Queensland Housing Minister Meaghan Scanlon says the government is aiming to maximise the use of space as the state continues to grapple with the housing shortage.

Hopefully Minister Meaghan Scanlon is able to maintain their stance on pushing for higher density housing.

Around our area they are cutting up ex-farming blocks (including a heap of trees and scrub) in to housing estates with 250m2 blocks. Its absolute insanity to convert that much land in to dwellings that are so useless - they can’t fit many people per house, and there’s so much wasted space with “backyards” you can’t use, walls so close you get no privacy (less than units in fact due to the lack of insulation and sound proofing!), and seperate services being run to every block which is super inefficient compared to centralised services.

I would love to see these ridiculous estates being done in medium to high density housing with a big park in the middle instead.

Also I like the idea of blocks of units being subsidised by the Government, but then containing x% of public housing. The building is less risk for a builder to take on because of the financial backing, the building is of better quality because it has to meet Government standards, and it integrates public housing with private housing to prevent “slums”.

  • ZagorathEnglish
    7·
    11 months ago

    This is really good, but it’s only scratching the surface. We need the government to not just be densifying its existing social housing, but also purchasing new land on which to build new social housing. We need the State Government to require increased density in cities’ zoning plans, and for the local Councils to deliver on that. We need better laws to protect tenants who speak up for themselves not just in theory, but with real teeth in practice.

    Also I like the idea of blocks of units being subsidised by the Government, but then containing x% of public housing

    As long as it’s truly public housing, and not “affordable” housing, which is typically a much weaker threshold to meet. Just 20% below market values for 5 years, in some cases (and after that time, it can be priced whatever they want!) There should still be incentives for more of that kind of housing too, but true public housing needs to take back a significant percentage of the market.

    • 𝚝𝚛𝚔OPEnglish
      3·
      11 months ago

      As long as it’s truly public housing, and not “affordable” housing, which is typically a much weaker threshold to meet. Just 20% below market values for 5 years, in some cases (and after that time, it can be priced whatever they want!)

      Goddamnit, there’s always a sting in any government plan that sounds like it might actually help society.

      And the root cause is always money for private interests.