The fix for Australia's housing crisis that (almost) nobody’s talking about
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 бер 2024
- Housing affordability is quickly becoming a huge issue in Australia, and many people have proposed various different ways to address it - but in this video I'm going to talk about a way that often gets overlooked!
Support my Ko-Fi! ko-fi.com/citymoose
Australia's population has been growing rapidly in the past few years, and our housing supply has simply not kept pace. This has meant sky-rocketting house prices and rents across our major cities like Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane etc...
To address this, people have called for the construction of new housing - and to avoid urban sprawl, they have called for it to be done by densifying our existing suburbs. Currently, this is being mainly done through apartments, and while this is good - its not enough.
In this video I look at an alternative to apartments, townhouses, and see how they could form a key part of how we boost the country's housing supply.
Thumbnail image source: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1_Terraced_homes5.JPG - Наука та технологія
Totally agree. One of the major issues is way too many of our subdivisions are still single storey homes built to the maximum envelope allowed when we’d be better served by building that are half the footprint but twice as tall. Our stormwater system just aren’t built to cope with all these large roofs and small gardens
The gubment wants to take away mah guns and my whyte picket fence
New builds of the kind you say would still be on the urban fringe. That’s why we only get units: there is no mechanism for current householders transitioning from a 600 detached house to a well designed 3x 200m2 townhouse. In part it’s about narrow ish frontages. Mostly its that it isn’t economical: land value means the per dwelling cost for a smaller townhouse once subdivision and demo + rebuild costs are considered is barely capable of covering costs. Apartments of comparable size cap any such townhouse asking price. I just haven’t seen any other permutation anywhere and i doubt its a lack of imagination.
@@Bdogbdog365 I think we should have a option that if you want to renovate detaching housing for townhouses, you should get a heavy discount of subdivision fees, council and water rates. If your in an area that has an medium density rating, I think council and water rates should skyrocket each year to encourage single dwelling houses to convert to townhouses.
It's genuinely nauseating to me that new developments here are almost exclusively fully-detached single storey homes. And it's shocking how many people defend them. Honestly this country feels like it's dying. Everyone complains while rejecting all solutions at the same time. They're like zombies.
What you're talking about here with towmhouses is often referred to by other urbanists as "the missing middle", and is a large part of the appeal of certain cities around the world that either kept their old models or are building new ones. Case in point, besides Paris and London: Montreal, which has tons of townhouses and other duplexes in its central core. That, combined with an expanding bicycle and transit infrastructure, is what has made that city an urban magnet. I could see the same principles applied to cities in Australia.
We need more satelite cities in Australia,with fast rail asnd better infrastructure for exhisting regional areas
That requires long term planning. If something takes 10 years it will probably take 10 more years indefinitely due to short sighted leaders and the election cycle that perpetuates it.
Very true but there needs to be Greenbelts to prevent what's happened in Perth, where every satalite city is built gets swallowed up by the Perth Urban sprawl.
Terraces are a good compromise between detached houses & apartments. In the outer suburbs if people built dormer bungalows they would have the same space under the roof & bigger gardens. Or smaller gardens and more density. I know cost comes into it but roof spaces are literally a waste of space. Apartments with bedrooms with no windows should be banned as well.
Comment section probably guna come after me with pitchfolks for this but, I prefer the Philippines/Manila style townhouses, 3-4 levels high with rooftop balcony and the bottom levels are usually shops/businesses, makes it very walkable and convenient
That sounds awesome! Why would anyone come after you?
aka shophouses in other parts of southeast Asia
That style of medium density block sounds good too! Still 10x better than ugly high rises (look at Burwood, it has random high rises coming out of nowhere and they're such an eyesore)
Exactly, why would anyone come after you? It always amazes me flying into Manila and seeing how a real Government has dealt with the population problem (and that isn't saying very much as the Gov is pretty bad) lol. I noticed how they built and it seemed to be (well spaced out) 3-4 levels buildings like you say and didn't look like hideous "projects" stuck in one huge sh*t pile like we do. Keep in mind that Manila has 50% of Australia's entire population. I noticed that Bangkok does something similar as I used to wonder how they fit so many people into a city and used to just sit on my 30th Floor balcony and scan the horizon. Only question is whether Aussie politicians and planners even have the brain power to build such things. Probably not. (They are looking into it)
It requires the right culture mindset where you walk or cycle so convenient grocers or butcher is great buy high street shops are dead because of the stranglehold colsworth and Aldi have where you are almost forced to drive to their locations.
One unfortunate feature in Queensland is the Gated Complex. It has all the features if the terrace/townhouse, but then disconnects it from the surrounding neighbourhood and locks it behind ugly gates. They are eyesores.
Townhouses need to have street frontage and function like a regular home, with eath home having its own title.
Get the crims under control, then maybe.
I agree, but we are constantly seeing here in Australia everyone trying to pack themselves into concrete cancer filled high-rise, Australia isn't exactly small! I live 3 hours away from Brisbane in a small township with 1300 people. Wouldn't swap it for big $$$. All 1/4 acre blocks, no town water or sewerage. All of us on rainwater tanks, presently overflowing, so no water rates, no sewerage, it's all septic or on-site sewerage systems, so it's extremely cheap living. Plenty of kids running around and lots of retired people like myself. We know each other by name and the guy 2 blocks away! It's called quality of life.
Developers build gated communities because the internal roads and services do not have to comply with Council road and services construction standards. This means that those roads and services are built to a much lower standard saving the developer substantial costs however those roads and services will fail much sooner but the cost to maintain them is the responsibility of the Body Corporate.
@@mrbaker1739Wow!! I didn’t know that. Well, gated communities are off the list for any future property purchase in Oz. Thanks for the tip.
Helps keeping knife wielding black Africans out.
Something interesting to note is that in Paris many residential buildings in certain areas are built in a historic architectural style to fit the character of the neighborhood they're in. I've always wondered if that could be done here and if it might mitigate opposition to densification to some extent in certain areas where modern high rises would be a bit of an eyesore. Great video though and hope it can reach a larger audience and catch the eye of people with a loud voice/power.
Exactly. A lot of the time, people aren't opposed to densification, they just hate how ugly modern apartment blocks look. If you build something more akin to Victorian style, no one would oppose that
@@devilpizza123 i feel like the people who are just straight up opposed to densification are actually just part of astroturfing campaigns as well, they arent even actual complaints from neighbours
Australia are allergic to building interesting architecture unfortunately
@@mgp1203 we seem to be allergic to a lot of things
@@devilpizza123 Whenever they try that, it always looks weird. There's too many building codes and rules to make anything look genuine. In france they prioritise aesthetics
Yes! More bigger apartments, more townhouses, and much less suburban sprawl!
Well, if you look at the Sydney suburbs along the north metro line, there are townhouses built or planned, so it’s happening. However, the important problem mentioned is the suitability of apartments to family life. If there would be more double-story family sized apartments, then people could consider that, but then the price would likely be prohibitive. Prices of 3 bedroom apartments are often more expensive than detached house 20km further west, so ultimately it comes down to economics and that explains why people swarm Marsden Park or Oran Park. Scandals about quality of apartment buildings with people losing hundreds of thousands don’t help either.
But why dont developers offer more 3-bedroom appartments? Are Aussies culturally less inclined to live as a family with children in an appartment?
@@abelsuisse9671 Aussies see apartments as a short term accommodation between leaving the family home and buying your own home to bring up your children. It is somewhere you live while you are single or a couple. Also most apartments are not near public open space - so the opportunity for access to green space is very limited.
Maybe if you were a tradesperson? You could get employment anywhere in the outback! The problem between 1960 and now, is that many "Wogs" , Italian and Greek migrants built houses! Noone in their family was unemployed! Any family member without a job was dragged to work with Uncle Frank or Uncle Vito! Grandma and Grandpa , were housed locally in a house that the family built! What are these immigrants bringing to the table now? Nothing, just like a disloyal wife! Hand out, gimme,gimme, gimme!
I think it’s the very Australian way to suggest things like blocking immigration and being a NIMBY against densification as us Aussies are extremely selfish. People seem to think that densification and urbanism means they will lose their single family detached house, or lose their “choice” when it’s rather the opposite. Our currently trend of building detached houses means no one has a free “choice” and we are all forced to have a big house with a huge yard and two cars to get anywhere. Allowing for more housing diversity and density means people can choose how and where they want to live and immigration allows us to still get much needed population growth and density despite a declining birth rate.
its also pretty funny that they seem to think they should decide what their neighbours chose to build on their own land
@@vincentgrinn2665 The "You have properties right up until you do something I don't like then you don't have any right to your own land"
@@vincentgrinn2665 It's awful in Australia. Mostly lefties that do that, but not always. I'd never dream about arguing about what people build on their own property, provided they don't build it illegally close to my boundary
Immigration has to slow until we sort out the problems
@@chrispekel5709 yeah im not sure it is the lefties doing that
generally its the conservatives who want to, ya know, conserve the way things are, including the 'character' of their neighbourhood, often extended to the kind of people who live there, not just the house they live in
Yes! We tried to build a row of 4 or 5 townhouses on a standard block a few years back and even the architect was like, "nah. Just build a sixpack". The land backed onto permanent open space, it was perfect for it. We gave up and sold, and the new owners built 3 squinty townhouses and most of the block is driveways.
Australia was a fabulous country when Europeans first came here, and we will no doubt keep developing it until we wreck it completely with a population of about two billion.
It climaxed by 2006. Besides that place is in a tug war between American/European interests and other foreign interests.@@sandponics
Why was the decision up to the architect? Did you not even submit the plans for approval?
Another aspect skipped over for these sprawling suburbs is the infrastructure maintenance costs skyrockets after 20 years. In the USA where sprawling suburbs are mandated, you can already see home prices in old suburbs dropping like a lead weight as the local land taxes go through the roof. The result is areas where local governments are bankrupt due to all the infrastructure maintenance costs and people leaving. Modern EU style high density housing with green zones and integrated shopping malls don't have these issues as the costs are spread out over a larger local population.
Very perceptive. People in Australia love the idea of a "tree change," but the additional costs of providing schools, hospitals, and other services to a more spead-out population cannot be ignored. Nor can the impact of urban sprawl on our natural environment, or the dangers inherent in locating housing in bbushfire and flood prone areas. Denser low rise housing is a great solution, but Australians also need to get over the idea that apartment living is a second-class option. If we could build apartments suited to more than just single people, young couples and students, then we'd be making progress towards solving our housing crisis.
Very perceptive. People in Australia love the idea of a "tree change," but the additional costs of providing schools, hospitals, and other services to a more spead-out population cannot be ignored. Nor can the impact of urban sprawl on our natural environment, or the dangers inherent in locating housing in bushfire and flood prone areas. Denser low rise housing is a great solution, but Australians also need to get over the idea that apartment living is a second-class option. If we could build apartments suited to more than just single people, young couples and students, then we'd be making progress towards solving our housing crisis.
We’re building poor quality structures with poor designs that are badly oriented on their site. We should look at more prefab structures, higher quality building work and real penalties to get the shonky builders out of the industry.
4:00 from the numbers i remember seeing, there is no return at all, low density detatched residential buildings are the only type of zoning that actually loses money for the government
My huge house on a super block definitely loses money for the government, but it is home to me and my gorgeous wife, and it continues to increase in value every day without me needing to do anything to improve it.
People are against apartments because the product they’re producing is so poor. Monstrous ugly poorly built garbage which destroys the character of neighbourhoods. If the apartments they were building were like the ones in Paris, solid materials, quality builds and thoughtful character-filled design, then by all means, build away! I would happily live in an apartment, but not the type they’re building today.
That’s doesn’t mean people should just be opposing every single apartment complex project by default.
Cost of materials and safety concerns have changed, but yes, I agree! Much better designed apartments in Paris… for the middle class and up
@@ashdog236 No one is opposing every single apartment building project. There's 30,000 apartments that are being constructed in 2024 across the 3 largest cities alone.
Or like Mascot Towers in Sydney? A total shonky building.
This was a very good video. I agree with the townhouse _and_ apartment theories, although studies show that ever increasing apartment building heights increase loneliness and reduce people's connection with their neighbourhood. That is why Paris is such a good example with its set height. Many of the NIMBY's arguments don't hold with townhouses and lower height apartment buildings either, but unfortunately developers, and their lobbying money, want to push for maximum height/profit (and minimum cost/quality).
It should also be mentioned that laws allowing foreign ownership is a large reason for both shortages and cost of housing.
Do you have a link to these studies? I'm asking because I can't see why living up higher should increase loneliness or make people feel disconnected with their neighbourhood. I have lived in high rise apartment buildings in Melbourne CBD for nine years now, and I can see and hear city life happening around me, even without leaving my apartment. I enjoy every amenity that the city has to offer, on my doorstep. I am on my building owner's corporation committee, and I have regular friendly interactions with our building manager. If you want to be connected to your surroundings, you can be. It's not something that depends on what type of housing you happen to live in, in my opinion and experience.
Do you have a link to these studies? I'm asking because I can't see why living up higher should increase loneliness or make people feel disconnected with their neighbourhood. I have lived in high rise apartment buildings in Melbourne CBD for nine years now, and I can see and hear city life happening around me, even without leaving my apartment. I enjoy every amenity that the city has to offer, on my doorstep. I am on my building owner's corporation committee, and I have regular friendly interactions with our building manager. If you want to be connected to your surroundings, you can be. It's not something that depends on what type of housing you happen to live in, in my opinion and experience.
I've been studying traditional architecture and city planning for the last year or so, and it seems abundantly clear that a traditional mid density style of mixed use urban planning would be absolutely essential. The way we have been doing everything here is severely short sighted, destructive, wasteful, and unsustainable. We're dumping massive apartments in established areas that cannot sustain such sudden and large increases in population without gradual improvement of amenities, and the building of new low density suburbs without amenities means all these people will be clogging up the roads significantly in established areas just to get groceries or drop the kids to school. Growth should be gradual, thought out, and planned. But it seems the developers, councils, city planners, and architects are too short sighted. They only see their immediate financial gains, at the cost of the areas they are carving up and ultimately failing.
I spent the COVID years doing delivery work in the Netherlands and saw a lot of houses in one of the most densely inhabited countries in the world. And a LOT of the new middle class, family developments are terrace houses. They often have linear parks, which have the cross town bike paths, but also provide the open space for dog walking, joggers and kids playgrounds. Judging by the rates of new builds in Australia taking up the entire block for oversized houses, my guess is many people would prefer an accessible public park, to maintaining their own garden.
I agree. It's only retirees, in the main, who have the time to maintain a garden. The backyards in a lot of Australian suburban houses are a square of grass with a swinger and a barbecue. Why does each household need its own play equipment and barbecue facilities when they could enjoy similar amenities and better green spaces by sharing with their local community?
I’ve been using sketchup to design a town-house/ terraced house in the last couple of months. I’ve also done calculations on population density for my local township if we moved to smaller fully-detached/semi-detached/terraced houses. Our population could increase by double very easily with very few changes to the vast majority of the town; just adjusting a small section of the town with these designs. It’s truly fascinating, if not tragic, that the township is hell bent on expanding, but due to being landlocked, chooses not to do anything other than prompt more fully detached houses on large lots of pre existing land.
There was a lot about 4000sqm that opened up. They are desperate for more houses. They suggested that 4 houses should do. It’s a joke at times
I think we really need to be looking at building new cities and building up the regional ones instead of adding to an already oversaturated market. The vast majority of the population are in Melbourne and Sydney alone with not much development in-between. If you look at the landscape of cities in the United States there are cities every 15-30 minutes, giving people more opportunities for the type of property they actually want for their situation. The truth is that not everyone feels comfortable living in such confined spaces or in the middle of nowhere and they shouldn't be our only two options.
building up our regional towns. absolutely! we have so very many tiny towns (in VIC is where i'm thinking as that's where i'm from) that could really benefit if a big company decided to build a call centre there or the like.
@@lun4_th34 I’m in VIC too and places like Ballarat and Bendigo could easily have populations of at least half a million and that’s not even taking the even small places into account.
@@kateburdon LOL, i grew up in Bendigo (we refer to it as the third ring of hell). but yes, it absolutely could be upgraded.
As long as we're not just adding sprawl to our regional cities in the same way as we have to Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, etc.
I’m a YIMBY with quite a few NIMBY friends and here’s the best way to characterise their arguments:
- They don’t want increased car traffic in their suburb
- They believe that nearby high density developments will make their homes less desirable/valuable
They aren’t dumb old boomers, they are all Gen X, parents and have had success in business. I just can’t see how engaging with these bullshit environmental and infrastructure arguments is helping the YIMBY cause when it’s not speaking to the heart of their concerns.
I think a better argument is to appeal to them as parents and business people. Labour costs and small business survival are both linked to the cost of housing. Sure if you can preserve the value of your property you’ll be able to transfer that wealth but what are they going to do with it in a stagnant economy that can’t bear the fruit of new businesses? And you’ve got great pride in the property portfolio you’ve built yourself, would you really deny your children that same opportunity? Will they become great people in a world where they are dependent on your handouts?
Anyway just some thoughts.
The people who you're referring to can probably afford to provide housing handouts to their children and beyond that they don't care. If they cared about our long-term future, they wouldn't keep voting Labor and LNP. I'm just glad I don't have children who will be around to see what the outcome of this blinkered thinking will look like.
Supply is very important, I just don't know how Canada have less than double our population with five to six times the housing supply and still no solution to the housing crisis.
negative gearing, foreign investments, unsustainable migrant number growth, general mentality (the only way to build wealth is via housing), free capital gain tax on ppor and capital gain discount on investment property, NIMBY (heritage listed properties everywhere), Australians HATE density, bad public transport. There are too many barriers, i'm convinced i will not live long enough to see this fixed
there seems to be a recent movement online about walkable cities etc. Where people advocate for big apartment towers and public transport. I agree sydneys new suburbs are crap, cramped grey concrete boxes. But I would be careful with the proposed apartment approach. I guess zetland in sydney has been transformed into apartments and this is model that people are advocating for? But to me it transforms humanity into a bunch of hyper consumers that just go into their apartment box to live and then out to experience nature through a green park etc. Heaps of people in the suburbs are more integrated with nature, as they plant trees, have a garden, have chickens etc. Be careful of losing that with a city of apartments. I am writing this message from shanghai, and was just in hong kong. which are both extremely walkable - but also feels dystopian and hyper consumerism.. and Australia seems to be following this model. I think keep the suburbs but either stablise immigration, or feed them into other cities and areas if needed (adelaide, albury etc). I think Australia leaders like immigration and population growth as they are people who like power, and want Australia to eventually become a more powerful global player and they think for that to happen we need to be a bigger population- you need to question what is the benefits of a bigger population.
Gov will not be happy until they have us in Logan's Run.
This issue with most of the newly built suburbs is they’re being built in the “green belt” which was land previously set aside for nature (or at least for agriculture) and that is getting removed to build new suburbs. The new suburbs also don’t have much outdoor space, my friend lives in Tarneit and only has enough space in the backyard for a table and chairs on the patio and a couple plants. Apartment blocks that take up the entire plot of land and put down concrete to park their cars aren’t great, but look at many of the 3-4 storey apartments built in the 70s in places like Brunswick or St Kilda, they actually have decent green space and many have planted vegetable gardens there too. And as this video identified, terrace houses are great because they provide enough space for a backyard. Just look at the UK, where all terrace houses and semi-detached houses have a decent sized backyard because they have rules requiring them for that style of house. Australia needs more people, but people don’t about want to live two hours from the major cities, so if we don’t build infill housing then people are forced to go further out. Trying to just send new people elsewhere just doesn’t work, we’ve tried it many times and every times it’s failed because there aren’t enough jobs in those areas.
@@Sagealeena valid perspective.. but why does austtalia need more people?
@@SagealeenaWho said we need more people? Oh, the Government. Sorry, it must be true then, carry on.
Remote work with decent internet will allow what you advocate and warn us not to lose.
Won’t work for everyone of course…
@citymoose have you driven to Fairwater estate in Blacktown NSW? Former golf course turned housing estate which used the Townhouse method.... People say it looks a little less appealing than the bigger blocks of Marsden Park and Oran Park but it's size is sufficient and it's close enough to both Marayong and Blacktown Railway stations as well as numerous bus stops and adequate playgrounds green space and even a cafe. Definitely a good form of Urban renewal
A lot of what @CityMoose says is correct.
Negative gearing is definitely something that must be changed. Grandfather existing NG properties for at least 5 years. Maybe then say you can only have 5 NG properties. It is complicated but surely we can solve it.
Why are we so hyperfixated on continuously developing our comparatively massive mega-cities? Bond permanent migration for an initial fixed period to regional centres and thoughtfully develop things accordingly. There's no reason 2 metropolises need to account for half of the population. Geelong, Newcastle, Ballarat, Albury, Canberra, Bunbury, Wollongong etc. are all great options for new migration centres. The pull from vortices of Melbourne and Sydney are too strong without intervention.
"Megacities" ok relax buddy they're suburban wastelands for the most part
@@brettpitman3718 "comparatively": the adverbial form derived from the verb '(to) compare'.
It appears to be something to do with making money. We find somewhere really nice like Australia, steal the land from the original owners and then proceed to wreck the place with over development until we eventually end up with a shit hole like Detroit, or New York, it's called progress.
Yeah it’s bad, I was just homeless for a month living out of a car with 2 roommates, 3 people living out of a car is not fun trust me.
People who say immigration isn’t an issue hasn’t been to a class on supply and demand and they clearly have never been to a rental inspection.
We got outcompeted and booted out of our last house by 1 American girl whose parents are paying $1,350 a week for her to live in a 3 bedroom house alone, that caused 3 Australians to become homeless…. Let me say that again, 1 immigrant is living alone in a 3 bedroom house that used to house 3 Australians.
Tell me again immigration isn’t the problem? Tell that to a man who was homeless. We are crying out for help and it’s falling on deaf ears, migration is the demand side of the issue, right now we can’t boost supply fast enough, so the other solution is reduce demand. Simple.
Ask yourself who decides who gets to enter Australia?
Immigrants or your politicians?
Sincerely, somebody that's facing more and more discrimination due to actions I didn't even cause
I am not blaming you, of course it’s the fault of politicians, who I’ve emailed directly. I come from a migrant father I’m not anti migrant during normal times, I’m anti migrant during a housing crisis. The government let in 700,000 migrants in 2023, they built 30,000 homes, 23 people to a household is not sustainable, when you add the 120,000 homeless Australians, we are full. Lower migration by 95%+ for 10 years while we improve our construction companies to be able to endure larger numbers and the problem will solve itself, if construction can’t keep up, then migration should drop with it, negative gearing is another issue as well as foreign investment but the single most realistic short to medium term solution is to stop letting people in.
I grew up in a Coronation Street style two bedroom terraced house in the UK,and my grandmother raised nine kids in that house by stacking them on top of each other. She also kept a pig at the bottom of the garden. Growing up there was OK, but as a baby boomer I am not going back to living that way.
Nobody is asking you to move into a terraced house and cohabit with nine children! People don't have that many children anymore, and so they don't need a massive McMansion on a quarter acre block, it's just that they're given a choice between that or a poky apartment, when a nicely designed townhouse close to amenities and public transport could be the best solution for their needs.
Another problem is they are going nuts building apartments but not building more shops, parks, schools etc. Things are getting crowded.
doing mixed use midrise townhouses instead of apartments would atleast fix one of those
ground floor have shops, 5-6 floors above be housing
@@vincentgrinn2665 except then there's limited parking for that. Expanding shopping centres is needed.
I'm seeing it just down the road, where they have just finished 6 new large apartment blocks ( and planning 20 more) They have a popular medical centre under apartments and various shops. All street parking is taken up, people stay longer to have a bite at the Cafe after the medical meaning even more time without parking.
Also they didn't build a pool at the apartment blocks and in the advertising said they could use the community pool (the size of the average home pool) so now 1000+ more people share what was already an over crowded resource. 🤔
Town planners are so short sighted these days and only try to solve the immediate problem and cause even bigger ones down the line. Right now the problem is how do we cram more people into a space that is within 1.5 hrs from the city.
@@alimfuzzy another massive slab of concrete pushing everything further apart isnt the answer to that issue, the solution is making it so you dont need to drive to get there in the first place
and youre right about your last point, about town planners being short sighted and solving immediate problems but causing larger ones down the line, your suggestion for a large shopping center with a big parking lot is exactly that
it fixes the problem of no parking short term, but just makes things worse as people now need to drive more to get anywhere
@@vincentgrinn2665 but if it were shops underneath apartment blocks they would also need to drive there bit don't have infrastructure to accommodate. A certain amount of driving or public transport is required. We're not like America where shopping centres are dying and people drive to individual super stores each with giant parking lots. THAT'S what we want avoid. Shopping centres can be integrated into metros, like my local, have bus routes, have planned parks etc, but shove 20,000 people on top of the already crowded shopping centre without expansion and you get problems. Even giants like castle hill where they do non-stop apartment building and have plans for 50,000 more apartments in the next 5-10 years (its actually more than that) can't cope with that many.
@@alimfuzzy if theres enough shops around and things are built in an accomidating way its entirely reasonable to do most of your shopping with a short walk or by bike
thatd mean basically the only driving that needs to be done is the delivery trucks to stock these shops, which doesnt really have any issue for parking
even the smaller shopping centers really could be designed to better use space, but most of the shopping you want to spread out so there isnt so many people trying to get to the same place
Great video! 👍🏼
I’ve been seeing a lot townhouses been built in the Southeastern suburbs of Melbourne in the last few years. Lots of Houses getting knocked down and replaced with townhouses
Anyone who owns property pays taxes on their income and assets from anywhere in the world. Oh, and you can't own property unless you are a citizen and primary residence in Aus.
Great video explaining the current situation! I am however curious about why are place such as Glebe or Kensington are filled with detached homes when they are so close to the CBD with good public transport where a denser neighborhood would serve more people. Thanks!
The newest high rise apartments are generally too expensive for the average family. They are bought by people who live in their home country, & are usually left empty. Latest family sized dwellings recently completed, are priced between six & twelve million, & have very expensive body corporate fees.
"Some with only 5m of frontage" mate, I lived in a terrace in Erskineville that was 3.1m wide.
Site Inspector is a good resource for referencing where else things are going wrong on the build front...
You’ve forgotten to mention Aussie’s aversion to body corp rates that comes from modern townhouse developments.
What you may be envisioning could be micro-lot duplex or terrace housing with separate strata titles.
Body corporate rates aren't necessarily something to be thought of as a "downside" of medium or high density living. I live in an apartment building with an owners corporation, and the fees I pay allow me to not have to cover any maintenance costs beyond those that relate to the furniture and fittings inside my home. My plumbing is maintained, carpets in the common areas and windows cleaned, rubbish goes into a chute and out of my sight, and all without me having to think about it or organise any of it.
It has been done in other countries and it could be done in Australia , Australia needs a completely new city built where at least 3 million people could live , taking the pressures of the other main cities .
People will go to live in a new city if the land prices are cheaper and if they have all the modern amenities which also create many jobs ,
To help pay for the new city , tax incentives should be given to developers , businesses and people who live there to stimulate it's growth .
A block of land in Sydney for housing can cost well over 1 million dollars , in a new city the land to build a new home could cost well under $100,000 , Australia has a huge amount of vacant land that just needs to be developed and the amount of housing in Australia needs to be expanded to meet current demand , where demand is increasing with population growth and increased immigration .
no matter what way you look at it most people cant afford even the far flung suburban shitboxs these days and homelessness is going to spiral out of control in years to come as people collapse under the pressure and insecurity of modern life
Also yes they need to build more. HOWEVER they need to reduce the cost by at least 50% the price is INSANE
One of the biggest impediments to this is the insane amount of setback demanded by councils. I live in inner suburb Melbourne, and even with both our neighbors being supportive of a reduced setback, they only let us vary it by a tiny bit. It would be so much nicer to have one big open space, I was actually tempted to move the house to very back and have a big front garden, so stupid.
Something like 10 years ago, the Future Party proposed a new city in which to focus our "education as an export" model in order to reserve the rest of our education for Australians while also deeming it a special zone with less restriction on travel to be a global research hub, that was cool idea.
Cities as a destination for suburban travel are a complete inversion of the purpose of a city, they are MEANT to be a centralised labour force.
One idea that hasn’t been explored is zoning. Zoning certain areas as only owner occupancy will lock out property investors.
I agree with the terrace house idea, and in some areas of Camden and Rouse Hill I’m seeing new terrace houses
BS TOD is the way to go High density apartment in the train or metro station , medium density in the middle circle and single family house after that , we already have this development all aroud Sydney, like Chatswood, Burwood, wolli creek, mascot, ect ... Mascot and Greed square for example there is plenty of struggling commercial area that can be converted into High density residential .
Wolli Creek was not planned properly; there is intense flooding every time it rains and the traffic congestion on the surrounding streets is unreal. Great that it’s got its own train station and the lifestyle amenities though.
@@pholliez the only reason it's flooding its because its low lying land and congestion because of its in the prince's highway. Compare it to surry hills.. Practically area with rubbish public transport and rubbish commercial.. Please tell me there is no congestion in there.. This area should full bike considering its plenty of bike line and just few km from CBD.. But it's not...
Also just make apartments better. Make each unit liveable for a family, make their designs fit the aesthetic of the suburb, etc. Buildings don't have set in stone designs so we should make them as appealing as possible.
I agree, but there’s a lot of incentives for the current style of apartments. Often they are constrained by tree canopy requirements, set back requirements from the street, underground parking, studios/ one bdr apartments prioritised over three bedrooms. All these box in and what developers end up building
Townhouses are great. All part of the missing middle.
In Brisbane we have some great new townhouses and stacked townhouses. But the good ones are all at the luxury end of the market in inner city places like West End. I would love to live in an Australian adaptation of a stacked townhouse somewhere with good amenities and public/active transport, but without needing to pay into the luxury end of the market. Middle density and middle pricing would be excellent.
I think increase in townhouse is a great idea. This is what I think (in ratio of high rises or general units over 12 units/townhouses/detached houses), can vary from area to area, but here's an start.
- 5km to cbd with a rail/metro or light rail station 500 meters nearby :75/20/5 ratio of high rises/units, townhouses and house, but even then i would even scrap the 5% of houses and just do 75/25 and no houses
- anywhere in sydney but no suitable train/metro station or light rail nearby but a ferry wharf nearby: 30/50/20
- 5km to cbd and only bus access: 15/75/10
- 10-30km to cbd and a train/metro or light rail station 500 meters nearby: 40/50/10
- 10-30km to cbd and no suitable train/metro/light rail nearby: 10/70/20
Also for the 5km places with train/metro/light rail that want to have high rises, remove the car space minimum and have a it bold on the ads that there will be extra charges for parking (and you will need to have a good reason of why you need a car, such as you work in the trades or a job outside the 9-5 relms, driving to and from an office job or picking up kids will not count) or no parking whatsoever
When its come to a final signing, a strict different colour form which all real estate and landlords have to provide (and order from government as i know REA or landlords will print it the same colour as normal forms, lets say yellow if they want to pay extra for parking space or red for no parking space in the unit) which both owner and tenant have to sign saying that don't have a car and they won't be able to register their car in that property or charge extra. Just to cover that, all parking within the 5km radius will be heavily time limited at all hours and if there's a parking ticket over a history of time, and the owner/resident uses a different address to where they actually lived, they can be fined heavily or persistent rule breaking will result in car confiscation.
That last idea can only really work once public transport becomes better, even better than tokyo metro.
great video
Government policy (local council, state and federal level) does not provide enough incentive for property developers. A typical low rise apartment takes around 3-4 years where high rise takes a lot longer; holding cost, increasing material cost and labour cost can drain all profit if there is any delay in the process. The gross profit margin for low rise is approx 20-25% with no gearing, so it is not really an attractive investment if you average out the margin over 3 years. The rewards vs risk ratio just does not add up.
Thicker walls and in-betweelevels. Most places ive rented in i can hear people in other rooms/floors.
Instead of building high rise apartment blocks that are little bigger than a box, why not build them as 3 bed places, maybe 1 or 2 to a level. Focus them close to train stations and build more green/3rd spaces around it. Then we build up and have enough space for families to live
What about making apartments more spacious? Like having 3 bedroom apartments as standard and a lot more 4 and 5 bedroom apartments
I see lots of semi detached duplexes being built around me in inner suburban Melbourne.
Townhouses which are attached on both sides are probably a problem for areas that may experience flooding, which with climate change and denser building of non-permeable surfaces on areas that used to allow water to soak into the ground is an increased risk
When we built the house we live in now, we wanted to build to have a wall right next to our neighbor's wall, but because part of our land is on the edge of a flood zone we were not allowed to.
I can imagine that in many places in Australia townhouses attached on both sides are not viable because of water flow flooding risk.
It's also the price of land. If you took land out of the equation, then you're down to buildings and capital improvements. What if the Government owned all land and you just leased it. That would change the market permanently.
Another advantage of townhouses is that they usually do not have a body corporate / strata. This saves the owner in strata fees, tho they are responsible for their own maintenance costs.
I think if done well, can be cheaper than strata fees, as long as your displined with your money and save up for a rainy day.
Also a main issue is alot of our apartments are ugly and uninspired. I'd love Paris style apartments fit for the Australian climate and more town houses
In the past ten years at least short term rentals such as AIR BNB have been growing more popular due to the higher income for owners, is this not a contributing factor as well?? As just about about every suburb in every major city has housing in some form taken away from tenants.
The issue with apartments in Australia, is that we've seen horrible examples of them built.
The apartments built in Melbourne in the 50's and 60's were to replace slums, and as such they were small, and cheap. These in turn led to ghetto-isation, and modern day slums.
If we had a heritage overlay that required developers to match the heritage of the town/suburb they were in, that would change people mind.
Unfortunately, that will increase cost, and then force developers out to the new developments.
Appartments in the 70s and 80s built in Melbourne, on the other hand, were actually pretty good (as long as the ground wasn’t later paved over for car parking). 3-4 storey apartment blocks with lots of windows and generally your own balcony with a separate front door. They are also pretty sturdy too, often built out of brick. The main issue (other than removing the garden to park cars instead) is when the appartments have spent a long time as rentals and haven’t been taken care of. Appartments need to be seen as long-term housing for people to own and live in, not just rentals people live in temporarily until they can buy a house
There are three other categories of housing that have been lost over the years. Boarding houses. Largely banned by leftwing governments after one or two abuses. Cheap residential hotels were once common. The third is related over shop flats have been lost in many cases. All three have been zoned out of existence for various reasons. Modern homelessness was created by removing these intermediate options.
Deinstitutionalization also contributes, dumping millions of insane people out into the street. When it was done in Australia in the 1980's I attended a meeting where someone stood up and predicted everything we see today with insane people everywhere. Pharmaceuticals do not substitute for proper care. This mental health crisis has broken most government housing projects and renders some private solutions un safe.
However only 20% were in the institutions. Most were in boarding houses and hotels, often run by understanding war widows who were very skilled at caregiving. 50% of the drunks and drug users of the 1940 to 1980's were shell shocked war veterans or damaged civilian refugees. People cut them some slack.
Today people are 'shell shocked' because of miseducation, taught hopelessness, job market collapse, etc.
Most of the building issue are caused by squeezing maximum floor space on smallest block
Negative gearing has very little effect on prices and its use serves to lower rents as rental losses can then be claimed.
Foreign investment is also minimal and can be taxed higher and the money put to social housing.
So much for those two factors.
The other 98% of the problem is a supply issue. Address supply and the problem is basically fixed.
Supply means putting spacious apartments (not shoeboxes) next to stations and legalising terraced housing everywhere else.
Australians won't live in apartments, I would never live in an apartment :'D
Some of us could not live in two story houses. My family and I just spent ten months in a two story home. Stunning views. Stairs that were not to code and nearly killed us. Also, real estate agencies have a lot to answer for.Profit is their only concern. Their loyalty is to owners, tenants are treated like scum. They have no understanding of the emotional cost of not being an owner and lie to tenants without hesitation. Any problems are always the tenants fault, they do not take accountability for their actions and if a tenant pushes back about double standards, boy, do they make life difficult and the tenant gets a black mark against them. Public housing must be a priority. It is a foundational need to have a roof over one's head, not a right. A need.
Broadly supportive of this, though can I point out super narrow townhouses can actually be inefficient? Friends I know have bought three-story townhouses as their first homes. They're so narrow that the staircases take up what feels about 1/4 of each floor.
In comparison, my Italian family lives in "apartments" that are the whole floor of the building.
For the same amount of space as 3x three-story townhouses, you can have 3x whole-floor apartments with more floorspace for each. Still no backyard for those who actually garden though
While the designs of narrow townhouses makes it easy to allocate each one a backyard, I also agree whole-floor apartments are more functional spaces. I wonder if a good architect would be capable of designing a 3x whole-floor apartment complex that still allocates a private backyard for each residence without it being too convoluted to access or too intrusive on the bottom floor residents.
Alternatively, perhaps introducing balcony designs that are capable of growing grass could offer people a way to have a “backyard” at any elevation. I’ve been to apartment complexes that had the roof setup as a garden with real grass growing, so I imagine there’s already the know-how on how to design such a thing. So long as it’s a whole-floor apartment style and only a few stories high, it seems like it’d be feasible to design the layout so the “garden” balconies aren’t overshadowed by the floor above and get access to direct sunlight.
Sounds good to me. I would like to see it.
But when it comes to housing price growth, the primary reason is inflation. And I’m not talking about the simplistic way it’s “measured”. I’m talking about the endless increase in money supply. Those holding the keys benefit immensely from inflation, but take care to reign in its symptoms.
For me, the best way to prove this is to graph wages in gold and house prices in gold over the past 100 years. What you will find is that houses are priced reasonably, but typical current wages are very very low.
How many empty homes again? Supply and demand heavily skewed when supply is restricted by land bankers, investors, airbnb and rentiers. Its the same as in the rest of the anglo-world with property laws based on old English feudalism.
I think we can do better than town houses, no ability to have widows on two sides makes for a dark and poorly ventilated space, 4 or 5 level apartments with shops and shared outdoor area below seem like the sweet spot maximizing the cost effective nature of shared utilities without getting to big to know all your neighbours if thats what you want. I think there have been studies that show when you get to about 100 ppl communites start to break down so I'd be aiming for 50 to 80 ppl in a block 4 to 5 stories high.
I agree with just about everything you’ve said, but as an outsider the one thing I’ve always wondered about Australia, is why the capital cities (and the CBDs therein) have such a stranglehold on the economy? The vast majority of folks-immigrants and citizens-want good jobs and Covid gave us a crash course in working from home, so why doesn’t give incentives to companies to setup an office out of the CBDs and/or in a brand new city? The desert is no longer a good excuse, because we have desalination tech. It’s not strictly necessary, because as you’ve pointed out, the cities could be far denser, but why is it not even entertained?
The Whitlam government in the 1970s attempted to promote decentralisation in certain new growth area projects around the country such as Albury-Wodonga (the most successful case, now has 100k people), Orange/Bathurst (NSW) and Monarto (SA). Unfortunately the program was canned by the Fraser government when they gained power and nobody since has seriously considered the idea. Now we have Perth which sprawls 150km north-south and Southeast Queensland does the same (although this could still be stopped in part if more land between Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast was protected.)
They don’t even need to go to the desert lol Australia’s green fertile land can house 200 million people, easily. Same size as Europe (minus Russia) just the green land is the same size as Europe, without even having to consider the desert!
Why is that idea not entertained? I'm sorry to say that, politically, Australia is extremely lacking in creativity, a commitment to a long-term plans/solutions, and taking ANY type of risk. As other people pointed out we really don't even need to bother with the desert as there's still plenty of coastal green space + heaps of small towns already connected to the highway network that could grow but are just completely neglected. There are many ways to approach this issue but we're just frozen in limbo and given empty promises and vague projections of how things should turn out soon.
I would much rather a townhouse than an apartment
I do think townhouses are much better for modern suburbs than detached houses. There should be another classification between high rises and the medium density apartments that we see in Paris for example. As they are quite different to the high density high rises. They are often both classified in the same category which is 'high density' which is unfortunate and isn't doing the cause for medium density apartments any favours. These medium-high density buildings, like what is seen in Barcelona and across Europe, should be central to future developments, with townhouses accompanying them on the side.
Why is it that higher density developments aren't being built? Perhaps a video going into why the detached home has dominated could be a good area of enquiry. I haven't heard why it is that it is that governments continue to pursue what is clearly not advantageous for community building. Surely there is a reason for building companies perhaps? Does government benefit somehow?
fixing this would be getting rid of negative gearing and removal of currrent strictbut useless building code and introduce a free building code like japan does
Train stations should be mandated to have minimum 4-6+ level Townhouse/apartments London/Paris style surrounding them, not dog box nonsense Government sycophants have colluded with developers to build. Other mates to approve, might cut out some of this land banking for future 10,000+ housing divisions too. Try to have an actual independent regulator that isn't captured like the government regulators, for the ones that aren't at the very least get enough funding to be effective (We can dream).
Townhouses are not the answer. The density of townhouses does not permit the construction of mass public transport. London is a terrible example to focus on, because it's tube and overground network was mostly built at a point in history when there were no transport alternatives. The model is therefore not replicable in a modern city since the local inhabitants of a tube station are not captive of the local rail company: the tube network was a for-profit venture, nowadays mass transit has to be subsidised by local authorities. Notwithstanding the fact that even in London there's often long walks to join your nearest tube station.
townhouses can work for public transport decently well, it just depends on the kind and the size of the townhouses
2 storey rowhouses sure maybe you could only do street cars, like old streetcar suburbs
you get up around 7 storey townhouses like paris has, thats plenty of density for mass transit
Look into micro-mobility , that's the answer (and townhouses) you don't need train stations or bus stops every 100 - 250m
Have you actually been to any suburbs in Australian cities? I don’t thinks so. I live in what I would call a middle ring suburb about 25 km for the cbd and every stand alone house that has sold in my street in the past 5 years has been knocked down and replaced with a duplex, which is close to what you are calling townhouses.
Terrace houses are absolutely the best way to provide “missing middle” housing, in my opinion. The classic Melbourne two or three story terrace houses are the perfect size for a family in the suburbs. They also make it possible to have more local shops, particularly at the corner on intersections, with people living above like a flat. I live in North Melbourne, which used to be the most densely populated suburb in Melbourne, long before they built the huge public housing towers, and the whole suburb is mostly terraces!
Semi-detached townhouses are also perfect for outer suburbs, with enough space for a path down the side of the house, or at least to put your bins. The majority of England outside of London is semi-detached townhouses, and it leaves enough room for a decent sized backyard while still being dense enough to make it possible to provide enough services. Single story terrace houses are okay, but only provide as much space as a typical unit and so they’re not really big enough for a family, all these houses that were built in places like Carlton have now had the attic space turned into a second floor to provide enough space.
The main issue I know of is parking minimums, because many infill builds require additional parking to be created, even when near public transport, and that prohibits good terrace houses. In the past this was solved with laneways that provided access at the back, but that isn’t always possible with infill and it also removes most of the space for a backyard.
The best option next to train stations will always be appartments, and I’d argue next to tram stops too, but they only need to be around six storeys in the inner suburbs and 3-4 storeys in the outer suburbs. These are also a great way for state/council governments to provide public housing as they’re close to public transport and other amenities. At least one or two of the apartment blocks can also have shops on the ground floor.
Apartments are small nd cramped and have little to NO storage and nowadays NO PARKING
5:27 "If we want to meet the surging demand for housing..." I don't? Happy to vote directy on it, and cop the 'negative economic impacts' supposedly associated with lower immigration.
IMO, the main reason people object to increased density is that the social contract they agreed to when purchasing their property, is now being changed unilaterally, with all the associated negative externalities borne by the existing residents.
All these 'fixes' are a one-off solution. If you add apartments all over the place near existing facilities, the existing residents in those areas will be squeezed out (can't park at the supermarket, can't get on the train, overcrowded schools etc). Once the current tranche of increased-density developments are completed, what comes next? More immigration and we run the whole process all over again with a suburb "only 1 hour away on the train"?
Improving services needs to come alongside (and just prior to) any increased density coming online. When was the last time an apartment developer was required to make half the block into an addiional pubic park, or purchase a couple of extra trains to run on the closely-located rail corridor? We haven't signed up to live in London or Paris - this is Australia, and to me that should mean we remain unique.
There's no value in trying to just squeeze in as many people as possible for no good reason, simply because they wanted to come here and were approved for a visa. Especially without even asking the existing popuation whether they support it.
You cant go for Apartments. Especially in NSW as they are never built properly today and the corruption in the industry means they are usually dangerous . What is necessary is a tax driven divestment of homes. With the only investment property's allowed are new builds. Tax penalties for Short term rentals like Air B&B as a huge amount of its profit doesnt get tax paid on it going overseas. The big part of this problem was the last LNP Federal Government giving trillions to the banks and removing a lot of regulation. The big issue with the Aussie bank model is the interest rates for home loans are always floating never fixed and they put a 2% margin on them as a minimum. Far greater than anywhere else in the world. The overseas investment in property by non Aussies needs to be managed, Allow it but only through a public serving management group that can control where and what the money goes into. Add to that empty home penalties and it would also correct a huge part of the problem. LNP side of politics thinks adding more money is the ultimate fix but all that does is raise prices and barely adds to supply. The problem is now any government that does anything to reduce the cost of homes by flexing the market is going to get caned as there is so much invested in it now it wont ever be allowed to fail.
Air BNB should be heavily regulated and licensed. It is astounding that they can run what amounts to Hotels. Must have been some nice kickbacks for letting that in unfettered.
When you see Canberra and much of that footage you realise that Australian's don't want housing density, they want expensive houses and land to be within their budget, and then they want no development that reduces the property evaluation. That said townhouses are not really an ideal solution or middle density, building better mid-rise apartments would be superior and cheaper.
The Australian Prime Minister has 3 investment properties and writes that off on negative gearing. so he isn't going to out an end to that anytime soon.
I love the rhetoric to reduce our carbon footprints but then the only housing that can be built is car dependent suburban sprawl.
Become a peasant living on your own land, then you won't need a car.
Immigration is only required to bolster the economy in general because we’ve sold all of assets and resources for peanuts and we don’t tax any multinational profits earned here. The reason we have no schools and hospitals for the new urban sprawl is because we can’t afford it and the developers release the land slowly to artificially maintain high prices.
Agree. More mixed use zoning provided means the more solutions available for different problems. However builders aren't interested due to the cost efficiency. Which they already squeeze land like sponges anyways. Real problem is 0 effort from state governments to change zoning laws and federal govt to put the hatchet on negative gearing. Nothing will change though because politicians are the biggest abusers of these laws haha
Lots of Water around the main cities like Sydney, Brisbane , Perth & Melbourne
That is why Houseboats are the answer . Lets start building quality Houseboats.
Mate what 😂😂😂 floating caravan parks aye
the fix is to not floor insane amounts of new people into the county and lowering building regulations.
We need to build higher density in existing suburbs..
Backyard terraces are also a good option. Many older single family neighbourhoods have enough space behind the houses to fit an entire row of terraces between the legacy single family homes. This can bring a fourfold increase in density without any change to the streetscape. (Assuming that preserving the streetscape is something that locals deem to be important).
This is what I would like to see more of. Developers keeping the existing house and then building 1-2 townhouses/units behind it. That way density increases without having the new houses stick out like a sore thumb.
There’s lots of these happening in the southwest like Cabramatta and Liverpool because most of the detached houses there were built in the 60s and 70s, which have massive lands with small living quarters. But even for these backyard terraces in a suburb like Cabramatta is going for more than $1.2 million
Town house suck to provide waste services and lots of problems with on street parking. Easier to provide services to apartment buildings with services.
Also house blocks are now about the same size as ye old town houses epically when you add the rear lane way. I think you are looking for low rise buildings with generous space within rather than rat boxes not suitable for families Perhaps .ore like Barcelona
Townhouses are a great idea. There are also more singles now than ever and downsizers with the large cohort of boomers don't all want to go into apartments. My area of Berwick 40+kms from Melbourne doesn't have apartments but is building some very sought after townhouses. We do have multiple school choices and direct transit so more diversity is needed.
Singles could easily live in dongers.
Just allow 5-6 story town houses everywhere. Please put some pressure on politicians to allow this.
Realistically you’d have to mandate a minimum of 3 stories for example for inner city suburbs within X distance of train stations to deter the wealthy from subverting the plan
The NSW government currently putting forward policy’s for this
I have to disagree. While Surry Hills is considered dense. It truthfully needs apartments due to its proximity to the CBD and transport. Similar to a lot of Australian suburbs. They honestly need more apartments because that’s the most effective way of bringing down prices.
Also tiny detail. But there is a difference between townhouses and terrace houses
NSW Government is working on pattern books for easily copied townhouse designs
Inner-middle ring suburbs like camberwell and surrey hills in melbourne will never have this (sorry)
Gotta fix the zoning first tho!
That record has been on repeat since 1976. Just letting you know.
Next generation needs to go live in cities of 100,000 population etc.
Townhouse permits are often blocked by local council too (they don’t just block apartment applications). We probably need to take Planning decisions away from local councils because their agenda is to please local residents who don’t want any form of density in their suburbs. Decisions on planning might be better made by state government. Local councils are not incentivised to fix housing shortages but they have all the power to block applications that would address the issue.
This is what could happen in Sydney, there are some regulation changes trying to get pushed through that will take away control from councils. which will mean the NIMBYs won't be able to bog them down.
I don't understand why we even have them, they even had a referendum and the people voted against having this extra level of Government. They are pretty much operating illegally. At least morally.
One factor in play is that Australian houses generally do not have as much space as European and American houses because we don't build houses with basements. Often a US or EU house of the same size has 1/3rd to double the storage space. This is a big problem for me. I need to move house with a library of books. No single bed dwelling has the space. Australia's lack of basements is a quirk of history. The soil harbors a fungi that destroys woody material so early building did not go down. We have he technology to fix that now but not the expertise. Basements are simply not taught in Australian architecture and building schools.
The Government has to allow and promote densification by allowing high rise residentials - especially around transport hubs. There has to be more supply of 3 bedroom units. 2 bedroom is just not sufficient for a growing family that may occasionally host guests. This has to go hand in hand with enforcing stricter building rules with to increase buyer confidence. Shoddy town houses are now costing like houses 5 years ago. With increased unit supply, town house price will come down.