Concerned council [Moreton Bay] gives up its own land for social housing

There's stuff we need to get done at all levels of government, Council, State, and (probably least of all, but not nil) Federal.

The Council needs to encourage the creation of far, far more housing. Ideally I would like to see this done by eliminating the LDR and CR1 zones entirely and replacing every instance of them with LMR2 and CR2, respectively. In addition, anywhere within a 400 m radius of a train station should be MDR. We need more medium and low-medium density across the city, not more super-tall (and expensive, environmentally worse, and socially isolating) high density apartments. And certainly not more low-density suburban sprawl. Council's current approach has been "avoid changing anything at all, but when we do change, push for the tallest towers we possibly can get away with".

Actual government-built housing is primarily the State's responsibility. And they need to do far, far more of it. I think a minimum of 10% of the rental market should be State-provided. By being a significant player in the market, and by making sure that what they provide is reasonably-priced and well-maintained, they can ensure that private rental providers have serious competition that forces them to up their game or else the now-viable option of moving into the superior State housing will cause them to lose business.

The transport network is mostly up to Council, except that:

Certain guidelines for what criteria they should use may be set by the State
The State is in charge of certain roads and projects, including some major road corridors like Moggill Rd west of the Centenary Hwy and some intersections adjoining train stations

And so we need these two levels of Government to incentivise and build better road networks. As you say, that includes slowing traffic in local streets and access to a much better bicycle network. Unfortunately at present, Council is nowhere near doing that. The metrics that their engineers use are a big part of the problem. They don't take into account the effects of things like induced demand properly, and their focus on "level of service" results in over-engineering roadways, to the detriment of pedestrians and cyclists—which in turn creates a further inducement to driving, in a vicious cycle.

I don't know if the engineers personally are to blame (or more accurately, the education that they received and the techniques that they are choosing to use based on their education) or if the problem is with the guidelines laid down by the State and Council. I'd guess it's the latter, but either way it's a problem that needs to be addressed. We need our transport network design to be comprehensive and consider the impacts on all modes of transport, not just the car throughput, in addition to impacts on those using the nearby streets and neighbourhoods.

For example, "a very good bicycle network" doesn't just mean "put bike paths up with physical barriers from the road". It means designing a network that allows cyclists to go to whatever destination they want while minimising the number of times they need to stop and wait at lights or for cars to go past. That means keeping the bike route largely separate from cars where possible, and where not possible designing it so that cyclists can get across the road(s) with a maximum of one cycle of lights, but ideally most of the time using intelligent censors to shift the bike path light to green before the cyclist even arrives at the lights. It means that bike routes need to be at least as direct as the car route between the same destinations. It's a bigger inconvenience for cyclists if they have to go a further route than it is for cars, since cars (a) tend to spend a greater percentage of the time of their trip slowed down by other cars rather than actually making forward progress (i.e., increasing the distance is not going to have an equal-sized increase on travel time) and (b) they're sitting comfortably in a moving lounge. And obviously the bike paths need to be wide enough for comfortable use. At a minimum, allowing one cyclist to overtake another, which means wide enough for two cyclists side-by-side in a one-way path, and four cyclists side-by-side when the path is dual-way (which, incidentally, is one of the many reasons I am highly critical of the CityLink cycleway design—something I didn't quite want to get into in our conversation in the Olympics thread, @b1_@kbin.social, but it's come up here so soon after you touched on that I thought I'd tag you in).

Dedicated parking space underground
Dedicated parking space outside

I'm less keen on these. Underground parking can increase the cost of building immensely and essentially make it impossible to provide "affordable" housing. I think a recent video I saw said it was something like over $200 per month extra in rent cost in the US. Given Australian construction costs, that could be more like an extra $100 or more per week here. Parking space outside isn't so directly expensive, but it does necessitate space be used for cars that could have otherwise been more living space, or some of that green space you so correctly mentioned is important to include, which drives up costs and makes active and public transportation worse.

Some parking definitely needs to be included, but in general, the amount is "much less than we have traditionally built".

Heat and noise insulation are both absolutely vital. Likewise I agree with you on the quality of reasonable amounts of space so they don't feel like shoeboxes. It shouldn't be the case that the only choices are 2-bedroom apartments where each room is tiny, or 4 bedroom houses where each room is massive. Give me spacious 2-bedroomers please.

Those playgrounds you ask for also become a lot easier to deliver once you've gone ahead and made local streets feel like truly local spaces (what the Dutch would call a woonerf), because you can have a little pocket playgrounds without fear that the kiddos are gonna run off into the street and get run over.

In summary...yeah I pretty much 100% agree with you, and I'm really mad that it's not what our elected representatives are already doing.

3 comments

This seriously needs to be done by the council.
Quote: “We’re already waiving 100 per cent of all development fees and infrastructure charges in 15 suburbs, in a radical attempt to encourage private sector construction of affordable social housing,” Flannery said.
So, what exactly did we see happen? A ton of luxury unit construction that's wasteful on the limited land we have around Brisbane and is increasing costs. Just look at the Quarry in Keperra or what units are being built in the Gap. The only people benefiting from this are wealthy, developers and people using new builds for negative gearing, so they can offset their high incomes.
Look at how this was done in the past and in other countries for fucks sake! What we need are GOOD QUALITY apartments that are actually liveable. With good noise insulation between the units. Some recreational space so you can make a bit of noise without getting every Karen to hunt you down. Add some storage space.
In Germany in the 90s, they were building council built 3-5 storey apartments, which had:
Dedicated parking space underground
Dedicated parking space outside
Separate storage / hobby rooms
Decent sized bedrooms
Strong masonry construction that reduced noise travel
Good heat insulation (double glazed windows that can also be opened)
Balcony that's usable
Playground just outside the units
Some low maintenance green space outside
Access to a very good bicycle network just outside the units
Green space nearby (that's what even the dreaded commie blocks have!)
Slow traffic in area so that kids can play and roam without being murdered by Karen delivering her kid to soccer practice.
- There's stuff we need to get done at all levels of government, Council, State, and (probably least of all, but not nil) Federal.
  The Council needs to encourage the creation of far, far more housing. Ideally I would like to see this done by eliminating the LDR and CR1 zones entirely and replacing every instance of them with LMR2 and CR2, respectively. In addition, anywhere within a 400 m radius of a train station should be MDR. We need more medium and low-medium density across the city, not more super-tall (and expensive, environmentally worse, and socially isolating) high density apartments. And certainly not more low-density suburban sprawl. Council's current approach has been "avoid changing anything at all, but when we do change, push for the tallest towers we possibly can get away with".
  Actual government-built housing is primarily the State's responsibility. And they need to do far, far more of it. I think a minimum of 10% of the rental market should be State-provided. By being a significant player in the market, and by making sure that what they provide is reasonably-priced and well-maintained, they can ensure that private rental providers have serious competition that forces them to up their game or else the now-viable option of moving into the superior State housing will cause them to lose business.
  The transport network is mostly up to Council, except that:
  Certain guidelines for what criteria they should use may be set by the State
  The State is in charge of certain roads and projects, including some major road corridors like Moggill Rd west of the Centenary Hwy and some intersections adjoining train stations
  And so we need these two levels of Government to incentivise and build better road networks. As you say, that includes slowing traffic in local streets and access to a much better bicycle network. Unfortunately at present, Council is nowhere near doing that. The metrics that their engineers use are a big part of the problem. They don't take into account the effects of things like induced demand properly, and their focus on "level of service" results in over-engineering roadways, to the detriment of pedestrians and cyclists—which in turn creates a further inducement to driving, in a vicious cycle.
  I don't know if the engineers personally are to blame (or more accurately, the education that they received and the techniques that they are choosing to use based on their education) or if the problem is with the guidelines laid down by the State and Council. I'd guess it's the latter, but either way it's a problem that needs to be addressed. We need our transport network design to be comprehensive and consider the impacts on all modes of transport, not just the car throughput, in addition to impacts on those using the nearby streets and neighbourhoods.
  For example, "a very good bicycle network" doesn't just mean "put bike paths up with physical barriers from the road". It means designing a network that allows cyclists to go to whatever destination they want while minimising the number of times they need to stop and wait at lights or for cars to go past. That means keeping the bike route largely separate from cars where possible, and where not possible designing it so that cyclists can get across the road(s) with a maximum of one cycle of lights, but ideally most of the time using intelligent censors to shift the bike path light to green before the cyclist even arrives at the lights. It means that bike routes need to be at least as direct as the car route between the same destinations. It's a bigger inconvenience for cyclists if they have to go a further route than it is for cars, since cars (a) tend to spend a greater percentage of the time of their trip slowed down by other cars rather than actually making forward progress (i.e., increasing the distance is not going to have an equal-sized increase on travel time) and (b) they're sitting comfortably in a moving lounge. And obviously the bike paths need to be wide enough for comfortable use. At a minimum, allowing one cyclist to overtake another, which means wide enough for two cyclists side-by-side in a one-way path, and four cyclists side-by-side when the path is dual-way (which, incidentally, is one of the many reasons I am highly critical of the CityLink cycleway design—something I didn't quite want to get into in our conversation in the Olympics thread, @b1_@kbin.social, but it's come up here so soon after you touched on that I thought I'd tag you in).
  Dedicated parking space underground
  Dedicated parking space outside
  I'm less keen on these. Underground parking can increase the cost of building immensely and essentially make it impossible to provide "affordable" housing. I think a recent video I saw said it was something like over $200 per month extra in rent cost in the US. Given Australian construction costs, that could be more like an extra $100 or more per week here. Parking space outside isn't so directly expensive, but it does necessitate space be used for cars that could have otherwise been more living space, or some of that green space you so correctly mentioned is important to include, which drives up costs and makes active and public transportation worse.
  Some parking definitely needs to be included, but in general, the amount is "much less than we have traditionally built".
  Heat and noise insulation are both absolutely vital. Likewise I agree with you on the quality of reasonable amounts of space so they don't feel like shoeboxes. It shouldn't be the case that the only choices are 2-bedroom apartments where each room is tiny, or 4 bedroom houses where each room is massive. Give me spacious 2-bedroomers please.
  Those playgrounds you ask for also become a lot easier to deliver once you've gone ahead and made local streets feel like truly local spaces (what the Dutch would call a woonerf), because you can have a little pocket playgrounds without fear that the kiddos are gonna run off into the street and get run over.
  In summary...yeah I pretty much 100% agree with you, and I'm really mad that it's not what our elected representatives are already doing.