Personally I don't think we will get the required numbers on a site by site basis, we need to be thinking redevelopment of whole blocks on a collective basis (all property owners join together and then work with Council on an acceptable redevelopment design proposal with a mix of housing types and sizes).
Notwithstanding, I had a similar thought about a set of standard designs and I think it can be done and facilitated through the "Standard Drawings" components of the Planning Scheme. Build in accordance with the approved Standard Drawing (mixed and matched for different situations) and it becomes self-assessable development (apart from Building Approval).
Here is a planner talking about planning reform, with whimsicality wit and humour. Utterly refreshing.
I like the idea of a pre-planned option that's off the shelf and immediately usable. But are there indeed planners who are willing to make up their mind beforehand? Would this remove the delicious prospect of exercising one’s discretion, that I suggest is akin to ‘planning on the trot’. Would a planner feel comfortable about failing to advise the nimby neighbourhood that something is afoot? Is the degree to which discretion is required not a consequence of overzealous prescription in terms of style and usage?
Is there a dysfunctionality in the ‘dormitory suburb’ as we see it in Australia? Is this dysfunctionality a consequence of the planning regime imported from the UK and the USA? Does suburban sprawl foster a sense of community or is it alienating?
I agree that cars are killing suburbia. I like the idea of letting people walk the last 150 meters to their dwelling, something they would have to accept if they relied on public transport. I'm an angry commenter because planning permission is too hard to get. I'm in a country area on the coast and there is a ribbon of unaffordable housing that stretches around a very large bay that won't support a public transport option. The suburbs that are being added are out of the Perth playbook, large houses on ever smaller parcels of land separated by high fences, with no backyard, side walls inches apart, big setback from the road to accommodate off-street parking. Ghettoes in the making.
I have 50 acres zoned rural residential capable of subdivision into seven blocks to support seven castles. I don’t like that idea. I want to maintain my vineyard and winery, a pre-existing non-conforming use. I want to put affordable rentals on my land, in a garden or a bushland setting, along a gravel road, two bed one bath cottages for wage earners, using sea containers the rigid element that supports cantilevered extensions that increase the floor area to the average size of a house in the UK. The structural integrity of the container is conserved, and the completed house is insulated and clad externally. Transport is possible on a tilt tray truck. These dwellings need only four points of support, so a minimum of site works. A house for 100K is the aim.
The combination of draconian bush fire regulations and an unwillingness to see natural vegetation cleared prevents the insertion of rentable chalets in a low density bushland setting. Given the desirability of the bushland site I see the possible loss to fire as tolerable. At the first sign of a whiff of smoke the tenants could take off. That’s what the fire controllers demand anyway.
I desire to purchase already cleared rural land to establish a housing development from scratch to escape the bushfire/clearing dictates but planners like the idea of conserving cleared rural land for rural purposes. If I can find a bit of land and obtain the necessary permissions, I want to explore the prospect for a different, more communal style of living.
Under my scheme a housing development would be free of roads and cars. Social engagement would be promoted by the daily walk from a communal garage to the residence via a covered walkway with seating at points along the way to accommodate a couple of old guys playing chess or women playing cards or chatting while they knit. Each dwelling would be surrounded by sufficient space to allow solar passive design. This space would be sufficient to allow shady trees to grow. The lowest floor could be devoted to a home occupation and light commercial, a cafe or an umbrella shop, as one discovers in Tokyo, across China or Little Bourke street Melbourne. Open space would allow gardens and lawn for kids to practice their handstands, within view of people in three or four adjacent houses. I would put a soccer field at the centre of everything for dads to engage in kick to kick with their sons and daughters because there is no better way to build skills than daily informal play. The aim is to integrate work and home so far as its possible which is great for women and kids and to reduce the need for travel. The settlement should be large enough to accommodate an elementary school. It would welcome all comers, working or retired, all ethnicities and the greatest mixture of life experiences and skills possible. Let them add buildings to cater for their interests and hobbies on the edge of the soccer field.
What do you think? Is it not time to add farmers to the list of accredited developers? I reckon that the crisis would disappear in 15 years due to a massive increase in 'build to rent'.
The Intergenerational Report projected that Australia's population would grow by 13.7m people in just 40 years. That's the equivalent to adding another Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane to the current Australian population.
There is simply no way that Australia can build enough homes under a 'Big Australia' immigration policy.
Instead of 'building more', how about importing less people?
Australia's housing supply woes could be solved with a stroke of a pen by reducing immigration back to the historical average of less than 100k per year.
Lower immigration would also reduce the need to build expensive new infrastructure and buldoze our suburbs into higher density, and reduces presures on water supply and the environment.
As a final point, your claim that immigration I'd good because it stops the population from ageing is wrong in the long-term as migrants also age. The aging 'benefits' are only temporary and come with a whole bunch of external costs, which are rarely acknowledged.
Big Australia immigration is the ultimate ponzi scheme that is the primary cause of Australia's housing woes. The first best policy is to not cause the problems in the first place by importing hundreds of thousands of people into Australia every year that require new housing.
Personally I don't think we will get the required numbers on a site by site basis, we need to be thinking redevelopment of whole blocks on a collective basis (all property owners join together and then work with Council on an acceptable redevelopment design proposal with a mix of housing types and sizes).
Notwithstanding, I had a similar thought about a set of standard designs and I think it can be done and facilitated through the "Standard Drawings" components of the Planning Scheme. Build in accordance with the approved Standard Drawing (mixed and matched for different situations) and it becomes self-assessable development (apart from Building Approval).
Here is a planner talking about planning reform, with whimsicality wit and humour. Utterly refreshing.
I like the idea of a pre-planned option that's off the shelf and immediately usable. But are there indeed planners who are willing to make up their mind beforehand? Would this remove the delicious prospect of exercising one’s discretion, that I suggest is akin to ‘planning on the trot’. Would a planner feel comfortable about failing to advise the nimby neighbourhood that something is afoot? Is the degree to which discretion is required not a consequence of overzealous prescription in terms of style and usage?
Is there a dysfunctionality in the ‘dormitory suburb’ as we see it in Australia? Is this dysfunctionality a consequence of the planning regime imported from the UK and the USA? Does suburban sprawl foster a sense of community or is it alienating?
I agree that cars are killing suburbia. I like the idea of letting people walk the last 150 meters to their dwelling, something they would have to accept if they relied on public transport. I'm an angry commenter because planning permission is too hard to get. I'm in a country area on the coast and there is a ribbon of unaffordable housing that stretches around a very large bay that won't support a public transport option. The suburbs that are being added are out of the Perth playbook, large houses on ever smaller parcels of land separated by high fences, with no backyard, side walls inches apart, big setback from the road to accommodate off-street parking. Ghettoes in the making.
I have 50 acres zoned rural residential capable of subdivision into seven blocks to support seven castles. I don’t like that idea. I want to maintain my vineyard and winery, a pre-existing non-conforming use. I want to put affordable rentals on my land, in a garden or a bushland setting, along a gravel road, two bed one bath cottages for wage earners, using sea containers the rigid element that supports cantilevered extensions that increase the floor area to the average size of a house in the UK. The structural integrity of the container is conserved, and the completed house is insulated and clad externally. Transport is possible on a tilt tray truck. These dwellings need only four points of support, so a minimum of site works. A house for 100K is the aim.
The combination of draconian bush fire regulations and an unwillingness to see natural vegetation cleared prevents the insertion of rentable chalets in a low density bushland setting. Given the desirability of the bushland site I see the possible loss to fire as tolerable. At the first sign of a whiff of smoke the tenants could take off. That’s what the fire controllers demand anyway.
I desire to purchase already cleared rural land to establish a housing development from scratch to escape the bushfire/clearing dictates but planners like the idea of conserving cleared rural land for rural purposes. If I can find a bit of land and obtain the necessary permissions, I want to explore the prospect for a different, more communal style of living.
Under my scheme a housing development would be free of roads and cars. Social engagement would be promoted by the daily walk from a communal garage to the residence via a covered walkway with seating at points along the way to accommodate a couple of old guys playing chess or women playing cards or chatting while they knit. Each dwelling would be surrounded by sufficient space to allow solar passive design. This space would be sufficient to allow shady trees to grow. The lowest floor could be devoted to a home occupation and light commercial, a cafe or an umbrella shop, as one discovers in Tokyo, across China or Little Bourke street Melbourne. Open space would allow gardens and lawn for kids to practice their handstands, within view of people in three or four adjacent houses. I would put a soccer field at the centre of everything for dads to engage in kick to kick with their sons and daughters because there is no better way to build skills than daily informal play. The aim is to integrate work and home so far as its possible which is great for women and kids and to reduce the need for travel. The settlement should be large enough to accommodate an elementary school. It would welcome all comers, working or retired, all ethnicities and the greatest mixture of life experiences and skills possible. Let them add buildings to cater for their interests and hobbies on the edge of the soccer field.
What do you think? Is it not time to add farmers to the list of accredited developers? I reckon that the crisis would disappear in 15 years due to a massive increase in 'build to rent'.
The Intergenerational Report projected that Australia's population would grow by 13.7m people in just 40 years. That's the equivalent to adding another Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane to the current Australian population.
There is simply no way that Australia can build enough homes under a 'Big Australia' immigration policy.
Instead of 'building more', how about importing less people?
Australia's housing supply woes could be solved with a stroke of a pen by reducing immigration back to the historical average of less than 100k per year.
Lower immigration would also reduce the need to build expensive new infrastructure and buldoze our suburbs into higher density, and reduces presures on water supply and the environment.
As a final point, your claim that immigration I'd good because it stops the population from ageing is wrong in the long-term as migrants also age. The aging 'benefits' are only temporary and come with a whole bunch of external costs, which are rarely acknowledged.
Big Australia immigration is the ultimate ponzi scheme that is the primary cause of Australia's housing woes. The first best policy is to not cause the problems in the first place by importing hundreds of thousands of people into Australia every year that require new housing.
It isn't rocket science.