The disconnect between Sonya Kilkenny’s aspiration for good-quality, affordable housing “in the right places” & the economics of doing so are only growing.
My comments won’t surprise anyone who follows me – I’ve explained the reasons in detail:
Maxwell Shifman, chief executive of development group Intrapac Property, reckons in the current environment the government has “zero chance” of hitting the target….
“It is all very well to talk about higher-density, good-quality, affordable housing. Building it is another matter.”
Per Jeroen Weimar “If we are going to accommodate the growth that we want to see… we need to create more housing capacity in our system. It is not just a short-term dash, there’s a structural set of problems we have to overcome.”
Per Marcus Spiller “We shouldn’t be under an illusion that just because we zone for more housing the developers will come… The problem that we are facing now … isn’t the #planning, it is more the adverse #economics of development. It is very difficult for developers to make …”
Jonathan Spear also notes housing is a complicated problem years in the making that will take time to solve.
So we: ✅want well located housing, close to public transport, jobs, services, schools ✅can’t do things incrementally – scale is needed ✅need feasible project for developers to build ✅have structural issues preventing high density at scale ✅need homes which are attainable (& desirable) by buyers ✅can’t afford to spend big on new infrastructure ✅need sufficient open space to match the density ✅must move at speed to arrest the downturn
🤔If only there were some great places in established middle-ring suburbs, greenfields or regional areas that could do some heavy lifting in the short term.
The case is clear to get moving right now on what doesn’t need fundamental systemic change, before things get much worse. The economics matter.