Building in the same old ways won't end the housing crisis. (lens.monash.edu)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Is the key to ending our housing woes really just "Supply"? And will the Albanese government's new $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund solve that problem?

The federal government says its new fund will provide $500 million a year to build much-needed social housing.

To meet our housing targets, we need to find new ways of building more with less.

Reusing existing and obsolete buildings for new housing - adaptive reuse - is another way to provide more housing.

A final challenge to government: As we prepare to spend billions on building housing across the country, is it too outlandish to imagine we could invest a mere 1% of those vast sums in innovation programs? Innovation can deliver the increases in building productivity and capacity that Australia so badly needs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

There's a reason I said "homes with smaller footprints" and not just "smaller homes". To use some unrealistic but easy numbers, an apartment building with 100 m^2^ of land area and 10 storeys, each with one apartment on it, means each apartment only takes up a footprint of 10 m^2^, which is tiny. The same principle applies if you use more realistic numbers.

Or you can go for standalone homes in the form of row houses, which might very realistically have a land area of 70 m^2^ and be two storeys, and so have a very comfortable 2-bedroom 140 m^2^ of floor space.

You're absolutely right that a lot of what we currently build is not good quality outside of rentals to uni students. We need more diversity of housing options, including good apartments and row houses.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

I mean if you take that to the extreme you're arguing for very high density living, which I'm not opposed to, but councils seem to be against that by default.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

If you only look at this aspect, that's true, with an asterisk*. But there are other factors that make medium density really good compared to both low density and high density. Factors I'm happy to get in to and have done many times in the past, though it's a little off topic for this thread.

* the asterisk is that depending on how you build the very tall towers, their density can end up being quite comparable to that of medium density. The so-called "tower in a park" layout, where you have large towers with a good amount of green space (or other open space) surrounding them ends up not too much greater in density than straight-up medium density.

this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023

62 points (98.4% liked)

Australia

4448 readers

196 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
Politics, post it to Australian Politics
World News/Events, post it to World News
A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]