Some people have outside dogs. My parents had outside children. We were steered out the back door after breakfast and expected to play in the backyard – or a neighbour’s backyard – for most of the day. We would also run up to the local park. It had to be raining cats and dogs for an exception to be made.
When the light began to fade, all the children in the area wandered back to their respective homes to consume the meat and three veg served for dinner every night. There weren’t any a la carte offerings in our house. We didn’t get a television set until I was 10, even though they were available. We were then allowed to watch for only two to three hours each week. According to my parents, television was either a waste of time or dangerous. They probably had a point.
In case you think I’m just being sentimental, let me use data to highlight the fact that the preferences of parents for detached housing with a backyard, even a small one, have not noticeably changed over the years. With Australia’s temperate climate, it’s not hard to understand this preference. Repeated surveys consistently indicate detached housing is still the overwhelmingly preferred housing type, with about 60-70 per cent of the population opting for this choice. Semi-detached housing accounts for about 10-15 per cent, with apartments favoured by about 15-20 cent, depending on the survey.
One particularly interesting survey asked homeowners of detached housing in a new outer Melbourne suburb whether they would like to swap their dwelling for an apartment with a similar floor plate closer to the CBD. More than three-quarters preferred their current arrangements.
It’s not as if the politicians don’t know this; they would just rather impose other housing options on desperate citizens because high-rise apartments close to railway stations and often with no parking suit their political agendas. Terms such as “unsustainable urban sprawl” and the “corrosive impact of NIMBY-ism (not in my backyard) are thrown into the argument. These slogans support heavy-handed housing policies that simply ride roughshod over the preferences of homebuyers and existing residents impacted by unwelcome developments.
In Victoria and NSW, the politicians wax on about the advantages of high-density living close to the CBD. The NSW Premier foresees a time when living in parts of Sydney will be like living in Brooklyn or Williamsburg in New York. Similar utterances are made by government Victorian ministers. A cynic might wonder whether people really want the New York lifestyle, shootings and all, but demonstrating political “leadership” on housing is in vogue at this point.
The Minns government has been explicit about siding with property developers over NIMBYs and their local government allies. There is a high degree of irony, in fact, that The Sydney Morning Herald frequently carries commentary favourable to high-density housing developments while containing separate stories about the worrying prevalence of defects in new apartment buildings and the expensive frustrations for owners with body corporate arrangements.
It has been estimated that well over half of recently built high-rise apartments have serious problems that require rectification, including waterproofing, cracking and mould. There have been instances where large apartment buildings have had to be abandoned.
Body corporate arrangements are often opaque and favour the developer. It is not uncommon for developers to stack the committee in the first instance – unsold units provide them with the numbers.
New owners find it hard to be heard and related party connections between developers and service providers are often undisclosed. In the worst-case scenario, owners are forced to stump up for a call to make necessary repairs that should have been the responsibility of the original developer. It’s not clear that the legislative solutions to any of these problems have been effective.
Add the fact that most newly constructed apartments have only two bedrooms, and it doesn’t take a high IQ to understand that couples with families are not attracted to this type of living. Of course, those who are locked out of the housing market may end up taking what is on offer, even if it doesn’t really meet their preferences. In fact, that’s the political plan. In turn, the size of their family is likely to be determined in part by the housing options available. Is it really any surprise children living in these apartment buildings spend hours on their screens (forget the two to three hours a week)? The absence of a backyard and the lack of any convenient green space make this the only alternative for hard-pressed parents.
There is also the point that buying an apartment is a dud investment compared with a stand-alone house. According to James Kirby of this newspaper, over the past decade, the selling prices of stand-alone houses have done twice as well as units – rising 80 per cent against 38 per cent. More recently, two-thirds of properties sold for a loss in the March quarter of this year were units.
Of course, you don’t have to have an economics degree to realise why this is so. The value is in the land rather than the building, and stand-alone houses are always likely to outperform apartments. All this begs the question why so many politicians are keen to impose their housing preferences on citizens, rather than facilitate the fulfilment of their genuine preference for detached houses.
There are a variety of answers to this question, including the favouritism Labor governments typically show to union-dominated sectors of the building industry, such as high-rise apartments. Until recently, the construction of stand-alone homes was largely undertaken by non-unionised subcontractors.
There is also the unwillingness by state and local governments to fund the infrastructure needed to service new housing estates. Roads, water, sewerage, parks, schools and the like are required, but local governments have often found themselves short of the funds to cover many of these expenses, even when upfront taxes are imposed on developers.
One unfortunate consequence has been underserviced new developments, particularly in terms of accessible roads. The assumption that there is under-utilised infrastructure in the middle suburbs regarded as ideal for high-rise apartments has also proven to be unfounded. The fact state governments have egged on the federal government to facilitate high migrant intakes has meant demand has inevitably outstripped supply. Many politicians simply fell for the ruse that high-density housing is the only solution.
In the past, surging demand for housing was simply met by the private sector servicing the preferences of first-home buyers with a very small addition of public housing. After all, we have had periods of rapid population growth.
Today, there’s a dizzying array of government interventions, including low-deposit schemes, shared equity schemes and a step up in public housing investment. There is a distinct possibility these schemes will founder and expose taxpayers. Just watch this space.
More Coverage
Tariffs cloud US talk of Quad metals ambitions
Government seems willing to sleepwalk into China’s diplomatic trap.
Time for hostage deal and peace
Freeing prisoners still the priority in Gaza ceasefire.