Housing Affordability
- Thread starter jsj
- Start date
We need to compare apples with apples.
The first home for a young married couple 30 years ago (there were almost no unmarried home buyers back then - especially women) was a very basic, older 3 bed or 2 bed home on the edge of civilisation. One living room, one bathroom and maybe a dining room or dining area.
You needed 20% deposit, a steady job for a number of years with a good savings record.
Then you went to the Bank, cap in hand, bowing your head while saying "please can I have a loan?"
Some were buying a new home in a new housing estate, but there were no curtains, fences, furniture and no interest free terms to buy it all. There was little access to car loans and no credit cards, so the car was a second hand one, if at all.
If you wanted to buy that same house on the edge of civilisation today, you could do it for under $200k in every State in Aus.
But no-one wants them.
Other than investors who will rent them to the not-so-well-off, sit on them for 5 years or so until civilisation moves past them and they double or triple in value.
.We need to compare apples with apples.
If you wanted to buy that same house on the edge of civilisation today, you could do it for under $200k in every State in Aus.
But no-one wants them.
Other than investors who will rent them to the not-so-well-off, sit on them for 5 years or so until civilisation moves past them and they double or triple in value.
Agree LAA.
There are houses in every state for under 250-280k...but very few want to live there. Also, people today thumb their noses at fibro or the old 60s units and houses.
Even today...people in 80k combined incomes can get into houses in Sydney (35-40klms out close to stations)...sure they will need work...but generally structurally sound. Also you can still buy 2 br units for less than 170k less than 15klsm from town...but these will have migrant populations. This require a income of less than 60k.
But even with this there will still be a housing shortage.
However, this housing crisis may get people to think about some of the areas like Canterbury/ Bankstown where prices are affordable.
Unfortunately.....there are a lot of princes and princesses on good 50k-70k incomes who thumb their noses at these suburbs. They do so at their detriment...because these suburbs will rise very fast the next boom.
and being a sheep, they chase after these areas after the boom occurred and cafe culture sets in
hi. there will be a repeat on sunday
Yes and no. Especially in Sydney and Melbourne there are already numerous suburban centres that could fulfil these requirements and already have the infrastructure.
Examples of outer-suburban rail-linked 'urban villages' walking distance to shopping etc in Melbourne include Lalor/Thomastown, Glenroy, Dandenong, Boronia, Sunshine, Croydon, Lilydale, Noble Park, Chelsea, Craigieburn, Roxburgh Park and Frankston. ALL of these are affordable to first homebuyers with prices for a small 1br unit starting from about $120k in the cheapest area.
Some of these are undoubtedly tired looking, and this was the aim behind Melbourne 2030/Transit Cities which (just like NSW's version) was just a pile of rhetoric and few substantive projects.
Though the checks & balances of a democracy make it harder, what you want can still be done.
Look at Allanah McTiernan (WA infrastructure minister), Perth's 'Network City' plan, her ministerial statements and recent completed transport projects as examples of how it can be done (although Perth house prices are still high).
Well said tcocaro.
I don't know how you guys do it in Sydney.
At present it takes me 25 seconds to drive to work.(I need the car for work or yes I would walk)
my other job it is considered locally to be extreme at 25 mins.
I put up with melb traffic for 7 years and don't miss it a bit.
I really think more people would enjoy living in smaller areas and the towns along the coast in North queensland are thriving economically, socially and with great natural beauty. Same award wages and lower cost of living.
Cheap flights nowadays mean we can get a bit of culture every now and then to avoid going completely troppo.
I don't know how you guys do it in Sydney.
At present it takes me 25 seconds to drive to work.(I need the car for work or yes I would walk)
my other job it is considered locally to be extreme at 25 mins.
I put up with melb traffic for 7 years and don't miss it a bit.
I really think more people would enjoy living in smaller areas and the towns along the coast in North queensland are thriving economically, socially and with great natural beauty. Same award wages and lower cost of living.
Cheap flights nowadays mean we can get a bit of culture every now and then to avoid going completely troppo.
Last edited:
umm think you missed the point
Spiderman, not sure exactly why you are referring to these suburbs, these are prime examples of exactly the falacy of our current thinking. In short these suburbs are the status quo.
I think you misunderstood what I am proposing as a solution its definetly not the usual recipe e.g. small strip mall with single anchor tenant, bus\train link and "cheap" houses surrounding this central node.
Without repeating much of my earlier comments what we must seek to acheive is to do away with the whole notion of central (retail) surrounded by residential such as the suburbs you mentioned. By saying they are "walking" distance sounds more like a developers brochure than reality. Whens is the last time you walked 20 minutes holding onto shopping bags? (and i say 20 minutes to be kind because some of the suburbs you mentioned are 10square kilometres in size, say the bulk of the suburb lives 5 linear k's from the shops? thats a 2 hour walk?
What we need is GENUINE integrated communities and more major retail, a strip mall achieves nothing more than your weekly groceries, they dont increase employment, they instead foster loitering, crime and poor services because no one in there right mind would invest in a limited space/retail mall?
Probably an example of what I mention is Prymont in Sydney whereby it is riddled with office, retail and cafes throughout. But when i mention this suburb most people say the same thing "oh but thats basically the city" my point exactly we need a more city approach to urban fringe and unfortunately if Pyrmont doesnt even have a train station (WHAT A JOKE???) then i dont think NSW or Australia can expect the urban fringe to be improved anytime soon and with it home affordability.
Spiderman, not sure exactly why you are referring to these suburbs, these are prime examples of exactly the falacy of our current thinking. In short these suburbs are the status quo.
I think you misunderstood what I am proposing as a solution its definetly not the usual recipe e.g. small strip mall with single anchor tenant, bus\train link and "cheap" houses surrounding this central node.
Without repeating much of my earlier comments what we must seek to acheive is to do away with the whole notion of central (retail) surrounded by residential such as the suburbs you mentioned. By saying they are "walking" distance sounds more like a developers brochure than reality. Whens is the last time you walked 20 minutes holding onto shopping bags? (and i say 20 minutes to be kind because some of the suburbs you mentioned are 10square kilometres in size, say the bulk of the suburb lives 5 linear k's from the shops? thats a 2 hour walk?
What we need is GENUINE integrated communities and more major retail, a strip mall achieves nothing more than your weekly groceries, they dont increase employment, they instead foster loitering, crime and poor services because no one in there right mind would invest in a limited space/retail mall?
Probably an example of what I mention is Prymont in Sydney whereby it is riddled with office, retail and cafes throughout. But when i mention this suburb most people say the same thing "oh but thats basically the city" my point exactly we need a more city approach to urban fringe and unfortunately if Pyrmont doesnt even have a train station (WHAT A JOKE???) then i dont think NSW or Australia can expect the urban fringe to be improved anytime soon and with it home affordability.
Alot of the "Activity centres" in Melbourne are going for an integrated residential / retail / commercial approach to buildings. They would be centred around a transport hub.
I don't know if its feasable to do that for an entire suburb though......what do you propose be done with the houses that are more than 5-10 minutes wallk from the station?
The main distinguishing part of these suburbs is that they comprise a rail node co-sited with at least medium sized shopping facilities (except Lalor & Craigieburn where they're about 500m away). Their houses are all below the Melbourne median.
It is true that the majority of houses are 20 minutes (or more) walk from these centres but it is possible to buy homes that aren't. To overcome this, I presume that you're suggesting greater densities and major shopping areas maybe 1-2 km apart instead of 3-5km apart?
Though the above pattern (shopping areas grouped around railway stations) might be regarded as 'status quo' (as it was up until the 1960s) it's generally been the exception rather than the rule in the period since. If we had stuck to what you call 'status quo' of tying transport with retail and jobs then we'd have been much better off now.
As an example, new Melbourne suburban railway stations have been built at Kananook, Heatherdale, Merinda Park and Keilor Plains since the 1970s. None of these have significant retail nearby.
Similarly 99% of new retail is built just beyond walking distance from railway stations (1-3 km). For example Chadstone versus Oakleigh, Woodgrove/High St versus Melton station, Fountain Gate versus Narre Warren, Patterson Lakes versus Carrum, Caroline Springs, Burnside and much more. Rail passes Southland Shopping Centre but 40 years on there is no station there.
The above is what I regard as the status quo, and with petrol price, climate change and resource pressures it proved to be extremely short-sighted.
Counterexamples could be the Box Hill redevelopment in the 1980s and the Melbourne Central redevelopment in the 2000s as examples of retail co-located with transit. However in both cases intermodal transfer is far from seamless as the priority has been funelling passengers through shops rather than to speed trips.
Roxburgh Park and Sydenham/Watergardens are about the only other counterexamples and possibly the best we have. But in the former the shopping centre preceded the railway station by years so the development isn't that well integrated with long walks in between. Similarly for Watergardens, pedestrian access between the two required people to cut through a fence and walk over a mud track for some time.
Hence when I cited the suburbs mentioned before (most of which were developed before WWII), while there is some underutilised land that could represent redevelopment opportunities (similar to Elsternwick) they are a far better base to start from that almost anything else that has been built since.
hmm
Spiderman read your response and still feel that they are simply examples of "better suburbs" in the mixed bag of "bad suburbs" which comprise "all suburbs".
In short be honest would you walk 20mins to the shops? with kids? bags coming back? the answer is no.
In terms of the main focus of this thread "affordability" It doesnt matter how close you are to the shops the question is does it result in more affordable housing?
The shops that these suburbs have dont have any of the facilities which would justify someone wanting to live there over living closer to the city and if this continues there will be less demmand for outer fringe suburbs and more for inner and hence keeping prices up.
plain and simple.
And the solution is easy, replicate those features that make inner city suburbs desirable further out west, create micro cities dont just rely on one behemoth being the sydney, melbourne etc. i.e. central singular centres for employment (we dont all serve chips at macas) we need offices (which would have the spin off effect of reducing rental for business), we need entertainment (no.. walking up and down a strip mall doesnt tickle my fancy) and transport (train to where? oh to shops\work\entertainment) basically all these train stops are designed to take you from disfunctional outer suburbs to inner city\city suburbs which are overpriced as a consequence.
But to do this and as my original post indicates to it requires, firm planning, backed with infrastructure $$ and an aknowledgment that there will be always people that complain and hence government needs the ability to ignore these people and rely on the results to speak for themselves.
Easier said than done but something will give.
I feel completely uninspired in Australia right now, we look back to the snowy river scheme as the last major accomplishments but it takes now 10-20 years to introduce a new train line?? (roughly the same time to build 16 dams, 7 power stations 225 k's of tunnels etc).. PLEASE!!! (and just after a war?).. oh cammon some pull your socks up, atleast admit that SOMETHING is really wrong with this situation of inaction.
Theres no point continuing this thread because I have no faith that change will come until in my view (unfortunately) disaster, recession and high unemployment hits us which then lets the the government have the freedom to tell these small groups that prevent anything from happening to "shutup" and deal with change, they wont have jobs anyways to complain or a house to worry about.
Instead of commiting so much time in community consultation for each and every individual project why not spend the same amount of time ONCE in finding out a process we all sign off on that if followed all suburbs MUST accept without question? then we can stop facing the same walls each and everytime and opposition political parties cant take cheap shots, and everyone would have the confidence to move forward with gusto private & public money alike.
The "case by case" argument is pitiful and just an excuse to revist the same arguments with each and every new group that opposes a development of any kind and until this situation is resolved we will continue seeing new land being released ever further from the city with nice pretty strip malls and a nice little tree lined bus route to no-where because thats what we developers will demmand from government because us like everyone else cant be "stuffed" solving the real problems to allow us to provide whats so desperately needed to solve the current affordability crisis.
Spiderman read your response and still feel that they are simply examples of "better suburbs" in the mixed bag of "bad suburbs" which comprise "all suburbs".
In short be honest would you walk 20mins to the shops? with kids? bags coming back? the answer is no.
In terms of the main focus of this thread "affordability" It doesnt matter how close you are to the shops the question is does it result in more affordable housing?
The shops that these suburbs have dont have any of the facilities which would justify someone wanting to live there over living closer to the city and if this continues there will be less demmand for outer fringe suburbs and more for inner and hence keeping prices up.
plain and simple.
And the solution is easy, replicate those features that make inner city suburbs desirable further out west, create micro cities dont just rely on one behemoth being the sydney, melbourne etc. i.e. central singular centres for employment (we dont all serve chips at macas) we need offices (which would have the spin off effect of reducing rental for business), we need entertainment (no.. walking up and down a strip mall doesnt tickle my fancy) and transport (train to where? oh to shops\work\entertainment) basically all these train stops are designed to take you from disfunctional outer suburbs to inner city\city suburbs which are overpriced as a consequence.
But to do this and as my original post indicates to it requires, firm planning, backed with infrastructure $$ and an aknowledgment that there will be always people that complain and hence government needs the ability to ignore these people and rely on the results to speak for themselves.
Easier said than done but something will give.
I feel completely uninspired in Australia right now, we look back to the snowy river scheme as the last major accomplishments but it takes now 10-20 years to introduce a new train line?? (roughly the same time to build 16 dams, 7 power stations 225 k's of tunnels etc).. PLEASE!!! (and just after a war?).. oh cammon some pull your socks up, atleast admit that SOMETHING is really wrong with this situation of inaction.
Theres no point continuing this thread because I have no faith that change will come until in my view (unfortunately) disaster, recession and high unemployment hits us which then lets the the government have the freedom to tell these small groups that prevent anything from happening to "shutup" and deal with change, they wont have jobs anyways to complain or a house to worry about.
Instead of commiting so much time in community consultation for each and every individual project why not spend the same amount of time ONCE in finding out a process we all sign off on that if followed all suburbs MUST accept without question? then we can stop facing the same walls each and everytime and opposition political parties cant take cheap shots, and everyone would have the confidence to move forward with gusto private & public money alike.
The "case by case" argument is pitiful and just an excuse to revist the same arguments with each and every new group that opposes a development of any kind and until this situation is resolved we will continue seeing new land being released ever further from the city with nice pretty strip malls and a nice little tree lined bus route to no-where because thats what we developers will demmand from government because us like everyone else cant be "stuffed" solving the real problems to allow us to provide whats so desperately needed to solve the current affordability crisis.
I have to agree with Timothy. Particularly Sydney which in certain parts is beginning to look more and more like an episode of coronation street. The reality is Generation X (myself) and Generation Y (the one under me) do want cinemas, cafes, wine bars, restaurants, comedy shows, etc.
I lived in London for 2 years and almost every night was spent going to a unique wine bar, maybe catching a live show before a decent curry down in Brick Lane, wandering the high street (outside unlike most of our megaplexes) shopping, going to the many art shows around town.
Let's face it we are an international city with an eclectic group of people. Can you find a decent wine bar in Sydney. Good Luck. Found one in Surry Hills but that was an effort. Melbourne on the other hand has got that side of things right. Cafes. Great. But the suburbs should be built like little cities. Recently an article was written complaining about Penrith and the lack of people out and about. Well who can blame them. Unless you want to go to Penrith Plaza which has as much character as Osama Bin Laden on a pub crawl then forget it.
Maybe people need to realise, like Tim said, not many of the younger generation (35-40 years old included) want to sit at home watching tele. We like socialising and getting out and enjoying life. Pity the burbs offer very little in that respect.
I lived in London for 2 years and almost every night was spent going to a unique wine bar, maybe catching a live show before a decent curry down in Brick Lane, wandering the high street (outside unlike most of our megaplexes) shopping, going to the many art shows around town.
Let's face it we are an international city with an eclectic group of people. Can you find a decent wine bar in Sydney. Good Luck. Found one in Surry Hills but that was an effort. Melbourne on the other hand has got that side of things right. Cafes. Great. But the suburbs should be built like little cities. Recently an article was written complaining about Penrith and the lack of people out and about. Well who can blame them. Unless you want to go to Penrith Plaza which has as much character as Osama Bin Laden on a pub crawl then forget it.
Maybe people need to realise, like Tim said, not many of the younger generation (35-40 years old included) want to sit at home watching tele. We like socialising and getting out and enjoying life. Pity the burbs offer very little in that respect.
great posts tcacoro, thanks for bringing up the point on self serving groups.
i think what you have highlighted is that the people who are finding housing unaffordable should be more vocal about this issue.
what i see is bunch of hypocritical groups who are just trying to serve their own interests while trying to pretend they care.
i think what you have highlighted is that the people who are finding housing unaffordable should be more vocal about this issue.
what i see is bunch of hypocritical groups who are just trying to serve their own interests while trying to pretend they care.
I'm 33 living in Melbourne. Maybe I'm easily pleased but these days (vs 15 yrs ago) I find it very hard to justify going to the city as almost everything is within a short drive (5 -15 min) which I find very acceptable. Work is a 20 minute drive away and that is on purpose - I don't want to shop / socialise in the same suburb as my clients (had some awkward moments working in country towns and learned my lesson). The city used to have a pretty unique retail experience but now most of the shops are in the suburbs too. Most services are easily available and many require less face to face contact anyway (emial, internet, fax etc). Going to the city is a pain in the a$$ both in time and cost so I only go if friends arrange the venue or if there is something unique - Comedy festival, fireworks, etc. Those things aren't going to happen in every "mini city" anyway. I certainly would not want to live in the city though I could afford to do so if I chose. As far as walking to the shops with kids.....well I cant do that but I'd rather have them run around the back yard than sit in a 4th story apartment playing PS3 all day.
Its not all about shopping and decaf cafe lattes with soy. Alot of people chose to live in the burbs by choice rather than being forced. I'm in favour of the cities within cities concept but I think there is a solid place for "better suburbs" too. At the present there is an undersupply of the dwellings you advocate. Go to Taiwan and everyone would love to have a back yard and a house like mine.
Superbly argued there tcocaro! Agree completely. It's about time as a society we got our act together.
I'd also add that the current government's preferred method is to plan badly, execute very little, and then use the private sector for the few short sighted things they do decide to go ahead with. The private sector wants a quick ROI so it pretty much rules out any real long term planning / infrustructure. Governments need to assume their responsibilities again.
Dis, thanks for your post i was when i originally posted my views thinking i would get an avalanche of negativity or better said (opposing views) and got very surprised when i didn't, so i am glad you posted an alternative view.
However from your post and several others on the issue the problem is you are still viewing my comments within the paradigm of the current planning regime. Rather than repeating my comment i will try and pick certain points you raise and provide some clarification.
Also i would like to state that I am not proposing a complete eradication of the burbs there will always be a large percentage wanting to play PS2 or read a book or watch the daisy's grow (I am a bit condescending but really just trying to be funny - smile) and its not my intention to prevent people from having choice rather the opposite. I want people to have choice, i.e. the choice to have city life-style without the price tag which in my view is the core problem with affordability today over-demand for limited inner-city supply. (rent is also going up for the same reason)
Before i continue with my ramblings and as promised I will hone in on some of your comments;
*i already pointed out that I am not trying to justify a complete 100% eradication of the burbs.
*from the sound of this your relatively close to the city? inner city? Am i right? (i am also trying to restrain myself from discussing the green issue in that you still have to drive to everywhere but thats for another topic) I am pretty sure you don't live outer-west (if in Sydney) i would doubt that very much and thats where the so-called affordable housing is going and the topic of discussion in this thread.
*ummmm exactly my point??? you prefer to play PS2 but you admit that going to the city is "a pain in the a$$". I agree and hence why people want to live in the city to avoid parking, travel, etc particularly those people that dont like PS2 or atleast dont play it 24/7.
*how about a large park where several children can play and "socialise" (my god an activity the youth have forgotten anyways because in my view the "burbs" are open aired prisons because kids rely on you to "Drive" them everywhere because "nothing" is near you) you could even stay in your apartment playing PS2? while they play... this goes to the heart of my planning argument, I would love to see higher density development in an amongst parks etc for children, near schools so they can walk there. (tight integration). Whereas the parks out west are pathetic i would let my kids play and equipment obviously made in the time of the caveman? rubbished, littered and disused? In short old conventions need to be re-looked at, we have basically the same planning model since the world fair in the USA since the 30's when this whole "burbs" mentality started.
*completely agree, its about education, schools, universities, libraries, swimming pools, retail, work, office, hospitals, medical centers, bus stations, light rail, bars, bowling alleys, wine bars, expo's, convention centers, museums, cinemas, restaurants.. just a few of the things that are not within walking distance of my house? is it wrong to want atleast some of them?
To simplify this argument in labeling me and other like minded people into caffe sipping yuppy idealists is about are right as me labeling all people living in the burbs as boring, tea sipping tree huggers that drive a 4wd drive for that occasional 10 year trip to hunter valley where they may "hit the gravel road" for a 10 metre stretch.
The problem is that right now there is NO option for those persons that want what I am advocating and as a result theres a large percentage of the market pushing the price up for ALL of us, straining current infrastructure which affect ALL of us even those in the burbs.. let me just remind you... "Going to the city is a pain in the a$$ both in time and cost" - you can thank us for that clogging up the road and pushing prices up.
I hope i have not offended you with any of my comments, I am very passionate and that sometimes gets me in the wrong must be all that "cafe" (dont have decaf) or maybe getting wound up in the traffic to my work at norwest business park a huge central node for workers.. oh yeh which reminds me where there is no train station HAHHA omg what a complete joke which genius at nsw planning made that call, oh but its ok.. theres the orbital which oh thats right needs a car... but wait i just read the paper theres a train coming in 2017.. oh such perfect planning.
anyways enjoy your day and keep smiling.
However from your post and several others on the issue the problem is you are still viewing my comments within the paradigm of the current planning regime. Rather than repeating my comment i will try and pick certain points you raise and provide some clarification.
Also i would like to state that I am not proposing a complete eradication of the burbs there will always be a large percentage wanting to play PS2 or read a book or watch the daisy's grow (I am a bit condescending but really just trying to be funny - smile) and its not my intention to prevent people from having choice rather the opposite. I want people to have choice, i.e. the choice to have city life-style without the price tag which in my view is the core problem with affordability today over-demand for limited inner-city supply. (rent is also going up for the same reason)
Before i continue with my ramblings and as promised I will hone in on some of your comments;
*i already pointed out that I am not trying to justify a complete 100% eradication of the burbs.
*from the sound of this your relatively close to the city? inner city? Am i right? (i am also trying to restrain myself from discussing the green issue in that you still have to drive to everywhere but thats for another topic) I am pretty sure you don't live outer-west (if in Sydney) i would doubt that very much and thats where the so-called affordable housing is going and the topic of discussion in this thread.
*ummmm exactly my point??? you prefer to play PS2 but you admit that going to the city is "a pain in the a$$". I agree and hence why people want to live in the city to avoid parking, travel, etc particularly those people that dont like PS2 or atleast dont play it 24/7.
*how about a large park where several children can play and "socialise" (my god an activity the youth have forgotten anyways because in my view the "burbs" are open aired prisons because kids rely on you to "Drive" them everywhere because "nothing" is near you) you could even stay in your apartment playing PS2? while they play... this goes to the heart of my planning argument, I would love to see higher density development in an amongst parks etc for children, near schools so they can walk there. (tight integration). Whereas the parks out west are pathetic i would let my kids play and equipment obviously made in the time of the caveman? rubbished, littered and disused? In short old conventions need to be re-looked at, we have basically the same planning model since the world fair in the USA since the 30's when this whole "burbs" mentality started.
*completely agree, its about education, schools, universities, libraries, swimming pools, retail, work, office, hospitals, medical centers, bus stations, light rail, bars, bowling alleys, wine bars, expo's, convention centers, museums, cinemas, restaurants.. just a few of the things that are not within walking distance of my house? is it wrong to want atleast some of them?
To simplify this argument in labeling me and other like minded people into caffe sipping yuppy idealists is about are right as me labeling all people living in the burbs as boring, tea sipping tree huggers that drive a 4wd drive for that occasional 10 year trip to hunter valley where they may "hit the gravel road" for a 10 metre stretch.
The problem is that right now there is NO option for those persons that want what I am advocating and as a result theres a large percentage of the market pushing the price up for ALL of us, straining current infrastructure which affect ALL of us even those in the burbs.. let me just remind you... "Going to the city is a pain in the a$$ both in time and cost" - you can thank us for that clogging up the road and pushing prices up.
I hope i have not offended you with any of my comments, I am very passionate and that sometimes gets me in the wrong must be all that "cafe" (dont have decaf) or maybe getting wound up in the traffic to my work at norwest business park a huge central node for workers.. oh yeh which reminds me where there is no train station HAHHA omg what a complete joke which genius at nsw planning made that call, oh but its ok.. theres the orbital which oh thats right needs a car... but wait i just read the paper theres a train coming in 2017.. oh such perfect planning.
anyways enjoy your day and keep smiling.
Brilliant post and kudos to you.
I know the best long term result needs to come from the government.
Just as a thought, do you think this could partially achieved privately? Like gated communities? Run a few of these 'features' (cafes, whatever) at a loss (or provide incentives for others to start up) for an increase in profits on the developments in the area? I know this is occurring at a small scale, I'm thinking bigger scale.
Unfortunately not. The cost/risk would be too great and its not just up to us developers for instant the tenants just wont come, woolworths requires 20 thousand people in radius to move in, cinemas etc wont budge until the people are there.
Our best bet (cost effective) and realistic option given the urban sprawl that has already happened is start a move inward. What i mean is rezone larger sections of existing house/industrial/retail which already exists. Botany has rezoned their industrial to residential this has been a wasted opportunity for example they could (with a little foresight) have rezoned into residential\retail\commercial\office. The people are already there so the tenants would have come in, developers obliged and the existing residential would have benefited.
Instead council did the typical easy thing and just rezoned the whole lot to residential.
Rouse hill is an attempt but you they have been let down by government (no trains etc) single developers cannot pull that off alone even developers the size of GPT.
Its frustrating because with a wave of a pen large chunks of existing "dated" industrial zones in areas they shouldn't be in because over time residential infill has occurred over time can be rezoned.
Council unfortunately have a centric view to planning and this wont change anytime soon. By centric i mean the neat and tidy view that you have a central retail surrounded by another circle of medium\higher density surround by another circle of low density.
The other points stopping councils is pressure from existing retail centres, Westfields have built its ENTIRE strategy on the assumptions that councils will be planning well into the future based on this centric methodology. Just imagine what would happen if suburbs surrounding parramatta started to have retail\office etc zonings of their own. Frank Lowy would have babies. Westfields will simply sink, those massive shopping centres would die if people had choice or a closer more convenient option.
Thats why part and parcel of what I am proposing is that government stop listening to ALL of us or else those with deep pockets would side-rail any attempt for change. Hell i would fight tooth and nail if I was westfields on such changes HOWEVER if i woke up one morning and it was legislated i would move as quick as possible to adapt and start building according to the new planning regime.
Its funny how business adapts so quick but fights so hard to adapt.
anyways... have a good evening.
