Alas, Alan Davies is mistaken. Tiny one-bedroom apartments are not "in tune with projected demographic patterns". Older one- or two-person households are mostly already housed and unlikely to downsize into a tiny high-rise flat. The real demand comes from younger couples, either with children or hoping to start a family. See Bob Birrell and David McCloskey, "The housing affordability crisis in Sydney and Melbourne--Report One: The demographic foundations", The Australian Population Research Institute, 2015.
The authors find that most of the additional needed housing in both cities will be for family-friendly dwellings. Just over half of this need will come from net overseas migration and the rest from the effects of ageing of the resident population. They write that the latter effect is far larger than housing industry commentators realise. (It is due to the ageing in place of the large cohort of baby boomers.) The result is that there will be a continuing scarcity of family-friendly housing in both cities.

Jane Greyer,

Victoria in Future projects the number of families with children will increase by 737,000 from 2011 to 2051. However, the number of single person HHs and the number of couple only HHs is projected to increase by much more; 1,184,000.

In 2011, single person HHs made up 25% of all HHs in Victoria; couple only HHs 26%; and families with children 43%. However, one bedroom dwellings made up just 5% of all dwellings; two bedroom dwellings only 19%; and three and four bedroom dwellings a massive 74%.

So projected demographic change to 2051 is weighted strongly toward small households without dependents; while the existing stock of housing is strongly weighted toward large dwellings suitable for families.

There's certainly a mismatch between HH size and dwelling size. Policy-makers should incentives sorting of HHs into appropriately sized dwellings but there's still a need for more small dwellings.

VIF: http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/planning/forward-policy-and-research/victoria-in-future-population-and-household-projections?remap=delwp.vic.gov.au/victoria-in-future

"incentives" should be "incentivise"

This seems on the face, a vacuous spurious argument against long overdue decentralization? And looking as an increasing reality, due to also a long overdue NBN! And the fatuously forestalled rapid rail!

Both of which would mean people could live and work almost wherever they wanted. In family friendly hamlets with their own CBD's and industrial estates! Where the backyards of yesteryear would once again become the norm! And the bane of the urban redevelopment industry, which needs to stack and pack people to maximise profits! And to hell with the carbon footprint 2.5 times that of their country cousins!

And absurdly asinine in a continent the size of a largely empty Australia!

We need an inland canal to bring water and international shipping. Forty foot tropical tides and lock gates could send a continual flood tide of water around a dual lane system all the way to a ,then permanently full Lake Eyre.

Large scale solar thermal projects alongside would provide all the cost effective power we'd need to power myriad projects.

Including new desalination that desalinates moving water, via new deionization and 95% potable water recovery, will make huge new potable water resources reality, and for quarter of the price of current desal!

And given deionization of flowing water as flowing megalitres, a lot more than salt is removed, including harmful minerals/manmade chemistry! This would open up our arid inland to all manner of new development on eternally guaranteed water!

Put land and AFFORDABLE water together and what you create is inestimable wealth! All we need to attract the (foreign) funding, minus the foreign overlords

Not for the visionless or the timid, or those who need foreign permission to dream a really big and prosperous Australia, or those who just want to pack people into already overcrowded cities in even larger numbers, as if there were some merit in stacking and packing people into ever smaller spaces!

For what? Charching charching, the sound of cash registers registering transactions and ever swelling highrise developer bank accounts! Nothing more or a vision of a family friendly future!
Alan B.

I think they actually are. It's all going in the bad direction and politics do nothing about it!

Apartments have been 'dog whistled' for years on basis of not adhering to Oz housing culture, the size, or utility, materials used etc., and possibly by the RE industry which prefers houses and auctions as more profitable, versus direct selling by apartment developers (leaving RE agencies out of the loop)?

This has been a xenophobic proxy conflated with population growth, immigration and the environment, singling out temporary residents from Asia, 'Chinese' especially e.g. international students and guardians, tourists etc.., while also blaming them for increased house prices (vs negative gearing, low interest rates and religion of property).

If someone chooses e.g. a student, to rent or buy a small apartment, so what? The major complaint for some residents has been short term apartment guests and sometimes expensive body coporate costs, much depends upon the individual building.

However, as Claudiecat showed above, there is an increasing need for one or two bedroom apartments with a population that is both ageing and more often, single. Conversely it's absurd to see single people or a working couple living in a large multi roomed suburban house dependent upon driving everywhere.... while paying more for utilities, having more maintenance and gardening work with security concerns too.

Personally, an apartment building could be very attractive in future for accessibility, lower utility costs, community, security and consolidating elderly (in mixed buildings) allowing more efficient and effective provision of social or health services.

Are city centre apartment towers really slums?

Dunno if they are but they will become that ultimately. More importantly, they are a manifestation of the aims of agenda 21.

For the planners, owners and controllers of agenda 21 the aim is to:

take land off the masses, when we buy into a high rise we buy only the right to occupy the living space. We dont own anything else. Everybody knows that land is wealth.

Reduce the size of the living space of the masses. Reduce from a 4x2 to a double garage size home.

Disenfranchising the masses from land ownership increases control over the masses.

According to agenda 21 heating and cooling in workplaces and homes is environmentally unsustainable and has to go.

none of this will apply to the elites of course.