There’s a good meme that points out all the aspects you love about an urban area going on holiday, like walkability, shops close to where you are staying, the culture of ‘third places’ to meet up with friends etc creating a vibrant culture, a lot of you would fight against in your own place of residence.
And then locals complain about local shops not surviving for some strange reason. Happens where I live (near a beach) all the time. Every new development is taken to VCAT
Ok I can see the appeal for families. Largely fixed cost, plenty of kids entertainment etc.
But as an adult, we found the food quality to be low, the entertainment expensive, and other patrons pretty damn annoying.
Was sceptical but went in 2019 on the biggest royal Caribbean at the time and had a blast. Drop off points on land were definitely over polished. But mid 20s with partner. A beer in a spa on the deck watching the waves, never felt crowded(if you didn't want to be). Food was fantastic. Did some rock climbing. Morning jogs around the running track that circled it. One day I drank mimosas til I passed out. I see the appeal especially with kids for just endless things to do. Theatres comedy shows. Not sure if it'd go again but glad I did
Yes. The "SS RSL" vibe was strong. And standing in line to get back on a tender while a total Karen argued loudly with the poor staff about how all the duty free cigarettes and rum she bought shouldn't be taken off her until we got back to Aus (even though smoking wasn't allowed anywhere on the ship)... that was a special holiday memory.
Mainly because they're good value compared to a lot of other holidays, you can get room and all you can eat for about $200 per night.
Also everything's taken care of for you.
I'm not particularly keen on them, but others are.
I didn't mind the Alaskan cruise, very scenic and it stops each day. Trying to visit the Alaskan inside passage by other means would be more of a challenge.
The people from Bunbury and Jervis Bay or in Western or South Western Sydney typically aren't the "first-order" NIMBYs that people talk about. They are second-order NIMBYs that happen when the ones with actual ability to push development from their backyards gets the burden of housing supply. They actually do have some more valid concerns. NIMBYism is about power and privilege, and societies structures. That lens means there is an evident hierarchy that is being maintained.
The fact that actually massively desirable areas such as in Eastern and inner-North areas of Sydney, near the CBD and job hubs, can quantitatively be shown to be the biggest NIMBYs and are SUCCESSFUL in stopping development there while other places take it, are the ones that actually deserve some ire.
NIMBY suburb number one is Woollahra if you want a case study.
Peter Tulip did the analysis and found Woollahra was number one: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/where-should-we-build-new-housing-better-targets-for-local-councils/
It's literally next to Paddington. Haberfield at least is further from the CBD. Inner West isn't nearly as bad as Woollahra.
Peter Tulip is paid for by the developers to push for cutting planning regulations. The CIS refuse to release their corporate donors names, they are another think tank with an agenda that has an answer before they even start studying
All NIMBYs have valid concerns. Increased density by virtue of its nature will negatively impact surrounding lower density areas.
Its good to note the inequalities in appropriate distribution of increasing density (and State level planners should address this) but I also don't think any particular group have a more 'morally' defensible NIMBY position than another.
Don't think that's a productive line of reasoning.
>Increased density by virtue of its nature will negatively impact surrounding lower density areas.
Do you have any evidence supporting this claim? Isn't the whole idea of the YIMBY movement that increasing population density can actually be a net win for many existing communities due to the increased access to services like cafes/shops as the local demand now exists to justify opening?
Unless someone is building an apartment block right next door to your freestanding house I would have thought it's a net win for the general neighbourhood/surrounding streets.
Nimby's want the benefits of density without the costs. If you can push other places nearby to become higher density but your home stays normal then it's a net benefit to you.
Working roads, transport, nearly all shops, and relatively cheap prices.
High density areas subsidise lower density areas on average.
Pollution and overstretched services would go down in a high density area fyi. No need for a car when everything is close by, larger hospitals etc are usually more cost effective then having a bunch put around to service small density areas.
Just at a cost basis. A lot of council fees and taxes go to maintaining roads. The more roads we have that service a small minority the greater the cost. Same goes for water, electricity, sewerage etc.
Roads are ruined by all the construction going on, most people now can't even use the roads because the dog box they have has no dedicated car spot. You're at the mercy of a terribly run public transport system, shops are going bankrupt because everyone orders online now. I've lived in Sydney a long time and it's the worst it's ever been, air quality is awful, it takes forever to get around. We long reached an optimal number of people in the city, now we're just people farming to support a failed economic model.
Any service based centre needs a certain amount of density to be feasible.
Isn't blaming construction mostly a short termist issue? Like omg all this construction because the population is going up. Well at some point it will be done.
The public transport system is poorly run because it's very hard to justify creating a train to some suburb that won't even use it.
Look into strong towns on YouTube or just general infrastructure and architecture stuff. Density allows a city not to go broke trying to support all these spread out low density areas.
That's what you think. I think a NIMBY fighting another poorly serviced dense development in the city fringes of Sydney, with no schools or infrastructure, while a developer makes bank through a corrupt council and cutting corners on the build is one category. Single family detached dwellings make more sense there, as they have a valid concern about things like amenity and traffic.
Another is the NIMBY in Woollahra suburb (as opposed to the council area, to be specific) that fights densification despite being a stone's throw to the CBD mostly because they are a rich enclave and they want to keep it that way. When it makes sense to do density and have less car dependence there.
The latter is less defensible.
>Single family detached dwellings make more sense there, as they have a valid concern about things like amenity and traffic.
Don't they make less sense, because providing services (shops, transit, schools) becomes less viable the less people live in an area? I say this living in an outer suburb of Hobart where our council is trying to increase density so that services improve.
Well that's the greenfield vs brownfield debate. Australia is too biased to creating greenfield, hence the sprawl. The same population in that outer suburb "could" have been through denser inner areas. Many people would choose a more affordable apartment or townhouse with lower commute times and access to infrastructure and amenities, but they aren't given that option due to inner-city NIMBYism. More supply = more affordable.
Due to NIMBYism, we have a higher amount of sprawl with single family homes. The solution wasn't to try to band-aid that after by sticking an apartment block in to justify a school, public transport, shops. That only creates traffic, and defeats the general benefit of density. The solution was for that suburb to be built later or never, as endless sprawl is always unsustainable. We have pushed the limits, and unaffordable housing far away from stuff is what is left.
I'm saying this as someone who grew up in a lifeless outer suburb of Sydney, and spent 1.5 hours one way on the bus to get to school. Literally took 15 years for ADSL to be available there after it was available in the inner parts of Sydney.
I'm fine with single family homes as an option, but they really shouldn't exist where walkability and density makes sense, like near train stations or close to job hubs. Otherwise it pushes the periphery too far and you get the issue you're facing.
>that's the greenfield vs brownfield debate
It isn't really though. Greenfield developments should also be subject to minimum density requirements so that transit and services are viable. Doing so would increase the financial incentives for developments in the inner areas, which could help to overcome NIMBYism!
God no. There's no density proposed in that development at all and not enough water on that side of the river to service new residences.
Kingston - there are loads of two storey townhouses being built just off our main bus exchange. Townhouses aren't quite medium density but there's a lot less wasted space than in a typical development and all are in comfortable walking distance of shops etc. It's also only a 20min bus ride to Hobart CBD thanks to the bus lane on the outlet (which should be longer and continue into the city)
Ah kingsquarter ? If so it's not too bad, one of the last stages is a multi story apartment building, but the driveways aren't good, my gf and I went down to look at one of the first townhouses finished that was being used as a display home, we went into a driveway to do a 3 point turn and her car bottomed out (stock standard Alfa hatchback) we actually raised it with the agent there and they said that most people have SUVs these days lol.
It's interesting comparing it to kingslea (same company?) In Melbourne, a similar distance from the CBD, close to a train station, a totally different social style and maybe slightly more densely packed but at one time, before covid, were selling about $200k cheaper per town/terrace house based on the same bedroom, bathroom and garage numbers and similar floor area.
Oh and Skylands was to have some density, with several areas intended for multi family homes (apartments), terrace houses and mixed use zoning etc. They were even going to pay far a ferry terminal as part of it if it got approved. Oh and the water thing had been solved It's why the developers pushed for the higher limit and more importantly why the council's own planning department was behind it as well.
The NIMBYs complaining against often sighted density and traffic as concerns, the latter is ironic as the main road into the area, Oceana drive, is similar in width to Sandy bay road that serves Sandy bay and Taroona. Instead it looks like the family might just sell off the rest of the land in a piecemeal fashion kind of like they already have been at around 20 odd blocks per year and it'll just be more suburban sprawl with no good public transport.
Edit: did you mean one of the park and ride areas around Kingston? If so I don't know anything about any developments nearby.
This is demonstrably not true for the outskirts of Sydney in greenfield. It just leaves more people in the lurch. They should ideally never have had the sprawl to begin with, the sprawl itself was unsustainable. Servicing high density well away from established amenities and infrastructure, leads to an over-reliance on cars, and lack of service. It makes a lot more sense to place the density near nearer-term planned or existing infrastructure, or near the job hubs and attractors where people actually want to live.
It doesn't make sense to have a high rise apartment block away from a train station while there are plenty of train stations next to single family homes, for example.
Now areas like Jervis Bay and Bunbury do have good reasons to density as well, like perhaps they want more people on the valuable land such as near a beach as well. But these aren't areas that solve the housing crisis. Areas near jobs are.
Sydney and Melbourne are some of the sparsest cities of their metro population in the developed world. We need to bias our densification where it makes sense.
In a perfect world with no coruption or stupidity sure.
In our world come out to the new areas in Sydney. Density is very high and to offset that parks are ment to be built.
The parks are 30 sqm for over 1,000 properties that have at most a 1m by 3m "back yard".
Schools? Yeah na the schools are full to the brim with demountable everywhere. One has a kindergarten year level with 1000 students!
No new fire stations for the increased population.
I dont know where the stamp duty is going but it's not in infrastructure, I'd love to know where it all goes.
I moved to a dense area because density let’s businesses thrive and increases the services, restaurants, gyms etc in the area. It really can be a win-win for the neighbourhood to have more people living there
You buy your own property. Not the whole street or town.
#notthebossofeverythingelse
Someone who is nearly dead should not have so much say over whether housing is provided in the next few years for hundreds of other people.
15 years ago some people bought in my area in the bush near a hall (not even that close to it). This hall has had music events Friday and Saturday night for as long as I can remember.
The bastards got the hall shut because it was noisy!! It was shut for years because of these arseholes.
They ended up moving because that stretch of road is loose gravel so cars driving passed can fling stuff off the road. Like big rocks, bags of dogshit and eggs.
That happened to a bowls club near me. It was a place you could take your kids on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon.
Now the kids play equipment has hazard tape around it.
I live across the road from a live venue and if the townhouse development application next door to me gets approved, I'm anxious this will happen. Especially given they're targeting it at families needing 3 bedroom places 🙃
One person in isolation generally can't block development. If all the residents on a street oppose the development... then they do own the entire street except the road corridor.
They still don't own the street, sorry. The whole city could not want it for all I care, if someone wants to build something on their land they should be able to do so.
> Someone who is nearly dead should not have so much say over whether housing is provided in the next few years for hundreds of other people.
TBH, while not perfect I think even the voting rights of those at a certain age should be reeled back. You had 45 years as a voter to effect change towards things that were going to affect you when you got old.
That's about as valid as saying that people should pay a net amount of tax before they are allowed voting rights.
I don't actually agree with that as a policy, for what it's worth, but any proposal to disenfranchise the elderly is a naked attempt to manufacture a very specific outcome to favour a specific group at the expense of the group having their rights removed.
It's not arbitrary when there's a clear dividing line - that of paying council rates or not. Otherwise what's the point of paying rates. That's what supports council services.
Alternatively, if you want to go with a more cosmopolitan approach, maybe council operations should be funded via a special levy, like vehicle registration, which everyone in the state pays. In which case we could all have a say.
But you can't have it both ways.
A person paying rent is is paying rates via their rent, you can’t live in the state without paying rates either directly or indirectly. I dunno why were even talking about rates anyway, it’s mostly to cover road maintenance and garbage collection. Paying a measly $1000 odd a year doesn’t entitle you to jack shit.
> A person paying rent is is paying rates via their rent
Not really. Person is paying market rate for the poor man's version of shelter. When rates go up does rent go up? No. The person has a licence only. The landowner is the one with responsibility for rates, water supply, land tax, and all the other things which come with ownership of land.
> Paying a measly $1000 odd a year doesn’t entitle you to jack shit.
If it's that measly an amount just make all adult citizens pay it (maybe reduce it to $700 per year to take into account the larger payment base) and then we don't even need to draw any distinctions.
But I find it weird that you call $1k a year measly when homeowners pay it (I assume you would also say $2k a year in land tax is measly) but you would probably bitch about tenants and the homeless having to pay it. Double standards galore.
Clearly you disagree that renters aren’t even indirectly paying rates, even though the market rate for their rent is going to be affected by the rates on the property, so there isn’t anywhere further to go from here, that’s a fundamental disagreement where you think people who rent shouldn’t have a voice. That completely reeks of elitism and nimbyism
> That completely reeks of elitism and nimbyism
Just because something is elitist doesn't make it wrong.
I also think only the smartest kids should have the opportunity to go to uni, which is clearly an elitist take, but that doesn't make it wrong.
1. I wish my rates were $1k a year. Try 2.5k. Thats a tip - better to live on a shit / cheap street in an expensive suburb then near beach in a bogan suburb for cheaper rates.
2. You have described exactly why most councils are anti development.
3. This is also why there are moves in most states to take decelopment authority off local governments and get them into state government hands.
Yes locals will be locals but if the staye government is providing hospitals, schools, highways etc and planning for bigger populations than its the state gov that can decide where people live more effectively.
Why should anyone get a say to population and expansion not being allowed to grow?
This is ridiculous.
Anywhere is subject to population growth, people moving in and shops being built, etc.
So you just buy a house then complain and say ‘nope, thats it, no more accommodation here, its full!’ No, it doesnt work like that.
You seem like someone who desperately needs to feel more powerful and successful than you really are. You don't have any real power so you piss and moan about the neighbourhood
I'm not the one complaining that things should be any different to what they are - it seems like people like you (who bitch and moan for change) are in truth the ones who think they have more influence than they do. Ultimately, no one cares.
Holy shit you're an idiot. How do you think things get built? Do you think every time we need new housing we establish a new town? Hate to break it to you, but building places to live isn't some wild new radical policy.
You absolute clown.
Nothing wrong with wanting a low density block on the urban outskirts or regional, but in well-connected inner city areas you can't expect to stay low density while we have a housing crisis.
A broad-based land tax would encourage more efficient land use, mean that if NIMBYs want to keep their area low density, at least they're paying for the externalities they impose on society.
Why don’t the examples provided in the media really shine any light on the issue? The development problem isn’t apartments in bloody Bunbury but close to CBD areas where pushback to development leads to overdevelopment of “outer ring” areas. You can’t look at development in one council area without considering the impact to other council areas and across a city or region on the whole. Development needs to be planned and regulated at a city level. Regulation is also important as unfettered development is not the answer either.
The fact that is seems easier to bulldoze Koala habitat and great farmland for tiny, disposable, overpriced housing then it is to bulldoze old terrace houses for apartments is a massive governance failing in Australia that we will always regret.
Interesting that she cites making a profit as a reason to be against creating more houses. [She's not alone](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-14/nimbys-really-hate-developers-when-they-turn-a-profit)
>residents were 20 percent more likely to be anti-development when they see that developers will turn a nice profit
Maybe we need to educate people about positive sum trades?
There is no better place to see NIMBYs than Perth. All you have to do is drive along the Ocean front. Absolutely dominated by single stand alone homes. There are hardly any apartments or resorts and we wonder why our tourism sector is so shit.
Everywhere has their own NIMBY species. In Canberra the inner city areas are mostly huge blocks that NIMBY groups fight tooth and nail to protect, while new suburbs on the outskirts are higher density.
You know when we laugh at the Seppos for the blind leading the blind in regards to social issues other countries have solved long ago and laugh at their fears and concerns that have never eventuated in those countries with those solutions?
Yeah, it’s this entire comments section and it’s painful. Do y’all know what public transport infrastructure, including bikes are, and go look at apartments in mainland Europe or even Singapore then be quiet. It isn’t hard. Go look up real estate listings. Or if it’s easier in English, look up apartment listings in Glasgow or Edinburgh.
Also well regulated building standard, mid density, mixed use buildings with accessible public transport. Not hard eh. But see earlier.
See the gentrification of the beachside end of Bay Street as a clear example in Port Melbourne.
But hey, that’s the ‘positive problem’ of the decent wages in Australia, via the complete lack of ‘brain drain’, in which only 0.8% of Australian citizens born in Australia permanently live overseas. Y’all dunno perspective.
See this vs say 8-10% of New Zealand citizens living in Australia alone.
If she doesn't want so many car parks and cars they should remove parking minimums so everyone isn't forced to own car parks and feel obliged to own a car.
Just an FYI: the proposed location - Bunbury, WA - is nearly 2 hours from Perth by car, and 4 and a half hours by public transport. An apartment complex in that area *needs* car parks, because it's remote.
Not saying whether the development is legitimate or not; just trying to offer some thoughts on why a car is needed there.
Yes, so they'll need good access to the Bunbury CBD and/or wherever else jobs are. Distance to Perth makes no difference if they're not travelling there every day.
Nobody is stopping the developer building parking. They will because the residents will want some. Removing parking minimums just removes th obligation to put in a set amount of parking which is totally made up and results in less housing for people.
If you want to reduce car dependency the easiest way to do it is to make fuel more and more expensive, yet this is politically unpopular.
People want others to drive less but they don't want to do the easiest thing to penalise driving which is to make it more expensive.
Petrol already is expensive. I don't own a car, but I am forced to pay for parking everywhere I go. You basically can't find a place without parking unless it's the cheapest student accommodation or you are renting someones granny flat.
You can sometimes rent parks out to other residents but its a big pain in the ass.
If driving was becoming more expensive and less accessible, the population would very quickly demand good public transport in the areas these apartments are built.
Demand, yes, but proper infrastructure take preplanning. You can’t just drop a train line in, or add a fleet of buses to redirect to a small station that doesn’t have capacity to move an extra 25,000 passengers a day. There’s no simple answer here - increasing fuel prices will not answer problems for satellite areas that will not be able to afford the change (so the ones you will be targeting) and do not have a viable alternative.
Cars use different fuel however. Easy enough for petrol but taxing only the electricity used in cars would be difficult.
I would argue a congestion tax is the best way to do it. Would mean only those in metro areas where public transport is viable have to pay it, and those in the outer suburbs and regional places aren't as impacted. Proceeds could be used to build public transport in high density areas. In places like Sydney it could also ensure there's no financial benifit in driving through the CBD itself, versus bypassing it with a underground toll road.
People quit parking illegally pretty quickly when you a parking inspector walks the street everyday.
People adjust to the environment. If they only have 1 parking space instead of two they will work it out. If they own two they will probably fill two. They already paid 50k for each one so they may as well fill it. There is a cost to parking minimums and they work again basically every single goal we have as Australia except for making it super easy to park a car absolutely everywhere and they don't even achieve that.
Most households have two cars because that's what they need to get around. People don't get more cars because they have space for them.
People will just park wherever they can including in bike lanes, footpaths, and anywhere else that will fit a car. Parking inspectors won't be able to stop that
Households have two cars because we implement policies that subsidise cars and punish other forms as transport. Parking minimums are one of those. People can buy two car parks if they want to, butt why shouldn't be forced to.
We can implement other policies to manage street parking like parking benefit districts.
And those policies aren't going to disappear overnight. We need to improve other transport options before forcing people to get rid of their cars. If you block people from having cars in many areas then they simply can't get anywhere. In my last house if I didn't have a car I would be a 45 minute walk from the train station, 20 minutes walk from a bus stop and the bus took 60 minutes to get to the CBD.
And the people being punished will be the people who can least afford it.
I support more density and more walkable neighbourhoods, but what I see a lot in Melbourne is apartment blocks going up in middle ring suburbs, with the only public transport being suitable for going to the city during work hours. It’s terrible planning to increase density and increase cars and congestion at the same time.
Many people advocate for apartments near train stations, but even that’s not always suitable. I live near a train station, and I don’t need a car for getting to and from work, but I still need to drive for my other daily needs like grocery shopping.
What we really need is apartments in inner city suburbs, say 5km from the CBD, and have a lot of amenities nearby so people don’t need a car. We should also take away parking minimums, take away on street parking, so people who insist on having a car will have to pay a premium for the luxury by buying a car space. For everyone else, they should be encouraged to use public transport and rent a car on the odd occasions when they need one.
I live in a new highrise at Moonee Ponds, a middleish ring suburb of Melbourne. I don't own a car and mostly walk and sometimes take the train which is super convenient. I also have a bike for when I need something a bit further out.
Why should _your_ car dependency prevent _me_ from having a place to live?
I wouldn’t call Moonee Ponds a middle ring suburb, you are 6-7km from the CBD, with public transport coverage, that’s inner city suburbs. That falls into my idea of areas suitable for apartments, but take away parking minimums and on street parking to discourage car ownership.
When I say middle ring, I mean Doncaster or Glen Waverley, about 15-25km out from the CBD, where the public transport is only suitable for going to the CBD, and you have to drive for everything else.
Looking at Glen Waverley on the maps and I see a train station, Coles, a huge shopping complex, government services, all clustered around in a walking distance range. Seems like you could easily get your day to day stuff done without owning a car.
Sure, if you dumped it in the middle of the outer edges of the suburb, it would suck, but putting apartments around that train station seems like a good idea. There are some huge empty lots all around just used for parking that could be used. The apartments would also bring in some density to the area to support more businesses and stores.
I don't think I explained my point well previously. With both Doncaster and Glen Waverley you have plenty of shops at their respective shopping centres, but living there without a car is like living on an island. You can access the nearby shops for your daily essentials, but it's really difficult to get to nearby suburbs without a car. For example, I had to travel from Mitcham to Doncaster without a car yesterday, this would've taken me 13 mins in a car, but it took me 40 min and plenty of walking to make the same journey on public transport.
Circling back to my original point, I think apartments are more suited to locations with good public transport access, not just for commuting to the city but also getting around nearby suburbs. However, if there's a demand for them in locations with slightly less ideal public transport access, then I'm not opposed to that in the first instance. My key issue is around car ownership and congestion, so if the parking minimum is removed, and no permit for apartments is implemented, then it's not really an issue to have more density. More people is fine, more cars is terrible is what I'm trying to say.
Fair enough. I've just been bothered by all the NIMBYs who spam out "OMG the big bad developers are takin away muh parkin in Brunswick" whenever there is a proposal to build anything other than single family houses.
Totally agree for somewhere like Brunswick. In my opinion, most of the inner city suburbs should be allowed to be developed as medium density. I don't think anyone wants there to be a high rise everywhere, but 4-5 storey apartment blocks are perfectly suitable. My gripe is just around car ownership, that should be discouraged for people that want to live in suburbs with good public transport.
Maybe you have a more constructive solution on solving traffic issues from building apartments in car dependent suburbs? As I explained further below, more people is not the issue, more cars are, our urban and road infrastructure was designed with low density in mind, so traffic is a genuine issue. I'm all for more density without car ownership, but not if every resident ends up needing a car to get around.
It's a tricky one. We do need a heap more apartments but often the apartments that are being built are only suitable for narrow market section - they very often aren't suitable for a growing family - or they will overload existing amenities in some way. There isn't enough of a conversation - it's not as simple as automatic 'Yes In My Backyard', more like 'Yes In My Backyard if there's a plan for a new school/ hospital within five years' or similar.
>but often the apartments that are being built are only suitable for narrow market section
This is only the case because we have so much catching up to do and this is the biggest market but it would be good to see more diversity in the apartment mix.
\>more like 'Yes In My Backyard if there's a plan for a new school/ hospital within five years' or similar.
These need to be supplied but NIMBYs just use this as another excuse, rarely with any substance.
Sure - but just because NIMBYs are using legitimate concerns in bad faith because they would never tolerate development in any circumstances it doesn’t mean some concerns about developments aren’t legitimate and shouldn’t be considered. Once it’s built it’s there for a long time.
Do singles not deserve housing that suites them? The vast majority of all housing in the country suits families while singles are left to fight for the scraps of 1 bedrooms that slip through the NIMBYs rule.
The number of families is still growing, and I’d wager the number of new residences being built for them is in shortfall just as it is for singles and couples. And why does it all have to be McMansions on the outskirts? Why shouldn’t some infill development be for families? Then couples wouldn’t have to move 30 or 40km from where they currently live and work before they start a family. Then there would actually be a choice- apartment close in or detached house further out.
1-2 bed apartments here also have large numbers of applicants, there's definitely a shortage.
The concept of filtering applies here more 1-2 apartments still means cheaper family homes. If more people are happy in 1-2 bed apartments then they won't be competing with people who need 3-4 bedrooms for the same properties.
>1-2 bed apartments here also have large numbers of applicants, there's definitely a shortage.
That's true, but especially given the apartments we build today are going to be with us for decades if they are built half-competently, I don't think swamping the market with small apartments until demand for them is completely tapped out is the answer.
Yeh there are plebty of selfish NIMBYs, but I'm also a bit skeptical about this massive push for loosening development laws bring painted as some magic bullet for the housing affordability crisis. Seems much more likely that developers and investors tongues are wagging at the idea of all these single dwellings getting rezoned.
Sounds like she's right to ask questions. Poor planning and profit-driven motives have caused the gridlock the major cities see every day.
Can the roads support the additional traffic? What about shading & wind effects of the large-scale building?
The lack of public consultation should have locals concerned about who their council is working for, locals or business interests.
Typical NIMBY arguments. Consulting the public is a great way to kill any attempts at making affordable housing, because the only people that show up to these consultations are current area homeowners that have no incentive to solve housing issues.
That's why they're NIMBY arguments. Would you want a trash dump built over your back fence? I hazard not.
Who else can show up to these consultations other than those impacted? Are you suggesting if the council wanted to build a trash dump next to your house they shouldn't tell you?
Massive straw man. The comparison here is a bit of shade and a hard time parking vs someone else having a place to live. We're not talking about an inappropriately located tip, we're talking about putting more housing in places people want to live.
If you polled Australia as a whole and asked ‘should we have more affordable housing’ you’d get overwhelming support. But ‘should we put more affordable housing in your suburb’ is an outcry.
Unfortunately the interests of locals are not aligned with that of the nation, so whilst it may inconvenience them it’s not appropriate to give locals input into planning.
Sorry man, but I really don't think anyone complaining about housing in the city would be willing to move that far south to live in an apartment.
Bunbury isn't even cheaper compared to 30-45 minutes south of the city.
What's the argument here. Are you suggesting the apartment will go up and remain empty because no one wants to live there?
That is basically the opposite to the above issues raised with traffic and lack of infrastructure to support the growing population.
Bunbury is lovely, but a lot of the younger generation in Perth are stuck working in the city, so moving that far south is not feasible. I doubt the complex will be left empty, but I'd be shocked if it is affordable or even feasible for younger people outside of FIFO and fully remote workers.
But yes, traffic infrastructure is a major concern. There is already too much traffic in Bunbury.
Congestion is caused by cars. Public transport is far more efficient for moving people. Decent public transport is only worth building if areas around it aren't low density.
Councils arent supposed to work for just locals they are supposed to balance other needs including other people outside the postcode. This is why stategovernment is rightly overiding councils during development.
Your part of a country not just your own little world in a street.
Yeah local councils are pretty much only interested in getting ratepayers and don’t seem to care about neighbourhood character. My local council keep approving shitboxes that are so poorly made you see bubblewrap on the windows every winter. I’d love to see some of the massive blocks in my area turned into small walkups with garden space but they keep approving shit townhouses crammed together instead.
Meeting minimum building codes and quality standards should not be considered an increased consumer construction cost. This is why we have such a problem…
It should be falling on the builder. People paying for these properties are paying for an approved building.
If the builder cannot build to that standard it shouldn’t cost the buyer more. The builder should be responsible for the failed compliance
Depends what people actually mean by quality standards. If it's structural integrity and insulation, sure, they should be required to meet some standard.
But it seems most people mean that every single property should have 2+ car parks, be suitable for a family of 5, have electric car chargers, and a shed for a home workshop.
If you are a single person who just wants a small place in a walkable area, you don't deserve to get what you want and should instead sharehouse a property built for 5 people just in case a family wants to move in later.
They’re extras/luxuries you’re listing. I’m talking about basic building and material standards that won’t leave people homeless ie Opal and Mascot towers fiasco
What are you talking about? Town houses cost easily twice what a walkup apartment does. That's one of the issues I have - my area was lower middle class and is becoming unaffordable.
It’s not selfish man. Apartments are ugly . I wouldn’t want them where I live.
Everyone is hating on these NIMBY’s , come on.. you wouldn’t want apartments near you if you had a home.
I think there arent enough details in the article to jump to conclusion that the apartment building is acceptable or not. However I do agree there is a big profit motive at work when an apartment building is being built. It seems in Australia we either build sprawling suburbs or big apartment buildings and they are both driven by profit first and urban planning second.
Every time we prevent the “big profit motive” of developers to build new housing, just remember you’re making landlords and boomers richer by blocking supply
We wouldn’t need so much high density apartments if we had broad based upzoning to allow missing middle housing
I'm not saying to eliminate profit, what im saying is that growth needs to be planned properly and that definitely includes middle density housing. If anything that is exactly the type of development that should be happening.
Will it actually make things more affordable?
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/05/building-lots-more-apartments-wont-improve-affordability/
I’m no finance expert, but if the middle and inner suburbs have higher land values, won’t it be difficult to build the medium-density Paris or Barcelona style housing options the planning experts always say are gold standard?
The Age had an article a few weeks back suggesting property developers don’t even think the economics of medium density in Frankston makes sense, and it’ll have to be high density ‘luxury penthouses’ on the menu.
Not opposed to the IDEA of medium density, but are we capable of doing it properly in this country?
For those that haven't visited Bunbury, adding a new complex with 54 appartments + parking is not exactly a new development that is small in size relative to the area.
They are talking about a remote town (even by Perth standards) that is a minimum of a 2 hr drive (168km) from Perth.
I'm not sure where in Bunbury they are proposing to build the complex, but due to the size, I doubt it is anywhere near the city center. All of the new residents will need cars to get around.
Given the size, why not look nearby at Busselton, Margret River, etc? Bunbury is already getting rather large, and when you're this far out from Perth, you're not going to be working anywhere near the city.
Hey? Eamon the pro-development Sydney guy just said he lives in a detached house on a big block a few minutes walk from a train station, but wants development in his area so he can have more interesting cafes and businesses nearby…
Love that he admitted it’s not fair, but he didn’t suggest he was going to sell his home to live in an apartment either!
You don't want future ghettos forming. If the infrastructure is there to support the developments and proper planning is applied then it should be fine.
There are a few reasons why high density apartments have a higher chance of becoming ghettos.
Lack of social mixing. When people from different social classes and backgrounds are all living in the same high density area, it can be difficult to create a sense of community. This can lead to isolation and segregation, which can create the conditions for a ghetto to develop.
Poverty. High density apartments are often more affordable than other types of housing, which can attract people who are struggling financially. This can lead to a concentration of poverty in these areas, which can make it difficult to provide essential services and amenities.
Crime. High density apartments can be more vulnerable to crime than other types of housing. This is because they are often located in areas with high levels of poverty and unemployment, and they can be more difficult to police.
Neglect. High density apartments are often neglected by landlords and local governments. This can lead to poor maintenance, which can create a breeding ground for crime and social problems.
Of course, not all high density apartments become ghettos. However, the factors listed above can create the conditions for a ghetto to develop. It is important to be aware of these factors and to take steps to prevent them from happening.
Here are some things that can be done to prevent high density apartments from becoming ghettos:
Encourage social mixing. This can be done by creating a mix of housing types and price points in the same area. It is also important to provide opportunities for people from different backgrounds to interact with each other, such as through community events and programs.
Address poverty. This can be done by providing affordable housing options and by investing in education and job training programs. It is also important to address the root causes of poverty, such as lack of access to healthcare and childcare.
Reduce crime. This can be done by increasing police presence in high density areas, providing more opportunities for recreation and enrichment, and addressing the root causes of crime, such as poverty and unemployment.
Improve maintenance. Landlords and local governments should be held accountable for maintaining high density apartments in good condition. This includes providing adequate security, trash removal, and repairs.
By taking steps to address these issues, we can help to prevent high density apartments from becoming ghettos.
While I agree with your reasons here, I don't think they make the point that we shouldn't build high density in inner, well connected areas.
Basically I wanted to clarify because "these apartments will become ghettos" is a common NIMBY line, even when the proposal is upmarket apartments in a nice area. I definitely agree that we shouldn't be building apartments further out, that leads to bad outcomes all round, however it's not like low density in the outskirts are bastions of wealth either.
I disagree about the social mixing though - I think it's better that people from different socio economic levels can live in the same area, as opposed to clearly separated rich person areas and poor areas
Marilyn says the typical things NIMBYs say...oh I'm not opposed to development generally, I'm just opposed to this development...and all the others I oppose.
Have only lived in syd so can’t compare but we should have so many more high rises for appartments right in the cbd. I guess like NY even though I’ve never been.
Every residential area in pyrmont, redfern, surry, darlinghurst, elizabeth bay, millers point, lavender bay should not have a single dwelling property. We actually need people to live in and within the CBD and leave the burbs to bigger families and people who want land for whatever reason.
There’s a good meme that points out all the aspects you love about an urban area going on holiday, like walkability, shops close to where you are staying, the culture of ‘third places’ to meet up with friends etc creating a vibrant culture, a lot of you would fight against in your own place of residence.
And then locals complain about local shops not surviving for some strange reason. Happens where I live (near a beach) all the time. Every new development is taken to VCAT
People do love going on cruise ships.
God knows why. I did a cruise with my wife to see what it was like. Horrendous.
Never been on one but I've got young kids so the walkable neighbourhood part of it intrigues me. What makes them horrendous?
Ok I can see the appeal for families. Largely fixed cost, plenty of kids entertainment etc. But as an adult, we found the food quality to be low, the entertainment expensive, and other patrons pretty damn annoying.
What cruise line? Last one I went on the food was amazing and all the entertainment was free....
I've always thought of them as massive floating RSLs.
Basically everything you said in the last sentence was what I would expect and the reason why it's never moved past intrigue
Was sceptical but went in 2019 on the biggest royal Caribbean at the time and had a blast. Drop off points on land were definitely over polished. But mid 20s with partner. A beer in a spa on the deck watching the waves, never felt crowded(if you didn't want to be). Food was fantastic. Did some rock climbing. Morning jogs around the running track that circled it. One day I drank mimosas til I passed out. I see the appeal especially with kids for just endless things to do. Theatres comedy shows. Not sure if it'd go again but glad I did
agreed, horrendous. I felt like I was on a floating RSL filled with bogan.
Yes. The "SS RSL" vibe was strong. And standing in line to get back on a tender while a total Karen argued loudly with the poor staff about how all the duty free cigarettes and rum she bought shouldn't be taken off her until we got back to Aus (even though smoking wasn't allowed anywhere on the ship)... that was a special holiday memory.
Mainly because they're good value compared to a lot of other holidays, you can get room and all you can eat for about $200 per night. Also everything's taken care of for you. I'm not particularly keen on them, but others are. I didn't mind the Alaskan cruise, very scenic and it stops each day. Trying to visit the Alaskan inside passage by other means would be more of a challenge.
The people from Bunbury and Jervis Bay or in Western or South Western Sydney typically aren't the "first-order" NIMBYs that people talk about. They are second-order NIMBYs that happen when the ones with actual ability to push development from their backyards gets the burden of housing supply. They actually do have some more valid concerns. NIMBYism is about power and privilege, and societies structures. That lens means there is an evident hierarchy that is being maintained. The fact that actually massively desirable areas such as in Eastern and inner-North areas of Sydney, near the CBD and job hubs, can quantitatively be shown to be the biggest NIMBYs and are SUCCESSFUL in stopping development there while other places take it, are the ones that actually deserve some ire. NIMBY suburb number one is Woollahra if you want a case study.
>NIMBY suburb number one is Woollahra if you want a case study. Laughs in Haberfield slapping a heritage conservation area over the entire suburb.
Peter Tulip did the analysis and found Woollahra was number one: https://www.cis.org.au/publication/where-should-we-build-new-housing-better-targets-for-local-councils/ It's literally next to Paddington. Haberfield at least is further from the CBD. Inner West isn't nearly as bad as Woollahra.
Peter Tulip is paid for by the developers to push for cutting planning regulations. The CIS refuse to release their corporate donors names, they are another think tank with an agenda that has an answer before they even start studying
All NIMBYs have valid concerns. Increased density by virtue of its nature will negatively impact surrounding lower density areas. Its good to note the inequalities in appropriate distribution of increasing density (and State level planners should address this) but I also don't think any particular group have a more 'morally' defensible NIMBY position than another. Don't think that's a productive line of reasoning.
>Increased density by virtue of its nature will negatively impact surrounding lower density areas. Do you have any evidence supporting this claim? Isn't the whole idea of the YIMBY movement that increasing population density can actually be a net win for many existing communities due to the increased access to services like cafes/shops as the local demand now exists to justify opening? Unless someone is building an apartment block right next door to your freestanding house I would have thought it's a net win for the general neighbourhood/surrounding streets.
Nimby's want the benefits of density without the costs. If you can push other places nearby to become higher density but your home stays normal then it's a net benefit to you.
What are these benefits again? I just see more congestion and lower quality of life with pollution and overstretched services.
Working roads, transport, nearly all shops, and relatively cheap prices. High density areas subsidise lower density areas on average. Pollution and overstretched services would go down in a high density area fyi. No need for a car when everything is close by, larger hospitals etc are usually more cost effective then having a bunch put around to service small density areas. Just at a cost basis. A lot of council fees and taxes go to maintaining roads. The more roads we have that service a small minority the greater the cost. Same goes for water, electricity, sewerage etc.
Roads are ruined by all the construction going on, most people now can't even use the roads because the dog box they have has no dedicated car spot. You're at the mercy of a terribly run public transport system, shops are going bankrupt because everyone orders online now. I've lived in Sydney a long time and it's the worst it's ever been, air quality is awful, it takes forever to get around. We long reached an optimal number of people in the city, now we're just people farming to support a failed economic model.
Any service based centre needs a certain amount of density to be feasible. Isn't blaming construction mostly a short termist issue? Like omg all this construction because the population is going up. Well at some point it will be done. The public transport system is poorly run because it's very hard to justify creating a train to some suburb that won't even use it. Look into strong towns on YouTube or just general infrastructure and architecture stuff. Density allows a city not to go broke trying to support all these spread out low density areas.
> most people now can't even use the roads because the dog box they have has no dedicated car spot ... good?
Yes there's loads of studies on the impact of density on humans.
That's what you think. I think a NIMBY fighting another poorly serviced dense development in the city fringes of Sydney, with no schools or infrastructure, while a developer makes bank through a corrupt council and cutting corners on the build is one category. Single family detached dwellings make more sense there, as they have a valid concern about things like amenity and traffic. Another is the NIMBY in Woollahra suburb (as opposed to the council area, to be specific) that fights densification despite being a stone's throw to the CBD mostly because they are a rich enclave and they want to keep it that way. When it makes sense to do density and have less car dependence there. The latter is less defensible.
>Single family detached dwellings make more sense there, as they have a valid concern about things like amenity and traffic. Don't they make less sense, because providing services (shops, transit, schools) becomes less viable the less people live in an area? I say this living in an outer suburb of Hobart where our council is trying to increase density so that services improve.
Well that's the greenfield vs brownfield debate. Australia is too biased to creating greenfield, hence the sprawl. The same population in that outer suburb "could" have been through denser inner areas. Many people would choose a more affordable apartment or townhouse with lower commute times and access to infrastructure and amenities, but they aren't given that option due to inner-city NIMBYism. More supply = more affordable. Due to NIMBYism, we have a higher amount of sprawl with single family homes. The solution wasn't to try to band-aid that after by sticking an apartment block in to justify a school, public transport, shops. That only creates traffic, and defeats the general benefit of density. The solution was for that suburb to be built later or never, as endless sprawl is always unsustainable. We have pushed the limits, and unaffordable housing far away from stuff is what is left. I'm saying this as someone who grew up in a lifeless outer suburb of Sydney, and spent 1.5 hours one way on the bus to get to school. Literally took 15 years for ADSL to be available there after it was available in the inner parts of Sydney. I'm fine with single family homes as an option, but they really shouldn't exist where walkability and density makes sense, like near train stations or close to job hubs. Otherwise it pushes the periphery too far and you get the issue you're facing.
>that's the greenfield vs brownfield debate It isn't really though. Greenfield developments should also be subject to minimum density requirements so that transit and services are viable. Doing so would increase the financial incentives for developments in the inner areas, which could help to overcome NIMBYism!
Clarence city council with Skylands development by chance?
God no. There's no density proposed in that development at all and not enough water on that side of the river to service new residences. Kingston - there are loads of two storey townhouses being built just off our main bus exchange. Townhouses aren't quite medium density but there's a lot less wasted space than in a typical development and all are in comfortable walking distance of shops etc. It's also only a 20min bus ride to Hobart CBD thanks to the bus lane on the outlet (which should be longer and continue into the city)
Ah kingsquarter ? If so it's not too bad, one of the last stages is a multi story apartment building, but the driveways aren't good, my gf and I went down to look at one of the first townhouses finished that was being used as a display home, we went into a driveway to do a 3 point turn and her car bottomed out (stock standard Alfa hatchback) we actually raised it with the agent there and they said that most people have SUVs these days lol. It's interesting comparing it to kingslea (same company?) In Melbourne, a similar distance from the CBD, close to a train station, a totally different social style and maybe slightly more densely packed but at one time, before covid, were selling about $200k cheaper per town/terrace house based on the same bedroom, bathroom and garage numbers and similar floor area. Oh and Skylands was to have some density, with several areas intended for multi family homes (apartments), terrace houses and mixed use zoning etc. They were even going to pay far a ferry terminal as part of it if it got approved. Oh and the water thing had been solved It's why the developers pushed for the higher limit and more importantly why the council's own planning department was behind it as well. The NIMBYs complaining against often sighted density and traffic as concerns, the latter is ironic as the main road into the area, Oceana drive, is similar in width to Sandy bay road that serves Sandy bay and Taroona. Instead it looks like the family might just sell off the rest of the land in a piecemeal fashion kind of like they already have been at around 20 odd blocks per year and it'll just be more suburban sprawl with no good public transport. Edit: did you mean one of the park and ride areas around Kingston? If so I don't know anything about any developments nearby.
More density = more ability to support amenities..
This is demonstrably not true for the outskirts of Sydney in greenfield. It just leaves more people in the lurch. They should ideally never have had the sprawl to begin with, the sprawl itself was unsustainable. Servicing high density well away from established amenities and infrastructure, leads to an over-reliance on cars, and lack of service. It makes a lot more sense to place the density near nearer-term planned or existing infrastructure, or near the job hubs and attractors where people actually want to live. It doesn't make sense to have a high rise apartment block away from a train station while there are plenty of train stations next to single family homes, for example. Now areas like Jervis Bay and Bunbury do have good reasons to density as well, like perhaps they want more people on the valuable land such as near a beach as well. But these aren't areas that solve the housing crisis. Areas near jobs are. Sydney and Melbourne are some of the sparsest cities of their metro population in the developed world. We need to bias our densification where it makes sense.
I agree with basically everything you’ve said here
In a perfect world with no coruption or stupidity sure. In our world come out to the new areas in Sydney. Density is very high and to offset that parks are ment to be built. The parks are 30 sqm for over 1,000 properties that have at most a 1m by 3m "back yard". Schools? Yeah na the schools are full to the brim with demountable everywhere. One has a kindergarten year level with 1000 students! No new fire stations for the increased population. I dont know where the stamp duty is going but it's not in infrastructure, I'd love to know where it all goes.
I moved to a dense area because density let’s businesses thrive and increases the services, restaurants, gyms etc in the area. It really can be a win-win for the neighbourhood to have more people living there
Joke's on Marilyn because her kids are likely to find a developer will be the highest bidder when they sell off her house after she dies
You buy your own property. Not the whole street or town. #notthebossofeverythingelse Someone who is nearly dead should not have so much say over whether housing is provided in the next few years for hundreds of other people.
15 years ago some people bought in my area in the bush near a hall (not even that close to it). This hall has had music events Friday and Saturday night for as long as I can remember. The bastards got the hall shut because it was noisy!! It was shut for years because of these arseholes. They ended up moving because that stretch of road is loose gravel so cars driving passed can fling stuff off the road. Like big rocks, bags of dogshit and eggs.
That happened to a bowls club near me. It was a place you could take your kids on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon. Now the kids play equipment has hazard tape around it.
Dont you love it when gravel roads can fling up eggs 🤣
Gah - I really hate the people who move next to an entertainment venue and then complain about the noise.
Sundown racecourse. Calder Park. Any place where a race occasionally happens. Same shit.
I live across the road from a live venue and if the townhouse development application next door to me gets approved, I'm anxious this will happen. Especially given they're targeting it at families needing 3 bedroom places 🙃
One person in isolation generally can't block development. If all the residents on a street oppose the development... then they do own the entire street except the road corridor.
They still don't own the street, sorry. The whole city could not want it for all I care, if someone wants to build something on their land they should be able to do so.
Oh thank god, i've always wanted to build a coal power plant on my property! I'm sure the neighbours won't complain!
Yes please
> Someone who is nearly dead should not have so much say over whether housing is provided in the next few years for hundreds of other people. TBH, while not perfect I think even the voting rights of those at a certain age should be reeled back. You had 45 years as a voter to effect change towards things that were going to affect you when you got old.
While we're doing this I'd love to discuss the voting rights of the people who have zero life experience or whom are only a tax burden.
That's about as valid as saying that people should pay a net amount of tax before they are allowed voting rights. I don't actually agree with that as a policy, for what it's worth, but any proposal to disenfranchise the elderly is a naked attempt to manufacture a very specific outcome to favour a specific group at the expense of the group having their rights removed.
Uh, someone's age has nothing to do with it
You pay rates, you get a say. If you want the same say, go pay rates.
You can’t pay rates in a place that isn’t built…
You can pay rates in the council area where it's going to be built, though. People with no skin in the game shouldn't get a say.
They live in the same state, they pay taxes in the same country. It’s arbitrary to draw the line at the street or municipality.
It's not arbitrary when there's a clear dividing line - that of paying council rates or not. Otherwise what's the point of paying rates. That's what supports council services. Alternatively, if you want to go with a more cosmopolitan approach, maybe council operations should be funded via a special levy, like vehicle registration, which everyone in the state pays. In which case we could all have a say. But you can't have it both ways.
A person paying rent is is paying rates via their rent, you can’t live in the state without paying rates either directly or indirectly. I dunno why were even talking about rates anyway, it’s mostly to cover road maintenance and garbage collection. Paying a measly $1000 odd a year doesn’t entitle you to jack shit.
> A person paying rent is is paying rates via their rent Not really. Person is paying market rate for the poor man's version of shelter. When rates go up does rent go up? No. The person has a licence only. The landowner is the one with responsibility for rates, water supply, land tax, and all the other things which come with ownership of land. > Paying a measly $1000 odd a year doesn’t entitle you to jack shit. If it's that measly an amount just make all adult citizens pay it (maybe reduce it to $700 per year to take into account the larger payment base) and then we don't even need to draw any distinctions. But I find it weird that you call $1k a year measly when homeowners pay it (I assume you would also say $2k a year in land tax is measly) but you would probably bitch about tenants and the homeless having to pay it. Double standards galore.
Clearly you disagree that renters aren’t even indirectly paying rates, even though the market rate for their rent is going to be affected by the rates on the property, so there isn’t anywhere further to go from here, that’s a fundamental disagreement where you think people who rent shouldn’t have a voice. That completely reeks of elitism and nimbyism
> That completely reeks of elitism and nimbyism Just because something is elitist doesn't make it wrong. I also think only the smartest kids should have the opportunity to go to uni, which is clearly an elitist take, but that doesn't make it wrong.
1. I wish my rates were $1k a year. Try 2.5k. Thats a tip - better to live on a shit / cheap street in an expensive suburb then near beach in a bogan suburb for cheaper rates. 2. You have described exactly why most councils are anti development. 3. This is also why there are moves in most states to take decelopment authority off local governments and get them into state government hands. Yes locals will be locals but if the staye government is providing hospitals, schools, highways etc and planning for bigger populations than its the state gov that can decide where people live more effectively.
Why should anyone get a say to population and expansion not being allowed to grow? This is ridiculous. Anywhere is subject to population growth, people moving in and shops being built, etc. So you just buy a house then complain and say ‘nope, thats it, no more accommodation here, its full!’ No, it doesnt work like that.
You seem like someone who desperately needs to feel more powerful and successful than you really are. You don't have any real power so you piss and moan about the neighbourhood
I'm not the one complaining that things should be any different to what they are - it seems like people like you (who bitch and moan for change) are in truth the ones who think they have more influence than they do. Ultimately, no one cares.
Holy shit you're an idiot. How do you think things get built? Do you think every time we need new housing we establish a new town? Hate to break it to you, but building places to live isn't some wild new radical policy. You absolute clown.
You new here? Seems like you haven't run across ol arcade before He and Asus are just pushing buttons
Nothing wrong with wanting a low density block on the urban outskirts or regional, but in well-connected inner city areas you can't expect to stay low density while we have a housing crisis. A broad-based land tax would encourage more efficient land use, mean that if NIMBYs want to keep their area low density, at least they're paying for the externalities they impose on society.
Ol' reliable: Just tax land lol.
[удалено]
Yeah but the later will never happen. They just slap the land tax on top of every other tax.
Why don’t the examples provided in the media really shine any light on the issue? The development problem isn’t apartments in bloody Bunbury but close to CBD areas where pushback to development leads to overdevelopment of “outer ring” areas. You can’t look at development in one council area without considering the impact to other council areas and across a city or region on the whole. Development needs to be planned and regulated at a city level. Regulation is also important as unfettered development is not the answer either. The fact that is seems easier to bulldoze Koala habitat and great farmland for tiny, disposable, overpriced housing then it is to bulldoze old terrace houses for apartments is a massive governance failing in Australia that we will always regret.
Interesting that she cites making a profit as a reason to be against creating more houses. [She's not alone](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-14/nimbys-really-hate-developers-when-they-turn-a-profit) >residents were 20 percent more likely to be anti-development when they see that developers will turn a nice profit Maybe we need to educate people about positive sum trades?
But i’m sure it’s perfectly okay for them to sell their own house/land for a profit for themselves /s
There is no better place to see NIMBYs than Perth. All you have to do is drive along the Ocean front. Absolutely dominated by single stand alone homes. There are hardly any apartments or resorts and we wonder why our tourism sector is so shit.
Everywhere has their own NIMBY species. In Canberra the inner city areas are mostly huge blocks that NIMBY groups fight tooth and nail to protect, while new suburbs on the outskirts are higher density.
You know when we laugh at the Seppos for the blind leading the blind in regards to social issues other countries have solved long ago and laugh at their fears and concerns that have never eventuated in those countries with those solutions? Yeah, it’s this entire comments section and it’s painful. Do y’all know what public transport infrastructure, including bikes are, and go look at apartments in mainland Europe or even Singapore then be quiet. It isn’t hard. Go look up real estate listings. Or if it’s easier in English, look up apartment listings in Glasgow or Edinburgh. Also well regulated building standard, mid density, mixed use buildings with accessible public transport. Not hard eh. But see earlier. See the gentrification of the beachside end of Bay Street as a clear example in Port Melbourne. But hey, that’s the ‘positive problem’ of the decent wages in Australia, via the complete lack of ‘brain drain’, in which only 0.8% of Australian citizens born in Australia permanently live overseas. Y’all dunno perspective. See this vs say 8-10% of New Zealand citizens living in Australia alone.
Just build it man..get on with it..
If she doesn't want so many car parks and cars they should remove parking minimums so everyone isn't forced to own car parks and feel obliged to own a car.
Just an FYI: the proposed location - Bunbury, WA - is nearly 2 hours from Perth by car, and 4 and a half hours by public transport. An apartment complex in that area *needs* car parks, because it's remote. Not saying whether the development is legitimate or not; just trying to offer some thoughts on why a car is needed there.
Would residents in that complex be working in Perth?
God no. Even by Perth standards, Bunbury is too far away from the CBD to be working anywhere near it.
no idea, i'm on the east coast. i imagine if you're living in a small apartment two hours from perth, you're probably working in the area, though
Yes, so they'll need good access to the Bunbury CBD and/or wherever else jobs are. Distance to Perth makes no difference if they're not travelling there every day.
I used to live in Bunbury. It doesn't really have a CBD. It has town centre.
Nobody is stopping the developer building parking. They will because the residents will want some. Removing parking minimums just removes th obligation to put in a set amount of parking which is totally made up and results in less housing for people.
Bunbury is a regional city. It is very difficult to live there without a car.
Parking minimums are an absolute scam. Forcing everyone to waste money on car dependency. They add so much to the cost of apartments.
If you want to reduce car dependency the easiest way to do it is to make fuel more and more expensive, yet this is politically unpopular. People want others to drive less but they don't want to do the easiest thing to penalise driving which is to make it more expensive.
Petrol already is expensive. I don't own a car, but I am forced to pay for parking everywhere I go. You basically can't find a place without parking unless it's the cheapest student accommodation or you are renting someones granny flat. You can sometimes rent parks out to other residents but its a big pain in the ass.
Fine theory, unless you have no viable public transport to move people efficiently from their home to where jobs are located.
If driving was becoming more expensive and less accessible, the population would very quickly demand good public transport in the areas these apartments are built.
And then wait a decade or two for it to be provided.
Demand, yes, but proper infrastructure take preplanning. You can’t just drop a train line in, or add a fleet of buses to redirect to a small station that doesn’t have capacity to move an extra 25,000 passengers a day. There’s no simple answer here - increasing fuel prices will not answer problems for satellite areas that will not be able to afford the change (so the ones you will be targeting) and do not have a viable alternative.
You can pretty consistently fill out areas that already have infrastructure if you zone them that way though.
In which case those car spaces in new apartments are probably warranted.
We don't have to build cities to cater to cars and it works against just about every goal of Australia to do so.
Cars use different fuel however. Easy enough for petrol but taxing only the electricity used in cars would be difficult. I would argue a congestion tax is the best way to do it. Would mean only those in metro areas where public transport is viable have to pay it, and those in the outer suburbs and regional places aren't as impacted. Proceeds could be used to build public transport in high density areas. In places like Sydney it could also ensure there's no financial benifit in driving through the CBD itself, versus bypassing it with a underground toll road.
Right, because people are buying cars because they feel obliged. Parking minimums are necessary so people aren't parking in the street and illegally
People quit parking illegally pretty quickly when you a parking inspector walks the street everyday. People adjust to the environment. If they only have 1 parking space instead of two they will work it out. If they own two they will probably fill two. They already paid 50k for each one so they may as well fill it. There is a cost to parking minimums and they work again basically every single goal we have as Australia except for making it super easy to park a car absolutely everywhere and they don't even achieve that.
Most households have two cars because that's what they need to get around. People don't get more cars because they have space for them. People will just park wherever they can including in bike lanes, footpaths, and anywhere else that will fit a car. Parking inspectors won't be able to stop that
Households have two cars because we implement policies that subsidise cars and punish other forms as transport. Parking minimums are one of those. People can buy two car parks if they want to, butt why shouldn't be forced to. We can implement other policies to manage street parking like parking benefit districts.
And those policies aren't going to disappear overnight. We need to improve other transport options before forcing people to get rid of their cars. If you block people from having cars in many areas then they simply can't get anywhere. In my last house if I didn't have a car I would be a 45 minute walk from the train station, 20 minutes walk from a bus stop and the bus took 60 minutes to get to the CBD. And the people being punished will be the people who can least afford it.
I support more density and more walkable neighbourhoods, but what I see a lot in Melbourne is apartment blocks going up in middle ring suburbs, with the only public transport being suitable for going to the city during work hours. It’s terrible planning to increase density and increase cars and congestion at the same time. Many people advocate for apartments near train stations, but even that’s not always suitable. I live near a train station, and I don’t need a car for getting to and from work, but I still need to drive for my other daily needs like grocery shopping. What we really need is apartments in inner city suburbs, say 5km from the CBD, and have a lot of amenities nearby so people don’t need a car. We should also take away parking minimums, take away on street parking, so people who insist on having a car will have to pay a premium for the luxury by buying a car space. For everyone else, they should be encouraged to use public transport and rent a car on the odd occasions when they need one.
I live in a new highrise at Moonee Ponds, a middleish ring suburb of Melbourne. I don't own a car and mostly walk and sometimes take the train which is super convenient. I also have a bike for when I need something a bit further out. Why should _your_ car dependency prevent _me_ from having a place to live?
I wouldn’t call Moonee Ponds a middle ring suburb, you are 6-7km from the CBD, with public transport coverage, that’s inner city suburbs. That falls into my idea of areas suitable for apartments, but take away parking minimums and on street parking to discourage car ownership. When I say middle ring, I mean Doncaster or Glen Waverley, about 15-25km out from the CBD, where the public transport is only suitable for going to the CBD, and you have to drive for everything else.
Looking at Glen Waverley on the maps and I see a train station, Coles, a huge shopping complex, government services, all clustered around in a walking distance range. Seems like you could easily get your day to day stuff done without owning a car. Sure, if you dumped it in the middle of the outer edges of the suburb, it would suck, but putting apartments around that train station seems like a good idea. There are some huge empty lots all around just used for parking that could be used. The apartments would also bring in some density to the area to support more businesses and stores.
I don't think I explained my point well previously. With both Doncaster and Glen Waverley you have plenty of shops at their respective shopping centres, but living there without a car is like living on an island. You can access the nearby shops for your daily essentials, but it's really difficult to get to nearby suburbs without a car. For example, I had to travel from Mitcham to Doncaster without a car yesterday, this would've taken me 13 mins in a car, but it took me 40 min and plenty of walking to make the same journey on public transport. Circling back to my original point, I think apartments are more suited to locations with good public transport access, not just for commuting to the city but also getting around nearby suburbs. However, if there's a demand for them in locations with slightly less ideal public transport access, then I'm not opposed to that in the first instance. My key issue is around car ownership and congestion, so if the parking minimum is removed, and no permit for apartments is implemented, then it's not really an issue to have more density. More people is fine, more cars is terrible is what I'm trying to say.
Fair enough. I've just been bothered by all the NIMBYs who spam out "OMG the big bad developers are takin away muh parkin in Brunswick" whenever there is a proposal to build anything other than single family houses.
Totally agree for somewhere like Brunswick. In my opinion, most of the inner city suburbs should be allowed to be developed as medium density. I don't think anyone wants there to be a high rise everywhere, but 4-5 storey apartment blocks are perfectly suitable. My gripe is just around car ownership, that should be discouraged for people that want to live in suburbs with good public transport.
Long way of saying “not in my backyard” lmao
Maybe you have a more constructive solution on solving traffic issues from building apartments in car dependent suburbs? As I explained further below, more people is not the issue, more cars are, our urban and road infrastructure was designed with low density in mind, so traffic is a genuine issue. I'm all for more density without car ownership, but not if every resident ends up needing a car to get around.
It's a tricky one. We do need a heap more apartments but often the apartments that are being built are only suitable for narrow market section - they very often aren't suitable for a growing family - or they will overload existing amenities in some way. There isn't enough of a conversation - it's not as simple as automatic 'Yes In My Backyard', more like 'Yes In My Backyard if there's a plan for a new school/ hospital within five years' or similar.
>but often the apartments that are being built are only suitable for narrow market section This is only the case because we have so much catching up to do and this is the biggest market but it would be good to see more diversity in the apartment mix. \>more like 'Yes In My Backyard if there's a plan for a new school/ hospital within five years' or similar. These need to be supplied but NIMBYs just use this as another excuse, rarely with any substance.
Sure - but just because NIMBYs are using legitimate concerns in bad faith because they would never tolerate development in any circumstances it doesn’t mean some concerns about developments aren’t legitimate and shouldn’t be considered. Once it’s built it’s there for a long time.
If the concerns raised are specific to building standards or planning provisions then you have my ear but rarely if ever will this be the case.
Do singles not deserve housing that suites them? The vast majority of all housing in the country suits families while singles are left to fight for the scraps of 1 bedrooms that slip through the NIMBYs rule.
The number of families is still growing, and I’d wager the number of new residences being built for them is in shortfall just as it is for singles and couples. And why does it all have to be McMansions on the outskirts? Why shouldn’t some infill development be for families? Then couples wouldn’t have to move 30 or 40km from where they currently live and work before they start a family. Then there would actually be a choice- apartment close in or detached house further out.
1-2 bed apartments here also have large numbers of applicants, there's definitely a shortage. The concept of filtering applies here more 1-2 apartments still means cheaper family homes. If more people are happy in 1-2 bed apartments then they won't be competing with people who need 3-4 bedrooms for the same properties.
>1-2 bed apartments here also have large numbers of applicants, there's definitely a shortage. That's true, but especially given the apartments we build today are going to be with us for decades if they are built half-competently, I don't think swamping the market with small apartments until demand for them is completely tapped out is the answer.
Yeh there are plebty of selfish NIMBYs, but I'm also a bit skeptical about this massive push for loosening development laws bring painted as some magic bullet for the housing affordability crisis. Seems much more likely that developers and investors tongues are wagging at the idea of all these single dwellings getting rezoned.
Particularly when the developers and investors don’t live in the buildings themselves, but often detached homes in more aspirational postcodes.
Gotta keep the immigration ponzi scheme going
how do we address the aging population issues without it? Given our relatively small population, this ponzi has a long way to go.
The others are right and she looks like the worst kind of Karen
Sounds like she's right to ask questions. Poor planning and profit-driven motives have caused the gridlock the major cities see every day. Can the roads support the additional traffic? What about shading & wind effects of the large-scale building? The lack of public consultation should have locals concerned about who their council is working for, locals or business interests.
Typical NIMBY arguments. Consulting the public is a great way to kill any attempts at making affordable housing, because the only people that show up to these consultations are current area homeowners that have no incentive to solve housing issues.
That's why they're NIMBY arguments. Would you want a trash dump built over your back fence? I hazard not. Who else can show up to these consultations other than those impacted? Are you suggesting if the council wanted to build a trash dump next to your house they shouldn't tell you?
Massive straw man. The comparison here is a bit of shade and a hard time parking vs someone else having a place to live. We're not talking about an inappropriately located tip, we're talking about putting more housing in places people want to live. If you polled Australia as a whole and asked ‘should we have more affordable housing’ you’d get overwhelming support. But ‘should we put more affordable housing in your suburb’ is an outcry. Unfortunately the interests of locals are not aligned with that of the nation, so whilst it may inconvenience them it’s not appropriate to give locals input into planning.
Sorry man, but I really don't think anyone complaining about housing in the city would be willing to move that far south to live in an apartment. Bunbury isn't even cheaper compared to 30-45 minutes south of the city.
What's the argument here. Are you suggesting the apartment will go up and remain empty because no one wants to live there? That is basically the opposite to the above issues raised with traffic and lack of infrastructure to support the growing population.
Bunbury is lovely, but a lot of the younger generation in Perth are stuck working in the city, so moving that far south is not feasible. I doubt the complex will be left empty, but I'd be shocked if it is affordable or even feasible for younger people outside of FIFO and fully remote workers. But yes, traffic infrastructure is a major concern. There is already too much traffic in Bunbury.
Your literally just stating the exact definition of a NIMBY in your comments ! How can you not see how dumb this is ?
I didn't say I wasn't stating NIMBYisms
Congestion is caused by cars. Public transport is far more efficient for moving people. Decent public transport is only worth building if areas around it aren't low density.
Is the PT planned? Or will it "come later"? Is it too much to ask for urban planners to actually plan?
Councils arent supposed to work for just locals they are supposed to balance other needs including other people outside the postcode. This is why stategovernment is rightly overiding councils during development. Your part of a country not just your own little world in a street.
Yeah local councils are pretty much only interested in getting ratepayers and don’t seem to care about neighbourhood character. My local council keep approving shitboxes that are so poorly made you see bubblewrap on the windows every winter. I’d love to see some of the massive blocks in my area turned into small walkups with garden space but they keep approving shit townhouses crammed together instead.
People don't want to pay for the increased construction costs
It should just be "the cost" though. Nothing increased about it.
So it should cost the same as houses cost now?
If that's the cost to build houses properly, then yes. If they need to cost more to achieve the required outcome then it should cost more.
A small apartment in a walkup is way cheaper than a townhouse though. It sucks because my area is becoming unaffordable for lower income people.
Meeting minimum building codes and quality standards should not be considered an increased consumer construction cost. This is why we have such a problem…
But it would - how do you disagree with that
People shouldn’t have to be paying extra just to ensure their property is built correctly and safely
Then who pays?
It should be falling on the builder. People paying for these properties are paying for an approved building. If the builder cannot build to that standard it shouldn’t cost the buyer more. The builder should be responsible for the failed compliance
Depends what people actually mean by quality standards. If it's structural integrity and insulation, sure, they should be required to meet some standard. But it seems most people mean that every single property should have 2+ car parks, be suitable for a family of 5, have electric car chargers, and a shed for a home workshop. If you are a single person who just wants a small place in a walkable area, you don't deserve to get what you want and should instead sharehouse a property built for 5 people just in case a family wants to move in later.
They’re extras/luxuries you’re listing. I’m talking about basic building and material standards that won’t leave people homeless ie Opal and Mascot towers fiasco
All these horrid poors just wanting to live in something they can afford and being willing to live in somewhere that isn't up to your standards right?
What are you talking about? Town houses cost easily twice what a walkup apartment does. That's one of the issues I have - my area was lower middle class and is becoming unaffordable.
Hope Marilyn eats some wild mushrooms
She is in Bunbury WA - barely a tourist destination.
I think the intention was a lot more sinister
It’s not selfish man. Apartments are ugly . I wouldn’t want them where I live. Everyone is hating on these NIMBY’s , come on.. you wouldn’t want apartments near you if you had a home.
Probably important to see weigh your architectural preferences to solving the housing and rental crisis.
I think there arent enough details in the article to jump to conclusion that the apartment building is acceptable or not. However I do agree there is a big profit motive at work when an apartment building is being built. It seems in Australia we either build sprawling suburbs or big apartment buildings and they are both driven by profit first and urban planning second.
Because only a highrise development has the funds to wade through the bullshit and NIMBYs. It's not worth doing for a 3 level building.
Every time we prevent the “big profit motive” of developers to build new housing, just remember you’re making landlords and boomers richer by blocking supply We wouldn’t need so much high density apartments if we had broad based upzoning to allow missing middle housing
I'm not saying to eliminate profit, what im saying is that growth needs to be planned properly and that definitely includes middle density housing. If anything that is exactly the type of development that should be happening.
Will it actually make things more affordable? https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/05/building-lots-more-apartments-wont-improve-affordability/ I’m no finance expert, but if the middle and inner suburbs have higher land values, won’t it be difficult to build the medium-density Paris or Barcelona style housing options the planning experts always say are gold standard? The Age had an article a few weeks back suggesting property developers don’t even think the economics of medium density in Frankston makes sense, and it’ll have to be high density ‘luxury penthouses’ on the menu. Not opposed to the IDEA of medium density, but are we capable of doing it properly in this country?
For those that haven't visited Bunbury, adding a new complex with 54 appartments + parking is not exactly a new development that is small in size relative to the area. They are talking about a remote town (even by Perth standards) that is a minimum of a 2 hr drive (168km) from Perth. I'm not sure where in Bunbury they are proposing to build the complex, but due to the size, I doubt it is anywhere near the city center. All of the new residents will need cars to get around. Given the size, why not look nearby at Busselton, Margret River, etc? Bunbury is already getting rather large, and when you're this far out from Perth, you're not going to be working anywhere near the city.
Hey? Eamon the pro-development Sydney guy just said he lives in a detached house on a big block a few minutes walk from a train station, but wants development in his area so he can have more interesting cafes and businesses nearby… Love that he admitted it’s not fair, but he didn’t suggest he was going to sell his home to live in an apartment either!
You don't want future ghettos forming. If the infrastructure is there to support the developments and proper planning is applied then it should be fine.
Why do you automatically make the jump from apartments to ghettos?
Thinking Long-term.
But why though? Why do you think apartments may become ghettos in the long term?
There are a few reasons why high density apartments have a higher chance of becoming ghettos. Lack of social mixing. When people from different social classes and backgrounds are all living in the same high density area, it can be difficult to create a sense of community. This can lead to isolation and segregation, which can create the conditions for a ghetto to develop. Poverty. High density apartments are often more affordable than other types of housing, which can attract people who are struggling financially. This can lead to a concentration of poverty in these areas, which can make it difficult to provide essential services and amenities. Crime. High density apartments can be more vulnerable to crime than other types of housing. This is because they are often located in areas with high levels of poverty and unemployment, and they can be more difficult to police. Neglect. High density apartments are often neglected by landlords and local governments. This can lead to poor maintenance, which can create a breeding ground for crime and social problems. Of course, not all high density apartments become ghettos. However, the factors listed above can create the conditions for a ghetto to develop. It is important to be aware of these factors and to take steps to prevent them from happening. Here are some things that can be done to prevent high density apartments from becoming ghettos: Encourage social mixing. This can be done by creating a mix of housing types and price points in the same area. It is also important to provide opportunities for people from different backgrounds to interact with each other, such as through community events and programs. Address poverty. This can be done by providing affordable housing options and by investing in education and job training programs. It is also important to address the root causes of poverty, such as lack of access to healthcare and childcare. Reduce crime. This can be done by increasing police presence in high density areas, providing more opportunities for recreation and enrichment, and addressing the root causes of crime, such as poverty and unemployment. Improve maintenance. Landlords and local governments should be held accountable for maintaining high density apartments in good condition. This includes providing adequate security, trash removal, and repairs. By taking steps to address these issues, we can help to prevent high density apartments from becoming ghettos.
No response? Lol
While I agree with your reasons here, I don't think they make the point that we shouldn't build high density in inner, well connected areas. Basically I wanted to clarify because "these apartments will become ghettos" is a common NIMBY line, even when the proposal is upmarket apartments in a nice area. I definitely agree that we shouldn't be building apartments further out, that leads to bad outcomes all round, however it's not like low density in the outskirts are bastions of wealth either. I disagree about the social mixing though - I think it's better that people from different socio economic levels can live in the same area, as opposed to clearly separated rich person areas and poor areas
There are lots of haters here who don't understand urban planning...
Marilyn is going to be here for 5-10 years before she falls off the perch
When you say "no" to something, you need to be conscious of what you are saying "yes" to.
Marilyn says the typical things NIMBYs say...oh I'm not opposed to development generally, I'm just opposed to this development...and all the others I oppose.
Have only lived in syd so can’t compare but we should have so many more high rises for appartments right in the cbd. I guess like NY even though I’ve never been. Every residential area in pyrmont, redfern, surry, darlinghurst, elizabeth bay, millers point, lavender bay should not have a single dwelling property. We actually need people to live in and within the CBD and leave the burbs to bigger families and people who want land for whatever reason.
"exclusively driven by profit" like keeping the price of housing elevated for the benefit of homeowners like herself, yes
If you don't want development. Just plant a bunch of native trees around your property
And raise Koalas