Quote:
Originally Posted by you&me
But then isn't the development pattern we see reflective of the intersection of what the market wants and what the market can afford?
Like, I think most people would love a large home, large property, but close to amenities ( like this)... But very few can afford that, so the compromise dictated by the general population is detached homes and power centres... Not ideal, but the best (most) people have available to them.
This is why I don't think blanket upzoning is the solution... It doesn't address what the market actually wants and overshoots what's already underutilized for redevelopment. |
If there's no market demand for townhouses then they won't get built even if all the land gets upzoned to allow for them. R-CG still allows for single family homes to be built - if that's the most economic use for lots that are up for redevelopment that's what'll get built.
I'm a long way to the right of Pepsifree on the political spectrum as normally defined, but I think this is a good policy. It's removing restrictions that are preventing the free market from providing housing for people.
If it turns out the market doesn't want that housing then nothing changes, and no-harm, no-foul. But that isn't what's likely to happen, imo.