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.
cheers
- Forums
- Economics
- Can we just simply build more houses / units to slow down the house price madness !!!
Hi,There are positives in both approaches.Singapore had...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 110 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)