Stingy NIMBYs VS Dastardly Developers - do we have to choose? (feat.

[@CityConnectionsMedia]

Was great filming with you! We'll have to do it again sometime on my channel! Also, this video shows just how fast I talk, so I might need to slow it down a bit...

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

It was great filming with you too! We'll definitely have to film together again

[@Byefriendo]

That development really shows that nothing will be enough for NIMBYs, it is desperately needed housing right next to UNSW and a light rail stop and huge bus rank, in close proximity to stores and other amenities (cuz the uni), replacing a car park (who cares) and between two existing medium height buildings. I couldn't think of a more perfect spot to put more housing.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

100%, that's why I thought it served as such a good example for the video. Only criticisms I can come up with for the development is that IGLU tends to be expensive and I don't believe there is any social housing coming with it, but the NIMBY pamphlet doesn't even mention those two things because housing affordability is very likely the last thing on its writer's mind.

[@Byefriendo]

@@ChrisTopher_Urbanism yeah, and more social housing is definitely needed around there though the lack of it wouldn't be enough for me to oppose the build. Though lack of affordable housing inclusion often gets used as a point to argue against new developments as a whole which just seems counterproductive. I would rather have new housing, social or otherwise, instead of nothing. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. And as you say, the people opposing that don't care that it's not affordable, they probably see that as a plus anyway.

[@BuildingBeautifully]

Great video! Developers are obviously shady, but at the end of the day they want to increase housing supply and so have a common goal with us YIMBYs. I have almost no sympathy for NIMBYs, who with little exception were simply lucky enough to buy property at the right time and now are more than happy to pull up the ladder from underneath them. Thank you for making this video; it is important to educate us on just why many progressives oppose increased housing density, as it will help us win the great NIMBY vs YIMBY debate.

[@jack2453]

Careful who you pal up with. Developers number one aim is to make maximum profit. That means keeping housing prices as high as possible by managing supply.

[@piddlingtuna]

Another banger. I hope you can afford rent in Sydney again someday.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

Thanks!

[@jurchenaz4276]

Oh shit, nice vid! Please keep it up, we need more advocates for YIMBYism!

[@piddlingtuna]

If the planning process wasn't so opaque and corrupt, perhaps the developers wouldn't be so corrupt and dastardly 🤔

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

Yep, less restrictions on small scale development and more restrictions on money laundering thanks

[@akswalia6588]

I think youve just become MY FAVOURITE KZbinR!

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

uh oh don't tell Sharath

[@tintin_999]

Even if there were no planning rules, housing is a franchise monopoly, so new houses will only be provided by developers at the absorption rate equilibrium to maximise their monopoly returns.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

As far as I know there is currently no government-owned developer or housing provider with a monopoly on the housing market in Australa. Hong Kong's housing market might almost be considered a franchise monopoly since it's over 40% government housing.

[@pebblepod30]

Nice to see a new urbanism channel. I just hope you stick to the things that promote Solidarity around affordable housing, and scrap things that delete from it. Too many channels turn off a wider based because they expect that anyone who is working class must also be "far left", and we are not.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

Cheers! Thanks for offering your perspective, could you elaborate with some examples? It certainly wasn't my intention to assume the political views of the rest of the working class, or any group for that matter - every group has plenty of diversty of opinion in it.

[@pebblepod30]

@ChrisTopher_Urbanism I did not mean you in your videos so far. As an example, I really love the main purpose of a Channel Called Second Thought - it is about the Public Economic interests VS Owners of Big Capital. He has a "Socialist" perspective (i.e. democracy in economic power) that encompasses the Socialist Tradition Inc it's failures and successes, and where it was just a scam to gain power. These are all things that have a very, very broad appeal in terms of self interest, across the political spectrum - even if a lot of people first get triggered and misunderstand the word "socialist" as he uses it in its traditional sense, not how polticans seeking power used it. But then he severly limits the success of that by also talking about so many other issues that Destroy working or housing class Solidarity, bc MOST people of same economic interest are not all far left on every single other of the many topics he talks about. Thus it is a strategy of failure.

[@pebblepod30]

@ChrisTopher_Urbanism Compare that to a much better channel or effective people in terms of practical results & solidarity like More Perfect Union, or people like Christian Smalls (head of Amazon Union) or Shaun Feign (head of Auto Union & turned it around) that ONLY focus on issues of that economic class, and thereby build Economic Class Solidarity and great success. Meanwhile Second Thought (and other leftists are more counter productive again) by destroying class Solidarity by in effect saying "if you stand with me on economic class matters, then you must agree with Far Left political culture on all things". Even when it is very very simplistic to do so, plus pits an entire very broad & most common economic class against each other, rather than promoting Solidarity like other Channels or people do who do the opposite.

[@pebblepod30]

@ChrisTopher_Urbanism Does that make sense?? I find urban planning type channels tend to do this a LOT better than Socialist ones, even though they are both really about depend on Solidarity to be successful. Your target audience is very broad too. It includes me & my interests, even though I own my own home, and will likely inherit more later in life.

[@pebblepod30]

@ChrisTopher_Urbanism An example of channels of people who build Solidarity rather than destroy it are channels like More Perfect Union (imagine their commitment in not even talking about Gaza), Christian Smalls (Amazon union), Shaun Fain (UAW union) and I'll assume Mondragon couldn't have been the success it is today unless they built Solidarity when they formed. And I also note some people talk about Solidarity, but what they really mean is the opposite narrcistic demand of "I demand to hijack this cause of every one of my other concerns, and thus derail it".

[@thedamnedatheist]

Great video guys.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

Thanks!

[@temlan7929]

Great video - bravo !

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

Thanks!

[@pebblepod30]

What absolute lies from the NIMBYS. I own my own home and i would love to sign a petition to support such housing. Lots of my friends are screwed by the housing crisis, and i hate it. One of my best friends suicided in 2023 & housing was a major factor.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

It can be good to subscribe to your council's mailing list as they often ask for feedback before approving new developments, and they would no doubt appreciate voices of support for appropriate developments. I'm sorry to hear about your friend.

[@pebblepod30]

@ChrisTopher_Urbanism Oh wow I did not think of that!! Thank you, I will do that. Thanks for all these responses. Best of luck to you! Your generation needs it.

[@TheCoralie87]

😞 So sorry for your loss.

[@tintin_999]

“We know we can solve our housing problems because Singapore is a real country. Why aren’t we copying something that we have seen work elsewhere?” - Cameron Murray

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

What's great about Singapore is that they employed multiple solutions, as is necessary in a problem as complex as this one. They have plenty of public housing, a high tax on foreign buyers, and they have increased the amount of new housing they're building signifcantly.

[@szgproduction6233]

I love the haircut Chris ❤ not to take away the great contents

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

Cheers!

[@therandomidiotontheinternet]

zachary jumpscare

[@therealsunnyk]

1:27 oh shit look down or it'll ruin the take.

[@pebblepod30]

One day there will be more Voters who want the Housing Crisis to end, than who want the Housing Crisis to continue, if it hasnt happened already. I am a home owner and I want it to end, for various reasons. And then another day when a poltican seeking election will realise it.

[@pebblepod30]

Upzoning actually increases property prices, if higher density can replace it.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

My understanding is that upzoning increases land values but because more housing can be built on the same amount of land, it stabilises property prices

[@pebblepod30]

@ChrisTopher_Urbanism I see, so it's a win-win. People already living there in low rise them win financially too.

[@kennylee8936]

Another dimension and hopefully a video that can be done in the future by you guys is reducing car dependancy in Sydney and the cons of living in suburbia. Living in suburbia or outer suburbs means you're more likely farther away from amenities like shops and public transport (and this is a trend that will continue to grow with governments favouring transit oriented development, meaning that there will be less detached housing near train stations and shops). If you're not lucky enough to live near a bus stop, you're more likely to drive...therefore adding to traffic and congestion that many Sydneysiders complain about despite being in denial and being hypocrites that their presence on the road adds to traffic. From a kids perspective living in such a setting, they can't drive until at least 16, which means for the first 15 years of life...they'd be reliant on the parent to drive them everywhere...which therefore limits their opportunities to be more independent, and therefore if they don't get the taste of it before driving...the cycle continues and encouraging them to add to more traffic. That's not to say that they can't walk...but if what they're surrounds are is nothing but detached houses for miles and miles...the incentive just drops significantly. This is a pro for apartment/mid-high density living, because they're more likely to be located near shops and public transport. If it's walking distance, then the incentive to walk is even more likely...which therefore means less incentive to drive...therefore reducing congestion on roads. Now for the backyard...there are always parklands for kids to play, and encouraging them at a young age to go there on their own...bond with siblings and mates...can help improve their sense of independence when they get older. In a way, suburbia promotes sheltering because you're far away and because there aren't businesses and amenities keeping streets more lit nearby...being out at night seems more unsafe. This is not to say that apartment living doesn't have cons...which I'm sure you're familiar with...but we cannot deny the cons of suburbia either.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

Excellent points! Kids definitely bear the brunt of suburbia's disadvantage. I made a video about that last year called did traffic ruin your childhood, it discusses some of the points you mentioned here

[@kennylee8936]

@@ChrisTopher_Urbanism ohhhh wow... definitely will check it out I feel like if we really want to promote public transport and mid-high density...we need to really tear down Australia's love affair with cars. I feel like inevitably we will need laws like Singapore where cars are crazy expensive or Manila where you're number plate determines the day you're allowed to drive...what could a law that aims to reduce car usage look like in Sydney?

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

@@kennylee8936 Hope you enjoy it! I think just including more of the cost of driving to society (health and infrastructure) in the cost of cars would go a long way, especially if that cost was dramatically increased with the size and weight of the car to encourage smaller and safer cars for those who do drive and to make sure those who still drive huge cars pay for the damage their vehicle causes.

[@aslkdfjhg]

Life's too short to wait 15 years to buy a 2 bedroom apartment. even with all time high prices, you'll have a better quality of life staying out of Sydney.

[@jack2453]

I don't think it helps your arguments to characterise anyone who disagrees with you as a money-hungry landlord (from a currently unfashionable generation). It is not necessarily about property values. Every property-owning boomer knows property values near Chatswood and Bondi Junction are much higher than in low-density suburbs.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

I'm not sure I did characterise everyone who disagrees with me as such - I did try to explore why unexpected people might side with rich landlords though. Chatswood and Bondi Junction are both incredibly high amenity suburbs with heaps of shops, transport and great public spaces. They're also surrounded by low density suburbia. The biggest difference in property prices is between west and east, and western Sydney has been building far more housing than eastern Sydney despite eastern Sydney having far more jobs and much better transport.

[@jack2453]

@@ChrisTopher_Urbanism You haven't adressed the point. You claim nimbys oppose density because they are are motivated by property values. But density increases values - and the nimbys know it. If you want to convince or argue against them or demonise them you will have to look elsewhere for justification.

[@BigBlueMan118]

@@jack2453 Your point completely misses the key issue - how much more expensive would desirable locations like Chatswood, Bondi Junction or St Leonards be if there was less supply of dense buildings there? How much value would a home lose if its previously-amazing location is being shadowed by now being under a taller apartment tower with busier roads and less parking (which is what single family home boomers care about)?

[@yesand5536]

I'll let the burghers of Woollahra and Kuringgai know your point on why they're missing out on increased value. I'm sure they'll drop their legal challenges to TOD.

[@BigBlueMan118]

Great video Chris. I honestly don't know how I feel about the Woolloomooloo and Kings Cross green bans. On the one hand: possibly my favourite area in the city is the bit just to the North of Kings Cross station round Elizabeth Bay, which is probably the best dense walkable neighbourhood out of the 1930s left anywhere in Australia, has a great train connection running every 5-10 minutes all day, has loads of activity and amenities with beautiful architecture. On the other hand contrast with Woolloomooloo (which by the way could theoretically have a train station retrofitted on the eastern suburbs line viaduct and was in the original planning for the railway), which is rather boring except in pockets, has some nasty roads slashing through its heart, and is generally nowhere near as nice to be in I think. Lets be honest, much of the housing stock in Woolloomooloo is just junk and not particularly old. Woolloomooloo doesn't need to function as a museum, we have other areas for that, you could retain plenty of the 1800s housing stock whilst also enabling large developments to liven it up, and throttle back some of those roads plus possible put the Eastern Distributor underground.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

Thanks Kyle! Woolloomooloo has certainly changed since the green bans - the Eastern Distributor was built in the 90s, well after the ban was lifted. The purpose of that segment was not necessarily that Woolloomooloo can't change, but that the preservation of trees, social housing and worker housing was important, and so was the prevention of oversupply of office space and surface parking. Increasing density there now and burying the Eastern Distributor would be excellent, especially if the high rate of social housing was maintained

[@ADingoTookMyDasco]

I can see one of the NIMBY's arguments almost every day as I commute to work on the new section of Airport drive between the international & domestic terminals. As you look ahead in one section you're treated to a great view of the Sydney CBD skyline, but look a little to the right you'll see all the Mascot residential towers that look melded together as if they're one giant block of units. Don't get me wrong, Mascot Tower excluded for obvious reasons, but I think that the development around Mascot station is a prime example of how high density housing should work. It's great when you're in there, with easy access to amenities & some of the best eateries in Sydney, and I wish I could afford the rent or purchase price of one of the units there, it's just that it's a bit of an eyesore when you're looking at it from afar. Also, I don't agree with your call to remove garages from units. I commute on a small capacity motorcycle because it's cheaper, quicker & more convenient than public transport. I also have a couple of larger motorcycles that I have fun with on the weekends. And I'm not the only person doing this, around 1% of commuters use a motorcycle. Having a secure place to store them is paramount due to the ease in which they can be stolen, so a lockable garage is a must. But you also have people with disabilities & families with small children who rely on a vehicle for transport because public transport doesn't meet their needs. Then you have the e-bike commuters. Around half of all new bicycle sales are for e-bikes, and I'd argue that charging an e-bike battery in a garage is much safer than in an apartment if the worst was to happen. And if you do none of these things, a garage is a great place to store things or repurpose as an extra living space, like a home gym, or can be rented out if you don't need it.

[@metricstormtrooper]

Some people will never be happy with public transport, no matter how good it is, so they will always say that it doesn't suit their needs, they will be the first to complain about cycle lanes taking up on street parking.

[@ADingoTookMyDasco]

@@metricstormtrooper Tell that to the wheelchair bound disabled person that my friend bought a used car from. He had it setup so that he could get in & load the wheelchair on the roof by himself & drive using all hand controls. His public transport option was a private bus route that didn't cater to wheelchairs going to a train station that didn't have lifts & his only access was via ramps. I choose to ride a motorcycle because it's quicker, cheaper and more convenient for me, even factoring in registration, insurance & maintenance. If public transport was better in 2 of those 3 things I'd be using it instead. I also have a friend that just switched from riding a bus to riding a motorcycle & he'll save over $1,000 a year & over 4 hours a week in travel costs & time. Public transport isn't a cure all, especially in its current condition in Sydney.

[@jack2453]

I entirely take your point about certain mobility issues, but find the 'what about the disabled' argument against public transport disingenuous. Lots of disabled e.g. visually impaired benefit from public transport.

[@ADingoTookMyDasco]

@@jack2453 I'm not arguing against public transport. I'm calling it out because it's shit & doesn't meet most people's needs. That's why just over 20% of commuters use public transport while almost 70% use a car. Take Bossley Park, where I grew up, as an example. It was developed in the 70's & early 80's yet the only public transport options are busses that take 30-50 minutes to travel to Fairfield station. And that's just one suburb in a swathe of them, starting with Wetherill Park in the north to Horningsea Park in the south. That's over 180,000 people who don't have convenient access to mass public transport options.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

I can't say I drive that way much and I don't think I've ever noticed the Mascot skyline. When approaching that Green Square-adjacent part of Sydney I tend to ride or walk along Todman Avenue and have never found the skyline unpleasant. I'm sure it could have more personality like the CBD or Parramatta though. My argument was not so much removing garages from units as not having mandatory parking minumums. That way, the the cost of parking for new housing isn't disproportionate to the amount of cars the residents own, as people will be able to buy or rent a place with or without a parking spot depending on their needs. Some inner city councils are already doing a good job with this. Additionaly, an ebike takes up 1/10th of the space as a car and the cost for parking them would reflect this. I'd imagine the story would be similar with motorbikes.

[@windwaker0rules]

So you blame The Greens as NIMBYS but the Labor party which removed all government regulation on these criminal property developers and landlords in the 90s gets a free pass for some reason? Also the leader of sydney YIMBY was a software programmer at Wespac and their deputy worked for various property developers, you know having the same side on both sides of the bargaining table.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

The intention of talking about the Greens in this video wasn't to point fingers but to explore why a progressive party would hold oddly conservative views on this one issue. I certainly didn't intend to give Labor a free pass - exploring that aspect would have increased the runtime a fair bit but in hindsight I definitely could have mentioned it as context for the crinimal developers segment. Working for a company isn't the same thing as being, say, a shareholder or sitting on the board of directors. A job's a job. I was in the army reserves but I didn't make the nuclear submarine decision or commit war crimes. Most of Sydney YMBY's leadership has been adversely affected by the housing crisis and have had to move out of their neighbourhoods due to increasing prices, hence why they formed the group.

[@Skasaha_]

@@ChrisTopher_Urbanism The Greens have both working class people and middle class, so there's conflicts there inside, and much more visibly at the federal level recently they can get wedged having to oppose a mediocre version of a policy they do actually support in order to have any leverage at all to improve it.

[@jack2453]

I absolutely agree with densification and the Minns TOD program. But I do find it just a little annoying that even though you gave bothered to research what happened in the 60s and 70s, you completely dismiss as venal the motives of the people who lived through this and fought the battles.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

Perhaps I could have been clearer but I was largely dismissing the arguments of people who adopted the aesthetic of the green bans while opposing developments without good reason. The green bans segment was intended not so much a boomer NIMBY origin story as it was a Greens Party origin story.

[@Nuganics]

I don't own real estate or even a car. We are in this situation as we continually interfere with the free market. Look at markets that are more free eg mobile phones where supply and demand are balanced and there is a variety of quality/price options for all. If you truly want it fixed long-term let the free market work like it does in every other market.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

I think a balance is needed here - regulations as far as build quality, environmental protection and robust anti-money laundering legislation are needed to ensure high quality developments and liveable spaces. Restrictions on the kind of housing that can be built definitely need to be significantly reduced so that the market can respond to demand, as you've said. A well-functioning social housing system with enough spots for those who need it is important to solving the housing crisis too, and in some cases (e.g. in Vienna) it can bring all rent prices down since private rentals have to compete with non-market housing.

[@Nuganics]

@@ChrisTopher_Urbanism Nice to see you have thought about it. Regulations do reduce supply more than we think. For example in mobile phones some have features that detect if you are in a car crash so are life saving. If we regulate and force all phones to have this feature, cheap phones are not possible and it will reduce supply/competition. Regulation is a one size fits all which isn't ideal for all and I think the market does a better job overall than centralised control. Social housing might be needed now as the market system has been disrupted so much but in the mobile phone market affordable options are available without any government involvement. So if these problems have been solved in a more free market like mobile phones why won't it work for homes?

[@sirivia7208]

Government creates private property. When you buy a house, how do you know you own it? A title deed. Who distributes title deeds? The government. The government provides courts to arbitrate the ownership of that property. Without the government enforcing the border between your house and someone else's, you do not own it. Why? Because if the shell company decides they want to drill for oil​ in your backyard, who will stop them. Knowing this, governments can and should pragmatically distribute land (private property) in the way that best advances society, and evidence shows that housing is well managed in places like Singapore, Vienna, germany etc. Where many if not most live in public affordable housing. For an example of what happens when there is no government regulation, take a look at the Kowloon walled city or any other slum for this matter. Complete market efficiency is a lie, and not supported by real world data, but some "logic", hence why it is not completely relied upon in any developed nation.@@Nuganics

[@Nuganics]

@@sirivia7208 "Government creates private property" isn't true and a lie in the real world. All they can do is extort property from society backed by violence. Enforcing real estate contracts doesn't need gov eg look at any apartment complex and HOA as it can be enforced via private contract law. Gov doesn't create mobile phones and the market serves the poor while everything the gov gets into education/housing/health is expensive for the poor due to misaligned insensatives. The medium housing cost in Singapore in AUD1000/week so clearly not working so let the free market work like it does in every other market or let the poor suffer.

[@josephj6521]

23 storeys in suburban Kensington? Sorry, it’s ridiculous. I’d like to know if there are apartments suitable for families rather than the usual 1 & 2 bedroom chicken coups?

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

It's not in suburban Kensington, I'm not sure how you could come away from this video witht that idea. It's on Anzac Parade opposite UNSW, and it's student housing (that's what IGLU builds). Students place considerable pressure on the housing market in the area and UNSW currently has the lowest amount of off-campus student accommodation in the country.

[@josephj6521]

@@ChrisTopher_Urbanism that makes sense. I hope there is enough accommodation for the majority of UNSW students so it’ll take the pressure off other accommodation in the area. All universities should have suitable accommodation.

[@jack2453]

Not sure I buy your overshadowing arguments. 'These people shouldn't complain about the shade from the high-rises because they already have shade from trees"

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

That's not quite how I framed it but I could have explained it better. It's not so much "shouldn't complain" as "those who would be affected are already getting limited morning sun." There was also no solution offered besides "do not build it". If they mentioned a specific amount of floors that could be removed for significant solar access gains or if a heliostat was proposed, that would be a different story.

[@jack2453]

@@ChrisTopher_Urbanism Likewise the yimby videos are equally unsubtle. We could do with both sides being less shouty. Perhaps we could have debate that is nuanced and life enhancing like shade from trees, not chilling and alienating like shade from buildings.

[@user-wy4ci7yj6b]

@@jack2453 I think you're grossly misunderstanding the thrust of the argument. A nice nuanced discussion would be lovely, but the fact that greed and inequality is at the heart of what shapes our cities a hard response is somewhat justified. Clearly you are not willing to take the YIMBY side on this matter, so perhaps you could make a video to show your take on the issue.

[@jack2453]

@@user-wy4ci7yj6b I've been fighting greed and inequality all my life. Australian cities are car-choked suburban nightmares swallowing biodiversity and cooking the planet. But if you think a retired couple in Haberfield is the enemy and property developers are your friends you are in for a surprise.

[@ChrisTopher_Urbanism]

Not sure how you inferred that conclusion for a video where I have an entire section about the crimes of contemporary property developers. My thesis was that individual developments should be considered from a values-based point of view with an eye for equality and environmentalism. Opposing student housing next to a university and a tram stop where a carpark currently is inescusable on a good faith basis, just as committing mass fraud and leaving the country is inexcusable on a good faith basis. One is obviously more impactful than the other but when NIMBYs operate on a large scale they make a big impact, too.