Speaking at the Future Suburb Symposium, held ahead of The Age’s Melbourne Assembly civic forum, McLeod said the way society is trying to fix converging crises – climate, cost of living, loneliness and housing – is wrong. “We’re trying to solve the problem in the wrong ways,” he told an audience of design students, architects and researchers.
McLeod pointed to historical data: the average Australian home has grown from 100 square metres in the 1950s to 235 square metres in 2025, while per-person space has tripled to 94 square metres and average household occupancy has fallen from 3.6 to fewer than three. “So, we’ve got less people living in houses that are nearly 2½ times the size,” he said. “Are we better off now than our parents were in the ’50s? Ask them.”
He argued that before the recent interest rate rise, an average couple earning $120,000 a year could afford a $692 weekly mortgage payment, equating to 54 square metres in Brunswick – the same per-person footprint as the 1950s. “We’re all saying: ‘This is horrific. Oh my God, all I can live in is 54 square metres?’ As it turns out, it’s the same as our parents had in the ’50s,” McLeod said.
Despite Nightingale being “revered in Melbourne”, McLeod said the model cannot fix the housing crisis on its own. His remarks prompted nervous laughter from some in the room. The Melbourne Assembly forum, to be held next week in partnership with the University of Melbourne, will gather industry leaders, decision-makers and the community to discuss the city’s future.