Melbourne

1842 readers

69 users here now

This community is a place created for the people of Melbourne and Victoria. We are a positive, welcoming and inclusive community. We might not agree about everything, but we always strive to stay civil and respectful.

The focus of our discussions is based around things that effect Victoria, but we are also free to discuss our local perspective on wider issues. Or head to the regular Daily Random Discussion thread to talk about anything.

Full Community Guidelines

Ongoing discussions, FAQs & Resources (still under construction)

Adoption Certificate for Nellie, the Daily Thread numbat (with thanks to @Catfish)

Feedback & Suggestions

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

RustyRaven@aussie.zone

briongloid@aussie.zone

bot001@aussie.zone

Nimbys v Yimbys: the affluent inner Melbourne suburbs that aren’t pulling their weight on housing (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 5 months ago by vividspecter@lemm.ee to c/melbourne@aussie.zone

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

I also suspect you need to aggregate smaller lots in order to include more liveable components like large central garden areas/atriums and larger surface areas for light and air flow.

Having moved our family into higher-density housing last year, it has its drawbacks. The kids no longer have a yard. I couldn't even set up the trampoline at the new place (it only needs about 3m^2^) as there is not a single blade of grass on the property. The nearest park is 600m away. This sounds super close, but it is far enough that the kids are not in earshot if there are any issues. Outdoor space is by far the biggest drawback to the new area. My wife also really misses having a garden to potter in.

It's not enough to just build high-density housing if you want families to live there. We need a lot more parks and recreational spaces factored into the infrastructure calculations. But those things are not profitable.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago

But those things are not profitable.

Yep! Which is why the government getting pushy is probably absolutely necessary. This is a reforming the city situation, not just nudging things in a better direction. I fear Melbourne is on track to turn some areas into waste dumps that no one wants to live in. You can almost see it: well built train stations on the "sky rail" that trains often skip because no one really lives there. This sort of thing can happen! Checkout the the Imhe Zentrum in Hanover Germany (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hannover+ihme+zentrum&t=ftsa&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images) ... a combined shopping center and apartment complex that's now basically abandoned post-apocalypse style.

[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It’s not enough to just build high-density housing if you want families to live there. We need a lot more parks and recreational spaces factored into the infrastructure calculations.

Can't argue with that. I'll add that high density housing can mean a lot of different things, from duplexes/fourplexes and rowhouses to small apartment buildings to giant high rises. Some of these forms can easily accommodate a backyard or front yard (or both). Getting rid of parking minimums (or better yet, legislating parking maximums) would mean more land can be dedicated to green space too.

[–] sphere_au@reddthat.com 1 points 5 months ago

Rooftop gardens and semi open high floor shared areas are possible... Not necessarily a huge amount of space, but I've seen it work. Just need the apartment building to be built with a decent budget.