The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Three reasons apartments may not deliver on density > Comments

Three reasons apartments may not deliver on density : Comments

By Ross Elliott, published 15/6/2015

The proposition in the latest crop of metropolitan strategy plans that 50 percent or more of future housing development can be accommodated in existing suburban areas of the major cities is patently ridiculous.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
Sorry mate, but given the sheer number of brand spanking new apartment blocks lining urban railways, I think there's a very real chance of a density glut; and a real chance for the aspiring home buyers to actually/finally get a foot in the door!

I also believe this amount of development has to force the hand of the government on negative gearing, which must be exclusive to brand new never ever lived dwellings, and for a maximum of say five years; after which they lose it and have it replaced by say a 30% capital gains tax!

Meaning the smart operator would be turning over stock far more frequently?

And those who just bank land should have to pay 50-70% capital gains on any investment not developed in say 2-3 years.

I mean, buying urban land must include a plan to develop it rather than sit on it and wait for residential bracket creep to make an entirely unearned small fortune, which by the way, other mugs pay through the nose for!

Concrete towers the cheapest form of mass housing and the lowest costing as individual units.

And prestressed reinforced concrete reaches it maximum strength in around 80 years, making it a very smart long term investment!

And are capable of being green, with solar panels as windows, and with roof gardens and window boxes e.g.

The one real must is they be a mix of commercial development with plenty of on site basement parking, low cost housing, and plush penthouse style ones at the top of the totem pole?

That way they're not likely to simply degenerate into no go ghettos filled with shysters, shonks and petty crims or druggies and their dealers!?

But rather expose residents to a number of employment opportunities, and the entrepreneur, to a number of commercial opportunities, with a resident market already laid on? And therefore desirable investments!

There was a time in town planning, where no high rise cast a shadow on another, but given demand, we're well past that?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 15 June 2015 11:25:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The multistorey blocks are laying up a problem for the future.
The current policy of the greens & others to shut down fossil fuel use
will baring miracles, such as a magic energy system being invented, lead
to an unreliable electricity system. The anti CO2 proponents seem to be
determined to close down coal fired electricity yesterday.
We have nothing with which to replace it, so until we do should we
build anything above three stories ?
Remember in tall buildings you can only get out of stairwells at ground.
Afterall we are putting bans on some coastal building, so why not on
the height of buildings ?
If you think this silly try as I have done walking up & down 28 floors !
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 15 June 2015 2:39:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy