Queensland Science Network reposted this
When you say “no” to quality development, what are you saying “yes” to?: 😱Homelessness 😱Unaffordability 😱Economic stagnation 😱Environmental destruction on the fringe where land is “cheap” (but nothing else is) 😱A lack of critical mass that drives urban services, transport and amenity 😱Key workers like nurses and firies having to commute hours to and from home 😱Fewer options for your downsizing parents 😱Locking your kids out of ownership 😱Rental stress 😱Mortgage stress 😱Family breakups Etc. #YIMBY
Mike can I ask why Pinkeba and Wellcamp were never repurposed for emergency housing?
That doesn't look like quality development to me. It looks lazy, uninviting, and brutal. We can do better.
If you want to see what large scale high density mixed (social, student, affordable, and high end) housing with commercial and community services (including churches, GPs, shops, cafés, pubs, playgrounds etc) planned in look like, take a long look at the Tottenham Hale development in London. Seriously well planned and built. Thousands of homes-yes apartments.
You are also saying yes to poorer water quality to receiving waters (like Moreton Bay, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park or even your valued local waterway), yes to increasing urban heat (more canopy cover in private and public spaces needed), yes to increasing water demand (overall and per capita), yes to increasing risks from climate change and yes to the contribution all of the above (and your list as well Mike) makes towards declining health and mental health in the community.... and so many more etcetera's! This is why we need to get it right... the cookie cutter approach is not working!
When the new townhouses being built near me are more expensive than my house, it suggests the affordability outcomes espoused by the YIMBY movement aren't correct That's not to say infill development is not a good thing (so long as it is well considered and designed) The sales pitch is not entirely accurate
You missed the key one. When you say "no" you are saying "yes" to massive intergenerational wealth transfer from young people to existing property owners (i.e. Gen X and Baby Boomers). Young people should be raging.
you are also saying "yes" to no shakeup of the construction industry; you are also saying "yes" to no investigation of the underlying causes of the population boom
Your ‘no’ seems to equate to high density development. I agree with you however, it needs to managed well.
Leadership & Strategy for Sustainable Enterprise | Innovation & Policy for Effective Government | Energy Policy & Strategy | Thought Leader | Project Leader | Mentor
4hWell Comrade, that's all true. But when you say "yes" to poor quality development? Soulless shoe boxes, social isolation, no green space, no local access to shops, services or transport, no community, and still high cost of access and high ongoing costs of energy inefficient buildings ... creating prisoners in their own 'castle'. Homelessness is a government choice ... not to invest in accommodation for those who the private market will never care to cater for. Quantity without quality is not a strategy for any of the items on your list. There are some good examples around fortunately .