Sounds good in theory, so why doesn't this happen more in practice?
This Domain article illustrates the disconnect between "policy" and "reality". It boils down to simple #housing #economics.
A three-bedroom apartment needs to be a minimum 120m2 to be approaching comfortable (they can be as small as ~90m2, theoretically).
The problem is the input cost of developing new apartments is so high that today in Melbourne, the minimum one needs to sell for is around $12,000 per m2 (or $14,000+ in inner areas).
So your comfortable family-sized dwelling will cost you $1.68m 💰. Even the tiniest option will run close to $1.3m.
Contrast this with a three bedroom house 🏠 in the #greenfields – with double the internal space and a backyard which today is around $700k on a compact lot. Or a middle-ring, 2-3 storey #townhouse which is likely circa $850k.
But wait, you say – don't you save all that money by needing fewer cars and using public #transport 🚉? In truth, most savings would be eroded by owners corporation costs in maintaining the common areas, building insurance and the like. OC costs for large units in a boutique building can easily be $10k p.a. or more.
I may sound negative on apartment living (I'm not) but unless those unit economics change, do not expect a preponderance of "affordable family developments" in inner ring suburbs of our major cities as social policy experts would like to see.