<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

One of North Sydney's best-known commercial buildings could become hundreds of new homes, with insurance giant Zurich Australia lodging a State Significant Development Application (SSDA) to transform 5 Blue Street into a mixed-use residential development above North Sydney Station.

Rather than demolishing the existing building and starting again, Zurich is proposing an adaptive reuse project that would convert the landmark office building into a 15-level residential development delivering 62 apartments, 86 affordable co-living dwellings, activated retail and significant upgrades to the Blue Street Plaza.

The proposal reflects a growing trend of commercial property owners repositioning ageing office assets into residential housing as Sydney grapples with housing supply shortages and changing workplace demand.

<img alt="Zurich" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="0bba7d12-06dc-4375-aad7-238c94b21ac5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-07-22%20at%2010.42.05%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=NJl5oLAEBDGuPmY3RnyliKODjMc8lvRh" />

Located directly above North Sydney Metro and train station, the 3,051 sqm site occupies one of the most strategically positioned parcels of land on Sydney's Lower North Shore.

Designed by fjcstudio, the proposal seeks to retain and adapt much of the existing structure while creating a contemporary residential address that better connects with the public domain surrounding North Sydney Station.

The application proposes two basement levels, ground floor retail, affordable co-living accommodation across the podium levels, and apartments above, while preserving and enhancing the publicly accessible Blue Street Plaza.

Rather than pursuing maximum apartment numbers, Zurich has opted for a housing mix heavily weighted towards larger owner-occupier residences.

The proposal includes 62 build-to-sell apartments comprising 12 one-bedroom, 19 two-bedroom, 29 three-bedroom apartments and two premium penthouses. It also incorporates 86 affordable co-living dwellings, which would be managed in perpetuity by a Community Housing Provider.

That balance between traditional apartments and affordable housing reflects the NSW Government's push to increase housing diversity around major transport infrastructure.

The proposal has been lodged concurrently with a rezoning application, with Zurich arguing the site is ideally positioned to support additional housing given its immediate proximity to public transport, employment and services.

"The proposal aims to respond to the housing challenges facing Sydney through the delivery of diverse housing types in a highly accessible location," the design report by fjcstudio states. It also seeks to improve pedestrian amenity through upgrades to Blue Street Plaza while creating a high-performing residential building that responds to the surrounding context.

<img alt="Zurich" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="36082e15-c636-4481-bb68-5a5f6443fe39" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-07-22%20at%2010.41.36%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=5P6VD.fvmqjQfIG3TWWMRXxQWiQBjeFB" />

Rather than replacing the commercial building, fjcstudio has developed a design that works with the existing structural framework above the rail corridor, an approach that significantly reduces demolition while allowing the site to be repositioned as a mixed-use residential precinct.

The existing structural constraints have informed much of the building's design, including its relationship with Blue Street and surrounding public spaces.

The building has been designed as a slender tower rising above a clearly defined podium, with vertically expressed façades intended to reduce the perceived bulk while reinforcing North Sydney's emerging skyline.

According to fjcstudio, the architectural language responds directly to the surrounding commercial towers while maintaining a finer grain expression more closely aligned with the neighbouring Lavender Bay streetscape.

The tower incorporates articulated façade elements, landscaped podium edges and recessed upper levels to soften its appearance and improve pedestrian amenity below.

A significant component of the proposal is the revitalisation of Blue Street Plaza.

The existing public space has long served as one of the primary pedestrian connections between North Sydney Station, Greenwood Plaza and Blue Street, yet its role is expected to become even more important following the opening of Sydney Metro.

Zurich's proposal seeks to strengthen that role by improving landscaping, introducing new retail frontages, enhancing pedestrian permeability and creating more active edges throughout the day and evening.

Ground floor retail would wrap the plaza, while separate residential and co-living entries have been designed to improve wayfinding without reducing street activation.

Landscape design has been integrated throughout the podium and public realm, softening what is currently one of the most heavily urbanised parts of North Sydney.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

fjcstudio has carefully oriented apartments towards Sydney Harbour and the CBD while using privacy blades and articulated façades to minimise overlooking between neighbouring buildings.

Large framed openings along the western elevation maximise harbour outlooks, while the eastern apartments have been angled towards the south-east to improve privacy from neighbouring development.

The project forms part of the continuing transformation of North Sydney from a predominantly commercial CBD into a genuine mixed-use city centre.

Since the completion of Victoria Cross Metro Station, developers have increasingly shifted their attention towards residential projects capable of leveraging the area's unparalleled transport connectivity.

&nbsp;

FiveX recently lodged plans for a 61-storey, 490-apartment tower that would become one of the tallest residential buildings in North Sydney if approved.

Aqualand continues to expand its Lower North Shore presence following the completion of AURA on Walker Street and its recent St Leonards and Roseville proposals.

Developers are also progressing projects throughout Walker Street, Miller Street and the Victoria Cross precinct as demand for well-located owner-occupier apartments continues to strengthen.

Joel Robinson

First look: Zurich targets North Sydney office conversion with 148-unit proposal above Metro station

Busy developer Aqualand Prestige has formally taken the next step in its expansion across Sydney's Lower North Shore, lodging a State Significant Development Application (SSDA) for its long-held Archer Street site in Chatswood.

The application covers <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/51-55-archer-street-chatswood-nsw-2067">51-55 Archer Street</a>, a 1,767 sqm amalgamated site on the eastern edge of the Chatswood CBD, where the developer is seeking approval for a 45-level mixed-use tower delivering 114 apartments, including a significant affordable housing component, alongside retail, commercial space and six basement levels of parking.

The SSDA marks the latest milestone for a project Aqualand has been quietly progressing over the past two years. The developer first secured the site for its Aqualand Prestige platform before undertaking an alternative design excellence process with PTW Architects, ultimately avoiding a formal design competition through the Housing Delivery Authority pathway.

The proposal has evolved considerably from Aqualand's original concept. The revised scheme has been designed around larger owner-occupier product, with an unusually high proportion of three and four-bedroom apartments, targeting the more affluent buyer profile, and downsizer, emerging across the North Shore.

<img alt="Archer St" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="0171204c-5811-41b5-9b09-2335d1b7c3d0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-07-22%20at%208.52.48%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=6YTuxfq.puZo7k2wbfgemcO5K3QfXYGQ" />

The 114-apartment mix comprises six studios, 27 one-bedroom apartments, 18 two-bedroom apartments, 50 three-bedroom residences and 13 four-bedroom homes. A quarter of the building will be dedicated to affordable housing, well above the mandated 15 per cent&nbsp;

PTW has structured the building vertically, with affordable housing across levels one to six, premium apartments through levels seven to 31, duplex skyhomes on klevels 32 to 43, a penthouse on level 44, and a rooftop plant level above. Six basement levels will provide resident parking and servicing.

The tower is proposed to reach approximately 154 metres, placing it among a growing collection of residential high-rises transforming Chatswood's skyline.

Rather than competing purely on height, PTW says the design has been driven by creating a slimmer tower capable of delivering significantly larger apartments.

"The primary objective of this project was to create a distinctive building that stands out from the recently approved or built structures in the Chatswood area," the design report states, noting the structural efficiency allows greater investment into apartment quality and resident amenity.

Residents would have access to more than 450 sqm of communal open space including landscaped gardens, swimming pool, rooftop entertaining areas, fitness spaces, community gardens, children's play areas and barbecue facilities.

A major focus of the design has been the public domain.

The ground plane has been opened up through landscaped terraces inspired by Willoughby's sandstone ridges, with native planting, public seating, artwork, retail activation and a series of gathering spaces intended to soften what has traditionally been a hard commercial streetscape.

The landscape strategy references Blue Gum forests once common throughout the area, while incorporating Indigenous storytelling, public art and lighting installations to strengthen the connection to Country.

Chatswood has been one of Sydney's busiest apartment markets over the past 12 months, with a steady pipeline of both new project launches and fresh development applications.

Hyecorp recently launched Celine, a 122-apartment development just along Archer Street, while Changfa and Huirong Group are progressing The Anderson, an 84-apartment project on Anderson Street.

Develotek recently secured approval for a 101-apartment tower on Pacific Highway, while Tian An LFD received the green light for Hammond Greens, its apartment development on the edge of the Chatswood Bowling Club.

Commercial property developer FiveX is also making its move into the residential market. Last month it lodged plans for a 61-storey tower with 490 apartments, which, if approved, would become one of the tallest residential buildings in Chatswood.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-fivex-targets-chatswood-skyline-with-61-storey-tower-after-north-sydney-plans">First look: FiveX targets Chatswood skyline with 61-storey tower after North Sydney plans</a>

Aqualand is also expanding its development pipeline following the launch of its luxury residential brand, Aqualand Prestige. The developer has delivered a string of high-end apartment projects across Sydney's affluent suburbs over the past decade, most recently AURA by Aqualand on Walker Street in North Sydney.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=30959 project_image_fid=292863]

It has since quietly assembled its next wave of projects.

Earlier this year Aqualand launched Boronia in Roseville, a boutique 111-apartment development on Larkin Street. The project is one of the first significant apartment developments to launch in the suburb ahead of what is expected to become one of Sydney's most active new housing precincts under the NSW Government's Low and Mid-Rise Housing reforms, which allow greater density around train stations.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152095 project_image_fid=373685]

The developer has also lodged plans for a two-tower, 413-apartment development on Herbert Street in nearby St Leonards, further strengthening its presence across the Lower North Shore.

Beyond that, Aqualand remains behind the final stage of Barangaroo, where plans will deliver a five-hectare mixed-use precinct comprising new homes, retail, hospitality and community facilities, alongside a new Metro entrance and more than two hectares of public open space, completing the Barangaroo precinct.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/central-barangaroo-development-takes-big-step-with-concept-proposal-approval">Central Barangaroo development takes big step with concept proposal approval</a>

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-aqualand-joins-st-leonards-apartment-party">First look: Aqualand joins St Leonards apartment party</a> 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

First look: Aqualand pushes ahead with Chatswood apartment tower as SSDA lodged for Archer Street

Mass timber is becoming an increasingly popular construction material in apartment developments, but Adelaide developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/otello">Otello</a> is taking the approach a step further.

At its new <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/flowe-bowden-18-gibson-street-bowden-sa-5007">Flowe Bowden</a> development, the exposed cross-laminated timber (CLT) structure isn't just about reducing the building's environmental footprint. It also forms the foundation of a broader wellness strategy, influencing everything from indoor air quality and natural materials to the way residents move through and experience the building.

The 115-apartment mixed-use development, designed by Melbourne-based architecture practice Fieldwork, will occupy a prominent island site opposite Bowden Village Reserve, combining one, two and three-bedroom apartments with retail and a dedicated wellness destination.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152022 project_image_fid=375528]

Wellness isn't confined to a gym or shared resident facility at Flowe. Instead, Fieldwork embedded the concept into the building itself.

The development has been split into two residential wings connected by a naturally ventilated central breezeway, replacing traditional enclosed corridors with open-air walkways that improve natural light, encourage cross ventilation and create more opportunities for neighbourly interaction.

"Rather than treating wellness as something that only happens on the ground floor, our response integrates it throughout the building, which led us to ask what it really means to design a healthy building," Fieldwork Director Quino Holland said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152022 project_image_fid=375531]

The building's architecture also reflects Bowden's industrial heritage. The lower podium references the area's historic brick and sandstone buildings, while the upper levels transition to exposed CLT, allowing the timber structure to become a defining feature throughout the apartments and shared spaces.

The use of mass timber sits alongside a range of sustainability initiatives, including a fully electric, gas-free design, rooftop solar and a targeted 5 Star Green Star rating.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152022 project_image_fid=375524]

Inside the residences, the focus remains on natural, durable materials. Blackbutt engineered timber flooring, exposed CLT ceilings, porcelain surfaces and warm timber joinery create a calming interior palette, while low-VOC finishes and responsibly sourced materials have been selected to improve indoor air quality.

Kitchens have been designed as the centrepiece of each apartment, featuring porcelain island benchtops, timber-look cabinetry and brushed steel tapware, with layouts that maximise natural light and ventilation.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=152022 project_image_fid=375530]

The more traditional interpretation of wellness comes in the form of Level Eleven, a two-storey wellness club spanning the ground floor, mezzanine and first floor.

The facility will include a gym, yoga and reformer Pilates studios, Finnish and infrared saunas, magnesium hot and cold plunge pools, and dedicated recovery spaces. Unlike many residential wellness facilities, Level Eleven will also operate commercially, allowing the broader Bowden community to access the venue while giving residents exclusive membership benefits.

The ground floor has also been designed around everyday living. A café overlooking Bowden Village Reserve will activate the street frontage, while a bike workshop with tool storage, co-working space and dog wash has been incorporated to support daily routines and encourage interaction between residents.

"Flowe brings together my two biggest passions, creating places and creating healthier lives," Otello founder Daniel Harris said.

"We wanted to create something Adelaide hasn't seen before, a genuinely healthy building, where the way you live is lifted without even trying."

Flowe is positioned directly opposite Bowden Village Reserve and within walking distance of Bowden Railway Station and the Adelaide Entertainment Centre, placing future residents just minutes from the Adelaide CBD while remaining connected to one of the city's most established urban renewal precincts.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=152022]

Otello launches wellness-focused Flowe Bowden with Adelaide-first mass timber apartment design

Not all apartment amenities are immediately visible.

Swimming pools, gyms, rooftop terraces and residents' lounges have long featured on buyers' wishlists, but as the way Australians live has changed, so too have the features that make apartment living more convenient.

Increasingly, buyers are placing value on the practical aspects of day-to-day life. Fast internet, EV charging, secure bike storage, flexible workspaces and parcel management are becoming just as relevant as lifestyle amenities, reflecting changing habits and expectations.

Online shopping has been one of the biggest drivers of that shift.

Australians spent a record $82.6 billion shopping online in 2025, with almost one in every four retail dollars now spent digitally, making parcel deliveries a routine part of everyday life rather than an occasional convenience.

For apartment residents, however, receiving those deliveries isn't always straightforward.

Without someone home to accept a parcel, deliveries can be redirected to a nearby Post Office, left in building foyers or common areas, or require building management to temporarily store packages. As apartment living continues to grow across Australia's cities, parcel management has become an increasingly important consideration for both residents and developers.

Australia Post's Parcel Locker network is one response to that shift.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KPZ9j5FRdsQ?si=Qztc1dNP3ZvEIUhb" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Rather than relying on home delivery, eligible parcels can be directed to a nominated Parcel Locker, where they're securely stored until collected. Once a parcel arrives, residents receive a notification through the AusPost app or SMS and can retrieve it using a one-time code or QR code at a time that suits them.

The network has expanded to more than 1,500 locations nationwide, with Parcel Lockers positioned at Post Offices, shopping centres, supermarkets, transport hubs and, increasingly, within or alongside residential developments.

That growing presence reflects a broader change in how apartment buildings are being planned.

Developers are increasingly considering the operational side of apartment living alongside traditional lifestyle amenities. Just as secure mailrooms, bicycle storage and EV charging have become more common inclusions, parcel management is emerging as another feature that supports everyday convenience.

It also helps preserve the arrival experience within a building. Carefully designed lobbies and communal spaces can quickly become cluttered when deliveries accumulate, while secure parcel solutions reduce the likelihood of missed deliveries or parcels being left unattended.

For buyers comparing apartments, these everyday details are becoming part of the decision-making process.

Location, floorplans and finishes remain fundamental, but the features that simplify daily life are carrying greater weight than they once did. As online shopping continues to shape consumer behaviour, secure parcel delivery is increasingly becoming another amenity worth looking for.

Parcel delivery is joining the apartment amenity checklist

Inca Property Group has lodged a State Significant Development Application (SSDA) for Dawn, a 53-apartment oceanfront development overlooking Mona Vale Beach.

The proposal, at 35-39 Darley Street East, would replace an existing 18-apartment strata building with a new owner-occupier-focused development comprising 53 two and three-bedroom apartments, including nine affordable built-to-rent residences delivered under the State's infill affordable housing scheme.

Positioned on a 2,679 sqm elevated site around 280 metres from Mona Vale Beach, the development has been designed to maximise panoramic ocean views while responding to the site's sloping topography.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/inca-property-group">Inca Property Group</a> Managing Director Josh Thompson said the State Significant pathway provided greater certainty for projects of this scale.

"This State Significant pathway gives the team real certainty to progress <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/dawn-35-39-darley-street-east-mona-vale-nsw-2103">Dawn</a> through to completion," Thompson said.

"It allows us to acquire a one-off site, design it carefully and deliver the right offering for the suburb, assessed by the NSW Government's planning department."

The project is one of the first developments in the area to be assessed under the NSW Government's Low and Mid-Rise Housing policy, with the site sitting on the edge of the policy's designated inner area.

The proposal includes three basement levels providing 124 car spaces, alongside a range of resident amenities including a swimming pool, gym, sauna, wellness facilities and private plunge pools for selected ground-floor and penthouse apartments.

<img alt="Dawn" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fc1a1daf-0ce4-4f12-9076-b1fa553c7a91" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-07-21%20at%208.42.11%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=4GZ9h.gpNkTljbxyAET8Jfhv51XUamDm" />

Thompson said Dawn had been designed specifically for owner-occupiers and downsizers, a buyer profile that has driven demand across Inca's recent Upper North Shore developments.

"The majority of buyers in our recent North Shore projects have been downsizers, and we are learning exactly what this market is looking for. Beyond the location itself, we have included resort-style amenities to deliver a genuine lifestyle offering," Thompson said.

Located within walking distance of Mona Vale Beach, the town centre, Mona Vale Golf Club and the Royal Motor Yacht Club, Dawn represents Inca's first Northern Beaches project following the sell-out of Tara on Park in Waitara and Ellis Residences, currently under construction in St Ives.

Construction will be undertaken by Inca's in-house construction arm, GOP Constructions.

Dawn is the latest major apartment proposal for Mona Vale, with the suburb emerging as one of the key beneficiaries of the NSW Government's new Low and Mid-Rise Housing policy.

New developer One Living, led by industry veteran Joseph Scuderi, recently secured a site on Mona Vale Road, on the border of Mona Vale and Pymble, where it is planning around 140 apartments.

IPM is also planning its third project in Mona Vale, significantly increasing the scale of its previous developments with an 82-apartment proposal at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/159-167-darley-street-west-mona-vale-nsw-2103">159-167 Darley Street West</a>, opposite Bayview Golf Course and less than 800 metres from Mona Vale town centre.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/one-living-enters-sydneys-new-apartment-market-with-northern-beaches-site-acquisition">One Living enters Sydney's new apartment market with Northern Beaches site acquisition</a>

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-ipm-plans-third-mona-vale-project">First look: IPM plans third Mona Vale project</a>

Jonathan Chancellor

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News