Opposition housing plan a reversion to the 30 year status quo

Expanding the Capital City Zone makes sense, but does not compensate for killing the Activity Centre Program

Previous YIMBY Melbourne modelling indicates that lifting planning controls in areas like Fitzroy and Collingwood would unlock significant commercial feasibility—a clear signal of the intense demand for housing near the city center.

However, the proposed plan of other CBD-adjacent suburbs raises questions. By omitting Carlton and East Melbourne, the plan leaves an arbitrary gap between Fitzroy, Collingwood, and the CBD. Likewise, the exclusion of West Melbourne—which sits closer to Melbourne's core than Collingwood—remains completely unjustified.

The currently proposed LGA–wide activity centres in Yarra and Melbourne currently include the above suburbs. YIMBY Melbourne urges the opposition to match this ambition with their Capital City Zone expansion.

Axing the Activity Centre Program returns wealthy suburbs to the NIMBY status quo

The Grattan Institute's modelling highlighted that the Activity Centre Program has boosted zoned housing capacity by 300,000, and feasible housing capacity by more than 110,000 homes. A move to reduce housing that reduces this capacity in middle Melbourne, will reduce housing choices and increase the cost of housing.

The Activity Centre Program is an impactful reform that makes sense. Any viable alternative plan must ensure there is no net loss of feasible housing capacity in middle Melbourne.

The NSW Liberals show there's a better path

The evidence is clear that restrictive planning controls are a significant long term driver of Melbourne's high housing costs. Sensible centre-right parties from New Zealand, to Canada to NSW show that centre-right housing policies don't have to say "no"—they can say "yes and".