Hi, There are positives in both approaches. Singapore had something that very few places can count on having.Lee Kuan Yew was arrogant and authoritarian. But , he was incredibly intelligent, a true patriot who saw his role as producing his ''model ''country. And to a large extent he was successful. I'm a big fan, but cannot think of anyone else like him. He also got to produce his housing model from a substantially blank canvas. I'm not sure that you can do the same thing trying to transform a city like Sydney. However , the attitude to public housing design and integration goes anywhere. The main reasons I had public housing at the top of my list was as follows 1. it protects the vulnerable 2. it puts a brake on rents and thru that capital appreciation 3. it decreases the sense that housing is just a commodity , it is something that society should be supplying to its citizens
Now, my next 3 points, have at their core a distinct libertarian streak. They are aimed at freeing up the market, increasing mobility, turnover and optimizing usage . Crazy, look up the number of vacant bedrooms in Australia each night.
Point 5 is obvious . Only build early and well.
Note: I have no problem with negative gearing, if the capital gains are treated more like income than they are.
