Comment on Australia has a $127,000 housing affordability question
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 day agoHe clearly thinks that being the 859th-least-dense city in the world is bad, or at least an opportunity to be denser, but a lot of people would say it’s just fine. One of the world’s densest cities is Giza, in Egypt, where 4.4 million people squeeze into 98 square kilometres, not much larger than the size of Sydney’s Parramatta, where fewer than 300,000 people live.
Maybe not so much sneaky as blatant. Going from the density of Australia to Giza is a bullshit comparison.
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 1 day ago
So you’re in agreement with Kohler,. Least dense city is a metric the NSW Planning and Public Spaces Minister used, Kohler is demonstrating why its a silly metric to use by highlighting the complexities and diversity of housing across the world being boiled down to a single metric like the NSW Minister is trying to do with this ‘Least Dense Housing’ yardstick.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I am not. He’s clearly implying that current density is just fine, when the reality is that there is plenty of reason to densify and cherry picking a single extreme example at the other end of the range is disingenuous at best.
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 1 day ago
There is no implication, you’ve misunderstood why he’s made that comparison.
Think about it this way, if the housing stock of the world is to be considered, what set of that stock is likely to be acceptable to the Australian public? This is why Kohler picked the Egyptian example, do you think Australians are going to want to live in the same kind of housing that Egyptians live in? Its a non-starter.
By creating such a broad and arbitrary yardstick, the NSW Minister has just invited a political and media circus. All because he failed to account for the set of the world’s housing stock that Australians would find acceptable. There are plenty of acceptable denser housing examples to create a set of realistic options out of.
The Minister should be comparing like for like in terms of quality of housing and quality of life that brings, the measure he has chosen won’t do that, and is ridiculous for the exercise. That is Kohler’s not so subtle point.