The false “BUILDER vs BLOCKER” narrative

Good planning depends on evidence, respectful debate and competing ideas. Reducing complex planning questions to slogans such as “Builders versus Blockers” discourages meaningful discussion and makes it easier to dismiss legitimate planning concerns without addressing them.

Disagreeing with a planning proposal is not the same as opposing housing.

The Victorian Government has frequently presented planning reform as a choice between those who support housing and those who oppose it.

Supporters of the reforms have often been described as “builders”, while critics have been labelled “blockers” or “NIMBYs”.

This framing simplifies a complex planning debate into a contest between motives rather than ideas.

Planning reform depends not only on good policy, but on good public discussion. When debate becomes dominated by slogans and stereotypes rather than evidence and competing ideas, communities are less able to participate meaningfully.

This page examines how the “builder versus blocker” narrative reduces complex planning questions to simplistic labels and how public narratives and political framing influenced debate and awareness about Victoria’s planning changes.

---

---

Planning is more complex than a slogan

Good planning depends on evidence, transparency and respectful debate. It is rarely a simple choice between “yes” and “no”.

Yet discussion about Victoria’s planning changes has often been framed as a contest between those who support housing and those who oppose it.

In reality, many councils, planning professionals, academics, community groups and residents labelled “NIMBYs” support additional housing.

At the same time, they raise legitimate questions about where housing should be located, what type of housing is needed, how infrastructure will keep pace, and how environmental, heritage and liveability impacts should be managed.

These are planning questions — not arguments against housing itself.

Good planning involves balancing competing public interests. Reducing those discussions to “builders versus blockers”, as the State Government has frequently done, oversimplifies those competing interests and obscures the real planning questions.

---

Labels change the conversation

Labels do more than simplify debate — they change it. When debate shifts from the issues being raised to the people raising them, opportunities for genuine discussion are diminished.

Describing one side as “Builders” and the other as “Blockers” does more than simplify the debate. One label carries overwhelmingly positive associations of creating and solving problems, while the other implies unnecessary obstruction. This shifts attention away from the planning issues themselves and towards the perceived character of those involved.

This kind of framing shapes the narrative around planning change, promoting certain aspects — such as affordable housing — while obscuring others.

Moral attacks such as suggesting someone doesn’t care about homelessness, is selfish, or doesn’t want “those sort of people” in their neighbourhood, are devices used to make meaningful discussion much more difficult. Instead of discussing planning, people find themselves defending their character.

This risks discouraging participation. Some people may decide it is easier to remain silent than risk being dismissed with a label.

Labels continue to crowd out the planning discussion itself, preventing awareness within the wider community and demonising those who have questions.

Anyone concerned about heritage, building standards, “cookie-cutter” or developer-led design, or the loss of vegetation and climate resilience becomes merely a barrier to housing delivery rather than someone raising legitimate planning questions.

When public debate encourages us to judge the person before the argument, we all become less able to evaluate complex planning policy.

While some residents were carefully reading planning documents and asking detailed questions about planning codes, building standards and activity centre catchments, many others encountered the reforms only through broader public messaging.

Because many people were unaware that the planning changes extended well beyond activity centre cores into surrounding residential catchments, the debate often appeared to be little more than opposition to higher-density development around railway stations. This reinforced the “NIMBY” stereotype and obscured the broader planning issues being raised.

---

How the public narrative was shaped

Planning scholars Crystal Legacy, Chris Gibson and Dallas Rogers have argued that public participation can sometimes become more of a public relations exercise than a genuinely deliberative planning process, with critics labelled “NIMBYs” or otherwise treated as illegitimate participants. Their work provides one lens through which to consider the communication surrounding Victoria’s planning changes. Read: Infrastructural Gaslighting and the Crisis of Participatory Planning (Legacy, Gibson & Rogers, 2023).

Governments inevitably make choices about how policies are presented. The language they use, the stories they emphasise and the examples they highlight all influence public understanding.

The following examples illustrate some of the recurring narratives that shaped public discussion of Victoria’s planning changes.

“Builders vs Blockers”

Throughout the Activity Centre Program, planning reform was frequently presented as a contest between “Builders” and “Blockers”. The Government consistently described itself using the term “Builders”.

Unlike “Blockers”, which implies unnecessary obstruction, “Builders” evokes positive ideas of creating homes, opportunity and progress. The language itself encouraged readers to associate one side with solving problems and the other with standing in the way before the planning arguments had even been considered.

This framing was reinforced by Premier Jacinta Allan herself, who wrote, “The blockers will block. They always have. I’m not a blocker, I’m a builder.” (Read) The contrast is rhetorically effective. Rather than simply describing competing views on planning policy, it presents one side as creating homes and opportunity while the other is characterised primarily by obstruction.

The “Builders versus Blockers” narrative was only one example of how public communication shaped the debate.

The narrative of affordable housing

Public communication consistently emphasised affordable housing as the primary rationale for the planning changes. While affordability is an important public policy objective, presenting the reforms predominantly through this lens introduced a moral dimension to the debate.

As a result, questions about planning policy could easily be interpreted not simply as disagreement over how housing should be delivered, but as opposition to affordable housing itself.

Whether these reforms will actually deliver affordable housing should not be assumed — it is itself an important policy question. As discussed in Concerns → Affordable housing, much of the available evidence suggests that increasing market supply alone is unlikely to produce homes that are affordable for those on low and moderate incomes. This framing can obscure that distinction, encouraging the assumption that these planning changes will deliver affordable housing across all activity centres.

The way the planning changes were communicated also helped shape the media narrative. Certain themes received extensive coverage, while other aspects of the reforms attracted comparatively little attention.

Stereotypes of privilege and exclusivity

The first tranche of activity centres was announced in Brighton, one of Melbourne’s wealthiest suburbs, encouraging media coverage that focused on affluent residents resisting housing. The timing and presentation of the announcement steered much of the public conversation towards existing socio-economic and intergenerational divisions. As a result, concerns about planning policy were often viewed through the lens of wealth and privilege rather than assessed on their own merits, while the planning changes affecting the other 24 activity centres received comparatively little attention.

The tower narrative

While these narratives took centre stage, there was little media coverage of the walkable catchments. With public attention focused on high-rise towers, and images of towers along main roads and shopping strips dominating coverage, the planned mid-rise transformation of established family-oriented suburbs received far less scrutiny. Many people remained unaware of the walkable catchments, the Government’s long-term plans for these neighbourhoods, or that many of the new planning changes, including the Townhouse and Low-Rise Code and the Mid-Rise Code, extend beyond activity centre catchments.

More than two years after the first Activity Centres were announced, public awareness of the detail remains limited. Many Victorians are still unaware of the role of walkable catchments, the extent of the proposed neighbourhood transformation, or how widely the new planning codes apply.

“Childless Suburbs”

Later, references to “childless suburbs” reinforced broader social stereotypes that extended beyond planning itself.

In some parts of the debate, older residents came to be portrayed as obstacles to younger generations — blocking housing, resisting change and protecting privilege. This age-based framing often shifted attention away from the planning issues being raised and towards assumptions about who was making them.

The “childless suburbs” narrative is also inconsistent with Australian Bureau of Statistics data. In Boroondara, around seven in every ten classified households were family households in 2021, and the number of family households increased by approximately 9% over the previous decade. Population ageing did not mean the municipality ceased to be family-oriented.

Reducing complex communities to labels such as “childless suburbs” oversimplifies demographic change and risks stereotyping both older residents and the communities in which they live.

Together, these narratives influenced how planning concerns were interpreted.

These narratives encouraged people to interpret planning concerns through the lens of the stereotype. Legitimate questions about planning policy became easier to dismiss because they were no longer judged primarily on their merits, but through assumptions about the person raising them.

Victorians deserve better than that. Good public communication should help people understand what is changing, acknowledge legitimate concerns and encourage informed discussion — not deepen existing social divisions.

---

A lack of empathy for community concerns

Major planning changes inevitably affect people’s homes, neighbourhoods and sense of place. It is understandable that many residents will have questions and concerns when changes of this scale are proposed. Even when governments believe change is necessary, acknowledging those concerns respectfully is an important part of maintaining public trust.

Instead, stereotypes and slogans too often replace empathy, making it easier to dismiss community concerns than engage with them.

Ironically, it is often the so-called “blockers” who are portrayed as lacking empathy, when many are expressing genuine concern about the future of their homes, neighbourhoods and communities. Yet many residents believe it is the Government that has shown little empathy in its response to the concerns of residents.

---

What this means for Melbourne

Public debate increasingly encourages people to view the reforms through a moral lens: those supporting the reforms are often portrayed as helping solve the housing crisis, while those raising planning concerns risk being portrayed as obstacles to progress.

The quality of public debate surrounding the Activity Centre Program has too often been dominated by labels and stereotypes rather than the planning questions themselves. Many Victorians remain unfamiliar with the planning codes, development pathways and legislative changes that will shape Melbourne’s future.

Good planning deserves more than slogans. It deserves an informed public discussion in which evidence, competing interests and legitimate concerns can be examined on their merits. Respectful disagreement is not an obstacle to good planning — it is one of its strengths.

---