The huge restriction of the right of people to develop their land for reasons of protecting residents is in reality a means of transferring the right of development to government. When you see little old ladies surrounded on three sides by high rise and moves by government to allow the compulsory acquisition of private land to sell to developers, you will see that the real world is somewhat different to your description. No masses of screaming residents protesting, and any that do appear are quickly moved along.

Shipping containers are a very effective means of relieving the housing crisis, and would be very unlikely to cause any mass protest.

In contrast, your suggestion of living in a caravan park can be quite precarious. These two hundred oldies are about to be evicted from their permanent caravan sites which some purchased about thirty years ago, as a result of a secret planning decision. No one, government or the public, seems to give a stuff. Perhaps there would be a mass of protest and uproar were someone to bring a donga into a caravan park?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/caravan-park-homes-seized-to-squeeze-in-more-tourists/story-e6freoof-1226005038239

This is what happens when peoples rights are administered by others in secret.

Oh dearie me Fester; nice fact twisting there.

You've attempted to imply that around half of all new houses built during the 1950s were physically built by the owners themselves, while living in shipping containers. "OBVIOUSLY" you weren't there, I was. Your claim is NOT true.

Fester also states that I don't have "any recollection of mass protests" regarding this. I'll tell you why. It's because massive building of substandard houses, meaning standards below the industry standards of the time, DID NOT HAPPEN. Bad luck Fester.

Of course "some" houses were built by owner occupiers in the 1950s, as indeed they were during any era since.

Get you facts right Fester, I have never said "there will be ugly dongas popping up everywhere" nor have I "insisted" that this is so. The facts are some dongas are quite pleasant. For the purpose of accuracy, I say again what I previously said, "if a dwelling of much lower standards is built next to a dwelling of higher standards then the value of the original property will be reduced". THAT'S A FACT, it's what happens in the real world. And if governments legislate, via greatly reduced building standards, for this to happen then current home owners will complain bitterly. In fact it will never reach that stage.Why? Because governments know they'll be voted out if they try it.

Caravan parks are a completely unsuitable housing solution for most people, though a perfectly suitable solution for some people who have their financial bases covered and who wish to live that lifestyle.

Yet again I ask you Fester. Can you devise suitable property ownership solutions for all Aussies who desire a cheap property, solutions that won't devalue current properties? I've asked you again and again, yet you've been unable to answer.

As I said before, the way to "effectively" provide cheap housing to all Aussies, is to do it in such a way that won't devalue current properties. The ball's in your court fester.

<massive building of substandard houses, meaning standards below the industry standards of the time, DID NOT HAPPEN.>

That is priceless, Courageous. The housing or the time was absolutely wonderful, like this stuff:

http://www.beforeourtime.com/2009/03/in-our-time-grateful-for-indoor.html

I'm sure that occupants of those mansions would have thought themselves very unfortunate to live in one of these instead.

http://containerist.com/?p=443

And where did I advocate the building of substandard housing? I advocated no such thing. In fact, here is what a shipping container dwelling (cost $16,000) looked like after Cyclone Larry. Notice that it does not look like confetti, as would many 1950s constructions after enduring a similar ordeal.

http://inhabitat.com/shipping-container-rainforest-home-survives-category-5-cyclone/

About a third of houses in Australia in the 1950s were built by their owners. They were hardly times of opulence:

http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ahc/publications/commission/books/ourhouse/vic04.html

But all this took place under your nose and you were unaware of any of it. No big protests. No ugly houses devaluing the neighborhood. Yet you think it would happen today if people had similar rights to develop land as people did in the 1950s? Shame on you.

Fester, you posted a link to "standard" pre 1970s style housing and services, then tried to use that as proof that "massive building of substandard homes, meaning standards below the industry standards of the time" DID occur. Note the word "MASSIVE". Fester my boy, you clearly need to advance your debating skills.

Fester then posts a link to a pic of a "current" beautiful multiple container house nestled within mother nature, and then implies that those folks from the past would have loved to live in it instead of their homes in the 50s. And what does that prove Fester?

Poor Fester then asks "Where did I advocate the building of substandard housing". Nice "strawman" question there Fester (a strawman argument is when someone argues against something that was never said in the first place). I said you advocate lowering building standards, and you have precisely said that. Therefore I was 100% accurate in my description of your approach. Nice try Fester.

So in his above post Fester posted a link that showed pre 1970s housing and services standards, another link that showed a modern, beautiful 2011 container home, a damaged but still standing container home that survived a recent cyclone and finally a story of a family who had their home built by a builder in the 50s...

THEN....

Fester finishes his post with "all this took place under your nose and you were unaware of any of it". On the contrary Fester, you posted nothing that I'm not totally aware of. Keep trying though.

Fester seems to have it in his head that I think container housing and dongas are awful dwellings. Well, they can be fantastic dwellings. But Fester doesn't realise they usually don't meet current building standards for most locations and that this fact does not make them undesirable or uninhabitable, but rather means they are simply below accepted, legal industry standards.

Fester continually ignores my invitation to state how he'd provide cheap new housing for all, without reducing current market values of existing properties. He hasn't answered because he can't. He's had his chance.

...I have just returned to this thread after leaving it in disgust at the low level of response, and was buoyed by reading the magic debate between Courageous and Fester in particular. (Not to discount the input of merv09).

...Courageous covered the impasse of Australia’s cemented attachment to property values; Fester supported innovation and referenced historical solutions as acceptable alternatives to engineered shortages of housing, which currently ignore negative social realities; being a lack of housing stock and local Government restrictions on alternative methods of contruction, which force many people into substandard and rent gouged hovels; or worse, offering no way of escape.

...In the Sunday Telegraph this weekend I noticed an article identifying Mullumbimby in northern NSW as considering approval for a shanty town of dwellings on a 2hct block on the fringes of the town. That innovation is unprecedented in modern times, and certainly highlights the point I made here. Sadly, its back to shanty towns of the 50’s with all the social negatives, now to be encouraged by Local Government.

...What a sad indictment of glaring irresponsibility and neglect, and lack of concern towards Australians housing needs and simple and basic welfare of its citizens, is the condoning of the "shanty town" as an alternative to the housing crises!

A fringe shanty town solution solves the problem of property values in established parts of a town going downhill. But such solutions never work, even if it's not a real "shanty" town; extremely nice cheap hosing designs are readily available so it would unlikely be a "real" shanty town. But, there's a HUGE problem associated with clustering low income people together, a problem that manifests itself in all the well known social/crime/drug/behavioural/employment/transport/infrastructure problems. This solution has been tried in both Australia and the world over and it repeatedly fails miserably.

Solutions work better when different groups are mixed in together rather than living in separate enclaves, with some exceptions.

The "trick" is to find ways to integrate the reasonably well off and the poor, by having property available to all WITHOUT affecting current property values. This is crucial to success. To my knowledge it has never been successfully done, mainly because of the enormous complexities involved.