Kevin AbbottKevin Abbott Premium • 1stUrban Design, Development and Placemaking Specialist, and now a AuthorUrban Design, Development and Placemaking Specialist, and now a Author4 hours ago • Visible to anyone on or off LinkedIn
Does culture determine how we live?
I have always wondered why Australia has a predominate detached housing market, was it because of its European settlement patterns and access to undeveloped land? Was it politics? or is it our cultural heritage that instils this type of home creation.
The ‘go-west’ mentality of developing the frontier seems logical as the US has a high amount of detached housing stock, but they also have embraced far more apartment type condominium housing tenure exceeding Australia – so maybe it’s also politics?
Looking towards our European heritage provides little clues as both UK and mainland Europe seem to have a bet each way with the UK favouring attached terrace housing more than any other, while Germany looked towards apartment solutions maybe because of the need to rehouse quickly post war. Whatever the reason, detached housing is no more than a quarter of the housing choice and the first reaction would be because of land availability.
There is considerable amount of land available for detached housing in both countries, it’s just they don’t do it and some have argued that the historical land ownership arrangement of kings, princes and lords meant that spreading out was not promoted or allowed. Sure, if you delve deeper into city metrics the breakup is somewhat different, but this nationwide breakdown does build an interesting ‘image’ of these cultures today.
Similarly, Canada is comparative to Australia’s population, land availability and its development pattern, with large populous urban areas in more favourable areas while the harsh interior is vastly devoid of development and people. Yet, Canada embraced higher density living with double the number of attached products than its neighbour. Was it political intervention of Canada’s CMHC that has maintained long after Australia let the market provide affordable housing supply?
For Australia to move beyond almost three-quarters of a detached lifestyle, and embrace middle or even higher density, as continuing sprawl is proving to be substantially economic, societal and environmentally corrosive, it may require a fundamental mind shift. This would also require political leadership, policy intervention to encourage this shift, not to maintain it.
Australia doesn’t really have a housing problem it has a housing choice issue, the cheap development sprawl post war has stumbled and crashed as these houses are now becoming unaffordable for the average Australian. There is nothing else to replace it in the numbers required in the ‘planned’ areas proposed for development. Making smaller plots, jacking up FAR is not a solution, providing better choices, betters connections, better communities is what is needed.
It's time Australia faced it cultural development legacy and clearly articulated where it wishes to go, because you can only fix problems once you admit to one being made.
I have always wondered why Australia has a predominate detached housing market, was it because of its European settlement patterns and access to undeveloped land? Was it politics? or is it our cultural heritage that instils this type of home creation.
The ‘go-west’ mentality of developing the frontier seems logical as the US has a high amount of detached housing stock, but they also have embraced far more apartment type condominium housing tenure exceeding Australia – so maybe it’s also politics?
Looking towards our European heritage provides little clues as both UK and mainland Europe seem to have a bet each way with the UK favouring attached terrace housing more than any other, while Germany looked towards apartment solutions maybe because of the need to rehouse quickly post war. Whatever the reason, detached housing is no more than a quarter of the housing choice and the first reaction would be because of land availability.
There is considerable amount of land available for detached housing in both countries, it’s just they don’t do it and some have argued that the historical land ownership arrangement of kings, princes and lords meant that spreading out was not promoted or allowed. Sure, if you delve deeper into city metrics the breakup is somewhat different, but this nationwide breakdown does build an interesting ‘image’ of these cultures today.
Similarly, Canada is comparative to Australia’s population, land availability and its development pattern, with large populous urban areas in more favourable areas while the harsh interior is vastly devoid of development and people. Yet, Canada embraced higher density living with double the number of attached products than its neighbour. Was it political intervention of Canada’s CMHC that has maintained long after Australia let the market provide affordable housing supply?
For Australia to move beyond almost three-quarters of a detached lifestyle, and embrace middle or even higher density, as continuing sprawl is proving to be substantially economic, societal and environmentally corrosive, it may require a fundamental mind shift. This would also require political leadership, policy intervention to encourage this shift, not to maintain it.
Australia doesn’t really have a housing problem it has a housing choice issue, the cheap development sprawl post war has stumbled and crashed as these houses are now becoming unaffordable for the average Australian. There is nothing else to replace it in the numbers required in the ‘planned’ areas proposed for development. Making smaller plots, jacking up FAR is not a solution, providing better choices, betters connections, better communities is what is needed.
It's time Australia faced it cultural development legacy and clearly articulated where it wishes to go, because you can only fix problems once you admit to one being made.
No comments:
Post a Comment