This may upset some who love the notion of house and land of their very own. For that I apologize but speak for the “greater good” of environmental concerns and affordability of housing in general.
I saw the Queensland govt. web site on smart
housing. My question is how can building low density housing be considered smart housing. Low density designs chew up much more land than low – medium to medium. This creates a scarcity of new land at a greater rate adding pressure to housing prices everywhere else, not to mention the environmental impacts. This means affordability of housing is made even harder for newer generations. The government should not be selling of land so cheap. This would cause the developers to rethink their design methodology.The low density designs shown on their site seem to me to be the near exact opposite of smart housing design at the macro level at least. Sure their physical designs themselves may be innovative at the micro level which is great ! For that I hand it to them ! However low density housing means sprawling developments using land inefficiently, costing more to service. Smart housing is not housing that chews up lots of land just for one family to live on. That is surely, environmentally irresponsible housing and thus not smart at all.
I think a total rethink of the whole concept of smart housing needs to occur at the macro level, not just the micro level of the house itself. I think many more people and families nowadays are quite prepared for the more multi complex low / medium density housing designs that have emerged over recent times. They are more affordable and more environmentally sustainable in terms of land usage against population growth and provision of government and private services, roads etc… I think more thought needs to go into the macro level of housing planning and design.
For example when you think about it simplistically, if all housing was low medium say two houses per standard block, then we would use half the land and need half the roads at half the cost. ( simplified example only ! )
I raise the argument that perhaps low density housing should be discouraged for new developments due to the pressures is creates both in terms of environment and cost. I think incentives should be given to developers to develop low / medium to medium density housing. Of course I doubt this would ever happen in the near future, but I thought I would share my thoughts, on what I consider to be a laughable hypocrisy to say the least !
On reflection I think there is more room for low density sustainable development, but at some stage there may need to be a re-think, in the future when land becomes more scarce and cost of services rise along with population growth.
My preference though would be that governments relax the zoning regulations to allow more low medium developments in the outer lying areas. That said, I can understand the love and joy in owning your own block of land with home.
cheers
007[
]
Land scarcity is indeed a problem and one which will not improve.
Imagine living in an area where two or three houses are being built on a 1000sqm block because there simply is no more land available at the present time.
Being surrounded by pastoral leases and land under claim, land unavailability has sent prices up. The lowest priced house is $180K (very basic 3×1) and rental on this would be $220ish. Units vary. High rise is limited to three storeys.
Recently 8 blocks came on to the market, but only if you were eligible for FHOG. Two of these blocks had registered sacred sites on them, restricting where buildings could go.
Probably the only option left is underground!! It would suit the climate.
[8D]Hi 007,
Sorry, but I live on 20 acres. I’m glad I don’t have to split it up and share it with 50 or so other people. I like my horses and privacy. That’s why there are different zonings.
Everybody is different and not everyone likes neighbours so close! Some people have lifestyles not just houses.
You say that you speak for the “greater good” of environmental concerns. But I don’t really understand how medium to high density housing can be good for the environment?????
Del
Agree totally re suburban sprawl, look at the lovely villages in Germany, big community feel, and to me very smart housing.
Look at the ugliness and mismanagement of town planning on the gold-coast, with those disgusting expensive, “luxury” square box houses on the waterways!
the canals have very little fresh water circulation, a haven for all sorts of mossies and other bugs, who ever designed those?
A poor legacy forever.
Look at the old large blocks in any surrounding suburb of Melb. Whats in them?Weeds, horrible old sheds abd rubbish.
I should know, I’ve removed bin fulls of rubbish from some of them.
Unfortunately, in the old days, land was plentiful and therefore wasted.
What do people do with their back yard? Nothing! All my neighbours have ovewegrown backyards and one clothesline. I think its called land for wildlife, or some such excuse.
The ageing of the population will only make it worse.
Like water, townplanners and councils need to wake up to the fact that land and parks are a precious commodity.I think the US already has the answer.
They’re currently building a ‘floating city’. It’s basically a luxury cruise ship which houses 100,000 people, it’s 1.5km long and 17 stories high, has its own university, shopping centres, casinos, parklands, golf courses, airport, mariner, train line etc etc. It follows the sun around the globe docking in deep waters with its own water transport to and from the mainland. I imagine it’s also a tax haven.
Or, there’s the 2 tropical islands being built (can’t remember where) in the shape of palm trees.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not that long before an underground city (anyone seen the movie Resident Evil?), floating city (Waterworld), underwater city (Star Wars), flying city (Star Wars again), or even a city on another planet (any sci-fi movie!) is on some architects drawing board [
]Seriously I agree with both hwd007’s and Del’s points of view. I think that development in some areas needs to be approached in a more efficient manner. At the end of the day though it’s going to come down to consumer demand and $$$$’s, or the governments clever influence on both!
Cheers, Leigh [
]
“If you can count your money, you don’t have a billion dollars”
J. Paul GettyHi there,
Leigh, I wouldn’t mind living under the sea (in an octopus’s garden in the shade…) [:0)]
I have to agree, there are some really awful dog boxes out there, that they consider ‘modern living’ and smart housing. I love houses with old world charm, none of those square boxes with windows facing the next door’s bathroom will do. What about the latest trend in townhouses with half windows!!! I would much prefer to keep the old fashioned block with one house on it (to live in) so maybe they’re trying to tap into that market and attract a different type of clientel. (Excuse my spelling, unlike Scott’s girlfriend, my hubby doesn’t have time to check my work [])
I’m not sure if the cruise ship you’re talking about is the one with the penthouse for 2 million dollars…aaahh…that has my name on it! [][8D]
Although, I love my house, I must admit my backyard (or lack there of) looks like a prison courtyard (I’m not kidding). I’ve put lattice up to try to make it look more friendly, but it’s still awful with the ugly gray pavers. When we get a round-to-it …. []
Why go for a Whiting when you can catch a Salmon[?] The Qld government selling off land to developers…as long as they get the money, do they REALLY care about the environment? Okay, I’m being cynical.Have a nice week everyone
Cheerio
Sooshie []“Giving is a Blessing, receiving is the bonus”
I accept the points raised and they have merit. I guess its all a question of degrees and sustainability with minimal impact on lifestyle and environment.
I generally don’t agree with high density though. I don’t think I mentioned that I favored it. But on the other hand some people seem to like it as a life style, then others have little choice due to cost. So horses for courses I guess in the end.
]
]
]
])The topic ‘Smart Housing ? Surely you are kidding !’ is closed to new replies.
