The 20-storey divide: Melbourne’s high-density push stalled by numbers that don’t stack up
Posted by gccmelb
The 20-storey divide: Melbourne’s high-density push stalled by numbers that don’t stack up
Posted by gccmelb
17 Comments
So sick of the continual argument that goes like this:
DEVELOPERS: zoning laws are too restrictive, permits take too long.
GOV: ok, we will rezone swathes of land to allow 6, 10, 20 storeys and cut down processing times
DEVELOPERS: market conditions don’t make it profitable, we need less taxes
Fact of the matter is, the community is crying out for more public transport, more parks, bigger schools and more doctors. Yet nobody wants to pay for it. Not the community, not the developers and not the government.
Until the government has the brains to maybe have better messaging about how by charging for X it will create Y, and until we can be sure the money is used for its stated purpose this will continue happening.
Also developers are just not going to build the large, spacious 3 bedroom apartments couples intending to start a family want and need. The only ones that fit that criteria are luxury penthouse apartments.
Everybody else will just be stuck with student accommodation / investor 65sqm apartments.
We really don’t need 20 stories. We can densify immensely without that.
Really there’s no good reason to get over 6. At that height you have businesses on the ground floor and get a livable street without overwhelming amenities and infrastructure.
These 20 story builds are made with apartments for investors. They’re usually poor quality and are always somewhat isolated anyway – plus the higher you get the less liveable they are. The views might be good but the wind makes outside space unusable and they’re dangerous if elevators breakdown.
Continuation of BS reporting by The Age doesn’t stack up. Just sensationalised reporting and click bait trash.
If 20 storey buildings aren’t commercially viable, why are the NIMBYs unhappy?
The government should be really doing all they can to boost housing supply where people want to live. People that have already made millions in (tax-free) capital appreciation but don’t want to share ‘their area’ can go jump.
Why exactly do we need to be building 20 storeys high in the medium ring suburbs? We could just lower our immigration rate (which is where the bulk of new population growth is coming from) and we wouldn’t need to bother with this.
It’s 50+ stories around the station where we are
Only an idiot would not have seen this coming a mile off.
The point of the rezoning was never the section with high rises anyway, that’s only a small segment of it. The biggest impact will be the massive amount of land rezoned for 3-6 stories. That’s the financially viable developments that will make the biggest difference to housing supply.
The high rises just get all the attention.
The zoning reforms already passed will make a difference. I do agree with the outer suburb zoning though.
Combined with land tax, vacancy taxes etc. The goal is to seemingly push land prices down making development for viable.
It feels like though it’s getting to the point that the government has actually played its part. The developers and industry though refuse to look inwards at their end of the deal. They need to modernise, improve productivity and look at how automation and manufacturing can cut costs and speed up build times.
Seems the most impactful thing the government could do would be making sure the apartments are of a high quality and won’t require huge amounts of work a month after you buy them.
Visit ANY other big international city to see what we’re doing wrong. Ground floor street frontage should ALL be varied business. Dentists, dry cleaners, pizza shops, hardware stores. Above that, some % offices, and some % residential. This guarantees a built in customer base for the businesses, office space for companies and homes for the people. Australia seems DETERMINED to keep all these things segregated which means the people have to travel long distances from home to work and wherever they’re not, is dead. Mixing all together keeps the area thriving all day long.
I think that if we really want to fix this housing crisis, we should focus on addressing the ever-growing gap between our most wealthy and everyone else.
if you look up homes for sale in ivanhoe east for example, and filter from price high-low
currently the highest is a $13,500,000 – $14,850,000 mansion. it’s 3,500m², and it has it’s own guest house, theatre, gym, outdoor tennis court.
[https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-vic-ivanhoe+east-149034092](https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-vic-ivanhoe+east-149034092)
the next most expensive house is $2,900,000 – $3,000,000. it’s 994m². with 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, 2 living rooms, and 3 car spaces.
[https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-vic-ivanhoe+east-150368984](https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-vic-ivanhoe+east-150368984)
this difference is insane. the second example would be luxurious for anyone that i personally know, including the people with families.
and then you look at the cheaper houses (not including apartments), there’s a 3 bedroom townhouse in that area. it’s 280m², it looks nice, it’s in a good location.
[https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-vic-ivanhoe-150218832](https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-vic-ivanhoe-150218832)
you could fit fit more than 10 of these on the same land used for that one mansion above.
i just checked using a square metre calcualtor to make sure i got the numbers right. the garage for that first mansion is larger than the apartment i am currently renting with 2 other people, and i didn’t include the “plant room” attached to said garage either…
surely someone else finds this insane?
we’ll let one extremely wealthy family buy enough space for more than 10 townhouses; with luxuries like their own private theatre and a gym…
meanwhile according to the VHR we have 4,729 people that are on the waiting list for 1 room/rooming house. [https://www.homes.vic.gov.au/applications-victorian-housing-register-vhr](https://www.homes.vic.gov.au/applications-victorian-housing-register-vhr)
what if the council somehow obtained that first property? turned it into some kind of community house. share the amenities, and group some of the bedrooms and bathrooms into separate apartments. the garage/plant room could be turned into another apartment?
i’m not saying that we shouldn’t let people have “nice houses” but there’s a big difference between a 5 bedroom property and a whole-ass mansion.
maybe we should wait to let the elites have such luxuries until after we make sure everyone at least has a stable roof over their head?
why do we turn to building 20 story blocks of teeny tiny apartments, before we consider telling the rich to settle for something more sensible?
is this really a radical idea?
even if only ~20% are viable today its still worth going ahead.
more may very well become viable with time, and the potential for things like tax breaks or subsidies helps too.
theres no sense in going „oh well, cant build as many as we’d like, so we won‘t build the ones we can“
I’ve never liked a city with full of 6 storey + buildings.
If anyone has looked at a new off the plan high rise unit lately you’ll agree with this article. A 16 story development went up across the street from me and I went to have a look. Cheapest 3 bdr was almost $900k and was significantly smaller and worse than our 3br townhouse.
The demand simply isn’t there for this style of living at these prices in these suburbs.
some say charging for x will create y, but all what im reading is that 15% has been allegedly taken by corrupt labour.
[link](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/cfmeu-probe-was-stymied-but-allan-rejects-royal-commission-20260212-p5o1q0?utm_source=afr-web&utm_medium=share_article&utm_campaign=politics&utm_term=product_feature)
Developers want tax breaks. I AM SURPRISED!