Hey! If you want to get involved in Sydney YIMBY, join at the following link: www.sydney.yimby.au/. It costs $20/year for membership, or $5/year if you are not currently employed full-time. Once you join, you'll be in the loop for upcoming council meetings that you can attend, both within and outside your area. We need all the help that we can get if we have any hope of increasing housing supply in Sydney and driving down housing and rental prices. Please consider making a submission to the Transport Oriented Development Program Parliamentary Inquiry, with submissions closing on the 31st of March 2024. www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=3035#tab-submissions. You can make anonymous submissions. Even a short one-paragraph submission will help, there is no word limit. The government needs all the support that it can get in order to pass what is a very logical and reasonable housing program. If you'd like sources and links for this video, check out the description. Thank you for watching.
Imagine arguing that the 'supply' impact of immigration is in any way a comparable counterweight to the 'demand' effect on housing. Yeah, won't be signing anything endorsed by someone who couldn't pass basic economics.
Imagine arguing that the 'supply' impact of immigration is in any way a comparable counterweight to the 'demand' effect on housing. Yeah, won't be signing anything endorsed by someone who spouts such nonsense.
Something weird to think about and consider: if we didn't have immigration all our grandparents would have likely passed away by the time we need to purchase our first home or when we need a larger home to start our own families and because of that Australians would have been able to purchase affordable homes and we could easily keep up with demand. The newer homes would have made our older existing homes more affordable and enticing for Australians to rebuild and update their land with newer modern smarter homes and Australians would be producing happy lifestyles and families right? 🤔 So now we need to find out exactly which landlords are ruining it for Australians. Is it the: 1. Australian born citizens owning too many properties? 2. Forigners owning too many properties? 3. Councils, Businesses and organisations owning too many properties calling the shots?
As a teacher who cannot afford to live near the schools that are crying out for staff (and know MANY in the same boat) I am so glad you made this video. Wow, some of the people who go to these meetings make me so sad.. I should not be forced to sharehouse on 85k a year just to live within 45 minutes of my work... More high density housing is critical for the future of this city.
@@MisterMoooEven in developing countries young people live on their own. Australia is about the only county where only the minority of young people have that option
Absolutely. It isn't fair that retirees who no longer need to go to work are living in some of the most convenient locations, simply because they got there first. This is really bad for our economy. We're not saying we want to kick them out, we're simply saying build some density so that we too can live in these convenient locations. It's really not asking for much, but if you spoke to some of them you'd think we were asking them to sell their soul!
I used to park behind a car with a bumper sticker _"Refugees welcome in Stanmore*"_ which sums up the Greens' mentality because a refugee couldn't afford to live within an hour's drive of Stanmore, due to the likes of Greens local councillors being anti-development. They have a mentality similar to all those white Democrats in US Sanctuary cities and "refugee friendly areas" like Martha's Vinyard where they say "we desperately care about the plight of refugees but I am deeply sorry, there is no room for them to live here, they'll have to go back to Texas and Florida". It's not just Greens and Labor-left areas that are the problem, but Liberal and Teal seats like Wentworth, North Sydney and Warringah are full of people who love high immigration, but so long as it is nowhere near them. In fact, the best places for new housing in Sydney would be to build underground metro rail from Sydney to Vaucluse and from North Sydney to Mosman, and build high rise apartment units above and around the train stations along those lines. *For those unfamilar with Sydney, Stanmore is a fairly typical Inner West suburb near suburbs like Petersham, Leichhardt and Marrickville. It is either in, or adjacent to Anthony Albanese's electorate of Grayndler, which would have fallen to The Greens if not for the popularity of the local member, and good preference deals for him.
The only reason so many independents won seats in the last election is because the women living in these inner city suburbs would rather die than vote for Labor so they voted for an independent instead.
@@strawberrysoup1 I generally agree. The main thing the NSW State needs to do (and I believe they have proposed to do this to some extent) is to nominate where in Sydney needs medium to high density housing development and seize development controls of these areas from Local Government. A city-wide housing plan can't be held reliant upon a patchwork of local councils. As for the problems with any one party, I don't mind if a party is like Sustainable Australia Party who want both low immigration AND low development or even if it's a party who want both high immigration and high development: I just want them to be consistent. This is the problem with the NIMBY phenomenon: too many parties want high immigration (either to pander to property investors or chardonnay socialists) but want to _"preserve the character and heritage of their area"_ (code for "we don't want those foreigners here").
Spot on. My Dad bought a place in Vaucluse (Wentworth electorate, which is under a Teal), and he couldn't be anymore pro immigration. And why shouldn't he when all of this excess demand has led to a two-fold increase in his property value in a span of less than 3 years? He knows the suburb will never truly have high density apartments, so he's just happy to reap the fruits from increased population growth. I find it hilarious how those who are most vulnerable to the CoL crisis end up supporting policies that at best do nothing to address it, or at worst exacerbates it (aka woke Green voters). Keep at it gang!
@@kingsimba9513 the reason suburbs like Vaucluse and Mosman won't have high rise is due purely to politics. There are far too many powerful people who live in these areas to allow real democracy to happen.
@@strawberrysoup1 is immigration really good for everyone? Or is it perhaps a question that there might be a goldilocks level (not too few, not too many)? Or is perhaps that maybe it depends largely on the type of immigration that we receive and how we resettle people? I am asking these as open-ended questions, not intending to be leading, because "immigration is good for everyone" is a cartoonishly simplistic answer. Everyone seems to agree that there are limits, both upper and lower. We actually are in recession and have been in quite a few more recessions than they let on. It is called a _per capita_ recession and it gets masked by high immigration rates: but the effect for the average person is that they are in recession. Given that Australia has one of the highest immigration rates in the OECD, I would say that that is proof enough that our major parties are all for high immigration. The hypocrisy you refer to doesn't exist if you do what you have done and separated the political entities. However the people who vote for the Greens at the local level, usually under the excuse to _"preserve the character of the area"_ (nudge nudge, wink wink) are generally the same people who vote for them at the Federal level to have a so-called "compassionate" response to refugees. As for inner city voters, my point still stands. If you argue they are less strongly against immigration because they are "less racist", then according to your logic about racism, then they are the most racist people in the country outside of Vaucluse and Mosman, for not wanting to provide affordable housing in their area to all the new Australians. A lot of Greens voting areas aren't all that particularly diverse, especially not compared to most of Western Sydney and Western Melbourne, which are Labor heartland (except when Labor attempts to parachute in Kristina Kenneally from exclusive Scotland Island into the extremely diverse electorate of Fowler). The electorate that I live in, Blaxland (Bankstown and Auburn), is so ethnically and religiously diverse, and tolerant, that it recorded the highest "No" vote in the country to same-sex marriage. So yes, I agree that the housing market is dysfunctional. One big part of the reason is that John Howard's Capital Gains Tax discount for investment property meant that property investors had incentive to compete with home owner buyers (and as richer people have more money, the investors usually win). Another reason is one of simple supply and demand. The supply isn't keeping up with demand. Well planned Singapore style high density apartment towers over metro rail in high amenity areas, along with European style medium density development in between would take care of that. Both Finland and Mississippi don't have homeless problems simply because they build, build, build, when people need homes. Meanwhile about a third of all Austrian residents live in public housing, and it is GOOD public housing. Now that is when socialism-done-well actually works. But ultimately, new housing needs to be along the Harbour-Parramatta River corridors (ideally starting with Sydney to Vaucluse and North Sydney to Mosman), not in Fairfield, Liverpool, Campbelltown, Blacktown, Penrith, Richmond or The Hills.
I love how you are using your influence to encourage people to turn up to meetings and become active. Ties into another recent video on urban planning youtube leading to slactivism, but here we are promoting getting involved!
not just strate (though they are pretty useless and reform is needed) its the builders, newly build apartments that are built too quickly and not always to spec (lack of site inspections and inspectors compound this further) ive lived in two "new" builds over the past 3 years (i like to rent and move a bit, since i live minimally) and theyre fucking awful quality - this one im at, there was not tap in the laundry so i had to forced them to get it done or id punch the hole in the wall myself ... and this was
I grew up in mortale and my parents still live there. My parents are always saying the units near the station are too high and they don't want any change. I always say ok where do you think I'm supposed to live? They don't get it
To them, moving "out" to Mortdale was a sacrifice, and they expect you and other kids to do the same. They seem to not realise how far moving "out" is now; 80 km west to places like Oran Park, Wilton and Bingara Gorge. Blissful ignorance; they'd benefit from you (and anyone else reading this) sending them this video!
I know the exact apartment block you’ve mentioned. It’s very jarring when comparing to the houses surrounding it which consist of 1-2 storey houses like it’s sticking out like a sore thumb. The ground floor design is a bit high which doesn’t help the case. It’s like the architect just plopped in an apartment in Chatswood and go on it’s merry way. In fact I think NIMBYS used this building as a scapegoat to go against further development. Other than that, it’s rather weird because after a 10-15 min walk to Penshurst, there are already streets of 3-4 storey appartments. It’s just softened the blow because of the massive trees covering it.
Clearly, this NSW Premier is NOT listening to the elected Councillors by the local residents. It is their area, out the outsiders. People need to make submissions to tell whoever Party elected to keep Syd as it is & avoid leaning to HK style.
@@yesbeautyfly if even people who have lived there their whole lives think they cannot live there anymore, something is terribly wrong. People like you are part of the problem why there is a housing crisis to begin with.
23:36 "Do you actually believe that?" A question from a sitting politician that directly questions the Productivity Commission tells you everything you need to know about her beliefs. Uncaring about published research but instead focuses on "beliefs" that are often not grounded in any sort of objective reality.
Can't stand her. How can you ignore dozens of papers that prove that increasing supply decreases prices? Perhaps if you have a vested interest in keeping your electorate a haven of the wealthy.
For many years I travelled to Lidcombe from Lithgow by public transport for work five days a week (7-8 hours travel to and from work, about 270kms return). It's not just so-called essential workers that can't find accommodation close to work but also warehouse, factory and other workers who are disadvantaged. I wholeheartedly support medium to high density housing. I grew up in a terrace house in inner city Sydney, when it was mainly blue collar, before it became popular with professionals and Yuppies. Higher density housing just makes sense, which encourages better use of infrastructure. I am sympathetic to young people who will never be able to own their own home or afford to pay the inordinately high rents in Sydney. Telling people to live out west is just plain selfish.
Need to use emotions to convince them. Old people have the misconception that because of their age, they know everything. That's why it is basically impossible to change their opinion on anything. And to be frank, odds are they don't care how good this is for the young population. This affects their life. You need to convince them it can improve their life as well. Sunch as the easier access to things with public services, nicer cafes and shops for the increased population etc.
Ashfield is a great exmaple of inner west + medium density + good tree coverage. Honestly this should be the model for other inner west locations ESPECIALLY Haberfield.
there's a conflict of interest in South Australia minister for infrastructure and transport is allso the Minister for Energy and Mining no one has spoken out on this, and no one i asked thinks this is fine or doesn't want to talk about its safe to assume unless its there topic greens and labour are self-serving people are dying because of this conflict of interest along with a substantial amount of money down the drain and they cancelled the tram, we only have one line
Time to be a QIMBY! Quality in my Backyard. I’m a big fan of medium density, like we did in the Olympics Athletes’ Village (Newington), such a good direct comparison to Wentworth Point. But let’s admit we can make Parramatta Road SO MUCH BETTER … and next up is Victoria Road in Rozelle *stares at Greens MPs in Balmain* … and don’t you duck away, Princes Highway and Military Road.
From Melbourne. down here the greens have all the inner city suburbs and do similar things. Not only that but everytime the state government has tried to put new social housing in, they have blocked it within their areas.
I think more people would be more keen for townhouses, and 2-6 storey apartments if the architecture and design are aesthetically pleasing like in europe and not all glassy, cheap and dreary looking tower apartments...
I haven’t finished watching the video yet, but I just wanted to dispute one comment made in the discussion before the meeting “if you want to live in a single family home, move out to the country”. I think in a fair and equitable housing market, people should have access to whatever type of housing they want. For example, the city I live in, Shellharbour, has a disturbing lack of density and a large population of NIMBYs. You could probably count the number of buildings greater than 4 stories tall on two hands. That means my family and I, as renters, have to live in a single family home as we literally can’t afford the premium rent of the few luxury apartment buildings we do have which are close to the shopping centres and beaches (we don’t have transit lol). I’m all for density and think low, mid and high rises could and should spring up in every suburb around here but I think ultimately there’s a place for every type of housing in a good city, including single family housing for those who want it.
Zach is not saying if you want to live in a single family home, move to the country. He is saying if you want to live in a single family home near the city and don't want your area to change, move to the country. The comment refers to those who do not want their area to change, because if they want an area most likely to remain detached for decades to come, the country is their best bet. I completely agree that we need all types of housing in a city. The reality is, with 55% of housing being detached in Sydney, we're nowhere near close to that form of housing going extinct.
So everywhere across a whole city should be equally "struggling to support population growth"? There should be at least a few suburbs (generally) where you can buy a detached home with a backyard, you're within walking distance of some decent public transport options, and without having to live next door to a bunch of 6-storey apartment towers that were nowhere to be seen and were comprehensively banned by the zoning when you purchased said property. Perhaps developers can use some of their profits to compensate or re-home the existing residents to a property that meets the needs they originally purchased to meet?
Even having moved from public government housing from Sydney's south east to a house in Sydney's South West permanently, im still a Yimby having lived nearly all of my life in government housing and understanding that more apartments/affordable living spaces goes a long way to tacking a lot of the issues Sydney is facing rn - Expensive to live in, poor public transport in a lot of the very dense hotspots of Sydney etc.
One correction at 5:11... Ryde is more than carrying its weight in the housing density increase and continuing. 2021 City of Ryde stat's- 60.9% of the dwellings were medium or high density, compared to 46% in Greater Sydney. Dwelling Type is an important determinant of the City of problem is affordability and the need for increased percentages of "affordable housing" in the new apartment blocks. And of course properties that are bought as investment but not used or rented out. A can of worms
Ryde is kind of a grey area lying slightly towards the NIMBY side. Many people don't like the apartments and I see many signs saying 'save our green spaces' at the moment, which is fair enough. However these people are no where near is ignorant as people from the North Shore and Inner West, the area has major arteries and is very multi-cultural so people aren't quite as sheltered. Literally ever strret-corner in my area is turning into duplex, apartments on top Ryde in last ten years, Ryde is doing all they can
sure top ryde has been a nice increase in density but its in an awful place for that density with traffic already crazy because king georges rd / victoria rd, that place shouldve been included somehow into the new train lines north ryde built up all around its station and thats the proposed way of doing things (kind of, its not great but its better than what youre getting) there are schemes for affording housing, but it only tackles rent, and for 'essential workers' and i believe (probably wrong) its 20% discount?
Yeah it was probably not the best example, forgot to fact-check that one. That said, they are campaigning to block more housing in Macquarie so I'm kinda on the fence on this one. At any rate, there's definitely worse councils than Ryde.
@BuildingBeautifully I was ploughing my way through planning Docs (one doc was hundreds of pages). The masterplans have always had the high density apartments around the transport hubs and reducing from there. The issues of late are the attempts by developers to take playing fields and bowling club land and develop it. The biggest issue was the Govt talking about taking the North Ryde Common around the old Macquarie Hospital for housing. The other discussions are around changes of masterplans to change the tech business spine to mixed use. There's significant redevelopment of mid density unit blocks to high density next to Herring road, through to the former public housing Ivanhoe site. The DA's are in place for a lot more to come. The present Goodman sites at Lane Cove Road and Waterloo Rd will become mixed use. Cheers
The Ryde council had a rezoning of some area in WestRyde , Eastwood area. Originally there were 6 areas suggested and at the last moment only a small area which is close to both denistone and west Ryde areas was carved out and made HCA. The area has gone through so many changes prior to this rezoning and we have duplex in the area already. This rezoning was a sham and was done intentionally to block development by the NIMBY's
To say Ryde is not pulling its weight is pretty false, Macquarie park, Epping, Top Ryde has had tens of thousands of units added. It is alarming that you believe it is not pulling its weight
I agree. The Epping, Macquarie Park and Chatswood corridor has done a lot of work to contribute to higher density housing already, and it was quite rushed over the 2010s even. Roads are very congested despite a lot of public transport. Would need further infrastructure before any further major high density development begins.
@@pacomarveeny9640 Chatswood isn't in Ryde Council, I found it annoying how he was constantly blaming Ryde. Didn't mention Waverley, Wollahra, Lane Cove, North Sydney and Mosman once, all far worse areas for NIMBYs
i think they meant 'city of ryde' if not, top ryde is part of ryde macquarie park was a spin off decades ago (probably to slug the tech and pharma companies using at as a hq around the 90s, like siemens and astra zaneca) in ryde, the suburb itself, minus top ryde there isnt any really new development going on that ive seen (could be wrong, i dont drive the streets every week to check) what ive seen in epping/carlingford is they buy (admittingly much larger blocks of land than the inner west has) and build duplexs or granny flats (which are its own nightmare)
@@mitchellsmith300 I know that, but the entire rail corridor which is practically around the Ryde region is what I’m referring to. Top Ryde also, has plenty of high density for an area without a train station, unreliable bus services and poor traffic. I always wondered why they never built a railway line from Epping to Ryde, Gladesville, Drummoyne and so on. Also, Mosman does have a lot of medium density around its town centre and along military road. I believe Willoughby Council have done a lot of high density development in Chatswood, St Leonard’s, Crows Nest and around the former Channel 9 studios site. Lane Cove have done a phenomenal job with Planning with lots of medium density and housing diversity. No railway, but they have plenty of busses to nearby North Ryde/Macquarie Park and Artarmon. I believe a large portion of these areas are at their wits end for what the transport infrastructure can handle so far unless further infrastructure is developed. If there’s any NIMBY areas, it would likely be the upper north shore areas, being Hornsby Shire and Ku-ring-Gai. Though, the landscape of the area and significant national park land makes it controversial.
People are so selfish. We live near the Cherrybrook metro station and people are always shoving petitions in front of me, saying "stop over development in our area". I always upset them saying "we've go this lovely rail system, now we have to pay our part and build more appartments in this area". They look horrified and mumble things about "ruining the area". I point out that, if development is done well, things could actually be dramatically better.
Tell them then that they should move to regional NSW...it's not the suburb that they're protecting...it's an ideology. They don't care what Cherrybrook can look like...they care about their low density lifestyle.
What happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom, what happens on the front lawn is everyone's business. Being a rate payer is not a condition for having an interest or being affected by what happens on the other side of an arbitrary administrative boundary.
I live in Brisbane and here we have "character" zoning in our inner suburbs which mandates single detached homes, many of which are derelict wooden shacks. The Greens and Liberals have campaigned for the last two decades to stop rezoning and allowing apartments in places like West End, Paddington and Spring Hill. It kills me...
Most of the new units in the east have all come from old industrial / warehouses areas ie Botany, Mascot, Rosebery, Alexandria, Zetland. If the inner west is predominantly houses then where do you expect the new housing to be built on?
Well, a lot of the people in those houses (many of whom are retired) would be more than happy to sell their place for millions, move somewhere else, and allow hundreds more of working-age to move into the area in their place. There's no compulsory acquisitions at play here. So that's where I expect the new housing to be built; on land willingly handed over to developers. It's a win-win-win, and I refuse to see it as a loss just because this city has a clinical aversion to anything taller than 2-storeys.
@@BuildingBeautifully Too slow for our population growth. Expensive too. You are suggesting that developers will pay over the market price - which is already high.
@@tonydoggett7627at home mostly. We have 2 offices at home. There is no way of finding an apartment large enough for our work & family needs. They’re all 1 and 2 bedroom boxes. We aren’t going to move 200km away because selfish people don’t consider the needs of everyone.
@@BuildingBeautifully The Beverly Hills plan involves compulsory acquisitions and at what the Council decides is 'market value'. Also the residents aren't 'happy to sell' as you put it. A lot are worried if they hold out they will be living in a construction side, have to put up with congestion, overshadowing etc.
I agree with most of your comments. But, one thing to check before you slam the inner west too much. Check the existing density. You will surprised how densely populated the inner west already is. Lots of dmall blocks, small apartment blocks, shop top housing. And note the relative lack of green space. Apartments should have nearby green space. So, great to build higher near stations, but not necessarily everywhere.
Er... The 'old people' in Mortdale are offensively rude for saying young people should move to Picton. The response? "If you want a single family house move to the country"
Zach is not saying if you want to live in a single family home, move to the country. He is saying if you want to live in a single family home near the city and don't want your area to change, move to the country. The comment refers to those who do not want their area to change, because if they want an area most likely to remain detached for decades to come, the country is their best bet. You can keep your single family house in the city, so long as you're ok with your community changing and density going up around you.
I think move to another State, other than VIC, is better. Houses at Launceston right in the city is so cheap, walking distance to Bunnings, Harvey Norman, Dan Murphy's & etc.
Sharath, another great video, even with the change of format. However I notice you’ve called out Wolli Creek again and I can only go back to a comment I made on one of your previous videos a while ago - in my view, as a resident of the very next suburb, Wolli Creek is NOT a good example of successful urban design. Tens of thousands of new residents into scores of new medium and high rise, which commenced development in 1999 alongside the creation of the Airport Line and Wolli Creek station. Within the centre of Wolli Creek are some cafes and restaurants, in the mix with a couple of medical centres, a chemist, some real estate agents and two supermarkets. Sounds kinda good on paper, right? But until February 2024 there were *2* small-ish public/green spaces in Wolli Creek. Meanwhile the roads that many nearby residents absolutely still rely on (due to no other reasonable option) to get out of the area to work and school and whatnot are, for most of any given day, clogged beyond the point of being in any way efficient. And half of them were further reduced a few years back for the creation of a bike lane that’s almost never used. Trains and frequency and thousands of new residents are one thing. But the amount of basic infrastructure that has never been enhanced in any useable way in Wolli Creek makes it a nightmare to get through or around. It’s all well and good to create areas like this, but not by simply cramming in truckloads of people and small businesses without any consideration given to how anyone but pedestrians actually move around, largely at the expense of surrounding areas and residents. P.S. for the record, I’m definitely a YIMBY!
@@phillipbrown4963 Yep, totally a YIMBY because I literally don’t care that it’s in my backyard, mostly coz what was there before was a bunch of old ugly semi-industrial dumps that just about anything would’ve been an improvement on. My concern with Wolli Creek isn’t that it’s there, it that it’s been poorly designed and laid out, compounded by ongoing poor decisions around further development in the area without adequate enhancements in parallel to the ability for non-pedestrians to get around or through the suburb. I’m not an engineer so I can’t speak to the build quality, but I’ve not heard of anyone having to leave their apartment buildings, a’la Mascot or Olympic Park, so I guess there’s hope for the place in that regard.
I have no issue with development, but the TOPD plan is not the correct plan to apply one size fits all zoning rules across the entirety of large areas of Sydney. Its like community consultation and appears to favor developers more than existing community's. The biggest impact will be on bush cover and canopy with lags like Kuringgai potentially losing up to 25% of bush cover canopy.
Watching from Calgary, Canada where our city council is presently debating to allow modest upzoning city-wide (4 unit row houses on current single-family lots) and ai can't tell you how accurate this video is to what I'm hearing NIMBYs here say. The arguments are absolutely identical halfway around the world!
Well done chaps. One good argument from a New Zealand context is around choice. No one is FORCING the people in the inner suburbs to tear down their homes and build apartments, you are just enabling the choice. It's hard to argue against choice.
3:40 "They're not rate payers"?! Well I am, and I want more apartment buildings and missing middle development in my area! I should probably actually get around to joining the YIMBY group if being a rate payer is so gosh darn important to the council!
It's worth noting that "high rise" buildings are bad for climate change, in both construction and operation. There is a sweet spot with buildings, which I think is 5 stories where you get the best of density and the least emissions.
Hes, up to a point. Probably though the argument for higher buildings is more compelling when the site is within easy walk of mass transit. Ur then making low-car living practical for many more households which would otherwise be living further out & driving everywhere.
I can speak for my home town up in lake Macquarie cooronbong. there is no public school, very few shops and for the longest time was a little town that most ppl had never heard of. Now, it is being developed incredibly fast and considering it used to mostly forested alot of that forest has been destroyed, irreversible damage all because the demand needed more houses in places no one wants to live because they have no choice. telling everyone to move out far from the city centre is stupid because okay and if I did that I would have to drive into the city because public transport doesn't exist in the place I moved to while Ur suburb has a bus every 3 minutes!!!
I appreciate your video but they didn’t choose carefully. How come they chose Wiley park and bankstown leaving Punchbowl between them? North side of Punchbowl is literally all r2. The other two suburbs are already upzoned to high rise. Punchbowl is not. And Wiley park is a small village centre compare to Punchbowl which is a village centre.
as someone who has lived in London there is ZERO CHANCE that anywhere in Sydney is ANYWHERE NEAR even CLOSE to as dense as London! I actually left the place because I missed the relatively WIDE OPEN SPACES of Sydney - compared to walking down the street in London feeling like negotiating a mosh pit... also I live in Werribee right now and I am JEALOUS of all those buses!! the LAST BUS leaves here at 9PM - on a WEEKDAY - and they are not 5mins apart - they are 25mins apart!!!
I have been watching NIMBY's logic of against development over the years. They are repetitive and weak. Regarding the huge number of heritage houses in inner west council, home of my in-laws is a classic example. Ashfield council approved a knockdown rebuild to single storey brick house in 1980's. By early 2000's, council decided to list it as a heritage against the wish of my in-laws. How can a 20 years old house be a heritage? Now it is clear heritage listing is a trojan horse to block changes. BTW, the same street 7 houses away has multiple 3 storeys units including the last new one after 2015.
Keep doing what you are doing! You or I may not be a ratepayer in Balmain, but I am a taxpayer, and my contributions support the very foundation of this country, including old folks pension. I deserve to have a decent place to live close to jobs and infrastructure.
I'm all fot going up not out. But, not at every station. There ate locations with genuine heritage, environmental, infrastructure or geophysical restrictioms..
Should consideration be put to the limited opportunities of careers, jobs and lifestyle that only suit Sydney? To me, this should be considered as a significant factor to this short term pain of housing in NSW. When Zac says "just move out to the country" how do you expect someone to have the same opportunities in the country as Sydney. Throughout generations people have flocked from the country to Sydney for opportunities. But now we're so hyper focused on the development of Sydney rather than as a state?
He's talking specifically to those who don't want their area to change, not to anyone who lives in the Inner West. YIMBYs are not saying everyone in a detached house in a convenient area must leave; we're saying they must stop protesting whenever any form of density wants to be built. If they hate density so much, leave.
You have stumbled onto one of the main causes of short supply and high prices. Most text about development controls is that they increase cost and decrease supply. Add in the cost of holding a development site while the approval process eats away time and time is money. Most of the trees were planted 30 or forty years ago, many councils opposed. Now they are trying unnecessarily to 'protect' trees that are mainly on the roadside. Think you have a great chanel and admire your passion. I assume you are either renters or living at home so you do make a contribution to rates.
Another issue is jsut how car centric Sydney and Australia in general is. We need to integrate different modes of transport like in the Netherlands, and not just rely on a train/metro line and buses. Because people will still drive to go anywhere thats not on the line.
@@kennylee8936 No TOD is the way to go. Funny when op say Sydney car centric but Sydney have less car per capita than Melbourne the bike city.... Netherlands have 588 car per capita compare it to TOD country like Singapore 149, Hong Kong 109, Taiwan 365 even China 238... Netherlands a failure in alot of matrix and we should follow them? If you allergic to Asia at least follow Denmark.
@@anubizz3 So if no TOD....then we should have the opposite where we all live on detached housing, drive everywhere because shops and work is far away? Kinda like America and Canada?
@@kennylee8936 sorry it's No, TOD the way to go, that's what Sydney trying to do, Chatswood, Parramatta, wolli Creek, Mascot, Hurstville. Compare that to Melbourne were the station strait into single house, with bikelane
Newtown YIMBY here. There's so much opportunity to build up. I think a neat hack would be apartment complexes that don't have car spaces. You have Newtown Train Station, St Peters, Macdonaldtown, Erskineville, Stanmore and for some even Redfern/Marrickville stations are doable. I'm not sure anywhere else in Australia has that level of walkability/access to transit. Add to that a generous number of bus stops along King St and Enmore Rd. It's a hub of transport. The airport is a 10-15 minute Uber depending on time of day. While I align with progressive social policy, restrictions on development are keeping us all poor. Imagine Tokyo with this level of NIMBY-ism. High density can be pro-community.
I'll say this much about Mortdale, there are already lots of units there, which have been there since the 70s ... the 2 buildings being built, that I think you're talking about next to the station, look like they are 6 stories tall?
19:00 we need building diversity; 3+ bedrooms, min 2 car garage (& 2-3 toilet, bathrooms) People want affordable, practical plus location [ NOT dogboxes] !!! DONT FORGET THE INFRASTRUCTURE needed to support denser suburbs
@BuildingBeautifully 'Rent /surrogate' "a grandparent, auntie..."💡- meet with likeminded elders who could represent your view at these meetings, in various suburbs 💡
If only we could have Tokyo's weird (or lack of) zoning laws. You could build an apartment next to a house anywhere there and there's no zoning at all about it. Funny how it's one of those cities in the world right now that doesn't have a housing shortage.
Just buy in Chippendale, the pinnacle of high-density living. - 500m to Broadway Shopping Center, which houses the closest Aldi, Target, and Kmart from the CBD. - 500m to Central Station for all your public transport needs. - CBD is still walkable, or use the light rail for ease of access. - Huge uplift in value when Tech Central completes.
@@marcc5353 what the hell??!! What, they got gold plated lifts or something?! My strata (ok, so I'm in Brisbane) is under $400/ quarter, so this made me choke on my lunch!
@@marcc5353exactly. It’s unaffordable. I bet there are NO 4 or 5 bedroom units for families. Families need an office or two, room to sleep in, room for their vehicles (yes, families need vehicles today). I bet there are none! So where do families go to live? They’re out priced in the area and end up buying a home 50km away. It’s NOT the answer! Another solution? Build other cities around the nation. Most new apartments are bought up by investors.
Carbon dioxide emissions pattern may change when roof top solar systems are too many & home batteries are more common. If electric cars are the new trend then it will be the way to soak up excess solar electricity generated in the day.
You haven't actually addressed tree canopy. The innerwest lost a massive amount of tree canopy already. We are behind the city of Sydney and have increasing grey space. It's not about impacting climate change overall, it's about impacting the lives of the people who live here due to increasing heat. Have you looked at what provisions artarmon has in place to keep their canopy as part of development? You can have canopy and high rise but you must have incentives for the developers to do so. The SEPP's actually decrease canopy provisions and decrease the Apartment Design guidelines, including set backs and deep soil both of which are important for landscaping/green space and tree canopy. It is incoherent to just point at another suburb and go "but they did it" and expect that to just magically have happened and therefore happen here. The park across from Luna, attached to the flour mills is an example of Council incentives on developers for community and green space as is the communal spaces at Luna including the bbq's, play ground, community room and toilets. These are things we lose if we have a non refusal process. What is the point in increasing population here just to make the suburb less livable for both current and future residents? What is the point of jamming people in on narrow roads when it is already too hot in summer to stand at many of the bus stops or walk down the street because of close to a decade of tree policy failure and canopy loss, forcing them back into cars jamming already packed streets. Have you tried driving here at peak hour? You can't simply look at a map for transport - on paper transport looks fine but when you experience how often buses get cancelled and how few buses go anywhere but the city your argument falls apart. Working in five dock, commuting from dulwich Hill, I'm lucky if the bus that is meant to turn up every 30 mins to an hour actually turns up at all. Catching a bus or tram at peak hours even if you are going along Parramatta Rd or King St often means you can't get on for several busses because it is too full. You don't live here, so you don't understand the issues, this is why community consultation is important, because the community is experiencing the issues! Increasing population without financing Council to manage increased demand on infrastructure is ridiculous. Perhaps you see the pressure on schools as less problematic here, and sure it might be not as bad as "the west" but what you are proposing would likely make them "as bad as the west", what is your actual argument here? That we just expect kids to be in demountables and over full classes and it somehow isn't an issue because it isn't currently as bad as the west? What about light and mould? What about storm water issues? What about rubbish and the myriad of other infrastructure and services that have to be financed by council? All of this before we even touch the idea that "developer led action on housing affordibility" is "just how it is". Stop making this a culture war, it isn't polarised, it isn't NIMBY vs YIMBY. It's about getting the government to do their job and actually create meaningful policies that have a long term effect on housing affordability and increase the quality of life for all. You want to know the biggest marker telling me this won't work? No one in the housing investment market is even slightly scared. There is no rush on getting rid of investment properties. It's all calm blue skies.
Tradies need housing that actually suits tradies. We need 1 or 2 bedrooms but with a large secure shed attached. We need to be able to park the truck inside, along with the small weekend car, a workbench, storage for power tool$ and a small crane to lift the heavy stuff onto the truck. We cannot leave our trucks on the street overnight with tools inside. Ideally, we need to have nice neighbours who don’t mind a bit of noise each morning and during the day when we use tools. Oh, and it should be no more than 30 mins from a job site otherwise a few trips each day is just too much travel and not much work. I doubt many of the proposed medium and high-density complexes will ever offer anything at ground level suitable for tradies. Nor can the younger guys afford to buy/rent an older house within the city limits. The alternative is to move out from the city or just raise our quoted prices. No winners here!
I can completely understand Ryde council decision to be against the increase in housing around the Macquarie park and Macquarie uni stations. The business park there should be left to grow and develop majority as a business precinct and increase the public transport to there such as a north south metro line and a connection to parramatta. however my council still needs to grow its a comparable size to many berlin wards close to 400000 residents yet its only about 130000. i see so my potential in my home suburb and i think that Macquarie is exception but the rest of my local government needs to increase around most notably the area between meadowbank and eastwood (please leave eastwood relatively alone i know its kinda not the greatest but its got a special place in my heart and so much character)
Not sure where this idea comes from that the Inner West isn't pulling its weight when it already has a higher population density (the 5th highest in Sydney) than the following LGAs that are all within 10km of the City as well: Mosman, Randwick, Canada Bay, Canterbury-Bankstown, Willoughby, Lane Cove, Woollhara, Bayside, Hunters Hill, Strathfield. Source: ABS Census 2021. By all means up the density around new transport, but this ridiculous Dept of Planning concept that all 450m2+ properties being eligible for up to 6 stories across the Inner West isn't worth considering.
I would say anything within a km of rail/light rail or buses as high as 5 mins during off peak should be instant high density and not even council can do anything at all to stop it.
5th highest in Sydney? It has an entire train line that runs through it. Frankly, it should be the highest. Sydney is the 830th densest city in the world, saying that the Inner West is the 5th highest in Sydney is like saying that Burnie is full because it's the fourth biggest city in Tasmania (it only has 19,000 residents). We are in a housing crisis, so if the Inner West, with its own train line, needs to be denser than it already is so as to allow more people to live in this city, then so be it. And to be clear, I believe there should be density next to all train lines, not just the Inner West Line.
@@BuildingBeautifully London Density: 5,640 people per km2 Inner West Density: 5,199 people per km2 Balmain Density: 6,692 people per km2 Artarmon - 3690 per sq km Parramatta - 3105 per sq km Strathfield - 3309 per sq km We definitely should be building more around train stations / transit routes. But don't underestimate how efficient townhouses can be, while still providing a high standard of living.
Why should it be the highest? You even mentioned yourself its 48% heritage So 5th highest aint too bad If you were in charge i’m sure you’d level the whole thing and turn it into chinese style shoebox shitholes like wolli creek
This might be a good long term solution but in my opinion doesn't solve the immediate housing crisis especially given that each year there are more students and more immigrants. I don't have anything against them but if there's more coming each year, we need more housing now but I don't have any ideas other than banning full home airbnb's but that alone is not enough. Cutting building red tape would help but If you've ever seen the site inspections TH-cam channel, less red tape will mean more badly built homes.
I think all the developments should only go where infrastructure is. Some stations like your favourite Denistone are surrounded by nothing but houses and are under utilized. The NSW Govt should do forced land aquisitions and rezone the sites.
While I agree the Inner West could be doing more around its train stations and transit hubs. I think retaining the heritage townhouses is important. Remember those worker cottages/townhouses are extremely dense and if the whole city was like the inner west It would be a whole lot better. Densities: Penrith - 545 people per sq km Cherrybrook - 2265 per sq km Artarmon - 3690 per sq km Parramatta - 3105 per sq km Strathfield - 3309 per sq km Balmain - 6692 per sq km Inner West Council - 5199 per sq km I do totally agree that we should be building even higher density around our mass transit hubs, like how across from some train stations there are single dwelling buildings. so silly
I was in Burwood council meeting last month and the councilor from the Greens (Ned Cutcher) mentioned one study he reads in NZ that adding supply does not necessarily mean a more affordable housing. I was gobsmacked that he cherry-picked one article studying the absolute worst way of adding density and ignoring the total body of evidence that adding density with a little oversight (e.g., not building only million dollars apartments) will help affordability.
This is where I hope this video can help you. Check out the description because I've given lots of links to studies that explain how increasing supply decreases prices.
He’s right! Burwood knocked down hundreds of homes families could buy and built 1 and 2 bedroom boxes where families cannot. Then families fight over buying what’s left. Boom! Prices up. If larger apartments were built with more bedrooms, families will have options, but at the moment they don’t. I’ve been to cities like London, Munich, etc and many suburbs are less dense than many in Sydney! Hardly any highrise too. But we want to build highrise everywhere? Screw that. It’s not the answer.
@@josephj6521 who wants to build high rises everywhere? We need more of all sorts into the mix. That includes high rises, but also medium height, apartments for families, townhouses, and detached houses. It may be a surprise to you but some people do want/prefer to live in high rises. Also, I've been to apartment towers in Burwood with units for families (3 bedrooms). I doubt the houses it knocked down would house more families than these units. But even if a tower only has 1/2 bedrooms units, while it may not help affordability for families, it helps affordability for people looking for those kinds of units. So supply would still help some although not everyone. Also, the argument he's making is actually about social housing for lower income. Which is a good point. But how is rejecting development helping with this?
@@josephj6521 also, how is the fact that many suburbs in London less dense than suburbs in Sydney relevant? I can choose the 10 densest suburbs in Canberra and 10 least dense suburbs in London and still say the same thing. That's just how statistical distribution work. Doesn't change the fact that average density of London is more than 10x that of Sydney.
also I think there is a distinction to be made between affordable housing and housing affordability which the NIMBY's don't get right. I heard a good way of understanding the difference the other day: during COVID the number of new cars being imported into NZ (and Aus I imagine) dropped significantly (supply chain, shut down factories etc). As a result, the secondhand car market in NZ went nuts $$$ as people who would have otherwise bought a new car were now competing in the limited secondhand car market. So, whilst new cars being imported into NZ aren't affordable cars, they have a big effect on moderating car affordability. Can be argued the same thing is true in the housing market, yes, many developers aren't delivering affordable new home but there is a market for them, and they have a positive moderating effect on the secondhand housing market across the system. This is obviously a rather blunt analogy but a good way of understanding the free market view of delivering more housing supply. Kia kaha from your NZ YIMBY cousins
We should probably continue to develop the inner city/inner west, it's Sydney's pride and joy after all. Example: I suggest extending the light rail line to Broadway. Would be great for an uplift in apartment valuations in the area.
Gr8 vid...gen y and z need to revolt honestly. Many things have suited boomers and they are now remaining in their houses (empty rooms included) as they dont need to move/sell
Or get more active and win the battle of ideas. The argument that more housing is required is already won. But "empty nesters" rattling round in large houses genuinely don't see how this affects them. The case needs to be made more convincingly, as is done admirably in vids like this one. Need a lot more along same lines, and ideally getting some of it onto TV. Also need to appeal to empty nesters' self interest. Sure they like the space, & backyards, but do they enjoy all the mowing, yardwork, painting, cleaning a largely empty house? Maybe they really would be happier in something smaller, & pocketing the cash difference?
To be frank land appreciate and house depreciate. The key conflict is that, if the density increases, the current land owner has to retire later due to loss of equity in the long run, while there is no way the new apartment owners compensate them This is a civil way to use batons and rocks to force some people away, taking their wealth off, and then letting more people benefit from the loss of the minority. That's the conflict. The talk about this topic is always about what benefit will it bring to the new arrivals, but it does not talk about the loss and compensation of the existing population. Of course, there will be conflicts. The last one stands retires earliest. if that does not change, then it is always a civil way of robbing existing people I'd suggest passing a compulsory acquisition law for the benefit of YIMBY as well. That will make everything easier and no need to compensate much as well. Win-win.
Wealth and retirement are by large tied to land value in Australia. If it does not change, then YIMBY is basically a wealth redistribution, taking wealth away and creating more poor people who cannot build wealth and retire. Look at the current pension/super vs apartment value in the long run. We're not always young people in 20,30. Young people can live in apartments but when they reach 40,50,60, apartments won't be able to serve what is required for them in the long run. This is not unique to Australia. The best thing for an individual is to leave Sydney and move to other places, and build society and individual equity, instead of trying to jam into Sydney.
I do have to say that, the reason you have a labour shortage is because those jobs dont pay well, or at least is seen to not pay well, while also not encourging young people to go into trades and with less apprenticeships and encourgement. If you decrease immigration those jobs will pay more encouring more people to go into those jobs and go through the nessissary qualifications, thus increasing supply, while not increasing demand, the idea that immigration is a quick fix is not true. And from experience living in a country(uk) that has been increasing immigration for the past 13 years and our house prices have only gotten worse. Its a mistake. Investing in your own population and increasing the wages for contruction jobs is the only longer term way to assess your labour shortages and housing crisis, dont make the same mistakes as the UK
@BuildingBeautifully NSW population is 8 million with an unemployment rate of 3.2%, helping your population by reducing drug addiction and rehab care for people, encouraging more young people to go into trades with apprenticeships and while higher wages which you don't get through immigration. increasing well paying job opportunities while not putting more pressure on your own population is your only long-term solution. The UK had a net immigration of 700,000 people, while only building 200,000 homes while not having high rise restrictions. I while also decreasing our wages, people in the UK have not had a real pay increase(increase above inflation) in over 10 years due to immigration depressing wages, benefiting only multi billion pound companies. If you build 10,000 more houses a year but your wages in real terms decrease then your still not going to be able to afford a home.
@BuildingBeautifully also larger developers have a monopoly on housing due to the cost of the hoop jumping the government's put in the way, this kills small to medium size developers which in the 80s made up the largest proportion of houses made, in the modern era these medium developers have been killed off by too much regulation and the larger ones as buying out there competition. Having more support to encourage small and medium size developers, for example, they pay less income tax or subsidies/ grants or reducing there regulation compared to the big boys would help austrailians to go into that industry as there would be incentive. More developers, more houses, lower prices.
Hey! If you want to get involved in Sydney YIMBY, join at the following link: www.sydney.yimby.au/. It costs $20/year for membership, or $5/year if you are not currently employed full-time. Once you join, you'll be in the loop for upcoming council meetings that you can attend, both within and outside your area. We need all the help that we can get if we have any hope of increasing housing supply in Sydney and driving down housing and rental prices.
Please consider making a submission to the Transport Oriented Development Program Parliamentary Inquiry, with submissions closing on the 31st of March 2024. www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=3035#tab-submissions. You can make anonymous submissions. Even a short one-paragraph submission will help, there is no word limit. The government needs all the support that it can get in order to pass what is a very logical and reasonable housing program.
If you'd like sources and links for this video, check out the description. Thank you for watching.
Why are not the developers giving you money you’re making them lots of money
Imagine arguing that the 'supply' impact of immigration is in any way a comparable counterweight to the 'demand' effect on housing.
Yeah, won't be signing anything endorsed by someone who couldn't pass basic economics.
Imagine arguing that the 'supply' impact of immigration is in any way a comparable counterweight to the 'demand' effect on housing.
Yeah, won't be signing anything endorsed by someone who spouts such nonsense.
Something weird to think about and consider: if we didn't have immigration all our grandparents would have likely passed away by the time we need to purchase our first home or when we need a larger home to start our own families and because of that Australians would have been able to purchase affordable homes and we could easily keep up with demand.
The newer homes would have made our older existing homes more affordable and enticing for Australians to rebuild and update their land with newer modern smarter homes and Australians would be producing happy lifestyles and families right? 🤔
So now we need to find out exactly which landlords are ruining it for Australians. Is it the:
1. Australian born citizens owning too many properties?
2. Forigners owning too many properties?
3. Councils, Businesses and organisations owning too many properties calling the shots?
@@bign1667 who do your politicians really serve? Follow the money.
As a teacher who cannot afford to live near the schools that are crying out for staff (and know MANY in the same boat) I am so glad you made this video. Wow, some of the people who go to these meetings make me so sad.. I should not be forced to sharehouse on 85k a year just to live within 45 minutes of my work... More high density housing is critical for the future of this city.
We have already had large waves of rezoning and apartment building. All backfilled by immigration and prices went up. You are being sold a pup.
@@phillipbrown4963 bro is really trying to spread his gospel on every comment
People working full time should be able to live independently and support themselves. But the system is broken.
@@MisterMoooEven in developing countries young people live on their own. Australia is about the only county where only the minority of young people have that option
Absolutely. It isn't fair that retirees who no longer need to go to work are living in some of the most convenient locations, simply because they got there first. This is really bad for our economy.
We're not saying we want to kick them out, we're simply saying build some density so that we too can live in these convenient locations. It's really not asking for much, but if you spoke to some of them you'd think we were asking them to sell their soul!
I used to park behind a car with a bumper sticker _"Refugees welcome in Stanmore*"_ which sums up the Greens' mentality because a refugee couldn't afford to live within an hour's drive of Stanmore, due to the likes of Greens local councillors being anti-development.
They have a mentality similar to all those white Democrats in US Sanctuary cities and "refugee friendly areas" like Martha's Vinyard where they say "we desperately care about the plight of refugees but I am deeply sorry, there is no room for them to live here, they'll have to go back to Texas and Florida".
It's not just Greens and Labor-left areas that are the problem, but Liberal and Teal seats like Wentworth, North Sydney and Warringah are full of people who love high immigration, but so long as it is nowhere near them.
In fact, the best places for new housing in Sydney would be to build underground metro rail from Sydney to Vaucluse and from North Sydney to Mosman, and build high rise apartment units above and around the train stations along those lines.
*For those unfamilar with Sydney, Stanmore is a fairly typical Inner West suburb near suburbs like Petersham, Leichhardt and Marrickville. It is either in, or adjacent to Anthony Albanese's electorate of Grayndler, which would have fallen to The Greens if not for the popularity of the local member, and good preference deals for him.
The only reason so many independents won seats in the last election is because the women living in these inner city suburbs would rather die than vote for Labor so they voted for an independent instead.
@@strawberrysoup1 I generally agree.
The main thing the NSW State needs to do (and I believe they have proposed to do this to some extent) is to nominate where in Sydney needs medium to high density housing development and seize development controls of these areas from Local Government.
A city-wide housing plan can't be held reliant upon a patchwork of local councils.
As for the problems with any one party, I don't mind if a party is like Sustainable Australia Party who want both low immigration AND low development or even if it's a party who want both high immigration and high development: I just want them to be consistent.
This is the problem with the NIMBY phenomenon: too many parties want high immigration (either to pander to property investors or chardonnay socialists) but want to _"preserve the character and heritage of their area"_ (code for "we don't want those foreigners here").
Spot on. My Dad bought a place in Vaucluse (Wentworth electorate, which is under a Teal), and he couldn't be anymore pro immigration.
And why shouldn't he when all of this excess demand has led to a two-fold increase in his property value in a span of less than 3 years? He knows the suburb will never truly have high density apartments, so he's just happy to reap the fruits from increased population growth.
I find it hilarious how those who are most vulnerable to the CoL crisis end up supporting policies that at best do nothing to address it, or at worst exacerbates it (aka woke Green voters). Keep at it gang!
@@kingsimba9513 the reason suburbs like Vaucluse and Mosman won't have high rise is due purely to politics. There are far too many powerful people who live in these areas to allow real democracy to happen.
@@strawberrysoup1 is immigration really good for everyone? Or is it perhaps a question that there might be a goldilocks level (not too few, not too many)? Or is perhaps that maybe it depends largely on the type of immigration that we receive and how we resettle people?
I am asking these as open-ended questions, not intending to be leading, because "immigration is good for everyone" is a cartoonishly simplistic answer. Everyone seems to agree that there are limits, both upper and lower.
We actually are in recession and have been in quite a few more recessions than they let on. It is called a _per capita_ recession and it gets masked by high immigration rates: but the effect for the average person is that they are in recession.
Given that Australia has one of the highest immigration rates in the OECD, I would say that that is proof enough that our major parties are all for high immigration.
The hypocrisy you refer to doesn't exist if you do what you have done and separated the political entities.
However the people who vote for the Greens at the local level, usually under the excuse to _"preserve the character of the area"_ (nudge nudge, wink wink) are generally the same people who vote for them at the Federal level to have a so-called "compassionate" response to refugees.
As for inner city voters, my point still stands. If you argue they are less strongly against immigration because they are "less racist", then according to your logic about racism, then they are the most racist people in the country outside of Vaucluse and Mosman, for not wanting to provide affordable housing in their area to all the new Australians.
A lot of Greens voting areas aren't all that particularly diverse, especially not compared to most of Western Sydney and Western Melbourne, which are Labor heartland (except when Labor attempts to parachute in Kristina Kenneally from exclusive Scotland Island into the extremely diverse electorate of Fowler).
The electorate that I live in, Blaxland (Bankstown and Auburn), is so ethnically and religiously diverse, and tolerant, that it recorded the highest "No" vote in the country to same-sex marriage.
So yes, I agree that the housing market is dysfunctional. One big part of the reason is that John Howard's Capital Gains Tax discount for investment property meant that property investors had incentive to compete with home owner buyers (and as richer people have more money, the investors usually win).
Another reason is one of simple supply and demand. The supply isn't keeping up with demand. Well planned Singapore style high density apartment towers over metro rail in high amenity areas, along with European style medium density development in between would take care of that.
Both Finland and Mississippi don't have homeless problems simply because they build, build, build, when people need homes. Meanwhile about a third of all Austrian residents live in public housing, and it is GOOD public housing. Now that is when socialism-done-well actually works.
But ultimately, new housing needs to be along the Harbour-Parramatta River corridors (ideally starting with Sydney to Vaucluse and North Sydney to Mosman), not in Fairfield, Liverpool, Campbelltown, Blacktown, Penrith, Richmond or The Hills.
I love how you are using your influence to encourage people to turn up to meetings and become active. Ties into another recent video on urban planning youtube leading to slactivism, but here we are promoting getting involved!
Thank you! Yes I know the video you're talking about; it's a tough ask but I do genuinely want to shape the future of Sydney through my channel.
I personally think the sole disadvantage of high rises is, how useless our strata system is.
Pay an arm and a leg and get a sub par service.
I agree after buying a unit (outside of Sydney) but at least you don't need to pay for property insurance
@@evanwatts6096you're paying for insurance in the strata (or at least should be).
@@evanwatts6096 You realise you don't have to pay for property insurance on a house right?
@@RasputinReborn-vz7jwthe bank essentially makes you if you have a loan
not just strate (though they are pretty useless and reform is needed)
its the builders, newly build apartments that are built too quickly and not always to spec (lack of site inspections and inspectors compound this further)
ive lived in two "new" builds over the past 3 years (i like to rent and move a bit, since i live minimally) and theyre fucking awful quality - this one im at, there was not tap in the laundry so i had to forced them to get it done or id punch the hole in the wall myself ... and this was
Really loved the passionate conversational nature of this one, I would keep this format in your mix.
Thank you! Zach and I have already discussed doing a video like this again.
I grew up in mortale and my parents still live there. My parents are always saying the units near the station are too high and they don't want any change. I always say ok where do you think I'm supposed to live? They don't get it
To them, moving "out" to Mortdale was a sacrifice, and they expect you and other kids to do the same. They seem to not realise how far moving "out" is now; 80 km west to places like Oran Park, Wilton and Bingara Gorge. Blissful ignorance; they'd benefit from you (and anyone else reading this) sending them this video!
I know the exact apartment block you’ve mentioned. It’s very jarring when comparing to the houses surrounding it which consist of 1-2 storey houses like it’s sticking out like a sore thumb. The ground floor design is a bit high which doesn’t help the case. It’s like the architect just plopped in an apartment in Chatswood and go on it’s merry way. In fact I think NIMBYS used this building as a scapegoat to go against further development.
Other than that, it’s rather weird because after a 10-15 min walk to Penshurst, there are already streets of 3-4 storey appartments. It’s just softened the blow because of the massive trees covering it.
Clearly, this NSW Premier is NOT listening to the elected Councillors by the local residents. It is their area, out the outsiders. People need to make submissions to tell whoever Party elected to keep Syd as it is & avoid leaning to HK style.
@@yesbeautyfly if even people who have lived there their whole lives think they cannot live there anymore, something is terribly wrong. People like you are part of the problem why there is a housing crisis to begin with.
@@josephinepura525People like you voted major parties that strive for mass migration. Albo lied about not returning Liberal levels only to double it.
Petition for Sharath to attempt to visit every station in Sydney in one day!
A guy already did that lol
@@KatoombaTourGuide they did?
Yes, m.th-cam.com/video/lIzo_j8Z8so/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUTYWxsIHN5ZG5leSBzdGF0aW9ucw%3D%3D
Yep, go look it up
What a stupid waste of his precious time
23:36 "Do you actually believe that?" A question from a sitting politician that directly questions the Productivity Commission tells you everything you need to know about her beliefs. Uncaring about published research but instead focuses on "beliefs" that are often not grounded in any sort of objective reality.
Why would she? It's not like it hasn't been tried. Sydney has had large waves of rezoning and apartment building and prices and rents still went up.
The correct answer is "I have more reason to believe them than to believe you."
Can't stand her. How can you ignore dozens of papers that prove that increasing supply decreases prices? Perhaps if you have a vested interest in keeping your electorate a haven of the wealthy.
@@BuildingBeautifully I agree. That's why I always mispronounce her name on purpose.
For many years I travelled to Lidcombe from Lithgow by public transport for work five days a week (7-8 hours travel to and from work, about 270kms return). It's not just so-called essential workers that can't find accommodation close to work but also warehouse, factory and other workers who are disadvantaged. I wholeheartedly support medium to high density housing. I grew up in a terrace house in inner city Sydney, when it was mainly blue collar, before it became popular with professionals and Yuppies.
Higher density housing just makes sense, which encourages better use of infrastructure. I am sympathetic to young people who will never be able to own their own home or afford to pay the inordinately high rents in Sydney. Telling people to live out west is just plain selfish.
Need to use emotions to convince them. Old people have the misconception that because of their age, they know everything. That's why it is basically impossible to change their opinion on anything. And to be frank, odds are they don't care how good this is for the young population. This affects their life. You need to convince them it can improve their life as well. Sunch as the easier access to things with public services, nicer cafes and shops for the increased population etc.
Yay guilt tripping, I love it. (not sarcasm, genuinely should do it)
Why would there be easier access to public services when they are being swamped by a booming population?
Absolutely. I'll try to do a video about the benefits of living in density at some point in the near future.
The older owners of RE are just selfish and don't want things to change. They don't care their kids or grandkids have to live out woop woop
Awesome! I already joined in a
on a YIMBY event online and wrote a submission to Council.
Ashfield is a great exmaple of inner west + medium density + good tree coverage. Honestly this should be the model for other inner west locations ESPECIALLY Haberfield.
Unfortunately I don't have the time to be attending meetings even on the weekends - that's for retirees who have nothing better to do
Yeah :(( but together we can all try our best to make the time
there's a conflict of interest in South Australia minister for infrastructure and transport is allso the Minister for Energy and Mining no one has spoken out on this, and no one i asked thinks this is fine or doesn't want to talk about its safe to assume unless its there topic greens and labour are self-serving people are dying because of this conflict of interest along with a substantial amount of money down the drain and they cancelled the tram, we only have one line
Time to be a QIMBY! Quality in my Backyard. I’m a big fan of medium density, like we did in the Olympics Athletes’ Village (Newington), such a good direct comparison to Wentworth Point. But let’s admit we can make Parramatta Road SO MUCH BETTER … and next up is Victoria Road in Rozelle *stares at Greens MPs in Balmain* … and don’t you duck away, Princes Highway and Military Road.
From Melbourne. down here the greens have all the inner city suburbs and do similar things. Not only that but everytime the state government has tried to put new social housing in, they have blocked it within their areas.
I think more people would be more keen for townhouses, and 2-6 storey apartments if the architecture and design are aesthetically pleasing like in europe and not all glassy, cheap and dreary looking tower apartments...
great video! thanks for sharing all your stats and resources
Not a problem! Be sure to write a submission if you can.
I haven’t finished watching the video yet, but I just wanted to dispute one comment made in the discussion before the meeting “if you want to live in a single family home, move out to the country”. I think in a fair and equitable housing market, people should have access to whatever type of housing they want. For example, the city I live in, Shellharbour, has a disturbing lack of density and a large population of NIMBYs. You could probably count the number of buildings greater than 4 stories tall on two hands. That means my family and I, as renters, have to live in a single family home as we literally can’t afford the premium rent of the few luxury apartment buildings we do have which are close to the shopping centres and beaches (we don’t have transit lol). I’m all for density and think low, mid and high rises could and should spring up in every suburb around here but I think ultimately there’s a place for every type of housing in a good city, including single family housing for those who want it.
Zach is not saying if you want to live in a single family home, move to the country. He is saying if you want to live in a single family home near the city and don't want your area to change, move to the country. The comment refers to those who do not want their area to change, because if they want an area most likely to remain detached for decades to come, the country is their best bet.
I completely agree that we need all types of housing in a city. The reality is, with 55% of housing being detached in Sydney, we're nowhere near close to that form of housing going extinct.
So everywhere across a whole city should be equally "struggling to support population growth"? There should be at least a few suburbs (generally) where you can buy a detached home with a backyard, you're within walking distance of some decent public transport options, and without having to live next door to a bunch of 6-storey apartment towers that were nowhere to be seen and were comprehensively banned by the zoning when you purchased said property.
Perhaps developers can use some of their profits to compensate or re-home the existing residents to a property that meets the needs they originally purchased to meet?
YIMBYism is just about giving developers wat they want.
I agree...its called outer Sydney where they and NIMBYS belong.
Even having moved from public government housing from Sydney's south east to a house in Sydney's South West permanently, im still a Yimby having lived nearly all of my life in government housing and understanding that more apartments/affordable living spaces goes a long way to tacking a lot of the issues Sydney is facing rn - Expensive to live in, poor public transport in a lot of the very dense hotspots of Sydney etc.
Thank you, we appreciate the support
Two halfwits.
One correction at 5:11... Ryde is more than carrying its weight in the housing density increase and continuing. 2021 City of Ryde stat's- 60.9% of the dwellings were medium or high density, compared to 46% in Greater Sydney.
Dwelling Type is an important determinant of the City of
problem is affordability and the need for increased percentages of "affordable housing" in the new apartment blocks. And of course properties that are bought as investment but not used or rented out. A can of worms
Ryde is kind of a grey area lying slightly towards the NIMBY side. Many people don't like the apartments and I see many signs saying 'save our green spaces' at the moment, which is fair enough. However these people are no where near is ignorant as people from the North Shore and Inner West, the area has major arteries and is very multi-cultural so people aren't quite as sheltered. Literally ever strret-corner in my area is turning into duplex, apartments on top Ryde in last ten years, Ryde is doing all they can
sure top ryde has been a nice increase in density but its in an awful place for that density with traffic already crazy because king georges rd / victoria rd, that place shouldve been included somehow into the new train lines
north ryde built up all around its station and thats the proposed way of doing things (kind of, its not great but its better than what youre getting)
there are schemes for affording housing, but it only tackles rent, and for 'essential workers' and i believe (probably wrong) its 20% discount?
Yeah it was probably not the best example, forgot to fact-check that one. That said, they are campaigning to block more housing in Macquarie so I'm kinda on the fence on this one. At any rate, there's definitely worse councils than Ryde.
@BuildingBeautifully I was ploughing my way through planning Docs (one doc was hundreds of pages).
The masterplans have always had the high density apartments around the transport hubs and reducing from there. The issues of late are the attempts by developers to take playing fields and bowling club land and develop it. The biggest issue was the Govt talking about taking the North Ryde Common around the old Macquarie Hospital for housing.
The other discussions are around changes of masterplans to change the tech business spine to mixed use.
There's significant redevelopment of mid density unit blocks to high density next to Herring road, through to the former public housing Ivanhoe site. The DA's are in place for a lot more to come.
The present Goodman sites at Lane Cove Road and Waterloo Rd will become mixed use. Cheers
The Ryde council had a rezoning of some area in WestRyde , Eastwood area. Originally there were 6 areas suggested and at the last moment only a small area which is close to both denistone and west Ryde areas was carved out and made HCA. The area has gone through so many changes prior to this rezoning and we have duplex in the area already. This rezoning was a sham and was done intentionally to block development by the NIMBY's
To say Ryde is not pulling its weight is pretty false, Macquarie park, Epping, Top Ryde has had tens of thousands of units added. It is alarming that you believe it is not pulling its weight
I agree. The Epping, Macquarie Park and Chatswood corridor has done a lot of work to contribute to higher density housing already, and it was quite rushed over the 2010s even. Roads are very congested despite a lot of public transport. Would need further infrastructure before any further major high density development begins.
@@pacomarveeny9640 Chatswood isn't in Ryde Council, I found it annoying how he was constantly blaming Ryde. Didn't mention Waverley, Wollahra, Lane Cove, North Sydney and Mosman once, all far worse areas for NIMBYs
i think they meant 'city of ryde' if not, top ryde is part of ryde
macquarie park was a spin off decades ago (probably to slug the tech and pharma companies using at as a hq around the 90s, like siemens and astra zaneca)
in ryde, the suburb itself, minus top ryde there isnt any really new development going on that ive seen (could be wrong, i dont drive the streets every week to check)
what ive seen in epping/carlingford is they buy (admittingly much larger blocks of land than the inner west has) and build duplexs or granny flats (which are its own nightmare)
@@alexanderwest5860 Ryde does build a lot of duplexes on corner blocks. The blocks are just too small otherwise
@@mitchellsmith300 I know that, but the entire rail corridor which is practically around the Ryde region is what I’m referring to.
Top Ryde also, has plenty of high density for an area without a train station, unreliable bus services and poor traffic. I always wondered why they never built a railway line from Epping to Ryde, Gladesville, Drummoyne and so on.
Also, Mosman does have a lot of medium density around its town centre and along military road. I believe Willoughby Council have done a lot of high density development in Chatswood, St Leonard’s, Crows Nest and around the former Channel 9 studios site.
Lane Cove have done a phenomenal job with Planning with lots of medium density and housing diversity. No railway, but they have plenty of busses to nearby North Ryde/Macquarie Park and Artarmon.
I believe a large portion of these areas are at their wits end for what the transport infrastructure can handle so far unless further infrastructure is developed. If there’s any NIMBY areas, it would likely be the upper north shore areas, being Hornsby Shire and Ku-ring-Gai. Though, the landscape of the area and significant national park land makes it controversial.
People are so selfish.
We live near the Cherrybrook metro station and people are always shoving petitions in front of me, saying "stop over development in our area".
I always upset them saying "we've go this lovely rail system, now we have to pay our part and build more appartments in this area".
They look horrified and mumble things about "ruining the area".
I point out that, if development is done well, things could actually be dramatically better.
Tell them then that they should move to regional NSW...it's not the suburb that they're protecting...it's an ideology. They don't care what Cherrybrook can look like...they care about their low density lifestyle.
@@kennylee8936 ❤️
It was great to meet you for the you for the very time love you video
What happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom, what happens on the front lawn is everyone's business.
Being a rate payer is not a condition for having an interest or being affected by what happens on the other side of an arbitrary administrative boundary.
Hear hear!
We need change. We need it now. More power to you!!!
Have you been to Zetland to see the unit buildings that they built there?
I live in Brisbane and here we have "character" zoning in our inner suburbs which mandates single detached homes, many of which are derelict wooden shacks. The Greens and Liberals have campaigned for the last two decades to stop rezoning and allowing apartments in places like West End, Paddington and Spring Hill. It kills me...
The Greens candidate for mayor actually won his council seat in 2016 over an apartment building in West End, 1.9km from the CBD
Most of the new units in the east have all come from old industrial / warehouses areas ie Botany, Mascot, Rosebery, Alexandria, Zetland. If the inner west is predominantly houses then where do you expect the new housing to be built on?
Or where do those people work?
Well, a lot of the people in those houses (many of whom are retired) would be more than happy to sell their place for millions, move somewhere else, and allow hundreds more of working-age to move into the area in their place. There's no compulsory acquisitions at play here. So that's where I expect the new housing to be built; on land willingly handed over to developers. It's a win-win-win, and I refuse to see it as a loss just because this city has a clinical aversion to anything taller than 2-storeys.
@@BuildingBeautifully Too slow for our population growth. Expensive too. You are suggesting that developers will pay over the market price - which is already high.
@@tonydoggett7627at home mostly. We have 2 offices at home. There is no way of finding an apartment large enough for our work & family needs. They’re all 1 and 2 bedroom boxes.
We aren’t going to move 200km away because selfish people don’t consider the needs of everyone.
@@BuildingBeautifully The Beverly Hills plan involves compulsory acquisitions and at what the Council decides is 'market value'. Also the residents aren't 'happy to sell' as you put it. A lot are worried if they hold out they will be living in a construction side, have to put up with congestion, overshadowing etc.
Great video and insight. What about the YIMBY argument that this is only being done to benefit developers that build shoddy apartments?
I agree with most of your comments. But, one thing to check before you slam the inner west too much.
Check the existing density. You will surprised how densely populated the inner west already is. Lots of dmall blocks, small apartment blocks, shop top housing.
And note the relative lack of green space. Apartments should have nearby green space.
So, great to build higher near stations, but not necessarily everywhere.
I reckon the simply answer to "you're not a rate payer" is "I would like to be, but we have to build the housing to buy first".
you should do more videos like this. really enjoyed this
Will do!
Loved this. Plus, that little bug had a good feast 🍟
It did indeed 🪳
Extra protein!!
Er... The 'old people' in Mortdale are offensively rude for saying young people should move to Picton. The response? "If you want a single family house move to the country"
Zach is not saying if you want to live in a single family home, move to the country. He is saying if you want to live in a single family home near the city and don't want your area to change, move to the country. The comment refers to those who do not want their area to change, because if they want an area most likely to remain detached for decades to come, the country is their best bet. You can keep your single family house in the city, so long as you're ok with your community changing and density going up around you.
I think move to another State, other than VIC, is better. Houses at Launceston right in the city is so cheap, walking distance to Bunnings, Harvey Norman, Dan Murphy's & etc.
Sharath, another great video, even with the change of format. However I notice you’ve called out Wolli Creek again and I can only go back to a comment I made on one of your previous videos a while ago - in my view, as a resident of the very next suburb, Wolli Creek is NOT a good example of successful urban design. Tens of thousands of new residents into scores of new medium and high rise, which commenced development in 1999 alongside the creation of the Airport Line and Wolli Creek station. Within the centre of Wolli Creek are some cafes and restaurants, in the mix with a couple of medical centres, a chemist, some real estate agents and two supermarkets. Sounds kinda good on paper, right? But until February 2024 there were *2* small-ish public/green spaces in Wolli Creek. Meanwhile the roads that many nearby residents absolutely still rely on (due to no other reasonable option) to get out of the area to work and school and whatnot are, for most of any given day, clogged beyond the point of being in any way efficient. And half of them were further reduced a few years back for the creation of a bike lane that’s almost never used. Trains and frequency and thousands of new residents are one thing. But the amount of basic infrastructure that has never been enhanced in any useable way in Wolli Creek makes it a nightmare to get through or around. It’s all well and good to create areas like this, but not by simply cramming in truckloads of people and small businesses without any consideration given to how anyone but pedestrians actually move around, largely at the expense of surrounding areas and residents. P.S. for the record, I’m definitely a YIMBY!
Agreee wolli creek is a disaster hell hole
So realising all that - how can you possibly still be a YIMBY? PS: you forgot to mention the poor build quality.
@@phillipbrown4963 Yep, totally a YIMBY because I literally don’t care that it’s in my backyard, mostly coz what was there before was a bunch of old ugly semi-industrial dumps that just about anything would’ve been an improvement on. My concern with Wolli Creek isn’t that it’s there, it that it’s been poorly designed and laid out, compounded by ongoing poor decisions around further development in the area without adequate enhancements in parallel to the ability for non-pedestrians to get around or through the suburb. I’m not an engineer so I can’t speak to the build quality, but I’ve not heard of anyone having to leave their apartment buildings, a’la Mascot or Olympic Park, so I guess there’s hope for the place in that regard.
I have no issue with development, but the TOPD plan is not the correct plan to apply one size fits all zoning rules across the entirety of large areas of Sydney. Its like community consultation and appears to favor developers more than existing community's. The biggest impact will be on bush cover and canopy with lags like Kuringgai potentially losing up to 25% of bush cover canopy.
Rent payers pay rates indirectly. They are rate payers that is for sure.
Amazing work lads. Keep it up.
Fantastic video!
Couldn't agree more!!
Thanks for watching boys 😎
Watching from Calgary, Canada where our city council is presently debating to allow modest upzoning city-wide (4 unit row houses on current single-family lots) and ai can't tell you how accurate this video is to what I'm hearing NIMBYs here say. The arguments are absolutely identical halfway around the world!
Well done chaps. One good argument from a New Zealand context is around choice. No one is FORCING the people in the inner suburbs to tear down their homes and build apartments, you are just enabling the choice. It's hard to argue against choice.
3:40 "They're not rate payers"?! Well I am, and I want more apartment buildings and missing middle development in my area! I should probably actually get around to joining the YIMBY group if being a rate payer is so gosh darn important to the council!
Were you punching a beer at 13:36?
Great video chaps, more power to you bow.
Thanks mate!
It's worth noting that "high rise" buildings are bad for climate change, in both construction and operation. There is a sweet spot with buildings, which I think is 5 stories where you get the best of density and the least emissions.
Hes, up to a point. Probably though the argument for higher buildings is more compelling when the site is within easy walk of mass transit. Ur then making low-car living practical for many more households which would otherwise be living further out & driving everywhere.
Love the cheeky beer at 14:48 🍻
Awesome work guys, any thoughts on Denistone? that place is stuck in time, flying under the radar in the name of Heritage Conservation Area.
I can speak for my home town up in lake Macquarie cooronbong. there is no public school, very few shops and for the longest time was a little town that most ppl had never heard of. Now, it is being developed incredibly fast and considering it used to mostly forested alot of that forest has been destroyed, irreversible damage all because the demand needed more houses in places no one wants to live because they have no choice. telling everyone to move out far from the city centre is stupid because okay and if I did that I would have to drive into the city because public transport doesn't exist in the place I moved to while Ur suburb has a bus every 3 minutes!!!
I appreciate your video but they didn’t choose carefully. How come they chose Wiley park and bankstown leaving Punchbowl between them? North side of Punchbowl is literally all r2. The other two suburbs are already upzoned to high rise. Punchbowl is not. And Wiley park is a small village centre compare to Punchbowl which is a village centre.
Public housing is the answer, not enriching and subsidising private investment.
0:01 Frank Walker from National Tiles!
Correction: Frank walker from national Taaahhhhllls
When I was younger, NIMBYs were simply called SNOBS.
as someone who has lived in London there is ZERO CHANCE that anywhere in Sydney is ANYWHERE NEAR even CLOSE to as dense as London! I actually left the place because I missed the relatively WIDE OPEN SPACES of Sydney - compared to walking down the street in London feeling like negotiating a mosh pit...
also I live in Werribee right now and I am JEALOUS of all those buses!! the LAST BUS leaves here at 9PM - on a WEEKDAY - and they are not 5mins apart - they are 25mins apart!!!
I have been watching NIMBY's logic of against development over the years. They are repetitive and weak.
Regarding the huge number of heritage houses in inner west council, home of my in-laws is a classic example. Ashfield council approved a knockdown rebuild to single storey brick house in 1980's. By early 2000's, council decided to list it as a heritage against the wish of my in-laws. How can a 20 years old house be a heritage?
Now it is clear heritage listing is a trojan horse to block changes. BTW, the same street 7 houses away has multiple 3 storeys units including the last new one after 2015.
Keep doing what you are doing! You or I may not be a ratepayer in Balmain, but I am a taxpayer, and my contributions support the very foundation of this country, including old folks pension. I deserve to have a decent place to live close to jobs and infrastructure.
Thank you! You absolutely do deserve it, we all do. Change is on the horizon, and we're at the forefront of it.
Thanks for attending this and keeping the YIMBY fight going! I'd have joined you guys but I've already been priced out of Sydney by NIMBYs
Thank you Chris, your support is always appreciated!
Loved this.
Thank you!
This video really got me thinking. Councils are not strata. They aren't for rate payers. They are for occupants.
21C ... could council do zoom interactive, u would have to register your attending & questions i guess ?!?
I'm all fot going up not out. But, not at every station. There ate locations with genuine heritage, environmental, infrastructure or geophysical restrictioms..
Should consideration be put to the limited opportunities of careers, jobs and lifestyle that only suit Sydney? To me, this should be considered as a significant factor to this short term pain of housing in NSW.
When Zac says "just move out to the country" how do you expect someone to have the same opportunities in the country as Sydney.
Throughout generations people have flocked from the country to Sydney for opportunities. But now we're so hyper focused on the development of Sydney rather than as a state?
He's talking specifically to those who don't want their area to change, not to anyone who lives in the Inner West. YIMBYs are not saying everyone in a detached house in a convenient area must leave; we're saying they must stop protesting whenever any form of density wants to be built. If they hate density so much, leave.
These people just don't want their house prices and rental income to go down... at all...
you can't compete with old retirees with all the time on their hands to make it their full time hobby to be a NIMBY
Have you ever had a wander around Wentworth Point? High density living done beautifully…katherine
You have stumbled onto one of the main causes of short supply and high prices.
Most text about development controls is that they increase cost and decrease supply.
Add in the cost of holding a development site while the approval process eats away time and time is money.
Most of the trees were planted 30 or forty years ago, many councils opposed. Now they are trying unnecessarily to 'protect' trees that are mainly on the roadside.
Think you have a great chanel and admire your passion.
I assume you are either renters or living at home so you do make a contribution to rates.
If only there was a recent event where immigration was stopped so we could see what impact it had on housing costs 🤔
Another issue is jsut how car centric Sydney and Australia in general is. We need to integrate different modes of transport like in the Netherlands, and not just rely on a train/metro line and buses. Because people will still drive to go anywhere thats not on the line.
Another Netherlands BS . please tell me Netherlands don't have housing crisis...... 3 of Netherlands biggest city can be fit inside Sydney.
@@anubizz3 So being car-centric and all that comes with it is the way to go?
@@kennylee8936 No TOD is the way to go. Funny when op say Sydney car centric but Sydney have less car per capita than Melbourne the bike city.... Netherlands have 588 car per capita compare it to TOD country like Singapore 149, Hong Kong 109, Taiwan 365 even China 238...
Netherlands a failure in alot of matrix and we should follow them? If you allergic to Asia at least follow Denmark.
@@anubizz3 So if no TOD....then we should have the opposite where we all live on detached housing, drive everywhere because shops and work is far away?
Kinda like America and Canada?
@@kennylee8936 sorry it's No, TOD the way to go, that's what Sydney trying to do, Chatswood, Parramatta, wolli Creek, Mascot, Hurstville. Compare that to Melbourne were the station strait into single house, with bikelane
Cases like Mascot Towers have not helped either. These new constructions are absolutely horrendous.
Newtown YIMBY here. There's so much opportunity to build up. I think a neat hack would be apartment complexes that don't have car spaces. You have Newtown Train Station, St Peters, Macdonaldtown, Erskineville, Stanmore and for some even Redfern/Marrickville stations are doable. I'm not sure anywhere else in Australia has that level of walkability/access to transit. Add to that a generous number of bus stops along King St and Enmore Rd. It's a hub of transport. The airport is a 10-15 minute Uber depending on time of day.
While I align with progressive social policy, restrictions on development are keeping us all poor. Imagine Tokyo with this level of NIMBY-ism. High density can be pro-community.
I'll say this much about Mortdale, there are already lots of units there, which have been there since the 70s ... the 2 buildings being built, that I think you're talking about next to the station, look like they are 6 stories tall?
And yet we're still in a housing crisis. Build more.
@@BuildingBeautifully I think you missed my point ... The buildings are 6 storeys so the whingers didn't win 🤔
19:00 we need building diversity; 3+ bedrooms, min 2 car garage (& 2-3 toilet, bathrooms)
People want affordable, practical plus location [ NOT dogboxes] !!! DONT FORGET THE INFRASTRUCTURE needed to support denser suburbs
@BuildingBeautifully
'Rent /surrogate' "a grandparent, auntie..."💡- meet with likeminded elders who could represent your view at these meetings, in various suburbs 💡
How do you find when there is a meeting at my local council?
probably start by having a look at their website
Join Sydney YIMBY, we send out regular emails and messages on our Discord server telling residents when council meetings are.
If only we could have Tokyo's weird (or lack of) zoning laws. You could build an apartment next to a house anywhere there and there's no zoning at all about it.
Funny how it's one of those cities in the world right now that doesn't have a housing shortage.
Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact its population is falling?
And next to no immigration
😂
Just buy in Chippendale, the pinnacle of high-density living.
- 500m to Broadway Shopping Center, which houses the closest Aldi, Target, and Kmart from the CBD.
- 500m to Central Station for all your public transport needs.
- CBD is still walkable, or use the light rail for ease of access.
- Huge uplift in value when Tech Central completes.
Strata is close to $4K a quarter in that park lane complex opp UTS
Nah, the NIMBYs tell me that's hell, that no one would want to live there!
@@marcc5353 what the hell??!! What, they got gold plated lifts or something?! My strata (ok, so I'm in Brisbane) is under $400/ quarter, so this made me choke on my lunch!
@@marcc5353exactly. It’s unaffordable. I bet there are NO 4 or 5 bedroom units for families. Families need an office or two, room to sleep in, room for their vehicles (yes, families need vehicles today). I bet there are none!
So where do families go to live? They’re out priced in the area and end up buying a home 50km away. It’s NOT the answer!
Another solution? Build other cities around the nation. Most new apartments are bought up by investors.
Carbon dioxide emissions pattern may change when roof top solar systems are too many & home batteries are more common.
If electric cars are the new trend then it will be the way to soak up excess solar electricity generated in the day.
"Everything she said was really confusing"
Yup.. sounds like the Greens
absolute legends! Shame about the cockroach in your chips lol
You haven't actually addressed tree canopy. The innerwest lost a massive amount of tree canopy already. We are behind the city of Sydney and have increasing grey space. It's not about impacting climate change overall, it's about impacting the lives of the people who live here due to increasing heat. Have you looked at what provisions artarmon has in place to keep their canopy as part of development? You can have canopy and high rise but you must have incentives for the developers to do so. The SEPP's actually decrease canopy provisions and decrease the Apartment Design guidelines, including set backs and deep soil both of which are important for landscaping/green space and tree canopy. It is incoherent to just point at another suburb and go "but they did it" and expect that to just magically have happened and therefore happen here. The park across from Luna, attached to the flour mills is an example of Council incentives on developers for community and green space as is the communal spaces at Luna including the bbq's, play ground, community room and toilets. These are things we lose if we have a non refusal process. What is the point in increasing population here just to make the suburb less livable for both current and future residents?
What is the point of jamming people in on narrow roads when it is already too hot in summer to stand at many of the bus stops or walk down the street because of close to a decade of tree policy failure and canopy loss, forcing them back into cars jamming already packed streets. Have you tried driving here at peak hour?
You can't simply look at a map for transport - on paper transport looks fine but when you experience how often buses get cancelled and how few buses go anywhere but the city your argument falls apart. Working in five dock, commuting from dulwich Hill, I'm lucky if the bus that is meant to turn up every 30 mins to an hour actually turns up at all. Catching a bus or tram at peak hours even if you are going along Parramatta Rd or King St often means you can't get on for several busses because it is too full. You don't live here, so you don't understand the issues, this is why community consultation is important, because the community is experiencing the issues! Increasing population without financing Council to manage increased demand on infrastructure is ridiculous. Perhaps you see the pressure on schools as less problematic here, and sure it might be not as bad as "the west" but what you are proposing would likely make them "as bad as the west", what is your actual argument here? That we just expect kids to be in demountables and over full classes and it somehow isn't an issue because it isn't currently as bad as the west? What about light and mould? What about storm water issues? What about rubbish and the myriad of other infrastructure and services that have to be financed by council?
All of this before we even touch the idea that "developer led action on housing affordibility" is "just how it is".
Stop making this a culture war, it isn't polarised, it isn't NIMBY vs YIMBY. It's about getting the government to do their job and actually create meaningful policies that have a long term effect on housing affordability and increase the quality of life for all.
You want to know the biggest marker telling me this won't work? No one in the housing investment market is even slightly scared. There is no rush on getting rid of investment properties. It's all calm blue skies.
Tradies need housing that actually suits tradies. We need 1 or 2 bedrooms but with a large secure shed attached. We need to be able to park the truck inside, along with the small weekend car, a workbench, storage for power tool$ and a small crane to lift the heavy stuff onto the truck. We cannot leave our trucks on the street overnight with tools inside. Ideally, we need to have nice neighbours who don’t mind a bit of noise each morning and during the day when we use tools. Oh, and it should be no more than 30 mins from a job site otherwise a few trips each day is just too much travel and not much work. I doubt many of the proposed medium and high-density complexes will ever offer anything at ground level suitable for tradies. Nor can the younger guys afford to buy/rent an older house within the city limits. The alternative is to move out from the city or just raise our quoted prices. No winners here!
I really think we can do without the casual ageism. It's the ideas that matter.
Developers need to build a wider range of spartments. Not 95% 2 bed apartments!
Studios, 1 bed, "share" houses, plus family size apartments.
I can completely understand Ryde council decision to be against the increase in housing around the Macquarie park and Macquarie uni stations. The business park there should be left to grow and develop majority as a business precinct and increase the public transport to there such as a north south metro line and a connection to parramatta. however my council still needs to grow its a comparable size to many berlin wards close to 400000 residents yet its only about 130000. i see so my potential in my home suburb and i think that Macquarie is exception but the rest of my local government needs to increase around most notably the area between meadowbank and eastwood (please leave eastwood relatively alone i know its kinda not the greatest but its got a special place in my heart and so much character)
Not sure where this idea comes from that the Inner West isn't pulling its weight when it already has a higher population density (the 5th highest in Sydney) than the following LGAs that are all within 10km of the City as well: Mosman, Randwick, Canada Bay, Canterbury-Bankstown, Willoughby, Lane Cove, Woollhara, Bayside, Hunters Hill, Strathfield. Source: ABS Census 2021.
By all means up the density around new transport, but this ridiculous Dept of Planning concept that all 450m2+ properties being eligible for up to 6 stories across the Inner West isn't worth considering.
I would say anything within a km of rail/light rail or buses as high as 5 mins during off peak should be instant high density and not even council can do anything at all to stop it.
5th highest in Sydney? It has an entire train line that runs through it. Frankly, it should be the highest. Sydney is the 830th densest city in the world, saying that the Inner West is the 5th highest in Sydney is like saying that Burnie is full because it's the fourth biggest city in Tasmania (it only has 19,000 residents). We are in a housing crisis, so if the Inner West, with its own train line, needs to be denser than it already is so as to allow more people to live in this city, then so be it.
And to be clear, I believe there should be density next to all train lines, not just the Inner West Line.
@@BuildingBeautifully
London Density: 5,640 people per km2
Inner West Density: 5,199 people per km2
Balmain Density: 6,692 people per km2
Artarmon - 3690 per sq km
Parramatta - 3105 per sq km
Strathfield - 3309 per sq km
We definitely should be building more around train stations / transit routes. But don't underestimate how efficient townhouses can be, while still providing a high standard of living.
Why should it be the highest? You even mentioned yourself its 48% heritage
So 5th highest aint too bad
If you were in charge i’m sure you’d level the whole thing and turn it into chinese style shoebox shitholes like wolli creek
This might be a good long term solution but in my opinion doesn't solve the immediate housing crisis especially given that each year there are more students and more immigrants. I don't have anything against them but if there's more coming each year, we need more housing now but I don't have any ideas other than banning full home airbnb's but that alone is not enough. Cutting building red tape would help but If you've ever seen the site inspections TH-cam channel, less red tape will mean more badly built homes.
I think all the developments should only go where infrastructure is. Some stations like your favourite Denistone are surrounded by nothing but houses and are under utilized. The NSW Govt should do forced land aquisitions and rezone the sites.
While I agree the Inner West could be doing more around its train stations and transit hubs. I think retaining the heritage townhouses is important. Remember those worker cottages/townhouses are extremely dense and if the whole city was like the inner west It would be a whole lot better.
Densities:
Penrith - 545 people per sq km
Cherrybrook - 2265 per sq km
Artarmon - 3690 per sq km
Parramatta - 3105 per sq km
Strathfield - 3309 per sq km
Balmain - 6692 per sq km
Inner West Council - 5199 per sq km
I do totally agree that we should be building even higher density around our mass transit hubs, like how across from some train stations there are single dwelling buildings. so silly
I was in Burwood council meeting last month and the councilor from the Greens (Ned Cutcher) mentioned one study he reads in NZ that adding supply does not necessarily mean a more affordable housing. I was gobsmacked that he cherry-picked one article studying the absolute worst way of adding density and ignoring the total body of evidence that adding density with a little oversight (e.g., not building only million dollars apartments) will help affordability.
This is where I hope this video can help you. Check out the description because I've given lots of links to studies that explain how increasing supply decreases prices.
He’s right! Burwood knocked down hundreds of homes families could buy and built 1 and 2 bedroom boxes where families cannot. Then families fight over buying what’s left. Boom! Prices up.
If larger apartments were built with more bedrooms, families will have options, but at the moment they don’t.
I’ve been to cities like London, Munich, etc and many suburbs are less dense than many in Sydney! Hardly any highrise too.
But we want to build highrise everywhere? Screw that. It’s not the answer.
@@josephj6521 who wants to build high rises everywhere? We need more of all sorts into the mix. That includes high rises, but also medium height, apartments for families, townhouses, and detached houses. It may be a surprise to you but some people do want/prefer to live in high rises.
Also, I've been to apartment towers in Burwood with units for families (3 bedrooms). I doubt the houses it knocked down would house more families than these units. But even if a tower only has 1/2 bedrooms units, while it may not help affordability for families, it helps affordability for people looking for those kinds of units. So supply would still help some although not everyone.
Also, the argument he's making is actually about social housing for lower income. Which is a good point. But how is rejecting development helping with this?
@@josephj6521 also, how is the fact that many suburbs in London less dense than suburbs in Sydney relevant? I can choose the 10 densest suburbs in Canberra and 10 least dense suburbs in London and still say the same thing. That's just how statistical distribution work. Doesn't change the fact that average density of London is more than 10x that of Sydney.
@@mhkhusyairi well, London doesn’t rely solely on high rise density for rail infrastructure. Same for most European cities.
Importing over half a million people a year is the root of the problem
It wasn't a problem for you when immigration was strictly for Europeans lol
What a bunch of hypocrites you all are.
also I think there is a distinction to be made between affordable housing and housing affordability which the NIMBY's don't get right. I heard a good way of understanding the difference the other day: during COVID the number of new cars being imported into NZ (and Aus I imagine) dropped significantly (supply chain, shut down factories etc). As a result, the secondhand car market in NZ went nuts $$$ as people who would have otherwise bought a new car were now competing in the limited secondhand car market. So, whilst new cars being imported into NZ aren't affordable cars, they have a big effect on moderating car affordability. Can be argued the same thing is true in the housing market, yes, many developers aren't delivering affordable new home but there is a market for them, and they have a positive moderating effect on the secondhand housing market across the system. This is obviously a rather blunt analogy but a good way of understanding the free market view of delivering more housing supply. Kia kaha from your NZ YIMBY cousins
We should probably continue to develop the inner city/inner west, it's Sydney's pride and joy after all.
Example: I suggest extending the light rail line to Broadway. Would be great for an uplift in apartment valuations in the area.
Do it. Build it.
Gr8 vid...gen y and z need to revolt honestly. Many things have suited boomers and they are now remaining in their houses (empty rooms included) as they dont need to move/sell
Mad cause bad.
Thank you! We absolutely do need to revolt, and this video is how we're doing so.
Or get more active and win the battle of ideas. The argument that more housing is required is already won. But "empty nesters" rattling round in large houses genuinely don't see how this affects them. The case needs to be made more convincingly, as is done admirably in vids like this one. Need a lot more along same lines, and ideally getting some of it onto TV. Also need to appeal to empty nesters' self interest. Sure they like the space, & backyards, but do they enjoy all the mowing, yardwork, painting, cleaning a largely empty house? Maybe they really would be happier in something smaller, & pocketing the cash difference?
To be frank land appreciate and house depreciate. The key conflict is that, if the density increases, the current land owner has to retire later due to loss of equity in the long run, while there is no way the new apartment owners compensate them
This is a civil way to use batons and rocks to force some people away, taking their wealth off, and then letting more people benefit from the loss of the minority.
That's the conflict.
The talk about this topic is always about what benefit will it bring to the new arrivals, but it does not talk about the loss and compensation of the existing population. Of course, there will be conflicts.
The last one stands retires earliest. if that does not change, then it is always a civil way of robbing existing people
I'd suggest passing a compulsory acquisition law for the benefit of YIMBY as well. That will make everything easier and no need to compensate much as well. Win-win.
Wealth and retirement are by large tied to land value in Australia. If it does not change, then YIMBY is basically a wealth redistribution, taking wealth away and creating more poor people who cannot build wealth and retire. Look at the current pension/super vs apartment value in the long run.
We're not always young people in 20,30. Young people can live in apartments but when they reach 40,50,60, apartments won't be able to serve what is required for them in the long run. This is not unique to Australia.
The best thing for an individual is to leave Sydney and move to other places, and build society and individual equity, instead of trying to jam into Sydney.
Yes, in other backyards. The message is clear. Go to other LGA & tell others to accept higher rise in their backyards.
The Thai Massage and Spa pictures are very distracting 😂
🤣
I loved this video keep it up!
Thank you!
Councils exist by the grace of the state government, legislated not constitutional. Watch them take action around stations.
I do have to say that, the reason you have a labour shortage is because those jobs dont pay well, or at least is seen to not pay well, while also not encourging young people to go into trades and with less apprenticeships and encourgement. If you decrease immigration those jobs will pay more encouring more people to go into those jobs and go through the nessissary qualifications, thus increasing supply, while not increasing demand, the idea that immigration is a quick fix is not true. And from experience living in a country(uk) that has been increasing immigration for the past 13 years and our house prices have only gotten worse. Its a mistake. Investing in your own population and increasing the wages for contruction jobs is the only longer term way to assess your labour shortages and housing crisis, dont make the same mistakes as the UK
How exactly do you propose we do that when we currently have one of the lowest unemployment rates in our history?
@BuildingBeautifully NSW population is 8 million with an unemployment rate of 3.2%, helping your population by reducing drug addiction and rehab care for people, encouraging more young people to go into trades with apprenticeships and while higher wages which you don't get through immigration. increasing well paying job opportunities while not putting more pressure on your own population is your only long-term solution. The UK had a net immigration of 700,000 people, while only building 200,000 homes while not having high rise restrictions. I while also decreasing our wages, people in the UK have not had a real pay increase(increase above inflation) in over 10 years due to immigration depressing wages, benefiting only multi billion pound companies. If you build 10,000 more houses a year but your wages in real terms decrease then your still not going to be able to afford a home.
@BuildingBeautifully also larger developers have a monopoly on housing due to the cost of the hoop jumping the government's put in the way, this kills small to medium size developers which in the 80s made up the largest proportion of houses made, in the modern era these medium developers have been killed off by too much regulation and the larger ones as buying out there competition. Having more support to encourage small and medium size developers, for example, they pay less income tax or subsidies/ grants or reducing there regulation compared to the big boys would help austrailians to go into that industry as there would be incentive. More developers, more houses, lower prices.