new from me: a story about VACANCY CHAINS, the idea that underlies the argument that more housing is good even if you can't afford it www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0...
Last night Willoughby council decided to lock up more housing under heritage protection within 800m of a train and metro station.
Decisions like that across Sydney and Australia lead directly to the reality outlined in the SMH this morning.
www.smh.com.au/property/new...
We have known for decades that so-called βinclusionary zoningβ is bad policy. Nonetheless, it is politically durable because it lets elected officials pose as friends of the poor while indulging their NIMBY constituentsβ desire to block new housing in their neighborhoods.
Locations of new homes built in Switzerland in 2018
Country-wide effects of new housing supply: Evidence from moving chains, by Lukas Hauck and Frederic Kluser
Another new paper on housebuilding and vacancy chains, this time with data on every Swiss resident & housing unit! An interesting context given Switzerland's high immigration, very large rented sector and strong tenancy rent controls... frederickluser.github.io/files/Moving...
A noise-related fee, varying by time, flightpath and decibels, would be less costly than a curfew.
Willoughby map showing their plans to weaponise heritage against low and midrise housing
It's past time that the state government stepped in and prevented councils from weaponising heritage controls against housing.
Not just preventing overreach like here in Willoughby. Across Sydney, but inner city councils ate the worst offenders by far
![Nearly half (48 per cent) of people either strongly or tended to support increased residential density in their own neighbourhood, up from 46 per cent last year and 44 per cent in 2024. About 17 per cent of people were strongly opposed to the idea, while 18 per cent were ambivalent.
Matt Levinson, the committeeβs head of corporate affairs, said: βWeβve seen [support for increased density in peopleβs own suburbs] gradually moving up year on year, and the number of people who oppose it gradually declining. Two-thirds of the city now see it as OK in their own neighbourhood.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:oiqovxbokddaftchylrxquxg/bafkreidcttqk7ouow2u2vvyc4qxshnsxvlio2huvip6fbcgisfalqxgw5u@jpeg)
Nearly half (48 per cent) of people either strongly or tended to support increased residential density in their own neighbourhood, up from 46 per cent last year and 44 per cent in 2024. About 17 per cent of people were strongly opposed to the idea, while 18 per cent were ambivalent. Matt Levinson, the committeeβs head of corporate affairs, said: βWeβve seen [support for increased density in peopleβs own suburbs] gradually moving up year on year, and the number of people who oppose it gradually declining. Two-thirds of the city now see it as OK in their own neighbourhood.
This is what winning looks like.
YIMBY Melbourne and Sydney YIMBY present the Order Without Design Australian Tour poster
Cities are the vital engines of the Australian economy, and how we build them matters.
This is a vital evening for those passionate about solving the housing crisis, and building more affordable, liveable, and sustainable Australian cities.
events.humanitix.com/order-withou...
While cutting red tape sounds great, how do we do it?
One approach is to require rigorous cost-benefit comparisons of regulations.
This would find many regulations to be excessive; including land use, environment, lending restrictions, airport security, product safety, copyright, etc. 4/4
Of course, the other 32% also matters and should be reduced. But, as @1finaleffort.bsky.social argues, policy should "target bans, not burdens."
inflectionpoints.work/articles/bes... 3/4
Housing is an example.
The Queensland Productivity Commission reports that a wide range of regulations add $186,000 to the cost of a new greenfields house in Brisbane. $128,000 (68%) of this is direct prohibition of extra residential housing. 2/4
qpc.qld.gov.au/content/inqu...
Both sides agree we need to cut red tape.
cdn.liberal.org.au/pdf/2026-Der...
Good. But there is too much emphasis on compliance costs.
The costs of prohibitions are typically far greater.
The main problem isn't that regulations make things difficult. It's they stop worthwhile things altogether. 1/4
No. It's representative. The same story is playing out with minor variations in every second suburb in Sydney and Melbourne.
It's people like these that make housing unaffordable.
For decades, the loudest voices in planning were saying "No." We started YIMBY Melbourne to say "Yes."
The Guardian credits that shift with driving a "planning policy revolution." Proof that when you show up with evidence & optimism, you can change policy!
This is a cartoon about housing.
We just relaunched our website! We've been around for a few years now and thought we should show off all the work our volunteers have been doing. New and improved with news stories, all our newsletters and every bit of advocacy we've done!
Road charging is being overhauled, as electric vehicles erode fuel excise.
A government that learns from overseas experience would introduce congestion charges.
After one year, New Yorkβs charge is a clear success.
www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
These are 10 of my favourite #UrbanEconomics & #SpatialEconomics articles published in academic journals in 2025, continuing with a tradition started in 2018 (order is alphabetical by first author, no ranking implied):
I should have been clearer. They didn't walk away. They sold or rented the 95% and never completed the rest, avoiding the charges.
When New South Wales levied developer charges "on completion" we got a lot of 95% finished projects that never completed.
New Research β Building more homes reduces displacement
Year 1 data on congestion pricing in Manhattanβ¦
* Vehicle traffic: -11%
* Foot traffic: +3.4%
* Storefront vacancy: -0.9%
* Pollution: -22%
* Revenue for mass transit: $548M
So YES this has been a huge success.οΏΌ
I wonder if easier vehicle efficiency standards are more important than tax incentives, as in the US.
"Light commercial vehicles" like Toyota LandCruiser and Nissan Patrol are allowed 210 g/km of CO2; while passenger vehicles have to meet 141 g/km.
If the government were to provide a million extra homes, as proposed by the Greens, with an annual subsidy of $15k each (the public housing average), that would cost $15 billion a year.
@richarddenniss.bsky.social says this is simple. I see big complications.
thepoint.com.au/opinions/251...
FINALLY a significant parking reform in Australia! "Apartments in areas across the state considered to be serviced by high-frequency public transport will no longer have a minimum parking requirement." cc @parkingreform.org
Lots of voters say housing is their number 1 concern. So the potential to move votes is substantial.
I can't prove this, but I think the popularity of the NSW and Victorian State governments is partly attributable to their aggressive action on housing (and ability to label the opposition as NIMBYs)
That contrasts with the Government, which wants house prices to grow sustainably.
instagram.com/reel/DC8Pd1L... 2/2
Senator Andrew Bragg, the Federal Liberal Party Housing spokesman, spoke at the CIS today.
I asked: "Do you want home prices to fall?"
Bragg: "I think for first home buyers, the answer is yes."
1/2
Evidence that Labor's inaction on housing is less than wildly popular with voters:
Tony Barry: βIn focus groups, housing is the number 1 issueβ¦ We asked: βWho has the better policy on housing? Albanese, Dutton or neither?β Neither was the highest number by farβ
youtu.be/okiuDssxS4Y?... (at 36:00)
