Wilfy 2007 wrote:Can we look at the possible advantages, in that it is an area that may develop into a much larger Residential area in the future.Yes it is a way out, but has anybody thought it would take the pressure off the areas that are being developed at the moment.
Many have said there needs to be more development closer in to the city, but the cost for construction and eventual house price or unit price will make it too expensive for most to be able to afford.
That's the thing... it doesn't work like that! Developments like these need new roads, new sewers, new water pipes, new energy infrastructure, new telecoms infrastructure, new public services, new logistical networks and so on. All of these add up, and the cost, shared amongst the relativity small population, is quite significant. These costs are hidden as they aren't in the purchase price of the house. These costs are covered in other ways: taxpayers (there's a reason why the government is closing regional hospitals), distributed over the population in the overheads of privately provided services (there's a reason Telstra doesn't want to service the country), or directly by the residents as a higher cost of living (there's a reason why petrol is more expensive in regional areas). The developer does not bear the majority of these costs, and simply walk away once every lot is sold.
These developments are
expensive. They consume
more resources per person, more energy, more construction materials, more administration costs, more transport costs, more public costs. It is
us, the city residents, the taxpayers, the customers of telcos, the commuters and consumers of goods and services, who
subsidise these developments. The marginal cost of providing this almost
all goods and services is far lower per person for higher density developments within the existing range of services and far
higher for green fields sprawl development like this. There is a reason why economic centres are in cities, there is a reason why real estate is more expensive closer to cities, there's a reason why hospitals are better equipped in cities, there's a reason why there are more higher education facilities in cities. They all derrive from the fundamental cost advantages from having a high population density.
The excuse that we need these developments for those who can't afford expensive inner-city property doesn't hold. We
know that these developments have higher costs of living, fewer employment opportunities, fewer educational opportunities and fewer social services, so
why are they a preferable place for those on low incomes? I have a few suggestions:
- The state government has surrendered much of the responsibility for urban planning to the councils and all-but surrendered the responsibility of social housing.
- The councils are elected by, and represent, the vested interest of existing residents. These vested interests are quite happy with their easy access to employment, services and low costs of living. They don't want to see their property value adversely effected by an increase in dwelling supply, so they pass by-laws discouraging development. Holdfast Bay is a prime example of this conflict of interest in local planning.
- Developers (rightly so) retreat from this administrative cost and public relations nightmare, so build where there are no vested interests.
So don't go saying "people need access to cheap housing" because this is NOT cheap housing for anyone except the developer. And don't go saying "people want bigger lots," because people also want zero taxes, Mondays off and free beer.
