Realistically, if the planning framework is amended to favour higher density around the CBD, these homes will initially be occupied by high-income families. These families will leave behind high-quality houses when they relocate that can then be occupied by middle-income families. In turn, the middle-income families leave behind a home that can be occupied by lower-income families. This process continues until all the moving-chains are exhausted, often at the bottom tail of the income distribution.

In this regard, the Commission gives the following hypothetical: A couple might like to live in Newtown but if little new housing is built there, they might compromise by living in Ashfield, further from the CBD. This means another lower-income family is squeezed out from Ashfield to say, Burwood, and so on. The upshot is that building more in Newtown improves affordability locally in Ashfield and Burwood, as well as most other locations that families consider as reasonable alternatives.

With fewer than 20% of new dwellings being built within 10km of the CBD between 2016 and 2021, the inner ring of the city is where unmet demand is the greatest.

Past strategic plans for Greater Sydney, including the most recent ‘A Metropolis of Three Cities’ have made it an explicit objective to prioritise growth outside of the existing, highly productive economic centres.

The major advantage of apartments is their ability to create more diverse housing with the same locational benefits without using additional land.

Medium density-housing in central Sydney where land is increasingly scarce is not an efficient use of space. It is much more expensive to produce housing for a given number of people with medium density townhouses than with apartment buildings.