Maturity needed in Housing Affordability debate
September 2023
Published in Sydney Morning Herald
A few weeks ago, the Committee for Sydney think tank released a report finding that there are only five other world cities with more unaffordable housing than Sydney. Confronted with a rising population, it called for “immediate and robust” action to ramp up our housing supply.
However, in addition to the research, it also asked Sydneysiders to become “YIMBYs”. That is: to back new developments in their area by saying “Yes, In My Back Yard.” A disappointing adjunct to an otherwise impressive report.
Disappointing because this is precisely the same terminology adopted by the developer lobby. An acronym enabling either a “pro development” or an “anti development” narrative. Be a YIMBY! Don’t be a NIMBY – someone who blocks housing affordability via a “Not In My Back Yard” conservatism – or so the mantra goes.
Not only does the reinforcement and embedding of such jargon dumb down a debate crying out for more sophistication. It is also divisive. On top of that, it conveniently scoots over just how multifaceted this issue if for Sydneysiders – while camouflaging the fact that so many details are still sorely missing.
For example: what type of developments are we being asked to support? Are they being built by trusted developers? Are there design principles defined in order to maintain quality? Have transport, schools, parks, sewage all been factored in?
Most of all though – what is the overall plan?
Because the big concern and the glaring omission at the moment is that there isn’t one. Without a clear vision – and a strategy to make that happen – there is an increasing sense that the public are being asked to support city planning on-the-fly. This is a long way from ideal.
A few months back, Premier Minns announced that the only way to overcome this challenge was to allow property developers to build more. If 15-30% of new builds were dedicated to affordable housing, we’d be in a good place. Barely any other details were provided.
Then, last week – after amplifying this issue across radio waves for months and telling us that housing affordability would be the “centerpiece of the budget” – only $2.2 Billion was allocated to it, with just $300 million allocated to actually building new apartments. Not exactly a “robust” response, according to pundits.
Meanwhile, other concepts are being ‘dabbled’ with. For example, there’s now a sense that that medium height would be better than high rise. Another notion put forward is that building “30 Surry Hills” would put us in good stead. Fair ideas and eye-grabbing headlines – but still little substance for the public to throw their weight behind.
And Sydneysiders have every right to be passionate about this topic. After all, Sydney is the place we call home. It’s also the place that defines a chunk of who we are as people. Sydney’s character as a city is part of our character too – just as Paris is for Parisians, or London for Londoners.
Further to being the place we live today, Sydney also contains our “yesterday”. The city where our parents, grand-parents, great grandparents forged futures for their families. The buildings they worked in, the suburbs they made home are infused with memories, stories, emotion. Trivialising this would be naive.
And alongside local sentiments, two built landmarks swim large in the minds of the international community we aim to attract here – the Opera House and the Harbour Bridge. Architectural and engineering masterpieces that generate pride, set the benchmark and stand as pillars in our brand.
The report is absolutely right to say that public support is key. However, public trust that developers will protect the personality and story of our city is low. We saw this demonstrated at the previous NSW council elections, where candidates promising to address overdevelopment did well. It was also a hot topic at the recent state election.
The political process on this issue also needs to be understood and trusted. Collaboration, consultation and transparency will help to facilitate this. Although, so far these ingredients appear to be lacking.
In order to get things moving, the premier intends to bypass councils entirely by updating zoning laws to allow more development. This has created enemies, even of some Labor councillors and mayors. Furthermore, there are also the lingering concerns about the opaque relationships between some politicians and some of the property industry.
Sydney understands the urgency of this issue, because as a community we discuss housing affordability every day. The enormity of the challenge seems clear. Common sense says that building an approach that champions the character of this city will take time and obviously some tough short term decisions need to be made.
However, we need to understand what we’re being asked to get behind, before we advocate for it. We want solid commitments that we the public are the priority here, not the developers. And we want to be able to discuss all of this in a manner that is adult, without the patronising typecasts
