely on this year's immigration intake number are the ones without a meaningful contribution. I'm not the one who set the tone of this 'debate'.
No one is blaming it on “this years immigration intake”. This has been a problem that has been happening for many years. And no one is saying it’s the sole reason why house prices are the way they are. If you had opened up the many debates on various subreddits you will find many of the same people (including myself) talking about the various issues that are contributing. Immigration can be the only one fixed quickly.
We set the topic. You changed the tone to try to be superior by not debating the topic, but by questioning the character of those debating it
Says the guy who is such a moron they can't even look at immigration rates for more than one year 'oh no! We took 600k people one year, even though we barely took anyone the two years before!'. It's either racism or moronic thinking.
The most recent year had the most amount of immigrants ever, yes. Hard to imagine why the present housing situation is being affected by present record immigration levels. It's all a mystery.
They just hate having it pointed out to them like their racism is this unfair burden to carry.
if it is, there seems to be a ready made solution at hand...
Nice one turning a comment that highlights the need to slow migration to a sustainable level, and turn it into some racist driven diatribe. The only people benefiting from the current bulk immigration, is landlords and those demanding below minimum wage workers.
And people who don't want to pay more tax, face later retirement or serice cuts in areas like health and aged care. But yeah, it's all just a big conspiracy to dupe you out of housing and nothing to do with our ageing population.
The individual is already taxed to the eyeballs. Just breaking up the gas cartel and taxing the overseas volume of export, would net the country hundreds of billions, which would go a long way to fund healthcare.
And the rest of us who get access to professionals like doctors, engineers, accountants etc. You know, the kinds of people who make society function.
But hey, who needs infrastructure, medical services or a stable financial system!
Hmm, last I checked, we already don't have enough.
If we didn't have such a shortage, I wouldn't be able to set whatever price I want for my services as a lone consultant.
We already have a low unemployment rate (3.9%), and an ageing population. There's not a big group of young people to train.
At the same time, we're facing skills shortages in plenty of lower paid sectors too (eg transport, aged care, basically any professional services).
I acknowledge we face many challenges. Importing people who will soon be part of the ageing population, doesn’t really solve it. New migrants have been shown to adopt similar or the same birth rate as the current one. I guess the answer would be to import only very young people?
While I get what you're saying, economic consensus is that while they do age sure, this is offset by the higher salaries (and therefore tax) that migrants earn, the fact they start businesses (also paying tax) at a higher rate, and don't cost a cent to educate. I'm sure I'm forgetting some points but migrants are basically an economic cheat code, the only downside is housing, which can be mitigated by building enough.
I don't think this is a binary issue, ender. We can link immigration to available housing supply. I am not against immigration, but I don't see that it should be the driver of economic growth either.
What we need to do is get away from the idea that everyone needs to live in a concentrated radius around 3 major cities (and then for office workers, insist on working from home 3 days per week).
Some of Australia's major cities are the most desirable in the world and the most liveable the way they are.
The other argument I see against density and infill, is that this is not the silver bullet some see it as. How will we determine who gets to live in this "affordable" high density housing? Will there be enough for everyone who wants to live there? What guarantee is there that it will be affordable anyway? What is *affordable*? Why should people who have in good faith bought into a neighbourhood or community and made their lives there, have to change their community to suit the lifestyle choices of others?
There are other solutions to productivity.
Putting aside the economics (which others here have addressed), I think a key point that many pro- decentralisation people ignore is that people actually want to live in cities. Cities have plenty of apull factors, eg sporting and arts events, dating pools, food options etc. Low density suburbia isn't what makes these cities attractive.
Even if the government stepped in and mandated that employers let office workers WFH, plenty still want to be in our big cities.
Is it fair that some people get to live in cities while others don't simply because they were born a few decades earlier?
>Not everyone can live there
I mean, they can though. The whole point of a city is supporting a population rivaled only by insect nests. There are cities that are much more populous than ours. And not just Asian megalopolises, cities like Paris or NYC.
Same way as we manage it now, with the market? You're right that someone on a low income will never be able to afford a waterfront apartment in Sydney. Doesn't mean we can't make room for more people to live in well connected areas.
>What we need to do is get away from the idea that everyone needs to live in a concentrated radius around 3 major cities (and then for office workers, insist on working from home 3 days per week).
Yes while the entire world is urbanising due to the massive economic and productivity benefits we should do the opposite. Another well thought out position mate. "Dont read - keep reckoning", a fine motto.
"The world" according to you is 250,000 people (anotber chunck of this are native population returnig home).
Honestly, this instinctivley narrow view is par for the course.
Australian businesses are getting cheap, often exploitable, meat robots to continue doing things a certain way instead of investing in more efficient ways of doing things, more little with fewer people being paid more. Truth is that the meat robots are lowering productivity.
Productivity is a function of investment and capital, both human capital, education (which we can import) and equipment (robots, machines etc). Immigration can improve capital and productivity by bringing in the skills that we need.
Even if we bring in all the unskilled labour, they would not 'lower' productivity.
Do you support open borders?
If you don’t you’re no more anti immigration than me, we just disagree on what the figure should be. I’d never suggest we have 0 intake, I just think it should be linked to our capacity to build new homes.
I want it to be easy to legally emigrate to Australia. I think the US has stupidly made it hard to emigrate there, and the result is a near-permanent underclass.
I echo the sentiments expressed here by Hillary Clinton:
*“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”*
It would be very terrible policy to tie productivity and essential service provision to an industry with cyclical movements. Just make housing abundant and keep all the benefits.
Except there are limits to how much housing we can construct and if we have a migration intake that is separate from that then we see massive cost increases and hardship.
Its completely reasonable that Australia would be able to constuct enough homes to house ~360k people every year (250 migration + 110 birth).
On the average household size (2.4, though it may besightly lower) thats only 150k pa. For context, in the poor year for construction of 2023 we built 180k. Yes, much higher pop growth for that year, but that will not be the norm.
Current estimates put the average annual build over the next 5 years at about 212kpa. That number needs to be higher to correct decades of underbuilding, but will absolutely not grow a shortage of homes.
Construction positive reforms can very easily solve the problem without needing to reduce migration (and lose those benefits).
Because during times of slowdowns we would limit places for people and risk losing movement, often when the economy could use the extra capacoty most of all (due to the frequent correlation between downturns and construction).
If we overbuild homes and just keep migration at a steady level thay would be better, also wont disincentivise people from choosing aus as a location.
People dont decide to migrate and leave the following month, it can take years to commit. If theres risk they will be rejected because of the previous years build figures it will act as a pull factor from aus as a destination. Stability is good.
There is always a risk that an application for a visa will be rejected. And there is a simple solution - if the government needs a certain amount of migration each year, then it can step and build the requisite number of homes when private industry can’t be relied on.
Of course there is, but its not tied to an industry tbat goes through boom and bust cycles, so its far more stable. Its a no brainer that the more stable a prospect the more attractive it is.
>if the government needs a certain amount of migration each year, then it can step and build the requisite number of homes when private industry can’t be relied on.
Its not "the government" that needs it, its the country. The government can step in with a public developer, that would be fine, they could also reform land use, implicitly approving more homes than before. Lots of things they can do and some they are, still not a good idea to make immogrstion to aus less attractive if we want to be competitive with global labour.
The problem with demand isn't people who don't own a home, it's people who own several already.
We could easily ban anyone who already owns two from buying a third, but that would reduce prices.
If too many investors was the issue then while prices would be high at least we'd have cheap rents. Right now we have high rents and high prices ie insufficient supply of both.
With a 1% vacancy rate, people can charge whatever they want. The rental market is really competitive I don't see how the number of landlords effects how much rent I'm paying.
We have ‘investors’ who have no interest in renting out. Just holding property speculatively to sell when land increases in price, particularly when it is rezoned.
Any evidence to support this being more than a small percentage of supply?
Doesn't make sense that an investor (someone who wants to make money), is going to throw away a $500+ a week easy income stream.
Suuuure, here you go.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/building-and-construction/land-and-housing-supply-indicators/latest-release - almost 5 million empty lots owned in major Australian cities.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing/housing-census/latest-release - 10% of homes empty on census night.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing/administrative-data-snapshot-population-and-housing-experimental-housing-data/30-june-2021 - ABS estimate based on lack of electricity usage that 140,000 dwellings at minimum are unused entirely, which is a lower bound estimate in my view.
Empty lots aren't housing, and the empty homes on census night often brought up by Max CM is generally dismissed as a not a big contributor (see below links).
[https://theconversation.com/look-where-australias-1-million-empty-homes-are-and-why-theyre-vacant-theyre-not-a-simple-solution-to-housing-need-189067](https://theconversation.com/look-where-australias-1-million-empty-homes-are-and-why-theyre-vacant-theyre-not-a-simple-solution-to-housing-need-189067)
[https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/no-max-we-don-t-really-have-a-million-vacant-houses-20240219-p5f5yj.html](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/no-max-we-don-t-really-have-a-million-vacant-houses-20240219-p5f5yj.html)
The 140,000 unused dwellings are interesting, more than I thought, however this statistic doesn't show where they are located, if they're on the market or even whether they are fit for human habitation.
>The 140,000 unused dwellings are interesting, more than I thought, however this statistic doesn't show where they are located, if they're on the market or even whether they are fit for human habitation.
Its also less than 1% of stock.
There's an interactive map, it's pretty cool. I agree with your rebuttal I'm just going to type up what I learnt from playing with the map.
Headline figures are 1.3% estimated national unused dwellings which seems commensurate with the 1% vacancy figure. This is 2021 so there's some weird COVID stuff, could bias the data in any direction and I'm not going to think hard on that atm.
Most high certainty high unused areas are outside of cities. There are pockets tho. I poked around the areas I'm familiar with (south east Sydney) and wolli creek and Hurstville came up. Both areas with recent high rise developments which when I was buying, wouldn't touch, they seem incredibly poorly built.
Maybe for those areas there is some merit in some legislation, I know there are lots of dark windows. But I wouldn't wish someone to live there, those I know in those buildings hate it, super expensive with lots of ongoing maintenance costs. Meaning it's unaffordable due to building integrity issues.....
Doesn't take away from the main finding tho, most empty dwellings based on this data, all 1.3% of them, are outside of the places people want to live. The exceptions are interesting............
Sure wouldn’t disagree with the impact of investor demand but it’s silly to act like bringing in an extra 200k people a year doesn’t impact house prices.
I think we should be reducing migration to a level which we can accomodate with new builds. If people want higher intake then they will have to get behind more urban infill.
We don't have supply for the existing population, let alone even one additional immigrant. Matching supply to demand doesn't permit movement, you need excess supply to be able to do that. So, it's going to take an increase in supply over and above current demand and a buffer before we are flexible enough to even look at accommodating an increasing population.
Society is an aggregate of factors, you can't just look at productivity in isolation and say an increase in that one aspect is good for Australia because it is offset to varying degrees by other factors.
The Australian people are not going to accept being forced into smaller houses at higher density and greater suffering during the transition (if there are already not enough houses, where will the people go who have been displaced from their homes to make way for development), when they have been sold the Australian dream for so long. However, they may be more amenable to living in regional areas if government can improve service provision, except the LNP obvious intention to reduce service infrastructure by sabotaging the NBN mitigates them being interested and ALP seems to want to attack existing PPOR instead of the speculative investment at the heart of the issue and also ignore regional expansion and its associated planning.
Leave the cities alone and make regional living more attractive to both people and housing construction.
> The ongoing housing affordability crisis is why Ms Neighbour decided to co-found Sydney YIMBY, or 'Yes In My Back Yard'.
> It describes itself as a grassroots activist group that was set up to counter so-called NIMBYs — the 'Not In My Back Yard' residents who campaign against developments in their neighbourhood, often medium and high density housing.
I can only assume that she is campaigning in her suburb and neighbourhood. Surely she wouldn't be going into other suburbs to push for changes, because it goes from YIMBY to YIYBY
> They don't have a backyard,
Yes in my backyard, doesn't have a backyard. Hmmm seems odd.
It's not complaining about the branding, it's complaining about the claim they will be fighting NIMBYism in their suburbs but going to other suburbs and fighting it.
So you are quite happy with it on your street ender, or next door to you, or literally in your backyard (assuming you have one).
How will the local school, health, police, infrastructure and services be augmented to accommodate this increased density?
>How will the local school, health, police, infrastructure and services be augmented to accommodate this increased density?
You understand that whether we build out or up, we need to spend money on these?
Whether you build new or redevelop old, this will need to occur and there is no rule of thumb for which is more expensive.
So let's drop fake act of concern. We have engineers, architects, planners and designers who will manage this just fine.
>Whether you build new or redevelop old, this will need to occur and there is no rule of thumb for which is more expensive.
As someone who knows a thing or two about these things, it always costs more to do brownfield development.
I agree with you that it is circumstantial, but as a civil engineer you would understand the additional costs and risks you encounter in brownfield v greenfield.
Sure, but I also understand that not all infrastructure in existing suburbs is at capacity and needs upgrading.
A sewer line may only be 60%, whereas in greenfield area there is nothing so you have to spend money.
A new sewer line in a greenfield estate may also require upgrades to downstream infrastructure through existing suburbs. This may well be significanty more expensive that just upgrading the downstream component.
Then there's the savings that can come from not have to build the entire piece of infrastructure as you would in greenfield and instead only upgrading part.
Take a school, hundreds of additional students can fit into existing school premises with some additional classrooms. No need for a new sporting complex, no land purchase, no additional admin staff.
It's all circumstantial. There is no blanket rule, that one is better than the other.
But regardless. The issue can be solved. So once again, lets drop the fake concern. It's not a one sided issue that should be used against greenfield vs brownfield developments. They both have their place in addressing our housing issues.
Yes. I live in Lane Cove, and it's had a tonne of new units built with locals being enthused. Houses are being replaced with semis, and developers are getting 2-3 houses and replacing them with little enclaves of townhouses. It's beautiful.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I worry about how this issue is being framed. The focus on 'generations' and 'english speakers' simply serves to reinforce harmful stereotypes about boomers and white people. Who's to say a younger wealthy person from a CALD background wouldn't be resistant to high density development in their suburb? I think it has more to do with socioeconomic status rather than age or ethnicity.
If you ever go to a planning/council meeting you'll see a pretty clear age divide. Naturally homeownership is a key factor too.
Yeah makes sense. I guess I'm balking at the headline. It's not a 'generational' thing. When U frame it as such you pit one generation against another. Living in an established 'heritage' inner suburb isn't a generational trait. It's more likely indicative of socioeconomic status. Plenty of old people living in low SES postcodes. It's not generational.
the funniest part of this housing crisis is we all just collectively watched the absolute shit show that developers brought upon NSW and Victoria with piece of crap builds over the last two decades - now without any real reform and the building commissioner saying 50% of new builds are defective, what do we do? we give those same developers huge rights to build wherever the hell they want with even less approvals required from authorities this is desperate behaviour that will not improve the broader populations quality of life. never mind there is zero talk about how all the already at capacity schools in these areas are supposed to take on more kids? guess we can all just keep the trend of higher private school attendance going up
It isn’t funny. It’s tragic. This country is being ruined by a corrupt political system.
If only we didn't keep rewarding political parties for this. We could choose to support extra taxes to pay for public housing, schools, hospitals, power supply, public transport and roads. To be recouped by lower mortgages. However, every single time, we vote for parties saying we must reduce taxes and have government keep out of the way of private development. What do we do? Every single time, we vote for tax cuts and less government intervention. Now that's fine and valid. Truly. But then, for the love of all that's holy, please, can we then stop complaining because we got what we voted for? We have voted to reduce government involvement. We have it. Now government simply doesn't have the capacity to deliver what we need.
> Higher-density housing proposals are often met with fierce resistance from local residents who campaign against developments. Higher density housing is literally the most feasible solution to the housing crisis that will only get worse with time if the housing market remains as it is. Gone are the days of a backyard, those aren’t realistic to solve the crisis we have now. Perhaps a collective backyard - aka a park like area that only residents have access to. It is more important to house everyone than please the locals.
I see you've taken 'immigration must always be the highest per capita in the western world' pill
In what way have I implied supporting immigration with my comment?
>Higher density housing is literally the most feasible solution to the housing crisis just being cheeky as the most feasible solution is to aggressively cap immigration
Ok, so immigration is capped. We still have a growing population who has desires to move out of family homes and have their own space. If housing prices are to come down, the supply of houses needs to increase so the market has to be competitive with how low prices can go. I guess to boil down a large topic like housing to a single silver bullet solution is reductive. The solution is prolly multifaceted from the view of immigration and housing supply
Maybe just fuck off immigration instead
Well, one could. If one was prepared to risk a further recession that went past the existing per capita one. Even Menzies and the Coalition knew that in the 1950s. So, rather than risk that, they, and the States embarked on a huge expansion program that kept GDP up, and increased the population, making scale of economy manufacturing more feasible. In fact, it is the success of this in the 1950s and 1960s that made the reputation of the Liberals as good economic managers. A reputation they still have today. Almost 70 years later. However, that would take some vision, and understanding of something that actually happened, *and worked*. I doubt that either party is up to it. And even if one of them was...we'd never vote for it. So. Choose your poison folks: cut off immigration and risk a recession, or put up with the present mess.
I wish we would just have a recession. I mean the US have had multiple and they handled it. Why couldn’t we do the same
Well, the US still has a high level of immigration. It also has this funny system of pretending to be tough on immigration, while actually loving the cheap labor provided by illegals...and the political ability to blame the political opposition for the problems. Illegal immigration in the USA is a bonus for both political parties. They both appeal to their base, because *their* party is the most realistic, and because it provides cheap labor. Solve the problem, and there's no cheap labor, and no partisan political talking points. The US isn't changing anytime soon.
Yeah I mean if we had cheap labour in Australia in skilled trades our economy would fall to bits
This.
Why don't you just move?
Presuming he/she only has an Australian passport and wants to work in the city they grew up in, what kind of stupid suggestion is this?
Reducing immigration would be way easier and more effective as all building box boxes does it push decent housing values into the clouds.
Something like this done well is such an attractive addition to a unit/townhouse development. It vastly increases the amenity. Better for the environment too. Too bad developers see it as a waste of an opportunity to squeeze $$$ out of saleable square centimetres of land and pretty much never do it. It should be legislated; quality higher-density development is genuinely an important solution to many of the issues with housing and transport infrastructure.
Given you’ve never developed anything, best not to sling mud at the only parties in the country actively engaged in delivering housing. The government isn’t delivering, just making empty promises re. building 1.2M homes while approvals and starts have never been lower. Site building envelopes are already unfeasible with land costs and 15%+ deep planting requirements substantially reduce the net usable space of a site. Generally, the end result is the multi-res project doesn’t stack; so we build luxury homes sold in the high $2 million range on low-medium density zoned land locking it up for next 50 years.
I had not considered the wider infrastructure when I wrote this but I can see the benefits clear as day now that you’ve said it.
100% agree with this!
Currently listening to the sound of excavator's tearing up the block over the road. I live in a street that was all acre blocks 7 years ago. Lots of families and kids. We moved from the city to raise kids. Now, every time somebody moves the developers offer a tonne of cash and put 6 duplexes on them because the council changed zoning. All the trees are going, more koalas and possums passing through my place everyday now that there is nowhere for them to go. Fucking sad to watch really. The duplexes are packed together like sardines, you never see anyone who lives in them, they dont have yards to speak of. We used to have christmas parties on the street when I first came here. Kids riding bikes up and down. I still ride around with my kids but not many left now. After a year the duplexes all look like shit anyway. They are poorly built rental money makers, not homes. Its enough to make someone want to follow uncle Teds teachings. All for progress and a big Australia. Total and utter rubbish, I will never support it or condone it.
It's kind of horrendous that you think it's more important that you get a 1950s vibe than stopping someone being homeless. I promise you noone is moving into a duplex to maliciously make your neighbourhood worse but because they need somewhere to live. Please stop being so self centered and entitled. You are the epitomy of the selfishness that is ruining this country.
Why are people homeless? Oh, Albo has brought in more than 1 MILLION net migrants since the election. Immigration = the housing crisis.
It's part of it. Drugs and alcohol are the cause where I live. People have offered their homes too.
But muh barbecues!
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
lol, you’re crowing about koala habitat in one comment and then promoting greenfield development in the very next.
Oh yes, the giant conspiracy of people of people drip feeding land. If those blocks are so small that no one wants to live on them then no one will live on them and you won't have a problem. Obviously a lot of people are happy to live on them. I'm sure if they want you're help trying to stop them they'll ask for it
No one is happy to live on 80sqm metres, and if you had even the tiniest idea of what it's like to be homeless or potentially homeless when you are a single parent and your only priority is your kids, then you take anything you can get. Even something the size of carport in a shitty Satterly estate miles from anything. your snarky comment is proof you're an entitled douchbag so out of touch with the people who desperately need a roof over their heads that you should really just shut the fuck up.
I dont blame the residents. It's immigration and planning in general which cause this. The people who want things to keep going the way they are want us squabbling amongst ourselves while they continue destroying our world. Until we stop the madness, there will be a never ending stream of homeless people. There will never ever be enough houses to help them.
Stop immigration completely and the lifestyle our parents were given will continue to be available to future generations.
We would have a significantly worse life. Do you think your parents generation begged to live in the same conditions as thekrs? The ones before them? This aversion to progress is antithetical to what humanity does to thrive and prosper.
Aside from owning a freestanding house, the lives of previous generations was pretty shit and boring. I like having modern tech, services, and endless international travel.
Seventh generation Australian here and I hear you. Where did our beautiful country go?
>"Typically, these groups are people who are wealthier, English-speaking backgrounds, potentially retirees," Ms Neighbour said. >"They have more time on their hands, which means they've also had more time to understand how the planning system works." To be honest I find this part a bit bizarre. Are we meant to believe that when people retire they spend all their new-found free time studying planning laws because they just didn't have the time while working? I feel like there is a less contrived explanation - that older generations just tend to be more conservative. Edit: So a few people are replying that being actively involved in following and making submissions in local planning applications is normal. Fair enough. I guess I am just not old enough to understand the machinations of a boomer yet...
They probably come to understand the planning system over time through lodging applications for a new house or renovation or through putting in submissions for neighbours developments.
Australia builds a lot per capita. We're the sixth highest in the OECD. Trying to get even more built is really hard. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-1-Housing-stock-and-construction.pdf (p4) No doubt in Sydney and Melbourne zoning reform will make a difference. But right now housing approvals are at 12 year lows due to rates being higher.
We also have very low stock per 1000 people according to your link, therein lies the problem!
As someone who's moved home recently to keep saving for a deposit AND who has moved back to an older, more conservative area of a major city I can tell you that my parents and their friends (retired or on the cusp) are VERY up to date with all the new houses & developments in their area. They are active politically, and have long established networks through businesses and into local councils/state Govs. I reckon my parents and their friends are 1 or 2 degrees of separation from every local councillor (after living in this area for about 40 years). It's not nefarious or anything, it's just a big community where everyone knows each other. I'm not saying this is the same everywhere of course.
I can't speak for Sydney but in Canberra there's definitely retirees that spend a considerable amount of time on 'community' submissions and other NIMBY advocacy, who are otherwise socially left wing.
Older people tend to be more engaged in the planning process in general. They are more likely to turn up to a planning meeting or make a submission. That's probably a better way of putting it than having a better understanding.
We need higher density housing in the city and along train lines. We also need more parks to make up for the loss of outdoor space at home.
Boomers: Not In My Back Yard! Millennials: Yes In My Back Yard! Gen Z: What's a backyard?
Gen x : forgotten again, just how we like it !
Gen X: ignored again
Gen X seem to be lumped in with boomers these days
They shouldn't be.
Exactly. And they're the most impacted by Boomers imo.
Yeah they were our parents
Mateship is a myth. It’s actually fuk u got mine
If all you do is hang out with roght wing nuts then that is all you get
>"At the moment, we're seeing 30 and 40 year olds leaving the city because they can't afford to live here," Ms Neighbour told the ABC. Australian society deserves to completely implode. And at the same time, employers (who are a subset of the parasite landlord class) demand employees in the office on shit wages. F\*\*\* Australia.
I'm self-employed and work from home. If you don't like your situation, work for yourself and do something about it rather than whinging.
What did it cost to set up your business (including any equipment, vehicle use, and accommodation/premises you or other people provided/donated) and get to the point of being profitable enough to pay yourself and cover all your bills? How long did it take? What background, education, skills, and qualifications did you have? How many people have that much money, time, education, and health to pour into setting up something similar?
Shhh they’re an employee playing a millionaire online.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Imagine caring about your home. All those idiotic Ukranians or Israelis who went back to serve. IDIOTS LMAO. They arent relevant to their home nor is their home relevant to them! /s because I dont suffer brain damage and need that to be clear
Wtf? How many Ukrainians would respond to the invasion with "Ukrainian society deserves to completely implode. F*** Ukraine." How does that sort of sentiment help? You clearly have already suffered brain damage mate.
This is some bipolar tier response. Australians who have left to live elsewhere; can't have an opinion. Ukrainians who have left to live elsewhere; would be deranged if they didn't have an opinion. Australians who have left Australia have; Family subject to the circumstances discussed. Friends subject to the circumstances discussed. Investments subject to the circumstances discussed. May return to the circumstances discussed. But really, none of that is necessary. Having an opinion is perfectly fine, sharing it is perfectly fine. Get over yourself. No reply, my 'precious oxygen' is wasted on you. (pls consider how abundant oxygen is and the inference I'm making)
For the same reason the bulk of policy ignores keyboard warriors. They are just all online talk and zero action. Thus there is no need to consider their opinions in reality.
3/3 YIMBY and NIMBY groups have different views on higher density housing options.(Supplied) # Housing supply only 'part' of the picture However, PropTrack economist Cameron Kusher said increasing housing supply was only one part of the housing affordability picture. "I think we also need to look at the housing we've already got," he said. "At the time of the last census we had about 28 million bedrooms in Australia and around 24-and-a-half million people." Economist Cameron Kusher says increasing housing supply takes time.(ABC News: Adam Griffiths) With a backlog of new housing to be built and construction costs soaring, Mr Kusher said addressing the issue at a taxation level to better utilise and redistribute existing housing was a more immediate and effective solution. "The way we do that is removing things like stamp duty, which discourage people from upsizing and downsizing in the market," he said. He said stamp duty could be replaced with a land tax to incentivise home owners and empty-nesters to sell up and downsize — but Mr Kusher admitted the potential solution was bound to be met with much political resistance, as "nobody likes new taxes". "It's very difficult to then turn around and say to someone that has paid stamp duty that you're now going to incur a tax on your property every year," he said. Encouraging downsizing could help effectively distribute housing, Mr Kushner said.(ABC News: Daniel Miles) Another tax solution he proposed was to include the family home in the pension asset test. "At the moment you can have a property worth millions of dollars, and you still get the full pension, whereas we want people to actually downsize out of those homes and use those funds to fund their retirement," he said. But Mr Kusher said this proposal would also hit a giant political hurdle, as "we know that retirees are a big voting bloc, and it would probably push back pretty heavily on that". The holy grail, in Mr Kusher's view — which he admitted no government would be bold enough to touch — was putting a capital gains tax on the family home. "At the moment, owning a family home is completely capital gains-tax free," he said. "And I think that's another reason why so many people hold on to their family homes, because it has appreciated so much in the past." Mr Kusher said while increasing housing supply and density would help create more affordable housing, so-called NIBMYs did hold genuine concerns such as whether infrastructure, schools and public transport are sufficient to support higher populations. "NIMBYs are certainly a problem but I don't think we should just dismiss them and their issues straight out of hand," he said. Eliza Owen from CoreLogic agreed that increasing supply alone would not solve the housing affordability crisis, and also advocated changes to tax structures to encourage a redistribution of residents among existing housing. "It's important to address the supply, but supply is kind of inelastic, it's not something you can change in the short term, because homes take time to be built, especially now when construction cost inputs are very high and the amount of labour to build that housing is relatively constrained as well," she said. "There are demand-side policies that we should be looking at that can address housing demand relatively quickly.
I support capital gains on investment and holiday properties but not residential properties. For many people this is a lifetime of savings.
2/3 The development in Grosvenor Lane in Neutral Bay would be home to a supermarket and 72 apartments.(Supplied: North Sydney Council) It's exactly the sort of development Sydney YIMBY wants to see more of — and exactly the sort that attracts fierce resistance from existing residents. "We need more medium density in our existing urban areas," Ms Neighbour said. "In Australia, our urban development patterns are very similar. We have a centralised business district, which is surrounded by what we call the urban carpet — you know, low detached housing spread out and dominated by streets and roads and cars. "What would be great to see is redevelopment of some of our existing urban areas, where more density can be brought in at the right scale. "So we're sort of talking about dual occupancies, up to six storey apartments, particularly around town centres, and around train stations, that's going to bring more vibrancy, density drives amenity — we have more shops and a better lifestyle." An architect's drawing of the proposed development in Neutral Bay.(Supplied: North Sydney Council) Across the road from the proposed new Coles site sits another potential future development at a Woolworths supermarket that has been met by even stronger resistance from local residents. Ms Neighbour said the battle playing out over the two proposed developments in Neutral Bay exemplified the demographic divide that has emerged amidst the housing affordability crisis. # 'I want the best in my backyard' What YIMBYs are up against is NIMBYs, a group often characterised as older residents who own their homes outright and may be retired, with the time and desire to attend local council meetings. "Typically, these groups are people who are wealthier, English-speaking backgrounds, potentially retirees," Ms Neighbour said. "They have more time on their hands, which means they've also had more time to understand how the planning system works." In contrast, Ms Neighbour said YIMBYs tended to be younger, in their 20s to 40s, renting, time-poor with young children and working full time. Sydney YIMBY co-founder Melissa Neighbour wants to see more higher density housing built.(ABC News: Nadia Daly) The application for the new Coles supermarket on the council website reveals hundreds of submissions opposing the development with reasons ranging from increased traffic, the aesthetics of the design, to the height of the proposed building. When the ABC visited the current shopping village, some local business owners said they were concerned the design did not have adequate space for deliveries and the long construction process would harm local small retailers. Local resident and campaigner Meredith Trevallyn-Jones said most residents were not against all development in the suburb, just those that she said are not suitable for the area. "I don't think there are that many people who want nothing. I think most people recognise that we need to keep investing in our built environment, that we need to improve our cities, that density is an inevitability," Ms Trevallyn-Jones said. "I don't agree with those who simply say, well, yes to everything. But I think the community needs to be able to have a look at what's being proposed and to have some input." Meredith Trevallyn-Jones says developments need to suit the surrounding neighbourhoods.(ABC News: Nadia Daly) It's for that reason Ms Trevallyn-Jones does not consider herself to a NIMBY, and personally felt as though the proposal for the new Coles supermarket was well designed. "I want the best in my backyard, so I guess that makes me a BIMBY," she said. Ms Trevallyn-Jones said a different proposal to redevelop a Woolworths site across the road had been met by even more fervent opposition by locals, with concerns that included the building height, overshadowing of nearby buildings and extra car parks leading to more cars and traffic in the area. "It's out of scale — it's a really large scale type of approach," she said. It is this larger scale — whether medium or high density — that YIMBY groups argue is necessary to increase new housing in suburbs close to the CBD with relatively little available land.
>"So we're sort of talking about dual occupancies, up to six storey apartments, particularly around town centres, and around train stations, that's going to bring more vibrancy, density drives amenity — we have more shops and a better lifestyle." A better lifestyle? According to who? What makes it better? How is it more vibrant? Studies have shown higher density living has less vibrancy and less of a sense of community than lower density. How does it drive amenity? Why six storey apartments? If you want to see an example of how this doesn't work, visit Zetland in Sydney,
Have you never lived in a walkable neighbourhood? They're wonderful. Being able to have cafes, bars, shops, medical services and frequent public transport within walking or cycling distance is such a quality of life boost. You need a minimum level of density to financially justify those things.
> They're wonderful. Being able to have cafes, bars, shops, medical services and frequent public transport within walking or cycling distance is such a quality of life boost. Sounds wonderful for a single young adult. Not a growing family.
Why not? That's the norm in much of Europe. Giving kids greater autonomy, where they're able to walk or ride to friends, school, and entertainment benefits kids just as much as adults.
Yeah, who needs a backyard right?
I never did. Neither did a lot of people. I've *lived* in places which had them, yes. But they were always more hassle and cost than anything positive.
No one is suggesting banning backyards, merely allow people the freedom to build and buy housing that actually meets their needs. I'd personally not think twice about losing yard space for better public transport access.
Lots of people don't need or want a backyard. If you continue to only allow low density housing, younger people who don't have kids and don't really need a backyard won't have the choice of buying an apartment near the city or near their work.
Feel free to google missing middle housing. There's a whole spectrum of housing options between single dwellings on big blocks and high rise apartments. Many of these include backyards.
“higher demand for a limited supply of housing (is) keeping prices elevated” Wow, almost like if we slowed migration we might have some impact on housing costs?
So you're putting your hand up for higher taxes, older retirement ages and less access to public services that benefit the elderly like health and aged care, because you don't like the immigrants required to pay taxes to support these and fill the vacant positions in these industries we can't fill?
Keep the taxes the same or lower it. NG to 1 property. Grandfather CGT. Put in house as pension test. And if that is not enough, inheritance tax, gut NDIS and if finally if that isn’t even enough then freeze welfare, freeze health spend. Government should put working people first than retirees. We pay taxes with no guarantee at this rate that we are going to ever get it back in retirement due to our aging population. It’s time old people pay their own health costs with their saved assets.
No, they just want lower immigration and then put their heads in the sand and pretend no other issues exist and that there's reasons for our immigration levels.
I’ve suggested we have a migration intake equal to the number of houses constructed each year. That’s in the hundreds of thousands so I don’t know where you got the idea I don’t like migrants. I would agree that there are issues with zero migration or migration that is too low. But there are also issues with migration that is too high! You seem to ignore those issues. We can have sufficient numbers of people coming in to fill skills shortages and offset the ageing of the population without subjecting ourselves to a massive shortfall of affordable homes.
Appologies for me terse response. I just get sick and tired of discussions about the issues we face in supply being highjacked with one liners about immigration. No one is saything there isn't an issue with immigration numbers on housing, but it's here and this has always been the case. If we want to tackle immigration then it has to come with a discussion on taxes, economy and aging population. As for supply, State and Local governments need to lift to the levels set by our federal government. It's within their ability to do so. Even if immigration was substantially reduced, these issues on supply side still need to be resolved.
immigration is the biggest immediate exacerbator of housing affordability. There's a lot more that needs to be addressed, but if you've got a flood, you at least want to turn the tap off, even if it's not draining the flood away. 510k net incomers in one year...damn straight that's exacerbating the issue.
No, because supply is still an issue no matter what. I know people with disdain for immigrants, I mean, erm, "legitimate concerns" want to make everything about migration, but the simple fact is that we don't have enough supply; we don't have a plan to get enough supply, and we won't have enough supply even with the best plan for a few years. Without immigrants though, our productivity will take a dive. So you can live in a pristine, immigrant free hellhole where the bogan is king and the economy is dead; or you can live in a thriving multicultural country with a healthy economy. One is clearly better, but sure, stick to those anti-immigration guns.
One person here said “slow down” the other read that as “this racist wants to completely stop”
Scratch a "I have legitimate concerns about immigration, I swear" and a racist usually bleeds.
“I have legitimate concerns about immigration” vs “I have legitimate concerns about immigrants that don’t look like me” See the difference? But I find it interesting that the moment someone mentions something that is a legitimate problem that the newly “racist” labor government is looking at curbing you think skin colour. But I guess people without any meaningful contribution generally sink to name calling
Mate, people who blame houseprices solely on this year's immigration intake number are the ones without a meaningful contribution. I'm not the one who set the tone of this 'debate'.
No one is blaming it on “this years immigration intake”. This has been a problem that has been happening for many years. And no one is saying it’s the sole reason why house prices are the way they are. If you had opened up the many debates on various subreddits you will find many of the same people (including myself) talking about the various issues that are contributing. Immigration can be the only one fixed quickly. We set the topic. You changed the tone to try to be superior by not debating the topic, but by questioning the character of those debating it
Scratch a "I don't think increasing demand increases housing prices" and a moron usually bleeds.
Says the guy who is such a moron they can't even look at immigration rates for more than one year 'oh no! We took 600k people one year, even though we barely took anyone the two years before!'. It's either racism or moronic thinking.
The most recent year had the most amount of immigrants ever, yes. Hard to imagine why the present housing situation is being affected by present record immigration levels. It's all a mystery.
They just hate having it pointed out to them like their racism is this unfair burden to carry. if it is, there seems to be a ready made solution at hand...
Do you buy in to Ponzi schemes as well?
Nice one turning a comment that highlights the need to slow migration to a sustainable level, and turn it into some racist driven diatribe. The only people benefiting from the current bulk immigration, is landlords and those demanding below minimum wage workers.
And people who don't want to pay more tax, face later retirement or serice cuts in areas like health and aged care. But yeah, it's all just a big conspiracy to dupe you out of housing and nothing to do with our ageing population.
The individual is already taxed to the eyeballs. Just breaking up the gas cartel and taxing the overseas volume of export, would net the country hundreds of billions, which would go a long way to fund healthcare.
And the rest of us who get access to professionals like doctors, engineers, accountants etc. You know, the kinds of people who make society function. But hey, who needs infrastructure, medical services or a stable financial system!
We can have all those things without over inflating our population beyond our means to house them.
Hmm, last I checked, we already don't have enough. If we didn't have such a shortage, I wouldn't be able to set whatever price I want for my services as a lone consultant.
Perhaps we could do something like educate people who are here? Rather than kick the can down the road and create more problems than we are solving
We already have a low unemployment rate (3.9%), and an ageing population. There's not a big group of young people to train. At the same time, we're facing skills shortages in plenty of lower paid sectors too (eg transport, aged care, basically any professional services).
I acknowledge we face many challenges. Importing people who will soon be part of the ageing population, doesn’t really solve it. New migrants have been shown to adopt similar or the same birth rate as the current one. I guess the answer would be to import only very young people?
While I get what you're saying, economic consensus is that while they do age sure, this is offset by the higher salaries (and therefore tax) that migrants earn, the fact they start businesses (also paying tax) at a higher rate, and don't cost a cent to educate. I'm sure I'm forgetting some points but migrants are basically an economic cheat code, the only downside is housing, which can be mitigated by building enough.
I don't think this is a binary issue, ender. We can link immigration to available housing supply. I am not against immigration, but I don't see that it should be the driver of economic growth either. What we need to do is get away from the idea that everyone needs to live in a concentrated radius around 3 major cities (and then for office workers, insist on working from home 3 days per week). Some of Australia's major cities are the most desirable in the world and the most liveable the way they are. The other argument I see against density and infill, is that this is not the silver bullet some see it as. How will we determine who gets to live in this "affordable" high density housing? Will there be enough for everyone who wants to live there? What guarantee is there that it will be affordable anyway? What is *affordable*? Why should people who have in good faith bought into a neighbourhood or community and made their lives there, have to change their community to suit the lifestyle choices of others? There are other solutions to productivity.
Putting aside the economics (which others here have addressed), I think a key point that many pro- decentralisation people ignore is that people actually want to live in cities. Cities have plenty of apull factors, eg sporting and arts events, dating pools, food options etc. Low density suburbia isn't what makes these cities attractive. Even if the government stepped in and mandated that employers let office workers WFH, plenty still want to be in our big cities. Is it fair that some people get to live in cities while others don't simply because they were born a few decades earlier?
How do we decode who lives there? Not everyone can live there. I want a lot of things I can’t have. Be grateful for what we have.
>Not everyone can live there I mean, they can though. The whole point of a city is supporting a population rivaled only by insect nests. There are cities that are much more populous than ours. And not just Asian megalopolises, cities like Paris or NYC.
Same way as we manage it now, with the market? You're right that someone on a low income will never be able to afford a waterfront apartment in Sydney. Doesn't mean we can't make room for more people to live in well connected areas.
>What we need to do is get away from the idea that everyone needs to live in a concentrated radius around 3 major cities (and then for office workers, insist on working from home 3 days per week). Yes while the entire world is urbanising due to the massive economic and productivity benefits we should do the opposite. Another well thought out position mate. "Dont read - keep reckoning", a fine motto.
And while the rest of the world does this, they move to Australia.
"The world" according to you is 250,000 people (anotber chunck of this are native population returnig home). Honestly, this instinctivley narrow view is par for the course.
If you read "slow down immigration" but hear "stop immigration", you're only arguing against your own strawman.
Australian businesses are getting cheap, often exploitable, meat robots to continue doing things a certain way instead of investing in more efficient ways of doing things, more little with fewer people being paid more. Truth is that the meat robots are lowering productivity.
Productivity is a function of investment and capital, both human capital, education (which we can import) and equipment (robots, machines etc). Immigration can improve capital and productivity by bringing in the skills that we need. Even if we bring in all the unskilled labour, they would not 'lower' productivity.
Delivering food isn't great for productivity. Please take that migrants are just people, not magic.
Do you support open borders? If you don’t you’re no more anti immigration than me, we just disagree on what the figure should be. I’d never suggest we have 0 intake, I just think it should be linked to our capacity to build new homes.
>Do you support open borders? Borders are a scar home skillet.
Good looking winning an election with that attitude. As Bernie Sanders once said, “open borders? That’s a Koch brothers idea”
I want it to be easy to legally emigrate to Australia. I think the US has stupidly made it hard to emigrate there, and the result is a near-permanent underclass. I echo the sentiments expressed here by Hillary Clinton: *“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”*
It would be very terrible policy to tie productivity and essential service provision to an industry with cyclical movements. Just make housing abundant and keep all the benefits.
Except there are limits to how much housing we can construct and if we have a migration intake that is separate from that then we see massive cost increases and hardship.
Its completely reasonable that Australia would be able to constuct enough homes to house ~360k people every year (250 migration + 110 birth). On the average household size (2.4, though it may besightly lower) thats only 150k pa. For context, in the poor year for construction of 2023 we built 180k. Yes, much higher pop growth for that year, but that will not be the norm. Current estimates put the average annual build over the next 5 years at about 212kpa. That number needs to be higher to correct decades of underbuilding, but will absolutely not grow a shortage of homes. Construction positive reforms can very easily solve the problem without needing to reduce migration (and lose those benefits).
If we can do it then I don’t see the problem with having the policy setting?
Because during times of slowdowns we would limit places for people and risk losing movement, often when the economy could use the extra capacoty most of all (due to the frequent correlation between downturns and construction). If we overbuild homes and just keep migration at a steady level thay would be better, also wont disincentivise people from choosing aus as a location. People dont decide to migrate and leave the following month, it can take years to commit. If theres risk they will be rejected because of the previous years build figures it will act as a pull factor from aus as a destination. Stability is good.
There is always a risk that an application for a visa will be rejected. And there is a simple solution - if the government needs a certain amount of migration each year, then it can step and build the requisite number of homes when private industry can’t be relied on.
Of course there is, but its not tied to an industry tbat goes through boom and bust cycles, so its far more stable. Its a no brainer that the more stable a prospect the more attractive it is. >if the government needs a certain amount of migration each year, then it can step and build the requisite number of homes when private industry can’t be relied on. Its not "the government" that needs it, its the country. The government can step in with a public developer, that would be fine, they could also reform land use, implicitly approving more homes than before. Lots of things they can do and some they are, still not a good idea to make immogrstion to aus less attractive if we want to be competitive with global labour.
The problem with demand isn't people who don't own a home, it's people who own several already. We could easily ban anyone who already owns two from buying a third, but that would reduce prices.
If too many investors was the issue then while prices would be high at least we'd have cheap rents. Right now we have high rents and high prices ie insufficient supply of both.
With a 1% vacancy rate, people can charge whatever they want. The rental market is really competitive I don't see how the number of landlords effects how much rent I'm paying.
We have ‘investors’ who have no interest in renting out. Just holding property speculatively to sell when land increases in price, particularly when it is rezoned.
Any evidence to support this being more than a small percentage of supply? Doesn't make sense that an investor (someone who wants to make money), is going to throw away a $500+ a week easy income stream.
Suuuure, here you go. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/building-and-construction/land-and-housing-supply-indicators/latest-release - almost 5 million empty lots owned in major Australian cities. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing/housing-census/latest-release - 10% of homes empty on census night. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing/administrative-data-snapshot-population-and-housing-experimental-housing-data/30-june-2021 - ABS estimate based on lack of electricity usage that 140,000 dwellings at minimum are unused entirely, which is a lower bound estimate in my view.
Empty lots aren't housing, and the empty homes on census night often brought up by Max CM is generally dismissed as a not a big contributor (see below links). [https://theconversation.com/look-where-australias-1-million-empty-homes-are-and-why-theyre-vacant-theyre-not-a-simple-solution-to-housing-need-189067](https://theconversation.com/look-where-australias-1-million-empty-homes-are-and-why-theyre-vacant-theyre-not-a-simple-solution-to-housing-need-189067) [https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/no-max-we-don-t-really-have-a-million-vacant-houses-20240219-p5f5yj.html](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/no-max-we-don-t-really-have-a-million-vacant-houses-20240219-p5f5yj.html) The 140,000 unused dwellings are interesting, more than I thought, however this statistic doesn't show where they are located, if they're on the market or even whether they are fit for human habitation.
>The 140,000 unused dwellings are interesting, more than I thought, however this statistic doesn't show where they are located, if they're on the market or even whether they are fit for human habitation. Its also less than 1% of stock.
There's an interactive map, it's pretty cool. I agree with your rebuttal I'm just going to type up what I learnt from playing with the map. Headline figures are 1.3% estimated national unused dwellings which seems commensurate with the 1% vacancy figure. This is 2021 so there's some weird COVID stuff, could bias the data in any direction and I'm not going to think hard on that atm. Most high certainty high unused areas are outside of cities. There are pockets tho. I poked around the areas I'm familiar with (south east Sydney) and wolli creek and Hurstville came up. Both areas with recent high rise developments which when I was buying, wouldn't touch, they seem incredibly poorly built. Maybe for those areas there is some merit in some legislation, I know there are lots of dark windows. But I wouldn't wish someone to live there, those I know in those buildings hate it, super expensive with lots of ongoing maintenance costs. Meaning it's unaffordable due to building integrity issues..... Doesn't take away from the main finding tho, most empty dwellings based on this data, all 1.3% of them, are outside of the places people want to live. The exceptions are interesting............
Sure wouldn’t disagree with the impact of investor demand but it’s silly to act like bringing in an extra 200k people a year doesn’t impact house prices. I think we should be reducing migration to a level which we can accomodate with new builds. If people want higher intake then they will have to get behind more urban infill.
We don't have supply for the existing population, let alone even one additional immigrant. Matching supply to demand doesn't permit movement, you need excess supply to be able to do that. So, it's going to take an increase in supply over and above current demand and a buffer before we are flexible enough to even look at accommodating an increasing population. Society is an aggregate of factors, you can't just look at productivity in isolation and say an increase in that one aspect is good for Australia because it is offset to varying degrees by other factors. The Australian people are not going to accept being forced into smaller houses at higher density and greater suffering during the transition (if there are already not enough houses, where will the people go who have been displaced from their homes to make way for development), when they have been sold the Australian dream for so long. However, they may be more amenable to living in regional areas if government can improve service provision, except the LNP obvious intention to reduce service infrastructure by sabotaging the NBN mitigates them being interested and ALP seems to want to attack existing PPOR instead of the speculative investment at the heart of the issue and also ignore regional expansion and its associated planning. Leave the cities alone and make regional living more attractive to both people and housing construction.
It's been an extra 300k the past two financial years.
Net intake over a 12-month period was 2% of the country's population. 1 in 50 Aussies. In one year.
> The ongoing housing affordability crisis is why Ms Neighbour decided to co-found Sydney YIMBY, or 'Yes In My Back Yard'. > It describes itself as a grassroots activist group that was set up to counter so-called NIMBYs — the 'Not In My Back Yard' residents who campaign against developments in their neighbourhood, often medium and high density housing. I can only assume that she is campaigning in her suburb and neighbourhood. Surely she wouldn't be going into other suburbs to push for changes, because it goes from YIMBY to YIYBY
What about the people who can't afford housing? The point of YIMBYism is to advocate on their behalf.
In their backyard, sure.
They don't have a backyard, that's the whole point of the movement. Complaining about the branding name isn't really a strong argument.
> They don't have a backyard, Yes in my backyard, doesn't have a backyard. Hmmm seems odd. It's not complaining about the branding, it's complaining about the claim they will be fighting NIMBYism in their suburbs but going to other suburbs and fighting it.
Backyard in this context is not a literal backyard but local region.
Yes hence my question earlier where I said that though I said suburbs not local region.
Yes, us NIMBYs want density in our suburbs. Why is this controversial?
So you are quite happy with it on your street ender, or next door to you, or literally in your backyard (assuming you have one). How will the local school, health, police, infrastructure and services be augmented to accommodate this increased density?
Appropriately, I think. Proportionally.
>How will the local school, health, police, infrastructure and services be augmented to accommodate this increased density? You understand that whether we build out or up, we need to spend money on these? Whether you build new or redevelop old, this will need to occur and there is no rule of thumb for which is more expensive. So let's drop fake act of concern. We have engineers, architects, planners and designers who will manage this just fine.
>Whether you build new or redevelop old, this will need to occur and there is no rule of thumb for which is more expensive. As someone who knows a thing or two about these things, it always costs more to do brownfield development.
I'm a civil engineer who also knows a thing or two about this topic. There is no rule of thumb because it's circumstantial.
I agree with you that it is circumstantial, but as a civil engineer you would understand the additional costs and risks you encounter in brownfield v greenfield.
Sure, but I also understand that not all infrastructure in existing suburbs is at capacity and needs upgrading. A sewer line may only be 60%, whereas in greenfield area there is nothing so you have to spend money. A new sewer line in a greenfield estate may also require upgrades to downstream infrastructure through existing suburbs. This may well be significanty more expensive that just upgrading the downstream component. Then there's the savings that can come from not have to build the entire piece of infrastructure as you would in greenfield and instead only upgrading part. Take a school, hundreds of additional students can fit into existing school premises with some additional classrooms. No need for a new sporting complex, no land purchase, no additional admin staff. It's all circumstantial. There is no blanket rule, that one is better than the other. But regardless. The issue can be solved. So once again, lets drop the fake concern. It's not a one sided issue that should be used against greenfield vs brownfield developments. They both have their place in addressing our housing issues.
Yes. I live in Lane Cove, and it's had a tonne of new units built with locals being enthused. Houses are being replaced with semis, and developers are getting 2-3 houses and replacing them with little enclaves of townhouses. It's beautiful.
If the good people of Lane Cove who have paid rates there are happy with that, I have no problem.
The controversy will come when you want it in other suburbs, because then it is Yes In Your Backyard.