<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/80082/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Liveability is an increasingly important goal of Australian planning policy. And creating cities where residents can get to most of the services they need within 20 to 30 minutes has been proposed, at both federaland state level, as a key liveability-related mechanism. 
The previous federal government’s 2010 National Urban Policy stated:
"Liveable cities are socially inclusive, affordable, accessible, healthy, safe and resilient to the impacts of climate change … Liveable cities provide choice and opportunity for people to live their lives, and raise their families, to their fullest potential."
In Victoria, keeping Melbourne “attractive and liveable” is the cornerstone of the state government’s newly updated Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 strategy. Liveability is seen as a way to stay globally competitive, attracting more business and more international students, Victoria’s most profitable service export.
Our summary of research on liveability indicators also points to strong links with general population health and environmental sustainability. 
Plan Melbourne’s vision of liveability involves:
"… a city of 20-minute neighbourhoods … where people can access most of their needs within a 20-minute walk, cycle or public transport trip."
The plan discusses people’s need for access to a long list of local services – shopping centres, health facilities, schools and lifelong learning opportunities, playgrounds and parks (including community gardens, green spaces and recreation facilities), affordable housing (including the ability to age in place) and “local public transport”. 
It also values attributes such as “safe”, “walkable” and “attractive”. Specifically excluded is a 20-minute commute to most employment, although the plan mentions local work opportunities. 
To create a city of 20-minute neighbourhoods over Plan Melbourne’s 30-year time frame, at least three strategic planning challenges must be overcome. 
<h2>How do we define and measure success?</h2>
First, the plan fails to specify what access means and how it is measured, as well as what local needs are key. For instance, the average speed of a leisurely walk by a healthy adult along a relatively flat footpath is five kilometres per hour. Older and younger pedestrians may be slower. 
Including the time lost to stopping at intersections and meandering footpaths, a “pedshed” analysis often equates a 20-minute walk with a distance of 800 metres. 
Plan Melbourne does not list the essential social infrastructure or distance measurement methods that will be used to create the 20-minute radius for each neighbourhood. This poses problems for the important task of tracking progress. 
In contrast, the US city of Portland’s strategic plan for a 20-minute city requires four key pieces of social infrastructure located close to affordable residential housing. These are: public primary schools, grocery stores, green parks, and public transport stops with minimum travel frequency standards. 
 
In Australia, given our growing elderly population, bulk-billing health services might also be required infrastructure in each 20-minute neighbourhood. 
<h2>Infrastructure deficit is daunting</h2>
In 1995, homes selling for A$100,000 or less were well within the means of median-income households in areas with good public transport access, like Maribyrnong, Dandenong and Heidelberg. 
By 2015, homes selling for $415,000 (the new 25th percentile) were in areas like Gippsland, Sunbury and Bacchus Marsh. That’s well beyond the reach of metropolitan public transport. 
Plan Melbourne does talk of “two cities” – the well-serviced, unaffordable central city, and underserviced middle and outer suburbs. But the plan does not adequately recognise the city’s severe and unfairly distributed infrastructure deficit. 
The words “liveable” and “liveability” appear 40 times in 152 pages (with prefixes such as “protect”, “improve” and “world-renowned”); “equitable” and “equity” only five times. 
This infrastructure deficit casts a daunting shadow over Plan Melbourne. To provide adequate transport and health services to Melbourne’s outer suburbs, SGS Economics and Planning, working with the National Growth Areas Authority, estimated funding of $5 billion a year will be needed over the next 15 years. 
The Grattan Institute has calculated that Victoria will need around 220 new schools, mostly in outer suburbs, over the next ten years. Each primary school costs an average of $15 million to build, and high schools more than twice that. 
In May, the state auditor highlighted the chronic underfunding of 1,500 existing primary schools as a concern. The report also emphasised the need to greatly improve strategic planning for new schools. 
Social housing, recognised as a vital priority in Infrastructure Victoria’s recent 30-year strategy, is a critical shortfall across Melbourne. The shortfall is particularly acute in areas with adequate infrastructure. The strategy estimates 75,000 to 100,000 low-income households’ needs are unmet. 
To keep pace with population growth, 50,000 dwellings a year must be built. At least half would need to be accessible to households in the bottom half of the income scale. 
A Commonwealth advisory report on housing affordability found almost half of Australian renters are in housing stress, as median home ownership costs have risen from the recommended 2.5 times annual household income to well over six times. 
The well-serviced central cities have the highest housing prices, with Sydney and Melbourne the worst. 
Plan Melbourne talks about housing affordability in general terms. What it lacks is specific affordable housing targets for inner and middle suburbs with adequate infrastructure to overcome inequalities in delivering the 20-minute city.
<h2>Tax system hinders funding</h2>
The state is responsible for strategic planning and most infrastructure provision, but the Commonwealth controls most of Australia’s tax revenue. The result is that, despite being home to one in four Australians, Victoria gets only about 8% of federal infrastructure spending.
And the federal government is one of the main contributors to the affordable housing crisis by subsidising housing speculation through negative gearing and capital gains tax exemption. 
The Grattan Institute estimates these measures cost the budget almost $11.7 billion per year. That’s enough to fund essential infrastructure improvements across Australia. 
<h2>Possible pathways to improvement</h2>
So what is the prognosis for 20-minute cities? What could be done to increase the chances of achieving this important goal? 
The state government could clarify its definition of key access indicators, and begin mapping 20-minute access by neighbourhood to monitor progress, as Portland does.
Vancouver, Canada, has included access indicators in its planning for family-friendly, high-density housing since 1992. The indicators include a maximum distance of 800 metres to a community centre, a grocery store, a public primary school and associated play area, daycare centre and after-school care; and 400 metres to a playground and a frequently serviced public transport stop.
An evaluation of the 50,000 residents in the central Vancouver community of False Creek North showed high levels of satisfaction among households that settled there.
Victoria could also follow Portland’s example of giving priority to improving infrastructure in under-serviced areas and to providing affordable housing in well-serviced areas. Plan Melbourne still lacks mechanisms to achieve this.
The 20-minute city is a worthy goal. As difficult as it may be to imagine at the moment, federal, state and local governments must collaborate, along with private developers and investors, if the access needs of all city residents are to be met.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carolyn-whitzman-9944" target="_blank">Carolyn Whitzman</a> is Professor of Urban Planning, University of Melbourne and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

A 20-minute city sounds good, but becoming one is a huge challenge

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/82580/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Is the Reserve Bank of Australia’s monetary policy on a collision course with itself? Quite possibly.
The key data and evidence this week were employment figures in Australia, retail sales in the United States, and minutes from the Reserve Bank of Australia board and US Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).
First, the data. ABS figures released Wednesday provided more evidence of sluggish wage growth. 
Wages nationally grew 0.5% in the June quarter, translating to 1.9% year on year. Worse still, private-sector wages grew only 1.8%, compared with 2.5% for government employees. All of this puts increased pressure on family budgets at a time when energy prices are rising rapidly.
Meanwhile, the RBA board minutes seemed like they were describing a different economy. In terms of consumer spending, the RBA pointed to the rising values of retail sales in April and May and growth in consumption in the June quarter. The minutes also noted:
"Beyond the June quarter, rising employment and stronger household income growth were expected to support consumption growth, which was forecast to be a little above its average of recent years."
The minutes were also rosy when it came to the labour market, stating that employment had increased in every state since the start of the year, including in states with mining. The RBA noted:
"This provided further evidence that the drag on economic activity from earlier declines in the terms of trade and falling mining investment were running their course. Over this period, around 165,000 full-time jobs had been created, labour force participation had risen and average hours worked had increased."
Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Thursday showed that employment itself rose in July, with 27,900 jobs created. Unemployment rate fell from 5.7% to 5.6%, and labour force participation was a healthy-ish 65.1%.
I guess the only wrinkle is that these workers aren’t getting paid very much.
Markets and commentators widely interpreted these minutes and various other remarks by governor Philip Lowe as suggesting that the next interest rate move would be an upward one.
But then there’s the problem of the massive household debt Australians hold. RBA figures showed that as of March this was 190% of annual disposable income. Combine that with the fact that one-third of mortgage holders don’t have a one month buffer of payments and it makes an interest rate rise look rather risky.
The RBA knows this, of course, noting in the minutes:
"Members regarded conditions in the housing market and household balance sheets as continuing to warrant careful monitoring."
To summarise: growth and inflation seem to point to an interest-rate rise in the medium term; unemployment rates do too. Sluggish wages growth points to a cut, but a cut might further fuel housing prices. 
And those high prices have left Australian households so highly leveraged that a modest rate rise could cause a wave of financial distress and perhaps mortgage defaults. That would lead to fire sales, damage bank balance sheets, and wipe billions of the market capitalisation of the four largest ASX listed companies.
The RBA has to raise, but it has to cut. That’s what I mean by a collision course.
In the US, some brighter news. Retail sales shot up 0.6% last month. This was the largest gain since December 2016, and further evidence of a strengthening economy.
This was reflected in the minutes of the FOMC which observed that:
"…economic conditions would evolve in a manner that would warrant gradual increases in the federal funds rate, and that the federal funds rate was likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run."
The bottom line from the long FOMC minutes was that things appear to be on track, with monetary policy still helping to bolster the labour market and get inflation back in the target zone.
The US isn’t in the clear yet, but it looks like the Federal Reserve under Janet Yellen may have pulled off a remarkable rebuilding of the US economy.
In Australia it’s much less clear. With huge household debt, low wage growth, and rising energy prices, the path back to “normal” economic conditions may take longer than in the US.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/richard-holden-118107" target="_blank">Richard Holden</a> is Professor of Economics and PLuS Alliance Fellow, UNSW and author for The Conversation.
</body></html>

RBA rates decision stuck between jobs growth and household debt: Richard Holden

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Imagine a world where nothing is wasted and resources are endlessly re-purposed.
From bamboo coffee cups to recycled paint, more companies are championing the idea of a circular economy in which discarded raw materials and products are repeatedly reused, producing no waste or pollution.
According to the United Nations, by 2050 we could need three times more resources than we currently use, due to population growth and unabated consumerism. Specifically, the US National Intelligence Council has stated that globally we will need 35 percent more food, 40 percent more water and 50 percent more energy by 2030 alone.
“In short, the ‘take, make, dispose’ model of production, also known as a linear economy, is forcing the planet into a state of disrepair,” says Sophie Walker, Head of UK Sustainability, JLL. “We inherently live beyond our means and as a result, have seen pressures on resources mount and the potential for irreversible environmental changes grow.”
Taking a fresh approach
In recent times the concept of a circular approach has gathered momentum as an attractive and viable way of generating economic growth and prosperity for people and planet. “The shift to the regenerative circular concept we are seeing is taking place because world governments and businesses have realized that increasing global competition has made access to resources, at affordable prices, an increasingly challenging proposition,” says Walker. “They have also realized that the environmental risks are too severe to continue down the ‘linear’ path.”
And the potential benefits of applying circular principles to domestic economies and businesses are mammoth. The European Commission states that it could bring an estimated net saving of £523 billion to European businesses. In London, net benefits of a least £7 billion per annum along with 12,000 new jobs could be obtained by 2036 by applying circular activities across a variety of sectors according to The London Waste and Recycling Board.
Big companies such as Apple, Unilever, Renault and Google are already taken action to embrace circular solutions. In the fashion world, H&amp;M aims to become 100 percent circular, helped by its in-store garment-collection program and polyester fashion line made from reprocessed PET bottles.Since adopting a circular mindset, professional services firm PwC has saved almost £25 million by cutting paper and energy consumption through measures such as using cooking fat from its canteens and other kitchens to fuel its offices and remanufacturing office furniture where possible. Its cut-throat examination of numerous waste streams helped it achieve zero-waste-to-landfill status in 2012.
The real estate impact
Can the same circular principles work for buildings? Walker thinks so: “In my opinion the answer is yes. The UK building sector utilises over 400 million tonnes of material a year and generates a third of all our waste which comes at great cost, not only to the planet but also to our pockets. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Durable, re-usable components that can be easily put together, taken apart and accessed for repair or replacement can make all the difference. This allows us to adapt to society’s ever-changing needs by extending the life and value of our buildings.”
She points to modular construction, where homes are built in a factory environment using state of the art methods and materials, as an antidote for reducing waste and improving speed and affordability of new builds in the UK housing sector. For example, Legal &amp; General has just built its first modular housing prototype outside its Selby factory in Yorkshire.
Elsewhere, companies are turning waste into building materials. Lendlease is a supporter of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT), a material made from wood chips, normally considered scrap. CLT has a low ecological footprint and is faster and less labour-intensive to construct than conventional materials so much so, that the first 10-storey apartment building made with CLT took five skilled workers just 10 weeks to build. In what it calls “the latest example of high-performance workplaces, setting new benchmarks in environmentally sustainable building practices,” Lendlease is using CLT to erect the tallest and largest engineered timber office building by gross floor area in the world in Brisbane, Australia.
Why the future is circular
“Circular thinking really is gaining traction in the property sector,” Walker explains. “There are firms out there building entirely with circular economy principles.” The aptly named Circular Building was one of the first buildings in the UK built to satisfy these values, in which all parts were intended to be used to their full potential and to the duration of their life cycle.
“Another example is the Park 20|20 office development in Amsterdam which embraces a circular-economy approach by creating closed cycles for materials, energy, waste, and water, with everything having the potential to be composted or recycled back into industry,” she adds.
As circular thinking catches on, the need to move towards a new model is no longer in doubt nor are the potential economic opportunities. “Whether it’s property, retail or consumer goods, businesses are realising that big cost savings can be made from being socially and environmentally responsible and efficient,” says Walker.
To recycle the phrase Mark Farmer used in his assessment of the British construction sector: “the choice is simple, modernize or die.”
This article by Emma Hollingshead appeared in <a href="https://www.jllrealviews.com" target="_blank">JLL Real Views</a>
</body></html>

How companies are reaping the benefits of circular thinking

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/82307/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
There was genuine positivity at this year’s Australian Booksellers’ Association Conference in Melbourne in June.
The mood was one of camaraderie and optimism at the sharing of good news. And it only brightened with the news that our National Bookshop Day was to be rebranded this year as Love Your Bookshop Day. Why not?
Saturday is that day. Expect to see your local bookshop buntinged, postered, streamered and perhaps offering special bargains. Assuming, of course, you have a local bookshop. 
Store numbers have steadied in recent years and, as was reported at the conference, both independent and chain or franchise booksellers are expanding. Children’s book sales in particular are performing well. (“The bookshop is dead. Long live the bookshop,” reads a plaque at Embiggen Books in Melbourne’s CBD.) 
But over the past couple of decades the sector has wrestled with the challenges of superstores, GST, the GFC, one-sided international post deals, ebooks and online-only undercutters.
Now the greatest of these online stores, certainly in terms of market share, will soon be competing with Australian bookstores from a new base here. Amazon has secured a massive distribution centre site near Dandenong in outer-eastern Melbourne. Dire predictions for parts of the Australian retail sector have already been made. 
Local booksellers too will need to adjust to this new environment, in which Amazon will likely reduce its delivery time and charges significantly. This will place downward pressure on book prices, and thus booksellers’ margins and capacity to survive.
Amazon has itself experimented with physical bookstores in recent times, to underwhelming reviews, but its primary focus has, of course, been on being able to offer “everything” at the “everyday low prices” of its American precursors (and sometime role models), Walmart and Costco.
Today’s booksellers must choose what to put on their shelves from around 7,000 new releases each month. As all of these will be on the “shelves” of Amazon, local booksellers will need to maintain an intimate knowledge of what will appeal to their customer base.
This curatorial role, which has always been part of what good booksellers do, takes on extra importance in the digital age. Curating, one might say, is the opposite approach to that of Amazon, which instead expertly removes barriers to purchasing, encouraging impulse buying. The extra services local booksellers provide, in addition to low prices and the range of stock, will likely need beefing up also. Community building will be the order of the day.
The current shrinkage of review pages of broadsheet newspapers will also hurt many bookshops, as they depend on a degree of consensus as to what is important and valuable to read.
Price instability may well grow in Australia with the arrival of Amazon. Publishers have argued over the decades that this instability also discourages consumer confidence.
The Productivity Commission doesn’t accept arguments in favour of maintaining price levels for some products in order to keep the costs of others down. But regulatory bodies have special challenges when confronted with large, diverse conglomerates, such as Amazon. It has the capacity to drop prices for products in one category (such as books) to maximise competitiveness, while the overall bottom line is propped up by more profitable parts of the business (such as Amazon Web Services).
In the face of aggressive price cutting from firms like … well, Amazon … regulatory bodies concerned with fair prices for consumers are yet to find an effective means of properly accounting for the fact that its success has been partly based on exploiting publicly developed (and funded) technology and infrastructure, determined strategies of tax minimisation, aggressive use of IP and patent law, and sustained intransigence towards its workforce’s self-organisation and unionisation.
On Tuesday morning this past week, a crowd of parents and kids waited in the cold out the front of our local suburban bookshop till, at 9 o’clock, they could rush in and buy the latest Treehouse book, by Andy Griffiths. The bookseller handed out free copies of a quality cookbook to parents. Community spirit, human connectedness and customer loyalty all bloomed nicely.
As the legendary Collins bookseller, Michael Zifcack, recalled in his memoirs, “I realised early on that customer service was the secret of successful bookselling.”
I’ll be heading to that local shop on Saturday, but can also, of course, appreciate the access to more or less every available product that online shopping provides. No doubt there is room for both retail models within our society.
What remains most important, when thinking about the health of the book industry here, is that no matter how cheap we make these products, there won’t be effective demand for them unless people have the time and desire to read. 
This desire, in turn, rests most powerfully on the belief that what one knows and says matters; that democracy, its public sphere, and reason, evidence and logic are the driving forces of one’s society. For all of us, that challenge is ongoing and, broadly speaking, we will get the books and bookshops we deserve.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nathan-hollier-13619" target="_blank">Nathan Hollier</a> is Director, Monash University Publishing, Monash University and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Love of bookshops in a time of Amazon and populism

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/82154/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Residents of neighbourhoods with good infrastructure and services often enjoy lower living costs and better wellbeing and life chances.
But access to education, health, transport and other public amenities and services is unevenly distributed in the city. 
Some suburbs are disadvantaged on multiple fronts, and it turns out these areas receive much more state funding in Melbourne than in Sydney.
From a social justice perspective, public funding of infrastructure and services should give priority to the most disadvantaged areas. This “redistribution” is seen as necessary to counter socioeconomic disadvantage and inequality. 
In both Sydney and Melbourne, our research shows more funding goes to moderately disadvantaged areas, on average, than to more advantaged areas. In Sydney, however, government spending in the most disadvantaged suburbs was very low compared to Melbourne.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/08/16/file-20170811-12395-tqo9ff.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/08/16/file-20170811-12395-tqo9ff.jpg" alt="">
 
Average per capita investment by socioeconomic status of suburb. Author provided
<h2>Breaking down the funding distribution</h2>
Our study sought to understand how state funding is distributed in Melbourne and Sydney. We looked at the Victorian and New South Walesstate budgets from 1999 to 2015 to measure expenditure in different suburbs of both cities. This included transport, roads, health, education, justice, utilities, amenities, government facilities and community services.
In both Sydney and Melbourne we saw an overall redistributive pattern. Moderately disadvantaged areas received more on average than advantaged areas. 
However, state investment in Sydney’s most disadvantaged suburbs was very low. In contrast, such areas in Melbourne benefited from relatively high state spending. 
In Melbourne’s most socially disadvantaged suburbs, expenditure was higher than the metropolitan average in almost all categories of infrastructure and services. The exceptions were emergency services and amenities. 
In Sydney’s most disadvantaged suburbs, expenditure was lower than the metropolitan average in health, justice, roads, amenities, urban development and utilities. Only expenditure on community services and education was above the average. 
In both cities, expenditure on public housing development was relatively high in the most disadvantaged suburbs. Government investment in building more affordable housing in well-serviced areas is extremely important. A booming housing market has pushed disadvantaged people, including recently arrived immigrants, away from well-serviced suburbsthat were once affordable.
However, in Sydney, new public housing development occurs disproportionately in the most disadvantaged suburbs that also lack good public infrastructure and services. 
<h2>Inner city does best</h2>
The disadvantage of Sydney’s poorest suburbs can be attributed, in part, to a highly centralised pattern of government spending. It is disproportionately high in the inner city and progressively declines outwards. 
The majority of Sydney’s most disadvantaged suburbs are located well outside the metropolitan centre, and therefore miss out. 
Strategic plans for Sydney since 2005 have envisioned a shift towards a less centralised structure. Yet the pattern of infrastructure investment we observed is at odds with such rhetoric. 
Most recently, the Greater Sydney Commission has promoted a “metropolis of three cities”. The three centres are the CBD, Parramatta and the planned Western Sydney Airport in Badgery’s Creek. The impact of these strategies on infrastructure distribution will need close monitoring.
But, on its own, centralised expenditure does not fully explain why Sydney’s most disadvantaged suburbs miss out. Some of Sydney’s emerging outer suburbs benefited from much higher investment. And in Melbourne, despite a centralised pattern of investment (albeit less extreme than Sydney’s), the most disadvantaged suburbs did benefit from high expenditure.
We need to find other political and social explanations to explain these differences between Melbourne and Sydney. 
<h2>Finding a fairer balance</h2>
Despite the justifications for redistribution to the neediest areas, various political and economic dynamics work against it.
Public investment often favours other areas because these are expected to yield higher economic or electoral returns. Better resourced communities can also lobby government more effectively – pushing for or against facilities in their area, for instance. 
Nonetheless, state governments can play a crucial role in reducing social inequalities in Australia’s major cities. In Sydney, infrastructure allocation decisions by successive state governments have failed the most disadvantaged communities. 
Public spending on infrastructure and services will have to be redistributed to fix these problems. But simply channelling more funds to disadvantaged suburbs will not be enough. To maximise the transformative impact on such communities, the state must take the needs and wishes of diverse residents into account. 
Crucially, this must include more affordable housing. Otherwise, investments in better infrastructure and services may well lead to the displacement of the very people who are meant to benefit.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ilan-wiesel-303040" target="_blank">Ilan Wiesel</a> is Lecturer in Urban Geography, University of Melbourne.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/caitlin-buckle-399322" target="_blank">Caitlin Buckle</a> is PhD Candidate in Human Geography, UNSW.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fanqi-liu-399272" target="_blank">Fanqi Liu</a> is PhD Student in Urban Geography, University of Melbourne.
All are authors for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Melbourne shows up Sydney in funding the most disadvantaged suburbs

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/78252/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Imagine in the years ahead that you were to come across a photograph of the Melbourne streetscape from 2017.
Two things would immediately signify it as being from today – the number of cranes across the skyline and at street level, the construction hoardings glistening with glamourous promise. 
Melbourne is now experiencing the most dramatic real estate boom in living history – this feverish development has seen 13,000 new apartments constructed each year for the past two years with plans for another 22,000 over the next few years.
And like that photograph of the 2017 streetscape, one can also take another kind of record, a typographic snapshot. Fonts can tell us something about a time and a place. Within the real estate industry, this is centred around branding – and more specifically those ubiquitous logos weaved throughout our urban landscape.
In an age when each individual building demands a logo as much as an address, and often these congeal (8 Breese, 85 Spring Street) or fill us with an aspiration to be somewhere else (West Village, Haus), the end result is a seemingly never-ending array of marks all jostling to dazzle us with their glamour and aspiration. But is this massive explosion of logos a new thing? 
The clearest way to see any of these connections is to look across other periods of economic boom. The oversupply of livestock in the 1870s is one such time. During this period the plentiful supply of cattle necessitated that the ownership of herds be strongly signified and differentiated in the marketplace. At that time the most effective way to do this was through branding – quite literally, a hot iron branded seared into the rumps of the livestock. 
By the latter half of the 19th century the simpler alphabetical brands had all been used up so the designs became increasingly complex and idiosyncratic. These plentiful livestock brands began to do odd things – letters would be turned upside down or flipped, there would be strange little icons of hats, anchors, fish, shields, glasses and other even more abstract shapes. 
When placed alongside the embellished brands extolling the contemporary real estate boom, some strong design similarities become clear. It seems that the imperative to produce a distinct identity seems to bridge 140 years with ease. These design similarities hint at the underlying economic cycle, boom followed by bust. 
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/170711/width754/file-20170524-5782-1uz33bn.png" alt="">
<div class="enlarge_hint"> </div>
The top line are real estate brands from 2016 whilst the bottom line are cattle brands from 1870. Apartment brands from left to right: Nest at the Hill (Doncaster); Queens Place (CBD); Reflections (North Melbourne); Capital Grand (South Yarra)Author provided
<h2>Who we are and want we want</h2>
The logos that festoon the hoardings across our streets tell us a great deal about who we are, and more specifically, what we want. Script typefaces (those based on handwriting) tell us that we are in an age where people yearn for the authentic, the handmade, a personal connection. The use of fonts, patterns and symbols as well as specific colours may offer us an insight into what cultural shorthand is being used to speak to many prospective buyers. 
It is that supreme marker of modernity – sans serif fonts - that above all others expresses our shared contemporary notions of style and urbane aspiration. These fonts, such as “helvetica”, do not use the ornamental ends of letters that serif fonts, like the one you are reading on, include. We take in and process all of these factors in the split second that we consume a logo.
Logos, and the typefaces from which they are composed, have always spoken of the times we live in – including the reflection of economic and social patterns. The mechanised efficiencies of the early 20th century were met by a geometric simplicity in letterforms, whilst the 1970s sexual revolution coincidentally saw spacing between letterforms become very intimate, coupled as it was with the advent of phototypesetting, a process soon superseded by computers. 
Booms have a habit of producing an oversupply. And this oversupply calls for some kind of unique differentiation. Differentiation calls for creativity. This is where branding comes in. Trying to tell a herd of cows apart in the 1870s is perhaps no easier than trying to differentiate the often generic architectural forms of apartment developments built today. 
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/174655/width754/file-20170620-24868-uwcoc8.jpg" alt="">
Brands of the cattle boom (black) contrasted with contemporary real estate (white) Author provided
The old marketing adage “the more generic the product, the more you differentiate by brand” certainly appears to be at work here. This is but one comparison across two localised economic booms but the same pattern could be expected to appear whenever there is an “over stimulation” in a highly crowded marketplace. 
What this frenzy of logos does show us is that despite the world of brands being fixated on the “now” it too has a “then” – one that I am sure we will see again some time soon.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephen-banham-172590" target="_blank">Stephen Banham</a> is Lecturer in Typography, RMIT University and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

How Australia’s apartment frenzy echoes the 1870s cattle boom

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/82252/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
“Smart” home control devices promise to do many things, including helping households reduce their energy bills.
Devices such as “connected” lightbulbs and smart plugs let you operate or automate lights and other appliances from your smartphone, and are widely available from major retailers and online. 
They are one of many innovative technologies advocated by the energy sector, and the recent Finkel Review of the energy market, to help consumers manage their energy use.
However, our research published today suggests that these devices are not the “easy” answer to energy management. In our trial, we found that households can use them in ways that increase energy use rather than reduce it, and that many people find them too complicated to get up and running.
<h2>Smart home techs on trial</h2>
In our study, funded by Energy Consumers Australia, we supplied 46 volunteer households in Victoria and South Australia with a couple of market-leading smart control devices to try out. We made sure we included a broad range of households – not just tech-savvy, early adopter types.
The results were surprising. A quarter of the households didn’t even attempt to install the devices; another quarter tried but failed to install them, and a further quarter successfully installed them but then abandoned them because they were considered inconvenient or not useful. 
That left one quarter who were actively using the devices on an ongoing basis.
Unsuccessful installations weren’t just thwarted by the devices themselves or by a lack of persistence or knowledge. Householders who tried but gave up on the devices did so for a range of reasons, including smartphone compatibility issues, unreliable WiFi or Internet access, forgotten passwords, device app problems including recurring error messages, and concern over requests to hand over personal information.
<h2>Who used the devices?</h2>
The people most likely to successfully set up and continue using the devices were technology enthusiasts – and most often male. This is consistent with previous studies which have found that men are more likely to be interested in home automation.
Energy-vulnerable households (those at higher risk of difficulty paying energy bills) were more interested in the devices than “regular” households, possibly because they placed greater value on the promised energy savings, or had more time to persist with the installation process. However, energy-vulnerable households are less likely to have the necessary technology infrastructure to use smart home control devices successfully, such as high-end smartphones and fast, reliable home internet connection.
Older participants in our study (those over 55) rarely used the devices. Households with children were concerned about the entry of more digital technology into their lives. Smart home control can also be inconvenient if some occupants continue to use the manual switches on lights or appliances (such as children without their own smartphones), as this can deactivate smart control for the rest of the household.
<h2>Lifestyle improvements beat energy savings</h2>
The households we interviewed were very interested in the potential for smart home control to improve their lifestyles, through improved security and safety, better comfort, conveniences such as turning lights off from bed, and aesthetic features such as “mood lighting”.
Yet while our study did not measure energy consumption, it was clear from the results that the ways households were using (or wanted to use) their devices could both decrease and increase energy consumption. 
While some households reduced the operating time of lights or small appliances, others used smart control to increase their operating time, for instance by switching their heater on before getting home. 
Pre-heating or pre-cooling homes, or running appliances when not at home to give the house a “lived-in” look intended to deter burglars, can be beneficial for health, comfort or well-being but can also increase energy consumption.
Tellingly, no household in our study used their smart devices to shift the timing of their energy use, even though most said their electricity rates were cheaper at night. When asked if smart plugs could help shift energy use to off-peak periods, many respondents said they did not see these devices as a necessary or convenient way to do it. They were more interested in simple timers and automation functions on the appliances themselves.
<h2>Doing more with smart home control</h2>
Six of the 46 households involved in our trial said they were interested in doing more with smart home control. However, they were mainly interested in lifestyle improvements rather than saving energy. This is consistent with the way these products are being marketed to households by technology companies.
Our findings are also consistent with another recent trial of smart home technologies in the UK. That study found that participants made either limited or no use of similar devices to manage their energy use. Like us, the research team raised concerns about the potential for smart control to generate new forms of energy demand.
These findings call for more caution in how smart home control is promoted by the energy sector. We need to be realistic about how these products are marketed, how the media influences the way the products are used, and how the other benefits of smart home control may affect home energy consumption.
The extent of technical and usability issues also needs to be acknowledged. There is a real risk that householders could spend considerable time and money on devices that don’t deliver energy savings. The devices are not equally accessible for everyone, and older users in particular might need help in using them effectively.
The danger is in assuming that lower power bills can come neatly packaged in a box – the reality, as always, is more complicated.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yolande-strengers-15350" target="_blank">Yolande Strengers</a> is Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/larissa-nicholls-109087" target="_blank">Larissa Nicholls</a> is Research Fellow, RMIT University.
Both are authors for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

‘Smart home’ gadgets promise to cut power bills but many lie idle – or can even boost energy use

<html><body>
It is the age-old query of anyone with capacity to invest. Which is the better investment - shares or property?
After allowing for costs, residential property has often provided a higher return than shares according to many studies. Both tend to be far superior to cash and bonds.
But the answer invariably depends on the selected timeline involved.
Property wins in the decade or two decades to December 2015, outperforming Australian shares for the lowest and highest marginal tax rates after gearing, but shares win in the 13 year period to December 2016. That's for an average Australia-wide property investment scenario, with Sydney property investors enjoying far greater success than say regional NSW investors.
Hence the determination really is best answered by your individual capacity, stage of life circumstances, the desired diversity and your outlook.
Much comes down to your risk tolerance, so for some bank deposits rank as the wisest place for savings. 
The recent spending spree by investors on Sydney property was hardly short-term speculation- rather actually driven by the flight to longterm surety with investors seeking a mix of yield and capital gain along the way to hopefully funding their looming retirement years.
Its exuberance almost ended up pushing too far, but it appears the regulatory cooling measures has nipped the Sydney boom back from the edge, before it gave way to a hurtful price reversal.
Housing investment is less volatile than the wild ride of the sharemarket.
And for many investors the actual bricks and mortar seem safer than the stockmarket and its share scrip.
You can always drive past your investment property and see it.
But those share certificates in the bottom draw of the desk in the home office can become totally worthless. These shares can also suffer at the hands of a market of short sellers, speculators who don't want shares to necessarily go up in price.
But property does also offer a much lower level of liquidity and diversification. Investing in the stock market comes with virtually no transaction costs apart from capital gains tax when you exit your investment. Shares potentially offer income and low costs as you don’t directly pay pesky maintenance costs, council rates and land tax bills. 
Your labour of love as an investor can see worrying times when the property is vacant.
A recent analysis from a cashed-up sharemarket investment company rightly warned the very long-term investment chart showed several occasions of property prices going down by significant amounts.
However the example it highlighted was the crash in 1896 when it took six decades before property prices recovered to their previous levels in real terms.
As we all know, past returns are not a good guide to future returns.
And the world is vastly different for the current generation of investors than pre-Federation 1896.
Investors do need to envisage worse case scenarios in our modern times, because yes price growth isn't guaranteed, and indeed prices can go backwards.
</body></html>

Which is better: Shares Vs Property

Some innovative mortgage data: RBA assistant governor 

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/82264/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
It sounds like good news. After summoning the heads of Australia’s major electricity retailers to Canberra, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday announced that the government will take “decisive action to reduce energy prices for Australian families and businesses”.
But look a little closer. Yes, the retailers have agreed to some small but important measures that will make it easier for customers to find the best electricity deal. But there is no guarantee energy prices will fall. And your electricity bill will only be lower if you, the customer, take action.
Retailers’ current advantage
At the moment, retailers typically encourage consumers to sign up by offering a discount on the bill for a fixed period – normally one or two years. After this period expires, customers usually face higher prices for their electricity. 
Some lucky customers will be put on an equivalent tariff and their electricity costs will not change much. Others will lose the discount – which can be as much as 30% of the bill. And some unlucky customers will be placed on the retailer’s “standing offer” – usually the most expensive plans in the market. 
All the retailers have to do is to send you a letter informing you of the change. Lots of customers find those letters too confusing or time-consuming to read, and throw them in the bin. Those who do read and understand it don’t necessarily take action: almost half of Australian households have not changed their electricity retailer in more than five years.
How the new deal could help you
Under the deal that Turnbull has brokered with the retailers, every consumer on a lapsing deal will be sent more comprehensive and helpful information that will encourage them to switch. This will include details of cheaper available offers, and information from websites that compare prices across the various plans and retailers. 
Second, as the Grattan Institute recommended in our March report, Price Shock, retailers will now have to be more explicit about what happens if you don’t sign up to a new offer. Specifically, that means detailing exactly how much it is going to cost you. 
Third, retailers will have to report to the Australian Energy Regulator how many customers are on lapsed deals. This may seem like a lot of red tape for not a lot of impact. But a lack of information on how many customers are on what type of deal has been a major barrier to understanding what is happening in the electricity market. This increased transparency will encourage retailers to reduce the number of customers they have on lapsed contracts. 
The new deal includes other welcome measures, mainly designed to help poor households reduce their bills and make sure they do not face increased costs as a result of late payments. (To be fair to the retailers, they already do a lot for customers whom they consider to be “in hardship”.) 
It’s still down to you
The deal will doubtless improve the retail electricity market. Retailers will take on more responsibility for helping their customers onto a better deal. And those customers who are most at risk from very high prices will get more protection. 
But these are only incremental steps and do not ensure that customers will pay less for their electricity. While more simple information will be available, it will still be up to the consumer to act on it. The bottom line remains the same: if you want to pay less for electricity, you need to search for and sign up to a cheaper deal. 
Customers should be under no illusions. Energy prices are still going to be high for as far as the eye can see. 
Gas prices remain way above historic levels. Wholesale electricity prices are also high. Network costs – the price we pay for the poles and wires – have grown enormously over the past 20 years, and ultimately those costs find their way onto our bills. And the much-needed policy stability on greenhouse emission reductions that can put downward pressure on electricity costs remains elusive.
Under the new rules, consumers might be able to get a cheaper deal, but this doesn’t mean they will get a cheap deal. 
It may be months before we know whether the new measures are enough to encourage consumers to go out and find a cheaper plan or retailer. The danger is that, in a year’s time, too many consumers will still be stuck on expensive electricity deals. 
Even if huge numbers of consumers switch, there are still fundamental issues in Australia’s electricity market. Prices won’t come down across the board until these are resolved. 
This is a welcome move by the government. But it only addresses a fraction of the problems in the electricity market. The big question for the prime minister is, what next?
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-blowers-141792" target="_blank">David Blowers</a> is Energy Fellow, Grattan Institute and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

New rules for retailers, but don’t sit there waiting for your electricity bill to go down

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/consolidated-properties">Consolidated Properties Group</a> (CPG) is approaching the launch of its latest Brisbane riverfront development, Castile, on the dress circle Skyring Terrace in Newstead.

VIP buyers are now being engaged, with a full public sales launch coming later this year.

Positioned as the final opportunity to secure a new absolute riverfront residence on the East bank of Newstead, Teneriffe or New Farm, Castile at 47 Skyring Terrace has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/woods-bagot">Woods Bagot</a> as a timeless addition to the Brisbane skyline.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150489 project_image_fid=371113]

The name Castile draws on themes of permanence, sophistication and legacy, reflecting a broader vision centred on enduring architecture and timelessness in the rarest of riverfront positions.&nbsp;

CPG Chairman and CEO Don O’Rorke said the project had been envisioned as a future Brisbane icon.&nbsp;

“With 47 metres of direct river frontage and never to be built out views, 47 Skyring Terrace is the definitive address on the Brisbane River,” O’Rorke said.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150489 project_image_fid=371114]

“Rather than following trend-based apartment design, Castile draws inspiration from Brisbane’s great heritage buildings, reinterpreting classical architecture into a contemporary riverfront landmark designed to stand proudly for the next 100 years,” he said.&nbsp;

The approved development will comprise 227 apartments across a 25-storey tower alongside a boutique six-storey riverfront building of just 12 residences.&nbsp;

Construction is scheduled to commence in September 2026.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=150489]

Joel Robinson

CPG unveils Castile Newstead ahead of upcoming sales launch

Australia’s online shopping habits have shifted dramatically over the last decade. As eCommerce volumes surged, so too did the frustrations that came with traditional parcel delivery: missed deliveries, long Post Office queues, parcel theft and the challenge of being home during business hours.

Australia Post’s Parcel Lockers emerged as one of the more practical responses to that changing consumer behaviour.

What started as a relatively niche delivery option has evolved into a nationwide network of more than 1,400 self-service Parcel Lockers positioned at train stations, shopping centres, supermarkets and Post Offices across the country. The system allows Australians to send, collect and return parcels 24 hours a day, fundamentally changing how many people interact with deliveries.

The appeal is relatively straightforward: flexibility.

Instead of waiting at home for a delivery driver or rushing to a Post Office before closing time, users can direct eligible parcels to a Parcel Locker location of their choice. Once the parcel arrives, Australia Post sends a notification with a collection code or QR access through the AusPost app, allowing customers to retrieve their package at any time within the collection window.

For apartment residents in particular, the system has become increasingly valuable.

Higher-density living has created logistical challenges around deliveries, especially in buildings without concierge services or secure parcel rooms. Missed deliveries are common, while parcel theft has become an increasing concern as online shopping volumes continue to rise.

Australia Post itself has repeatedly highlighted the growing issue of “porch pirates” during peak shopping periods, encouraging customers to use Parcel Lockers as a safer alternative to unattended home deliveries.

That security aspect is one of the key reasons the Australia Post Parcel Locker network has grown so rapidly.

Parcel Lockers are positioned as secure, monitored collection points that reduce the risk of theft while also improving delivery efficiency for Australia Post. Instead of multiple redelivery attempts, parcels can be consolidated into a single secure destination.

The Parcel Lockers themselves are free to use through a MyPost account and support a range of parcel sizes up to 16 kilograms and dimensions of approximately 35 x 44 x 61 centimetres.

Beyond receiving parcels, the system has increasingly become integrated into the broader eCommerce ecosystem.

Customers can now use Parcel Lockers to return online purchases, while retailers have embraced the model as a way to improve delivery success rates and reduce friction in the shopping process. Australia Post has actively expanded partnerships with major retailers and promoted Parcel Lockers as part of a broader out-of-home strategy.

The timing of that expansion aligns with broader changes in Australian shopping behaviour.

The acceleration of online retail during and after the pandemic placed enormous pressure on delivery infrastructure. Parcel volumes reached record highs, particularly during Black Friday and Christmas periods, with Australia Post delivering more than 100 million parcels during peak festive seasons.

That growth forced logistics providers to rethink the “last mile” of delivery, widely regarded as the most expensive and operationally difficult stage of the process.

Parcel Locker systems have increasingly been viewed as part of the long-term solution.

The concept itself is not unique to Australia. Parcel Locker networks have become common globally, particularly across Europe and Asia, where dense urban environments and apartment living create similar logistical challenges. But Australia’s geography and suburban sprawl made adoption slower initially.

Now, however, the convenience factor is driving mainstream usage.

For commuters, Parcel Lockers near train stations allow parcels to be collected on the way home from work. For apartment dwellers, they remove the uncertainty around access and missed deliveries.

The rise of the AusPost app has also streamlined the experience, centralising notifications, tracking and Parcel Locker access into a single platform. Australia Post has increasingly pushed customers toward app-based delivery management, partly as a way to combat phishing scams and fake delivery notifications, which have become more sophisticated in recent years.

The Parcel Locker model is also beginning to influence property development itself.

Parcel management has become a growing consideration in apartment building design, particularly as online shopping becomes embedded in everyday life. Many new residential developments are now incorporating dedicated parcel rooms or Parcel Locker systems into foyers and communal spaces.

For developers, parcel management is increasingly viewed as part of the broader resident amenity offering, alongside gyms, wellness spaces and communal work areas.

That reflects a wider evolution in how residential buildings are designed.

Apartment buyers are placing greater emphasis on convenience, security and operational functionality, particularly in higher-density urban environments. Parcel delivery, once considered a minor operational detail, has become an increasingly important part of that equation.

Australia Post’s Parcel Locker network sits at the centre of that behavioural shift.

What began as a simple alternative delivery option has evolved into a key piece of infrastructure supporting Australia’s growing eCommerce economy and changing urban lifestyles.

And as online shopping continues to expand, the role of Parcel Lockers is likely to become even more embedded in how Australians live, shop and receive goods.

How Australia Post Parcel Lockers changed parcel delivery convenience in Australia

Perth’s new apartment market recorded its strongest quarter of sales since Q4 2021, with 412 apartments sold in Q1 2026 and a record quarterly sold value of $537 million, according to Urbis’ latest Apartment Essentials results.

Urbis said the March quarter result reflects strong, highly product‑specific demand across both ends of the market, from more attainable projects delivering at scale, through to premium stock being absorbed by equity‑rich downsizers.&nbsp;

David Cresp, Partner at Urbis, said the key story in Perth is not demand, it is the market’s ability to convert demand into delivered housing.&nbsp;

“This is the strongest sales quarter since Q4 2021, and it reinforces that demand in Perth is real and it’s local,” David Cresp said. “But the task now is delivery, turning that demand into projects that can actually be built and completed.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=110291 project_image_fid=302785]

<h2>Affordable product leads, premium demand remains resilient</h2>

Sales in Q1 were led by more affordable projects, with The Boulevard (SKS Group) recording 115 sales in the quarter, the presentation noting this is only the second time a single project has surpassed 100 quarterly sales. The project was able to offer more affordable housing product right next to a train station.&nbsp;

Palmyra West (Finbar) also delivered strong results with 28 sales in Q1, following 84 sales in Q4, with an average price of under $800,000, underscoring depth of demand for well‑located, attainable new stock.&nbsp;

At the premium end, Urbis said downsizer demand is continuing, with the results highlighting Romeo (Applecross, Finbar) recording 75 sales and reaching almost 50% sold in one quarter.

Jual (Shenton Park, Celsius Property) also posted a strong quarter with 28 sales, reaching 39% sold in one quarter.

Urbis noted that Perth apartment demand is not speculative, not investor‑led, and not uniform, describing it as localised, often equity‑driven and highly product‑specific, a pattern reflected in the polarisation between strong “attainable” performers and premium downsizer product.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=148957 project_image_fid=364102]

<h2>Prices underpinned by costs, and the delivery risk is growing</h2>

Urbis said pricing pressure is cost not demand‑driven: construction costs and delivery risk are now a central constraint, with the results noting build costs remain elevated and volatile, and that energy, fuel and labour uncertainty weigh on feasibility.

David Cresp said a growing challenge for private Build‑to‑Sell developers is simply securing a builder in the current environment.

“Developers are really feeling the pressure from a building market that was operating at capacity and securing a builder is challenging,” David Cresp said, adding that even where a builder can be secured, “trying to get to the price that makes the development financially viable is incredibly challenging in the current market.”&nbsp;

Urbis’ broader WA commentary also notes that industry remains at or above capacity with lot and housing creation, and that many builders are limiting new sales to manage stretched workforces and fixed‑price contract pressures, conditions that flow directly into apartment feasibility and delivery timing.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108869 project_image_fid=317905]

<h2>Supply: improving later, but still constrained, and Perth lags eastern benchmarks</h2>

While near‑term supply remains constrained, Urbis’ forecast shows completions lifting “Supply is forecast to be back above 1,500 apartments per annum for the first time since 2019”, with 1,775 completions forecast for 2026, and volumes remaining above that level over the following years.&nbsp;

Looking further ahead, completions are forecast to reach 2,500 in 2028, with the report noting 32% of that total is social/affordable, reflecting the role of government‑supported delivery in rebuilding the pipeline.&nbsp;

However, Urbis said Perth remains behind comparable markets on pipeline scale. In a national comparison of projects under construction, the report shows under construction Perth Build‑to‑Sell (BTS) at 3,446 apartments versus the Gold Coast at 7,922. Mr Cresp said “The challenge for Perth is how to we grow the delivery pipeline”.

Urbis’ conclusion is that Perth’s market is increasingly defined by product discipline and delivery certainty, with the research identifying “delivery certainty is key” and calling out builder risk and procurement models as core success factors, alongside “timing and staging”.&nbsp;

Perth apartment sales hit strongest pace since late 2021 as builder capacity tightens

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sammut-developments">Sammut Group</a> has secured development approval for its latest Brisbane apartment project, marking the Sydney developer’s next step in expanding its Queensland pipeline following the success of its debut Gold Coast development, Coast.

The approved project at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/44-glen-road-toowong-qld-4066">44 Glen Road, </a><a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/toowong-qld-4066">Toowong</a> will deliver a 15-storey riverfront apartment building with 42 residences, significantly increasing the scale of the site’s previous approval for a smaller luxury scheme. Designed by Bureau^proberts, the development will comprise a mix of predominantly four-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments positioned to maximise Brisbane River and city views.

Sammut Director Julian Sammut said the group had been actively searching Brisbane for several years before identifying Toowong as the right fit.

“Brisbane was the right step for Sammut,” Sammut said.

“With the success of Coast we thought we should definitely look to do more in Queensland alone. We then pushed up to look at Brisbane. We've been looking for I'd say two to three years actually and it was hard to find the right location.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/f_auto,c_limit,w_1440,q_75/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/field/image/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.14%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=dYAVIL7qdcGA8ojvkslSrLjczXFejSSx" />

Sammut said suburbs including New Farm and Teneriffe were considered before the group ultimately focused on Toowong due to its strong downsizer demographic and limited supply of developable riverfront land.

The site was acquired off-market after what Sammut described as a lengthy negotiation and planning process, with the developer pursuing an uplift to the original approval.

“We are DA approved now which is very exciting,” Sammut said.

“We've had our change approval come through and we've obviously doubled the height, 15 storeys plus rooftop. We've got 42 amazing apartments that are going to be coming to market soon.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,dpr_2.0,q_auto:good/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.26%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=ohkRkY0dIZlqdfME2EZePsCQavRiBadE" />

Bureau^proberts said the design responds to Toowong’s evolving urban character, balancing contemporary apartment living with the area’s established residential identity.

“A place where traditional Queensland living has taken place for centuries; Toowong is seeing a shift of contemporary influence, commercial and retail hubs mixed with well-considered residential offerings – all the while maintaining its character and charm,” the architect noted in planning documents submitted to Brisbane City Council.

The architecture practice said the project’s form was shaped by its riverfront setting, flood considerations, neighbouring building scales, and view corridors.

“They said the mix of four and two-bedroom apartments capture the ‘fundamental qualities of Queenslander living,’ translated into the context of a contemporary subtropical building.”

The development sits just off Coronation Drive within walking distance of Toowong’s retail precinct and the upgraded Regatta ferry terminal, while also benefiting from proximity to the incoming green bridge connection to West End. Sammut said the accessibility and amenity offering were central to the site’s appeal.

The approval adds to growing residential activity along the Toowong riverfront, joining nearby projects including Consolidated Properties’ Monarch Residences and Spyre Group’s ARC Residences.

Sammut secures approval for debut Brisbane apartment development in Toowong

Developer Lanevick is heading back into Sydney’s apartment market after focusing more heavily on the luxury townhouse and terrace sector in recent years.

Lanevick, founded and directed by Steve Maroun, is expecting to receive approval in the coming months for a new apartment development in Gladesville, with the aim to launch it to the market later this year.

The 51-apartment project, designed by Studio Johnston, will comprise a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments positioned toward the Hunters Hill downsizer market.

“Traditionally it’s been difficult for people in that market to downsize because there just hasn’t been the right product available,” Maroun said.

“We’re targeting buyers who might have 30 to 40 per cent of their house value sitting in the bank after downsizing.

“They still want good spacious entertaining areas, they still want quality design, but they also want flexibility and the ability to enjoy life a bit more after working hard for a long time.”

The project sits near Boronia Park and within close proximity to the Parramatta River foreshore, an area Maroun says offers more of a Hunters Hill lifestyle than a traditional apartment precinct.

“From a lifestyle perspective, it’s really more Hunters Hill than Gladesville,” Maroun said. “You’re close to the foreshore, close to parklands, and still connected back into the village precinct.”

From level four and above, apartments will capture water views&nbsp;toward Sydney Harbour. Communal amenity will include rooftop entertaining areas, wellness spaces, and a gym tailored toward owner-occupier buyers.

“We’ve really designed these apartments around that buyer coming from the Hunters Hill LGA and what they’re actually looking for in their next chapter.”

The proposed development has also been designed to respond to the changing character of the broader Gladesville town centre, where a growing number of mixed-use and residential proposals are expected to emerge over the coming years.

“Gladesville presented a rare opportunity to deliver a genuinely design-led residential project within an evolving lifestyle precinct, just moments from the growing Gladesville town centre, and we’ve approached the project with a strong focus on architecture, liveability and long-term community value,” Maroun said.

Maroun said Lanevick saw a first-mover advantage within the precinct as planning controls continue to evolve to accommodate greater housing density.

“We think there’s a real opportunity there that hasn’t really been serviced properly yet,” he said.

“There’s going to be a broader evolution of the whole Gladesville village precinct over time, particularly with more activation and mixed-use outcomes.”

The Venus Street proposal will include a commercial and retail component at ground level designed to contribute to that evolving streetscape activation.

“A big part of the thinking was how do you activate that area properly and create more vibrancy and amenity, which is what Hunters Hill has been looking for,” Maroun said.

Lanevick’s focus since 2020 has largely been on smaller-scale luxury townhouse and terrace developments. The developer recently completed Royale Randwick, also designed by Studio Johnston, where prices reached $3.65 million. The project was featured in the UDIA NSW 2026 Professional Development Prospectus and was also named a finalist for Development of the Year.

&nbsp;

Jonathan Chancellor

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News