How zoning rules rather than scarcity affect land prices

Discussion in 'Property Market Economics' started by roots73, 9th Mar, 2018.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
  1. roots73

    roots73 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26th Sep, 2015
    Posts:
    52
    Location:
    Sydney
    Interesting article...seems to go against the mantra 'Sydney's land is limited, therefore expensive'...

    Zoning rules cost home buyers a fortune - and it'll get worse, says RBA

    Read more: Zoning rules cost home buyers a fortune - and it'll get worse, says RBA
     
    Perthguy likes this.
  2. Mick

    Mick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jul, 2016
    Posts:
    54
    Location:
    Frankston
    I would get rid of local councils and the ratbags in the ratepayers trough. I live in Frankston where one third of land is in a green belt where no development is allowed to happen while adjacent to the east is the city of Casey where housing development is open slather. The result is every evening roads in Frankston's green belt are gridlocked with cars crawling back to their homes in the city of Casey. Frankston's green belt roads are from the 70s and nothing is going to change unless they allow some development to get some money to fix the roads and infrastructure. As three of the Frankston Councillors are unemployed and two don't even have a drivers licence I don't think they would give a rats. They can go on living in their little green world with the $24,000 a years council allowance, travel perks etc.
     
  3. Joynz

    Joynz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5th Apr, 2016
    Posts:
    5,751
    Location:
    Melbourne
    And the Casey housing development is really really ugly. Crammed in like sardines! Thankfully, Casey has the Westernport green wedge land (though it sounds like you hadn't heard of it?
     
  4. Trainee

    Trainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24th May, 2017
    Posts:
    10,258
    Location:
    Australia
    Sydney would be cheaper if everyone lived in a 50sq apartment.
     
  5. Gockie

    Gockie Life is good ☺️ Premium Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    14,741
    Location:
    Sydney
    Remember to put an "m" on the end of sq...
    50sq is huge.
    50sqm isn't.
     
  6. Scott No Mates

    Scott No Mates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    27,102
    Location:
    Sydney or NSW or Australia
    4 person family = 200m² :D
     
  7. Gockie

    Gockie Life is good ☺️ Premium Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    14,741
    Location:
    Sydney
    Ok, a more serious answer. We can't force everybody to live in a 50sqm apartment. But we could allow make higher density (maybe 4 level developments) the rule and not the exception within the Sydney metro area though and only disallow higher density based on exception (heritage etc). Then development will happen where the numbers stack up. Housing should become more affordable. Existing home owners (especially inner and middle ring) will win, councils will benefit with more ratepayers and so too will the people looking to buy or rent. We do need to have open spaces and facilities for all the residents to use though. I do think our city can cope with higher density. There will be NIMBYs, but they can move. And not all of Sydney is suitable for higher denisty. (Due to accessibility, convenience etc.)

    Long story short... I don't think low density helps Sydney to be honest.
     
    Last edited: 10th Mar, 2018
  8. virhlpool

    virhlpool Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14th Aug, 2016
    Posts:
    692
    Location:
    Sydney
    I doubt if Sydney can really cope with higher density without getting the living standards affected. Schools, sports facilities, parks are overburdened in most of the suburbs even with the existing density where high-rises aren't so common and aren't everywhere. Think of traffic jams on all roads leading to CBD...they aren't able to cope up today.

    I don't even want to get started on parking in public areas and particularly near train stations. Sports facilities - try going to any aquatic centre or outdoor sports club on a regular basis. Since their numbers are very limited and residents of 25 surrounding suburbs end up coming to one facility, most of them are super crowded. Schools have been shrinking their catchment areas and many schools are running over capacity. Overcrowding at public hospitals is a big discussion in itself.

    I am not sure how the city can cope up if higher density was applied to more areas. One can argue that higher density would probably come with more investment in infra and facilities - but we haven't seen that happening in the past so we can't trust that it'll happen. It will need massive investments in all the items listed above to make them able to cope with not just more population, but higher density of population. That is even if they simply want to maintain the quality and residents to facility/infra ratios, leave aside any improvements in it.
     
  9. Gockie

    Gockie Life is good ☺️ Premium Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    14,741
    Location:
    Sydney
    @virhlpool - with higher density, councils have more ratepayers. With the extra rates they can open more public facilities like indoor and outdoor sports venues. (Imo they can be strategic and convert land that is underutilised or if they do a big development, at least make sure they earmark some of the land they have available to be used for playgrounds, ovals, indoor sports). I know my volleyball organisation struggles with securing space for trainings and games and we can't expand our competitions because we can't book additional court time. So even registration into comps are restricted.

    For schools, we can go vertical like they have started doing in Parramatta. Eastwood public has basically no grass but there are ovals nearby. So that's not necessarily a limiting factor. It needs investment though.

    For trains and train access etc, once you have population density you can run very frequent bus services. I'd also have more marked connected bicycle routes.

    For trains... I know Sydney struggles in peak hour congestion. Not sure if the system can add extra capacity to resolve that, except encourage more flexible hours and encourage working from home.

    There will always be some people who need to bring a lot of things with them for work, but they are the minority and a lot of it doesn't have to be in peak hour.

    And some time into the future we'll have self driving cars, human drivers create traffic. Remove the human factor and traffic will flow better. The accident rates should drop, reaction times at intersections and traffic lights will drop or disappear...

    This is how I see it. And I think why not embrace a change like this? Much of Europe consists of 4 level walk up apartments and it works. You don't feel super crowded and shops can thrive close to people in their neighbourhoods - you don't have to get in a car to go to the shops.
     
    Last edited: 11th Mar, 2018
    ollidrac nosaj likes this.