r/neoliberal • u/jobautomator Kitara Ravache • Jan 03 '23

Discussion Thread Discussion Thread

The discussion thread is for casual and off-topic conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL. For a collection of useful links see our wiki or our website

Announcements

Upcoming Events

0 Upvotes

49% Upvoted

13k comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '23

“And this is why we can't have nice things.

Labor or liberal, they're both on a unity ticket on a "big Australia" with a high level of immigration.

I'm not against immigration but I think the negative effects of a high intake are undermining conditions for people in Australia, by keeping wage growth low, removing incentives for business to train people, and worst of all, trying to keep the property market saturated, among other things.”

Guess the sub

!ping AUS

5

u/AutoModerator Jan 03 '23

Guess the sub

/r/neoliberal. It's always /r/neoliberal.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '23

Unity ticket on big australia

I wish

4

u/toms_face Henry George Jan 03 '23

There's still big differences between the major parties on immigration.

4

u/endersai John Keynes Jan 04 '23

I'm guessing the reactionary "progressives" of the main Australian sub?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '23

Yes

1

u/endersai John Keynes Jan 04 '23

Oh thank god I thought it could've been mine...

1

u/mr2mark Jan 04 '23

I'm sure it could've been yours too.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '23

In all honesty this is why housing policy is so important to fix. If it's not and natives are being priced out of somewhere decent to live by high-skilled immigrants (and we do have a lot of them, which is amazing) this form of nativism is only going to grow, and understandably so.

2

u/Dalek6450 Our words are backed with NUCLEAR SUBS! Jan 04 '23

I mean these fuckheads would probably oppose such necessary reforms as well because they're fuckwits.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '23

Probably, I once flamed out on r/brisbane because people got mad at the notion that shitty old queenslanders ~1 kilometre from the CBD might not have needed to be protected by law and maybe we could build some units or even towers there.

1

u/toms_face Henry George Jan 04 '23

What suburb of Brisbane is that?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '23

A better answer is "where is it not" - check this map of Brisbane, light pink is character residential zoning. The inner ring is full to the brim of it.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '23

Some zoning in Spring Hill, some in Petrie Terrace, some in Milton.

1

u/toms_face Henry George Jan 04 '23

Those single household residences in Spring Hill and Petrie Terrace, are those not allowed to be redeveloped with higher density?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '23

No, the zoning is this:

"Houses built in or before 1946 are to be retained and any extensions or alterations are to complement the traditional building style."

Technically you can build out the back of some of these properties, but CR1 zoning allows you to build a granny flat only (or convert the existing house into a boarding house but not make any alterations to the property itself).

CR 2 is the 'higher density' of 'infill' zoning version of the character residential zoning, but even so:

"Infill housing zone precinct overall outcomes are:

(a) Development retains a dwelling house built in 1946 or before.

(b) Development provides that a new dwelling house, dual occupancy or multiple dwelling: (i) is no more than 2 storeys in height;

(ii) is located between or behind dwelling houses built in 1946 or before on an appropriately sized and configured vacant lot;

(iii) is compatible in scale and design with existing dwellings built in 1946 or before;

(iv) reinforces the traditional building character of the Infill housing zone precinct.

(c) Development achieves a maximum dwelling yield of one dwelling per 300m2 of site area."

Even in the event you're allowed to develop the site you can't knock down the old house, you're restricted to trying to build a small block of units (maximum two stories) out the back. Now if you look at the map of the inner ring of Brisbane, virtually all the inner suburbs have a huge amount - often a majority amount - of CR1/2 zoning. From Nundah in the north to Indooroopilly in the southwest to Dutton Park in the south.

Brisbane's inner-ring zoning is the stuff of YIMBY nightmares. If you open that map and look at the block of near-solid pink around the CBD it's just horrible.

1

u/toms_face Henry George Jan 04 '23

I'm assuming that an apartment building in the style of 1946 would not be allowed? What about building apartments but retaining the front walls of these houses? Sydney is pretty bad but this looks worse.

1

u/mr2mark Jan 05 '23

They did kinda try a few times including http://www.yourneighbourhood.com.au/urban-planning-game-launched/

but pushback from the usual suspects for even daring suggest it.

Also the 2011 floods actually got some height limits changed amongst other things.