Sydney suburbs with the most amenities – but without one type of home

Some of Sydney highest-amenity neighbourhoods in the east and harbourside are lagging other parts of the city in the provision of social housing, new research shows.

Across the country, many well-located suburbs have scant social housing. For NSW, Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland, 70 per cent or more of high-amenity locations have less than 5 per cent social housing, according to new research which said this indicated “a strong opportunity to increase provision in these locations.”

“Most developed nations have more than 5 per cent social housing. Some countries in Europe have 10, some have 20 per cent, so it’s doable,” said Dr Stephen Glackin, senior research fellow at Swinburne University of Technology, who is the lead researcher of a new report undertaken for Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Small-area analysis and projections of social housing change.

This comes as the federal government has made housing a key platform, committing to deliver 55,000 social and affordable rental homes nationally over five years. But densification in general remains a challenge in some of Sydney’s most prized locations.

According to AHURI’s report, coastal and city suburbs have some of the highest concentrations of amenities but generally also have lower proportions of social housing. It ranks this by quintile, with five being the highest amenity, with good access to public transport, schools, medical services, employment opportunities and leisure activities, and one being lowest.

The proportion of social housing compared to total housing stock in 2021 was just 0.1 per cent in Double Bay-Darling Point and 0.3 per cent in Sydney (South)-Haymarket, with both these areas being in the highest-amenity locations.

North Sydney-Lavender Bay and Paddington-Moore Park, both high amenity locations, had 0.6 per cent and 0.8 per cent of social housing stock, while Chatswood-East had 1.1 per cent and Bondi-Beach-North Bondi had 1.2 per cent. All these areas had higher levels of amenity, according to the report.

Some councils say they would like to see a range of housing in their areas, but that social housing was the remit of other levels of government.

“Woollahra Council supports the provision of a diverse housing mix throughout the local area,” said Woollahra Municipal Council spokesperson, noting that it does not have direct involvement in the provision of social housing.

A City of Sydney spokesperson said it was “committed to tackling the housing crisis and we pull every lever we can to address the broader issue in our local area.”

“Sydney should not simply become an enclave for the rich. We need more housing, not less,” the spokesperson said.

AHURI’s research argues there was a need for increased social housing with good access to amenities.

Social housing includes both public and community housing.

Alexandra Raphael, the interim chief executive of Australian Community Housing, peak body of community housing providers, said high costs were a key challenge for putting social housing into desirable areas.

“The high density areas are also where everyone wants to live,” she said. “And also where land is incredibly expensive, so it makes it very difficult for the government in those places. They could develop social housing, but that comes with a huge price tag.”

AHURI’s report found there were greater rates of social housing in suburbs with poor access to amenities. In western Sydney, for example there were several clusters of high social housing proportions with lower amenity levels, including areas around Canterbury–Bankstown.

The proportion of social housing compared to total housing stock in 2021 was 27.8 per cent in the Ashcroft-Busby-Miller area, while it was 24.1 per cent in the Bidwill-Hebersham-Emerton area. Both these areas are locations with the lowest level of amenities.

Saul Eslake, independent economist, said governments had historically tended to build social housing in areas where the land is relatively cheap, meaning it’s a “long way away from centres of employment and amenity.”

For those with complex needs, Eslake said those needs were less likely to be met “than if the housing was located in more affluent areas where more services were available.”

Inner-city Redfern and Glebe are two areas that buck the trend, with higher concentrations of both social housing and amenities.

“So there are some areas that historically have been associated with social housing; they have social housing estates and the city has gentrified around them,” Glackin said.

Raphael said Australia is falling behind other countries in its provision of social and affordable housing, adding that placing people who are struggling away from services doesn’t create the opportunities for productive lives.

“It makes it hard for them to get the help they need. It makes it hard for them to help themselves, and it really is a way of entrenching disadvantage and not letting people break out of those cycles.”