Demographics: Migration

Growth Areas Bad, Infill Good: Planning’s Perennial Problem

Posted on by Quantify

As one of the least affordable housing markets on the globe, Australia’s worsening housing crisis seems to be of little concern to many, who are instead more interested in maintaining a relentless and increasingly tiresome attack on greenfield development. If, as a nation, we are genuine about improving the dire state of housing, then the “growth areas bad, infill good”, mindset, simply needs to stop.

Relative to its established suburbs, Melbourne’s growth areas have more than delivered on their end of the bargain during a decade of unprecedented population growth.

Accommodating vast numbers of people, including many recent migrants who are now arriving in record levels, growth areas have, and continue to serve a basic, societal function at a scale not happening elsewhere: housing the population. In the absence of a considered national population policy, this pattern will continue, whether we like it or not.

Contrary to the perception that greenfield development is little more than low-density, McMansion- riddled sprawl, housing our own version of “Deplorables”, Melbourne’s growth areas are being developed at densities higher than the majority of its established suburbs.

Year after year, the number of new dwellings required in established suburbs, simply fail to be delivered. Despite policy objectives, this is in no small part the result of political folly, sadly coming at the expense of much-needed housing. Across metropolitan Melbourne, there are thousands of well-located Neighbourhood Residential Zoned sites that also happen to be situated within 400 metres of the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN). How this self-induced dilemma reconciles the protection of neighbourhood character with the objectives of the 20 Minute City will be intriguing to say the least.

Ironically, ineffective infill policy has placed an even greater burden on Melbourne’s growth areas. Providing approximately two-thirds of all new dwellings, the combination of population increase, demographic shifts, and the need for affordable housing, is likely to generate even greater demand for housing in growth areas over the coming years.

Planning for rapid growth is a dynamic process that is reliant on a sophisticated understanding of a range of variables. So long as the system is characterised by ineffective policy, outdated land-use strategies, and an ideological disdain for greenfield development, the housing crisis is here to stay.

Millennials worse off. But Why?

Posted on by Quantify

Arguably, one of the most disturbing aspects that have emerged from the now seemingly unresolvable housing crisis, is the manner in which we have succumbed to the notion that younger Australians will necessarily be worse off than their parents.

By any measure, thirty consecutive years of economic growth should be an adequate foundation from which the largest generational cohort can now forge significant social, cultural, and economic momentum. As a nation with such vast physical, economic, and human resources, there is every reason why the 2020s should be a golden period for Australia’s Millennials. Instead, the continued trajectory of the housing crisis will entrench many of them – despite their ambitions – as long-term renters, generating both individual and broader societal costs.

Notwithstanding the best-intended interventions, any attempt to resolve this issue needs to begin with recognising in what, why and how, Millennials want to live. Unsurprisingly, just like their generational peers of the past, the vast majority of 35–44-year-olds reside in Houses. That they choose to settle down and form families at a rate greater than any other age group is a basic, but obvious reason for this.

In recent years, alternate dwelling types have become more popular for the 35-44 cohort, albeit to varying degrees in different markets. Townhouses have become increasingly attractive, particularly in Melbourne, where it is the preferred dwelling type for just over 16% of 35–44-year households, up from 11.3% in 2011. Brisbane also experienced a similar increase, now at 10.5%, up from 6.8% in 2011. Notably, Sydney experienced a 0.4% decrease in Townhouse occupancy by 35–44-year-olds over this time.

Reflective of a widespread trend across most age cohorts, fewer 35–44-year-old households, now occupy Apartments (up to three storeys) than they did in 2011. Melbourne has experienced the greatest decline, falling from 10.3% to 7.9% in 2021, followed by Sydney which fell from 15.4% to 14%.

In Melbourne, just under 8% of 35–44-year-olds occupy Apartments (four storeys or more) – up from 2.8% in 2011. In Sydney this figure is a sizeable 20%, an increase from 10.4% in 2011, while in Brisbane it remains a lowly 3.5%, up from 2.2% in 2011. Yet to establish itself as a long-term living option for a large portion of the population, the delivery of this format in the numbers required to make any meaningful impact on the widening supply gap is heavily constrained. It will remain so for the foreseeable future.

For decades, home ownership has been fundamental to the nation’s social contract, its well-being, and its prosperity. Simply accepting that younger Australians will be worse off than their parents might be the easy thing to do, but it’s certainly not the wisest.

 

Millennials by dwelling type