<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/78087/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
It’s no secret that human development frequently comes at a cost to other creatures.
As our urban footprint expands, native habitat contracts. To compensate for this, most Australian governments require developers to invest in biodiversity offsetting, where habitat is created or protected elsewhere to counterbalance the impact of construction. 
Although biodiversity offsetting is frequently used in Australia – and is becoming increasingly popular around the world – we rarely know whether offsets are actually effective. 
That’s why we spent four years monitoring the program designed to offset the environmental losses caused by widening the Hume Highway between Holbrook and Coolac, New South Wales. Our research has found it was completely ineffective. 
Trading trees for boxes
The roadworks required the removal of large, old, hollow-bearing trees, which are critical nesting sites for many animals, including several threatened species. To compensate for these losses, the developer was required to install one nest box for every hollow that was lost – roughly 600 nest boxes were installed.
Many of the boxes were specifically designed for three threatened species: the squirrel glider, the superb parrot and the brown treecreeper. We monitored the offset for four years to see whether local wildlife used the nest boxes.
We found that the nest boxes were rarely used, with just seven records of the squirrel glider, two of the brown treecreeper, and none of the superb parrot. We often saw all three species in large old tree hollows in the area around the boxes we monitored.
Even more worryingly, almost 10% of the boxes collapsed, were stolen or otherwise rendered ineffective just four years after being installed. Perversely, we found that invasive species such as feral bees and black rats frequently occupied the nest boxes.
The offset clearly failed to deliver the environmental outcomes that were promised. Indeed, researchers have been concerned for some time nowthat offsetting can be misused and abused. 
What can be done?
It’s worth noting that research supports using nest boxes as a habitat replacement. However, they may never be effective for species such as the superb parrot. It’s not quite clear why some animals use nest boxes and others don’t, but earlier monitoring projects in the same area found superb parrots consistently avoid them.
Still, concrete steps can – and should – be taken to improve similar offset programs.
First, the one-to-one ratio of nest boxes to tree hollows was inadequate; far more nest boxes needed to be installed to replace the natural hollows that were lost.
There also was no requirement to regularly replace nest boxes as they degrade. It can take a hundred years or more for trees to develop natural hollows suitable for nesting wildlife. To truly offset their removal, thousands of boxes may be required over many decades.
Second, nest boxes clearly cannot compensate for the many other key ecological values of large old trees (such as carbon storage, flowering pulses or foraging habitat). This suggests that more effort is needed at the beginning of a development proposal to avoid damaging environmental assets that are extremely difficult to replace – such as large old trees.
Third, where it is simply impossible to protect key features of the environment during infrastructure development, more holistic strategies should be considered. For example, in the case of the woodlands around the Hume Highway, encouraging natural regeneration can help replace old trees.
Tree planting on farms can also make a significant contribution to biodiversity – and some of these may eventually become hollow-bearing trees. A combination of planting new trees and maintaining adequate artificial hollows while those trees mature might be a better approach.
Being accountable for failure
When an offset program fails, it’s unlikely anyone will be asked to rectify the situation. This is because developers are only required to initiate an offset, and are not responsible for their long-term outcomes.
In the case of the Hume Highway development, the conditions of approval specified that nest boxes were to be installed, but not that they be effective.
Despite the ecological failure of the offset (and over A$200,000 invested), the developer has met these legal obligations.
This distinction between offset compliance and offset effectiveness is a real problem. The Australian government has produced a draft policy of outcomes-based conditions, but using these conditions isn’t mandatory.
The poor results of the Hume Highway offset program are sobering. However, organisations like Roads and Maritime Services are to be commended for ensuring that monitoring was completed and for making the data available for public scrutiny – many agencies do not even do that. 
Indeed, through monitoring and evaluation we can often learn more from failures than successes. There are salutary lessons here, critical to ensuring mistakes are not repeated.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-lindenmayer-4848" target="_blank">David Lindenmayer</a> is professor, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/martine-maron-4087" target="_blank">Martine Maron</a> is ARC Future Fellow and Associate Professor of Environmental Management, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/megan-c-evans-4271" rel="author">Megan C Evans</a> is postdoctoral Research Fellow, Environmental Policy, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/philip-gibbons-4587" target="_blank">Philip Gibbons</a> is senior lecturer, Australian National University.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

The plan to protect wildlife displaced by the Hume Highway has failed

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77393/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Half of the world’s people now live in urban areas. This creates competition for resources and increases pressure on already limited green space. 
Many urban areas are still experiencing active degradation or removal of green space. To reverse this trend and ensure the multiple benefits of green space are realised, we urgently need to move toward on-ground action.
However, there is no clear guidance on how to translate the evidence base on green space into action. There is limited information to guide green-space practitioners on how much is “green enough”, or on how to manage and maintain green space. There is also a lack of guidance on how to deliver the multiple benefits of green space with finite resources.
<h2>Why we need green spaces</h2>
A recent World Health Organisation (WHO) report aims to provide guidance on how to tackle the uncertainties of providing such spaces.
There is a substantial evidence base to show that green space is good for us. It is associated with many health benefits, both physical and mental – including reductions in illness and deaths, stress and obesity – and a range of positive social, environmental and equity outcomes.
Providing adequate green space within our urban areas is therefore paramount. We need to preserve, enhance and promote existing green spaces and create new spaces.
Various political frameworks underscore the need for these spaces in our cities. For example, the New Urban Agenda calls for an increase in safe, inclusive, accessible, green and quality public spaces. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development pledges to:
… provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular, for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities.
<h2>Moving toward action</h2>
The WHO report carried out a systematic review of the published evidence on green-space interventions. The review found a variety of intervention types have strong evidence for delivering a range of health, social and environmental outcomes.
These intervention types range from smaller green spaces, such as street trees and community gardens, to larger, more interlinked spaces, such as parks and greenways. This signals the need to think beyond the traditional urban park when considering how to meet the demand for green space among growing urban populations.
Another finding of the review was that urban green-space interventions seem to be most effective when a physical improvement of the space is coupled with social engagement.
This highlights the importance of understanding the intervention’s target audience. Sufficient time and resources must be devoted to engaging with this audience. This should happen both during the design and implementation phases and when the intervention is completed – and promoted.
<h2>Learning from others</h2>
The WHO report compiled case studies of urban green-space interventions from across Europe, and documented the common lessons from these. 
This unearthed a range of findings. For example, fostering multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaborations during planning, implementation and evaluation is a key factor in creating a successful green space.
Another key finding was the importance of understanding that urban green-space interventions are long-term investments. They therefore need to be integrated within local development strategies and frameworks – such as urban masterplans, transport policies and sustainability and biodiversity strategies.
An example of an urban green-space intervention that showcases good practice, and which features as a case study in the WHO report, is the Connswater Community Greenway in Northern Ireland. This project adopted a bottom-up approach and emphasised community engagement. A full-time community support officer was employed. 
Having public engagement embedded from the start ensured the local community’s needs were well understood. The intervention’s design was responding to these identified needs. 
Coupling this local understanding with the latest thinking on good practice led to an evidence-based design that was fit-for-purpose in the local context.
The project was also understood to be a long-term investment. A 40-year management and maintenance plan for the greenway was developed from the outset. 
The WHO report represents an important step forward. As worrying trends in mental ill-health, obesity, social isolation, health inequalities and environmental degradation grow globally, there is a pressing need to implement equitable solutions – and green space has a key role to play in this. 
Urban green-space interventions can deliver health, social and environmental benefits for all population groups – particularly among lower socioeconomic status groups. There are very few – if any – other public health interventions that can achieve all of this.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anne-cleary-310766" target="_blank">Anne Cleary</a> is nature and health PhD Candidate, Griffith University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ruth-hunter-376963" target="_blank">Ruth Hunter</a> is lecturer, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Green space – how much is enough, and what’s the best way to deliver it?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The property Council welcomes the McGowan government’s plans to rethink Perth’s rail infrastructure system to embrace more mixed used developments to create activated precincts at Forrestfield and Bayswater train stations andplans to introduce light rail connecting Curtin University and UWA. 
Integrating new stations such as Forrestfield and the proposed redevelopment of Bayswater station, with more high density residential andbusiness premises will transform these local areas into vibrant social hubs, creating more jobs and boosting local amenities for residents.
The Property Council welcomes Planning Minister Rita Saffioti’s plans to introduce commercial opportunities, such as shops, gyms and child care centres to land surrounding the Forrestfield train station. 
Rethinking land use in that area has the potential to significantly improve the quality of life for those living in the locality and those using Forrestfield trainstation. 
Not only will Forrestfield be better connected to both the airport and the CBD, but on a practical level, the ability for a working parent to drop the kids at the adjacent day care will save precious time and encourage people back to work, while having shops just metres from the train station will encourage local spending and draw people to the area. 
Similarly, plans to connect two of WA’s largest universities, Curtin and UWA with a light - rail line, will improve east  - west connectivity and access to the amenities associated with each of the institutions as well as bring students into the CBD. 
Ultimately, strong communities are built through the integration of practicality, connectivity and vibrancy. These mixed-use developments will significantly add to the local area, making them places people want to live. 
Creating precincts around travel nodes such as train stations will ensure local area thrives, attracting residents and creating long term employment opportunities.
Lino Iacomella is a WA Executive Director at Property Council of Australia and can be contacted <a href="https://www.propertycouncil.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Government rethink on train stations and light rail welcomed

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/75840/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Access to high-quality public open space is a key ingredient of healthy, liveable cities.
This has long been recognised in government planning policy, based on a large body of academic research showing that accessible green spaces lead to better health outcomes.
However, cities are home to more than just people. We also need to accommodate the critters and plants who live in them. This includes the species who called our cities home before we did.
Greening cities that are becoming denser is a major challenge. Green spaces and density are both good for health outcomes when designed well. However, higher-density development can place added pressure on green space if not well planned and managed.
The South Australian government is leading the way in the design of public green spaces in denser cities by bringing together the multiple actors needed to create change. This includes the Heart Foundation, Departments of Health and Ageing, Environment Water and Natural Resources, Office for Recreation and Sport, the South Australian Local Government Association and the Office of the Chief Architect, as well as researchers from RMIT University and the University of Melbourne.
This is the new shift required for urban greening practice – led by practitioners with support from research evidence provided by (and in collaboration with) academics.
In Victoria, Planning Minister Richard Wynne has called for the suburban backyard to be maintained in the refreshed Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. This policy recognises the importance of private green space by establishing minimum garden areas in new developments.
Another major challenge is increasing urban heat and climate change. Some tree species we know and love will no longer be viable in cities that are several degrees warmer than they were.
Suitable species for future climates need to be selected, as the City of Melbourne has recently demonstrated. Increasing temperatures and the resulting loss of old trees will have adverse consequences for public health, ecology and biodiversity.
Understanding how best to achieve these benefits, and the trade-offs involved in delivering them, is particularly important today. Our cities are growing rapidly. We are seeing increasing populations, greater housing density, rising temperatures, growing rates of obesity, diabetes, stress and depression, and declining native biodiversity.
Why is greening on the agenda?
Urban greening is now recognised as a public health issue. New research has found its benefits include:
<ul>
<li>lower rates of anti-depressant prescriptions in neighbourhoods close to woodlands in the UK;
</li>
<li>happier people living in areas with more birdlife; and
</li>
<li>better health outcomes with increased neighbourhood tree coverage in the US.
</li>
</ul>
Ecological research also shows that urban green spaces can support many kinds of birds, bats, bees and plants. Urban greening has even been found to lead to safer neighbourhoods.
Australian urban planning and policy need to embrace these findings. Multiple government portfolios must work together to better plan for green cities that achieve maximum impact for economic, environmental and public health outcomes.
What do we mean by green space?
Green spaces are areas of public and private land covered with vegetation. This includes most areas we traditionally see as public open space: parks, gardens and sports ovals.
Green space also includes other areas of public land: street trees and streetscapes, nature conservation reserves, community gardens, school grounds and public buildings with green walls, facades and roofs. On private land, green spaces include residential gardens, golf courses and greening on and around private buildings.
All these green spaces together provide multiple benefits. The Heart Foundation and South Australian government recently commissioned an evidence review of how quality green space is supporting health, wellbeing and biodiversity. This report shows that green spaces can be designed to provide multiple benefits.
These benefits are delivered by including features that are known to influence physical activity, mental health, social, cultural, environmental and biodiversity outcomes. For example, planting trees in parks, gardens or streets can have many benefits:
<ul>
<li>cool cities;
</li>
<li>slow stormwater runoff;
</li>
<li>filter air pollution;
</li>
<li>provide habitat for some animals;
</li>
<li>make people happier; and
</li>
<li>encourage walking.
</li>
</ul>
Greening solutions aren’t simple
The benefits green spaces provide are also influenced by local context: climate, inequity and social disadvantage, culture, or resident/user age and gender.
However, if green spaces are well designed with community input, these local factors can provide opportunities to maximise impact. For example, green space can be more beneficial when provided in areas of social disadvantage with limited existing green space, and trees provide more cooling benefits in hotter cities.
There are no magic bullets. If green spaces aren’t well designed, for example, trees can:
<ul>
<li>reduce the area available for some active sports;</li>
<li>shade rooftop solar panels;
</li>
<li>reduce flower, fruit and vegetable production;</li>
<li>create mess through fallen leaves; and</li>
<li>create unsuitable habitat for other kinds of plants and animals.
</li>
</ul>
These complex interactions highlight the need for academics and practitioners to work collaboratively across disciplines and sectors. These should include urban planning, public health, urban ecology, urban forestry, engineering, community development and economics. Knowledge needs to be shared and translated into action.
Our green cities of the future need to be designed to benefit human (and non-human) residents equitably. We need to move beyond a reliance on backyards and parks that were designed according to 19th-century principles (and using 19th-century species).
Cities need green spaces that are well designed, creatively delivered, accessible to all, and managed and maintained with appropriate resources to ensure long-term quality and availability.
 
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/melanie-davern-144750" target="_blank">Melanie Davern </a>is Senior Research Fellow, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University.  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alison-farrar-357347" target="_blank">Alison Farrar </a>is Research Assistant, School of Ecosystem &amp; Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne.  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dave-kendal-180942" target="_blank">Dave Kendal </a>is Research Fellow, School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences and the Clean Air and Urban Landscape hub of the National Environmental Science Program, University of Melbourne. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lucy-gunn-146721" target="_blank">Lucy Gunn </a>is Research Fellow, Community Indicators Victoria, McCaughey VicHealth Community Wellbeing Unit, University of Melbourne.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Higher-density cities need greening to stay healthy and liveable

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/75689/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVERS
Peter Jackson employed an intricate approach to the stage design of Lord of the Rings. The people who inhabited Middle Earth for hundreds of generations slowly left cultural traces, alterations, artefacts and remnants of their human existence on the environment. 
For example, the cinematographic stage set for Rivendell gives the viewer the impression of use and legacy over generations. Stage designers aged artefacts and applied, erased and reapplied cultural marks and insignia to “make” Rivendell the special and legendary place that author J.R.R. Tolkien had intended.
<h2>Placemaking</h2>
Urban space turns into place in a similar way. People are natural placemakers. 
When they live in cities, they create “livehoods”, build, modify, decorate, expand and renovate. In doing so, they slowly leave their mark on the city.
In the 1960s, progressive urban planners and designers like Jane Jacobsand William H. Whyte argued that catering for slow pedestrians rather than fast cars results in better city design. 
Placemaking can make places “sticky,” so people dwell longer, customers spend more in retail shops, and students stay on campus.
Trying to accommodate sustained high levels of growth, coupled with the need to contain urban sprawl, has led to the rapid gentrification of inner-city suburbs. As construction companies are trying to keep up with the mandate to grow Australian cities, they won’t slow down easily.
Placemaking is being used to quickly breathe life into new urban developments. Speedy placemaking is of the essence when generic turnkey residential stock is sold as “vibrant communities”, “liveable neighbourhoods” and “distinctive precincts”.
<h2>Cookie-cutter cities</h2>
Accelerated placemaking poses several risks.
<ol>
<li>
Places come with history and heritage to be conserved and protected. Digital storytelling has been used as a form of digital placemaking that not only enables the study of a place’s history, but also ways of embedding and commemorating historic evidence and artefacts in place.
</li>
<li>
To avoid making places that suit the placemakers and their funders more than the current or future occupants, inclusive practices of placemaking are needed. Marginalised and economically threatened communities should be enabled to engage with their neighbourhood on their own terms and create their own urban imaginaries. This requires transdisciplinary, participatory and action researchapproaches to placemaking.
</li>
<li>
Placemaking can fuel further gentrification with its well-known set of associated issues and consequences. Activating places often aims at making nearby retail and residential properties more profitable. Yet genuine and slow placemaking can add further value by unlocking a city’s diversity advantage.
</li>
<li>
Many placemaking techniques such as urban hacktivism and urban acupuncture tend to be small and hyperlocal. They have been criticised for being limited in scale and impact. Can placemaking through DIY urban design scale up from subversive citymaking to systemic change?
</li>
<li>
Contemporary placemaking relies more and more on stereotypes. An example is the iconic architectures of kerbside coffee shops. Christian Norberg-Schulz speaks of the genius loci as a fundamental element of placemaking: the essence of a place that makes it unique. 
</li>
</ol>
This approach seems currently ignored in favour of a cookie-cutter approach. Copying success stories – Venice in Vegas, for example – is a constant in architecture and urban design. But the trends of tactical urbanism, pop-up interventions and gentrification actually risk impoverishing our urban landscape and our urban ecologies.
<h2>Slow cities</h2>
In addition to a set of ongoing challenges, there are exciting opportunities on the horizon for slowing down placemaking and for placemaking to slow down cities.
Our fast-paced world of automation and smart cities prioritises speed and efficiency. Yet the health and wellbeing of city residents can be improved by slowing down. 
This is about not only a slower pace of pedestrian flow, traffic and life in public spaces. It also relates to appreciating artisan crafts, food provenance, seasonal changes, local customs, and even boredom and getting lost. In Australia, the cities of Goolwa (South Australia), Katoomba (New South Wales) and Yea (Victoria) have joined Cittaslow – “the international network of cities where living is good.”
This “slow cities” movement promotes the use of technology. Yet this is different to how technology is portrayed in many smart city visions, which liken cities to corporations that are about growth, efficiency and productivity. However, a city is neither a business nor a computer.
<h2>Making cities collaboratively</h2>
Revisiting Henri Lefebvre’s “right to the city,” we understand placemaking as a strategy to bring about much-needed social change and urban renewal through grassroots democratisation. 
Cities often invite people as participants in urban planning decision-making. Yet why limit people to just providing feedback to city governments as part of conventional community consultation processes? Genuine placemaking regards them as co-creators in collaborative citymaking.
The exposure to diverse ideas, places and communities is crucial for innovation and the functioning of democracy. We believe placemaking can help develop a better dialogue between citizens, communities, government, businesses, civic groups and non-profits. 
Placemaking is meant to provide a close connection between people and their locale. Placemaking has to be specific and unique to urban space, taking into account its community, environment, culture, food and social practices.
Finally, cities certainly need to face up to the challenges of climate change. Placemaking provides opportunities for more sustainable ways of life not only by creating accessible, healthy, democratic and slow cities, but also by imagining the post-anthropocentric city.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marcus-foth-199317" target="_blank">Marcus Foth </a>is professor of Urban Informatics, Director, QUT Design Lab, Queensland University of Technology.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mirko-guaralda-355387" target="_blank">Mirko Guaralda</a> is senior lecturer in Architecture, Queensland University of Technology.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

We should create cities for slowing down

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77324/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A growing proportion of Australian households depend on the private rental sector for accommodation. This growth has occurred despite substantial insecurity of tenure under the law, unlike other countries with high private rental rates, such as Germany. 
Our newly published research on the impacts of long-term or even lifelong insecurity on Australian private renters found their responses range from lack of concern to constant fear and anxiety.
So, how many people are affected? Back in the 1990s about one-fifth of us rented our homes from private landlords. Now this has swelled to more than one-quarter. 
Historically, renting was usually a transitional step in the life cycle. Most people rented for a while and eventually bought a home. 
While this housing pathway is still dominant, a growing number of Australians cannot make this transition. At least one in three private renters are long-term private renters (ten years or more). This equates to at least one in 12 households.
Australian households rent accommodation under a regulatory framework that provides little protection against landlord-instigated “forced moves” or untenable rent increases. The initial written agreement/lease rarely extends beyond a year. Once it ends, the tenancy typically shifts to a “periodic” basis, and notice to vacate can be given without reasons.
The period of notice ranges from 42 days to 26 weeks – depending on the state or territory. Thus, beyond the initial lease, all private tenants are subject under the law to ongoing insecurity.
Drawing on 60 in-depth interviews, we explored the impacts of this de jure housing insecurity on long-term private renters in different housing markets (low, medium and high rent, with 20 interviews in each) in Sydney and Melbourne. We identified three typical responses to ongoing insecurity:
<ul>
<li>
incessant anxiety and fear;
</li>
<li>
lack of concern; and
</li>
<li>
concern offset to an extent by economic/social capital, with renting sometimes seen as the only means of living in a desired area. 
</li>
</ul>
We discuss these responses in turn.
<h2>Incessant anxiety and fear</h2>
For one group of interviewees, the insecurity was a persistent source of stress. They were constantly anxious about the possibility of being asked to leave their homes or incurring an untenable rent increase. 
Low-income interviewees in the low-rent outer suburban areas had limited economic and sometimes social capital. A notice to vacate invariably caused great anxiety as they had minimal resources to find alternative accommodation. 
Interviewees solely reliant on government benefits for their income were especially vulnerable. Frieda, 40, a single parent with five children, described her perceptions and experiences:
"At any minute I can get the letter to say, ‘Sorry, but you’ve got to move’ … The last house before this one … was supposed to be a long-term but he decided to sell that house. And then we got [another] one … and then [the owners] wanted the house back … We got notice [to vacate] but [were] still trying to, you know, find somewhere … For a while there, I was thinking we’ll be out on the street."
Nigel, 35, lived alone in a low-rent area in outer western Sydney. He had been receiving workers’ compensation, but when interviewed relied entirely on Newstart for his income. He was confident that his landlord would not ask him to leave, but needed all his income to pay his rent. This was a source of intense insecurity and he was not coping.
"I’m getting $661 a fortnight, my rent is $660 [a fortnight], so if it wasn’t for friends, you know … Stress is gone beyond a joke … You don’t know what you’re going to do the next day."
Christine, 57, also depended on Newstart for her income. She had lost her job a couple of years earlier after falling ill. Fear and anxiety were woven into her comments:
"A renter – you’ve always got that fear that you’re not going to have a roof over your head … Yes, I’ve been here 16 years, but you never know. The house can be sold and new owners can say, ‘No, we want you to go.’ You don’t have money for a bond for another premises or, you know, Housing Department can’t help you because you’re not what they consider to be [in] an urgent, desperate situation."
<h2>Not a concern</h2>
At the opposite end of the spectrum were interviewees who had deliberately chosen long-term private renting and were unconcerned about the possibility of a landlord-instigated forced move. “Renters by choice” tended to be single people or couples without children who lived in high-rent areas. They usually had ample economic and social capital and saw the flexibility associated with renting as an advantage. 
Sarah was living in a high-rent area in inner Melbourne:
"And I do have enough money to buy quite a nice apartment, but I’d rather use the interest and the share money [dividends from shares] and stuff to travel."
Angela and her partner lived in the same area. They had no children and preferred not having a lease:
"So the insecurity doesn’t bother me … It’s more to do with my freedom within that. It means that I can just leave whenever I want if I want to."
Astrid felt totally at ease with her long-term renter status in high-rent inner Sydney. In her late 30s and single, she had a reasonable income and strong social capital. She had rented for all her adult life:
"It doesn’t bother me [being asked to vacate] … If they come and say they’re going to sell, well, there’s a reason. It was meant to be, so yeah … There’s always somewhere to stay. So it suits my lifestyle. I wouldn’t want to buy anything even if I had the money."
<h2>Moderate concern</h2>
Interviewees in high and medium-rent areas were typically in a different position to tenants in low-rent areas. Their economic capital enabled them to rent (but not buy) in an area with good public schools and amenities, and to move if need be.
However, they were reluctant long-term renters and troubled by their housing insecurity. This was especially so if they had school-going children. 
Moira (high-rent area, Sydney), married with two children and in her mid-40s, was pleased with her rental situation. She paid an unusually low rent for her three-bedroom apartment. Alongside the area’s high-quality amenities, the quality of the public schools was a major drawcard.
However, the ever-present possibility of having to vacate was a concern:
"The fact that you don’t know how long you’re going to be there for and, you know, that was a massive thing when we were choosing a school … If we have to move, are we going to be able to be within distance … to keep him there? … And it [the lack of security] is a cloud that’s there always."
The main reason Glenn and his partner rented a small semi-detached house in a high-rent area in Sydney was to ensure their son had a good schooling:
"We need to stay in the area for our son and we balanced that against sending him to a private school, so in that way it’s cheaper to live here even though the rent’s high."
<h2>A crisis of affordability and insecurity</h2>
The interviews indicated that the de jure insecurity associated with private renting in Australia doesn’t necessarily translate into de facto insecurity. 
However, for at least one in four of our interviewees, the chronic de jure insecurity associated with private renting imbued everyday life with ongoing anxiety and stress. 
The intensifying crisis of rental affordability in Australia’s major cities means these negative outcomes of long-term private renting are likely to affect growing numbers in the years ahead.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alan-morris-13337" target="_blank">Alan Morris</a> is research professor, University of Technology Sydney.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hal-pawson-147969" target="_blank">Hal Pawson</a> is associate director - City Futures - Urban Policy and Strategy, City Futures Research Centre, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kath-hulse-228874" rel="author">Kath Hulse</a> is research professor, Swinburne University of Technology.
</body></html>

The insecurity of private renters – how do they manage it?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77402/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Investors have played an increasingly important role in the Australian housing market in recent years. Our new research shows the actual return rate for housing investors almost doubled a layman’s expectation. Experienced investors are taking advantage of the knowledge gap and might continue to price out other housing buyers. 
The sharp increase in investor credit in recent years could be partly attributed to the strong growth of housing prices, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne. However, the reported capital gains might not have fully reflected investors’ actual returns as the impact of debt financing in property investment has been neglected. 
Since housing investors typically use large amounts of debt to fund their investment, using the return on equity (after adjusting for debt financing) more accurately reflects their actual return. 
In recent years, regulators such as the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and lenders have implemented measures to moderate the growth of investor lending. Despite these efforts, investors have come back into the housing market since the second half of 2016. 
Proportion of housing investment loans
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/26/file-20170523-8895-1g4m2hp.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/26/file-20170523-8895-1g4m2hp.png" alt="">
<div class="enlarge_hint">ABS, Housing Finance, Australia: February 2017</div>
 
<h2>Higher returns come with greater risk</h2>
Our research sampled properties in 14 suburbs across Sydney, using the Property Investors Alliance database. The results provide some empirical evidence to demonstrate the housing return on equity with debt financing is significantly higher, at an annual return of nearly 14 percent per year, than the housing return on property without debt financing of about 7 percent per year.
This could explain the increasing proportion of investment loans in the housing market. The knowledge of investors’ advantage should also be used to inform the ongoing debate about regulating investment housing loans to enhance housing affordability for first home buyers in particular.
It is important to highlight the effect of debt financing on decisions to invest in housing. The results clearly show the enhanced returns are likely to have an acute impact. 
At the same time, a higher risk level as a result of the use of debt financing has also been documented. This highlights that housing investors should closely manage their exposure to financial risk from using debt financing by using a prudential risk-management tool.
Returns and risk on housing portfolios: 2009-2015
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/26/file-20170511-21598-1gyjv43.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/26/file-20170511-21598-1gyjv43.png" alt="">
Author provided
<h2>Explaining the increased rate of return</h2>
We used an assumption of 20 percent equity to demonstrate the impact of debt financing, which is in line with the current deposit requirement from major banks. Here’s an example to demonstrate the effect of debt financing. 
Say an investor buys a house for A$1 million. The investor provides a 20 percent deposit ($200,000); therefore $800,000 was borrowed. The investor took an “interest-only” loan with an interest rate of 5 percent per year – so the interest cost is $40,000 per year. The investor also receives a net rental income of $30,000 in Year 1.
A year later, the investor decides to sell the property for $1.1 million (its value having increased by 10 percent over the year). The traditional performance analysis of property (without debt financing) would show the return on this housing investment is 13 percent: ($1,100,000-1,000,000+$30,000)/$1,000,000 = 13 percent. 
Given the housing investor used debt financing, 13 percent is not the actual return for the investor. The investor’s actual return on equity for the investor is 45 percent: ($300,000-$200,000)+($30,000-$40,000)/$200,000 = 45 percent. 
Property returns vs equity returns
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/26/file-20170520-12263-sf1nd0.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/26/file-20170520-12263-sf1nd0.png" alt="">
Author provided
<h2>Experienced investors exploit their advantage</h2>
Overall, the results suggest the actual return rate for housing investors is significantly higher than the layman might expect from the major housing index providers. 
The documented returns may not be applicable, however, to owner occupiers who are also using debt financing, via mortgages, to buy their property. There are two main reasons for this:
<ul>
<li>
owner occupiers mainly use their houses for their own residency purposes, so no rental income will be generated to offset the mortgage repayment; and
</li>
<li>
housing investors are able to sell their properties whenever they want to realise gains in value, while owner occupiers do not have that flexibility.
</li>
</ul>
Importantly, experienced housing investors, in the current low interest rate environment, have realised the benefits of debt financing and taken advantage of the knowledge gap to exploit the higher returns available to them.
These findings also highlight the need for an innovative product to assist home buyers to enter the housing market.
Chyi Lin Lee is associate professor of Property, Western Sydney University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chyi-lin-lee-368009" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Investors exploiting returns on debt financing to muscle out home buyers

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Two weeks following the budget, the topic of housing affordability is still not waning.
Australia and the world united last week to slam young real estate mogul, Tim Gurner, who claimed young Australians can’t afford to buy property because they are spending “$40 a day on smashed avocados” and “not working”. The story spread like wildfire nationally as well as globally with media outlets including TIME Magazine, Washington Post, and The LA Times picking up the story.
While sensationalised, the crux of the problem has still not been addressed.  
Recent research conducted by iBuildNew which surveyed Australian FHBs to examine how much an affordable house is considered to cost, what the biggest barriers to entry are, where and what housing alternatives were being considered, and other useful statistics and insights. The full findings can be found in the Appendix below.
About the super saver scheme
The Government will help Australians boost their savings for their first home by allowing them to build a deposit inside superannuation. These contributions, which are taxed at 15 per cent, along with deemed earnings, can be withdrawn for a deposit from 1 July, 2018.
While the 'First Home Super Savers Scheme' will provide some benefit to Australian FHBs, it needs to still be kept in perspective in terms of popularity among its target audience:
As an incentive to help FHB's save I really like the scheme, but am skeptical as to how effective this will be in terms of how many people will take this up.  
I suspect FHB's will not see the incentive as strong enough and have concerns their savings will be locked away until retirement if they can't ultimately save enough, property prices keep rising, or their personal circumstances change, which are all legitimate concerns. 
In theory however, if a FHB is on $80,000 pa and elects to salary sacrifice $1,000 per month into super for a deposit, within 2.5 years they will save the $30,000. Depending on their state, they should be eligible for the FHB grant of $10,000-$15,000 (let's say $15,000), so they then have $45,000 in total savings. An average off-the-plan house and land package across Australia is $440,000 and if you assume you need 20% of the total amount (worst case) to secure a loan from the bank, the FHB still needs to save or access another $43,000.  
This is in no way a slam dunk but may be possible if they already have some sort of additional savings or can access equity in their parent’s home, for example. However, with only just over 20 percent of FHB’s considering new home builds with most preferring established properties at much higher starting prices, this savings challenge is far more acute for most. Unfortunately, the numbers don’t lie, and while this initiative may create some savings discipline from the few that take it up, most FHB’s dream of owning their own home will still be out of reach.
Relevant statistics (per iBuildNew recent survey findings): 76 per cent of first home buyers can’t get into the property market because they can’t save the deposit or secure a loan.
Only 22 percent of FHBs are considering a new home build as their entry option to the property market, with 60 per cent preferring to buy established despite the significant price differential between the two options.
About retirees downsizing super exemptions 
In a bid to release more property to the market and help tackle housing affordability for Aussie first home buyers, Australians over 65 years of age will be able to contribute an additional $300,000 from the sale of their main residence (if they have owned it for 10 years) into their superfund at non-concessional rates.
Starting from July next year, this scheme was designed to encourage retirees to actively consider downsizing in an attempt to free up larger homes for younger families and FHBs. Downsizing to free up capital makes a lot of sense for the older generation as they often own their own home with significant equity, but may not have much super to live off.
I am is very skeptical about this initiative. He thinks this won't help first home buyers at all and is simply a strategy from the government to relieve pressure on pension entitlements:
Firstly retirees that have been in their home for more than 10 years generally live in homes that cost $1,000,000 or more, so creating new supply in this high-cost range won't help first home buyers at all. Any impact is likely to be at the upper end of the housing market, not in the sub $450,000 where most FHB’s consider affordable. This initiative in the short term actually has a negative impact on supply as some retirees that would have otherwise downsized in the next 6-12 months will now be holding off selling their house until this initiative takes effect in July 2018.
Secondly, and most importantly, we see this as being a strategy from the government to relieve pressure on pension entitlements. At the end of the day the country has an issue on how to fund pensions entitlements, so this would take some pressure off if retirees took it up. However, accountants will advise their clients to think very carefully about this as the principal place of residency is excluded from the net asset means test calculations when it comes to pension eligibility.
Many simply don’t want to leave what they know, but many won’t want to forgo the state pension in lieu of their super pension, so you really have to question what impact this will have on housing supply. Branding the retiree downsizing scheme as a housing affordability measure I find very strange, at least for FHB’s.
Relevant statistic (per iBuildNew recent survey findings): 63 pe cent of first home buyers believe an affordable house costs less than $450,000, 85 percent think it’s less than $600,000.
About the foreign owners rent levy
Overseas property investors who leave their houses unoccupied will face an annual charge to help encourage foreign owners to make their property available to rent to improve rental supply – or that’s the plan anyway. Predictions on empty properties put the number as high as 300,000 across the country, however Mr. Peterson believes the levy will do nothing to increase housing affordability:
The levy only starts from $5,000, so even the more expensive properties around Australia will only attract a $15,000 slap on the wrist. For the Chinese who are using this as a strategy to get money into a safe haven (often several million dollars), a small annual charge is unlikely to drive a change in behavior from these types of investors who are more concerned about capital preservation than realizing rental returns. Even if it does, all this would do is ensure more blue chip houses are available for rent, generally at rental rates that people who are looking for affordable housing, can't afford anyway.
I think this is bit of a cop out by the Government who are trying to blame foreign investors for the housing supply shortage and affordability, when in reality they are a minority group undertaking this activity, so they have missed the mark.
About the release of surplus government land
As part of the housing affordability package released in the budget announcement the government has earmarked 127 hectares of surplus land in Melbourne which could house up to 6,000 properties. They have also outlined similar measures for Western Sydney. It is initiatives like this that can make a real difference.
The release of government land is one of the few genuine measures announced in this year’s budget that will actually help the housing affordability challenge. It directly impacts supply of land, and that has a direct impact on price and affordability.
In my view this type of land should be made almost exclusively for first home buyers, with a double FHB grant available on the purchase of such land when committed as part of a house and land package. If the super saving scheme is going to have any real impact, it still needs to be coupled with a first home buyer grant if FHB’s are going to be any chance of saving sufficient deposit in the Melbourne and Sydney markets.
However, FHB’s need to look beyond the inner suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney, lift their eyes and explore some of the outer suburbs if they are serious about getting into the property market. A new build house and land package is typically 40% plus cheaper than an inner suburb established property, not to mention its brand new.
Relevant research (per iBuildNew recent survey findings): 64 percent of first home buyers are only prepared to look at properties within their suburb of choice or surrounding suburbs.
Only 22 percent of first home buyers are considering a new home build while 60 per cent are focused on buying an established home or townhouse.
76 percent of first home buyers can’t get into the property market because they can’t save the deposit or secure a loan.
Daniel Peterson is chief executive officer, iBuildNew, and can be contacted <a href="https://www.ibuildnew.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

iBuildNew rejects three key initiatives from the 2017 Budget first home buyer measures 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Construction work, having trended lower in recent years, stabilised over the past half year. The drag from the mining investment downturn has diminished and public works is providing a boost.
In the March quarter 2017, construction work declined by a relatively modest 0.7 percent, following a 0.6 percent gain in the final quarter of 2016 (revised up from -0.2 percent). By comparison, over the year to September 2016, construction work declined by 10.7 percent, to be $5.6bn below a year earlier.
The March quarter 2017 result broadly met expectations, (market median -0.5 percent and Westpac -0.2 percent).
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/26/v1.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/26/v1.png" width="700" height="462">
In NSW and Qld, activity in the most recent quarter appears to have been disrupted by wet weather and flooding.
The wet weather impact is evident in the private home building segment, where work nationally on new dwellings fell by 4.8 percent and renovations were down by 6.3 percent. In NSW, total residential building activity fell by 4.9 percent in Q1, while Qld experienced a sharp 13.6 percent decline. These outcomes are weaker than suggested by earlier strength in approvals and the sizeable pipeline of work.
Home building activity is likely to rebound in the June quarter. Beyond that, there is a looming downturn in home building activity. Notably, private new dwelling approvals in Q1 2017 were 12 percent below the level of a year earlier.
The drag from the mining investment downturn has clearly diminished. Private infrastructure activity surprisingly rose in the March quarter, up 1.8 percent. We still expect some further modest downside over coming quarters.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/26/v2.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/26/v2.png" width="700" height="462">
In the mining state of WA, where work on gas projects under construction is nearing completion, total infrastructure activity is declining at a slower rate. Over the past half year, work fell by 12 percent, down $0.7bn. For the year prior to that, work fell by 51 percent, a decline of $5.5bn.
Public works is a growth driver as governments commit to additional projects. Public works increased in each of the past seven quarters, up a cumulative 21 percent. That is the longest run of consecutive gains since 2008 to 2010, associated with the post GFC fiscal stimulus package.
Victoria is performing strongly, with construction work in Q1 up 3.4 percent/qtr, 9.2 percent/yr. Strength is evident in building activity, +12 percent/yr, both residential and non-residential.
In NSW, construction work consolidated over the past year, with a Q1 outcome of -1.7 percent/qtr, +0.8 percent/yr. While infrastructure work moved higher, +6.6 percent/yr, building work eased, -2.2 percent/yr, led lower by a pull-back in commercial work.
In Qld, construction work has stabilised, printing at -1.9 percent/qtr, -1.0 percent/yr in Q1. This follows falls of 22 percent in 2014 and 24 percent in 2015 associated with the mining investment downturn. Over the past year, infrastructure work rebounded by almost 14 percent.
In WA, construction work fell by -4.8 percent/qtr, -37.4 percent/yr in Q1.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/26/v3.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/26/v3.png" width="700" height="462">
Andrew Hanlan is senior economist for Westpac and can be contacted <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hanlan-4302223/" target="_blank">here</a>. 
 
</body></html>

Construction work stabilised over the past half year: Andrew Hanlan

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/69282/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVERS
Homelessness continues to be a contentious issue in Australia. Earlier this year, Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton asserted:
There’s no reason people should be sleeping on the street, there are no reasons people should be homeless … There’s more than enough beds and accommodation for people to access.
Aside from the question of whether these claims are correct, homelessness is not as easily resolved as just giving people a bed and roof over their head. For a start, it is not just people sleeping on the street who are considered homeless. People using various forms of marginal and insecure accommodation legitimately lay claim to that label.
Using the Australian Bureau of Statistics definition, people who do not have suitable accommodation alternatives are considered homeless when:
they live in dwellings that are inadequate;
they do not have stable tenure; or
they do not have control over, or full access to, space for social relations.
Looking at this definition, it becomes clear that determining whether someone is homeless or not is not straightforward. By this definition, giving someone a bed in a shelter is not sufficient to resolve their homelessness. What’s more, we have long known that people sleep rough because they feel safer on the street than in some homeless accommodation.
How do people see themselves?
Even though these points are increasingly being recognised, what these debates neglect is that the “homeless” person’s perceptions of their situation might be just as important as how others classify them.
Do they feel they are homeless when they sleep on the street? Do they consider that they are no longer homeless when they have a bed in a shelter? And, importantly, do they even describe their situation as homelessness?
We examined this question in a large-scale research project with the Salvation Army. We started by exploring how many people who were staying in crisis homeless accommodation would see themselves as a “homeless person”.
We found that 55% of people staying in homeless accommodation provided by The Salvation Army identified as “homeless”, and 31% rejected that label.
14% were ambivalent about categorising themselves as “homeless” – they neither fully accepted nor rejected the label. For example, they said they were “not 100% homeless” or that even though they might “technically” be classed as homeless, they did not see that as an accurate way to describe their situation.
The reasons people gave for their responses reflected the complex and varied nature of what is meant by “home”. Some saw themselves as homeless because they did not have the stability, security or privacy bound up in our Western notion of home. As one woman put it:
… at the end of the day there’s a time limit on my stay and that’s not what I would class as stable, safe accommodation.
For others, their shelter accommodation did represent stability and security. As one male participant explained:
To me, homeless is on the street. This is a hostel, it’s a refuge, it’s a roof over your head, a shower, food, so I wouldn’t say I was homeless. I’ve got somewhere to go every day to sleep, so I wouldn’t say I’m homeless.
Others simply said the shelter felt like a home. It thus appears that not everyone who meets official definitions of being homeless defines themselves as such.
Labels affect people’s wellbeing
So, what’s in a name? When it comes to homelessness, the answer may be of considerable importance.
In our research, we found that the wellbeing of people who refused to define themselves as “homeless” was significantly higher than the wellbeing of those who had adopted the label to describe themselves.
Somewhat surprisingly, people who had experienced chronic homelessness in the past were no more or less likely to self-categorise as homeless than people who had few or no previous homeless experiences.
How people saw themselves also had no impact on their use of the services. Participants who rejected or were ambivalent about the homeless label reported rates of use similar to those who accepted the label.
It thus appears that when it comes to mental health, when we adopt a label to describe ourselves, we start to think and act in ways that align with the stereotypes of that label.
In this case, despite the diversity of experiences of homelessness, those who accept the homeless label internalise the rejection and even dehumanisation that homeless people experience from mainstream society. This is associated with significant social and emotional costs.
What are the lessons for service providers?
Given the importance of self-definitions for mental health and wellbeing, understanding how people see themselves has important policy implications.
Our research shows that not everyone who needs crisis accommodation defines themselves as a homeless person. However, individuals must typically self-identify as such to gain entry to homeless services.
This means these people are required to adopt a view of themselves that is in and of itself associated with negative wellbeing outcomes. There is a need for housing and supported accommodation that does not put pressure on people to identify as homeless and thus to carry the baggage associated with that label.
Fundamental needs, such as a need for housing, should not be tied with categories and identities that assume who someone is and what they are perceived to lack.
The Salvation Army has taken these insights further and translated them into practice principles. These take as a starting point that, in delivering services, it is important to avoid seeing people through the lens of their current and past housing challenges.
Concretely, this has, for instance, led to changes in the use of spaces. In several shelters, the Salvation Army have removed physical barriers between staff and residents and created more independent living space. The idea is that by undermining categories of “service staff” versus “service users” the homeless label will become a less prominent way for the latter group to categorise themselves. This should in itself be empowering for residents.
Other changes to service delivery are not as tangible, but are equally important. The language the Salvation Army uses has changed significantly, with the aim of treating people as active agents of their life and members of society, rather than passive recipients of services.
These changes in practice are subtle and not easily described, but they represent a significant change in the ethos of the service. For example, services no longer use terms such as “homeless people” as the main way of referring to people using the services.
These ideals reflect a broader change in how homeless services are provided to people. Homelessness accommodation providers, social service providers and governments must ensure the language they use and, importantly, the language and labels applied to people using services do not assume that needing assistance is a defining trait of the individual.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/zoe-walter-317874" target="_blank">Zoe Walter</a> is postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/cameron-parsell-170758" target="_blank">Cameron Parsell</a> is research fellow, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/genevieve-dingle-186222" target="_blank">Genevieve Dingle</a> is lecturer in Clinical Psychology and Director of the UQ Psychology Clinic, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jolanda-jetten-301309" target="_blank">Jolanda Jetten</a> is professor of Social Psychology, The University of Queensland.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

What’s in the name ‘homeless’? How people see themselves and the labels we apply matter

South East Queensland’s apartment market is entering a new phase defined by rising prices, constrained affordability, and mounting pressure on the construction pipeline, according to RPM Group’s latest SEQ Apartments &amp; Townhomes Market Report.

The May 2026 report highlights a widening divide between what buyers can afford and what developers can viably deliver, with detached house prices continuing to push more buyers toward apartments across Brisbane, the Gold Coast, and the Sunshine Coast.

RPM says Brisbane’s median house price has reached around $1.5 million, accelerating the shift toward higher-density housing as buyers are increasingly priced out of the detached market.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=135094 project_image_fid=356540]

Median unit prices rose across all three major SEQ markets in the March quarter. Brisbane City recorded the strongest annual growth, with median unit prices climbing 21 per cent to $862,000, while the Gold Coast reached the highest overall median at $950,000, up 17 per cent year-on-year. The Sunshine Coast followed at $870,000, representing annual growth of nine per cent.

RPM noted the affordability gap between houses and units remains significant, with detached homes commanding premiums of 67 per cent in Brisbane and 68 per cent on the Gold Coast relative to apartments.

The report suggests this price disparity is increasingly consolidating buyer demand within the apartment market, particularly among downsizers and owner-occupiers.

“Demand is real. Supply is moving. But they’re operating on different timelines and the gap between what’s being built and what buyers can afford is the defining tension in this market right now,” RPM Queensland and NSW Managing Directors Peter Neale and Clinton Trezise said in the report.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150787 project_image_fid=366230]

While approvals and commencements are strengthening, RPM argues the delivery pipeline remains constrained by construction costs, labour shortages, and extended build timelines.

Apartment approvals across Queensland increased 86 per cent over the year to February 2026, reaching 12,682 approvals, the highest level recorded since 2016. Brisbane overtook the Gold Coast as the state’s most active apartment approval market, with nearly 5,000 apartments approved over the past 12 months.

Unit commencements also strengthened considerably, rising 48 per cent year-on-year to 5,453 commencements in the December 2025 quarter, the highest level since 2018.

However, RPM’s research found apartment delivery timeframes have expanded sharply compared to the previous cycle. Projects are now averaging around 30 months from approval to completion, compared to roughly 20 months a decade ago.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=143932 project_image_fid=367515]

The number of units under construction has climbed to approximately 31,530 dwellings, nearing the previous 2016 peak, though projects are remaining in the pipeline for considerably longer.

Construction costs continue to weigh heavily on feasibility. RPM found the average apartment construction cost in Greater Brisbane reached $630,000 per dwelling in 2025, exceeding both Sydney and Melbourne. Coastal Queensland markets, including the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast, were even higher at an average of $817,418 per apartment due to the prevalence of larger premium product.

The report also points to increasing pressure from Olympic-related infrastructure spending ahead of Brisbane 2032, with labour competition expected to intensify over the next several years.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150017 project_image_fid=370960]

ANZ Associate Director of Property Daniel Gradwell said the underlying demand drivers across South East Queensland remain strong, supported by interstate migration, downsizers, and population growth.

“The challenge is bringing enough supply to market to meet that demand, and nothing on the horizon makes that straightforward,” Gradwell said.

RPM’s analysis found the affordability challenge is becoming more pronounced in the new apartment market itself, with only three per cent of surveyed new apartments priced below $1 million.

Instead, the market is increasingly concentrated in higher price brackets, with the most common new apartment price band across SEQ sitting between $1.5 million and $1.75 million. Around half of all new apartment stock surveyed is priced below $2 million.

The report suggests developers are not necessarily avoiding lower price points by choice, but because current construction economics make delivering affordable apartments increasingly difficult at scale.

Rental conditions also remain tight across the region. Median rents for one-bedroom apartments rose 12 per cent in Brisbane over the past year to $580 per week, while Gold Coast one-bedroom rents increased nine per cent to $630.

Despite rising rents, RPM noted bond lodgements have generally trended downward over the past five years, indicating more apartments are being absorbed by owner-occupiers rather than retained as investor-held rental stock.

Looking ahead, RPM expects projects targeting the mid-market owner-occupier segment between $1.25 million and $2 million to remain the most viable part of the market, while premium projects in highly constrained coastal or riverfront locations continue to attract demand.

“Construction costs are rewriting the feasibility rulebook across Greater Brisbane, and with little relief in sight, only projects in the right price band, right location, and with presales secured early will make it through,” the report concludes.

Joel Robinson

SEQ apartment demand outpacing affordable supply as construction timelines stretch: RPM

Camberwell Junction has long been the epicentre of amenity in Melbourne’s Boroondara region.

For nearly a century, it has drawn both locals and visitors, anchored by the Camberwell Sunday Market, which first operated in 1929 and quickly became a fixture of the suburb’s identity. Over time, the Junction evolved into one of Melbourne’s most established retail and lifestyle precincts, now comprising more than 400 stores and over 300 commercial businesses.

Despite that depth of amenity, one thing has remained notably limited: the supply of new apartments.

In a suburb defined by its heritage streetscapes and tightly held residential stock, new development opportunities have been scarce, particularly within the core of the Junction itself. That lack of supply has left a gap in the market for larger, design-led apartments suited to downsizers and owner-occupiers wanting to remain in the area.

Boutique developer Above Zero identified that gap when it secured a prime site on Burke Road, in the heart of Camberwell Junction.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=4896 project_image_fid=368543]

The site has a long planning history. Various proposals have been put forward over more than a decade, many of which were knocked back by the City of Boroondara, with initial applications dating back to 2015. Above Zero acquired the site in 2022 and returned with a revised scheme, refining both the building’s height and its ground-level interface to better align with Council expectations.

That process has culminated in approval for Camberwell House.

The Cera Stribley-designed development will deliver 57 residences on a 1,950 sqm site within the Camberwell Activity Centre, placing it directly within one of Melbourne’s most established retail and transport hubs.

It is expected to be one of the only new apartment developments to launch in the Junction in recent years, reinforcing the rarity of new supply in the precinct. Currently, there are just a handful of projects on the market in Camberwell, underscoring the significance of a development of this scale and positioning.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=4896 project_image_fid=368544]

Camberwell House has been conceived with a clear focus on larger-format apartments. The project will offer a mix of two-, three- and four-bedroom residences, alongside a limited number of penthouses, targeting owner-occupiers seeking scale rather than volume-driven product.

The building’s vertical presence will also set it apart.

Positioned on Burke Road, the development is set to become one of the taller buildings in its immediate context, allowing for elevated outlooks across Melbourne’s CBD skyline and toward the Dandenong Ranges. In a precinct characterised by lower-scale built form, that height provides a point of differentiation, particularly for buyers seeking outlook and natural light.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=4896 project_image_fid=368568]

Architecture has been led by Cera Stribley, with interiors by GOLDEN and landscape design by Florian Wild. The design approach centres on material consistency and restraint, with residences oriented to maximise light, ventilation and connection to outdoor spaces.

Full-height glazing and generous terraces form a key part of that strategy, allowing apartments to extend beyond their internal footprint and engage with the surrounding environment.

Beyond the private residences, a significant component of the project is its amenity offering.

Above Zero has positioned Camberwell House as a “complete living environment”, incorporating a full floor dedicated to resident facilities. At the centre of that is a wellness zone, including a 12.5-metre lap pool, spa, sauna and treatment spaces, alongside a gym and recovery-focused amenities.

This level of amenity is more commonly associated with inner-city developments, rather than established middle-ring suburbs like Camberwell.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=4896 project_image_fid=368588]

Additional shared spaces include a private library lounge, dining and entertaining areas, and an indoor golf simulator. A self-contained guest suite has also been incorporated, allowing residents to accommodate visiting family or friends without impacting their primary living space.

The inclusion of these facilities reflects a broader shift in buyer expectations.

As more downsizers look to transition from larger family homes into apartments, there is increasing demand for developments that offer not just a residence, but a lifestyle. That includes access to wellness, social and entertaining spaces within the building itself, reducing the reliance on external amenity while still maintaining proximity to established precincts.

Camberwell House is positioned to benefit from both.

Its location places it within immediate walking distance of Camberwell Junction’s retail and dining offering, as well as public transport connections, including tram and train services. That combination of internal amenity and external convenience is central to its appeal.

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-150" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:55d7c6ac-8e6d-4881-ad49-0ed9bf66d1cc-74" dir="auto">
Jellis Craig Projects Director Stephen Bowtell is handling sales for the project and says Camberwell House offers a rare entry point into one of Melbourne’s most tightly held markets.

“Buyers are recognising that Camberwell House offers something they simply haven’t seen before in Boroondara,”&nbsp;Bowtell&nbsp;says.

“It combines a level of resident amenity and service typically associated with Melbourne’s premium inner-city developments, while being positioned right in the heart of Camberwell Junction.

“The response to the concierge offering has been particularly strong. Buyers appreciate not only the convenience, but also the sense of security and peace of mind that comes from having a dedicated presence in the building every day.

“When you combine that with the wellness facilities, the exceptional arrival experience, and panoramic views across both the CBD skyline and the Dandenong Ranges, it creates a lifestyle proposition that is genuinely unique within the local market.”
</section>

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=4896]

Above Zero launches Camberwell House in undersupplied Camberwell Junction precinct

<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, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/castile-47-skyring-terrace-newstead-qld-4006">Castile</a>, 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]

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;

Jonathan Chancellor

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News