this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
14 points (93.8% liked)

Australia

3613 readers
93 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

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:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone 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: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Predictable NIMBY opposition, but this is a needed change to boost density in NSW cities resulting in increased housing affordability and allowing more people to live without being tethered to a car.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Wont all of these projects include carparks though?

Likely, but that doesn't mean you have to own a car just because a carpark exists. Certainly, I'm all for completely abolishing parking requirements due to the costs they add to housing along with the wasted space.

I find the whole nimby/yimby debate to be a manufactured distraction and the yimby side feels like an astro-turfing campaign.

NIMBYs spend their time going to council meetings and advocating against high density housing, and local councils frequently cave to them because they perceive it as the popular view due to this (rightly or wrongly). It's not manufactured, but a very real issue.

[–] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't doubt that residents are organising in their perceived best interests whether you or I agree with them or not. That's not what I mean by manufactured. I think the framing of the debate as an us (renters, homeless) vs them (home owners) or urban sprawl vs higher density is entirely artificial. Regardless of it's origin I think that nimby is corporate developer language that isn't helpful.

It should go without saying that there is a real housing crisis. But it wasn't the residents of Balmain or Glebe or any other residential community that created this crisis. It's entirely on the banks, investors, developers, construction giants and their pro-developer mates on councils and in parliaments. But they seem to be getting off scot-free in all of this. Not only scot-free but they're about to make another massive windfall off this rezoning.

And I don't think that those interested in continuing to profit of this crisis have any motivation to end it. That's what I mean when I say manufactured.

[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I mean I get you, the developers themselves don't really care about solving the crisis, they just want to make money. But increased housing supply is the only real politically viable solution, and unless we want even more sprawling, car dependent cities, then that requires higher density. So in this case, people who want affordable housing and developers that want to make a profit, have a shared goal.

Now if you were to argue that the government should instead build a massive amount of publicly owned high density apartments, terrace houses, duplexes, etc rather than handing it over to the private sector, than I'm all for it. But I really don't see that happening any time soon, and that's partly because a minority of people will protest to their local council that it's ruining their community (and their property values).