It shows that roughly one-quarter of the residential-zoned land within 10 kilometres of Sydney’s CBD is subject to some form of heritage protection.<\/p>\n
It’s used by YIMBYs (Yes In My Backyard) to show how absurd the city’s heritage movement has become.<\/p>\n
They say it highlights how overzealous local governments have put huge tracts of land off-limits to new homes in Sydney’s most-desirable areas.<\/p>\n
See the map below:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(Source: NSW Productivity Commission (February 2024), ‘What we gain by building more homes in the right places,’ page. 44)<\/p>\n
The map is very evocative.<\/p>\n
Heavy splotches of red cover a massive area of inner Sydney, on both sides of the harbour. It leaves the impression that the heritage problem must be really bad.<\/p>\n
It has a similar emotional effect to this:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
On September 4, 1997, then-PM John Howard claimed Indigenous Australians could have “the potential right of veto over further development of 78 per cent of the land mass of Australia”. (Source: screenshot.)<\/p>\n
Do you remember that moment above?<\/p>\n
In late 1997, during an interview on the ABC’s 7.30 Report with Kerry O’Brien, Coalition prime minister John Howard held up that map and said:<\/p>\n
“This shows 78 per cent of the land mass of Australia coloured brown on this map.<\/p>\n
“The Labor Party and the Democrats are effectively saying that the Aboriginal people of Australia should have the potential right of veto over further development of 78 per cent of the land mass of Australia.”<\/p>\n
You can see a clip of that exchange in this video<\/a>. The transcript of the entire interview is here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Echoes of Mabo<\/a><\/p>\n The rhetorical intent is deadly serious. It’s been a daily drip: industry after industry will close, the economy will be crippled. We’ve been here before.<\/p>\n If you were sentient in 1997 and saw that interview live, you may remember what the inflamed political atmosphere in Australia was like at the time, in the wake of the High Court’s Mabo<\/a> and Wik<\/a> rulings.<\/p>\n Senior conservative politicians were running around telling Australians that their suburban backyards<\/a> could be under threat<\/a> from Native Title claims, which was absurd.<\/p>\n We don’t want to re-prosecute those arguments.\u00a0<\/p>\n But the way in which Mr Howard used that map as a prop in that interview in 1997, when the political atmosphere was so fraught, left a deep impression.<\/p>\n Ever since, it’s been difficult to trust, on face value, any “map” that a politician or political group waves around to make some argument.<\/p>\n It always pays to interrogate them.<\/p>\n The different shades of red<\/p>\n And when you look more closely at that map from the NSW Productivity Commission, you’ll notice a few things.<\/p>\n Firstly, the PC has unhelpfully used two very similar shades of red to highlight quite different phenomena.<\/p>\n For example, look at the big patch of red in the top right-hand corner of the graph, which I’ve highlighted with a green box:<\/p>\n That’s North Head, at the entrance to Sydney Harbour.<\/p>\n It’s the site of the old Quarantine Station<\/a> (established in 1832) and nature reserve.<\/p>\n It’s been a major tourist attraction<\/a> for decades.<\/p>\n Q Station, in Sydney Harbour National Park. (Source: Q Station)<\/p>\n Similarly, with other areas covered by the brighter shade of red on the PC map.\u00a0<\/p>\n Jump across the water from North Head to Middle Head-Gubbuh Gubbuh, which I’ve highlighted with a green box:<\/p>\n That’s the site of the old Middle Head fortifications<\/a> (built 1801 to 1942) and gunners barracks.<\/p>\n It’s another major tourist attraction<\/a> and nature reserve.<\/p>\n Its first gun placement was built in 1801 in response to the Napoleonic War, and new gun placements, lookouts, a main fort, and a network of underground tunnels and ammunition stores were carved into the headland over time, as military technology evolved and new threats emerged.<\/p>\n During the Vietnam War, the fortifications were used to train Australian soldiers to withstand torture<\/a> in the event that they were captured overseas.<\/p>\n Middle Head fortifications were built from 1801. (Photo: Simon Wood \u00a9 Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water)<\/p>\n You get the picture.<\/p>\n When you investigate the areas covered by the brighter shade of red on the PC map, you’ll see what many of those heritage-listed areas are in reality, and realise that they contribute a lot to Sydney’s tourism industry, or outdoor lifestyle, or natural beauty.<\/p>\n One assumes that YIMBYs aren’t proposing to bulldoze those sites to turn them into housing.<\/p>\n Heritage conservation areas<\/p>\n So, in the context of the debate about Sydney’s housing problems, when you look at the PC’s map, you mostly have to focus your eyes on the areas covered by the darker shade of red.<\/p>\n Those are the Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs) that have become a cultural flashpoint in the NIMBY vs YIMBY debate.<\/p>\n ‘Green bans’ saved Australia’s historic buildings<\/a><\/p>\n The “green bans” in the 1970s saved many of Australia’s historic buildings and our cities are richer for them. But a famous economist didn’t like them.<\/p>\n Local governments create HCAs, and as the NSW Productivity Commission says, HCAs are not subject to the same assessment requirements as heritage listings, but they still restrict owners from redeveloping their land or undertaking significant extensions or renovations.<\/p>\n The PC says the proliferation of HCAs in Sydney since the 1970s has greatly reduced the amount of land available for new housing in Sydney\u2019s most desirable areas.<\/p>\n And each HCA has its own story.<\/p>\n Take the suburb of Haberfield, for example, highlighted by the green box below:<\/p>\n Last year, the Sydney Morning Herald called Haberfield “the Sydney suburb YIMBYs love to hate<\/a>“.<\/p>\n Why is that entire suburb listed as a Heritage Conservation Area? It’s because it was built as a social experiment.<\/p>\n It was Australia’s first successful planned “garden suburb” and one of the earliest prototypes in the world of the “garden city movement<\/a>“.<\/p>\n It was established in 1901, in the wake of the bubonic plague that hit Sydney’s Rocks precinct in 1900.<\/p>\n Developments in Haberfield are bound by strict rules. (ABC News: Tony Ibrahim)<\/p>\n It was a “model suburb” built according to certain philosophical principles: all homes were limited to one story, fences were kept low to foster a sense of community, streets were wide and tree lined, and no house was the same.\u00a0<\/p>\n It was a picturesque suburb of free-standing, unique brick bungalows built in the Federation style, offering the health benefits of “country” living but the employment opportunities of “city” living.<\/p>\n It was a contrast to the terraced and crammed architecture of inner-city slums.<\/p>\n And as the Dictionary of Sydney<\/a> put it:<\/p>\n “This visionary social experiment was so financially successful that it helped lock in the great Australian dream of the quarter-acre suburban block with dwelling, which has dominated how Australians seek to house themselves.”<\/p>\n But even still, given that unique history, should the entire suburb now be preserved like a quasi-living museum?<\/p>\n What impact does its listing as an HCA have on the supply of homes, property prices, and demographics in the suburb and surrounding area?<\/p>\n According to the NSW Productivity Commision, as lovely as the suburb is<\/a>, Haberfield is an example of how HCAs can produce negative outcomes:<\/p>\n “Areas dominated by large, low-density, freestanding homes do not cater well for younger people moving out of home, or for older people looking to downsize while staying in their neighbourhood,” it said.<\/p>\n “At the same time, high prices and a lack of new housing in these areas tend to lock out young families and new migrants.\u00a0<\/p>\n “The result is that local populations are ageing faster than otherwise. Two examples are Haberfield and Mosman, where the median age is eight to nine years older than Greater Sydney as a whole.”<\/p>\n And when you wade into the debate about heritage listings and housing supply and prices, Haberfield has everything.<\/p>\n On internet forums and comment sections, you’ll find plenty of people defending the suburb, saying it’s nice to have a suburb where ugly and cheap apartment buildings aren’t being thrown up, like in so many other suburbs.\u00a0<\/p>\n But YIMBYs say the HCA is helping Haberfield to grow older and richer, and with far fewer renters than the Great Sydney average.<\/p>\n Cities are always rebuilding themselves<\/p>\n And that’s just one example.<\/p>\n When you investigate the other HCAs on the PC’s map of inner Sydney, you’ll discover that each community is grappling with unique issues. None of them are the same.<\/p>\n For example, in the north of the city there’s another large HCA, at Artarmon.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n