As the battlelines for the next federal election take shape, Australia’s housing debate is becoming increasingly polarised.
The scale of the challenge is well known. Too many Australians can’t afford to buy, rent, or access social housing or emergency accommodation. But with pressure mounting on all levels of government to address the complex causes of the crisis, there is an emerging danger that ideological divides and declining community trust will overshadow effective long-term solutions.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
Recent controversies over infill housing proposals, the idea of walkable and resilient 15-minute cities, and even attacks on the value of planning itself all point to increasing polarisation about housing and the built environment.
But instead of allowing housing to become the next culture war, we should elevate good planning and reaffirm its fundamental role in creating great communities.
Good planning means more than just increasing the housing supply. It ensures that the right homes are built in the right places, supported by the necessary infrastructure, services, and amenities. When housing is well-planned, it integrates with existing communities and adds to the quality of life for everyone. And when communities are well-planned, they just work. Streets feel safe and connected, buildings are sustainable and energy efficient, public transport runs smoothly, essential services are accessible, and neighbourhoods are resilient and better protected from the impacts of natural hazards and climate change. This requires a comprehensive approach that considers social, economic, and environmental factors rather than just addressing housing supply in isolation.
All of this is surely what the Housing Accord means when it commits governments to 1.2 million “well-located” homes over the next five years.
Unfortunately, housing is increasingly contested, with artificial divisions fuelling polarisation. Renters versus homeowners, density versus sprawl, developers versus communities – these ultimately distract from the fundamental issue we must tackle: how do we accommodate a growing population in a way that is equitable, sustainable, and enhances the quality of life?
A planning-led approach is crucial – one that prioritises thoughtful design, incorporates community input, and integrates housing with essential elements like transport, jobs, green spaces, and public services.
Good planning also builds trust by ensuring transparency in decision-making processes and giving communities a real say in shaping their future. When people feel heard and see the benefits of development in their neighbourhoods, it becomes easier to address resistance to change and build consensus around shared visions.
This is how we get more communities to say “yes” when it comes to the well-located homes we need.
In an increasingly divided political landscape, we need a housing system that is united around a shared vision and a common purpose to solve the housing challenges we face. We should start with the idea that housing is both a basic human right and essential infrastructure. Just as we approach roads, hospitals, and schools with a commitment to evidence-based policy and public benefit, so too should we approach housing. Elevating evidence and the public interest to the centre of our efforts to address housing means embracing planning as an essential tool for shaping liveable and resilient communities.
Planning is not the sole answer to the housing crisis, but it should be an important part of the solution. Good planning is how we can think long-term, balance competing interests, navigate complex social and economic dynamics, and ensure that the benefits of development are shared across society.
Rather than being viewed as red tape or a cost to new housing, planning is the foundation for creating the liveable places that people value. If we want great communities, we need good planning.
Is the best response to the housing crisis more planning, red tape, delays, more I am not really sure sort of stuff?
I enthusiastically agree! The new high density housing approach by the Victorian government is a case in point, which I foresee leading to simplistic rezoning, coupled with fast tracked permits. Developers will jump onto the chance to make fast money, and throw up a lot of poorly designed buildings,
that maximise yield, site boundaries and profits, but vastly worsening quality of life for the residents both in and around the development.
No thought given to communal open space that merely check a box for area but aren’t actually useful, meagre and often unusable green spaces with artificial grass and little to no living plants, poorly considered community access, no opportunity for residents to engage with neighbours. When you look at many new developments built today,
it’s clear the lessons of the past haven’t been learned.
Consideration for planning needs more than just a large fee and a few ticks on a form – the building / development industry shows utter unwillingness to make the most of these rare opportunities to shape communities.
Height limits of up to 20 storeys were suggested by Victorian government, but if you look to some the world’s best planned residential neighbourhoods, such as Paris, Lisbon or Madrid, 3-6 storeys is typically the limit without exception – We shouldn’t be basing residential neighbourhoods on the skyscrapers we’re accustomed to in our urban centres.
Perhaps all large residential projects should mandate design and oversight by both planners and architects, to have any chance of a positive outcome for all stakeholders.