Yes, many thanks. I have been eagerly awaiting your post.
Clarify please: 'Queensland and Brisbane have consistently maintained the highest rate of net interstate migration in the country in recent years.' I presume you mean immigration. Migration could imply a loss of people.
What are the complexities involved in urban infil?
How much more does urban infil cost per square metre of finished house by comparison with a house in the greenfield extremity. Tim Gurner probably knows.
What proportion of urban infil occurs in residential areas or is it normally on brownfield sites or government land? Would a developer ever consider amalgamating titles and re-arranging the road network?
Do you see instances of developers building communities that have a liberal approach to zoning so as to enable people to obtain what they require within walking distance?
What would the population potential in the largest infill project? My thinking is that unless its large there will be little scope to change the zoning scheme so as to maximize the potential to build in everyday interactions between people to mitigate the loneliness experienced in single use Aussie urban sprawl.
I note the new planning initiatives in Melbourne to incentivize developers to get involved in infil projects in return for fast tracking approvals via the Minister for planning rather than face the delays involved in the current planning arrangements. But I really wonder whether this will create places that are favorable to interpersonal interactions required to develop a community of interdependent people who enjoy the support of each other.
It's one thing to be able to build, it's another thing entirety to build something worth having. In my view it is going to be easier and cheaper to satisfy needs on a greenfield site with a deliberately liberal approach to zoning. To appreciate the potential, simply make a list of the occupations that could be pursued if we allowed people to design a house that incorporated a workshop, a retail outlet and a residence combined, all of which have the potential to be rented as accommodation if a person decides to retire. Don't be aghast at this possibility because this is what people do in rural villages.
On your migration / immigration delineation, I bow to your wisdowm.
On the complexities and cost of urban infill - I'm not going to blow your mind you with my answer, only to say that there is oodles of evidence that the smaller the lot pattern, the slower of takeup renewal is post-upzoning and vice versa where larger blocks produce better results, sooner - which I'm sure you know. Suggest reading the work of Rachel Gallagher on LinkedIn who is a true scholar of planning history in SEQ.
Can't give you an exact figure on how much infill occurs in residential areas, but in my experience any strategy that relies on the suburbs renewing organically is doomed to fail because the takeup rate is so low. It's better to form these policies and assume a multi-generational renewal rate and not rely on it in the near term.
Perhaps we could rebuild our community from the single household up. Re-create our neighbours and live with an intention to thrive. Turn our backs on this hamster wheel and give yourself permission to be your greatest self.
I’d say it would have to. I also know that there’s a lot of informal overcrowding / extra-legal subletting of houses in Brisbane right due to the rental situation. I suspect this will need to be tolerated over the next 5 years as the crisis deepens.
Yes, many thanks. I have been eagerly awaiting your post.
Clarify please: 'Queensland and Brisbane have consistently maintained the highest rate of net interstate migration in the country in recent years.' I presume you mean immigration. Migration could imply a loss of people.
What are the complexities involved in urban infil?
How much more does urban infil cost per square metre of finished house by comparison with a house in the greenfield extremity. Tim Gurner probably knows.
What proportion of urban infil occurs in residential areas or is it normally on brownfield sites or government land? Would a developer ever consider amalgamating titles and re-arranging the road network?
Do you see instances of developers building communities that have a liberal approach to zoning so as to enable people to obtain what they require within walking distance?
What would the population potential in the largest infill project? My thinking is that unless its large there will be little scope to change the zoning scheme so as to maximize the potential to build in everyday interactions between people to mitigate the loneliness experienced in single use Aussie urban sprawl.
I note the new planning initiatives in Melbourne to incentivize developers to get involved in infil projects in return for fast tracking approvals via the Minister for planning rather than face the delays involved in the current planning arrangements. But I really wonder whether this will create places that are favorable to interpersonal interactions required to develop a community of interdependent people who enjoy the support of each other.
It's one thing to be able to build, it's another thing entirety to build something worth having. In my view it is going to be easier and cheaper to satisfy needs on a greenfield site with a deliberately liberal approach to zoning. To appreciate the potential, simply make a list of the occupations that could be pursued if we allowed people to design a house that incorporated a workshop, a retail outlet and a residence combined, all of which have the potential to be rented as accommodation if a person decides to retire. Don't be aghast at this possibility because this is what people do in rural villages.
Thanks Erl:
On your migration / immigration delineation, I bow to your wisdowm.
On the complexities and cost of urban infill - I'm not going to blow your mind you with my answer, only to say that there is oodles of evidence that the smaller the lot pattern, the slower of takeup renewal is post-upzoning and vice versa where larger blocks produce better results, sooner - which I'm sure you know. Suggest reading the work of Rachel Gallagher on LinkedIn who is a true scholar of planning history in SEQ.
Can't give you an exact figure on how much infill occurs in residential areas, but in my experience any strategy that relies on the suburbs renewing organically is doomed to fail because the takeup rate is so low. It's better to form these policies and assume a multi-generational renewal rate and not rely on it in the near term.
Perhaps we could rebuild our community from the single household up. Re-create our neighbours and live with an intention to thrive. Turn our backs on this hamster wheel and give yourself permission to be your greatest self.
I wonder if the number of occupants per house / dwelling makes our appetite for the largest houses even more unhealthy?
I’d say it would have to. I also know that there’s a lot of informal overcrowding / extra-legal subletting of houses in Brisbane right due to the rental situation. I suspect this will need to be tolerated over the next 5 years as the crisis deepens.