4 Comments
Apr 6, 2022Liked by Bernard Hickey

I beg to ask if its necessary to keep the heritage overlay that is imposed by the planning controls set by territorial authorities.

After all, this could be the fastest way to spur growth in the leafy suburbs around central business districts.

Or will we succumb to historic overlay provisions, making the "leaky" homes of the 90s historic and therefore untouchable after 50 years, and the NIMBYs rife in protecting such restrictions. Lunacy to accept the status quo and expect different results, and to hope that the market will sort itself out is ridiculous.

I appreciate architecture for what villas and bungalows bring, the characteristics and all but this is no London or Paris we're talking about. Keeping a draughty old building on ever more valuable land should be a privilege paid for by the land owner. Notwithstanding the fact that it costs an absorbent amount to upkeep or even make small alterations and additions too makes it more of a case to appeal the historic heritage overlay.

Let's get on with building climate friendly, safer, dryer, more affordable and healthier buildings for all to enjoy.

Expand full comment
Apr 6, 2022Liked by Bernard Hickey

That was a great listen, thanks Bernard

Expand full comment

Interesting finding. However true that effect would be in isolation, there was the massive investment in assets which could have cancelled out most of the gains.

Expand full comment