Australia, like many countries worldwide, is in the midst of a housing crisis. It is a crisis directly affecting millions, yet solutions appear to be thin on the ground. Is the lack of workable solutions down to the mire of political ideology that this crisis is bogged down in, or instead due to the genuine intricacies fixing this problem will have to address?
Either way, it is well above my pay grade. However, I will throw my hat in the ring regarding the guiding principals surrounding the nature of this solution, and why I believe attractive design is one of them.
There are a multitude of boxes that a solution to the housing crisis must tick off. These include, the speed of implementation, affordability, job creation, liveability, sustainability and environmental impact. Just to name a few.
I propose that just as vital as the aforementioned, is the aesthetic quality and thoughtfulness of the design. It is essential that the solution is attractive, not just treated as an added bonus where possible.
As is the case with so many of our current crises, these issues are not as unprecedented as we may first presume. With that we can often look back through history to glean learnings on what did and didn’t work previously. On the back of Chifley’s populate or perish memorandum. Australia welcomed hundreds of thousands of European migrants to its shores from the late 1940’s to the mid 1970’s. With many of them choosing to settle in and around the capital cities of each state. With these cities already being the most populated areas of Australia, the rapid influx of migrants meant that expansion was needed in order to accomodate these new Australians. This was especially pertinent in the countries two largest cites; Sydney and Melbourne. So, what did the solutions to the housing crisis look like back then?
Both the New South Wales and Victorian governments went down the path of building majority state-funded, public and affordable housing. This was following a similar model to that of our old colonial masters, Great Britain. The issue of a sudden population rise and an insufficient number of existing houses, was largely viewed as solvable through the building of high-rise apartment complexes. Melbourne and Sydney saw the development of a number of high rise buildings in inner-city areas which had previously been slums. Intended to house those who already lived in the area, as well as those new migrants. Starting in the 1950’s and continuing in the 1980’s, housing commission towers were built in large numbers throughout both major metropoles.
It is not only the public housing sector that has in the past sought to provide solutions to the increased demand in housing. Private investors have erected apartment complexes that strove to ease the tensions of the growing population within limited space. An example of that in Melbourne being Fitzroy’s Cairo flats. Built in 1935, they were visionary in their ambition and rightfully foresaw a future in which dwellings would have to work cleverly with smaller blocks of land.
So, what is the legacy of those past attempts at ensuring our entire population has equal access to housing. From a sustainability point of view it is clear those buildings left standing, are largely because of their architectural and community significance. When the community buys in, the buildings remain and attractive design is a strong invitation for community buy-in.
Unfortunately though, where this heritage label can check the sustainability box. It often has a negative impact on the affordability side. This is most evident in the case of the Sirius building in Sydney’s rocks area. Originally built as housing commission flats in the 1980’s, the complex was set for demolition in 2016. A large public campaign to save Sirius ensued, which in 2019 succeeded in preventing its demolition. However, much to the chagrin of its original architect and those who rallied to save the building, it was subsequently sold off by the government and purchased by private investors. Those apartments that were intended to house pensioners are now being sold for tens of millions of dollars. Thanks in large part to the extensive media coverage drummed up by those trying to save the building. It is this kind of fate that has directly led us to the current housing crisis we find ourselves in.
It is clear that any solution must, as it was in the past, be spearheaded by state-led housing projects. It must be the government of the day who set the parameters for what this new housing will look like and where it will be. Whether that is by building housing themselves or outsourcing to private contractors, will most likely be dictated by the political ideologies of whichever party is in power at the time.
The architecture of buildings has a strong correlation to the liveability of a house and furthermore, a suburb. The goal mustn’t just be to house people as quickly and cheaply as possible, but to also provide places to live that are attractive to the eye and promote community engagement. Not only does attractive design improve the quality of life of the inhabitants, but it can also create tourism by charming those who want to view architecturally significant design for themselves.
I fear that by adding another strict parameter to the hypothetical solution of this housing crisis, we may only succeed in slowing down real progress. That is of course assuming those bigwigs who write the checks and solve all our problems are reading this. If indeed they are, maybe the Hanging Gardens of Balwyn could be the way to go. Just food for thought.
