We definitely do need denser housing in the inner suburbs, but with the questionable build quality of post-2000 properties, we probably need a significant overhaul of building standards and requirements first and foremost.
Heating/cooling should not be so expensive and futile, given our relatively mild climate. Proper insulation, double/triple laminate glass, awnings over north & west-facing windows etc.
Additionally, many new developments are built and billed as ‘luxury’ - pricing out a lot of potential buyers, and builds rarely have the appropriate number of rooms for young families.
Lastly, accessibility concerns usually mean that new developments beyond 2 stories usually require an elevator - so in order to make the build cost effective, the designer ultimately needs to become 5-6 stories tall; infuriating NIMBYs who may otherwise tolerate a 3-4 storey tall build.
There are a lot of problems that need to be tackled, but they need to be tackled - both from a Federal (against financial incentives towards property hoarding and speculation), and State (building adequate levels of appropriate stock).
New developments are always gonna be luxury. That’s how it works. The rich live in the new buildings, and the poor in the older and more run-down buildings. Building new luxury housing means that less luxury housing will be freed up.
What I really hate are house flippers. They take an old house, make it fancy, and sell it at a markup where otherwise it would be affordable housing. We need a higher quantity of housing first and foremost, quality comes second.
Mate, i grew up in a postwar housing comission, a suburb created from whole cloth (Holmesglen). I promise you the moneyed were not taking these houses even when they were brand spanking new
I mostly agree but luxury housing also means larger housing. Larger than smaller or younger families need. This jacks up the price. This is a byproduct of ridiculously expensive compliance laws which make fixed costs on new builds too onerous to justify smaller or cheaper builds. Zoning needs massive reform. NRZ needs to be abolished. Australia has pursued a policy of high immigration for decades. That’s fine, but it requires massive, dense building to keep up with demand. Unfortunately for urban residents, it means the “character” of their neighbourhoods are going to change drastically.
So your solution is that no new housing be affordable? I don’t really think trickle-down housing is the solution you think it is…
Yet these reforms are now under threat. The Victorian Liberals and the Greens have teamed up to launch an inquiry into the state Labor government’s reforms
I gotta say, the wording of that threw up a huge red flag.
The Greens never pass up the chance to remind everyone that they’re a party for upper class yuppies.
I was referring to the fact that an inquiry into how it’s being managed is seen as a threat. A threat to its existence. A threat to the point of needing a propaganda piece like this.
If you’re threatened by someone looking into your work, you’re dodgy as shit
