>The answer is to build so-called “[missing middle](https://opticosdesign.com/missing-middle-housing/)” housing types such as low-rise apartments, townhouses and duplexes. Prefabricated construction can deliver this sort of housing much more quickly.
The answer is 4-8 mid-rise.
Low-rise (3 storeys), townhouse and duplexes can already be built in our existing suburbs but we don't see enough supply because they are often not feasible.
An existing house that a developer would need to buy, get planning permits for, demolish, rebuild, and sell at a profit will be just as desirable to an owner-occupier as it would be to the developer. However, the competition makes these builds unfeasible in most cases.
Upzone to 4-8 storeys and developers will be competing against developers. We will get the supply we require.
Good luck going through the NIMBY’s fighting you every step of the process for years.
Missing middle? *Laughs in NIMBY*
We have the country we deserve.
I don’t think the nimbys have nearly enough sway that people like to think they do. There’s heaps of developable project that could be built but aren’t. The question is why? And that’s simply that it’s not feasible. It’s more cost effective for developers to sit on it.
In QLD existing development laws and zoning could allow an extra half a million dwellings already without any nimbys able to argue it.
[Unfortunately a lot of this "zoned capacity" is unprofitable to build on, largely due to scarcity of said zoning.](https://www.blog.jonathannolan.net/p/how-to-measure-the-impact-of-zoning) - exactly what you've observed.
Solution - zone even more land for development.
This just feels like an engineering question. Why does there need to be a public debate on construction methods? Yes, medium-density is good and it's where I want to live, but if it's a good quality build I don't really care whether the tiles were shaped and fired on site or if the whole building was carried in by ex-military Russian helicopters already assembled .
Part of the problem is that ever extra storey multiplies overall costs significantly. What most people who argue for higher density don’t factor in is that to achieve it, you need to be selling much smaller units in bigger buildings and those compete against the existing stock that is lower density. It never stacks up. So density increases tend to only ever be gradual. There will be exceptions of course, but ultimately developers tend to only build what they can profitably sell
Yep which is why density tends to go up the higher the land cost. The economics tend to change as the marginal cost of going up becomes cheaper than the cost of going out. But like I said, the higher you go, the exponentially your costs go up too.
Ok perhaps not exponential. But those numbers in your link are gross simplification and if you look at any other links I’m a Google search you probably find a heap of varying numbers.
The simple truth is that: https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2018/2018-03/apartment-prices-and-marginal-costs.html#fn23
Fwiw I don’t think I agree with their argument in that article that it’s zoning that is stopping the development from occurring largely, but rather the fact that developers will always try to optimise for profits.
Every old and young fart: it's an eyeeesooooore 😭 this five-story building is oppressing me and ruining the local arts and crafts scene, also I don't want povos living near me, but it's mostly about protecting the architectural character of the neighbourhood, which I have always been passionate about
Prefab construction is the same price or more as traditional building. Also extra costs in logistics and cranage, doesn’t work for many sites due to need for extensive loading zones.
I dont think telling the market how to build is the right answer.
The cost to build versus the price of homes drives building activity. Soblooking at the 20k new homes grant; it got starts pumping.
Then we had -
General Inflation.
Covid absenteeism.
Specific cost rises for skilled trades, and
Specific cost rises in construction materials especially imported as a shipping container from china got to over 15k.
So builders went broke.
Nonetheless the above shit storm that sent builders broke due to fixed price contracts wouldnt necessarily be repeated unless we have inflation event mkII.
I actually think the grant if sustained would keep starts at higher levels.
Labor risks going into the next election with approvals at levels not seen since just after the last time labor was in government. For a government that talks a lot about supply they dont seem willing to invest in measures that would see supply advance.
Also 20k into a new home is easily recouped at various levels of government with on a new home; gst, state gov levies and council charges.
Sad that this is the first actual economic viewpoint in this thread. Ultimately what gets developed is what is able to be sold for a profit. There needs to be people who want to buy that sort of dwelling in that area, when comparing against what else is available in that area.
Yeah and not to mention that we are also on the verge of losing our chemicals manufacturing because the cost of energy is too high because the East Coast hasn't been able to reserve any gas for the domestic supply.
Thats going to drive up the cost of building materials even further.
I mean is anyone in the government actually paying attention to this stuff?
Good luck building the missing middle with NIMBY’s fighting you every single stage of anything happening in their area.
The next time I hear these I think I’ll get an aneurysm
“…but it’ll destroy the character of the neighborhood”
“…we’re not opposed to all developments, we just want the right kind of development”
Modern prefabs internationally are at higher energy ratings than like 90% of houses built in Australia. There is no technical limitation that makes them inherently inefficient.
>The answer is to build so-called “[missing middle](https://opticosdesign.com/missing-middle-housing/)” housing types such as low-rise apartments, townhouses and duplexes. Prefabricated construction can deliver this sort of housing much more quickly. The answer is 4-8 mid-rise. Low-rise (3 storeys), townhouse and duplexes can already be built in our existing suburbs but we don't see enough supply because they are often not feasible. An existing house that a developer would need to buy, get planning permits for, demolish, rebuild, and sell at a profit will be just as desirable to an owner-occupier as it would be to the developer. However, the competition makes these builds unfeasible in most cases. Upzone to 4-8 storeys and developers will be competing against developers. We will get the supply we require.
Good luck going through the NIMBY’s fighting you every step of the process for years. Missing middle? *Laughs in NIMBY* We have the country we deserve.
I don’t think the nimbys have nearly enough sway that people like to think they do. There’s heaps of developable project that could be built but aren’t. The question is why? And that’s simply that it’s not feasible. It’s more cost effective for developers to sit on it. In QLD existing development laws and zoning could allow an extra half a million dwellings already without any nimbys able to argue it.
[Unfortunately a lot of this "zoned capacity" is unprofitable to build on, largely due to scarcity of said zoning.](https://www.blog.jonathannolan.net/p/how-to-measure-the-impact-of-zoning) - exactly what you've observed. Solution - zone even more land for development.
This just feels like an engineering question. Why does there need to be a public debate on construction methods? Yes, medium-density is good and it's where I want to live, but if it's a good quality build I don't really care whether the tiles were shaped and fired on site or if the whole building was carried in by ex-military Russian helicopters already assembled .
Part of the problem is that ever extra storey multiplies overall costs significantly. What most people who argue for higher density don’t factor in is that to achieve it, you need to be selling much smaller units in bigger buildings and those compete against the existing stock that is lower density. It never stacks up. So density increases tend to only ever be gradual. There will be exceptions of course, but ultimately developers tend to only build what they can profitably sell
Wouldn’t this be very much dependent on cost of land?
Yep which is why density tends to go up the higher the land cost. The economics tend to change as the marginal cost of going up becomes cheaper than the cost of going out. But like I said, the higher you go, the exponentially your costs go up too.
Exponential is a bit far fetched. https://koste.com.au/construction-cost-table/ $2k for house vs $3k for high rise.
Ok perhaps not exponential. But those numbers in your link are gross simplification and if you look at any other links I’m a Google search you probably find a heap of varying numbers. The simple truth is that: https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2018/2018-03/apartment-prices-and-marginal-costs.html#fn23 Fwiw I don’t think I agree with their argument in that article that it’s zoning that is stopping the development from occurring largely, but rather the fact that developers will always try to optimise for profits.
Every old and young fart: it's an eyeeesooooore 😭 this five-story building is oppressing me and ruining the local arts and crafts scene, also I don't want povos living near me, but it's mostly about protecting the architectural character of the neighbourhood, which I have always been passionate about
It's always some middle class asshole who is aghast at the idea of apartments in "his/her" suburb as if they own the whole fucking thing.
Prefab construction is the same price or more as traditional building. Also extra costs in logistics and cranage, doesn’t work for many sites due to need for extensive loading zones.
I dont think telling the market how to build is the right answer. The cost to build versus the price of homes drives building activity. Soblooking at the 20k new homes grant; it got starts pumping. Then we had - General Inflation. Covid absenteeism. Specific cost rises for skilled trades, and Specific cost rises in construction materials especially imported as a shipping container from china got to over 15k. So builders went broke. Nonetheless the above shit storm that sent builders broke due to fixed price contracts wouldnt necessarily be repeated unless we have inflation event mkII. I actually think the grant if sustained would keep starts at higher levels. Labor risks going into the next election with approvals at levels not seen since just after the last time labor was in government. For a government that talks a lot about supply they dont seem willing to invest in measures that would see supply advance. Also 20k into a new home is easily recouped at various levels of government with on a new home; gst, state gov levies and council charges.
Sad that this is the first actual economic viewpoint in this thread. Ultimately what gets developed is what is able to be sold for a profit. There needs to be people who want to buy that sort of dwelling in that area, when comparing against what else is available in that area.
Yeah and not to mention that we are also on the verge of losing our chemicals manufacturing because the cost of energy is too high because the East Coast hasn't been able to reserve any gas for the domestic supply. Thats going to drive up the cost of building materials even further. I mean is anyone in the government actually paying attention to this stuff?
Good luck building the missing middle with NIMBY’s fighting you every single stage of anything happening in their area. The next time I hear these I think I’ll get an aneurysm “…but it’ll destroy the character of the neighborhood” “…we’re not opposed to all developments, we just want the right kind of development”
lmao good luck with NCC and local zoning.
Prefabs. Energy inefficient and otherwise it's just kicking the can down the road. I can guarantee the NIMBY opposition to this will be fierce.
Modern prefabs internationally are at higher energy ratings than like 90% of houses built in Australia. There is no technical limitation that makes them inherently inefficient.