Can NSW's Planning Reforms Fix Sydney’s Housing Crisis?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- 🔗 NSW is in the grip of a housing affordability crisis that's pricing many Sydney-Siders and regional residents out of the market.
With many Sydney residents being forced to choose between owning a home in the city or having a family in more affordable areas, Sydney is on its way to become “a city with no grandchildren.”
That's why the NSW government has announced bold new planning reforms centred on 2 pillars: Boosting Diverse and Well-Located Homes, and a Transport Oriented Development Program.
But will these controversial new planning reforms see NSW lead the way for the rest of Australia in solving the housing crisis? Or are they just a rushed blanket solution?
Chapters:
00:00 - The current state of housing in Sydney and NSW
01:58 - The NSW Government’s response to the housing crisis
06:54 - Diverse and Well-Located Housing Reforms
08:33 - The State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP)
09:40 - The Transport Oriented Development Program Reforms (TOD)
13:18 - Do these reforms REALLY address the housing shortage?
14:52 - Are the reforms pro-choice or anti-choice?
16:39 - What’s the REAL financial cost?
17:52 - What are the OTHER economic and environmental gains?
19:42 - Final verdict on the NSW planning reforms
#sydneyhomes #nswaustralia #housingcrisis
Please get in touch with us if you need more detailed advice. Find our contact details below 👇
Download our FREE e-book on "Buying Your Next Home" in which we unpack the decision-making process from a finance perspective for anyone looking to buy their next home. Follow this link to download this guide, obligation-free:
📗🔗 www.sfcapital.com.au/guide-to...
____________
SF Capital is an award-winning Mortgage Broker firm that specialises in servicing goal-driven professionals, business owners and property investors.
Contact us on 02 8004 1888
To request an assessment click here: www.sfcapital.com.au/contact-us/
SF Capital website: sfcapital.com.au/
LinkedIn: / 3572325
Facebook: / sfcapital
Instagram: / sfcapitalgroup
____________
DISCLAIMER:
This video is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, legal or tax advice. This video does not take into consideration your personal circumstances. Consult with a qualified financial planner, tax advisor or legal consultant for tailored advice.
A Canadian TH-cam creator described how an established 'suburb' that doesn't continually grow and invest in itself will inevitably decay after 25 years with inferior roads, parks, transport, shopping centres and house frontages. This is something inner suburb councils need to realise in Australia.
Eastern suburbs of Sydney have declined in population over the past 25 years by about 10k people but prices have only gone up.
I can't see evidence for this in Sydney.
good to see someone try apply some intelligent commentary to the situtation. Media and politicians refuse to say anything worthwhile or honest about the Aussie housing situation.
Thanks for watching!
There's an abundance of parks and other open spaces in or within easy reach of many of those NIMBY suburbs. I'm a Hurstville resident and, while earlier developments have turned Hurstville's CBD into a wind tunnel, there's still scope to build to the proposed specs and create 4 - 6 storey apartment building or multi-dwelling low rise on larger blocks. On any evening, when the weather is warm enough, local parks and playgrounds are full of people (many with young children) enjoying their open spaces, while living comfortably in their unit or apartment nearby. Let's get this done, especially where the local transport and shopping infrastructure already exists.
Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts, Trevor! :)
Fellow resident here too, I wouldn't put my hopes too much as the Georges River Council is useless on increasing residential developments and they have a well-known track record of being corrupt.
So more wind tunnels.. got it
My wife and I have just moved from Sydney to regional nsw, best decision we made, i made sure I had a job before we moved but we have just bought our first home which we can afford comfortably on my average single income 35hrs week, we are in walking distance to all main shopping centres, schools, hospital and my work, a very nice town with all amenities you could want, theatre, parks sports centres and swimming pools, surrounded by great people with lots of great projects and activities always happening, 2 hour drive from the coast and surrounded by beautiful national parks, this is my dream and it came with no financial stress, and is still very attainable in the right areas,
We definitely need this change to make housing more affordable!
Thanks for watching!
Finally someone has done a video on this topic! Nicely summarised. Thank you
My pleasure!
hit the nail on the head. Im not from Sydney but its like that all over Australia. You have the choice between a detached home in a culdesac with no amenities 60km from the CBD or a 2 bedroom luxary apartment in a 60 story tower.
Really .. I'm on 2000 sqm of water front land a third of your 60km from the CBD ..
Easy. High Density house if you need to be close yo city, low density if you don’t care about distance. Do not expect low density house near cbd to be cheap and available. Honestly those existing low density houses near CBD need to be rebuilt into high rise apartments or else house problems will never be solved.
@@k.vn.k why . If you can't afford to live here move
@@slug.racingThat's a pretty selfish mentality that doesn't respect the next generation of Australians who we should be supporting
@@jackyeatman106 tell you what's selfish. Expecting someone else to pay for you.
I worked in NSW for a year between 2017 to 2018 as a Designer.
Unbelievable the amount of Red Tape compared to Western Australia (Where I have lived most of my Life) no wonder Housing is so dam expensive.
The sad thing is, Western Australia are heading down the NSW path, but recently sanity prevailed when the Labour State Government (very surprising) deferred the Planning Changes for the foreseeable Future as Industry heavily pushed back on the changes because it would pretty much limit choice for most Inner Metro Blocks to go Double Storey if you want a decent sized House.
Thanks for your balanced, informed discussion of this topic.
I am an owner occpier of an apartment medium density complex (~45 apartments spread over 2 5-story building) in a suburb in Ku-Ring-Gai council - a suburb that is not directly impacted by the new TOD proposals.
The Ku-Ring-Gai council and its mayor are being quite disingenuous. Every time the Ku-Ring-Gai mayor is interviewed on TV on the topic he is all "Oh, we're not completely against these reforms but I think these reforms are a little rushed and we just want more information and input". Meanwhile the council is paying rate payer's money to plaster every suburb in the council area with billboards basically saying the new planning rules will end society as we know, deforest the council and lead to a mass extinction of small native animals. OK, I might be exaggerating a little but not much
I think one solution to this problem is that there should be an inverse density-based surcharge applied to council rates, or even better it is added to an annual land tax that replaces stamp duty. By doing this people who want to live in infrastructure inefficient low density housing should pay more than those who choose to live more infrastructure efficient medium and high density housing can pay less.
I love your idea of an inverse density levy. Governments need to use the right levers at their disposal to direct sustainable change and financial incentives/disincentives are sorely underutilized as they relate to housing supply. State and local government can implement these changes and attain their objectives, even while the Feds refuse to address the unequal treatment of housing as an investment.
@@laurafergs88 "...while the Feds refuse to address the unequal treatment of housing as an investment."
To be fair the Federal government proposing any changes to negative gearing on and capital gains tax on residential housing has become a policy poison chalice, despite changes being economically sensible in the circumstances.
The ALP proposed reasonable changes to these things in the 2016 and 2019 election campaigns and they were punished for it.
Maybe when Baby Boomer and older Gen-X population dwindles to an electroally insignificant number there might be a chance tackling these problems from a tax perspective.
Housing crisis definitely needs to be addressed. Gets worse by the year...
governments will continue to kick the can down the road. The only real solution is a long term one that requires large change and won't resolve the immediate issue.
Get rid of negative gearing, ban air bnb, invest in public housing, tighten quality controls on new builds and ban foreign investors.
The thing that could assist in the immediate short term is for government to mandate businesses pursue WFH where possible. The low vacancy rates are all focussed around major cities. If people had the freedom to move further out (hell even overseas) it would alleviate the burden on the capital cities and provide an easing of cost of living pressures.
@@Clluthu negative gearing has been there for absolute ages throughout Australian history and it did not impact Australia at all. What triggered the great Australian house growth was (A) 50% CGT discount for any house held more than a year (B) Owner occupied property being tax free except for stamp duty (C) Severe stamp duty in states like NSW and so on (owners matching selling their price + last stamp duty)
@@dh7899 didn't impact us, until now you mean? The ponzi has always been there, it's just now more obvious.
@@Clluthu
Do you understand what Negative Gearing is?
Owning a Property to rent out, is a Business, Negative Gearing is just writing off Business Expenses from Profit.
Australia has a 'Housing Crisis' because for decades Australian Sheep have been voting for Bigger Government & deferring their Individual Responsibility to alphabet Entities
@@Clluthu why don't you move out of your place keep paying the bills and let a houso in .. problem solved. I on the other hand don't feel the need to pay for my house and someone elses.
The problem is quality of the building. If the building is well built and sound. I think over time people will have confidence in living in apartments. Then the plan is more welcome
Take a look at an bad example of Carlingford. It is totally miserable. On the other hand I like maroubra junction which is quite nice - though there is no rail station or light rail there.
Nice video from someone who actually understands the issues instead of blaming this person or that. I think your assessment is correct. I also noticed that despite Melbourne's wages being slightly less than Sydney's, and the median age being only slightly less than Sydney's, the land tax threshold is significantly lower and the house prices are also significantly lower. Coincidence? Maybe.
A very good video. Would love to hear you go deeper into the outcomes, its clear you're keeping this high level.
Thanks for watching! Will consider this for a future video :)
These videos are so good! Thanks for doing the research and making it so easy to digest, more please!!
Thanks for watching, more to come!
We also need to stop non citizens from purchasing properties. Most countries don't allow you to buy land if you're not a citizen, it puts extra pressure on the market and properties owned by people overseas normally stay empty.
Our property market shouldn't be a storage of wealth for rich foreigners.
Maybe limit it to people with single citizenship only. People should learn to commit where country they want to live.
Symptom not the cause. Redteape hindering lack of supply for decades is to blame. Yes, definitely adds fuel to the fire though letting non citizens to purchase.
Incredible breakdown of a very complicated new initiative
Thanks for watching!
Interesting to see how this all plays out in reality! Thanks for yet another well-researched/ informative video Tommy!
No worries!
My god Tommy I just discovered your channel! So many incredibly informative videos and so well delivered 🎉. Love from a fellow TH-camr 🤭
Thanks so much for watching! More to come :)
The way immigration policy is going more like 3 to 5mil in the next 20 years
Dogbox Dystopia
Another well-researched and well-delivered video. Keep it up!
Thanks, will do!
Great video. Rational and well researched.
Much appreciated!
Great video! You can tell a lot of thought and effort went into this
Glad you enjoyed it!
Dwelling production is an irrelevant factor in the housing crisis. The federal government will always increase immigration until the housing market breaks. More dwellings means more more immigration not more available housing.
Walk around Surry Hills and Glebe... A stone's throw from the CBD and it's full of single family dwellings and low apartment building... Living near the Central business district of the Centre of Australia commerce requires some sacrifices with the main sacrifice being you need to live in a apartment... Personally I love apartment living, but I live in a old red brick... So the quality is better then newer apartments... But we can improve the quality of newer apartments with regulations
Two years to get a childcare centre approved in Blacktown Council area. 10 unit development in any suburb takes 10 months minimum to get approval from any Sydney council.
sounds like a nightmare!
I think this is a very good video. Well done. Allow me to put my opinions.
I don’t trust any new proposal. Why? After seeing what has been built the past 30 years, I’m afraid all its done is provide fewer options for families, few for singles, and only cater for investors. It has pushed prices higher for what’s left. Here are some examples:
- Burwood. More 1 & 2 bedroom boxes, highrise whilst losing lots of homes for family living. Traffic is a nightmare, fewer trains stop at Burwood and no infrastructure built to cater for more people.
- Eastgardens. Same as Burwood but no rail, no tram, very few options to buy 4 & 5 bedroom dwellings.
- Maroubra Jct. Heaps of apartments built without consideration for family living. No rail. No tram. Nothing.
- Hornsby. Same as Burwood.
- Hurstville. How ugly! Same issues.
- Parramatta. Nothing for families.
See the trend? NOTHING for family living. We live in a 5 bedroom home. 2 bedrooms are offices for work from home, the other 3 bedrooms we sleep in.
The only options are homes and a few terraces/duplexes. This pushes many families further away.
But keep building 1 & 2 bedroom apartments. Nothing will change.
Also, NONE whom I know desire to live in apartments and all prefer homes with a yard. We are human beings, not chickens in coups.
If this city needs higher density, build larger apartments, preferably no more than 5 storeys and it’ll make a small difference.
Why not build industries in regional areas and not keep bloating our cities until they’re unlivable?
Sounds like you don't need 5 bedrooms if you have 3 used for sleeping. 1-3 bedroom apartments fits your life.
@@michaellim4795 2 other bedrooms used for work. We also use one of these as a guest room for our parents when they come to stay. We need the 5 bedrooms.
Much better if there was NO height limit within 800m of train stations, and it had to include Public Housing aimed at essential workers.
Answering your question: I'm a home owner, & will inherit more.
But im extremely pro-housing bc so many of my friends don't have housing and it's screwing the next generation.
My very close friend also suicide in June 2023, housing has an essential factor.
So you want more commie boxes. Right..
No the market naturally sorts this out with time. If something is too ugly or ‘commie boxes’ as you say, it just won’t sell in a market that has other options! Japan is not communist and got rid of a lot of regulations and they have a lot of beautiful interesting houses, apartments and townhouses in their cities.
@@Sian660 that's mosty right I think.
But more Public Housing aimed at working people ought to be part of the mix, more competition and choice for essential workers, esp poorer workers.
Costs little too, as rent pays it back.
@@Sian660 I'm looking at what the market sorts out. Given the average Australian buyer has zero taste, all we get are crappy commie boxes.
@@pebblepod30 why should I pay for my house and someone elses. There should be no public housing. What we have should be sold
Well done Tommy. Always insightful and absorbing
Much appreciated1
Great insights Tommy and well summarised. Agree, the supply side of new dwellings needs to be improved with haste and less red tape for sure. In the short-term however, the 14x ratio of property price to avg income is a much bigger hurdle before choice. In some areas of Sydney, I'd estimate a family detached house is really starting at at $1m+ per bedroom! There shall be more pain before reaching the new balance I feel
Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!
A well conceived clip on the subject. I agree with much, but not all of its contentions ,and believe there are further things to consider. For example:
- Sydney is marketed as 'six cities' yet all the thinking and talking is devoted to the 'harbour city' - There are plenty of people who will never be able to afford living in Harbour Sydney, and nor would they particularly want to. We need to consider Western Sydney, Wollongong and the Central Coast as areas with their own characteristics, and not merely just as extensions of Harbour Sydney. Another example is the frequent reference to how people who live 'out west' have to commute a long way to get 'good' jobs. Some do, but most live and work in good jobs in the same region. It's a real insult to Westies to privilege Harbour City as being their only source of suitable employment value.
- There is plenty of 'in the middle' housing (typically 3 level 'walk-up' apartments), but scope for more. There is a lot of scope for 2 level apartments which can use cheaper forms of construction. BTW Australia is also the only developed country that requires stricter construction requirements when you go from 2 to 3 levels of apartments. The use of household fire sprinkler systems when adding further levels (costing about as much as carpeting per unit) could also allow cheaper construction methods without compromising fire safety (indeed they would probably improve it).
- There needs to be consideration of providing low income detached homes back as they once were, (i.e. no more than about 150sqm).. It's rare to see offerings under 180-200sqm and Australian detached house are among the world's largest. Why??? People on modest incomes would rather have the option of an adequate and affordable home with a shed and a modest garden, than extra bedrooms, a theatre room and a vast kitchen.
- Home designs of all types need to consider more economic control of heating and cooling. For example, the lack of effective insulation leads to excessive costs over the life of the home. In spite of all the hoopla (and constant marketing calls) about solar power, very little consideration is given to how solar power can be incorporated or retro fitted to low rise apartment buildings.
- For people like students, single folk and low income retirees there should be greater thought given to the role of Class 3 buildings. These have a poor reputation as 'boarding houses' but with good design they could be very suitable places for those who prefer a more communal form of living.
- The financing of housing needs to be improved. Negative gearing for investment properties should be confined to income derived from a property portfolio only, not applicable across all income. Costs incurred in financing a private home (like loan interest) should be tax deductible - both of these things happen in the USA.
- Extensive globalisation is coming to an end. With that comes a re-emergence of local manufacturing opportunities. That requires improved productivity, the reintroduction of relevant technical training opportunities, better rural transport and distribution arrangements, and the re-valuing of qualifications that relate to real vocations, rather than faux University education in pointless subjects. So many rural towns could be transformed by adding manufacturing to their list of local livelihoods. We need to understand that NSW should mean all of New South Wales, not just Newcastle - Sydney - Wollongong.
I believe we also need to take a much longer view of things. Here's a 'radical thought experiment' for you:
- Nobody today would accept widespread urban development in places like the Blue Mountains, Wollemi, Kuringai Chase and Royal National Park etc. They're regarded as simply too environmentally valuable. But 100 years ago few thought that way. Yet, Harbour Sydney is set in a beautiful natural location that is arguably of equally great environmental value.
- In a hundred years time Sydney Harbour Bridge will be reaching the end of its life and there will be much discussion about what it means for Harbour Sydney to lose such an icon. I suggest that will invoke discussion a more general discussion of whether we should return Harbour Sydney to something better resembling its original natural state (a sort of Barangaroo-isation). That might seem fanciful, but given deeper development of environmental values, could suggest its population should gradually be re-located to less environmentally valued locations, leaving the harbour to substantially return to its natural state.
- Indeed, I'd suggest we've already subtly started the process - the dedication of numerous areas of national park around the harbour - the substantial transfer of working docks from the Harbour to Botany Bay container terminal - and the re-purposing of 'working parts of the labour' (like Darling Harbour) - and so on.
Problem is they are building apartments quickly but not giving any thoughts to improving/adding surrounding infrastructure, recreation and retail areas.
Definately going to see overcrowding. It's more likely overseas investors are going to keep prices up and not improve home ownership. They should address foreign investments.
people don't have money to spend on recreation or retail. they too worried about a roof over their head....
@@Clluthu Reductions to the apartment design guidelines (such as reductions to set backs - which is the distance from curb or footpath of a building, and reduction in the distance between apartments, Reductions to deep soil targets - which is necessary for tree cover and reducing the heat island effect) are so commonly left out of these videos and that there is no funding being given to councils for the infrastructure improvements necessary for a fast boost to population. “Recreation” that is free - like third spaces (think libraries and public sports facilities) and public green spaces for people “who have no money” to spend on recreation are really important. Saying there are four main arguments here specifically allows interrogation only of that which a person might be able to respond to in a way that suits their specific opinion and specifically leaves out one of the main ones I have come across which is that there is no social housing target and that even where there is an affordable housing target it is an upper threshold, not a lower limit (up to 15% for example not a minimum of 15%) and is at the discretion of the developer as they can argue that it is not “profitable” enough for them to include affordable housing and reduce that percentage to 0. Specifically not accounted for in any way. There is no compulsion for developers to follow through on approved DA’s, with evidence that currently many developers currently hold onto approved DA’s until they are most profitable rather than increase supply. Please be wary of people who lead this conversation by immediately reducing it to NIMBY/YIMBY. It makes it impossible to actually interrogate and have a rational discussion about these laws. NIMBY’s are not an actual group where there are specifically YIMBY groups (such as Sydney YIMBY). It’s similar to a false dichotomy in the argument and frames anyone with criticisms of this strategy as part of specific “NIMBY” ideology which they are not necessarily. “NIMBY’s” are not saying any of these arguments, people who disagree with this strategy are.
Foreign investors only make up about 5-7% of house sales in Sydney
I think the pandemic period demonstrated foreign buyers are not the main issue.
@@Clluthu so commie boxes .. got it
May sound crazy but why don't we just build a new city from scratch. Take a successful city layout (none are perfect), say like Singapore and copy it somewhere between Sydney and Canberra. Include all the infrastructure first airports, hospitals, schools with priority then the commercial and residential following. Why reinvent the wheel if there is already a successful plan elsewhere in the world that can be copied.
Fantastic commentary / article on this subject!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great video. It's sad to see people fighting against the simple solution that we need to Build More Houses. There is simply no other way people of my generation will be able to afford to buy a house.
Have about thinking outside the square, here a idea "retiree free city's" if your not providing a economic contribution to area is it helpful?
Such an informative breakdown - thanks for showing us how this looks IRL!
Apparently Tokyo abolished local council authority…now look how many people live there
And Tokyo's homelessness has stayed extremely low.
Easy to say that when Japan also created an inheritance tax and has very low demand because of falling birthrates and low migration. It also had the, hopefully unintended, effect of aligning developers with criminals to forcibly remove people from their homes where they would not otherwise sell by purposefully damaging their properties or similar practices so that developers could profit. Context really matters. Would the change to zoning have had the same effect on housing without being combined with the inheritance tax? It’s impossible to truly know, but it seems like at least part of the reason it has had such longevity.
So do they want tents out the front of their houses or do they want houses out the front of their houses?
Great content as always Tommy. Thanks for your insights.
We need more housing, as long as labour keep building I’ll keep voting.
That NIMBY argument is filled with greed and short sightedness. The people that bought houses while it’s cheap want to literally pull the ladder up after them. For what to protect housing prices? More housing doesn’t have to mean living in an urban hellscape we have an opportunity to improve housing and our city. Use Dutch/Scandinavian style urban design and we can get both outcomes.
NIMBYS should take a look around Australia at the moment. Would they rather a high rise partially blocking their view, or local parks full of homeless people?
@@itsicekold1 I'll take the homeless. Easier to move on
Haha, Labor is the cause of the problem - hopefully idiots will be voted out in next election, its no wonder if only way for Labor to run economy is Import more people and Tax them like HELL, of course lifestyle will keep degrading like this and per capita recession will persist. NIMBY or YIMBY doesn't matter.
Thank you for making this video. Much appreciated
Good content, we also need to get rid of some of the golf courses
I’m prodevelopment But they have to have a better solution like
1. Tunnel through the Blue Mountains and put fast trains
areas like Lithgow Bathurst
2 develop the rail corridors that is develop over the railway line
3 develop Parramatta Rd Victoria Roads
4 allow the office towers in the CBD of Sydney North Sydney Liverpool Parramatta to be part residential and part office as more people work from home
NSW is not just Sydney. Lots of well placed land for building in regional NSW which is in many cases easier to provide services to and provides a better quality of life.
Great report. Strange that Hurlstone Park gets a metro station but little uplift.
Nimby resident here.
What they are propsing will likely destroy the heritage and fabric of suburbs. Architecturally and socially is a recipe for a race to the bottom.
Rather than do the hard work and plan and develope livable centres in outer areas or regions they will destroy the very reasons want to live in aspirational suburbs. And replace homes of quality and beauty with poorly built boxes.
And you're a mortgage broker. Ypu have a vested interest in volume of house sales ?
Excellent video. Not easy to do a pithy analysis of complex planning reforms, but I reckon you aced it.
my thinking is; all action is better than no action
Love these videos brother please keep them coming ! appreciate you
Japan did something somewhat similar years ago and it worked for them. There approach was far more aggressive though.
Sydney snt liveable unless you're rich.
Good summary
Not all councils are sharing the load equally for good reasons. We understood well why mosman and northern beaches or eastern suburbs not sharing the same load equally as Fairfield or Waterloo.
Any survey had been done to collect the feedback of the residents living in Rhodes? I know many local Aussies hate living in the environment similar to Rhodes. We know that this kind of high density of living is well accepted by mainland Chinese immigrants. Thus I believe building an extreme high density affordable housing for immigrants is a good idea (Rhodes housing is not affordable at the moment, neither nor the Macquarie park. That means we need x10 number of units push to the market to lower the housing price for new migrants, as local Aussies will not buy them)
I guess some people want to see the metro stations to be built in these areas and a lot of 6 storey high rise apartments will be available everywhere. But believe me by then those new apartments in those rich people suburbs still unaffordable to the young people.
I was astonished that the hub of development do not include the Bondi Junction. I suggest transforming the Bondi junction to be another Rhodes. PS: I do not live there.
I am not a NIMBY. Rather I am a YIYBY (Yes in your backyard)
It doesn’t matter what people prefer to live in, there is only so much land that’s close enough to the CBD to travel. Every suburb within a certain radius of Sydney will have to build up and the same will have to happen in Melbourne unless the cities population stops rising (which is bad for the economy). Yes the rich areas will still be unaffordable to young people but either the apartment owners in rich areas will be investors (which equals cheaper rent for young people) OR they will be owners (which means they might sell their old place in another suburb that a young person can then buy) everything is interrelated, we know getting rid of regulations helps because of Japan.
Problem with apartments built is that they’re not suited to families. Try finding a 4 or 5 bedroom one with 2 or 3 parking spots. You cannot! Hence families are forced either further away or pay a premium to buy what’s left after the destruction of many homes. Nothing mentioned about that issue.
Second to none info 👍
Much appreciated!
If we only have super fast inter-city trains, housing crisis will be solved naturally by it. It is basically the dodgy train system that prevents people moving to regional areas.
Reforms need to happen. Is it enough? 185,000 in 15 years is that even keeping up?
This is a good change, it needs to go further. The selfish people that want to deny higher density need to be ignored and local councils bought into line. The housing crisis cannot afford to be ignored..
Higher Density, means more affordability, you can live closer to work, it means less traffic because you don't have to drive, or drive shorter distances. It will also allow older people to see their relatives.
Higher Density also means that transport costs are lower..
Its a no brainer, ignore the selfish Nimbies...
Perhaps you just need to move where you can afford. I hear broken hill is nice this time of year
Why not move outside Sydney and find regional jobs? There you can afford a dwelling.
@@BG-ir1ii There are a few points to address here. Firstly I don't live in Sydney, its expensive even in regional areas.
Secondly in regional areas the pay is lower then in Sydney, so matter what you do, you can't win.
Finally, and most importantly, having people move into outer areas does not solve the problem. It just makes housing more expensive there. It also usually means people have to travel further often from regional areas to major regional areas or Cities, which exacerbates, the problem with traffic, and or means longer and longer commute times. It also makes infrastructure more expensive and land use inefficient. On top of this it means paving over more of what was once good productive agricultural land. Which then means farming is not as productive or more inefficient or both..
Like I said, the solution is higher Density, both within cities and major regional centres. Its cheaper, it means less traffic, it can mean quieter areas, if you encourage alternatives to driving. It does not involve bulldozing farm land, transport costs are lower, its also cheaper for local council and government on a per dwelling basis.
Before anyone comments, I'm not talking about banning cars etc, I am talking about giving people viable alternatives to driving.
But Sydney doesn't need grandchildren, let's just migrant more talents 🤣
I am thinking of moving out from Sydney soon. Housing crisis means “Make Indian rich only” every suburb and every inspection you go they are the vendors and they are the buyers and they are the RE agents”
Sydney could very well go the direction of Amsterdam - cheap, easy, enjoyable array of transport options, a wide array of housing options for all tastes and budgets, more social cohesion and trust AND better health indicators for everyone! So long as building codes are maintained and we dont get more Mascot towers then it'll be beautiful. People wonder why a lot of European cities feel welcoming and homely - they're built for people, ALL people not just car owners and the wealthy NIMBYs.
I hope so...
None of this will change housing affordability as long as economic policy promotes housing as the best investment strategy for wealth growth. Supply is only part of the problem, even with higher availability it will only fuel expansion of investment portfolio's. No developer will sell an apartment for $500,000 when there are investors willing to pay $800,000+.
There are only 2 ways to solve housing affordability - massively increase wages so that they can afford to buy, or remove the tax incentives that allow housing investors to absorb higher prices. The first will get stomped on by the RBA as inflation spirals, and the second would require the housing price bubble to burst in a catastrophic manner. The third possible option is to build government housing, put them on rent-to-buy arrangements and sell them at cost. Making artificially created low cost housing available would put downward pressure on surrounding areas and perhaps provide a more gentle landing for a housing bubble burst.
Amazing video analysis. Radical change is the ONLY way to make sure Sydney is sustainable for the next generation.
Simple. High net overseas migration. Cut the intake.
The fear of "it'll become a developers playground with apartments everywhere"
Forgets the supply vs demand equation..
Amazing videos! Thanks
You WILL live in your executive-governed smart cities and you WILL love it
To anyone reading the comments - Please be wary of people who lead this conversation by immediately reducing it to NIMBY/YIMBY. It makes it impossible to actually interrogate and have a rational discussion about these laws. NIMBY’s are rarely a formal advocating group where there are specifically YIMBY groups advocating in this space (such as Sydney YIMBY). It’s also not used to specify those advocating groups, it’s used similarly to a false dichotomy and frames anyone with criticisms of this strategy as part of specific “NIMBY” ideology which they are not necessarily. “NIMBY’s” are not necessarily saying any of these “arguments” as has been framed here, people who disagree with this strategy are. The inverse is also true, not everyone who is pro these reforms is a YIMBY either. Also please go read information from the professionals on council (not councillors) that actually deal with this area of policy. For example there is a draft letter in the council papers from the Inner West Council meeting 13/02/2024 but many councils have similar documents.
It's not just housing prices, it's tolls, taxes and enforcements. Sydney is a hole and getting out was the best thing I've done....
No as we have an immigration crisis thanks to Labor
People wouldn't be NIMBY if developers weren't tasteless hacks simply cutting down all trees, installing bland uninspiring mcmansions or oversized toilet blocks in suburbs that actually have a sense of community.
Why do we need the same density as other major international cities? I don't hear anyone rushing out of Sydney to live in Beijing or Mumbai. Immigrants are coming here to avoid the density and overcrowding. Labor is going to destroy NSW and unfortunately house prices will continue to increase. Really stupid policy
sardine cans shouldn't be classified as a "home" it leans more towards a prison cell
More money for developers and councils. That’s all.
lets be real. The only thing the NIMBYs care about is their property prices. They treated their houses as investments instead of dwellings, so they cant tank a drop in prices, so I believe they'd rather people not have homes if it means their property prices increase.
They need Parrahub
I love dogs but I can't afford to live in a house with a yard. No dogs allowed in apartments. That means no dogs.. ever. That sucks. I don't have anybody else
High speed rail and build new city.
Anyone that doesn't want to live in a dogbox low quality concrete apartment is a "NIMBY"?
Easy solution. Why make it hard? Build high rise apartments on small piece of land. All problem settled. My condo in Malaysia is in 42 storey building, 5 storey of car parking alone, all has 604 unit of houses. Can fit 600 families at least. Why bother building single storey house, it cost more money and dont solve problem in the long term…
A mortgage broker selling the idea that we need more homes, how unsurprising. Probably never affected by over shadowing and overzealous construction disturbances.
OVERLOADED SCHOOLS, OVERCROWDED ROADS AND SHOPPING CENTERS
If you support immigration, then you must also support development. You can't have it both ways.
Factory built apartments could get this done with less costs & labour.
No they wont communist liar
10% haulage tsx by labor helping transport costs no.
Why go through all the trouble when Labor can simply stop the unnecessary mass immigration?
At this point I'm convinced Sydney and Melbourne just keep importing migrants to win the title of most populated city in the country or to keep up with one another. There is literally no good reason to be doing it at the rate they are.
@@mgp1203 it's not capital cities importing. It is clown Albasleezy importing immigrants by the millions and they all want to live in big city.
It benefits him personally too so he can charge sky-rocket rent fees on his numerous investment properties
You don’t fix close to three decades of bad housing policy, defunding and unfair financial policies that bias “home owners” by reducing migration. It’s a pressure on the market for sure, but the damage was done by reforms and policies created by Howard when I was too young to vote (in the early/mid 2000’s ).
@@Jellibox umm. No. Its easy fix. Stop mass immigration and that will end homelessness that Albanese Labor has created and atop house prices growing in our normalized interest rate environment
@@Jellibox of course you do. Perhaps your still to young to vote.
Im 100% in support of this.... Ignore the selfish Nimbys..
The housing crisis has been a very effective tool to keep people struggling and not able to organise a political resistance…
War across the world may encourage more people to migrate viz Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine?
Sydney is already done unfortunately, no coming back from this. You can thank the incompetent governments for this.
So zone two will be the Bronx how wonderful.
Probably too late because population growth and migration too high