Melbourne's zoning rules are a key factor in the city's housing affordability and density, according to a new study. The city stands out as the least restricted among Australian capital cities, with 45% of its residential sites allowed for medium-density housing. This contrasts sharply with other capitals like Hobart, Adelaide, and Sydney, where zoning restrictions are significantly more stringent, ranging from 74% to 97% of residential land being restricted. The study's co-author, Jonathan O'Brien, highlights the impact of these restrictions, stating, 'We've systematically made it illegal to build the homes we need.'
The national housing crisis, exacerbated by zoning laws, has led to a landmark agreement among federal, state, and territory governments. They committed to a target of 1.2 million new homes over five years, with varying levels of progress across jurisdictions. Victoria and the ACT are on track, while others are lagging, with some significantly behind. The study's 'atlas' of zoning laws provides a comprehensive overview, allowing for an assessment of each government's progress on promised reforms.
Economist Peter Tulip emphasizes Melbourne's progress, noting its transition from the second-most expensive city to a more affordable one due to increased density. However, he warns that other cities risk becoming like Sydney if they don't remove restrictions. The YIMBY group, a grassroots advocate for more housing, criticizes NIMBYs and calls for state governments to intervene against obstructionist councils. The Property Council, while welcoming the national target, highlights the need for a focus on construction speed and feasibility, citing delays and costs as significant barriers.
The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of cohesive planning, including infrastructure and amenities, to minimize community opposition. It suggests that a national data set is needed to understand the pipeline of approved but unbuilt homes and advocates for the private sector's role in determining housing locations, rather than government intervention.
