smh.com.au
Australian Apartment Construction Times Double Since 2012
Australian apartment construction times have soared from 1.7 years (2012-13) to 2.7 years (2023-24), significantly longer than house construction (7 months to over a year), due to labor shortages, cost increases, regulatory complexities, and post-pandemic bottlenecks.
- How do regulatory changes and infrastructure projects interact to impact the timeline and feasibility of apartment developments?
- The surge in apartment construction time is attributed to labor shortages, increased material costs, regulatory hurdles, and post-lockdown bottlenecks. Major infrastructure projects are competing for the same workforce, exacerbating delays. Furthermore, tighter design regulations have added to the complexities and time required for project completion.
- What are the primary factors contributing to the dramatic increase in Australian apartment construction times, and what are the immediate consequences of these delays?
- Apartment construction times in Australia have more than doubled since 2012, rising from 1.7 years to 2.7 years in 2024, while house construction times increased from seven months to slightly more than a year. This significant increase is impacting housing affordability and availability.
- What long-term strategies are needed to mitigate the growing disparity between apartment and house construction times in Australia, and what are the potential obstacles to implementing these strategies?
- Unless there are substantial improvements in addressing labor shortages, regulatory inefficiencies, and cost pressures, the gap between apartment and house construction times is expected to widen. This will likely lead to continued housing shortages and increased housing costs, particularly in major cities. The adoption of modular construction technologies could help alleviate the problem but faces challenges with widespread adoption.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue primarily as a negative consequence of various factors impacting apartment construction times. The headline and introductory paragraph immediately highlight the significant increase in construction time compared to houses, setting a negative tone. While expert opinions are included, the overall framing emphasizes the problems and delays rather than potential solutions or positive developments in the sector. This framing could leave readers with a pessimistic view of the situation without a balanced perspective on progress or future prospects.
Language Bias
The article uses relatively neutral language but sometimes employs terms with slightly negative connotations. For example, phrases like "blown out," "cost spikes," and "tax slugs" carry negative weight. While these are arguably accurate descriptions, using more neutral alternatives such as "extended," "cost increases," and "tax increases" could improve objectivity. The repeated mention of delays and problems contributes to a negative overall tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the increased construction time for apartments, citing labor shortages, cost increases, and regulatory hurdles. However, it omits discussion of potential solutions beyond modular construction and workforce growth, such as streamlining the approval process or exploring alternative building materials. The article also doesn't explore the perspectives of those who benefit from the current system, such as established building companies or those who profit from prolonged construction times. This omission limits the scope of understanding by failing to provide a comprehensive perspective on the multifaceted issues at play. While acknowledging space constraints is reasonable, including a brief mention of alternative viewpoints or solutions would have enhanced the article's balance.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't explicitly present false dichotomies, but it implicitly frames the situation as a simple problem of labor shortages, regulatory burdens, and cost increases. This framing overlooks the complex interplay of factors, such as economic conditions, market demand, and technological advancements, contributing to the longer construction times. The lack of exploration into these interwoven elements creates a simplified narrative.
Gender Bias
The article features several male experts (Shane Oliver, Tim Hibbert) and one female expert (unnamed, quoted in the middle). While not overtly biased, the gender imbalance in expert sourcing could implicitly reinforce a perception of the construction industry as a male-dominated field. Including more female voices representing various perspectives within the industry would enhance gender balance and offer a more comprehensive narrative.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights significant delays in apartment construction, impacting the timely development of sustainable urban housing. Increased construction time leads to higher costs, reduced housing affordability, and potential strain on urban infrastructure. Delays are attributed to labor shortages, cost increases, regulatory hurdles, and infrastructure project competition for resources. This directly hinders the creation of sustainable and affordable urban environments.