Overdevelopment is ruining Sydney (but it's not what you think)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 เม.ย. 2024
- Cool people to check out!
Sharath from Building Beautifully: / @buildingbeautifully
Chris Topher (He wasn't in this video, but he's also cool): / @christopher_urbanism
If you like my work, here's my Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/cityconnections
Music used:
OpenMSX: github.com/OpenTTD/OpenMSX
(Go play Openttd btw, it's really good! and free!)
Thumbnail Photos:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Sources:
docs.google.com/document/d/1N...
Great video Zach, thanks for having me along. Honestly, it should be mandatory for any person who opposes development in the east to live in Western Sydney for a day and realise just how much worse the infrastructure is out there. The sheer selfishness and wilful ignorance in this city is appalling.
Its not even close to that simple. If the home out West costs you $1million and the one in the east is 3/4 the size and costs you $2million most people are going to choose West because they cannot afford the price difference.
What a state we're in where people are advocating for the entire city to be ruined...
Guys I’m with you for speaking up on these issues, good to see more voices than Sharif are emerging.
This issue is complex, and you paid good attention to the ambivalences for a limited TH-cam video.
But I’m going to say you missed the point a bit. I grew up in Campbelltown, lived until I was 30 there and have spent the last 25 years in ‘the East’ and worked in sales jobs that required me to drive all over, from Newcastle to Wollongong (where I went to Uni) and Bondi to Penrith.
So from a very lived experience, I say forget the East v West divide. It’s false, because despite all the discrepancies between the two areas (why do you think I’m in massive debt and bought here) what is done to one eventually affects the other.
Bob Carr has (and had) it right when he said Sydney is full.
Density decreases quality of life, the graphs you displayed show that.
It’s time governments genuinely grew the useable land in this State. Instead of letting Development Corporations drive the town planning for the easiest profit to them. And the laziest decision for the bureaucracy.
When was the last time you ever saw a (big) Developer take a Sydney shithole and make it better? (Real question?) it has happened occasionally.
Mostly they take easy to sell suburbs and make them shitholes of the future. Look at Alexandria.
And if you want to argue a ‘democratisation’ of Sydney density, your own graphs show the West doesn’t carry the same density burden as the East. So a fair answer would be a flat line of pop density from 0 to 30 Km out of Sydney. Wouldn’t it?
The point is none would win either.
But thanks for raising awareness.
And if you get to travel to Paris, London or EU cities. You’ll see the inner city architecture choices are very deliberate (and State controlled over decades) to cope with density. Very different to the “Asianised” towers being allowed here.
Kowloon is only a matter of time if that doesn’t change.
The federal government (of any party) will always increase immigration until the housing market breaks. Record housing production results in record immigration and a greater housing shortage.
What is incredible, with these new Western Sydney sub divisions, they are building on blocks 300m2.They have almost no backyard with not enough room to swing a cat. Some poor bastard will be working for a minimum 25yrs to pay off these over crowded, overpriced dog boxes. With no sea breeze, air and noise pollution from the second airport, houses stacked like dominos, building on floodplains etc etc it won't be fucking pretty.
If office workers didn't have to commute to the city, a very large number of people could move to regional areas. Greater Sydney could stop needing to expand. But they want to force people into the city though, supposedly to save struggling mum and dad coffee shops, but really to save commercial property investors like Westfield's.
It’s not that simple. Sydney may stop needing to expand but regional cities will be under pressure. Problems will just be transferred elsewhere. Regional cities are “regional” for a reason. They are just not geographically suitable to house a little more people. This means they have a much lower threshold when dealing with increased population and you will very soon end up encountering similar problems if not worse than what western Sydney is facing. There is nothing wrong to further densify Sydney as it’s still has one of the lowest population density among other global cities.
Work from home - opposed by the super funds invested in commercial real estate
@@WTF00007 Even Google and Microsoft are pushing to get their employees back to the office full time due to reduced productivity and creativity.
@@fcfhkmelb It's just another quiet firing tactic now. No need to fire employees anymore and pay redudancy when you get force them to office and they'll quit. Top tech employees earning the big $ are never gonna to an office nor where they in before the pandemic. You gotta pay even a bigger premium to incentives them to come to an office which companies won't. Also offices never made sense anyways in big companies since you are in teams even in the office.
This does bring other societal consequences with it. If Sydney office workers on 6 figure salaries started moving to regional towns they will price out the existing populations who have been there for generations who tend earn less from a local employers. This has already started to happen in Wollongong. More severe examples are people who work for a USA company on a USD salary but live remotely in Mexico.
Very insighful video Zach. If Eastern suburbs people could travel a day or two out to the Western areas they can see for themselves the inconvenience. But most have migrant families which bought houses for their kids early, got them to pay it off while the child was working. Now they are ahead in costs of living & care little about anyone else.
Former Eastern Suburbs postie here, I've been impressed with developments in some parts of the south-east (Pagewood/Eastgardens, Botany, Matraville, Maroubra, Hillsdale, Little Bay). The main problem is that these areas are bus-only.
I still believe that decentralisation can work if done properly - though to say that densification and decentralisation are mutually exclusive is a mistake. IMO the main problem is that proposals only go for inland areas. There are plenty of coastal cities and towns crying out for good jobs and infrastructure - which is how and where decentralisation should be focused, not to mention that densification is also necessary for decentralisation to work. I for one would rather live in Nowra than Marsden Park, and I assume I'm not the only one.
I agree for the most part. Like I mentioned in the video, I've got a video on decentralisation planned, and one of the points I want to cover is the issues we've encountered when going about it. Like you said, it's mostly been focused on getting people inland, which I feel is futile. It can work, just a lot of factors need to line up, at least that's what I think atm, maybe when I do my deep dive on it I'll change my mind.
@@CityConnectionsMediait’s easier than you think. We just need infrastructure built.
Built the great western Hwy as a freeway through the blue mountains all the way to Parkes. Build another Hwy (freeway) from Melbourne to Brisbane via Parkes and many towns.
Also build good rail too along these routes and hospitals/educational facilities/manufacturing areas and the regions will grow.
Build the water pipeline from North Queensland into central NSW and beyond to encourage agricultural and if people know water is available, cities will develop.
It’s just this nation is freaking lazy to do anything now and only want to shove more people into our capitals, which will be a detriment into the future.
It's far more complex than you make out. Building/upgrading those new highways is likely to be expensive, and unlikely to stimulate growth in those regions. People move to cities for proximity to services/friends/family. Even if you upgraded all the infrastructure in Parkes, I know I'd be unlikely to move there, and so would most of the people I know. You need to provide an incentive, which would be jobs, but most companies are unlikely to set up in regional areas unless they have a very good reason.
Also we can't just pipe water from Queensland into NSW, at least without potentially having severe environmental consequences.
@@CityConnectionsMedia if the USA and Canada can utlilize their interiors, we have a mindset problem. I just told you infrastructure will create opportunities and jobs. Jobs won’t go where there is no infrastructure. Anyway, making our capitals more awful places to be isn’t the answer. We have plenty of land in this country to create more cities with greater opportunities.
Where I grew up in Blacktown all the corner blocks have been bought up demolished and then had two smaller houses put on the same block. It's generally fine but some of them have some shockingly bad driveway placements. I did the hour commute each way to central from seven hills station for years. Happy that covid has let me work from home 4 days a week but I know im lucky there!
Yeah, and in large part it's because we're just not building in the east. The west shouldn't be bearing the majority of the population growth.
I agree entirely it's just a shame that the folks in the east have a lot more sway than the rest of us. I would be happy with a small townhouse or apartment closer to the city but it's just not affordable compared to what I can get in Blacktown.
@@zman1508 Yeah, I'm the same. That's why I tried to talk about systemic changes that address the power imbalance.
@@CityConnectionsMedia I think more folks are slowly becoming aware of these things. Its always been well known within the RTA previously and TfNSW now that this is how things worked. The community organisation the money and the power just dont exist out west.
@@CityConnectionsMediamate, go to Eastgardens. There are thousands of your favourite tiny apartments being built with no infrastructure available apart from slowwww buses.
I’m a YIMBY through and through from the US and while we, in the US, are dealing with our own housing crisis, it pales in comparison to other anglophone countries (AUS, UK, CAN, etc) and the wider Global North. I think our relative success is actually attributable to a form of “decentralization”.
NYC, Boston, LA, DC, and SF are going through crazy housing crises at the moment with little end in sight, but over the last ~20 years, our sunbelt (Florida, Texas, Phoenix, etc) has exploded in population partly because of warmer weather but also because folks in NY and California have “given up” and moved on. The sunbelt metros have been on a home building spree-Austin, Tx (metro pop ~2.4 M) approved more housing units than all of New York State (pop ~20 M). Unfortunately, all these new homes aren’t the most “urbanist,” but we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It seems AUS, UK, CAN, or the EU don’t have a sunbelt to relieve pressure from their established cities. SF’s NIMBYs are so troublesome that some of the tech billionaires are attempting to build a new city in California that’ll be urbanist from the start. Given the challenges y’all face and the obstacles to solve them, a new city (I.e. “decentralization”) with all urbanist features might be worth looking into.
I think you raise a fair point there. I'll have to keep that in mind when I do my decentralisation video, if only because it'd be best to look at foreign case studies to compare.
thanks for the input!
Yup. The US have a huge advantage of having an endless amount of major cities as back-up, whereas in Aus and Canada we have very few. In my state in Australia, our government has tried investing into regional towns to develop cities but it attracts practically no one as all the employment options are in the capital - Sydney.
I can't speak for Canada, but for Australia, building new cities has been in discussion in the past, but our small population just doesn't justify it, let alone the limited amount of water supply.
It's possible to build a new city with a single purpose - a new national capital that will serve as a political centre (e.g Washington, Brasilia, Ottawa, New Delhi etc.) . This will ensure jobs, and jobs ensure economic sustainability. However, we've already built that - Canberra. And people here aren't too keen to live there either.
Sydney is known to be very big and there's a saying that it's basically "multiple cities disguised as one". Which is technically true, we recently officiated our "second CBD" in the geographical centre of the city, Parramatta (35mins away from Sydney CBD) with a TON of investment into it. Sydney is also planning a third CBD, a brand new city that will be built from scratch within reasonable distance to our new Airport in the west.
New South Wales has also commissioned a long-term plan to decentralise Sydney into a metropolis of three cities - the Eastern Harbour City, Central River city and the Western Parklands city with an aim to densify our suburbs too.
So humbled and honoured to be in the first Ko-Fi shoutout 🥺 great video, a lot of people tend to talk about overdevelopment as if it was simply vibe based but there are real factors that go into how much you can and should build somewhere!
Yeah, that's why I wanted to talk about it because it's more complex than just 'buildings'
BTW I live in Stanhope Gardens and this is the more developed of the development hell zone. Public transport is ok as the bus is nearby and feed into Rouse Hill, Blacktown and Parramatta. It is not great, as I have a mobility impairment and just slightly too far from walking distance from a bus stop. But the new Schofield's/Riverstone building zone is a problem.
Rules should be made that a percentage of a housing block should consist of vegetation.
If people continue to build houses that fill the block, perhaps rooftop gardens are the answer.
I think it's worth pointing out that places like Randwick are already some of the densest suburbs in Sydney. If you want to go up, you need to knock down apartments. Waverley council just north of Randwick is 7,635 people per square km. Blacktown is only 3,287.
Hills District served only by buses and no heavy rail in sight, while standing a stone’s throw from Castle Hill railway station?
It's about midway between Castle Hill and Parramatta, but that still is buses only. And if you're going to the city, that's still extra time you're taking. So I could have picked a better spot in hind sight.
Great video! Thx fellas
Hey Mate, please speak slower and clearer. I couldn't understand a lot of your stuccato way of speech. Try to emulate Sharath's delivery. He is excellent and easy to listen to 😀
Sorry about that! It's something I really need to learn to do.
I think it's "staccato" mate
Another thing that doesn't help, is we have a state parliament full of landlords and developers, who benefit from overdevelopment. For me, due to overdevelopment of Campbelltown, I bugged out of Sydney altogether to regional NSW. Moving country is not an option for everyone, but for me, it works out. It was also to escape the SW Sydney heat and humidity. I live near Chris Topher, just 50km south and about 400m higher :)
In the Eastern suburbs that's where the RICHES lived
Excellent video guys, you've hit the nail on the head. I was just discussing this issue with my mates today and it really doesn't make much sense as to why we keep expanding outwards and not upwards, what are we gonna do when we hit the Blue Mountains lol? I believe a lot of Australia's are looking at today's apartment buildings and their quality, and deciding it's not worth the risk, especially after the issues at Mascot Towers and the Opal Tower at Olympic Park. So many new buildings have just not been built they should've, real tight and hard legislation, with crippling penalties needs to be enforced to ensure quality again. This is of course along with the great Australian dream as briefly mentioned in that part, but even these new houses on floodplains aren't exactly my dream residence (in all honesty, I'd move out of the city in retirement or if their were jobs in regional areas), they're tightly built together copy and paste places with a 5m2 backyard, not exactly paradise, especially on your treeless floodplain.
Yeah i can agree, builders and developers need to come up with a 20+ years warranty for all apartments which require a lift in order to be approved and inspections though the stages of constructions. If a building fail, like Opal tower...... the developer and inspectors that inspected the building is liable for a fine equal to every owner mortgage + deposit and have to refund those owners, which can come for 100+ plus apartments at an average of a $1 million, to be up to $100 million or more and they have to serve jail time until they pay off their debts.
lots of nice developments in Sydney's north west, just a short drive to the new Metro rail.
When much of Sydney's classic infrastructure was set up, the city stopped in the west around Haberfield. Much of the later development in the west was along existing rail lines, and it still shows in many places.
This has effects in all sorts of obscure ways. One I discovered was that before about the 1970s, what was then the NSW Fire Brigades selected new suburban station sites purely on the basis of "along each rail line, at about every 3 or 4 stops or so". They have long since adopted more sophisticated needs analysis, but if you look at many of the older fire station locations you can see that pattern. A lot of other infrastructure and services developed in similar ways. It created the view that the west didn't need as much infrastructure, because it was less crowded, and was already served by a lot of stuff along its Western and South West arms.
In the past, less wealthy people did live closer to the inner city. You can see traces of it in Surry Hills from long before it became gentrified from slums. Many of them were deliberately uprooted and deposited out west, first in Green Valley and a little later around Mt Druitt and so on. That process and how they coped with it is well documented in the film (on TH-cam) "Whatever happened to Green Valley' .It was produced by a young film student called Peter Weir (who later directed films like Gallipoli, Picnic at Hanging Rock, The Truman Show, Dead Poets Society, and Master and Commander). He did a send-up of how an elitist press might report the story (for the amusement of the locals), then supplied them with cameras, sound equipment and training to tell their own stories, with some impressive results. It's worth a look.
Eastern and Western Sydney (i.e west of its centre of population - currently around Rosehill) are not just two different cities, but two different planets. The Red Rooster Wall is the Australian virtual equivalent of 'red-lining' in the USA. It's to reserve the pretty, well-serviced parts of Sydney for people who are elite and well connected, and relegate all the 'deplorables' (or the 'little people' as the British used to call them) west of that line. I've heard state politicians (from Labor in this case) quietly describe trains as being 'for losers'. I suspect the main reason for Bradfield being built is to provide an up-market enclave for upper management who need to live near WSI, but couldn't stomach living in Oran Park, let alone St Marys.
I will be surprised to ever see high rise residences dominate Waverley, let alone Mosman. My mother once told me that the only thing she ever saw that enabled cheaper property in the Eastern Suburbs was WW2, especially just after it was shelled by deck guns on Japanese submarines that had transported midget submarines to attack the harbour. Something equally drastic is needed to move people's perceptions. I propose building in the manner you suggest; but not in the East, but as exemplars in the West of what is possible. Market about how such superior housing can only be done in the West, as the East always rejects it. You need motivations as powerful as envy and jealously to get Nimby's to move. (Either that or have the Fujian aircraft carrier and a few escorts do a goodwill cruise in sight of Sydney Heads.)
And this is not from some leftie, but from a person consistently dubbed the 'Ron Swanson' of his department.
PS: A few questions.
(1) Is the existing infrastructure (power, water, sewerage, etc.) in Eastern Sydney sufficient for a significant expansion of its population in the manner you describe?
(2) Have you explored how the overall life cost of housing can be reduced - Some quite expensive features required in even low rise apartments are not required in any other first world country. Other features like smaller dwelling areas (the average now is more than twice that of a few decades ago) with lighter roofs and insulation are seemingly not encouraged.
(3) Have you considered lobbying for things such as (a) fixed interest loans being used more for property, at least until some equity has been built up, (b) limiting negative gearing to being offset only against property income, not all income (c) Having interest on home loans made tax deductible. (BTW All three used in the USA)
Thanks for the big response! I get where you're coming from for the most part, and I agree that it's unlikely we'll see those wealthy areas upzoned. Unfortunatley, with our current system rich and wealthy nay sayers often get their way.
I don't really agree the way to fix things is to take whats good in the east and copy it in the west, as the fundamental issue for me is that we shouldn't be building as much in the west because of the climate/transport related issues. You could copy Randwick and plonk it down at Mortdale and it'd still be innapriate imo. Although I do like the idea of sending the PLAN to scare people out of Mosman though >:)
In regards to your questions:
1) I don't know for sure, but I'd say it's unlikely it is, and it would need some upgrades, but that goes for all areas with large scale development. It's just in the west you're often building that infrastructure from scratch.
2) I've not explored it fully, but I do intend on doing a video in future on building standards in Australia, as they have some issues imo. But I've not done a full deep dive so I can't say anything more with confidence.
3) a) I'm not knowledgeable about finance stuff, but I could see that being a good scheme to implement, but I can't say with with any confidence.
b) I'm fully on board with limiting negative gearing. In my opinion we need to move away from the idea of housing as an investment.
c) I could see that being a good policy, but I'd want to see proper research on it as I'm not too knowledgeable.
I do plan on doing a full video on how to fix/improve the housing market sometime in the future, and I might cover some of these with more detail.
Thanks for the comment!
@@CityConnectionsMedia Thanks CC. We might not entirely agree, but we do on several things, and I thoroughly respect your authenticity and motivation about all of it..
I might not have been completely clear about the 'do something as an exemplar in the West' thing. My intent was not to transplant something now the East into the West, but develop an exemplar in the west of how you would WANT it to be in the East; (and probably in an western area which already has relevant infrastructure in place). Ideally it would make people in the East WANT to live as depicted.
If you are doing something on building standards by all means hit me up for some leads (I've had some background in fire and emergency aspects). An issue I have noted is how industry groups/associations who create or influence such standards are sometimes prone to design them around the way they (or their organisations) would like them to be. This is not to say there are not representatives who also really strive for the broader public interest, but they don't always hold sway.
Regulatory regimes often (sometimes unconsciously) use fear of something (or sometimes an accompanying sense of 'righteousness') as a motivator for compliance. A BBC documentary maker Adam Curtis has a series called "The Power of Nightmares" (on TH-cam) about how fear of something can be used politically to wield power over others. It uses the 'War on Terror' as a case study, but the concept fits lots of situations. Every such nightmare has a kernel of truth and involves a real risk, but is deliberately manipulated beyond that, giving dysfunctional results.
Fair comment on the finance stuff. Limiting negative gearing does take it down a cog or two, while keeping it for real investors in anything. I don't mind people dealing in it for the genuine business of providing rental accommodation; but often it's just a tax minimisation scheme (and not that good a one at that). Two other things that might be of interest are the potential for rethinking the use of Class 3 buildings, and Starr-Bowkett Societies (once a common way of cooperatively seeking loans, but they no longer exist - Somebody sometime will probably re-invent it.)
Enjoy your quest.
@@tacitdionysus3220 Sewerage gets flushed out into waterways every time it rains. Basically the sewer system is deleted in new suburbs.Saves a lot of money.
@@amraceway Hi. Do you mean sewerage systems or storm water drainage systems. When I first was in the west there was no sewerage, and we had 'night soil' collection service. If you were cashed up, you might have had a septic tank that got pumped out occasionally. Storm water systems (street gutter, drains and drainage canals, etc, are just for precipitation runoff.
@@tacitdionysus3220 Sewerage. It is a common practice, they must have holding tanks and when it rains out it goes. There is a guy from Sydney on TH-cam that does fishing videos and he discovered it to his horror when tramping through shit on his way to a creek.Subsequently he found it was happening everywhere.
If find it interesting that rich NIMBY’s go to cities in Europe on holiday for the urban vibe yet fight tooth and nail to to keep it from happening here.
Modern high density means ghettos.
Great video Gents! Telling it like it truly is!
I start my commute by driving to tallawong, getting on the metro and riding it all the way to Town Hall. It's over an hour and a half for one way. Safe to say I work from home 90% of the time.
Building properly on a flood plain is possible. It's called a Queenslander. They're dirt cheap and very functional, especially in hot weather.
Just don't let the owners enclose anything below the flood line.
As a matter of fact cities develop usually where there is good farmland available, fresh water sources for both consumption and secondarily as seafood is a ready source of food all year round, and a means of transport such as a river , the ocean or grassland. The largest cities in the world except for a few are thusly large because of these facts. That means that the worlds best farmland is now sitting underneath our largest cities, completely cut off from their natural existence (ie: they dry out as we build water reticulation such as street guttering, roads, and housing). As the climate deteriorates we should be aware of this and if it is not addressed will have to be utilised for food production (or should I say in a worst case scenario starvation mitigation).
Why does the northwest metro terminate at Tallawong rather than linking with Schofields?
Good question. I wasn't able to find a solid answer when I did my metro video. Hopefully one day I'll find an answer.
Why are we putting ourselves in the situation where we have to ask how we can house a rapidly growing population?
I'm all for population growth, if we do it properly. Except governments don't do it properly, and cheap out by not investing the required money for it. Governments have been trying to reap the rewards of population growth, without any of the spending. Both sides of government.
I'm suggesting we need to add to the housing stock while drastically cutting immigration as much as feasible. Once the housing stock and infrastructure (roads, trains, schools, hospitals, water supply) gets increased, we can then increase immigration back to current levels. Or even higher if we are preparing for it.
But nobody wants to spend the money and make the multi decade long plans.
Great video! Applicable far beyond Sydney
balmain BASKET WEAVER SYNDROME is catching on!
Canberra was meant to be a planned city , so why is it so difficult to find a route for the light rail extension to Woden ? Was this not planned for originally ?
They're trying to do too much with a single route. One route creates absurdities. Also, the main delay isn't the route, it's the NCA, who won't even allow overhead wires in the triangle.
They need to split it into two routes. One being the fast line to Woden, and the other a reasonably direct link through Barton to Kingston Station (and on to, umm, Oaks Estate).
Yes, I'm saying cut the trains back to the newly refurbished Queanbeyan Station & use the corridor for something more productive supported by services every few minutes instead. Besides, we already know they want to move the station at Kingston, as it directly blocks the extension of The Causeway to Hume Circle.
building on floodplains is very evident in northern suburbs of Melbourne too... if it is naturally flat, there is a reason.
Overdevelopment…not enough trees since there’s no land allocated due to greed….#urbanheatislandeffect
The real reality is we only have two single roads .new south Head and Oxford Street .
Traffic is ridiculous
I love your comment. As a northern beaches guy, I welcome any train line (or any further road upgrades, such as duplication and raising of Wakehurst Parkway to make it not to flood, also nature can crawl under the road) and a road tunnel connecting the wakehurst parkway to postponed beaches tunnel). Too bad I live in a world full of fuckwits that i should fight them teeth and bone.....
Or maybe just move every CBD related shit and whatnot out west and if those people in the east whinge about, give them 2 options, ether they get their fair share and no blocking of upgrades (which has to be locked in by government) or everything get moved out west.
We are having worse flooding events because we are building over land that would previously drain and slow water down rather than changing the climate.
I fully agree with your video. Thanks for highlighting the obvious.
baulkham hills cameo 😍😍 (i hate it here)
The government should be made to pay for any flood damage. They are the ones that let it happen
Good stuff guys. Couple of points:
1. build quality is an issue that needs to be considered in the argument - just saying we need to build more isn't enough - have a look at the work this guy is doing to expose shonky builders in australia (www.youtube.com/@Siteinspections/videos ) . This is an area where engineering/architecture students/YIMBYS should get involved - make TH-cam videos exposing bad practice and rip-offs in the housing/infrastructure sector and help victims get their money back.
2. on the macro level, I reckon it comes down to a governance problem - most major cities in the world are self governing once they get above say 5 million people. Australia needs to add another level of governance - states, territories and metros. If Sydney left NSW and became self governing, it would be able to coordinate all the planning across the metro area, set its own priorities and control its own budget/population targets. It would be better for regional NSW also as they are always complaining that Sydney sucks up all the oxygen and resources in state politics. Start a campaign for Sydney independence!
I compleltey agree. I plan on doing a video on building standards at some point, because on a regulation level our building standards are shockingly bad, which isn't helped by the poor level of regulation.
and yeah, I fully agree that we do need a level of self-governance for urban areas, it's why I wanted to bring it up in the video. I might do a full video arguing for it at some point because I believe it has some merit.
25 degrees C is hot? Maybe the intensity of being in direct sun was the problem.
Maybe? We were in the sun a fair bit at Randwick too and it was a lot cooler. I think it was partially the humidity.
Humidity is the killer, although it can be bad anywhere in Sydney on a given day
Since Randwick is near the coast assume it's even more humid but cooler though.
The harassment property developers have subjected this lonely old man to in an attempt to acquire my old house situated on a trophy property overlooking the harbour has been horrific , real estate industry is full of crooks too
7:40 dammit did Gladys really get streets named after her?
Sydney is full, Australia is full, planet Earth is full. Prior to 2014 I used to drive from St Mary's to Randwick(or surrounds) each Saturday afternoon(+ extras during holidays). Up to say 2008 this trip would take 1.5 hours, average. However post 2008 this was taking longer and longer, ,as it approached 2014, it was often close to 3 hours. The return trip at 4 - 5 AM took a regular 50 minutes. Also on the average Saturday night I would drive the taxi greater than 320 kilometers. In the relevant time this dropped to 280 kilometers, at a struggle, staying as much as possible in the East, operating to the same MO. Again, Sydney is full. More people, is no way to address Climate Change(worldwide).
Aside from the obvious economical effects, I say there is a social impact. From the 1974 - 75 first NY the shift, was always such fun. Each new fare I took there would be a chorus of "Happy New Year, Driver" along with invites to parties. Durring the last NY I did, 5(five) people - uttered unenthusiastic - NY wishes, in the whole 14 hours.
Absolutely correct!
"Planet Earth is full"
Even if the global birthrate went to zero, there are gonna be a *lot* of climate refugees over the coming decades.
Have you looked beyond Sydney...say...regional NSW...you tell me if it's 'full'
@@kennylee8936 As I said Planet Earth is full. It's all about resources and their depletion. I now live in the regions in an area which produced so much of Sydney's dairy products in days gone by.
@@morrismclean3584 it could still be that way if people like you didn't all demand and give into the propaganda of everyone having a detached house and backyard...like were you people that delusional to think it's possible for generations to come?
ALBO of cource your ministers for mass house build's know this so why on flood plains why???
As soon as you invoke "NIMBY" you lose me.
Everybody has there own interests at heart, in particular, it's what the 40 years of politics and economics has trained us to do, "be responsible for ones self" (sometimes) and look out for number 1.
It does no good to cast the occupants of the Eastern Suburbs as Bad.
It's not their fault that the population growth of Australia has been growing at an unsustainable rate.
It's not their fault that developers run amok with too few checks and balances, same goes for politicians.
It is natural that the power base lies in the older suburbs in the East. I'm not saying that is right.
I don't really know Sydney, but your arguments equally apply to Brisbane and I imagine Melbourne.
I'm starting to fall into the sector that you'd say is an older person, living in a suburb that I grew up in; was a worker's suburb that is now becoming trendy. I am seeing what 20 years of infill development has brought - higher density, cars perpetually parked on the street, and bigger houses and smaller yards, yards so small I don't know why they bother.
I do agree we need more high density living, just not in my backyard! 🙂 No I'm kidding. In fact, there is a a larger block about to be redeveloped some 100m away from me where they are proposing 4 or 5 "mini' houses - doesn't look very impressive. In that particular location I'd a 3 to 4 (maybe 6) storey building with parking underneath would be a better outcome. I'd rather more density plus parklands be applied to transport corridors. Places were E-bikes / mobility scooters can safely transit to train and bus stations.
So you see, Its the false economics of populations growth, then politicians, then Developers that is screwing up our cities.
Again guys. Lots of good points about overdevelopment.
But, again, ignoring that the big picture is to build the Western Parklands as a city competing with the Harbour City. So people in the west will work rest and play IN THE WEST.
You guys keep assuming people will NEED to, want to go the Harbour City. They won't.
Concentrate on getting the West properly serviced by public transit, health, education, sport, recreation etc
Mortdale is not in the Eastern suburbs, and the development you protested about is under construction. There are 2 blocks next to the station that are going up which are 6 storey's. The Woowser's lost by the looks of things. Also, Mortdale, Penshurst and Hurstville have had units since the 70's, probably 60's, when it was not that common and there was still lots of vacant lots throughout the St George area, so I don't buy your argument about Mortdale. And this will continue regardless of how many whingy busy body networks set up shop. Councils love the rates.
I think there's a misconception that my lot could buy a house in our twenties. At the time no bank would loan to anyone that young ... unless they had help from Mum and Dad. Sound familiar.
I enjoy watching your videos and I feel for your ... and my kids generation. You've been handed a shit hand, as we also thought. But rather than scream into the wind and try and be the smartest people in the room, you should attempt to take people along with you.
Look forward to the next video :)
Yeah... I probably should have made it clear at the start that my definition for 'eastern suburbs' is anywhere east of Parramatta, which is a bit different to typical usage. But in regards to it continuining regardless, I don't think that's the case. We've seen how well organised NIMBY groups can be, and while councils may love the rates, councils are elected by their constituents, and a lot of NIMBY groups know how to mobilise people to vote.
And yh, it is a misconception that buying a home in the 80s/90s was so easy that anyone with a $10 note could buy one. But it is also true that housing/rent costs have risen a lot faster than wages. Iirc you'd need to earn around 250k per annum to buy a home in Sydney now, and even if you're a couple both working high paying jobs, you're unlikely to be there. And in secondary cities it's not much better. I'm originally from Newcastle, and I'd struggle to buy there too, but I know 20 years ago it was possible for average people to buy their home, because my parents were able to do it on a tradies income. But today on a 100k income I'd struggle to buy without external support.
For the most part, I make videos like this to get people mobilised, because the issue is bad and it's getting worse. I'm sure you'd agree, that no one should be required to get help from the bank of mum and dad to buy a basic neccesity, but it's becoming the only way now. And if we don't do something, maybe for my kids generation, they'll only be able to buy if they have rich parents, which is not something I want.
But yeah, next video might be a bit sooner! and it'll be something railway related again! I've got a few more planning related ones, but they're either big, or planning history stuff.
@@CityConnectionsMedia I feel for your generation re renting / ownership. It's a world wide phenomenon, though. I'm surprised there hasn't been protests on the street. I've lived in 2 houses in Mortdale, 1 was a federation house now 6 town houses and a fibro house in the industrial estate now a duplex. It is happening but really slowly. Unfortunately as well the build quality of units is shocking in Sydney, never buy off the plan. You guys will get there for sure. Don't worry about the whingers though they are toothless tigers :)
Yeah... housing issues is something that transcends generations. It's why we need to do something to fix the issue for good, because some places do it far better than we do.
And yeah... I've seen how shocking some new builds can be. Our housing standards are just terrible, and it's something I really need to do a video on.
Unfortinately Sydney is not planed properly, it is simply overdeveloping due to developers controlling our major political parties. The best planing solution is to decentralise, and the best way to do this is to build High speed rail between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. This would mean towns along the line would be able to increase their populations due to being within communting distance. It also means the second Sydney Airport would not be needed.
Furry🐱🐱
Those advocating for cutting immigration as the only solution to housing are being too simplistic. You need to tell us how you would solve the problems of GP shortages, nurse shortages, teacher shortages, pharmacist shortages, engineer shortages, tradie shortages, bus/train driver shortages etc etc - even the ADF cant find recruits. Cutting immigration might help housing in the short term but it will make everything else much worse. You cant advocate for immigration cuts and then complain when your bus is always being cancelled or your nana is ramped for 12 hours outside a hospital waiting for a bed, or the builder of your new house cant find tradies to do the work.
Yes you can. The problem is that we have a society that is based using migrants instead of out own people. The situation is that our economy is based on profit of the powerful rather than the well being of its citizens.
Migration is a catastrophe.
@@LawrenceMclean fair enough. How long do you reckon it would take to eliminate all those labour and professional shortages given an unemployment rate of 3.8% and a natural population growth rate of negative 1% ? Australia also has a high rate of migrants and aussie born professionals who are dissatisfied with prospects in Australia and are leaving - most go to the US (200,000 Aussies left Australia permanently last year, and those numbers are increasing according to abs). So replacing that steady stream of aussie born and trained worker loss needs to be included in the calculation of how long it would take to train enough locals to fill all those gaps and keep them filled over the long term.
An yet all these you mentioned issues mentioned exist now and they keep getting worse regardless of the ever increasing migrant numbers. You're not solving any of these problems with Mass immigration it just keeps getting worse over time.
An addiction to exploiting immigrant labour to plug holes in the economy is the entire problem. You cannot bring in enough GP's, Nurses, Teachers, Pharmacists, Engineers, Drivers and every thing else the local economy isn't providing whilst also providing enough GP's, Nurses , Teachers, Pharmacists, Engineers, Drivers and everything for the migrants themselves.
At some point this ponzi scheme is going to fall over.
@@user-vq9jb5zx8p Instead of an economy structured to benefit profit and speculation, it was based on nation building and educating its own citizens there would not be any shortages in the first place. Until around 1980, most Australians school leavers entered (paid) apprenticeships or traineeships. The investment in our youth was assumed. Of course that idea is abhorrent to the modern political class, as it is based on the idea of the nation and its people. The modern political class are "globalists" and the only role for Nations is protecting the ill-gotten gains of the ruling elites and extracting as much tribute as they can from the beleaguered native citizens (who are hated). Globalization is fast turning the Western world into a cesspit
@@RasputinReborn-vz7jw I don't disagree. I'm not arguing FOR mass immigration - just pushing back on those who keep saying stopping immigration will by itself solve all Sydney's housing and traffic problems. Our immigration system is broken and continuing at the rates we have will make things worse over time. But stopping immigration cold will make things worse real fast. And scaling up Unis, TAFEs and colleges to produce enough people to fill current and future skills gaps will take at least a generation (for a start, where will all their teachers come from? these institutions are all short staffed already). Aussies will not wait that long for decent housing and other services. Whatever solution we come up with, some level of immigration will be part of the mix.
Tourism has ruined Sydney, nobody really cares about the suburbs. If you can afford to live there you don't deserve sympathy
You guys don't seem to have noticed that the inner city is much denser than the west, and there are no single storey houses - it's all terrace houses and flats. The hated nimbys who insist on living in four bedroom houses with double garages with backyards and double garages are actually in the west. If the new houses in the west were at the same density as the inner city the land/climate/infrastructure crisis would be so much less.
Sydney is confined by national parks.
Let the city be a city, Sydney doesn’t need so many parks, flying into Sydney it’s very apparent
But that is what sydney is great for. If you want less parks, go move to tokyo.
@@jamesrichardson645 some prefer small cities like Sydney
People need local parks that they can walk to within a few minutes, not a national park an hour away by the obligatory car.
Need @@richardboult2187 @@richardboult2187
Some need their own hectare in the city, who draws the line, and how makes these rules, and what constitutes building beautiful?
As I’ve moved between cities and countries my experience has been. When I ask people where is a good place to live, they would also say (beautiful city) then I’d ask where do you live, Thats where I live in (beautiful city).
Even remember a friend who was looking at buying a house but wouldn’t ever consider living on the north side of Sydney, we only live on the south side of the harbour
No Aussies shouldn’t have to give up their dream home, how about we curb the open immigration issue and keep our dream!
Because it was never viable in the first place, car dependant urban sprawl has its own issues. Besides, cutting immigration won't work anyway, Sharath has a video on it coming out soon.
Disagree 100% cutting immigration is the only way! Basic math! We’re in a resource based economy, we don’t need a large population!
I do agree though with the urban sprawl problem in western Sydney the stupidity of building on flood plains etc Western Sydney suburbs can become unlivable due to heat and it’s not from climate change (I’m a physicist and former gov environmental scientist)
@@CityConnectionsMedia I acknowledge that at points in the past, and at points into the future, we will require some immigration. However, it is resulting in extra demand for additional dwellings. When we have a homelessness problem, we shouldn't be making it worse. The housing crisis is slowly becoming the most significant priority according to the population. There is an argument to be made that bringing in immigrants will help provide construction workers, however this takes time, and the government aren't even bringing in construction workers! At least in the quantities required.
Another thing, Immigration brings in money. This is true. However, only on a mid to long term basis - unless you are only bringing in cashed up investors. Immigration is an investment. However, to support this, the government also needs to invest in the infrastructure required for the additional growth - yet they aren't able to even catch up to current levels of demand today.
What I am saying is, I am not against Immigration. I am however against it when governments insufficiently invest in it. Currently, they are treating it as a free ticket to more taxes and GDP number go up make people happy.
@@CityConnectionsMedia High density is equally unviable, because it misses the point that most of the workforce isn't in the CBD (council stats) and even fewer want to be anywhere near the place for recreation and living.
Plus even of those workers who are in the CBD, the chance that their partner also works there is slim such that no matter where they live, one has to commute almost certainly.
There's a place for CBD's and there's a place for high density housing sure, I'm not disputing that, but if there's one thing that really frustrates a good portion of the population it's this obsession with the CBD far out of proportion to its actual importance. It's that place where some people work in offices, for the rest it's far less important.
Most jobs aren't in the CBD. Also you overlook that land in the Eastern Suburbs and North Shore is expensive. Instead you blame it all on mythical NIMBYs. In a similar vein your distaste for anything financial means you ignore about the infrastructure deficit our population growth creates and how it is going to be paid for. Just because more of it already exists in the East doesn't mean it won't be swamped by population growth.
How is nimbys mythical? The video showed studies about them. Newspapers report on them. You can find them easily on council meetings.
Also, most complaints about infrastructure lackings are from the west, these are tracked by government agencies. And building infrastructure are also easier when things are closer together.
NIMBYs aren't mythical. They are a significant force in the east and have delayed or stopped numerous projects from both private developers and transport.
@@zman1508 Their effect is exaggerated. The video is just advocated what we have done already. We have had large waves of up zoning and apartment building. All backfilled by immigration and rents and prices rose.
@@phillipbrown4963I agree. The majority of the Eastern Suburbs are apartments, semi-homes and smaller homes on smaller land sizes than the majority of the west.
Where the buggery do these guys think more homes can be built? Do they not realize it’s quicker to get a train from Parramatta to the city than from Maroubra and quicker from Blacktown than Little Bay!?!
Look at Eastgardens. Thousands of tiny apartments being built but NONE suitable for families! Zero! Zilch!
The cost in the east alone can be prohibitive