Busting the Top 10 Myths about the Benefits of Infill in Perth

Infill has been enacted in Perth long enough now for all to see its poor outcomes and people are right to be wary of it. It's long past time for an honest conversation about why infill is failing, so we can work on fixing the problems. Instead, the same tired old talking point are trotted out in defence of the current status quo.

1. Infill brings diversity

No it doesn’t. The current approach sees a wholesale swap of one particular type of dwelling (single homes) for another (group dwellings or apartments, depending on the R-code). Look at Stirling’s Tuart Hill, Westminster, Innaloo and Scarborough. Now give us an example of where it’s brought diversity.

2. Development will be in keeping with the existing neighbourhood character

This is one of the biggest misnomers, and one that the City of Joondalup particularly pushed with their HOA policy. The State projects medium uptake in a suburb with infill at 85%. You can’t change the number and type of dwellings in a suburb to that extent without completely changing the character. Infill is a shift from suburban to urban, simple as that. Planners should be honest about the fact that the suburb is going to change forever and not typically for the better.

3. Being in an infill area will increase the value of your property

This just doesn’t stack up, thanks mainly to the kind of development that the current planning policies allow. As the cheaply built, poorly designed units start to go up, prices start to plummet to block value and then as the area is slowly cannibalised, that value goes down further. This is especially problematic if you over-capitalise your property by building an extension or major renovation.

4. The days of the quarter acre block are over

Demonising people for wanting to live in a family home in a quiet, suburban area is one of the more insidious side-narratives of the infill playbook. The quarter acre block has been a thing of the past in Perth for some time now – there aren’t that many who have the privilege of 1000+sqm. Most are around 550-750sqm and there is still a need, and market, for these homes, especially for families whose kids are living at home for longer and longer these days.

5. Infill is making homes more affordable

Which brings us neatly to the next grand deception. The homes we are seeing built are not more affordable. They are much worse value for money. Where you were buying an old house on a 650sqm block for $700,000 you’re now getting 250sqm for $500,000. There’s a difference between ‘more affordable’ and ‘all you can afford’ and there’s no value for money in that equation. The value of housing rests in it being a long-term investment, valued over the lifespan of the mortgage, and mostly, the value is in the land, not the house.

6. Infill allows you to age in place

This will continue to be impossible for many, thanks to a whole suite of financial barriers with the current system. Many older people do not feel able to move or split their block because it will leave them at a financial disadvantage. Infill is not improving affordability, and policies on taxation, negative gearing and aged pension assessment all combine to disincentivise downsizing.

7. Ma and Pa investors can capitalise their block’s value

What we are anecdotally seeing is that this is a high risk, low reward strategy. Most do the maths and realise it’s not worth their while or they can’t raise the finance needed to develop their block. The few that have tried it in our area have been badly burned.

8. Infill makes an area more vibrant

Not if an infill policy focuses solely on increased residential dwellings without improving the infrastructure, amenities, open space or community and commercial facilities (as per Joondalup’s current HOA strategy). All that happens is that you cram more people into a suburb and everyone’s standard of living goes down as more people are forced to share the limited amenities.

9. All areas near railway stations are ripe for infill

When a station is just a terminus the area just becomes a place of higher density with no amenity. It’s not TOD (Transit Oriented Development) it’s TOD’s evil twin: TAD (Transit Adjacent Development) which has been a proven planning fail. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285347024_TOD's_evil_twin_transit-adjacent_development

10. People close to stations don’t need cars so less parking is required

Close to the station – even the developers will tell you - an apartment without car spaces is an unsaleable apartment. Sure, some people will go to work on the train, but since that’s not the only place they go (beach, shopping, friends’ houses, work that isn’t on the train line) they aren’t giving up their car anytime soon. The same applies to living near a shopping centre. Perth’s public transport just isn’t up to it.