"I don't see anything wrong with this", says the author of this piece. Well neither do I. So why write it? Beats me. It seems an attempt to demonise investors, financiers, regulators, even public preferences for their accommodation. But I have never met a developer who invested when there was no prospect of a sale, or a financier who didn't wish to get her money back. Regulators are another matter. They have a role in safety and perhaps protecting community standards but otherwise keep them out of the loop. If dwelling construction was decided by public officials rather than the market, catastrophe would follow as night follows day.

I live in one of those large developments, though in a 3 bed unit. I don't know how one gets figures on the number that are unlet or locked up. It's a strange thing to do , since the levies are high, and the returns from letting are very good. The retun on those small units is well above average rental returns on capital. I have never heard of a unit in out complex failing to be let almost immediately ti becomes vacant. The fact is that many young couples who are both earning good money find it very convenient while they save for a deposit on emoh ruo.

Exactly!
Rhrosty.

While young people are marrying later, & staying childless longer, these units can have a place. However a problem develops if a couple, both with cars share such apartments, with only a single car space. They really only work in the inner city, with sedentary type tenants.

It is also happening out on the "burbs" now, with the tendency for McMansions to be squeezed into half pint lots. A friend in such an area now about 10 years old has a huge parking problem. Garages are full of junk as usual, & the couple of kids, school kids when the parents built, are now car owners. The once trendy area is looking like a used car lot, with cars parking wherever they can be shoved.

With even newer developments blocks are so small I doubt a pregnant lady could pass between the house & the side fence.

In my opinion, town planners are the most incompetent, misguided people in the country.

The UK fits 62 million people into an area the size of Victoria with only 13 per cent of its population in its major city, London. That’s what we ought to work towards.

Governments need a bipartisan program to change Victoria’s settlement pattern to one like that of the UK – a spread of population among our provincial cities, not 70 per cent of the population squashed into one city, Melbourne, whose urban area covers not much more than one per cent of the state.

Pushing land prices up in Melbourne would encourage people to move to other parts of the state, which is the policy aim we need, as long as those parts are connected to Melbourne by good transport links. All we need to do to accommodate the supposedly inevitable four million extra Melburnians over the next 40 years is rezone an area the size of one per cent of the state around existing provincial towns and cities. That would leave 98 per cent of the state unaffected by the four million.

We don’t need higher density throughout our existing suburbs. That would defeat the purpose of an urban growth boundary and provincial city growth. Higher density residential areas do not double the number of trams, the capacity of the rail network, the size of the local school playground, the size of the local park, the number of beds in the hospital, the diameter of the sewage pipe, etc. Higher density should be provided in select areas to meet the needs of those who want it. It should not be used to destroy Melbourne’s suburban amenity.

It seems beyond the wit of our governments and planners to use zoning and market forces to limit the population growth of Melbourne. They are stuck in fatalistic passivity, diverting public debate to arguments a $1million-per-metre road that we would not need if population were not exploding.

There is more in my posts at:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2010/10/20/what-should-we-do-about-melbourne/.

Nothing more then Dog boxes
Reason most people live in units is because they cant afford proper housing
Units are no good for families or for society as a whole
1 unit 1 owner no investments at all drive prices down so everyone doesn't have to pay exorbitant rents to a greedy investors
Who in there right mind thinks its ok for some people to own 10 houses and others cant afford 1 it stinks of a rich mans game