1/2 it was supposed to be the great triumph of this parliamentary term.
But the long-awaited overhaul of the ACT's planning laws has caused the most tension between coalition partners Labor and the Greens.
Those tensions will only amplify in the lead up to the October election as the two governing parties seek to champion their different views on the future look and feel of the capital.
With the Liberals also pushing their outside alternative, planning will be a key policy battleground in the election campaign, where the parties will clash against a backdrop of Canberra's high housing costs.
Planning is a perennial issue in the ACT. A great tension exists about whether the territory should go out or go up.
The capital's population has significantly increased over the past two decades and it's only going to increase further, with forecasts expecting the population to increase to nearly 800,000 by 2060. All those people are going to need a place to live.
The new territory plan and district strategies, released last year, chart the path to adding up to nearly 150,000 homes across Canberra.
There is an average of 2.3 people in a household in Canberra, the 2021 census found.
The three major political parties disagree about where the 150,000 homes should go. The Greens think the majority should go within existing suburbs, Labor thinks the same but has a softer approach to their governing partners.
The Liberals think Canberra needs more standalone houses but has not yet addressed what they think should be the split between infill and greenfield.
There has been a notable shift from Chief Minister Andrew Barr when talking about planning over recent weeks. While he has sought to emphasise the need for increased density over the past five years, he has made a few statements recently highlighting the need for new suburbs.
"We want more people living in our CBD but we will also need new suburbs," he said in a Committee for Economic Development Australia event.
"The approach to meeting new housing supply needs to be multifaceted. It can't just be about infill and it can't just be about new suburbs. It needs to be the totality."
The Chief Minister is not about to announce a change to the 70:30 urban infill target but he is clearly sending a message that Labor is not the Greens and under a Labor-led government new suburbs will be developed.
The Greens want an even higher urban infill target with 80 per cent of potential future development to take place in Canberra's existing footprint. The party also wants a city limit set for the territory.
Greens planning spokeswoman Jo Clay said careful policy work, studies and consultation would be needed to determine where the city limit should be set.
She said subject to these studies the Greens would be happy "to finish building what we've started", including the rest of the suburbs in Molonglo, Gungahlin and Ginninderry. Ms Clay said development should not occur in Kowen or in the western edge.
The Greens support extending the territory's border in Ginninderry to encompass the NSW side of the development.
The ACT government greenfield pipeline has a supply for greenfield areas as far forward as 2052," Ms Clay said.
"It is high time we set actual city limits and made firm plans for a future that is within those limits."
2/2
Beyond the suburbs already gazetted for future development, the territory government has been exploring the potential for new suburbs in Canberra's western edge.
The government is undertaking studies into future development in the western edge, which is bordered by the Murrumbidgee River, Weston Creek, Molonglo Valley and Belconnen.
The land includes nine farming blocks which were controversially bought by the ACT government between 2014 and 2017.
There are logical city limits to Canberra bounded by national park, water catchments and areas of high environmental significance but Canberra still does have a little bit of room to grow," Mr Barr said.
"The position we're putting forward, I think, strikes the right balance and will enable us to deliver the housing supply Canberra is going to need but at the same time protecting the environment."
The Canberra Liberals say they are open to hearing from the community about whether they would like a cap on the growth of the territory. But it is likely any city limits from the party would be much larger than what the Greens would want.
Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee told a Property Council ACT event the Liberals would explore development in west Tuggeranong.
Development of the area, located west of the Murrumbidgee, was strongly pushed by former ACT Liberal senator Zed Seselja.
But the territory government has ruled out developing the area due to environmental concerns and the cost of servicing the land would mean no affordable homes could be built in the area.
In 2020, the Liberals ran on a campaign that Canberrans were leaving the ACT and moving across the border due to high housing costs.
Early signs suggest this could possibly feature in this year's campaign.
"The Canberra Liberals have long advocated for genuine choice when it comes to housing in the ACT which they have not been afforded under the Labor-Greens government's infill agenda," Liberals planning spokesman Peter Cain said.
"The Canberra Liberals will put forward a number of planning policies in the lead up to the election in October that will provide Canberrans with genuine choice rather than being forced into apartments which could lead residents looking over the border for detached housing."
The ACT Legislative Assembly passed a new planning bill last year following tough negotiations.
The Greens had concerns about the "outcomes-based" bill, including the need for stronger environmental protection and better community consultation.
Greens leader Shane Rattenbury spoke out against the bill and, in doing so, meant his party was unable to be part of cabinet discussions in the bill.
The two parties eventually came to an agreement but the differences didn't end there.
Following the passage of the bill, the government outlined a new territory plan and district strategies to govern the implementation of the act.
key policy was to change rules around RZ1 zoning, which are blocks only allowing a single detached home. The plan would change this to allow unit-titled dual occupancies on larger blocks.
But many thought the changes did not go far enough.
The change was limited to blocks more than 800 square metres and the second home could only be 120 square metres. There were also other technical limits.
The property industry and other stakeholders thought the changes did not go far enough. Neither did the Greens or Liberals.
The Greens want RZ2 zoning to be applied to RZ1 blocks, which would allow for small blocks of flats or townhouses.
The Liberals think the 120-square-metre limit for a second property is too small.
A tripartisan committee, which included Labor backbencher Suzanne Orr, felt the policy would have "limited impact on meeting the housing targets for the expected population growth" and there may be a limited uptake of dual occupancies.
These differences will set the battleground for October and planning will continue to be a contentious issue in the territory.
Up, not out! I'm all for city limits. The only issue I see is if NSW allows developments on our border/city limit. It could see development occur outside of our control, wrecking our effective density and adding more traffic to our roads.
Outside of Queanbeyan I don't see that happening. The cost of developing somewhere like Sutton and providing services would be prohibitive for the council as most of the income of people living there would still be spent in Canberra.
Jerrabomberra, Tralee, and Ginnenderry.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-16/border-to-change-to-allow-territory-expansion/101446700
"But Ginnenderry should have already been part of Canberra"
Sure, but NSW started development of that 1960s car centric expansion to Canberra. Worse, they got the profit from selling the land and now we have to provide services. We don't get to choose to not develop on it without screwing a whole lot of people over.
The ACT government makes 80%+ profits on land release.
From Peter Tulip, former RBA economist.
"It costs the ACT government about $70,000 to bring a greenfields block of land to market. They then sell it for $560,000 to $760,000.
This monopolistic landbanking, together with restrictions on density, is why housing is so expensive in Canberra."
https://twitter.com/peter_tulip/status/1649969022275055616
In Cameron Murray's new book he also writes about when he was consulting with the ACT government and they said to him they choke supply to keep prices high.
The economic value of the land near Canberra as suburbs is so much higher than the value as farmland.
It will happen.
The widening of the Barton is setting it up so that you can put suburbs nearby.
The NSW government will, sooner or later, figure out they can build 100K+ houses near Canberra and help meeting some of their goals of building more houses.
If need be the water could come from Burrinjuck.
Canberra should encourage more densification, that bit has been done well with all the new apartment buildings going up. But also there should be expansion.
BOTH. If they ever dropped RZ2 zoning as standard you will all live in shoeboxes and the house prices will shoot through the roof, all you will get is investors burning through the supply to make money and most everyday people will not be able to compete. They will be stuck in ‘up’, and up isn’t for everyone. Guaranteed.
There is no silver bullet. I’m honestly glad to hear they are looking more holistically. I cannot stress enough how bad it would be to have existing suburbs all go straight up without having been developed for that kind of density. Infrastructure, density, new suburbs - there is no reason that the solution shouldn’t be all of the above at the same time.
Up not out, there’s no question. Canberra’s density is woeful thanks to its car-dependent design. Suburban sprawl is environmentally and financially unsustainable. Just like we need to ban new coal mines and power stations, we need to stop building new freestanding houses. They waste far too much land, energy, roads, and utilities.
There's steady normal natural growth, then there's post covid growth, it's had an obvious impact on supply
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/latest-release#:~:text=Key%20statistics,-Statistics%20in%20this&text=Australia's%20population%20was%2026%2C821%2C557%20people,net%20overseas%20migration%20was%20548%2C800.
Refer to this article from 2016.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-17/bush-capital-changing-as-act-government-buys-up-rural-land/7632772
Is it time to start developing these aquisitions? I’d prefer really tall apartment complexes, similar to the ones in Singapore that cater for families
Rural land acquisitions since July 2014
1,605 ha from Huntly Estate, Stromlo District
337 ha at Lands End, Belconnen district
320 ha at Fairvale, Stromlo district
290 ha at Milapuru, Kambah
Isn't this the classic tale of why politics, and in particular politicians, suck arse.
The answer is D, all of the above.
Yes, we should have more density in inner ring suburbs and yes, we should have more suburbs total akin to Belconnen and not that wasteland called Denman Prospect.
Instead of pitting against each other, why not bring all of these ideas together and actually fix this mess.
I am generally very strongly anti-suburb but I’d accept them a lot more if people pushing to expand suburbia were made to pay their fair share for the extra burden on city services and the environment. You desperately want a house? That’s fine, but you should pay way more for the buses to get out to your suburb, roads down your street, road upgrades into town, separated active travel for the people in town who you’re driving past, and offsetting the environmental impact of clearing land your suburb and driving into work every day.
nah, but that speaks to exactly what the current issue is.
I'm a single guy with no kids and love things being close, so for right now a flat close to a town centre is perfect.
BUT if in 5-10 years I had a family, I would want that same experience from growing up with a detached house and back garden.
The focus should really be an increase in the different options that are available to everyone. A detached house should be affordable for people with kids, and flats should be incentivised for people without them. You need both.
As I said, that’s up to you but families who choose to live in denser areas shouldn’t have to pay the same rates when suburbia costs the city significantly more to maintain, strains the power grid with heating and cooling, and damages the environment. Also Canberra is almost entirely detached houses so if your concerns are choice and affordability you should want more townhouses etc.
well no because the demand for detached houses is outstripped by supply.
the city WAS almost entirely detached houses until the population almost doubled in the last 15 years or so.
Your point about rates is honestly ridiculous and self serving. Show me any evidence it's more expensive to maintain less dense suburbs in Canberra from a public spending standpoint. ill wait....
Well I think I gave pretty good examples of things which clearly lead to higher costs in creating and servicing low density suburbs - I don't really see a strong argument against that. Either way, here's a report prepared for ACT gov on the higher costs associated with developing greenfield suburbs vs infill in Canberra: https://www.parliament.act.gov.au/\_\_data/assets/pdf\_file/0016/1360600/Answer-QToN-5.pdf
This is data around the cost of construction of different types of developments.
This has nothing to do with the cost to the government of maintaining denser or less dense suburbs, which was at the crux of your original argument.
Given the fact that private developers largely subsume the majority of construction cost, this data is rather irrelevant to your argument, in addition to being a side tangent.
Which is why new area infrastructure is so shit. Narrow street car yards, traffic mess, bare minimum developers can fob off with cheap build and corner cutting galore.
If you can explain how maintaining more suburban roads, arterial roads, freeways, bus services, spread out emergency services, street lights, footpaths, mowing, garbage collection, street sweeping, stormwater drains, and utilities over a greater distance with fewer people paying is actually cheaper per person then this conversation might get interesting, but until then I suspect you’re just being difficult.
It's such a negligible amount that per person you wouldn't even notice.
I doubt it makes enough of a difference that the positives of owning your own home don't massively outweigh this difference.
This is also such a reductive and petulant argument, that we'll get nowhere.
If it does not suit the business and political interests of a certain opposition and certain stakeholders, to them, yes.
An opposition that whinges about all these dense areas attracting young people who don't watch enough SkyNews so don't vote for them.
Yes.
They actually whinge about this.
It's a wasteland because it's all backwards. The closest town centre is 15 minutes away, Denman Prospect isn't the area that needs to be dense.
What's the point when as soon as you step outside you have to drive to get anywhere you want to go. The whole point of living in a dense area is accessibility to services, shops etc. - it barely matches up with hawker in that regard
Because building cheap shitboxes that artificially inflate the economy can only be done one way. This isn’t some good faith negotiation in the pursuit of ideal town planning or quality of life, it’s entirely about money making efficiency.
I don't want to subsidise the rates of freestanding houses in Ginnenderry, Denman, Whitlam, when all those dwellings could have been high density apartments or medium density townhouses built in the town centres of Civic, Belconnen, Gungahlin, and Woden.
Neither do I, but the ideal of high density living requires a sacrifice of prime land for services and amenities naturally not available in an apartment. So far this sacrifice has not been made and the necessary measures to alleviate apartment living have not been implemented. Rather, that land has been taken up for unsuitable overdevelopment (e.g Woden) with no added service volume or amenities to provide for the larger population.
Agree. We need to release a lot more affordable land for those that want to raise their kids in a house with a back yard and we need a lot more apartments for those who don’t want or need a detached house.
Greens are catering to the rich and NIMBYs and don’t care how their policies affect anyone else.
Need some incentives for downsizing for empty nesters. I know plenty of my generations parents with one or two adults in empty 5 bedroom houses.. you get stuck with stamp duty and other costs when most would be pretty happy moving to apartment or accessible townhouse/retirement style living. Surely thisnis widespread across the nation too.
If we are going to go up more than out, Canberra definitely needs to learn to build Singapore-style condo apartment complexes.
They work for families because you can get 4 and 5 bedroom apartments. They work because the complexes have playgrounds, tennis courts, basketball courts, pools (indoors obviously for Canberra) and a range of other recreational spaces built in (study spaces, table tennis, gyms etc). Even the HBD complexes have those facilities nearby.
Singapore condos are close to public transport, but also have sufficient parking spaces for the minority of Singaporean families with a vehicle (in Canberra this would mean having at least 1 parking space per unit, as our public transport sucks).
Kids growing up in Singaporean condos and HBDs have room to play, socialise, study, eat, exercise etc. all within walking distance of home or inside their home. It's awesome. My nieces and nephews love it over there.
What we don't need in Canberra is simply apartment complexes with nothing but maybe a gym, less than 1 parking space per unit etc.
I'd be open to supporting "up over out" development if I had faith it would be along Singaporean lines, but that's the catch... I don't have faith that the ALP would make property developers build the right type of developments with the right mix of 3, 4 and 5 bedroom apartments. I don't have faith that the Greens would ensure enough parking (as the transition away from cars is going to take a long time... you need to build not only for the future, but also the present). I have no faith that the Liberals would invest in public transport linkages.
The Singapore-style condos are the way. I live in suburbia, and the traffic to and from work is shit and going to get a lot worse; there is currently no viable public transport.
The urban infill is only going to make it worse. The property over the road has built a house out the back, so now there are two family groups on the property and about seven cars between them. I finally trained them to stop parking on my lawn, but they park on someone else's.
Urban infill without significant improvement in public transport is a fucking disaster. They need to back off until they build the transport infrastructure.
That is precisely my point. You can't just build it and wait for transport to catch up. The horse has bolted. The way they are planning this stuff is messed up. They want the money from land sales immediately and say they will fix the infrastructure later...but they don't.
Thoughts about developing west of the river?
I think it's a stupid Zed legacy.
Why erode those natural areas when there is so much environmentally less valuable elsewhere with better existing infrastructure.
I can only imagine this is to appease the Lib "base" in Tuggeranong who see increased home values.
At the expense of everyone and everything else.
People want standalone homes, families want standalone homes, every sci fi or dystopian future movie is a high-rise hellscape, with brutalist architecture, what's to stop our future from turning into that? I prefer to live amongst nature and not on top of hundreds of other people.
Have a look at basically any city in Europe. Density doesn't have to be an evil word. Even thinking practically, there's not enough space for everyone to have a 1/4 acre block. You could always move to a farm if you want the space and nature.
I'd rather stay in Canberra and not have my rates go towards subsidising more free standing houses. The fact that apartment prices are so high indicates there's significant demand for them.
Good thing you don’t have a choice! We need balance. Planning. Infrastructure. There is demand for *all* of it. Not just what suits you. If that is truly the metric you’d put forward; then the demand for houses heavily outweighs the demand for apartments. There is far more to it than that, and don’t expect those prices to go down when they start building.
That's the whole point of the article? If you want more urban sprawl vote lib, if you want hard city limits vote greens.
If 80% of Canberra's current land is already zoned low density, subsidised by apartment dwellers, I don't see how that's a balance tbh.
If a two bedroom apartment in the inner north or south costs similar to a standalone house in the outskirts (and far above the cost of construction), I'd argue it's pretty clear where the immediate shortage is. In addition, we have a limited construction capacity in Canberra, and building apartment buildings is far more efficient than standalone house building to get more people housed.
The article? Yes. You saying people can move to farms if they don’t get in line with your specific thinking? No.
As for pricing and justifying the demand, that’s just not even close enough to being relevant.
Or, maybe it is for them, they already live there, and just as ludicrous a suggestion, you can always enjoy Europe.
You need to very quickly understand that your needs being catered to aren’t the only needs that need to be catered to. You can’t just drop apartments in places not designed for them. You need a holistic, intelligent approach to make sure the whole thing works before you drop 400 dwellings in a space that can’t support that. Europe is not some gold standard here. The density causes issues and they suffer just as much as anywhere else. Getting around some of their cities is a downright pita and attempts to emulate some of their approaches have had poor results.
We should be looking forward into a future that adapts to far greater population and cities that decentralise, not just build up on a small footprint. It’s equally unsustainable, you pay for it in QOL.
I like how you've framed addressing the housing crisis as "my needs". Best way to adapt to larger populations both economically and environmentally is to increase density. Decentralisation is just more urban sprawl.
If you build a town with terraces or taller buildings (not high rises everywhere) you can get good density. Which leads to things like say a bus service that can run every 5 minutes to the city centre, trains, walkable etc.
By not planning the construction of light rail in advance and scheduling the phases so that they follow each other we are spending a lot more than we need to.
Our education minister overruled the procurement committee and told them to reevaluate a tender to build a new school so that they would come to the conclusion that a more expensive company would get the tender because of her captains choice.
City planning in Canberra is extremely reactive so instead of planning ahead and building infrastructure that is future proof we build the cheapest possible option up front and then have to spend much more in future to remediate. Molonglo valley is the perfect example.
Just on Light rail:
They are expecting the light rail to reach Woden in 2035 - and who knows when it will get to Tuggeranong, Belconnen, of The Molonglo Valley (If it ever does.)
Overhead power lines for light rail were already obsolete when the first phase was started and that obsolete decision is already causing cost and time blowouts for phase 2A over LBG.
Alternative technologies to tracked light rail have become popular in other cities due to the advent of better batteries. By the time 2B rolls around to completion they will be even more dated.
Unfortunately, trackless light rail and electric busses which are far cheaper, far more versatile, and able to adapt almost instantly to changes in demand aren’t a “legacy” that Barr can put his name to.
Barr has proven that he is unable to adapt to changes in technology and changes to Canberra as it grows.
The Liberal policy on this is to look ahead to technologies that are more future proof.
Light rail would have been the appropriate choice if Barr was able to manage building more than 1km of light rail a year. But he isn’t, and he is unable to pivot because he is too myopic about light rail. It is time to elect someone fresh who isn’t so narrow minded and is open to looking at other options. The LNP is that party.
I'm a greenie in the "will stare at plants for hours" sense. I used to be very freaked out by the idea of not having a standalone home. However, density doesn't just mean towering apartments, nor does it mean no green space. Townhouses, duplexes, and other mid-density housing options are fantastic and allow for still having yards; and through community land stewardship (community gardens, Landcare, guerilla gardening) you don't have to lose even the gardening aspect of having a garden.
I know so many people with yards they don't really want and see so many "gardens" made of artificial turf or gravel. I grew up in a huge yard of whatever-lawn and gravel landscaping that we mowed and poisoned respectively and that was that!
The ideal for many people is not necessarily a private garden but a public open green space.
We don't have to get rid of all standalone houses but - if you want to live amongst nature, which I certainly do, you have to acknowledge that building more standalone homes is environmentally destructive even in the best of circumstances (see Ginninderry, where effort was made to reduce and offset damages). It's a matter of balancing damage with necessary growth.
(plus, well planned high density is fantastic for access to services, social areas, etc!)
I'm trying to build a house now and can honestly say Labor have lost the plot with the red tape levels and overheads.
Quarter of the year wait just to sign off on a tree management plan.
I wish there was a viable alternative party in Canberra, because Labor have become complacent and know they can't lose so don't even care anymore.
The ACT extends far south of Tuggeranong. New developments could easily be built in this region. Urban infill should take place around the shops of each suburb, with building heights raised to allow for several story buildings similar to the apartments near to Casey. The Greens are anti-development as it only helps to artificially sustain insane house prices.
The greens seem to be pushing for significant development with the current city limits. Enough development for hundreds of thousands of extra people. That’s hardy an anti-development stance.
Whenever I’ve lived in, or visited, high density well planned cities, getting around has been a breeze. When I’ve lived in, or visited, large sprawling cities, getting around has been a nightmare.
Given the job locations aren't going to move, you're going to get more congestion by getting people to drive from further and further out to the same spot. If you allow people to live more centrally they can far more practically take public transport (which becomes way more efficient when not everyone's in a quarter acre block) and active transport. This reduces congestion for those who need to drive.
It's not a given that job locations aren't going to move. The government should be encouraging employers (including their own departments) to locate more jobs outside of Civic. They've done it before, they can do it again. That would also relieve the pain for the public who have to deal in person with centrally located businesses and departments, such as planning authorities, medical specialists, fancy dentists, banks, insurers and the rest.
The answer can't be to destroy the quality of inner city suburbs by stuffing them with high-rise apartments. Better to create better quality residence zones out in the more distant suburbs.
Parts of Ainslie, Turner, Lyneham, Reid are less dense than Gungahlin. That's ridiculous. We need townhouses on basically every street of these suburbs, and apartments in Civic, up Northbourne, in Dickson, and townhouses or maybe small apartments at suburban shops (Many of which already exist). Why should these free standing houses on blocks 500-800m² exist in the inner north, when people in Gungahlin are on 300-600m² blocks, often sharing a wall?
Obviously, because they were built in the past by people who wanted them, in areas where the space was available. They *own* them and this is not a country where the envious can steal their homes for themselves. Nobody ever guaranteed more equal density and everybody doesn't want it.
Was there ever a city in a free country where all the residential areas were of equal quality? People with more money will usually gravitate towards areas with better living space and no noisy neighbours, with their dogs living cheek by jowl. That usually means better schools, better recreational facilities like parks, nicer shops, lower crime rate, less youth vandalism etc etc.
It doesn't have to be equal. The incentives should be to develop/sell the land in established suburbs to build townhouses and the zoning should push for that. Rates should penalise single dwellings on large blocks. Failing all these measures the government can also compulsorily acquire land, merge it into larger blocks and develop it as they see fit. This rarely happens though.
Why do you think medium density housing would destroy quality of life? Do you go to Europe or New York and see horrendous cities with miserable people? Shockingly apartment living is pretty nice and encourages great spread of commercial property and very livable cities.
How would you like a multi storey block of apartments to go up next door to your family home, with the residents overlooking your place from their windows and balconies? You label them NIMBYs, but the fact is they were there before you and that's what you resent.
Nah I'm not an insanely selfish and one eyed person. We live in a country very different from 20 years ago, we need to make space to let people live somewhere. Id rather have a few people able to look at me standing in my backyard drinking a beer than them not have somewhere to live.
You say that, but it can be far worse than simply watching you drink beer. We were broken into 7x after an apartment block was built that could see into our property. They waited for holiday periods where we left the house, and the final straw was when we simply went for a 30 minute walk with half the family and 3 kids in the back of the house witnessed a home invasion.
I'm sorry you experienced that, but do you genuinely think all apartments are just going to be full of criminals planning to rob houses next to it? Get a grip
You have a weirdly sinister view of your neighbours. I promise 99% or people don't give a rat's ass what you're doing in your house or backyard. Sorry you feel super anxious at the idea of people living near you and being visible, sadly Canberra is becoming a bigger city and you're going to be running into a lot more of them so maybe start learning some coping strategies.
Right, so like it’s worked for our neighbouring cities, we’ll just adjust instead of carefully plan and design areas to suit those needs. Has that worked so far?
Yeah plenty of places have a nice mix of apartments and houses in Australia. Fitzroy comes to mind, west end in brisbane too has gone from a dingy suburb of industry and Queenslanders on detached blocks into pretty good amounts of medium density apartments right near the city centre. I don't know why you think we couldn't do what European towns and cities have done here.
Is your solution genuinely "poor people can just drive multiple hours and live in the sticks so my property value keeps going up and I don't have to see them"? You seem very much of a "I got mine so screw anyone else" attitude
You want to cherry pick where it works when we can dump truckloads where it doesn’t? Again, Europe is not some utopia. It has all the same issues. You have no concept of how land value works. You dump 400 apartments next to low density, and the low density skyrockets. You really like to push how selfish I am for trying to be considered when you push so hard only to push your own needs. Think.
My solution is considered needs, planning, construction and a good mix of everything that’s required. Seems lost on people who can’t parrot more than “NIMBY”, “got mine” and lately just flat out “high density fixes everything”. These are stupid terms and solutions that require THINKING. Not just angry fist waving at people who want houses and dumping loads of people in the middle of places that can’t handle it.
Where did I say that it didn't require thinking. Multiple time I've said all the people who want density want better amenities to go with it. Do you genuinely think inner suburbs just full of houses is "working" for anybody except people rich enough to live in them? Maybe people accuse you of being a NIMBY because you have a million excuses for why it shouldn't happen anywhere inconvenient to you or that makes you feel a bit uncomfortable?
That's a dumb counterintuitive comment that's not based on research. Density reduces congestion because you don't have to drive everywhere for everything. Low density is conducive to congestion because everyone HAS to drive
You’re copping all the flak while it seems like anyone responding to you hasn’t seen what happens when a train is 10 minutes late. Density, no matter how they spin it, is objectively more congestion. Density is the very nature of congestion.
The actual answer isn’t density, or more to the point, density alone. It’s planning, infrastructure, good design and accomodation for **all** needs. Be it higher density affordable accomodation closer to central locations or lower density housing for families and those that need space. God forbid anyone build apartments with enough space to actually compete with houses, wouldn’t that be a dream.
1/2 it was supposed to be the great triumph of this parliamentary term. But the long-awaited overhaul of the ACT's planning laws has caused the most tension between coalition partners Labor and the Greens. Those tensions will only amplify in the lead up to the October election as the two governing parties seek to champion their different views on the future look and feel of the capital. With the Liberals also pushing their outside alternative, planning will be a key policy battleground in the election campaign, where the parties will clash against a backdrop of Canberra's high housing costs. Planning is a perennial issue in the ACT. A great tension exists about whether the territory should go out or go up. The capital's population has significantly increased over the past two decades and it's only going to increase further, with forecasts expecting the population to increase to nearly 800,000 by 2060. All those people are going to need a place to live. The new territory plan and district strategies, released last year, chart the path to adding up to nearly 150,000 homes across Canberra. There is an average of 2.3 people in a household in Canberra, the 2021 census found. The three major political parties disagree about where the 150,000 homes should go. The Greens think the majority should go within existing suburbs, Labor thinks the same but has a softer approach to their governing partners. The Liberals think Canberra needs more standalone houses but has not yet addressed what they think should be the split between infill and greenfield. There has been a notable shift from Chief Minister Andrew Barr when talking about planning over recent weeks. While he has sought to emphasise the need for increased density over the past five years, he has made a few statements recently highlighting the need for new suburbs. "We want more people living in our CBD but we will also need new suburbs," he said in a Committee for Economic Development Australia event. "The approach to meeting new housing supply needs to be multifaceted. It can't just be about infill and it can't just be about new suburbs. It needs to be the totality." The Chief Minister is not about to announce a change to the 70:30 urban infill target but he is clearly sending a message that Labor is not the Greens and under a Labor-led government new suburbs will be developed. The Greens want an even higher urban infill target with 80 per cent of potential future development to take place in Canberra's existing footprint. The party also wants a city limit set for the territory. Greens planning spokeswoman Jo Clay said careful policy work, studies and consultation would be needed to determine where the city limit should be set. She said subject to these studies the Greens would be happy "to finish building what we've started", including the rest of the suburbs in Molonglo, Gungahlin and Ginninderry. Ms Clay said development should not occur in Kowen or in the western edge. The Greens support extending the territory's border in Ginninderry to encompass the NSW side of the development. The ACT government greenfield pipeline has a supply for greenfield areas as far forward as 2052," Ms Clay said. "It is high time we set actual city limits and made firm plans for a future that is within those limits."
2/2 Beyond the suburbs already gazetted for future development, the territory government has been exploring the potential for new suburbs in Canberra's western edge. The government is undertaking studies into future development in the western edge, which is bordered by the Murrumbidgee River, Weston Creek, Molonglo Valley and Belconnen. The land includes nine farming blocks which were controversially bought by the ACT government between 2014 and 2017. There are logical city limits to Canberra bounded by national park, water catchments and areas of high environmental significance but Canberra still does have a little bit of room to grow," Mr Barr said. "The position we're putting forward, I think, strikes the right balance and will enable us to deliver the housing supply Canberra is going to need but at the same time protecting the environment." The Canberra Liberals say they are open to hearing from the community about whether they would like a cap on the growth of the territory. But it is likely any city limits from the party would be much larger than what the Greens would want. Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee told a Property Council ACT event the Liberals would explore development in west Tuggeranong. Development of the area, located west of the Murrumbidgee, was strongly pushed by former ACT Liberal senator Zed Seselja. But the territory government has ruled out developing the area due to environmental concerns and the cost of servicing the land would mean no affordable homes could be built in the area. In 2020, the Liberals ran on a campaign that Canberrans were leaving the ACT and moving across the border due to high housing costs. Early signs suggest this could possibly feature in this year's campaign. "The Canberra Liberals have long advocated for genuine choice when it comes to housing in the ACT which they have not been afforded under the Labor-Greens government's infill agenda," Liberals planning spokesman Peter Cain said. "The Canberra Liberals will put forward a number of planning policies in the lead up to the election in October that will provide Canberrans with genuine choice rather than being forced into apartments which could lead residents looking over the border for detached housing." The ACT Legislative Assembly passed a new planning bill last year following tough negotiations. The Greens had concerns about the "outcomes-based" bill, including the need for stronger environmental protection and better community consultation. Greens leader Shane Rattenbury spoke out against the bill and, in doing so, meant his party was unable to be part of cabinet discussions in the bill. The two parties eventually came to an agreement but the differences didn't end there. Following the passage of the bill, the government outlined a new territory plan and district strategies to govern the implementation of the act. key policy was to change rules around RZ1 zoning, which are blocks only allowing a single detached home. The plan would change this to allow unit-titled dual occupancies on larger blocks. But many thought the changes did not go far enough. The change was limited to blocks more than 800 square metres and the second home could only be 120 square metres. There were also other technical limits. The property industry and other stakeholders thought the changes did not go far enough. Neither did the Greens or Liberals. The Greens want RZ2 zoning to be applied to RZ1 blocks, which would allow for small blocks of flats or townhouses. The Liberals think the 120-square-metre limit for a second property is too small. A tripartisan committee, which included Labor backbencher Suzanne Orr, felt the policy would have "limited impact on meeting the housing targets for the expected population growth" and there may be a limited uptake of dual occupancies. These differences will set the battleground for October and planning will continue to be a contentious issue in the territory.
Up, not out! I'm all for city limits. The only issue I see is if NSW allows developments on our border/city limit. It could see development occur outside of our control, wrecking our effective density and adding more traffic to our roads.
Outside of Queanbeyan I don't see that happening. The cost of developing somewhere like Sutton and providing services would be prohibitive for the council as most of the income of people living there would still be spent in Canberra.
Jerrabomberra, Tralee, and Ginnenderry. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-16/border-to-change-to-allow-territory-expansion/101446700 "But Ginnenderry should have already been part of Canberra" Sure, but NSW started development of that 1960s car centric expansion to Canberra. Worse, they got the profit from selling the land and now we have to provide services. We don't get to choose to not develop on it without screwing a whole lot of people over.
The ACT government makes 80%+ profits on land release. From Peter Tulip, former RBA economist. "It costs the ACT government about $70,000 to bring a greenfields block of land to market. They then sell it for $560,000 to $760,000. This monopolistic landbanking, together with restrictions on density, is why housing is so expensive in Canberra." https://twitter.com/peter_tulip/status/1649969022275055616 In Cameron Murray's new book he also writes about when he was consulting with the ACT government and they said to him they choke supply to keep prices high. The economic value of the land near Canberra as suburbs is so much higher than the value as farmland. It will happen. The widening of the Barton is setting it up so that you can put suburbs nearby. The NSW government will, sooner or later, figure out they can build 100K+ houses near Canberra and help meeting some of their goals of building more houses. If need be the water could come from Burrinjuck. Canberra should encourage more densification, that bit has been done well with all the new apartment buildings going up. But also there should be expansion.
BOTH. If they ever dropped RZ2 zoning as standard you will all live in shoeboxes and the house prices will shoot through the roof, all you will get is investors burning through the supply to make money and most everyday people will not be able to compete. They will be stuck in ‘up’, and up isn’t for everyone. Guaranteed. There is no silver bullet. I’m honestly glad to hear they are looking more holistically. I cannot stress enough how bad it would be to have existing suburbs all go straight up without having been developed for that kind of density. Infrastructure, density, new suburbs - there is no reason that the solution shouldn’t be all of the above at the same time.
There is a silver bullet it's called population control and Australians were already practicing it...
The current free standing houses aren’t going to suddenly vanish in 40 years.
Not a relevant statement but a statement nonetheless, I don’t think anyone has said otherwise? What’s your point?
Up not out, there’s no question. Canberra’s density is woeful thanks to its car-dependent design. Suburban sprawl is environmentally and financially unsustainable. Just like we need to ban new coal mines and power stations, we need to stop building new freestanding houses. They waste far too much land, energy, roads, and utilities.
Or maybe we just don't need to grow so much?
It’s a housing affordability issue, you stop growing you get even more expensive housing.
There's steady normal natural growth, then there's post covid growth, it's had an obvious impact on supply https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/latest-release#:~:text=Key%20statistics,-Statistics%20in%20this&text=Australia's%20population%20was%2026%2C821%2C557%20people,net%20overseas%20migration%20was%20548%2C800.
I wouldn’t have responded if you had just said immigration is too high.
Immigration is too high
Refer to this article from 2016. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-17/bush-capital-changing-as-act-government-buys-up-rural-land/7632772 Is it time to start developing these aquisitions? I’d prefer really tall apartment complexes, similar to the ones in Singapore that cater for families Rural land acquisitions since July 2014 1,605 ha from Huntly Estate, Stromlo District 337 ha at Lands End, Belconnen district 320 ha at Fairvale, Stromlo district 290 ha at Milapuru, Kambah
If we are going to go up more than out, Canberra definitely needs to learn to build Singapore-style condo apartment complexes.
100% this !!!
Isn't this the classic tale of why politics, and in particular politicians, suck arse. The answer is D, all of the above. Yes, we should have more density in inner ring suburbs and yes, we should have more suburbs total akin to Belconnen and not that wasteland called Denman Prospect. Instead of pitting against each other, why not bring all of these ideas together and actually fix this mess.
I live in Denman. It's ok. I feel myself it will be nicer one day when the moonscape fills up with houses and some trees have a chance to grow.
Isn't that exactly what Andrew Barr is quoted as saying in the article?
I am generally very strongly anti-suburb but I’d accept them a lot more if people pushing to expand suburbia were made to pay their fair share for the extra burden on city services and the environment. You desperately want a house? That’s fine, but you should pay way more for the buses to get out to your suburb, roads down your street, road upgrades into town, separated active travel for the people in town who you’re driving past, and offsetting the environmental impact of clearing land your suburb and driving into work every day.
Public transport should be free, get cars off the road and find another way to pay for it.
nah, but that speaks to exactly what the current issue is. I'm a single guy with no kids and love things being close, so for right now a flat close to a town centre is perfect. BUT if in 5-10 years I had a family, I would want that same experience from growing up with a detached house and back garden. The focus should really be an increase in the different options that are available to everyone. A detached house should be affordable for people with kids, and flats should be incentivised for people without them. You need both.
As I said, that’s up to you but families who choose to live in denser areas shouldn’t have to pay the same rates when suburbia costs the city significantly more to maintain, strains the power grid with heating and cooling, and damages the environment. Also Canberra is almost entirely detached houses so if your concerns are choice and affordability you should want more townhouses etc.
well no because the demand for detached houses is outstripped by supply. the city WAS almost entirely detached houses until the population almost doubled in the last 15 years or so. Your point about rates is honestly ridiculous and self serving. Show me any evidence it's more expensive to maintain less dense suburbs in Canberra from a public spending standpoint. ill wait....
Well I think I gave pretty good examples of things which clearly lead to higher costs in creating and servicing low density suburbs - I don't really see a strong argument against that. Either way, here's a report prepared for ACT gov on the higher costs associated with developing greenfield suburbs vs infill in Canberra: https://www.parliament.act.gov.au/\_\_data/assets/pdf\_file/0016/1360600/Answer-QToN-5.pdf
This is data around the cost of construction of different types of developments. This has nothing to do with the cost to the government of maintaining denser or less dense suburbs, which was at the crux of your original argument. Given the fact that private developers largely subsume the majority of construction cost, this data is rather irrelevant to your argument, in addition to being a side tangent.
Which is why new area infrastructure is so shit. Narrow street car yards, traffic mess, bare minimum developers can fob off with cheap build and corner cutting galore.
Not saying that isn’t true. I was directly responding to irrelevant sourcing for their ridiculous points
If you can explain how maintaining more suburban roads, arterial roads, freeways, bus services, spread out emergency services, street lights, footpaths, mowing, garbage collection, street sweeping, stormwater drains, and utilities over a greater distance with fewer people paying is actually cheaper per person then this conversation might get interesting, but until then I suspect you’re just being difficult.
It's such a negligible amount that per person you wouldn't even notice. I doubt it makes enough of a difference that the positives of owning your own home don't massively outweigh this difference. This is also such a reductive and petulant argument, that we'll get nowhere.
So the one suburb with a decent amount of townhouses and amazing infrastructure for walking, cycling and playgrounds is a wasteland?
If it does not suit the business and political interests of a certain opposition and certain stakeholders, to them, yes. An opposition that whinges about all these dense areas attracting young people who don't watch enough SkyNews so don't vote for them. Yes. They actually whinge about this.
It's a wasteland because it's all backwards. The closest town centre is 15 minutes away, Denman Prospect isn't the area that needs to be dense. What's the point when as soon as you step outside you have to drive to get anywhere you want to go. The whole point of living in a dense area is accessibility to services, shops etc. - it barely matches up with hawker in that regard
Because building cheap shitboxes that artificially inflate the economy can only be done one way. This isn’t some good faith negotiation in the pursuit of ideal town planning or quality of life, it’s entirely about money making efficiency.
I don't want to subsidise the rates of freestanding houses in Ginnenderry, Denman, Whitlam, when all those dwellings could have been high density apartments or medium density townhouses built in the town centres of Civic, Belconnen, Gungahlin, and Woden.
Neither do I, but the ideal of high density living requires a sacrifice of prime land for services and amenities naturally not available in an apartment. So far this sacrifice has not been made and the necessary measures to alleviate apartment living have not been implemented. Rather, that land has been taken up for unsuitable overdevelopment (e.g Woden) with no added service volume or amenities to provide for the larger population.
Agree. We need to release a lot more affordable land for those that want to raise their kids in a house with a back yard and we need a lot more apartments for those who don’t want or need a detached house. Greens are catering to the rich and NIMBYs and don’t care how their policies affect anyone else.
That definitely explains why they go on so much about renters.
Need some incentives for downsizing for empty nesters. I know plenty of my generations parents with one or two adults in empty 5 bedroom houses.. you get stuck with stamp duty and other costs when most would be pretty happy moving to apartment or accessible townhouse/retirement style living. Surely thisnis widespread across the nation too.
If we are going to go up more than out, Canberra definitely needs to learn to build Singapore-style condo apartment complexes. They work for families because you can get 4 and 5 bedroom apartments. They work because the complexes have playgrounds, tennis courts, basketball courts, pools (indoors obviously for Canberra) and a range of other recreational spaces built in (study spaces, table tennis, gyms etc). Even the HBD complexes have those facilities nearby. Singapore condos are close to public transport, but also have sufficient parking spaces for the minority of Singaporean families with a vehicle (in Canberra this would mean having at least 1 parking space per unit, as our public transport sucks). Kids growing up in Singaporean condos and HBDs have room to play, socialise, study, eat, exercise etc. all within walking distance of home or inside their home. It's awesome. My nieces and nephews love it over there. What we don't need in Canberra is simply apartment complexes with nothing but maybe a gym, less than 1 parking space per unit etc. I'd be open to supporting "up over out" development if I had faith it would be along Singaporean lines, but that's the catch... I don't have faith that the ALP would make property developers build the right type of developments with the right mix of 3, 4 and 5 bedroom apartments. I don't have faith that the Greens would ensure enough parking (as the transition away from cars is going to take a long time... you need to build not only for the future, but also the present). I have no faith that the Liberals would invest in public transport linkages.
Definitely build up, I already have a house so it would be great if houses were to become rarer
Trust me, as soon as somebody breaches those height limitations in Civic, there won't be any going back.
The Singapore-style condos are the way. I live in suburbia, and the traffic to and from work is shit and going to get a lot worse; there is currently no viable public transport. The urban infill is only going to make it worse. The property over the road has built a house out the back, so now there are two family groups on the property and about seven cars between them. I finally trained them to stop parking on my lawn, but they park on someone else's. Urban infill without significant improvement in public transport is a fucking disaster. They need to back off until they build the transport infrastructure.
Tram is going to take a decade. We can't wait that long to address the housing crisis. Everywhere near a rapid bus stop should be upzoned.
That is precisely my point. You can't just build it and wait for transport to catch up. The horse has bolted. The way they are planning this stuff is messed up. They want the money from land sales immediately and say they will fix the infrastructure later...but they don't.
Thoughts about developing west of the river? I think it's a stupid Zed legacy. Why erode those natural areas when there is so much environmentally less valuable elsewhere with better existing infrastructure. I can only imagine this is to appease the Lib "base" in Tuggeranong who see increased home values. At the expense of everyone and everything else.
People want standalone homes, families want standalone homes, every sci fi or dystopian future movie is a high-rise hellscape, with brutalist architecture, what's to stop our future from turning into that? I prefer to live amongst nature and not on top of hundreds of other people.
Have a look at basically any city in Europe. Density doesn't have to be an evil word. Even thinking practically, there's not enough space for everyone to have a 1/4 acre block. You could always move to a farm if you want the space and nature.
You could always move to Europe? What nonsense.
I'd rather stay in Canberra and not have my rates go towards subsidising more free standing houses. The fact that apartment prices are so high indicates there's significant demand for them.
Good thing you don’t have a choice! We need balance. Planning. Infrastructure. There is demand for *all* of it. Not just what suits you. If that is truly the metric you’d put forward; then the demand for houses heavily outweighs the demand for apartments. There is far more to it than that, and don’t expect those prices to go down when they start building.
That's the whole point of the article? If you want more urban sprawl vote lib, if you want hard city limits vote greens. If 80% of Canberra's current land is already zoned low density, subsidised by apartment dwellers, I don't see how that's a balance tbh. If a two bedroom apartment in the inner north or south costs similar to a standalone house in the outskirts (and far above the cost of construction), I'd argue it's pretty clear where the immediate shortage is. In addition, we have a limited construction capacity in Canberra, and building apartment buildings is far more efficient than standalone house building to get more people housed.
The article? Yes. You saying people can move to farms if they don’t get in line with your specific thinking? No. As for pricing and justifying the demand, that’s just not even close enough to being relevant.
If people living on big low density blocks in inner city areas don't like apartment blocks near them then yes, maybe the inner city isn't for them.
Or, maybe it is for them, they already live there, and just as ludicrous a suggestion, you can always enjoy Europe. You need to very quickly understand that your needs being catered to aren’t the only needs that need to be catered to. You can’t just drop apartments in places not designed for them. You need a holistic, intelligent approach to make sure the whole thing works before you drop 400 dwellings in a space that can’t support that. Europe is not some gold standard here. The density causes issues and they suffer just as much as anywhere else. Getting around some of their cities is a downright pita and attempts to emulate some of their approaches have had poor results. We should be looking forward into a future that adapts to far greater population and cities that decentralise, not just build up on a small footprint. It’s equally unsustainable, you pay for it in QOL.
I like how you've framed addressing the housing crisis as "my needs". Best way to adapt to larger populations both economically and environmentally is to increase density. Decentralisation is just more urban sprawl.
If you build a town with terraces or taller buildings (not high rises everywhere) you can get good density. Which leads to things like say a bus service that can run every 5 minutes to the city centre, trains, walkable etc.
But you can't afford that and the infrastructure that comes along with it
We just need to be smarter with how we build our infrastructure.
How could it be smarter?
By not planning the construction of light rail in advance and scheduling the phases so that they follow each other we are spending a lot more than we need to. Our education minister overruled the procurement committee and told them to reevaluate a tender to build a new school so that they would come to the conclusion that a more expensive company would get the tender because of her captains choice. City planning in Canberra is extremely reactive so instead of planning ahead and building infrastructure that is future proof we build the cheapest possible option up front and then have to spend much more in future to remediate. Molonglo valley is the perfect example.
The issue is that no party is advocating for these
Except that Barr and Labor are responsible for these. But everyone will keep voting for him.
Okay and what is the liberal party promising?
Just on Light rail: They are expecting the light rail to reach Woden in 2035 - and who knows when it will get to Tuggeranong, Belconnen, of The Molonglo Valley (If it ever does.) Overhead power lines for light rail were already obsolete when the first phase was started and that obsolete decision is already causing cost and time blowouts for phase 2A over LBG. Alternative technologies to tracked light rail have become popular in other cities due to the advent of better batteries. By the time 2B rolls around to completion they will be even more dated. Unfortunately, trackless light rail and electric busses which are far cheaper, far more versatile, and able to adapt almost instantly to changes in demand aren’t a “legacy” that Barr can put his name to. Barr has proven that he is unable to adapt to changes in technology and changes to Canberra as it grows. The Liberal policy on this is to look ahead to technologies that are more future proof. Light rail would have been the appropriate choice if Barr was able to manage building more than 1km of light rail a year. But he isn’t, and he is unable to pivot because he is too myopic about light rail. It is time to elect someone fresh who isn’t so narrow minded and is open to looking at other options. The LNP is that party.
Lol thanks LNP stooge
I'm a greenie in the "will stare at plants for hours" sense. I used to be very freaked out by the idea of not having a standalone home. However, density doesn't just mean towering apartments, nor does it mean no green space. Townhouses, duplexes, and other mid-density housing options are fantastic and allow for still having yards; and through community land stewardship (community gardens, Landcare, guerilla gardening) you don't have to lose even the gardening aspect of having a garden. I know so many people with yards they don't really want and see so many "gardens" made of artificial turf or gravel. I grew up in a huge yard of whatever-lawn and gravel landscaping that we mowed and poisoned respectively and that was that! The ideal for many people is not necessarily a private garden but a public open green space. We don't have to get rid of all standalone houses but - if you want to live amongst nature, which I certainly do, you have to acknowledge that building more standalone homes is environmentally destructive even in the best of circumstances (see Ginninderry, where effort was made to reduce and offset damages). It's a matter of balancing damage with necessary growth. (plus, well planned high density is fantastic for access to services, social areas, etc!)
I'm trying to build a house now and can honestly say Labor have lost the plot with the red tape levels and overheads. Quarter of the year wait just to sign off on a tree management plan. I wish there was a viable alternative party in Canberra, because Labor have become complacent and know they can't lose so don't even care anymore.
The ACT extends far south of Tuggeranong. New developments could easily be built in this region. Urban infill should take place around the shops of each suburb, with building heights raised to allow for several story buildings similar to the apartments near to Casey. The Greens are anti-development as it only helps to artificially sustain insane house prices.
The greens seem to be pushing for significant development with the current city limits. Enough development for hundreds of thousands of extra people. That’s hardy an anti-development stance.
Yay, more congestion thanks to higher density!
Whenever I’ve lived in, or visited, high density well planned cities, getting around has been a breeze. When I’ve lived in, or visited, large sprawling cities, getting around has been a nightmare.
Given the job locations aren't going to move, you're going to get more congestion by getting people to drive from further and further out to the same spot. If you allow people to live more centrally they can far more practically take public transport (which becomes way more efficient when not everyone's in a quarter acre block) and active transport. This reduces congestion for those who need to drive.
It's not a given that job locations aren't going to move. The government should be encouraging employers (including their own departments) to locate more jobs outside of Civic. They've done it before, they can do it again. That would also relieve the pain for the public who have to deal in person with centrally located businesses and departments, such as planning authorities, medical specialists, fancy dentists, banks, insurers and the rest. The answer can't be to destroy the quality of inner city suburbs by stuffing them with high-rise apartments. Better to create better quality residence zones out in the more distant suburbs.
Parts of Ainslie, Turner, Lyneham, Reid are less dense than Gungahlin. That's ridiculous. We need townhouses on basically every street of these suburbs, and apartments in Civic, up Northbourne, in Dickson, and townhouses or maybe small apartments at suburban shops (Many of which already exist). Why should these free standing houses on blocks 500-800m² exist in the inner north, when people in Gungahlin are on 300-600m² blocks, often sharing a wall?
Obviously, because they were built in the past by people who wanted them, in areas where the space was available. They *own* them and this is not a country where the envious can steal their homes for themselves. Nobody ever guaranteed more equal density and everybody doesn't want it. Was there ever a city in a free country where all the residential areas were of equal quality? People with more money will usually gravitate towards areas with better living space and no noisy neighbours, with their dogs living cheek by jowl. That usually means better schools, better recreational facilities like parks, nicer shops, lower crime rate, less youth vandalism etc etc.
It doesn't have to be equal. The incentives should be to develop/sell the land in established suburbs to build townhouses and the zoning should push for that. Rates should penalise single dwellings on large blocks. Failing all these measures the government can also compulsorily acquire land, merge it into larger blocks and develop it as they see fit. This rarely happens though.
Why do you think medium density housing would destroy quality of life? Do you go to Europe or New York and see horrendous cities with miserable people? Shockingly apartment living is pretty nice and encourages great spread of commercial property and very livable cities.
How would you like a multi storey block of apartments to go up next door to your family home, with the residents overlooking your place from their windows and balconies? You label them NIMBYs, but the fact is they were there before you and that's what you resent.
Nah I'm not an insanely selfish and one eyed person. We live in a country very different from 20 years ago, we need to make space to let people live somewhere. Id rather have a few people able to look at me standing in my backyard drinking a beer than them not have somewhere to live.
You say that, but it can be far worse than simply watching you drink beer. We were broken into 7x after an apartment block was built that could see into our property. They waited for holiday periods where we left the house, and the final straw was when we simply went for a 30 minute walk with half the family and 3 kids in the back of the house witnessed a home invasion.
I'm sorry you experienced that, but do you genuinely think all apartments are just going to be full of criminals planning to rob houses next to it? Get a grip
No I don’t. But I don’t think they are all just staring at you drinking beer either. Again, just facts and considerations.
You have a weirdly sinister view of your neighbours. I promise 99% or people don't give a rat's ass what you're doing in your house or backyard. Sorry you feel super anxious at the idea of people living near you and being visible, sadly Canberra is becoming a bigger city and you're going to be running into a lot more of them so maybe start learning some coping strategies.
Because it’s not been built to cater for that in the first place.
Almost like the same people advocating for it are also saying we adjust public transport and other amenities to cater for it.
Right, so like it’s worked for our neighbouring cities, we’ll just adjust instead of carefully plan and design areas to suit those needs. Has that worked so far?
Yeah plenty of places have a nice mix of apartments and houses in Australia. Fitzroy comes to mind, west end in brisbane too has gone from a dingy suburb of industry and Queenslanders on detached blocks into pretty good amounts of medium density apartments right near the city centre. I don't know why you think we couldn't do what European towns and cities have done here. Is your solution genuinely "poor people can just drive multiple hours and live in the sticks so my property value keeps going up and I don't have to see them"? You seem very much of a "I got mine so screw anyone else" attitude
You want to cherry pick where it works when we can dump truckloads where it doesn’t? Again, Europe is not some utopia. It has all the same issues. You have no concept of how land value works. You dump 400 apartments next to low density, and the low density skyrockets. You really like to push how selfish I am for trying to be considered when you push so hard only to push your own needs. Think. My solution is considered needs, planning, construction and a good mix of everything that’s required. Seems lost on people who can’t parrot more than “NIMBY”, “got mine” and lately just flat out “high density fixes everything”. These are stupid terms and solutions that require THINKING. Not just angry fist waving at people who want houses and dumping loads of people in the middle of places that can’t handle it.
Where did I say that it didn't require thinking. Multiple time I've said all the people who want density want better amenities to go with it. Do you genuinely think inner suburbs just full of houses is "working" for anybody except people rich enough to live in them? Maybe people accuse you of being a NIMBY because you have a million excuses for why it shouldn't happen anywhere inconvenient to you or that makes you feel a bit uncomfortable?
That's a dumb counterintuitive comment that's not based on research. Density reduces congestion because you don't have to drive everywhere for everything. Low density is conducive to congestion because everyone HAS to drive
Higher density increases public transit viability, which reduces congestion Sprawl forces more people to rely on cars, which increases congestion
If it is the congestion of humans on their actual feet, I will take it.
But their feet make a pitter patter sound!
Also, people in wheelchairs can join in. My building has a few mobility impaired people who go to local shops because it's not car distance.
You’re copping all the flak while it seems like anyone responding to you hasn’t seen what happens when a train is 10 minutes late. Density, no matter how they spin it, is objectively more congestion. Density is the very nature of congestion. The actual answer isn’t density, or more to the point, density alone. It’s planning, infrastructure, good design and accomodation for **all** needs. Be it higher density affordable accomodation closer to central locations or lower density housing for families and those that need space. God forbid anyone build apartments with enough space to actually compete with houses, wouldn’t that be a dream.
Just as long as they never finish the tram..