Asanka Epa

Regional communities have been abandoned after Labor dumped the northern leg of the Melbourne-to-Brisbane Inland Rail while pouring billions into city rail projects, Barnaby Joyce has said. skynews.com.au/australia-news…

Turnbull announced Snowy 2.0 in 2017 as a $2billion project… it is now $42billion and still not finished. How is this not a scandal?? #auspol malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/securing….

@samlutd @db_econ @AbsentHog A bit off-topic, but I looked up Wilton, and am amazed Sydney has greenfield development EIGHTY kilometres from the CBD. It's far closer to Wollongong!

Why is there such a divide between “New World” and English/“Old World” YIMBYs over design? It may just be a difference of opinion or social networks (and, eg, England’s preoccupation with design is basically a coincidence caused by a few charismatic Rasputin figures), but here are a few other factors that I have heard that seem plausible: - England’s postwar housing is genuinely uglier and worse than America and Australia’s, because of (a) England’s larger share of council-built homes, (b) mortgage lending constraints leading to “shrinkflation” in the 1960s–70s (worksinprogress.co/issue/britains…), (c) modernism caught on more in England, partially down to fashion and partially down to the planning system. - England’s prewar buildings are generally better than America’s and Australia’s are, so the gulf between old and new is greater (see below for some 1930s vs 1960s equivalents) and the cultural fondness for older designs is deeper-rooted. - English YIMBYism involves a larger share of traditionalist right-wingers than American and Australian YIMBYism does, which are more dominated by people who appreciate modernist styles and a general sense of architectural novelty/progress. - The American/Australian YIMBY strategy seems more dependent on left-wing political support to succeed and association with traditionalism will discredit them with those groups. - It’s much sunnier in most of America and Australia than England, and ugly buildings don’t look as bad in sunshine as they do on grey, overcast days. - Americans/Australian homeowners are less interested in “beauty” than English ones, and their complaints about design are generally insincere. - NIMBYism is stronger in England and English YIMBYs have either adapted their views to try to work within that (ie, making concessions on design to English NIMBYs) or have been psychologically defeated and have made needless concessions to their opponents. - American/Australian YIMBY strategy is very focused on promoting the benefits of new housing, and conceding that some / much of what gets built has serious flaws undermines that approach. (I think the last three explain why we enjoy arguing about this so much – to the New Worlders, the English beauty enjoyers are idiotically handing big rhetorical wins to their opponents for no benefit, instead of sticking to the line that all houses are beautiful; to the English, the New Worlders are trying to polish turds for propaganda’s sake.) I’m sure I’ve missed some other possibilities!

@michael_wiebe It is possible to limit density at every site but not limit the rate at which homes are built across all sites. You keep confusing density (dwellings per site area) and quantity (dwellings per period across all sites)

@fictillius how's the comments hahahah

Leafy areas that don't build enough housing are too expensive for young families. A decline of 1100+ students is equivalent to two whole primary schools - significant budget impacts for schools in these areas. theage.com.au/national/victo…