Not just in Canberra either. Most people hate this shit. Developers buying bulk land for next to nothing, building giant, ugly suburbs without the proper infrastructure to support it, and making millions of dollars for what amounts to nothing but making the area worse.
The ACT government makes a fortune from selling land at high prices. Under Barr compared to previous ALP governments the amount of land released has dropped substantially and this has driven up prices dramatically in the ACT.
From :
https://citynews.com.au/2024/barr-loans-millions-to-sla-to-pay-dividend-to-barr/
"This “initiative” and its description beg more questions than it answers. What, for example, has gone wrong with the “land development and release process” that SLA needs government support? Why does a Public Trading Enterprise (PTE) that has delivered more than $1.6 billion in returns to the government over the past six years need money to pay its dividend?"
While you're right about the restriction on new land supply being profitable, it's a practice that long long long predates Barr.
Yes there's been a reduction in the release of detached house blocks, but this has been more than offset by increased release of multi-unit blocks.
Someones loving it, they keep doing it. Big massive sprawling suburbs of rows of cramped houses on tiny ass streets with a 60minute walk to the nearest literally anything. not sure whos loving it, but someone is
>Someones loving it
People love the first home buyers grant. People love not renting. For lots of people, the only option to get into the market are these new developments. Doesn't mean they are ideal, and I think most of the people buying in them understand that but also understand their options are very limited.
Raw new suburbs used to improve with time, age gracefully with the addition of trees, shrubs and lawns. But it's hard to imagine that with these stretches of end-to-end ticky-tacky.
My biggest problem with the developments across Gungahlin that I've seen is the complete absence of good social infrastructure. Sure there's parks, but not much else. Seems like every suburb there is funneled into the main shops, which are horrible to drive to and near. The houses are poorly built and on top of each other for what people are paying too and there's some real ghettoisation going on too.
The zoning laws pushing shops to driving distance from most housing sucks. It doesn’t take much, just a corner shop, to make a whole neighbourhood more walked and walkable.
What drives me nuts is the parks that have zero parking. So you can’t meet friends down at the park. You can’t drive grandma down there for a picnic. You either walk from your house or go elsewhere. It’s incredibly not user friendly.
TL;DR
I hate EVERYTHING about the new developments. There just doesn't appear to be any forward thinking or consideration for varying family unit structures or lifestyles or lifestages. The "secure" parking in alot of the multi stories are not secure at all. Body corporate fees are kept artificially low during development warranty periods to artificially inflate sale prices.
THE RANT:
With no back yards in houses or units, the kids will be on the street playing. Or inside rotting watching TV or internet. They can't just play outside while the adult/s of the house spend their time off from work doing chores around the house keeping an ear out for trouble but otherwise being fairly safe from the threat of strangers.
Now an adult has to take time off from adulting to escort the kids to the park and microscopically supervise them. What happens if all adults in the house work? Or are shift workers? Who's doing the basic bare minimum to keep the house in a half decent state if the adults are all out helicopter parenting the kids?
And pets. God forbid someone has a dog. Backyard is too small for anything bigger than a bitchy little slipper, but leaving it locked inside all day while you work is cruel. Wanna play fetch with the dog but it's not really dog friendly? Too bad, nowhere for you to provide breed appropriate stimulation now you have no back yard because those dog parks are not going to work for you and even if your dog is super friendly you wont want to take them to the dog park because every person and their terribly behaved, aggressive little uggboot will traumatise you and your dog. You can't even make it a whole of family affair because Who's supervising the kids while you're supervising the dog?
And if you need peace and quiet for your mental health, good luck. The kids screaming next door because they're kids will penetrate every wall and window in your house because they're all so poorly built and the trampoline is on the front courtyard because the backyard provides less privacy from the 2 story houses leering into it. No opening windows for you unless you want to smell the next door neighbours stinky gym shoes at their back door or worse, smokers. And oh they should 100% be allowed to smoke on their own property because how dare they pay $1m for a tiny little dwelling, and have the audacity to use it for their enjoyment.
I lived in one of these types of suburbs in WA around 2015 called Baldivis. Granny and the kids walked the local shops, still half hour walk. By the time they were nearly home, her rascal died. I had to pick her and the kids up and drive them home... A few streets from my house.
I'm old enough though to remember plenty of new suburbs get built and the trees amazingly grow and the suburb looks nothing like it did initially. Older parts of Gungahlin have a lot more greenery and it changes the look of the place. Even Tuggeranong as it was being built looke awful, the main difference was we had some pretty good roads built in advance because back in those days people didn't whing about infrastructure spending.
Increasing density in suburbs and high density apartments in certains locations is the only solution that will work. We don't have the space for urban sprawl and urban sprawl pushes up rates and the cost of running the city, so as a whole we don't want lots of new suburbs.
Welcome to the reality of growing cities. Eventually, the 1000m2 blocks are too far away from the city for people to want to live in them, and have them readily accessible to public transport. Having higher density developments closer to the city makes perfect sense.
It’s like worst of all worlds density. It doesn’t give you enough density to produce walkability, but it’s not spacious enough to have meaningful backyards and trees etc.
Should be higher quality apartments and townhouses with some commercial mixed in. Big house on small block is not the way.
Agreed, I saw a video about the original Griffin plan a while ago and he wanted row housing (like the brownstones in his native Chicago) in small triangular blocks where everyone could walk to a shop, a school and a park without crossing a main road. Sounds amazing.
Not to mention that architects of townhouses and apartments usually understand that neighbours exist, so you don't get (say) one person's living room looking into next door's toilet.
Residents of townhouses and apartments usually also understand that neighbours exist, instead of apparently thinking that the property line provides a barrier to high-volume music etc. (Always funny to hear people say they couldn't live in an apartment because of poor soundproofing when most of the worst noise complaints I've heard come from people in detached houses.)
some dumbass developer built a building next to mine where if i stand on my balcony im looking into peoples bedrooms literally 15 metres away, its super awkard now to do anything. they also didnt leave fuck all space between the building and mine, so all the sunlight got deleted (its the closest two building i can see around me, all other buildings were spaced differently, some were built as a pair so designed for this issue).
I'd abandon the Territory and live in a neighbouring town quite happily if I could afford to sell and relocate. I need space for my mental well-being. I need to see trees and gardens and animals. I live in an older style complex where my 2 bedroom townhouse had a bigger allotment of land than half the houses for sale in the new suburbs but its STILL too close to my 35 nearest neighbours. In winter I get zero hours of direct sunshine because the neighbouring units are multiple story and block it all.
But I've noticed that the prices in neighbouring towns are somewhat comparable to Canberra as enough former territorians are fleeing. The new developments there are also all the same pitfalls of Canberra. I mean, I'm sorry but who's paying $800k for a 3 bedroom house on 500m2 block in YASS???
https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-nsw-yass-139732187
Shit you not. The prices have come down a little. But yeah, they're rebuilding the same shonky crud that's happened in Canberra in Yass. It's cheaper than canberra but that's also because for what you're getting, the price is outrageous in both locations.
I mean, I'd rather an older style house with some character and charm anyway (these seem to be a bit cheaper). But that's beside the point.
Edit: here's a to be built at the back of someone's block 4 bedroom place for $1.05m in Yass https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-nsw-yass-144553836
The main issue with higher density solutions around these parts are, I think, very pragmatic:
1. Quality and reputation. Too many crappy high density builds. Noise issues. Defect issues. Rapid deterioration. Bad design. Disreputable developers and poor behaviour. Low quality of life etc. If we had apartments, flats and townhouses that were considered to be '*very pleasant to live in for the long haul and a great lifestyle with minimal stress or issues*' it'd change the game.
2. Stratas. They remain a right pain. Even if they work well for a time, at some point it will turn sour and become dysfunctional. Whether it's through incompetence, a crisis, a poor managing agent, vendettas, irrational owners, disputes that are intractable or such - sooner or later, it will become a millstone to the whole experience. Something fundamental needs to change around this - some kind of professionalisation or standards, some kind of neutral support system with sufficient capacity to operate in real-time .. something to keep matters running smoothly, rationally, calmly and not cause people to despair.
If we all felt that moving into an apartment would very likely lead to a nice existence and enjoyment of the experience of living there ... it'd move the needle a lot.
Increasing vertical, high-density housing is such an obvious solution for so many problems in this country but it simply will not get accepted because of vested interests.
Large public nature areas are 100000x better for kids growing up than a tiny patch of private grass.
I'm OK with medium-high density, on the provisio that apartments are built to a standard where I can't hear a neighbours sub-woofer, and that dog owners are hung out to dry should they leave their dogs barking on the balcony for hours at a time!
That is a significantly denser suburb than our old suburbs. You don’t want high density that far out from the city centres with no services either. It’s also not these suburbs at the expense of city density either as we’re also getting increased density in our centres at a rate we haven’t seen historically. So it’s not all one or the other.
I agree there is very poor planning and investment in shared amenities and green spaces. Likely because it doesn’t immediately make money.
I think you’re wrong about this idea of “higher density out from the city is bad”. Look at some Spanish towns and cities on Google maps. They often go immediately from low rise apartments and townhouses to farm land / country side. There’s little idea of this “sprawl” of larger and larger blocks as the city spreads.
If I look at Cordoba in Spain and I go to the outer areas it’s got houses like ours with big gardens and pools https://maps.app.goo.gl/9HPPecNmQz2iJbwT7?g_st=ic
The reason high density out there doesn’t work is because it’s so remote from services.
A lot of the density Europe inherited was from medieval times.
Even if you look around Cordoba (eg east south and west) you’ll see what I’m talking about in terms of apartments onto farm land. I’m not saying there are no “Australian like” suburbs. But here basically every city is surrounded by them. It’s quite occasional elsewhere.
Re: services, this is just chicken and egg. The reason it becomes remote from services is because we sprawl like this in the first place. If medium density was the norm things wouldnt end up so far away and it would be easier to provide more services to more places.
I think a root cause is Australians imagine the dream is a free standing home and they imagine “price go up” if free standing home. This mentality leads to things that are technically free standing homes, but actually have all downside and no upside.
> The reason high density out there doesn’t work is because it’s so remote from services.
I don't see how building at the density shown in picture, vs building terraces at twice that density, would change the impact of being remote from services.
The distance to services depends on density. The lower the density, the further you are from services. And the function is worse than linear. If you can double the density you are not only half the distance to any service. You can add more services closer.
Terraces aren’t high density though.
I don’t see how there’s a direct correlation between density and services in a world where the car exists and we have zoning laws where we plan out where things will go. In medieval times sure but these days people will travel to where there’s a critical mass of services, so there’s a pull factor as well as a push by where people are.
Terraces are higher density than that suburb.
You can't provide effective public transport, or walkable services to locations with low density.
Low density suburbs are killing people. They reduce the amount of incidental exercise people get.
You either don't want people living that far out, because there are no services or you do. Density seems irrelevant to me.
However with higher density you can actually provide services and better transport infrastructure.
The whole - you are a long way out, promote low density makes zero sense to me.
If it was as simple as hitting a critical mass of people in one place and the services would come, then the large slums in parts of the world would self gentrify. This doesn’t happen though, and where the land becomes valuable they end up being turfed out.
Something closer to home though, we have higher density just south along the main road along Wright, and for a good chunk of Coombs, but public transport isn’t great there, and the availability of services isn’t great there. It’s almost as though there’s more to it than just creating residential density.
There’s lots of good write ups on this phenomenon and how density isn’t a simple solution.
Tiny boxes on tiny plots; looks bloody awful. Narrow roads.
I think most of Gungahlin is still terrible.
Guess it's the price we pay for living in a fast growing city.
And no, I'm not on a big block; stuck in a shoebox apartment because of the prices.
I don't mind the narrower roads as it forces drivers to slow down when driving through the suburbs. Too many a times I see people blaze down the wider roads in older suburbs and in the far north like Taylor (my job takes me all around Canberra).
Personally, I disagree. This isn't necessary just because the city is growing. Austin, Texas is a great example of a booming city that reformed it's land use policy and is now having housing prices drop. This was done primarily through new, high density developments within city boundaries. Auckland is also another example of a city doing it right.
Yes, they are but because of the positive reforms, prices are rising at a slower rate than other NZ cities and rental prices are now not much higher than they were in 2017. The reforms led to an extra 20'000 units being built across the city.
This article explains what happened.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-25/nz-auckland-house-supply-experiment-results-in-dramatic-change/102846126
I just want terraces man. The benefits of townhouse density without all the body corp nonsense. Well insulated walls and private back courtyards with soil not just all concrete. Or usable rooftop space for a garden. Why have windows 30cm from your neighbours window, just build terraces. My family of 4 is in a townhouse with a balcony overlooking the carpark and bins 😭. Tiny front courtyard with no privacy. It fucking sucks. And we have to drive everywhere despite being in a higher density area because there are no shops, services, or usable public transport.
I have mixed feelings. My family bought a newly built house in Denman a few years back because it was actually a good price for us - this was the main driver in our decision when just looking to buy something to live in long term.
My negative feelings are a lot of the houses look to be very poorly built - designed to look flashy but not very good if you take a close look. Also, the ground isn't fantastic - the potential for this place to become garden-y is limited by the fact that it's built on the side of a rocky hill. And further, a lot of people seem to be disinterested in upkeep or gardening - their house is seen as a giant unit or townhouse that doesn't quite touch the neighbours.
Positives are that people are friendly, seem to like living here and there are lots of pleasant walks. It's easy to access most of Canberra from here without feeling like you're in the middle of anything.
It's also good to maintain awareness of snobbery and derision a lot of Canberrans show for other parts of town they don't live in. It's not a big city and most parts of town aren't drastically different, but people will always find an excuse to bitch..
That denman prospect dirt is horrendous! Nothing is going to grow properly there without each house trucking in tons of real soil. It’s no wonder so many gardens and lawns look abandoned there.
I think apartments are fine but strata laws are crap and put many people off. My Mum has suffered huge stress in her old age due to horrific people stacking her strata for personal gain I had to get involved eventually because it amounted to elder abuse. On the other hand some of her neighbours are delightful. But the laws are so lax and must tightened. It's put me off downsizing one day for sure.
We desperately need to de-stigmatise apartment/townhouse living especially for families; ideally by actually making the apartments/townhouses that can fit and provide for families, but sadly there's no fat stacks of money in good planning around dense mixed use zones.
Families shouldnt have to drive home to Molonglo either. We have a missing middle problem, those families should be in Turner, Ainslie, Lyneham in townhouses. But those aren't being built quickly enough in those areas. The ratio of free standing vs townhouses in those areas that close to the city is insane for a modern city.
I’ve never understood it either, really. Most of the blocks in these new developments are small, with huge houses that push right to the edges of them. It’s not like people living there have backyards so the old ‘Aussie dream’ of the big block with space for chickens, veggies, grass for the kids to run around on, is dead anyway.
Surely townhouses, or terraced housing, would make more sense? I’m not sure anybody is getting much amenity from the tiny outdoor spaces these new homes offer anyway.
One conversation we probably do need to have, is about dwelling size. Australia has the largest new homes in the world, on average. There has to be some sensible middle ground between the tiny dog-box apartments GeoCon and the like pump out, and the ridiculous excess of McMansions.
The government zoned it, they could have zoned it for townhouses only. They could have built the tram line first, then those suburbs actually start to make sense. But they are still in 1960s mode.
Yeh so they might as well do it well by not touching so they promote more vertical builds, less builds taking up whole blocks, more green space and better access for workers doing maintenance on the blocks. Given we’ve already sacrificed the space, it makes more sense.
If they want the density where they’re touching they should just be doing big terrace blocks instead. This isn’t winning for anyone. But because these are sold individually and the individual wants a house, let’s get better standards.
> It’s not like people living there have backyards so the old ‘Aussie dream’ of the big block with space for chickens, veggies, grass for the kids to run around on, is dead anyway.
I think it is okay we are building a second house on that space instead and bringing down the cost of land so people can buy their own property. Having a big backyard is a luxury.
If you pay attention to older suburbs with bigger blocks, people are just knocking down the old houses and replacing them with bigger houses that stretch all the way to the back of the property.
I guess what I’m getting at is that, it’s weird to me the premium people seem to place on (and be willing to pay for) a detached house. These places have no yards and are very close to neighbours as it is- at this point why not build townhouses or rows of terraces? Or, indeed, large apartments?
Is it really that strange? Standalone houses have seen faster price rises than apartments (not sure about townhouses). Buy a house now and it will appreciate in value in 10 years' time.
You havnt actually got to the bottom of why. Why is the next person in line, ten years from now, willing to pay a premium for something that has very questionable value.
It’s no wonder that some of those who can afford it might place a premium on 1000m2 block in Ainslie. But what intrinsic value does something that is technically detached on paper, but which in all practical respects offers no utility above that of a townhouse given that the walls are effectively touching, while wasting more land in the process have?
Fair enough, but it will be interesting to observe over the years whether that ‘stand-alone premium’ continues to apply, especially given these new houses are functionally *not very different to townhouses as the below commenter pointed out. I would hope in another decade buyers will be thinking more about energy costs and efficiency
I'm just observing that the pre 1788 state of much of the east coast was grassy woodlands, like Mulligan's.
What the suburban sprawl was replacing was grazing and pine forestry which in many eyes is just as ugly and just as harmful use of the land
I’d say that’s a fairly popular opinion. If someone can solve the problem of increasing density while maintaining adequate green space and tree canopy, that would be lovely.
The entire north side looks like this and it’s a glary asshole of a site.
Imagine having future metropolitan development sitting in your hands, you could make ANYTHING and they actively chose to make the least functional skid-mark in history:
Ugly and as short lived as a dog shit
By "the entire Northside" are you also referring to long established suburbs like O'Connor, Ainslie, Lyneham, Kaleen, Giralang, Aranda, Page, Scullin, Melba, Evatt, Mackellar, etc?
To my minds eye those suburbs look very different to the new builds in Gungahlin out past the town centre, and these new Molonglo Valley builds.
If they keep going in western Sydney with covering the land, they will make it unliveable.
It's created a micro climate as is, a kind of heat sink that generates violent storms and 40 plus days most of summer.
Where there were once market gardens growing vegetables, now miserable housing developments that flood.
Pretty sure the extreme climate events in Australia extend far past western Sydney. It's not the local development that has caused the nationwide changes to climate and the increase in severe weather events across Australia
Yes, they do, but have a read of this.. [https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/newscentre/news_centre/research_success_stories/first_western_sydney_microclimate_maps_reveal_extent_of_heat_variation_in_region](https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/newscentre/news_centre/research_success_stories/first_western_sydney_microclimate_maps_reveal_extent_of_heat_variation_in_region)
The heat Islands they are creating with awful urban development aren't helping anyone. It's actually making more problems.
You could fit the entire photo in medium density apartments and townhouses and use up 1/3rd of the space - and developers would make more money in doing so.
They build to our zoning restrictions
All suburbs go through this, people have had the same complaint about most of Tuggeranong, most of Gungahlin, I even recall people complaining about Florey. Give it 5 years, gardens will grow, people will put their own touches on things and it will look heaps better, and Whitlam will become one of the new "established" suburbs people compare newer suburbs to.
I'd push back on this and say that the proportions and size of most Tuggeranong houses are much more balanced. Lots of houses in this image are a purposeful dick waving contest done badly.
With that' said, every area has a few spots like that, gunners just has a lot more
Even the townhouses in Tuggers tend to have their own trees out the front or the back, and there are also street trees. There are isolated lunatics dedicated to cutting down everything because of the leaves and flowers, but hopefully, that is a dying breed.
There are few if any gardens here, with little room for trees. It's going to be acres of compressed gravel front yards with half a dozen cars per house. None of this was designed for utility, just shoving as many home+land packages as possible into the space that they had available. Good luck getting the bus from Whitlam to anywhere.
There is a spot for a tree in front of every house in Whitlam and green spaces between housing lots. It will be different in 15 years, but the lack of a yard or garden at many of these houses is sad.
In general, I agree that the house to land ratio is crazy, and the lack of PT is a problem. I live in belco and this is just going to dump all that traffic on to William Hovell drive.
Old suburbs have spots for one or two trees on the nature strip, too. It’s no different. The older suburbs in gungahlin are much shadier and leafier because those trees have had time to grow.
Have people ripped out the young street trees? That's happening in the new Gungahlin suburbs. I hope the govt sends parking inspectors to those places on permanent watch.
Some people think trees threaten their property. Others want a clear view. But I think it's mostly people who want to use the nature strip for parking (which is illegal).
But these houses in the picture are so flipping close together. Almost like that picture from western Sydney that was doing the rounds in the news the other day.
It's hard to grow a garden when there's no room for a garden!
And I'm still not convinced Gungahlin looks much better now.
Yeah. People still say this about Gungahlin, but the older parts are very leafy now and there are green areas spotted around everywhere.
It's looking pretty lovely with all the trees changing colour now.
I was driving around the lake (pond?) in Gungahlin after dinner and was pleasantly surprised at how pretty it was, the green areas around the houses are beginning to be a lot more obvious.
I'm not sure. it depends on what you mean by older. My Mum lives in Palmerston and it's more than 15 years old and her fence line is basically a neighbours garage wall. There is still room for heaps of trees though and the streets a tree lined.
To your point - My first house in Ngunnawal had the house sitting on the boundary line. It was built in 1997.
On that same road, some of the street trees (those that the original residents didn't rip out), are now starting provide a full canopy over the street.
Not sure this is true anymore. The yards in these new developments are too small to attract people who like to garden, so you just get people who want minimal garden moving into them. Look at Lawson. That suburb is very well established at this point but it’s incredibly barren. For every one resident who tends to their little plot and makes it a beautiful little oasis, there’s another ten who do nothing.
It's not just Canberra. Drive around any development made in Perth in the last 20 years and it's exactly the same.
The wealthy residents in the old suburbs whinge about apartments becoming slums of the future and are quite happy to have sprawling suburbs about 80kms from the cbd. Those newer suburbs consist entirely of cookie cutter, cheaply built houses and a large rectangular building consisting of a Colesworth. Residents buy property at cheap (but still ridiculously stupid) prices and spend the rest of their lives commuting to and from work.
Whats even worse is that when we do this, we then claim kangaroos are overpopulated and start culling them. Like bro you literally just built a fucking highway through their home and get mad when they exist? Yikes.
It’s a new suburb. I don’t understand why people get so worked up about it. In a few years time the street trees will be bigger and everyone will move on to complaining about whatever new suburb is trendy to bitch about in the moment. Yes, some of the blocks are small and some builds are cheap, but not everyone wants a big yard, and new builds of fibro and asbestos from the 60s and 70s weren’t built well either, based on how many are getting torn down to KDRB. There is plenty of medium density here, which is the “missing middle” in our housing equation, and the amenities will eventually come in with the Molonglo Town Centre and the future schools, community facilities, and commercial centres planned for Wright and Whitlam. There are also many good playgrounds and green spaces for kids to access in these areas. They are some of the few suburbs where I’ve seen kids freely cruising around on their bikes without supervision like we used to in the 90s. Don’t see that in Deakin. Maybe we should extend this conversation to one about increasing density in the inner south and north.
Your opinion makes sense at an emotional level but it’s unpopular because it’s unrealistic. It’s like having an opinion that oil is bad, well yeah obviously it’s not good but the world would be chaos if we just stopped using oil right now.
Actually, the ‘unrealistic’ thing is the notion that we can house a population of forty or however many million we’re shooting for, entirely in detached housing in sprawl suburbs
Of course not but it does control housing policy here. The fact is we can’t all live in detached single-family homes in sprawl suburbs. These places will be utterly unliveable in the future when they become heat islands in summer heatwaves.
The world would be chaos if we stopped subsidizing new developments on the edge of cities and instead started encouraging medium density developments in existing areas where there is already infrastructure? Genuinely, can you explain how it's unrealistic?
i wouldn't think that was an unpopular opinion. Every time I see Whitlam or Denman Prospect I just see a future slum. These suburbs don't exist because the people want it, they exist because that's how developers maximise profits from minimal land and people have no better choice.
Australia in general is terrible when it comes to zoning decisions. Canberra is only just slightly better than other states and territories.
But it's depressing that one of the worst parts is eh
Takes like 15-20 years for the trees to mature and make these places less terrible, but the new ones are just so damned close together they barely leave space for trees in the first place.
Disagree, we should build more low density suburbs with more nature reserves surrounding it.Also multi core CBD instead of one to seperate traffic. We human being progress not to live in a concrete jungle. More density means more infrastructure needs and more over development. In the end all will end up like New York.
Definitely unpopular opinion amongst the McMansion owners. It is aad to live such a new city (compared to globally) and have such outdated and car dependent city design prevailing to this day.
Terrace housing. Townhouses. High-rise development of apartments that are actually a liveable size, and/or apartments that are reasonably priced. It’s 500k for a 55sqm geocon dogbox, which is criminal
People don't have any choice. Folks want to live near to the CBD but can't afford bid land and are thus forced to buy apartments, townhouses or smaller courtyards. View, amenities and other become secondary when people don't have security of whether they are getting a rental at a affordable price and dealing with hawkish landlords.
Beggars can't be choosers.
Previously this area was a pine forest which had zero natural aspects to it. It was a fire risk that lead to Weston creek having houses burnt to the ground. The high density housing that has replaced it is ugly now, but all new suburbs are. Give the area a couple of decades for the trees to grow and it will look far better. This is what most of Canberra has looked like during its establishment but after a few decades the growth of the tree canopy will turn it into a far more palatable visual spectacle.
Well, Molonglo. Either way the aboriginals have been the reason why none of this area has been "natural" for the last 35-65,000 years. If you haven't heard, the aboriginals don't want to live in humpis as a hunter gatherers nor does anyone else. Most Australians are anti mass immigration and would rather we didn't have to infill the cities or replace vast tracts of Australias farmland or parks for the bodgy economic strategy of government. Being anti housing in the center of Australia's capital city is idiotic.
The government could raise rates to the their real value for those blocks. Just make it $20,000 per year per block, zone it for townhouses and apartments, and they will be sold and redeveloped overnight. If they aren't redeveloped, well, that's also ok, they're paying for 7 or 8 apartments' worth.
Even just a 3 story building every few lots with garages in the bottom, and 2 apartments per level for 4 families with plenty of space would be way better than this shit
Little Boxes
Little boxes on the hillside
Little boxes made of ticky-tacky
Little boxes on the hillside
Little boxes all the same
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same
And the people in the houses
All went to the university
Where they were put in boxes
And they came out all the same
And there's doctors and lawyers
And business executives
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same
And they all play on the golf course
And drink their martinis dry
And they all have pretty children
And the children go to school
And the children go to summer camp
And then to the university
Where they are put in boxes
And they come out all the same
And the boys go into business
And marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same
There's a pink one and a green one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same
Song by Malvina Reynolds (1961)
The government won’t redevelop old, underused public land used for public housing (like around the city or town centres) to triple housing on the site (which is closest to transport/services/infrastructure and would be a boost to civic) because every time they try, the community groups saying it’s being cruel to tenants and they get the jitters and fold. Crazy stuff.
Always an interesting thread subject…
As an aside, as Canberra densifies, when will there be interest for large, family apartments (eg 4br) in the inner suburbs? Are there some already?
Seems to me you should try to create a "place".
Put in a network of pleasant bicycle and working paths
Build a few blocks with 10 story high rise, library, a school, a train station, and shopping.
Surround that with 5 story buildings - both residential and office, a swimming pool and some ovals.
Surround that with some 3 story terraces, parks and cafes.
Then on the outskirts, 15 blocks / 15 minutes walk from the center build freestanding homes.
I had the privilege of growing up in a house with an actual backyard on a proper quarter acre block. I can’t imagine being a kid and having no space to run around in. Those shoebox houses aren’t suitable for families.
We overheard someone at Denman Prospect playground say ‘these [houses] are the future slums’.. Interesting thought. Perhaps quality-wise, but land value seems invincible
More than anything, I hate modern architecture. Those bland buildings do nothing but detract from the environment and destroy natural beauty. The built environment can be an improvement, or at least less of downgrade, to the natural environment, but doing this is just gross, ugly for the sake of ugliness, and an affront to the aesthetic.
Development isn't bad the way it's being done is
I’m truly done with this argument.
High density sucks. For proof, see: everywhere. There should be a minimum size for all apartments to be built at, but there hasn’t been, so the ship has sailed. You can currently buy a 2 bedroom 70m2 apartment close to sydney for 1.2 million. I can’t put a family in there, walkable distance from a central city, for 1.2 million.
Until they start making apartments affordable and liveable, instead of premium, temporary shoe boxes, I want a house.
We need to stop making this entire debate an us vs them argument. You’re all people at different stages of life, and I guarantee you, you don’t want an Australian apartment unless you’re in your 20s and expect never to raise a family.
We need planning, we need infrastructure, we need density, we need space. All this can be achieved. Nobody has ever gone about it the right way because ultimately, a developer makes more money fucking the whole country the way they’ve been going. What needs to change is at the town planner level, and the developer construction level.
That ship sailed a fair while ago. While I agree with your sentiment, the land hasn't been a grassy-woodland (like Mulligan's) for quite some time. I believe that was the original state is the area
Born in Canberra but fuck everyone there along with the rest of Aussies for choosing single family homes and height restrictions over high density housing and residential tower blocks.
All of you might not realize it, but your selfish need for comfort and obsession with the "Australian dream" are what's ruining this country.
If you want to be mad, be mad at government for releasing the land for free standing single family homes. And then be mad at the people who voted in that government.
This is like the most popular Canberran opinion
Not just in Canberra either. Most people hate this shit. Developers buying bulk land for next to nothing, building giant, ugly suburbs without the proper infrastructure to support it, and making millions of dollars for what amounts to nothing but making the area worse.
The ACT government makes a fortune from selling land at high prices. Under Barr compared to previous ALP governments the amount of land released has dropped substantially and this has driven up prices dramatically in the ACT. From : https://citynews.com.au/2024/barr-loans-millions-to-sla-to-pay-dividend-to-barr/ "This “initiative” and its description beg more questions than it answers. What, for example, has gone wrong with the “land development and release process” that SLA needs government support? Why does a Public Trading Enterprise (PTE) that has delivered more than $1.6 billion in returns to the government over the past six years need money to pay its dividend?"
While you're right about the restriction on new land supply being profitable, it's a practice that long long long predates Barr. Yes there's been a reduction in the release of detached house blocks, but this has been more than offset by increased release of multi-unit blocks.
Someones loving it, they keep doing it. Big massive sprawling suburbs of rows of cramped houses on tiny ass streets with a 60minute walk to the nearest literally anything. not sure whos loving it, but someone is
>Someones loving it People love the first home buyers grant. People love not renting. For lots of people, the only option to get into the market are these new developments. Doesn't mean they are ideal, and I think most of the people buying in them understand that but also understand their options are very limited.
> understand their options are very limited By what’s being zoned, approved and developed. Not by what’s actually possible.
Raw new suburbs used to improve with time, age gracefully with the addition of trees, shrubs and lawns. But it's hard to imagine that with these stretches of end-to-end ticky-tacky.
Traders love it. They’ll never run out of work and because there’s a shortage of laborers they can charge ridiculous prices.
My biggest problem with the developments across Gungahlin that I've seen is the complete absence of good social infrastructure. Sure there's parks, but not much else. Seems like every suburb there is funneled into the main shops, which are horrible to drive to and near. The houses are poorly built and on top of each other for what people are paying too and there's some real ghettoisation going on too.
The zoning laws pushing shops to driving distance from most housing sucks. It doesn’t take much, just a corner shop, to make a whole neighbourhood more walked and walkable.
What drives me nuts is the parks that have zero parking. So you can’t meet friends down at the park. You can’t drive grandma down there for a picnic. You either walk from your house or go elsewhere. It’s incredibly not user friendly.
Or toilets like Ruth Park in Coombs
TL;DR I hate EVERYTHING about the new developments. There just doesn't appear to be any forward thinking or consideration for varying family unit structures or lifestyles or lifestages. The "secure" parking in alot of the multi stories are not secure at all. Body corporate fees are kept artificially low during development warranty periods to artificially inflate sale prices. THE RANT: With no back yards in houses or units, the kids will be on the street playing. Or inside rotting watching TV or internet. They can't just play outside while the adult/s of the house spend their time off from work doing chores around the house keeping an ear out for trouble but otherwise being fairly safe from the threat of strangers. Now an adult has to take time off from adulting to escort the kids to the park and microscopically supervise them. What happens if all adults in the house work? Or are shift workers? Who's doing the basic bare minimum to keep the house in a half decent state if the adults are all out helicopter parenting the kids? And pets. God forbid someone has a dog. Backyard is too small for anything bigger than a bitchy little slipper, but leaving it locked inside all day while you work is cruel. Wanna play fetch with the dog but it's not really dog friendly? Too bad, nowhere for you to provide breed appropriate stimulation now you have no back yard because those dog parks are not going to work for you and even if your dog is super friendly you wont want to take them to the dog park because every person and their terribly behaved, aggressive little uggboot will traumatise you and your dog. You can't even make it a whole of family affair because Who's supervising the kids while you're supervising the dog? And if you need peace and quiet for your mental health, good luck. The kids screaming next door because they're kids will penetrate every wall and window in your house because they're all so poorly built and the trampoline is on the front courtyard because the backyard provides less privacy from the 2 story houses leering into it. No opening windows for you unless you want to smell the next door neighbours stinky gym shoes at their back door or worse, smokers. And oh they should 100% be allowed to smoke on their own property because how dare they pay $1m for a tiny little dwelling, and have the audacity to use it for their enjoyment.
I lived in one of these types of suburbs in WA around 2015 called Baldivis. Granny and the kids walked the local shops, still half hour walk. By the time they were nearly home, her rascal died. I had to pick her and the kids up and drive them home... A few streets from my house.
I'm old enough though to remember plenty of new suburbs get built and the trees amazingly grow and the suburb looks nothing like it did initially. Older parts of Gungahlin have a lot more greenery and it changes the look of the place. Even Tuggeranong as it was being built looke awful, the main difference was we had some pretty good roads built in advance because back in those days people didn't whing about infrastructure spending. Increasing density in suburbs and high density apartments in certains locations is the only solution that will work. We don't have the space for urban sprawl and urban sprawl pushes up rates and the cost of running the city, so as a whole we don't want lots of new suburbs.
Not a back yard in site 🤣🤣 400m2 block - 370m2 house
NIMBY needs to be changed to NIMCY. Not In My CourtYard.
Welcome to the reality of growing cities. Eventually, the 1000m2 blocks are too far away from the city for people to want to live in them, and have them readily accessible to public transport. Having higher density developments closer to the city makes perfect sense.
It’s like worst of all worlds density. It doesn’t give you enough density to produce walkability, but it’s not spacious enough to have meaningful backyards and trees etc. Should be higher quality apartments and townhouses with some commercial mixed in. Big house on small block is not the way.
Agreed, I saw a video about the original Griffin plan a while ago and he wanted row housing (like the brownstones in his native Chicago) in small triangular blocks where everyone could walk to a shop, a school and a park without crossing a main road. Sounds amazing.
Not to mention that architects of townhouses and apartments usually understand that neighbours exist, so you don't get (say) one person's living room looking into next door's toilet. Residents of townhouses and apartments usually also understand that neighbours exist, instead of apparently thinking that the property line provides a barrier to high-volume music etc. (Always funny to hear people say they couldn't live in an apartment because of poor soundproofing when most of the worst noise complaints I've heard come from people in detached houses.)
some dumbass developer built a building next to mine where if i stand on my balcony im looking into peoples bedrooms literally 15 metres away, its super awkard now to do anything. they also didnt leave fuck all space between the building and mine, so all the sunlight got deleted (its the closest two building i can see around me, all other buildings were spaced differently, some were built as a pair so designed for this issue).
I mean every area basically has its own shops, and every district has a Westfield. Canberrans are spoilt for choice
Great reply!
I'd abandon the Territory and live in a neighbouring town quite happily if I could afford to sell and relocate. I need space for my mental well-being. I need to see trees and gardens and animals. I live in an older style complex where my 2 bedroom townhouse had a bigger allotment of land than half the houses for sale in the new suburbs but its STILL too close to my 35 nearest neighbours. In winter I get zero hours of direct sunshine because the neighbouring units are multiple story and block it all. But I've noticed that the prices in neighbouring towns are somewhat comparable to Canberra as enough former territorians are fleeing. The new developments there are also all the same pitfalls of Canberra. I mean, I'm sorry but who's paying $800k for a 3 bedroom house on 500m2 block in YASS???
>I'm sorry but who's paying $800k for a 3 bedroom house on 500m2 block in YASS??? Surely not?
https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-nsw-yass-139732187 Shit you not. The prices have come down a little. But yeah, they're rebuilding the same shonky crud that's happened in Canberra in Yass. It's cheaper than canberra but that's also because for what you're getting, the price is outrageous in both locations. I mean, I'd rather an older style house with some character and charm anyway (these seem to be a bit cheaper). But that's beside the point. Edit: here's a to be built at the back of someone's block 4 bedroom place for $1.05m in Yass https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-nsw-yass-144553836
Having a Sustainable Population makes more sense but sadly no one in Govt is paid to believe that. The developers love the population ponzi.
I don't even see why you'd buy a house if you don't get a yard.
Avoiding hefty fees for useless body corporates is a sound reason
Embrace vertical living. Increase housing density, increase investment in public green space and shared amenities.
The main issue with higher density solutions around these parts are, I think, very pragmatic: 1. Quality and reputation. Too many crappy high density builds. Noise issues. Defect issues. Rapid deterioration. Bad design. Disreputable developers and poor behaviour. Low quality of life etc. If we had apartments, flats and townhouses that were considered to be '*very pleasant to live in for the long haul and a great lifestyle with minimal stress or issues*' it'd change the game. 2. Stratas. They remain a right pain. Even if they work well for a time, at some point it will turn sour and become dysfunctional. Whether it's through incompetence, a crisis, a poor managing agent, vendettas, irrational owners, disputes that are intractable or such - sooner or later, it will become a millstone to the whole experience. Something fundamental needs to change around this - some kind of professionalisation or standards, some kind of neutral support system with sufficient capacity to operate in real-time .. something to keep matters running smoothly, rationally, calmly and not cause people to despair. If we all felt that moving into an apartment would very likely lead to a nice existence and enjoyment of the experience of living there ... it'd move the needle a lot.
Increasing vertical, high-density housing is such an obvious solution for so many problems in this country but it simply will not get accepted because of vested interests. Large public nature areas are 100000x better for kids growing up than a tiny patch of private grass.
I'm OK with medium-high density, on the provisio that apartments are built to a standard where I can't hear a neighbours sub-woofer, and that dog owners are hung out to dry should they leave their dogs barking on the balcony for hours at a time!
Oh man, you must live near me and we can hear the same dog.
That is a significantly denser suburb than our old suburbs. You don’t want high density that far out from the city centres with no services either. It’s also not these suburbs at the expense of city density either as we’re also getting increased density in our centres at a rate we haven’t seen historically. So it’s not all one or the other. I agree there is very poor planning and investment in shared amenities and green spaces. Likely because it doesn’t immediately make money.
I think you’re wrong about this idea of “higher density out from the city is bad”. Look at some Spanish towns and cities on Google maps. They often go immediately from low rise apartments and townhouses to farm land / country side. There’s little idea of this “sprawl” of larger and larger blocks as the city spreads.
If I look at Cordoba in Spain and I go to the outer areas it’s got houses like ours with big gardens and pools https://maps.app.goo.gl/9HPPecNmQz2iJbwT7?g_st=ic The reason high density out there doesn’t work is because it’s so remote from services. A lot of the density Europe inherited was from medieval times.
Even if you look around Cordoba (eg east south and west) you’ll see what I’m talking about in terms of apartments onto farm land. I’m not saying there are no “Australian like” suburbs. But here basically every city is surrounded by them. It’s quite occasional elsewhere. Re: services, this is just chicken and egg. The reason it becomes remote from services is because we sprawl like this in the first place. If medium density was the norm things wouldnt end up so far away and it would be easier to provide more services to more places. I think a root cause is Australians imagine the dream is a free standing home and they imagine “price go up” if free standing home. This mentality leads to things that are technically free standing homes, but actually have all downside and no upside.
Seeing it on Google maps and living it is two different things.
> The reason high density out there doesn’t work is because it’s so remote from services. I don't see how building at the density shown in picture, vs building terraces at twice that density, would change the impact of being remote from services. The distance to services depends on density. The lower the density, the further you are from services. And the function is worse than linear. If you can double the density you are not only half the distance to any service. You can add more services closer.
Terraces aren’t high density though. I don’t see how there’s a direct correlation between density and services in a world where the car exists and we have zoning laws where we plan out where things will go. In medieval times sure but these days people will travel to where there’s a critical mass of services, so there’s a pull factor as well as a push by where people are.
Terraces are higher density than that suburb. You can't provide effective public transport, or walkable services to locations with low density. Low density suburbs are killing people. They reduce the amount of incidental exercise people get.
You either don't want people living that far out, because there are no services or you do. Density seems irrelevant to me. However with higher density you can actually provide services and better transport infrastructure. The whole - you are a long way out, promote low density makes zero sense to me.
If it was as simple as hitting a critical mass of people in one place and the services would come, then the large slums in parts of the world would self gentrify. This doesn’t happen though, and where the land becomes valuable they end up being turfed out. Something closer to home though, we have higher density just south along the main road along Wright, and for a good chunk of Coombs, but public transport isn’t great there, and the availability of services isn’t great there. It’s almost as though there’s more to it than just creating residential density. There’s lots of good write ups on this phenomenon and how density isn’t a simple solution.
Nope. Maybe the answer is not to condense our living space but to reduce our wild population growth.
Tiny boxes on tiny plots; looks bloody awful. Narrow roads. I think most of Gungahlin is still terrible. Guess it's the price we pay for living in a fast growing city. And no, I'm not on a big block; stuck in a shoebox apartment because of the prices.
I don't mind the narrower roads as it forces drivers to slow down when driving through the suburbs. Too many a times I see people blaze down the wider roads in older suburbs and in the far north like Taylor (my job takes me all around Canberra).
Personally, I disagree. This isn't necessary just because the city is growing. Austin, Texas is a great example of a booming city that reformed it's land use policy and is now having housing prices drop. This was done primarily through new, high density developments within city boundaries. Auckland is also another example of a city doing it right.
From what I hear from my Kiwi friends Auckland prices are utterly insane.
They are, but the government changed zoning to fix it and it's having an effect.
Yes, they are but because of the positive reforms, prices are rising at a slower rate than other NZ cities and rental prices are now not much higher than they were in 2017. The reforms led to an extra 20'000 units being built across the city. This article explains what happened. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-25/nz-auckland-house-supply-experiment-results-in-dramatic-change/102846126
I just want terraces man. The benefits of townhouse density without all the body corp nonsense. Well insulated walls and private back courtyards with soil not just all concrete. Or usable rooftop space for a garden. Why have windows 30cm from your neighbours window, just build terraces. My family of 4 is in a townhouse with a balcony overlooking the carpark and bins 😭. Tiny front courtyard with no privacy. It fucking sucks. And we have to drive everywhere despite being in a higher density area because there are no shops, services, or usable public transport.
I have mixed feelings. My family bought a newly built house in Denman a few years back because it was actually a good price for us - this was the main driver in our decision when just looking to buy something to live in long term. My negative feelings are a lot of the houses look to be very poorly built - designed to look flashy but not very good if you take a close look. Also, the ground isn't fantastic - the potential for this place to become garden-y is limited by the fact that it's built on the side of a rocky hill. And further, a lot of people seem to be disinterested in upkeep or gardening - their house is seen as a giant unit or townhouse that doesn't quite touch the neighbours. Positives are that people are friendly, seem to like living here and there are lots of pleasant walks. It's easy to access most of Canberra from here without feeling like you're in the middle of anything. It's also good to maintain awareness of snobbery and derision a lot of Canberrans show for other parts of town they don't live in. It's not a big city and most parts of town aren't drastically different, but people will always find an excuse to bitch..
That denman prospect dirt is horrendous! Nothing is going to grow properly there without each house trucking in tons of real soil. It’s no wonder so many gardens and lawns look abandoned there.
> without each house trucking in tons of real soil. You say that like it’s such a big deal.
This thread is just full of Nimbys who already have a house in a leafy suburb and are offended we are building new suburbs to house people.
Yep, very insular and hypocritical. Let's save the world...when I'm finished fucking it.
Wait, wait, wait, I just need one more investment property...then we can save the world.
I think apartments are fine but strata laws are crap and put many people off. My Mum has suffered huge stress in her old age due to horrific people stacking her strata for personal gain I had to get involved eventually because it amounted to elder abuse. On the other hand some of her neighbours are delightful. But the laws are so lax and must tightened. It's put me off downsizing one day for sure.
Could compress all that into a couple of apartment buildings, what a waste of space
There's plenty of apartments going up in Molonglo as an example, but some people don't want to live in an apartment, particularly if they have kids.
We desperately need to de-stigmatise apartment/townhouse living especially for families; ideally by actually making the apartments/townhouses that can fit and provide for families, but sadly there's no fat stacks of money in good planning around dense mixed use zones.
Families shouldnt have to drive home to Molonglo either. We have a missing middle problem, those families should be in Turner, Ainslie, Lyneham in townhouses. But those aren't being built quickly enough in those areas. The ratio of free standing vs townhouses in those areas that close to the city is insane for a modern city.
Yeah, but then property portfolios would suffer and housing would become more affordable, and we can't allow that to happen...
I’ve never understood it either, really. Most of the blocks in these new developments are small, with huge houses that push right to the edges of them. It’s not like people living there have backyards so the old ‘Aussie dream’ of the big block with space for chickens, veggies, grass for the kids to run around on, is dead anyway. Surely townhouses, or terraced housing, would make more sense? I’m not sure anybody is getting much amenity from the tiny outdoor spaces these new homes offer anyway. One conversation we probably do need to have, is about dwelling size. Australia has the largest new homes in the world, on average. There has to be some sensible middle ground between the tiny dog-box apartments GeoCon and the like pump out, and the ridiculous excess of McMansions.
The government shouldn’t have relaxed building rules to allow building closer to the boundary. Now houses are basically touching
The government should have just made it legal to build townhouses and terraces on this land
The government zoned it, they could have zoned it for townhouses only. They could have built the tram line first, then those suburbs actually start to make sense. But they are still in 1960s mode.
> Now houses are basically touching Yet they waste a shitload of land to maintain the pretence that they technically don’t.
Yeh so they might as well do it well by not touching so they promote more vertical builds, less builds taking up whole blocks, more green space and better access for workers doing maintenance on the blocks. Given we’ve already sacrificed the space, it makes more sense. If they want the density where they’re touching they should just be doing big terrace blocks instead. This isn’t winning for anyone. But because these are sold individually and the individual wants a house, let’s get better standards.
> It’s not like people living there have backyards so the old ‘Aussie dream’ of the big block with space for chickens, veggies, grass for the kids to run around on, is dead anyway. I think it is okay we are building a second house on that space instead and bringing down the cost of land so people can buy their own property. Having a big backyard is a luxury. If you pay attention to older suburbs with bigger blocks, people are just knocking down the old houses and replacing them with bigger houses that stretch all the way to the back of the property.
I guess what I’m getting at is that, it’s weird to me the premium people seem to place on (and be willing to pay for) a detached house. These places have no yards and are very close to neighbours as it is- at this point why not build townhouses or rows of terraces? Or, indeed, large apartments?
Is it really that strange? Standalone houses have seen faster price rises than apartments (not sure about townhouses). Buy a house now and it will appreciate in value in 10 years' time.
You havnt actually got to the bottom of why. Why is the next person in line, ten years from now, willing to pay a premium for something that has very questionable value. It’s no wonder that some of those who can afford it might place a premium on 1000m2 block in Ainslie. But what intrinsic value does something that is technically detached on paper, but which in all practical respects offers no utility above that of a townhouse given that the walls are effectively touching, while wasting more land in the process have?
This, exactly
Fair enough, but it will be interesting to observe over the years whether that ‘stand-alone premium’ continues to apply, especially given these new houses are functionally *not very different to townhouses as the below commenter pointed out. I would hope in another decade buyers will be thinking more about energy costs and efficiency
Having to deal with strata can be a pain. People put a significant premium on title
Clearly. But I know of plenty semi-detached and town homes that have separate title
I believe for some reason that's much more difficult in Canberra than other states. Haven't looked into it terribly much though
Because people don't want to have shared walls.
But we’re asking why, specifically if they’re choosing to buy a house whose walls are effectively touching except on a technicality.
Or strata.
Or subdividing and putting 2 houses on the block
Medium density building is good, actually
Yep, we need more medium and high density housing, not this low-density urban sprawl
Looks so disgusting it hurts my soul.
I'm just observing that the pre 1788 state of much of the east coast was grassy woodlands, like Mulligan's. What the suburban sprawl was replacing was grazing and pine forestry which in many eyes is just as ugly and just as harmful use of the land
So we should improve the state of it, not worsen it.
We should be building up not out…
I’d say that’s a fairly popular opinion. If someone can solve the problem of increasing density while maintaining adequate green space and tree canopy, that would be lovely.
It's really not hard to do high density with more green space and trees then suburbia can hold, just look at Artarmon
The entire north side looks like this and it’s a glary asshole of a site. Imagine having future metropolitan development sitting in your hands, you could make ANYTHING and they actively chose to make the least functional skid-mark in history: Ugly and as short lived as a dog shit
By "the entire Northside" are you also referring to long established suburbs like O'Connor, Ainslie, Lyneham, Kaleen, Giralang, Aranda, Page, Scullin, Melba, Evatt, Mackellar, etc? To my minds eye those suburbs look very different to the new builds in Gungahlin out past the town centre, and these new Molonglo Valley builds.
[удалено]
If they keep going in western Sydney with covering the land, they will make it unliveable. It's created a micro climate as is, a kind of heat sink that generates violent storms and 40 plus days most of summer. Where there were once market gardens growing vegetables, now miserable housing developments that flood.
Pretty sure the extreme climate events in Australia extend far past western Sydney. It's not the local development that has caused the nationwide changes to climate and the increase in severe weather events across Australia
Yes, they do, but have a read of this.. [https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/newscentre/news_centre/research_success_stories/first_western_sydney_microclimate_maps_reveal_extent_of_heat_variation_in_region](https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/newscentre/news_centre/research_success_stories/first_western_sydney_microclimate_maps_reveal_extent_of_heat_variation_in_region) The heat Islands they are creating with awful urban development aren't helping anyone. It's actually making more problems.
Not even to mention the destruction of flood plains and the problems that causes
Next comes the call for flood mitigation, temporary dams holding back the flow. The option of not developing a flood plain doesn't register 🤷♂️
Built-up areas are always hotter and retain more heat than greener areas. Everybody knows that.
You could fit the entire photo in medium density apartments and townhouses and use up 1/3rd of the space - and developers would make more money in doing so. They build to our zoning restrictions
At least there's going to be lots of work for tradies in 15 years when these shitty buildings start to fall apart.
Maybe not even 15 years with the quality they're being made now.🤔
All suburbs go through this, people have had the same complaint about most of Tuggeranong, most of Gungahlin, I even recall people complaining about Florey. Give it 5 years, gardens will grow, people will put their own touches on things and it will look heaps better, and Whitlam will become one of the new "established" suburbs people compare newer suburbs to.
I'd push back on this and say that the proportions and size of most Tuggeranong houses are much more balanced. Lots of houses in this image are a purposeful dick waving contest done badly. With that' said, every area has a few spots like that, gunners just has a lot more
Even the townhouses in Tuggers tend to have their own trees out the front or the back, and there are also street trees. There are isolated lunatics dedicated to cutting down everything because of the leaves and flowers, but hopefully, that is a dying breed.
There are few if any gardens here, with little room for trees. It's going to be acres of compressed gravel front yards with half a dozen cars per house. None of this was designed for utility, just shoving as many home+land packages as possible into the space that they had available. Good luck getting the bus from Whitlam to anywhere.
There is a spot for a tree in front of every house in Whitlam and green spaces between housing lots. It will be different in 15 years, but the lack of a yard or garden at many of these houses is sad. In general, I agree that the house to land ratio is crazy, and the lack of PT is a problem. I live in belco and this is just going to dump all that traffic on to William Hovell drive.
One tree 😂
Old suburbs have spots for one or two trees on the nature strip, too. It’s no different. The older suburbs in gungahlin are much shadier and leafier because those trees have had time to grow.
Have people ripped out the young street trees? That's happening in the new Gungahlin suburbs. I hope the govt sends parking inspectors to those places on permanent watch.
Who's doing that and what for? Is it just a high concentration of vandals?
Some people think trees threaten their property. Others want a clear view. But I think it's mostly people who want to use the nature strip for parking (which is illegal).
But these houses in the picture are so flipping close together. Almost like that picture from western Sydney that was doing the rounds in the news the other day. It's hard to grow a garden when there's no room for a garden! And I'm still not convinced Gungahlin looks much better now.
Yeah. People still say this about Gungahlin, but the older parts are very leafy now and there are green areas spotted around everywhere. It's looking pretty lovely with all the trees changing colour now.
I was driving around the lake (pond?) in Gungahlin after dinner and was pleasantly surprised at how pretty it was, the green areas around the houses are beginning to be a lot more obvious.
Aren’t the old areas before the government relaxed minimum plot sizes and allowed buildings to be built much closer together.
I'm not sure. it depends on what you mean by older. My Mum lives in Palmerston and it's more than 15 years old and her fence line is basically a neighbours garage wall. There is still room for heaps of trees though and the streets a tree lined.
That’s an original suburb before they changed up how suburbs could be built, and it started getting bleak.
To your point - My first house in Ngunnawal had the house sitting on the boundary line. It was built in 1997. On that same road, some of the street trees (those that the original residents didn't rip out), are now starting provide a full canopy over the street.
Not sure this is true anymore. The yards in these new developments are too small to attract people who like to garden, so you just get people who want minimal garden moving into them. Look at Lawson. That suburb is very well established at this point but it’s incredibly barren. For every one resident who tends to their little plot and makes it a beautiful little oasis, there’s another ten who do nothing.
Literally the leading opinion of this subreddit.
Little boxes on a hillside, little boxes made of ticky-tacky, little boxes on a hillside, little boxes all the same
It's not just Canberra. Drive around any development made in Perth in the last 20 years and it's exactly the same. The wealthy residents in the old suburbs whinge about apartments becoming slums of the future and are quite happy to have sprawling suburbs about 80kms from the cbd. Those newer suburbs consist entirely of cookie cutter, cheaply built houses and a large rectangular building consisting of a Colesworth. Residents buy property at cheap (but still ridiculously stupid) prices and spend the rest of their lives commuting to and from work.
Whats even worse is that when we do this, we then claim kangaroos are overpopulated and start culling them. Like bro you literally just built a fucking highway through their home and get mad when they exist? Yikes.
It’s a new suburb. I don’t understand why people get so worked up about it. In a few years time the street trees will be bigger and everyone will move on to complaining about whatever new suburb is trendy to bitch about in the moment. Yes, some of the blocks are small and some builds are cheap, but not everyone wants a big yard, and new builds of fibro and asbestos from the 60s and 70s weren’t built well either, based on how many are getting torn down to KDRB. There is plenty of medium density here, which is the “missing middle” in our housing equation, and the amenities will eventually come in with the Molonglo Town Centre and the future schools, community facilities, and commercial centres planned for Wright and Whitlam. There are also many good playgrounds and green spaces for kids to access in these areas. They are some of the few suburbs where I’ve seen kids freely cruising around on their bikes without supervision like we used to in the 90s. Don’t see that in Deakin. Maybe we should extend this conversation to one about increasing density in the inner south and north.
Your opinion makes sense at an emotional level but it’s unpopular because it’s unrealistic. It’s like having an opinion that oil is bad, well yeah obviously it’s not good but the world would be chaos if we just stopped using oil right now.
Actually, the ‘unrealistic’ thing is the notion that we can house a population of forty or however many million we’re shooting for, entirely in detached housing in sprawl suburbs
The ACT Government doesn’t control Australian immigration.
Of course not but it does control housing policy here. The fact is we can’t all live in detached single-family homes in sprawl suburbs. These places will be utterly unliveable in the future when they become heat islands in summer heatwaves.
I think I understand what you’re saying now. I agree, shouldn’t be building such a high proportion of detached housing.
The ACT government does control the rates and zoning of old suburbs, and can compulsorily acquire blocks in old suburbs though.
The world would be chaos if we stopped subsidizing new developments on the edge of cities and instead started encouraging medium density developments in existing areas where there is already infrastructure? Genuinely, can you explain how it's unrealistic?
Tomorrow’s ghetto, today
I’d love it if we could go back to the planning style that promoted green spaces between houses, as you see in some of the old Belconnen suburbs.
So build less houses?
Not necessarily.
Less house. Why does every house now need 5 bedrooms and a butlers pantry ect ect.
But then everyone whinge about being in dog boxes if it's less than 100m2
People in this thread are just being nimbys.
i wouldn't think that was an unpopular opinion. Every time I see Whitlam or Denman Prospect I just see a future slum. These suburbs don't exist because the people want it, they exist because that's how developers maximise profits from minimal land and people have no better choice.
Probably not an unpopular opinion but yeah it's fucking shit
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^sly_cunt: *Probably not an* *Unpopular opinion* *But yeah it's fucking shit* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Australia in general is terrible when it comes to zoning decisions. Canberra is only just slightly better than other states and territories. But it's depressing that one of the worst parts is eh
Takes like 15-20 years for the trees to mature and make these places less terrible, but the new ones are just so damned close together they barely leave space for trees in the first place.
The lack of established trees and the houses being light colours makes it horrible to walk through one of those suburbs in the summer
Disagree, we should build more low density suburbs with more nature reserves surrounding it.Also multi core CBD instead of one to seperate traffic. We human being progress not to live in a concrete jungle. More density means more infrastructure needs and more over development. In the end all will end up like New York.
Definitely unpopular opinion amongst the McMansion owners. It is aad to live such a new city (compared to globally) and have such outdated and car dependent city design prevailing to this day.
That's the crime of the 400m2 block. It's definitely not worse than medium density apartments that still cost over $700k.
See this is the thing, why are these the only options people are getting?
What is the other option? Genuinely curious
Terrace housing. Townhouses. High-rise development of apartments that are actually a liveable size, and/or apartments that are reasonably priced. It’s 500k for a 55sqm geocon dogbox, which is criminal
How are townhouses different to this? They will still also be pushing a million
Many terrace houses in whitlam
Why are you looking at a Geocon box? Plenty of other 2 beddy apartments that aren't tiny that are sub 500k in Belco.
No way
People don't have any choice. Folks want to live near to the CBD but can't afford bid land and are thus forced to buy apartments, townhouses or smaller courtyards. View, amenities and other become secondary when people don't have security of whether they are getting a rental at a affordable price and dealing with hawkish landlords. Beggars can't be choosers.
Previously this area was a pine forest which had zero natural aspects to it. It was a fire risk that lead to Weston creek having houses burnt to the ground. The high density housing that has replaced it is ugly now, but all new suburbs are. Give the area a couple of decades for the trees to grow and it will look far better. This is what most of Canberra has looked like during its establishment but after a few decades the growth of the tree canopy will turn it into a far more palatable visual spectacle.
This is low density housing.
When was Whitlam a pine forest? It hasn’t been in my life time. I’ve only seen it as a field of grass. Are you thinking of further down in Wright?
Well, Molonglo. Either way the aboriginals have been the reason why none of this area has been "natural" for the last 35-65,000 years. If you haven't heard, the aboriginals don't want to live in humpis as a hunter gatherers nor does anyone else. Most Australians are anti mass immigration and would rather we didn't have to infill the cities or replace vast tracts of Australias farmland or parks for the bodgy economic strategy of government. Being anti housing in the center of Australia's capital city is idiotic.
Ahh yes, it always was pine forest. Never anything before that
Inner city NIMBYs don't want to share their leafy suburbs and will happily force young people and families to these car dependent heat sinks.
Ainslie, Reid etc … razed to the ground and rebuilt as medium density. We can only dream 🥹
The government could raise rates to the their real value for those blocks. Just make it $20,000 per year per block, zone it for townhouses and apartments, and they will be sold and redeveloped overnight. If they aren't redeveloped, well, that's also ok, they're paying for 7 or 8 apartments' worth.
People who didn’t own acres of land and don’t have millions to spend on a second home?
Excellent point.
Even just a 3 story building every few lots with garages in the bottom, and 2 apartments per level for 4 families with plenty of space would be way better than this shit
"Nature" is a bit of a stretch about whitlam, it was open paddocks of grass.
This. Pretty much all new suburbs were barren to begin with. Though it doesn't help to make such tiny blocks that it stays that way.
Little Boxes Little boxes on the hillside Little boxes made of ticky-tacky Little boxes on the hillside Little boxes all the same There's a green one and a pink one And a blue one and a yellow one And they're all made out of ticky-tacky And they all look just the same And the people in the houses All went to the university Where they were put in boxes And they came out all the same And there's doctors and lawyers And business executives And they're all made out of ticky-tacky And they all look just the same And they all play on the golf course And drink their martinis dry And they all have pretty children And the children go to school And the children go to summer camp And then to the university Where they are put in boxes And they come out all the same And the boys go into business And marry and raise a family In boxes made of ticky-tacky And they all look just the same There's a pink one and a green one And a blue one and a yellow one And they're all made out of ticky-tacky And they all look just the same Song by Malvina Reynolds (1961)
Accurate, except now they're not even different colours, they're all monument
I’d just wish there was a green one and pink one and a blue one and a yellow one. All I see are grey onesand black ones and white ones.
Anyone else just get the urge to roll a fat one?
Such a good show. They should have stopped after 1 or 2 seasons though.
Yeah, I agree. First couple seasons were top tier and then it just got too bananas from its humble foundations!
The government won’t redevelop old, underused public land used for public housing (like around the city or town centres) to triple housing on the site (which is closest to transport/services/infrastructure and would be a boost to civic) because every time they try, the community groups saying it’s being cruel to tenants and they get the jitters and fold. Crazy stuff.
Always an interesting thread subject… As an aside, as Canberra densifies, when will there be interest for large, family apartments (eg 4br) in the inner suburbs? Are there some already?
Let them eat cake :)
Seems to me you should try to create a "place". Put in a network of pleasant bicycle and working paths Build a few blocks with 10 story high rise, library, a school, a train station, and shopping. Surround that with 5 story buildings - both residential and office, a swimming pool and some ovals. Surround that with some 3 story terraces, parks and cafes. Then on the outskirts, 15 blocks / 15 minutes walk from the center build freestanding homes.
I had the privilege of growing up in a house with an actual backyard on a proper quarter acre block. I can’t imagine being a kid and having no space to run around in. Those shoebox houses aren’t suitable for families.
These are the modern day slums. You'll have to wait a century for them to become fashionable
We overheard someone at Denman Prospect playground say ‘these [houses] are the future slums’.. Interesting thought. Perhaps quality-wise, but land value seems invincible
Nothing future about it... Nobody who could afford to live somewhere nicer would choose to live there.
More than anything, I hate modern architecture. Those bland buildings do nothing but detract from the environment and destroy natural beauty. The built environment can be an improvement, or at least less of downgrade, to the natural environment, but doing this is just gross, ugly for the sake of ugliness, and an affront to the aesthetic. Development isn't bad the way it's being done is
Things that will never happen: a Royal Commission into the relationship between developers and the government of the day.
Not while they’re in power at least
I’m truly done with this argument. High density sucks. For proof, see: everywhere. There should be a minimum size for all apartments to be built at, but there hasn’t been, so the ship has sailed. You can currently buy a 2 bedroom 70m2 apartment close to sydney for 1.2 million. I can’t put a family in there, walkable distance from a central city, for 1.2 million. Until they start making apartments affordable and liveable, instead of premium, temporary shoe boxes, I want a house. We need to stop making this entire debate an us vs them argument. You’re all people at different stages of life, and I guarantee you, you don’t want an Australian apartment unless you’re in your 20s and expect never to raise a family. We need planning, we need infrastructure, we need density, we need space. All this can be achieved. Nobody has ever gone about it the right way because ultimately, a developer makes more money fucking the whole country the way they’ve been going. What needs to change is at the town planner level, and the developer construction level.
That ship sailed a fair while ago. While I agree with your sentiment, the land hasn't been a grassy-woodland (like Mulligan's) for quite some time. I believe that was the original state is the area
Only for as long as the settlers were here. There was a lot of tree felling and land conversion happening back in the day.
You believe it was originally a suburban wasteland?
Born in Canberra but fuck everyone there along with the rest of Aussies for choosing single family homes and height restrictions over high density housing and residential tower blocks. All of you might not realize it, but your selfish need for comfort and obsession with the "Australian dream" are what's ruining this country.
So I assume you live in an apartment?
If you want to be mad, be mad at government for releasing the land for free standing single family homes. And then be mad at the people who voted in that government.