Quick wins for a faster PC:
Recommended Free Tools
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →
ThatPainter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More
Residents of Sydney and Melbourne were not simply switching from houses to apartments. A September 2016 survey of 2,000 households in established middle-ring suburbs found that almost 60% still wanted a detached house and yard, yet 46% preferred a medium-density home without a garden when it offered public transport and nearby jobs and services. The result, described by Peter Newton in 2017, is a qualified shift: connected medium-density living can compete with the suburban ideal, while support for visible neighbourhood change remains limited.
What the survey actually measured
The Centre for Urban Transitions surveyed 2,000 households across established middle-ring suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne in September 2016. The literal preference question was, “What type of dwelling would you want to live in?” A second exercise combined dwelling type with location, allowing respondents to weigh a home’s private space against access to transport, employment and services.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
These dates matter. The figures describe attitudes recorded in 2016 and interpreted in a 2017 article; they are not a 2026 opinion poll, nor do they establish what residents currently think. The material available from the article does not provide the sampling frame, response rate, weighting, confidence intervals or enough demographic detail to test statistical precision. The safest reading is historical: it records a moment when established suburbs were debating how to accommodate growth.
Detached houses still led the basic preference question
Nearly 60% of respondents in both cities favoured a detached house with a yard. Newton contrasted that result with a 90% preference reported for the same option in an early-1990s comparison. The article does not identify the original publisher or provide the underlying dataset for that older figure, so the comparison should be treated as an indication of change rather than a precisely measured trend line.
#1 Best Overall
The remaining respondents did not form a single pro-density bloc. They included people interested in medium-density homes, apartments or other forms of housing, as well as people who may have prioritised different combinations of cost, location, maintenance and space. The survey’s headline does not mean that a majority rejected detached housing; it shows that the detached-house preference was no longer as close to universal as the earlier comparison suggested.
Location changed the answer more than dwelling labels did
When the survey presented complete living situations rather than housing types in isolation, the balance shifted. A medium-density dwelling without a garden, located near public transport in an established suburb with access to jobs and services, received the same share of preference as a detached house and garden in a car-dependent suburb.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →| Scenario presented to respondents | Share preferring it | What the result indicates |
|---|---|---|
| Medium-density dwelling, no garden, close to public transport, established suburb with jobs and services | 46% | Convenience and connectivity could offset the loss of private outdoor space for many households. |
| Detached dwelling with a garden in a car-dependent suburb | 46% | The traditional suburban package remained equally attractive when transport and service access were weaker. |
| High-rise apartment in or around the central business district | 8% | Very high-density living appealed to a much smaller minority in this comparison. |
The contrast is important for the “missing middle” debate. It does not show that people prefer density everywhere. It shows that a modestly scaled home in a well-connected established suburb can be judged on its whole setting. A smaller dwelling may become acceptable when daily trips are easier, while a larger house can lose some appeal if it requires extensive driving.
Awareness of neighbourhood change did not equal support
Seventy-one per cent of respondents said they were aware of neighbourhood change in their locality. Newton reported the same share for renters and owners, suggesting that redevelopment was visible across tenure groups rather than being an issue noticed only by homeowners.
Rank #2
| View of neighbourhood change | Reported share |
|---|---|
| Thought the change was a good thing | Fewer than 10% |
| Accepted that change had to happen | Almost 40% |
| Neutral | Just over 10% |
| Preferred less or no change | Around 45% |
Those responses describe a community that can recognise growth pressures without welcoming every project. Fewer than one in ten called the change a good thing, while almost four in ten saw it as unavoidable. Around 45% preferred less or no change, and just over 10% were neutral. Newton characterises this as a growing but grudging capacity to accept transformation.
That distinction matters in consultations. A resident may support more homes in principle but object to a particular building’s height, parking arrangement, construction impacts or loss of a familiar streetscape. Conversely, someone who dislikes redevelopment may still value a new bus route, local shop or smaller home for an ageing household. Treating either position as a simple “for” or “against” density hides the trade-offs the survey exposed.
Why connected medium density can be more acceptable
The survey’s paired scenarios point to a practical bargain. Medium-density housing can give up some private land while returning time and access: shorter trips to work, reliable public transport, nearby services and the ability to remain in an established suburb. The appeal is therefore relational. The same building type may be judged differently depending on what surrounds it and what a household can reach without a car.
This does not make a garden irrelevant. The equal 46% result shows that private outdoor space and a car-oriented location retained strong support. Nor does it establish that all households value transport in the same way. Families, older residents, renters, people with disabilities and workers with irregular schedules may assign different weights to storage, accessibility, quiet, school proximity or travel time. The survey reports aggregate choices, not a complete design brief for every group.
The 8% preference for a high-rise apartment in or around the CBD is another qualification. Respondents who were open to low- or medium-rise alternatives were not necessarily ready to embrace towers. A policy that treats every form of intensification as interchangeable would miss this scale distinction.
Greyfield redevelopment: the precinct-scale idea
Newton’s policy argument focuses on “greyfield” areas: established, largely low-density suburbs where ageing buildings and fragmented lots may offer opportunities for renewal. He argues that medium-density supply should increase in well-located middle-ring suburbs, but that redevelopment should be considered at precinct scale rather than as a series of isolated knock-down rebuilds.
A precinct approach can coordinate matters that one lot cannot solve alone: street access, shared open space, stormwater, parking, tree retention, construction staging and the position of new buildings relative to existing homes. It can also create a clearer conversation about what a neighbourhood gains in return for additional dwellings. These are planning implications proposed by Newton, not outcomes proved by the household survey.
For such projects to move beyond occasional examples, Newton says state and local planning instruments and guidelines need to enable greyfield precinct redevelopment. Governments and industry would also need the capacity to assemble land, finance projects, manage approvals and deliver small, well-designed developments. The argument is not for density at any cost; it is for rules and delivery systems that make an appropriate scale possible in appropriate locations.
What neighbours are willing to do with their land
Land assembly is one of the practical barriers to precinct redevelopment. In the Sydney results, one-quarter of respondents said they were open to consolidating property for sale with neighbours. The share rose to 39% for investment properties. That difference suggests that an owner-occupier’s emotional and practical attachment to a home can make cooperation harder than an investment decision, although the survey does not explain why individuals answered as they did.
Newton also mentions reported value uplifts of 10% to 100% when lots are consolidated. The article supplies no case list, calculation method or indication of how often those outcomes occur. The range must therefore not be read as a typical return or a promise to owners. A higher development value may be offset by taxes, professional fees, finance, delays, relocation costs, risk and the distribution of proceeds among several owners.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Questions a consortium of neighbours would need to settle
- Who has authority to negotiate, and how will each owner receive independent legal and valuation advice?
- What minimum number of adjoining lots is required for a viable design?
- How will proceeds, costs, holding periods and construction risk be divided?
- What happens if one owner withdraws, a lender refuses consent or planning approval is different from the initial concept?
- Which features—trees, driveways, privacy, adaptable homes or shared space—are non-negotiable for the group?
These questions do not appear as survey findings; they are the decisions implied by the consolidation model. Without answers, a willingness to sell together remains an attitude rather than a deliverable project.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.The four capabilities a transformation would require
Newton identifies four stakeholder groups whose capacity shapes urban change:
- State government: Set broad housing, transport and planning settings that allow well-located medium-density projects while maintaining clear public-interest safeguards.
- Local government: Translate those settings into neighbourhood plans, design guidance, infrastructure coordination and approval processes residents can understand.
- Property developers: Assemble sites, finance smaller projects, manage construction and demonstrate that additional homes can fit an existing streetscape.
- Community residents: Participate early, articulate the outcomes they value and decide whether land assembly or a particular proposal meets those conditions.
Each group controls a different part of the risk. A state rule cannot by itself create a trusted local process; a council plan cannot guarantee finance; a developer cannot resolve fragmented ownership without resident cooperation. The survey’s combination of location appeal and neighbourhood resistance explains why all four capacities matter at once.
Why small projects need a different delivery model
David Chandler, identified in Newton’s article as a leading figure in Australia’s building and construction industry, describes a capability gap for projects that sit between a house and a tower:
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute“The capabilities needed to design and build small-scaled medium-density housing projects of three to ten dwellings up to three storeys atop below-grade parking have yet to be developed. If medium-density dwellings of the type described here are to make up a third of the housing landscape, a new marketing platform and delivery model will be required.”
The quotation highlights why simply changing a zoning map may not produce the homes residents preferred. Three-to-ten-dwelling schemes involve different feasibility calculations, consultant teams, construction logistics and sales processes from either a detached house or a large apartment tower. They also require design discipline: fitting parking, access, daylight, privacy, landscaping and storage into a compact site without making the project feel like an oversized house or an undersized tower.
How to read the findings without overstating them
- Keep the year attached to every percentage. The numbers come from a September 2016 survey reported in 2017, not from a current national or citywide poll.
- Separate preference from approval. Choosing a connected medium-density scenario is not the same as supporting a proposed development next door.
- Distinguish scale. The survey’s 46% medium-density scenario and 8% high-rise result should not be collapsed into one “density” category.
- Distinguish policy from evidence. Precinct redevelopment, enabling planning instruments and new delivery models are Newton’s recommendations, not variables tested by the survey.
- Do not treat consolidation uplift as guaranteed. The 10%–100% range is reported without underlying cases or method.
- Acknowledge uncertainty. The available account does not establish sampling quality, statistical margins or whether the attitudes remain representative in 2026.
What the 2016 picture contributes to today’s debate
The historical value of the survey is its refusal to reduce housing politics to a binary choice between detached suburbs and high-rise city living. Many respondents still wanted a house and yard. Yet almost half selected a medium-density, transit-connected setting when the alternative was a detached home in a car-dependent suburb. At the same time, most people who noticed neighbourhood change did not celebrate it.
That combination suggests a more demanding test for urban proposals: can they deliver the everyday advantages of a connected location, at a scale that feels compatible with an established suburb, through a process residents can influence? The survey cannot answer whether a particular 2026 project passes that test. It does show why acceptance is likely to be conditional, negotiated and uneven rather than automatic.
Bottom line
In Sydney and Melbourne’s established middle-ring suburbs, the appetite for medium-density living was already visible in 2016—but mainly when location made the trade-off worthwhile. Detached houses remained the leading standalone preference, high-rise apartments attracted a small minority, and neighbourhood change faced more resignation than enthusiasm. The policy challenge identified by Newton is therefore not simply to add dwellings; it is to build the planning, land-assembly and delivery capacity for well-connected, small-scale projects that communities can realistically accept.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
