Volume builders cater to a diverse customer base. This enables them to reach a larger audience across various market segments. It is extremely competitive, and that necessitates builders providing a range of ‘offerings’ to differentiate themselves. Profit margins are low, but the aggregate earnings from multiple sites can result in significant growth and scalability. The problem is that houses are no longer what they were in the post-war era, when this business model was born. They are larger, more sophisticated, and more valuable, requiring a much greater investment on the part of the owners. Gone are the small 65m2 homes that sat effortlessly on a quarter-acre block; roughly the size of a typical two-bedroom apartment.  

Traditionally, builders used to build simple houses and then sell them. Interestingly, this is still how many skilled builders make a living. Volume building, in contrast, was born by pre-selling a large number of homes to people who have never built before. This model grew in parallel with the concept of the suburb, which arose in response to the overcrowded, polluted, and inhospitable urban centres of the 18th and 19th centuries; but volume building as we know it has reached its limits. No longer does this suburban dream correspond to our modern society's needs and aspirations. With the failure of many well-known builders halting projects across Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, and the ACT, leaving customers without a home or out of pocket, maybe it's time to let pre-selling die?

This would be a transformative shift in the way we approach housing and urban development. It would imply acknowledging the end of the era of volume builders and sprawling suburbs, where individual quantity is valued over collective quality. Instead of houses that are frequently underutilised, with large amounts of space lying empty most of the time, reconsider alternatives that promote sustainable, liveable communities while making better use of our resources.

We must reimagine our cities and suburbs in order to effect change. We must move away from unchecked urban sprawl and towards medium-density development that encourages community engagement and resource sharing. It is not a matter of forcing everyone to live in high-rise apartments, but of striking a balance between dense, well-designed housing, low-rise, high-rise and open, green spaces.

The advantages of such a shift goes beyond aesthetics and resource efficiency through greater use of bicycles, a more efficient public transportation systems and lower carbon emissions per capita. Thoughtful design and community planning can have beneficial effects on people's psychological well-being. By creating environments that are aesthetically pleasing, functional, safe, conducive to social interaction and a connection with nature. These elements collectively contribute to a higher quality of life and greater overall satisfaction among residents.

Such a shift, however, will not occur overnight. Volume builders have a significant presence in our housing market, and those who fear overcrowding are resistant to change. We must recognise that the issue is not density per se, but rather how cities are managed and designed. It is critical that we embrace a new vision for our urban spaces—one that promotes sustainable, liveable, and more people. To create communities that prioritise quality of life, resource efficiency, and environmental responsibility, the government, architects, builders, and residents must work together. Only through such a concerted effort can we usher in a new era of urban development that truly meets the needs of our changing society while also preserving the beauty of our cities and suburbs for future generations.