The Chief Minister is right, 120 squares should be enough for some to call home

Canberra really has no choice? Nonsense. Albanese and Chalmers overshot their Treasury immigration target by an inconceivable 130% (265,000). Deliberately.

We’ve already arrived at permanent rental crisis and housing un-affordability. Good luck even buying a home, unless you have the Bank of Mum & Dad.

Australians don’t want this widening inequality, Ian. They don’t want to be told, they don’t like backyard BBQs and swings, and actually, they’d prefer vertical schools and vertical living. Or, if they’re lucky, a new house, 50-80km from town.

But you don’t even see the immigration deluge. You line up with Mr Barr, who is equally chill, about this all-time social engineering under federal Labor.

Ian once again ‘not asking’ the key questions of an ACT Government policy but instead parroting the promotional taglines.

The theory of two standalone houses and at least one of them a well designed single level smaller house with at least an average of 400sqk of land is great for a city. I’m sure reasonable people all agree on that.

But Ian should be asking…
Are the eligible RZ1 blocks for higher density in the right locations for densification? Analysis showed the vast majority of blocks eligible under this policy were towards the outskirts of the city.

Are existing houses generally situated on their block to allow this second dwelling build? Architects will tell you No they aren’t. Two architects I talked to said a lot of eligible RZ1 blocks are sloping in the backyard. Adding cost to the build.

Will the second houses be affordable. At approximately $4-500k per build, that’s not an efficient or productive way to add extra dwellings to a city.

Why are so many blocks in the actual inner suburbs that people want to live in, exempted from this policy? Reid, Ainslie, Turner, Forrest, Griffith. This policy is not targeted at increasing the city’s population near key infrastructure, services and amenities in fact it will achieve the opposite.

If I wanted a 120sqm shoebox I’d move to Singapore or London, the appeal of Canberra is more space and land!
Also, the ‘If it’s good enough for the Chief Minister then it’s good enough for us’ mentality is cringe and just shows the writer can’t think for himself.

“The other factors driving greater density are the sheer overwhelming cost of housing these days, not enough homes to meet demand, the need to contain the city within a manageable footprint and the fact that many people want to live closer to the city and near services.”

It’s almost like it’s a problem of their own making. Yes, housing is extremely expensive, exacerbated by the trickle release of land. You want the price to come down? Make more land available to buy.

Yes, many people would love to live close to the city, hence the cost of these suburbs. They still have zero issue selling off any new land they choose to release though, even at the outskirts of the ACT, so it seems that many people are happy to live further out on a decently sized property as well.

Lets not forget one of the justifications for this plan that was stated was that it was “better for the environment”. When you are making decisions based on ideology, it rarely works out well.

There are of course multiple problems with this idea:
1) Just because some singles/couples can live in a 120sqm dogbox doesn’t mean it makes sense to enforce that size on all redevelopments.
2) They are admitting that these are not meant for families so they are saying that if you have a family, we’re not interested in catering to you. Begone to the outer suburbs with you. Hardly seems fair now does it? Families may be able to stretch to a decently sized duplex but the vast majority have no hope of affording full sized residential blocks in these areas.
3) The idea of densification of inner city areas with multiple tiny houses won’t work when the land itself is valued at 1-1.5 million. After taking into account all the costs involved, they’d have to be selling these tiny houses for approx 1.2+ million each just to break even much less turn a profit. Who’s spending that kind of money on a glorified granny flat?
4) Granny flats can already be built up to what 90 or 100sqm? so yeah, 120 IS essentially a granny flat.

My partner and I have a 3br house on a 750sqm block in an older suburb. It’s an ex-govie and is only 92sqm. While it’s cozy for a 3br house it would be fine for even a family with 2 kids. I’d actually consider a 120sqm house BIG
I recently helped a friend renovate a 3br investment property he wants to sell. It’s living space is much is much much bigger then our place but is on a 300sq block in Gungahlin. It has a nice courtyard and outdoor space. That entire house aand block would fit in my frint yard.
The house I grew up in Evatt, my parents built in 1974. It was on a 1,000sqm block and was not much bigger than our place now. I would say it was around 110sqm. When my parents sold it in the late 80s the agent at the time said it was the first 3br house he’d seen in the ACT that had an en-suite. That was unheard of in a small house at the time.
120sqm of living space should be more than enough for a family.