Hopefully Minister Meaghan Scanlon is able to maintain their stance on pushing for higher density housing.
Around our area they are cutting up ex-farming blocks (including a heap of trees and scrub) in to housing estates with 250m2 blocks. Its absolute insanity to convert that much land in to dwellings that are so useless - they can’t fit many people per house, and there’s so much wasted space with “backyards” you can’t use, walls so close you get no privacy (less than units in fact due to the lack of insulation and sound proofing!), and seperate services being run to every block which is super inefficient compared to centralised services.
I would love to see these ridiculous estates being done in medium to high density housing with a big park in the middle instead.
Also I like the idea of blocks of units being subsidised by the Government, but then containing x% of public housing. The building is less risk for a builder to take on because of the financial backing, the building is of better quality because it has to meet Government standards, and it integrates public housing with private housing to prevent “slums”.
This is really good, but it’s only scratching the surface. We need the government to not just be densifying its existing social housing, but also purchasing new land on which to build new social housing. We need the State Government to require increased density in cities’ zoning plans, and for the local Councils to deliver on that. We need better laws to protect tenants who speak up for themselves not just in theory, but with real teeth in practice.
Also I like the idea of blocks of units being subsidised by the Government, but then containing x% of public housing
As long as it’s truly public housing, and not “affordable” housing, which is typically a much weaker threshold to meet. Just 20% below market values for 5 years, in some cases (and after that time, it can be priced whatever they want!) There should still be incentives for more of that kind of housing too, but true public housing needs to take back a significant percentage of the market.
As long as it’s truly public housing, and not “affordable” housing, which is typically a much weaker threshold to meet. Just 20% below market values for 5 years, in some cases (and after that time, it can be priced whatever they want!)
Goddamnit, there’s always a sting in any government plan that sounds like it might actually help society.
And the root cause is always money for private interests.
We definitely need to be looking at how to provide the increased services and ameneties required for higher density housing. This is often easier in new estates where it is possible to mandate something like parkland and shops be included, but a lot of areas are undergoing renewal of individual blocks and it is much harder to do there. Maybe a system for Councils to aquire some blocks to create public facilities is needed.
Where I am a lot of older housing, generally housing for one older person or couple, is being sold and redeveloped to create townhouses for families - generally two to four families are replacing one or two people. Which means the area is very quickly outstripping the capacity of local ameneties, especially parks. It doesn’t need to be anything fancy, but having somewhere within walking distance that people can go to kick a ball around or sit and chat makes a huge difference to the quality of life. We need to replace individual back yards with shared equivilents, not just remove them and leave people sitting inside air conditioned boxes playing with social media.
Yeah absolutely. We can’t just upzone. We need to also make sure the State Government is building the schools necessary in the local area, Council needs to build public parks, as well as other amenities like libraries, public pools, etc. They also need to enable local businesses like shops to exist to serve that density through mixed-use zoning. Those parks themselves need to have a mixture of amenities, too. Small pocket parks, parks with playgrounds, parks with facilities for various different sports, larger rewilded spaces, skate parks, maybe some tiny street playgrounds.
We also need to start rethinking how we design our roads. To encourage taking public and active transport, and to make people safer to play and get around in their local streets, we need to reduce the ease with which people ratrun through local streets by reducing permeability and designing them to discourage higher speed driving (think: 30 km/h as not only the speed limit, but the speed you feel comfortable driving at), without reducing permeability for pedestrians and cyclists. Because higher density just cannot be feasible if we continue our current insane levels of car dependency.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Tenant Paul Sandow’s house in Zillmere was demolished to make way for four units, one of which will become his new home.
The retired postman lost his income after he developed tumours throughout his body, rendering him unable to work.
The 69-year-old said nine years ago Aboriginal housing provider Umpi Korumba gave him a home when he needed it most.
Umpi Korumba general manager Mary Doctor said it had been a “20-year-journey” to turn Uncle Paul’s old house into a “luxury” four-unit complex.
Ms Doctor said they bought the property in 2002 and spent the next two decades filling in paperwork and working to meet state and federal government regulatory requirements.
She said higher-density dwellings were needed to address Brisbane’s chronic housing shortage.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
How is this bot summoned?
From what I gathered, the author has a list of communities it scans. You can contact them, the details are there when you click on the bot.
I’m a bot that provides summary for articles on supported sites!
If you need help, contact @[email protected].
These micro blocks are my most detested form of “housing”. I refuse to live where I can hear my neighbours fart
On top of that electricity use will be through the rood because there’s no room for trees and air flow to keep the temperature down
