Hosted by Colin Biggers & Paisley, this year’s discussion made one point clear: the housing challenge is not about choosing between liveability and feasibility but rather rethinking how both can be delivered together. 

From generational shifts in housing expectations to mounting cost pressures and delivery constraints, the conversation focused on practical, evidence-based solutions to unlock supply while maintaining quality outcomes. 

The keynote delivered by Andrew Porter, Global Lead - Future Communities and Stewart Verity, Market Leader Property and Buildings at GHD, examined the forces shaping Australia’s housing future. 

Recent CROSSROADS research presented by GHD highlighted shifting community expectations, particularly among younger generations, who are increasingly open to medium and higher-density housing and place greater value on proximity to amenity.  

However, the data also reinforced a key tension: while demand for well-located, connected living is growing, affordability constraints limit access to it.  

International comparisons, particularly with Singapore, highlight that when density is paired with high-quality amenity, it becomes both desirable and normalised across all demographics. 

As Andrew Porter observed, “when you have access to amenity, it creates liveability… it creates value and it creates a premium in the market which is equally enjoyed by all generations.” 

The implication for Australia is clear: density alone is not the answer; it must be delivered thoughtfully and done well. 

Following the keynote, Stewart joined an expert panel comprising Hon. Stuart Ayres, Chief Executive Officer of UDIA Australia (NSW); Cameron Jackson, Chief Operating Officer, Apartments and Mixed-Use Developments at Sekisui House Australia and Belinda McHarg, Director, Projects at WMK Architecture. 

Together, moderated by Jean-Paul Fraticelli, partner in our Property & Development team, they unpacked the impact of the National Housing Accord, recent planning system changes in New South Wales and the ongoing challenge of delivering higher-density housing that is both liveable and commercially viable. 

The panellists were candid about the structural pressures affecting delivery. There was broad agreement that the city’s biggest constraint isn’t demand, it’s delivery certainty, speed and cost volatility.  Rising construction costs, driven by broader economic conditions including energy market volatility and inflationary pressures, continue to place significant strain on project feasibility.   

Stewart Verity, Market Leader Property and Buildings, GHD commented that "The current oil shock isn’t a short-term spike, rather, I see it as more of a structural reset for urban development feasibility in Australia. Oil prices directly impact construction and materials costs, and we are all aware that once prices rise, they rarely fully retreat.  At the same time, borrowing capacity constraints are affecting both developers and purchasers, tightening project viability from both sides of the equation”. 

While policy reform is critical, the discussion reinforced that feasibility is not just a regulatory issue, it is also a design and delivery challenge. 

A consistent theme across the panel was that quality is central to long-term feasibility. 
Poor design and defects erode value, increase lifecycle costs and undermine buyer confidence, while high-quality, well-designed developments protect value and reduce downstream risk.  

As Cameron Jackson emphasised, “the answer is simply to build quality apartments, design it once and build it well.” 

Importantly, the panel challenged the notion that “cheaper” housing is the solution. Instead, the focus should be on delivering better-designed, more efficient housing that improves usability and reduces long-term cost burdens.   

Belinda McHarg further noted, “good design and modularity allow developments to adapt over time, enabling apartments to change and respond to the market, while maintaining quality and longevity.”  

Changing buyer expectations are reshaping what drives value. Today’s purchasers, particularly time-poor, dual-income households are prioritising convenience, connectivity and access to amenity over size alone.  

Cameron Jackson explained, “people want things that make their life easier, access to transport, schools, childcare and services and they will seek out locations that offer that.”    

The panel also noted that future demand will be less focused on in-building “extras” such as wellness centres and more on the quality of the surrounding neighbourhood, including green space, walkability and integrated community infrastructure.  

In this sense, liveability is increasingly being defined at a precinct level, not just within the building itself. 

There was broad agreement that increasing density is essential but how it is delivered matters. 

Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, the panel advocated for a more nuanced model that: 

• aligns density with market readiness; 

• provides a mix of typologies (low, medium and high density); and 

• allows flexibility in planning controls to respond to local conditions. 

Gradual, staged density, particularly in growth areas, was highlighted as critical. 

As Stuart Ayres, CEO of UDIA Australia (NSW) observed, “this is about getting the sequencing right and lifting density over time rather than building ahead of where the market is.” 

Equally, planning settings must support feasibility by allowing innovation in design, apartment sizing and delivery models. 

"What we should be doing is designing suburbs with a different set of typologies that allows buyers to make the choice to live where they want to and that might mean the way we think about phasing development", said Stuart Ayres. 

Improving productivity and embracing innovation emerged as key to bridging the feasibility gap. 

The industry is increasingly exploring modular construction and off-site manufacturing as a way to: 

• improve build quality; 

• reduce construction time; 

• lower labour intensity; and 

• enhance safety outcomes. 

However, the discussion acknowledged that broader systemic change, including industrial settings and market structures which will be required to fully realise these benefits.  

The overarching theme from the evening was one of shared responsibility.  

Government, industry and the broader market all have a role to play in addressing the housing challenge, from policy reform and infrastructure funding to design quality and delivery innovation. 

The path forward will require: 

• more flexible and responsive planning frameworks; 

• smarter approaches to infrastructure funding; 

• a continued focus on design quality and long-term performance; and 

• stronger alignment between community expectations and market delivery. 

The Sydney Property Think Tank 2026 reinforced that the tension between liveability and feasibility is real but not insurmountable. 

With the right combination of policy reform, market responsiveness and industry leadership, it is possible to deliver housing that is both commercially viable and genuinely liveable. 

The challenge now is execution. 

For further discussion on the issues explored and their implications for the property sector, please contact Colin Biggers & Paisley’s Property & Development team. Our specialists can provide strategic guidance on navigating the evolving legal, planning and commercial landscape shaping housing delivery.