Kevin AbbottKevin Abbott • 1stPremium • 1stUrban Design, Development and Placemaking Specialist, and now a AuthorUrban Design, Development and Placemaking Specialist, and now a Author2d •
Does building more houses create affordability?
Conventional wisdom tells us we need to build more homes so that everyone has a roof over their head. It’s a mantra echoed not just in Australia, but across the globe.
But will building more of the same actually deliver affordability?
If average wage earners are already struggling because the standard new home now consumes around 50% of disposable income, then no, we’re not building affordably.
We don’t just need more homes. We need better homes, one’s that people can afford upfront and grow into overtime as they accumulate wealth. It’s time to move away from the expectation that everyone should buy a large home they don’t need, and likely can’t afford, just to fulfil a dream that may never arrive due to financial pressure.
In my book Net Zero Suburbia, I explore Courtyard Housing products, often dismissed as luxury housing, as a real solution to affordability, especially in warmer climates. Why? Because if done well, courtyard homes deliver quality private open space, are more resilient and sustainable, and can adapt to the needs of a growing family.
They can be designed to reduce upfront construction costs to lower mortgage repayments and shorten payback periods. More importantly, if supported by councils through pre-approved extensions or staged approvals, they can provide certainty around future investment without the burden of reapplying and incurring excessive planning fees.
Having delivered these types of homes in the Middle East, I see no reason why they can’t work in Australia. The attached document provides a spatial demonstration of how they can be implemented here and how they compare favourably to what’s currently permitted under our planning and design codes.
In fact, room sizes are comparable. The key difference is garage size, but these courtyard homes are intended for denser, walkable urban areas supported by priority public transport (where you never wait more than 10 minutes), not car-reliant sprawl. Of course, if needed, a two-car garage can be accommodated using the industry standard lot, but should we really be encouraging car-centric living in new developments? Or should we be building walkable density before approving more sprawl?
This isn’t a silver bullet. It’s a demonstration of an alternative. One that reduces the financial burden on owners, creates better private space, and enables wealth building, all while ensuring design quality and urban policy work together through fixed pre-approvals at point of purchase.
We need to start thinking outside the box — not living in it.
Conventional wisdom tells us we need to build more homes so that everyone has a roof over their head. It’s a mantra echoed not just in Australia, but across the globe.
But will building more of the same actually deliver affordability?
If average wage earners are already struggling because the standard new home now consumes around 50% of disposable income, then no, we’re not building affordably.
We don’t just need more homes. We need better homes, one’s that people can afford upfront and grow into overtime as they accumulate wealth. It’s time to move away from the expectation that everyone should buy a large home they don’t need, and likely can’t afford, just to fulfil a dream that may never arrive due to financial pressure.
In my book Net Zero Suburbia, I explore Courtyard Housing products, often dismissed as luxury housing, as a real solution to affordability, especially in warmer climates. Why? Because if done well, courtyard homes deliver quality private open space, are more resilient and sustainable, and can adapt to the needs of a growing family.
They can be designed to reduce upfront construction costs to lower mortgage repayments and shorten payback periods. More importantly, if supported by councils through pre-approved extensions or staged approvals, they can provide certainty around future investment without the burden of reapplying and incurring excessive planning fees.
Having delivered these types of homes in the Middle East, I see no reason why they can’t work in Australia. The attached document provides a spatial demonstration of how they can be implemented here and how they compare favourably to what’s currently permitted under our planning and design codes.
In fact, room sizes are comparable. The key difference is garage size, but these courtyard homes are intended for denser, walkable urban areas supported by priority public transport (where you never wait more than 10 minutes), not car-reliant sprawl. Of course, if needed, a two-car garage can be accommodated using the industry standard lot, but should we really be encouraging car-centric living in new developments? Or should we be building walkable density before approving more sprawl?
This isn’t a silver bullet. It’s a demonstration of an alternative. One that reduces the financial burden on owners, creates better private space, and enables wealth building, all while ensuring design quality and urban policy work together through fixed pre-approvals at point of purchase.
We need to start thinking outside the box — not living in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment