<html><body>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/richard-tomlinson-10016">Richard Tomlinson</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>

In the <a href="http://theconversation.com/what-housing-issues-should-the-budget-tackle-this-is-what-our-experts-say-73751">first article</a> reviewing The Conversation’s many articles on housing issues, the commentary about fiscal and supply-side issues was consistent. The same is not true for affordable housing due to the diversity of affordability issues. <img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/75703/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1">

The issues have to do with the complexity and scale of the affordability problems and possible policies discussed in Conversation articles since January 2016. As it is not possible for one article to cover all the relevant policies, the focus here is on the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/housing-support/programmes-services/national-affordable-housing-agreement">National Affordable Housing Agreement</a> (NAHA), support for <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-to-reboot-affordable-housing-funding-not-scrap-it-72861">not-for-profit social housing</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/sensible-reform-to-finance-affordable-housing-deserves-cross-party-support-72059">bond aggregation</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/sydney-needs-higher-affordable-housing-targets-69207">inclusionary zoning</a>.

The terms affordable and social housing are sometimes used interchangeably, a potential cause of confusion. Affordable housing is more encompassing – it represents an aspiration for all who cannot enter the market for housing. This includes both ownership and rental.

Social housing is one form of affordable housing. It includes public housing and housing owned and managed by not-for-profit community housing providers. As well as providing housing for those unable to enter the market, community housing providers accommodate, for example, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-660-000-locked-out-of-home-ownership-74926">people with disabilities</a> and those escaping domestic violence.

<h2>A ‘hot’ political issue</h2>

Affordable housing is a “hot” issue. Recently, the new premier of New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian, listed it as <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-youre-serious-about-affordable-sydney-housing-premier-heres-a-must-do-list-71791">one of her top three priorities</a>.

Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison claims supply-side constraints are pushing up housing prices. He <a href="https://theconversation.com/morrison-targets-state-planning-regulations-as-problem-for-housing-affordability-67524">targets state planning regulations</a> as the problem.

Federal politicians favour this explanation as supply-side complaints can be used to blame state and local governments. This serves to divert attention from federal fiscal policies, which effectively subsidise home ownership.

<h2>How big is the problem?</h2>

Of the need for public and social housing, authors wrote:

<blockquote>
We have modelled the income rules determining eligibility for public housing, and estimate that there are <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-the-private-rental-sector-provide-a-secure-affordable-housing-solution-63880">900,000 households satisfying these income eligibility criteria</a>.

… state-owned-and-managed housing still accommodates around <a href="https://theconversation.com/productivity-commission-stance-has-potential-for-social-housing-gains-66038">700,000 of our most vulnerable citizens</a>.

… there are as many as <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-policy-success-not-failure-has-driven-australias-housing-crisis-53751">105,000 people who are without a home</a> and 160,000 households on public housing waiting lists. The overall stock of public housing has fallen from 331,000 units in 2007-08 to 317,000 in 2013-14.

Social housing has <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-660-000-locked-out-of-home-ownership-74926">nearly 200,000 Australians on a waiting list</a>.
</blockquote>

In addition to the public housing stock, not-for-profits <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-to-reboot-affordable-housing-funding-not-scrap-it-72861">provide about 100,000 social housing dwellings</a>.

The scale of the affordable housing problem is highly dependent on mortgage stress. This, in turn, is linked most closely to household incomes and employment levels. This mortgage stress is <a href="https://theconversation.com/not-on-struggle-street-yet-but-mortgage-stress-risk-is-rising-64293">not especially concentrated in the capital cities</a>.

Into this affordability mix one might also add some 2 million Australians who “<a href="https://theconversation.com/two-million-aussies-are-experiencing-high-financial-stress-64367">don’t have the resources to bounce back</a>” from unexpected bills.

<h2>Ways to improve social housing supply</h2>

The NAHA, which has been referred to as Australia’s housing policy, is a “national partnership agreement” by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). Its largest component is social housing.

Federal government ministers have described the A$1.3 billion-a-year NAHA as an “<a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=3&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiCvLrcgI_TAhVqqFQKHcztBGMQFgglMAI&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnational-affairs%2F9bn-home-affordability-scheme-to-be-dumped-in-may-budget%2Fnews-story%2F9765e3a8c7cbdca45a090464aff1c82e&amp;usg=AFQjCNFwB0HuZgOjS0wcVn2K64HEOh7HTQ&amp;bvm=bv.151426398,d.dGchttps://theconversation.com/australia-needs-to-reboot-affordable-housing-funding-not-scrap-it-72861">abject failure</a>”. This is because it has not increased “the number and availability of public and social housing stock”.

In contrast, The Conversation authors agree that spending on public housing is inadequate and declining.

<blockquote>
Australia’s social housing system <a href="https://theconversation.com/productivity-commission-stance-has-potential-for-social-housing-gains-66038">remains grossly underfunded</a>. Currently available resources are inadequate even to properly maintain the existing portfolio, let alone to underpin the new supply needed to keep pace with the growing need.

… the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-to-reboot-affordable-housing-funding-not-scrap-it-72861">overall stock has been eaten away</a>, through market sale of public housing, and run down, through skimping on repairs and maintenance.
</blockquote>

The history of public housing is that housing was briefly referred to as a “right” after the second world war. Public housing was used to accommodate people from various classes; it was not initially a preserve of the poor. Later, that changed:

<blockquote>
[Public] housing’s declining share of the housing stock became more tightly <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-to-reboot-affordable-housing-funding-not-scrap-it-72861">rationed to the lowest-income households</a>. This eroded the system’s rent base. At the same time, its ageing buildings and households with greater support needs increased its costs.
</blockquote>

When operating expenses are not covered, maintenance is inadequate. When that happens, the number of habitable units declines.

It is feared that the NAHA <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/turnbull-government-to-axe-national-affordable-housing-scheme/news-story/6bdb60c21d24dbf188c18fea3701237f">might not survive the 2017 budget</a>. Likewise <a href="https://theconversation.com/productivity-commission-stance-has-potential-for-social-housing-gains-66038">it is feared that</a>:

<blockquote>
… [Productivity] commission-inspired “reforms” could involve the forced sale of public housing to vulture capitalists unconstrained by enforceable obligations to provide tenant services or to maintain, upgrade and retain housing stock for its current purpose.

… some residents face eviction through large-scale public housing redevelopment by governments that <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-financialisation-of-housing-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-73767">view their homes as key real estate assets</a>.
</blockquote>

The fear of eviction from public housing sites with high land value is certainly warranted:

<blockquote>
In March 2014, New South Wales government minister Pru Goward announced that all of the 293 public housing dwellings in Millers Point, Dawes Point and The Rocks, as well as the 79 apartments in the Sirius Building built for public housing in the 1970s, <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-moving-out-public-housing-tenants-is-a-tragedy-for-millers-point-and-for-sydney-64363">were to be sold</a>. Their tenants would be moved.
</blockquote>

One of the potential bipartisan ways forward is to scale up social housing provided by not-for-profits. As federal housing minister, <a href="http://www.formerministers.dss.gov.au/1800/social_housing_19mar09/">Tanya Plibersek proposed</a> in 2009 that:

<blockquote>
… not-for-profit community housing providers would be <a href="https://theconversation.com/productivity-commission-stance-has-potential-for-social-housing-gains-66038">supported to grow to a scale</a> enabling them both to complement and compete with public housing entities.
</blockquote>

Social housing critically serves low-income renters. The high cost and limited availability of rental housing is a defining feature of the affordability problem. It also underscores the inequality between owners and renters due to the fiscal policy benefits for home owners.

Funding is needed to scale not-for-profit social housing. In a context of seeking to cut public spending, Morrison is looking to private sector funding of the sector to increase both the supply of affordable housing and the transfer of public housing to not-for-profits.

He is seeking to secure such funding based on a bond aggregator model. This is <a href="http://www.ahuri.edu.au/policy/ahuri-briefs/bond-aggregator-model">best explained</a> by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI). It has proposed:

<blockquote>
… an Affordable Housing Finance Corporation … designed to aggregate and source large amounts of capital from the bond market so as to provide lower-interest, long-term loans to not-for-profit community housing providers developing housing for lower-income households. The intention is that money would be raised efficiently with reduced financing costs rather than in expensive one-off transactions such as when borrowing from a bank.
</blockquote>

AHURI cautions that the not-for-profit need for rental income means that households whose only income is welfare assistance cannot access not-for-profit social housing. The need for rental assistance remains.

Another means advocated for increasing the supply of affordable housing is inclusionary zoning. This approach requires a percentage of new housing projects on rezoned and government land to be affordable housing. An additional benefit is that this improves <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-the-people-cant-get-to-their-jobs-bring-the-jobs-to-the-people-57567">access to jobs</a> for <a href="https://theconversation.com/high-housing-costs-create-worries-for-city-tourism-and-hospitality-57347">low-paid service workers</a>.

Inclusionary zoning has long been practised in Europe, the US and, more recently, in <a href="https://renewalsa.sa.gov.au/building-our-future/affordable-housing/">South Australia</a>. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/sydney-needs-higher-affordable-housing-targets-69207">rationale for inclusionary zoning</a> is:

<blockquote>
… that the uplift in land value results from public policy changes that allow for housing development or higher-density housing. It is not unreasonable, then, that landowner windfalls should be limited to achieve the important public policy outcome of housing affordability.
</blockquote>

The Property Council opposes inclusionary zoning, claiming that it will increase the cost of housing for others. This is doubtful, for the following reason:

<blockquote>
If a fixed percentage of affordable housing becomes a condition of rezoning … this will only affect the size of the landholder’s windfall gain. Developers will offer lower prices for the land, based on the mandated requirements for affordable housing.
</blockquote>

The Greater Sydney Commission supports inclusionary zoning, which is sorely lacking in Melbourne. <a href="http://www.sgsep.com.au/assets/Occasional-Paper-Revisiting-the-economics-of-Inclusionary-Zoning-April-2015.pdf">In Sydney</a>, the debate concerns the percentage of dwellings allocated to affordable housing. The commission suggests <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.greater.sydney/digital-district-plan/603">figures of 5%-10%</a>, whereas The Conversation authors advocate:

<blockquote>
… at least 15% of housing in new private developments … [and] on publicly owned land, at least 30% of new housing developments should be affordable.
</blockquote>

<h2>Fresh approaches and funding needed</h2>

If NAHA funding is reduced, or the NAHA is terminated, the affordable housing problem will sharply escalate. Australia’s “housing crisis” will truly deserve that label.

It can be anticipated that social housing provided by not-for-profits can scale, but this will take many years. Government rental assistance will still be needed. Inclusionary zoning is desirable and can serve low-income households, but will never be an alternative to the need for social housing.

The question is what policy alternatives Morrison has in mind and how much he is prepared to spend.

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/richard-tomlinson-10016">Richard Tomlinson</a>, Professor of Urban Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/affordable-housing-finger-pointing-politics-and-possible-policy-solutions-75703">original article</a>.
</body></html>

theconversation

Affordable housing, finger-pointing politics and possible policy solutions

<html><body>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/phillip-oneill-125643">Phillip O'Neill</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/western-sydney-university-1092">Western Sydney University</a>

This is the fourth article in The Conversation's series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/making-cities-work-37182">Making Cities Work</a>. It considers the problems of providing critical infrastructure and how we might produce the innovations and reforms needed to meet 21st-century needs and challenges. <img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/73850/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1">

<hr>
The privatisation of urban infrastructure in Australia is an ironic story. The vehicles of urban infrastructure – the utilities and the state-owned enterprises – were so central to the life of cities that they became perfect entities for private sell-off. We now live with the consequences of the sell-off.

The utilities flourished in Australia as a nation-building exercise following the second world war. The <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/06/economist-explains-20">Bretton Woods agreements</a> entrenched Keynesian fiscal behaviours across the Western world.

The utilities thrived on the willingness of governments to raise capital for public works. They were also central to the development of state capacity and the assembly of a career-based professional public service. As part of the social compact, the public accepted reasonable user pricing for the availability of water, energy, public transport and telecommunications services.

Hence, the utilities and the state-owned enterprises led the roll-out of urban infrastructure in the second half of the 20th century. This roll-out shaped the nature of Australian urban life, its format and flows.

But then fiscal crisis of the state descended in the 1970s and 1980s. The sell-off of public assets was seen worldwide as a solution to state indebtedness. Arguments that private enterprise could deliver infrastructure services more efficiently added impetus.

<h2>A wholesale transformation</h2>

Few governments resisted the sell-off urge. Australian governments, state and federal, participated in the sell-off, though in a stuttering manner. Through time, however, the change has been substantial.

<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8462.12072/full">Abbott and Cohen calculate</a> that the output of state-owned enterprises in Australia in 1989-90 accounted for 7% of GDP, 9% of total employment, and 14% of gross fixed capital expenditure.

By 2011-12, the output of state-owned enterprises had fallen to 1.3% of GDP. Their gross fixed capital expenditure contributed only 1.8% of the nation’s total. The authors estimate that proceeds from privatisations in Australia since 1987 total around A$194 billion (in constant year 2000 dollars).

The sell-off commercialised and privatised a raft of assets: electricity generation and transmission, gas distribution, airports, ports and telecommunication. New assets went straight to private hands: motorways, public transport, renewable energy generation, and freight handling.

The shedding of public responsibility for infrastructure meant public investment in Australia as a share of GDP fell from more than 5% in the mid-1980s to well below 3% <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.bis.com.au/im-the-other-deficit/section/4545">by the end of the 1990s</a>.

<h2>What’s in it for investors?</h2>

There is much to understand about the sell-off. Here I focus only on why private investors are willing to pay extraordinary prices to acquire urban infrastructure assets.

The attraction of investing in an urban infrastructure asset comes from the infrastructure services being embedded in the daily flows of people, water, energy and information throughout a city. The flows of a city are remarkably ordered in terms of volume, direction and timing.

How a city operates is dependent on the co-existence of decisions by infrastructure operators and users. The operators decide how and when services will be available. Households and firms decide what they will be doing across a 24-hour day and therefore how and when they will use the infrastructure services on offer.

Thus, the efficiency of infrastructure provision comes from the predictability of the flows of a city. These in turn come from a historical patterning and sequencing of behaviours by householders and firms as they read off and conform to each other’s movements.

An example is the relatively sympathetic structuring and sequencing of work hours and school hours. This ensures that public transport facilities are utilised more efficiently in peak hours, while the hours that parents and children spend together are made more convenient.

The embeddedness of infrastructure into city life means that revenue streams from user fees for infrastructure services are highly predictable and stable. And because transport, water and energy supply is usually monopolised, the householder has little choice but to continue as a consumer of an infrastructure service.

The books of a utility or state-owned enterprise, then, represent a discrete set of households well trained to pay their monthly bills. This is precisely the type of revenue stream that pension, insurance and sovereign wealth funds seek when faced with the peculiar problem of having surplus cash to lock away for at least the next two decades.

<h2>What did we lose in the sell-off?</h2>

Perhaps it was clever to have solved a government debt problem in Australia back in the day through a sell-off of assets to a new class of long-term investor. But as a consequence we have lost other things.

Infrastructure as a planning tool to shape our cities is one. Revenue streams to subsidise needy customers or supply to remote locations is another.

And, critically, we have lost the opportunity for the state to revamp energy, water and transport systems to allow for innovative supply and demand formats – such as distributed electricity supply networks – that are more appropriate to a climate-threatened planet.

Long-term privatisation contracts, most of them closed to scrutiny, lock urban infrastructure provision into 20th-century formats.

The difficult task now will be their unlocking.

<hr>
This article draws on a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08111146.2016.1235034">research paper</a> by the author in a new <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cupr20/35/1">special issue</a> of the international journal, Urban Policy and Research, on critical urban infrastructure. You can read other published articles in our series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/making-cities-work-37182">here</a>.

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/phillip-oneill-125643">Phillip O'Neill</a>, Director, Centre for Western Sydney, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/western-sydney-university-1092">Western Sydney University</a>

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/stumbling-into-the-future-living-with-the-legacy-of-the-great-infrastructure-sell-off-73850">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Stumbling into the future: living with the legacy of the great infrastructure sell-off

<html><body>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/crystal-legacy-18412">Crystal Legacy</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carey-curtis-96861">Carey Curtis</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/curtin-university-873">Curtin University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jan-scheurer-342188">Jan Scheurer</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/curtin-university-873">Curtin University</a>

Opposition to proposed road projects has become a feature of state and federal elections.

In Western Australia, protests <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-ingredients-for-running-a-successful-environmental-campaign-72371">against the Roe Highway Stage 8</a> escalated just before Christmas 2016. On the eve of the state election, Main Roads WA contractors (acting at the behest of the then Liberal-National government) pushed forward with the destruction of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/roe-8-perths-environmental-flashpoint-in-the-wa-election-74155">environmentally significant</a> Beeliar wetlands.

This happened despite considerable community opposition. The Labor opposition, now the newly elected government, declared it would <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-04/labor-to-scrap-roe-8-if-it-wins-wa-election/8160980">halt the construction</a> if elected.

<h2>Politics as usual puts planning under a cloud</h2>

In our recently <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/uchdXHUJR7HKCMyEUncd/full">published paper</a>, we compared road projects in Melbourne (East West Link), Sydney (WestConnex) and Perth (Perth Freight Link). Based on observational, policy and media analysis, we found growing antagonism between the state governments and their residents.

Roe 8 is just the latest freeway battle in Australia, following those in <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/election-2016-labor-promises-not-to-fund-westconnex-as-anthony-albanese-addresses-electorate-20160519-gozdj3">Sydney</a> and <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-state-election-2014-premier-denis-napthine-announces-250m-for-tullamarine-freeway-20141108-11j0rn">Melbourne</a>, where the Labor government <a href="https://theconversation.com/east-west-link-shows-miserable-failure-of-planning-process-40232">cancelled the East West Link</a>.

To the casual observer, these protests, and promises by parties in opposition to scrap contracts if elected, could be seen simply as “politics as usual”.

However, normalising politics in transport can veil the deficiencies and shortcuts that undermine planners’ ability to act in the public interest. For this reason, it is critical that we examine what dynamics are at play, and how planning serves and/or exacerbates these.

<h2>Professional planning bypassed</h2>

In the case of Roe 8, <a href="https://theconversation.com/roe-8-fails-the-tests-of-responsible-21st-century-infrastructure-planning-71810">good planning was circumvented</a>.

Not only is this undermining efforts to reduce car dependency and invest in public transport – goals adopted in these three cities’ metropolitan strategic plans since at least the 1990s – it is undermining professional planning practice.

The evasion of due process in planning has recently come into sharp focus. Reports by the <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/approval-and-administration-commonwealth-funding-westconnex-project">Australian Auditor-General</a> on the WestConnex project in Sydney and by the <a href="http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20151209-East-West-Link/20151209-East-West-Link.pdf">Victorian Auditor-General</a> on the East West Link in Melbourne are severely critical of processes taken. The report on the East West Link concluded that the Victorian government lacked “a sound basis for the government’s decision to commit to the investment”.

In the case of Roe 8, Main Roads WA documents provided to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development were recently released under FOI after a two-year court battle to keep them secret. These show a rushed and partial assessment of the transport case for the road was put to Infrastructure Australia.

The latter, in its own <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-19/perth-freight-link-poorly-planned-hastily-conceived-report/6707364">assessment</a>, alerts us to concerns about inadequate analysis:

<blockquote>
A rapid BCR (benefit cost ratio) was completed for the preferred option only … [and] a rapid BCR was not completed for additional options to determine if the preferred option provided the greatest net benefits.
</blockquote>

Traffic planning is only one part of the process. A Freight Network Review commenced in 2001 and <a href="https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/attachment_2.pdf">concluded in 2003</a> found that Roe 8 was not needed. There is no publicly available report stating why this sound planning was set aside.

In addition, proper planning process has been bypassed. The previous WA government argued that the Roe Highway had been reserved in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) since the 1960s and that this was good long-term planning. However, the detailed road alignment falls outside this reserve at three locations.

This triggered the use by the WA Planning Commission of a “Planning Control Area” (PCA), the purpose of which is to protect land until “proper planning” can take place. After this, an MRS amendment must be initiated and advertised for public comment.

Construction began before any public consultation on the MRS amendment. Was this to avoid public scrutiny?

Public consultation is an important part of any good planning process. It was undertaken for other 1960s major road reserves. These were reviewed against current knowledge and policy, and in some cases <a href="https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/121041_-_MRS_Report_on_Submissions.pdf">deleted</a> (the Stirling Highway, for example).

Public input into the planning process provides an opportunity for governments to bring the community with them through both owning the planning problem and arriving at a solution that the public can support.

<h2>Risks of politicisation are high</h2>

Large transport projects are likely to attract opposition from affected communities. Construction is disruptive and the visual, noise and amenity changes are significant.

These projects are also transformational. They lead to profound city-wide, and even region-wide, changes to the environment and the working of a city.

For these reasons, planning for transport projects must be a process of careful consideration. It requires sound professional planning based on reasoned justification drawing on the best available evidence. This process must be transparent to all.

When politicians choose a different course to planning advice, this must be on their own account and again transparent. We need a strong discussion on professional ethics and the need for clear separation of planners’ independent advice from elected politicians’ decisions.

In the case of Roe 8, are we to assume that the analysis and conduct of the planning process we see revealed reflects what planners at Main Roads WA and the Western Australian Planning Commission believe is sound professional practice? Or are they simply building a case for politicians?

Without clear and transparent documentation, planners leave themselves open to criticism and bring the profession into disrepute.

<h2>Room for improvement</h2>

Based on <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/uchdXHUJR7HKCMyEUncd/full">our research</a>, we assert the need to recognise that the gap between strategic planning and project planning needs to be filled by a more community-oriented decision-making process.

We must challenge “<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/AAdExHQCg67j4mhsDFvP/full">urgency</a>” – when governments aim to sign contracts before we have had sound planning analysis and community input.

Long-term planning does not mean that a project like Roe 8, which was first mooted more than 50 years ago, must be built today. We need to take into account new knowledge and current views on our future. We must place equality and environmental and economic sustainability in balance, as weighed by community values.

The political process is one place where those values must be considered holistically. This is immensely important, but it should not undermine transparent and sound planning.

<hr>
This article draws on a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/uchdXHUJR7HKCMyEUncd/full">research paper</a> by the authors in a new <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cupr20/35/1">special issue</a> of the international journal, Urban Policy and Research, on critical urban infrastructure. You can read other published articles in our series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/making-cities-work-37182">here</a>.

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/crystal-legacy-18412">Crystal Legacy</a>, Australian Research Council (DECRA) Fellow and Vice Chancellor's Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carey-curtis-96861">Carey Curtis</a>, Professor of City Planning and Transport, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/curtin-university-873">Curtin University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jan-scheurer-342188">Jan Scheurer</a>, Senior Research Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/curtin-university-873">Curtin University</a>

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-we-restore-the-publics-faith-in-transport-planning-73684">original article</a>.
</body></html>

How do we restore the public's faith in transport planning?

<html><body>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katrina-raynor-255374">Katrina Raynor</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carolyn-whitzman-9944">Carolyn Whitzman</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>

The need for more affordable housing close to public transport and services is acute in Melbourne. Inner Melbourne has experienced a 74% increase in rough sleeping <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/shocking-record-numbers-of-homeless-people-sleeping-on-melbournes-streets-20160609-gpf1wk">in the past two years</a>. This is perhaps the most visible outcome of the lack of affordable housing options. Only 1% of advertised rental properties in the metropolitan area are <a href="https://www.anglicarevic.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/RAS-2016-Mini-Report-ANGLICARE-VICTORIA.pdf">affordable for households reliant on government assistance</a>. <img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/74233/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1">

Buying or renting in the well-serviced inner and middle suburbs is increasingly out of reach for households on low and moderate incomes. A month ago, one of us wrote an <a href="https://theconversation.com/states-drag-feet-on-affordable-housing-with-victoria-the-worst-72867">article in The Conversation</a> bemoaning the lack of government leadership on this issue. In the 15 months since its election, the Victorian government had not delivered promised revisions to the Plan Melbourne metropolitan strategy or an affordable housing strategy.

What a difference a month makes. It is almost as if some government leaders read the article. Every week (or to be more precise, weekend) since then has delivered a major policy announcement.

Now that <a href="http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/377206/Plan_Melbourne_2017-2050_Strategy_.pdf">Plan Melbourne</a> and <a href="http://www.vic.gov.au/system/user_files/Documents/housing/FINAL%20PDF%20DTF046_Q_housing01.pdf">Homes For Victorians</a> have been delivered, it is only fair that we provide a preliminary evaluation of how well these strategies meet the housing needs of Victorians on moderate, low and very low incomes.

These documents remain vague about the definition of “affordable housing”. They also do not designate various income groups. We have taken the liberty of defining these groups based on median income brackets.

<h2>Moderate-income households</h2>

We define moderate income as 80-120% of area median income – about A$68,500-$102,500 a year. In this group, first home buyers appear to be the biggest winners in Plan Melbourne and Homes For Victorians.

The Victorian government will waive stamp duty for first home buyers on homes worth up to $600,000 and taper stamp duty concessions on homes above that price. This is set to cost the government $851 million over four years and save the average buyer $8,000.

However, if previous first home buyer incentives <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/house-price-spike-linked-to-first-home-owners-grant-20110821-1j4ny">have taught us anything</a>, this is likely to inflate the cost of cheaper dwellings without delivering affordability benefits.

The government is also offering a shared equity program. This allows first home buyers to co-purchase their home with the government. The initiative is intended to support households that qualify for a bank loan but need help saving a deposit. Western Australia <a href="http://www.openingdoorswa.com.au/">has a similar program</a>, which has helped more than 1,500 households buy homes to date.

<h2>Low-income households</h2>

This group earns 50%-80% of area median income, in the range of $42,500-$68,500 a year.

As exciting as the above options are for some first home buyers, they are out of reach for low-income households that earn between $800 and $1,300 per week. These households are unlikely to qualify for social housing but struggle to afford market rent and purchase prices.

This group, which includes many service and trades workers and their families, need a steady stream of new, appropriately sized and affordable market rental options. However, neither the Housing for Victorians nor Plan Melbourne talks specifically about a new scheme to replace the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which the current federal government <a href="http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/forward-planning/investment-strategy/politics-and-policy/31235-no-future-for-nras-as-fifth-round-is-scrapped-in-2014-budget">abandoned in 2013</a>.

It is absolutely true, as the affordable housing strategy states, that federal policies like capital gains tax exemptions and negative gearing favour investors over first-time and other resident homebuyers. However, state government policies can have an impact on scaling up a rental housing market.

In other cities with similar housing affordability crises, such as Vancouver, New York and London, a combination of expedited approvals, development levy abatements, inclusionary zoning and other mechanisms have helped develop new below-market rental units. Located near public transport and services, these are usually provided at particular price points and kept affordable in perpetuity.

<h2>Very-low-income households</h2>

These households have income of less than 50% of the area median, or under $42,500. They are likely to be the primary beneficiaries of significant new social housing funding and development.

The Victorian government has set up a $1 billion fund to support new social housing. The government will work with community housing providers to deliver social housing through new construction and rental subsidies. This is estimated to deliver up to 2,200 new housing units over the next five years.

This funding injection is badly needed: Victoria has the lowest proportion of <a href="http://chfv.org.au/uploads/Making-Social-Housing-Work---Web.pdf">social housing stock in Australia</a>.

The state government is also increasing funding, or providing new funding, for a <a href="https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/family-violence-housing-blitz">Family Violence Housing Blitz</a>, support for transitions out of homelessness, and rooming house renovation.

A new $1 billion loan guarantee fund for social housing providers will be linked to a shared social housing rent registry. This will make life a little easier for the 33,000 households on the public housing waiting list. They currently have to separately register with up to a dozen other community housing providers.

Plan Melbourne has identified a policy direction to use surplus government land to develop social and affordable housing. <a href="http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/a-road-map-for-more-affordable-housing/">Launch Housing and VicRoad’s proposal for Ballarat Road in Maribyrnong</a> offer an example of how these partnerships might work. Plan Melbourne also focuses on increasing the supply of social housing through regeneration and intensification of existing public housing sites.

However, the strategy does not recommend a level of social housing as a proportion of total existing and new housing stock. To provide for all households now eligible for social housing, Victoria would require 76,000 more social housing units. By 2051, that figure is <a href="http://www.chfv.org.au/uploads/CHFV2016novliss.pdf">projected to increase to 140,000</a>

Furthermore, Plan Melbourne projects a need for 1.6 million new homes in the next 30 years. That’s over 50,000 new homes a year. Of these, 5,000 would be required to meet the needs of low-income seniors, people with intellectual and physical disabilities, female-headed households escaping family violence, and others who simply cannot compete in the private rental market.

<h2>Now to make these plans work</h2>

Plan Melbourne and Homes For Victorians provide several directions that could benefit all Victorians. Welcome aspects include greater emphasis on public transport networks, greater diversity of housing options, 20-minute neighbourhoods and practical mechanisms to get more housing closer to public transport and services.

The plans also make very encouraging noises about strengthening the role of planning in helping to deliver social and affordable housing. This includes overcoming the legislative and definitional barriers to the effectiveness of mechanisms like density bonuses or inclusionary housing.

The continuing lack of formal definition of affordable housing is a fundamental flaw in Victorian affordable housing policy that remains unsolved by Homes For Victorians and Plan Melbourne.

Plan Melbourne and Homes for Victorians together provide some welcome directions towards more well-located and affordable housing. But the previous Victorian planning strategy, Melbourne 2030, foundered in implementation.

Victoria will have to link infrastructure improvements to specific affordable housing targets in well-serviced areas. And the government should continue its work on value capture and development contributions to nail down implementation of its long-awaited affordable housing strategy.

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katrina-raynor-255374">Katrina Raynor</a>, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Transforming Housing Project, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carolyn-whitzman-9944">Carolyn Whitzman</a>, Professor of Urban Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-a-difference-a-month-makes-but-victoria-can-still-do-more-to-get-housing-and-planning-right-74233">original article</a>.
</body></html>

What a difference a month makes, but Victoria can still do more to get housing and planning right

<html><body>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carolyn-whitzman-9944">Carolyn Whitzman</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>

Moral panic over recent increases in visibly <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-18/not-illegal-to-sleep-on-the-street-in-melbourne-police-say/8190228">homeless people in central Melbourne</a> has brought to the fore the <a href="https://www.anglicarevic.org.au/solving-homelessness-crisis-open-letter-2/">critical shortage of affordable housing</a> across the metropolitan areas of Australia’s wealthiest cities. But living on the street is only the tip of the iceberg. Many more households are living in insecure and/or overpriced accommodation. Their plight is due to an undersupply of appropriately priced, sized and situated <a href="http://www.anglicare.asn.au/research-reports/the-rental-affordability-snapshot">rental housing</a>.

The Commonwealth government is reportedly <a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwijkc79h4TSAhXIHJQKHcRkBDMQFggZMAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnational-affairs%2F9bn-home-affordability-scheme-to-be-dumped-in-may-budget%2Fnews-story%2F9765e3a8c7cbdca45a090464aff1c82e&amp;usg=AFQjCNFwB0HuZgOjS0wcVn2K64HEOh7HTQ&amp;bvm=bv.146496531,d.dGo">planning to scrap the National Affordable Housing Agreement</a> with the states. <a href="http://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/acoss-reports-of-naha-axing-alarming/">Without a clear alternative</a>, the weakness of state policies, which lack clear targets and mechanisms for providing more and better affordable housing, adds to the problem. One state, Victoria, still doesn’t have an affordable housing strategy.

<a href="https://www.sa.gov.au/**__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/42564/Housing-Strategy-SA-2013-18.pdf">South Australia’s strategy</a> has 15% <a href="https://theconversation.com/sydney-needs-higher-affordable-housing-targets-69207">inclusionary zoning</a> as one of several mechanisms to achieve affordable housing targets. Western Australia provides regular progress updates on the regional targets of its <a href="http://www.housing.wa.gov.au/aboutus/affordablehousingstrategy/Pages/default.aspx">Affordable Housing Strategy 2010-2020</a>. Tasmania adopted a <a href="https://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/housing/key_projects_for_2014-15/tasmanian_affordable_housing_strategy">ten-year strategy</a> in 2015.

New South Wales has had affordable housing policies in place since 2009. The NSW government has a <a href="http://www.socialhousing.nsw.gov.au/?a=348442">new plan</a> to build more social housing and improve existing stock. Queensland released a <a href="https://www.qld.gov.au/housing/public-community-housing/have-your-say-housing-strategy/">draft strategy</a> in March 2016.

While these state policies <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/2093/AHURI_Final_Report_No195_Affordable_housing,_urban_renewal_and_planning.pdf">vary in their success</a>, Victoria does not even have a strategy to critique.

<h2>Victoria’s toxic planning legacy</h2>

No doubt Premier Daniel Andrews inherited several industrial-strength cans of toxic planning waste when Victorian Labor won office in November 2014. This legacy came not only from the Liberals, but from the earlier Bracks-Brumby Labor government.

Under the 2000s Labor government, the fourth new metropolitan strategy in four decades, <a href="http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/plans-and-policies/planning-for-melbourne/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/melbourne-2030-planning-for-sustainable-growth">Melbourne 2030</a>, largely failed to stop sprawl. The main excuse for sprawl – that increased and largely unregulated housing supply would magically enable affordability – had <a href="http://www.monash.edu.au/ross-tests/news/show/an-end-to-affordable-housing-in-melbourne">become a sad joke</a>.

As former Labor adviser Joel Deane’s book <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/joel-deane-opens-labors-war-room-to-the-public-in-catch-and-kill-the-politics-of-power-20150721-gigzyp">Catch and Kill</a> shows, inability to respond to basic public concerns about planning and transport was perhaps the most significant factor in Labor’s 2010 election defeat.

If Labor had been ineffective in creating new affordable housing, the Liberals’ planning decisions between 2010 and 2014 were disastrous. Australia’s largest urban renewal site – Fishermans Bend – was <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/report-slams-matthew-guy-on-rezoning-of-fishermans-bend-20151019-gkcyrv">drastically up-zoned</a> from Industrial to Capital City (also known as “Anything Goes”). They did this without extracting a cent in added value from landowners towards affordable housing – or any other infrastructure.

Huge parts of the southeastern suburbs – Liberal strongholds – were essentially walled off from new housing, even though these had some of the best school and transport infrastructure to serve a rapidly growing population. Hundreds of job cuts meant the civil service lost experience and capacity to do better.

<h2>A long wait for action on affordable housing</h2>

The Victorian Labor 2014 election platform <a href="http://www.sehc.org.au/index.php/news/government/671-victoria-s-new-minister-for-housing">stated</a>:

<blockquote>
All Victorians have a right to safe, affordable and secure housing.
</blockquote>

Yet in more than two years since its election, the Labor government has not completed any of the major reforms that would enable affordable housing.

<a href="http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/plan-melbourne-refresh">Plan Melbourne’s “refresh”</a> has not been published in its final form. The <a href="https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/resources-and-education/legislation/public-consultations-and-reviews/fairer-safer-housing">Residential Tenancies Act</a> still has to be strengthened. The <a href="http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/panels-and-committees/recent-panels-and-committees/residential-zones-standing-advisory-committee">residential zone review</a> hasn’t been completed.

Perhaps most disturbingly, we are still <a href="http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/victoria-steps-up-on-housing-affordability/">waiting for the results</a> of the early announcement that the state treasurer was going to work with the planning and housing ministers to develop an integrated affordable housing strategy.

A new advisory body, Infrastructure Victoria, published a <a href="http://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/sites/default/files/images/IV%2030%20Year%20Strategy%20WEB%20V2.PDF">30-Year Infrastructure Strategy</a> in December 2016. “Social housing” (public and non-profit) was one of its top three priorities. However, compared with principles of “a good plan”, the affordable housing section of this strategy does not pass the test.

According to the <a href="http://www.china-up.com:8080/international/case/case/1582.pdf">literature on plan analysis</a>, good plans should have seven elements: a clear vision; specific goals; a fact base informing alternatives; a spatialised sense of what goes where; a very specific implementation plan, with costs, timelines and responsible authorities; a monitoring and evaluation plan; and specific horizontal (across all parts of government, the private sector and civil society) and vertical (alignment between national, state and local government) integration.

<h2>Vancouver shows how to do it</h2>

The City of Vancouver’s <a href="http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/vancouvers-housing-strategy.aspx">Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2012-2021</a> is an example of an affordable housing plan that ticks the boxes. It has a clear vision embodied in the strategy’s subtitle:

<blockquote>
A home for everyone.
</blockquote>

The strategy sets specific numeric housing targets. These cover everything from supportive housing for homeless people with mental disabilities, to social housing, market rental and home-ownership options.

These targets are based on a robust and transparent analysis of housing trends across the city. While all subsequent neighbourhood plans are intended to achieve a mix of dwelling cost and size, there is a particular emphasis on locating supportive housing near areas with significant homeless populations.

<figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/156684/area14mp/image-20170213-26007-1wkfb65.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/156684/width754/image-20170213-26007-1wkfb65.jpg"></a>

<figcaption>Vancouver has shown what a comprehensive affordable housing strategy can achieve. <a class="source" href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.flickr.com/photos/kwl/2432868269">Kenny Louie/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></figcaption></figure>The partnerships with other levels of government, private developers and non-profit providers are comprehensive. A new <a href="http://vancouver.ca/your-government/vancouver-affordable-housing-agency.aspx">Vancouver Affordable Housing Authority</a> has been established to coordinate these efforts. Since the report’s adoption, further mechanisms such as a community land trust have been established. Annual reporting against the targets is available on the City of Vancouver’s website.

In contrast, Infrastructure Victoria is an advisory body to state government, not an implementation agency. Its vision of a “thriving, connected and sustainable Victoria where everyone can access good jobs, education and services” begs the question of how progress towards these attributes would be measured.

Infrastructure Victoria does estimate an extra <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/node/80">30,000 affordable homes</a> are needed over the next ten years. But it admits this figure is not well justified, due to a lack of good information on affordable housing deficits.

It recommends further work on an affordable housing plan with specific funding streams. However, this cannot really be expected to be the plan that “tackles [the] affordable housing shortage”, as its own <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/node/80">website boasted</a> of the draft report.

At best, Infrastructure Victoria’s plan is a baby step. It does clearly state the importance of social housing as critical infrastructure. It also begins to justify mechanisms that could achieve some scaling up of affordable housing outcomes.

But the public housing waiting list now has <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorias-public-housing-waiting-list-skyrockets-20151109-gkuao1">more than 35,000 names</a>. About 120,000 households receiving Commonwealth Rent Assistance are still unable to afford living where they do. That includes <a href="http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/30-year-strategy/application/files/3514/7763/3398/Infrastructure_Victoria_30-year_strategy_Launch_Housing_Submission_October_2016.pdf">50,000 households in the lowest income bracket</a>. And another one million new households are <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3236.0Main%20Features82011%20to%202036?opendocument&amp;tabname=Summary&amp;prodno=3236.0&amp;issue=2011%20to%202036&amp;num=&amp;view">expected to move into Victoria</a> within the 30-year timeframe of the infrastructure strategy.

This all means that baby steps will not be enough to prevent rapidly increasing homelessness.

<hr>
Professor Carolyn Whitzman helped organise the 10th <a href="http://ahrc2017.com.au/">Australasian Housing Researchers Conference</a> (AHRC) hosted by RMIT University’s Centre for Urban Research, with the University of Melbourne and Swinburne University, from February 15-17 at RMIT University in Melbourne. She is presenting a paper on the subject of this article.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/72867/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1">

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carolyn-whitzman-9944">Carolyn Whitzman</a>, Professor of Urban Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/states-drag-feet-on-affordable-housing-with-victoria-the-worst-72867">original article</a>.
</body></html>

States drag feet on affordable housing, with Victoria the worst

<html><body>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/martin-payne-323295">Martin Payne</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a>

Two of the most pressing problems for Australian cities are housing affordability and traffic congestion. But there is an approach to both problems that could lead to significant improvements at low cost and relatively quickly. It involves developing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development">transit-oriented centres</a> in conjunction with <a href="https://www.sgsep.com.au/publications/economic-merits-inclusionary-zoning-affordable-housing-sgs-occasional-paper">inclusionary zoning</a>.

This form of development gives priority to housing affordability and low car use. It does so by requiring a certain proportion of permanently affordable housing and dwellings without car parking, but with strong access to local facilities. Travel is mainly by walking and public transport.

At the same time, introducing a special rate on land, similar to existing council rates based on land values, and eliminating stamp duty on property transactions would make the market more efficient, reduce budget impacts and support infrastructure provision.

These measures will in no way completely solve our problems. But they would help increase Australia’s supply of affordable housing and reduce road congestion.

<h2>Why is a two-pronged approach needed?</h2>

A transit-oriented centre is relatively dense and primarily residential, with limits on parking.

<figure class="align-right zoomable"><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/153349/area14mp/image-20170118-26563-1vfl4zs.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/153349/width237/image-20170118-26563-1vfl4zs.jpg"></a>

<figcaption>Reformed planning rules could require that residents have easy access to public transport and a range of facilities to meet their day-to-day needs. <a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/pasa/16430883062/in/photolist-r2Wz6h-rwF335-9wYGv5-rjkHjs-i1Aabs-bmk7EY-rATZYz-9ufECd-q352dL-9yPVUH-rANkGv-vW28x7-i6495b-kd6Gn-DutKoG-bSmNgR-kd6Gj-6jhqG8-q9aDVx-kd6Go-bDs3Po-cEpavY-i644yg-6SbQQN-bNzwpz-8fsMWX-bNzkfk-bzEAro-mT7W98-mT7XCR-661yd-5P5fqD-roR35E-qswdu1-gAumbA-4G1r74-amC8j1-bNzfVM-71dow2-bSmNRg-ppHDnR-jxPkpm-bSmRw8-bDsamj-8fsVFn-fukm9N-ecTUbc-fukkZb-dkLJvN-4w1YYt">Paul Sableman/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></figcaption></figure>Inclusionary zoning would require the provision of transit-oriented housing and good local infrastructure. To make a transit-oriented lifestyle possible, centres would have a range of facilities, like supermarkets, chemists and medical and childcare centres. Since these are essential for the system’s success, they are part of the local infrastructure.

The underpinning idea is to reallocate private spending on car travel to housing and a special rate for infrastructure.

Currently, the average car-dependent household’s transport costs total roughly <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-traffic/sydney-families-spend-22000-a-year-on-transport-report-20160821-gqxjpb">A$20,000 a year</a>. On the presumption that the equivalent transit cost would be about $10,000, the saving would be $10,000. This would be enough to service debt of about $330,000 (at 3% real interest).

The point of this rough calculation is to suggest that travel cost savings could be used to significantly increase our capacity to fund infrastructure and make housing more affordable.

Increasing dwelling densities and reducing the capital costs involved in providing parking and roads would also enhance affordability. Hence, in addition to increasing residents’ ability to pay for housing, there is scope for reducing the capital costs of housing. Restricting the demand for housing in centres to only transit-oriented households will reinforce lower land costs.

The parking restraint is not just to improve affordability. It also maximises the public benefit from reduced congestion by taking full advantage of a scarce resource, the transit-oriented centre.

Less road congestion is a public benefit arising from privately funded activities. Car use will detract from the social benefits.

<h2>How does this increase efficiency?</h2>

Market efficiency will be increased in two ways. First, eliminating stamp duty on property transactions and substituting a special rate on land would replace an inefficient tax with an efficient one.

Current arrangements are inefficient since stamp duty taxes new development, reducing the amount and increasing the cost. A special rate will share the tax and not disadvantage new development. Economists and developers have often supported this substitution.

The second way of increasing efficiency arises from prioritising development with wider social benefits, especially reduced road congestion. Currently, we do not have efficient pricing and subsidy mechanisms. Current arrangements tend to promote dispersed development and excessive car travel. Assisting transit-oriented centres would promote efficiency.

With a special rate, those benefiting from the infrastructure pay for it. Furthermore the proposed measures both create and capture benefits. Actually, some are not captured, and benefit wider society at no cost to them. Demands on state government budgets are reduced, while making implementation of centre infrastructure timely and effective.

<figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/153350/area14mp/image-20170119-26536-lp93o8.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/153350/width754/image-20170119-26536-lp93o8.jpg"></a>

<figcaption>Many of the benefits of transit-oriented centres are actually marketable. <a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbondsv/15770991542/in/photolist-q2Cskh-qJqGK9-2fQtzH-rhoaYf-8yv9QR-HrPDgc-7eZUrG-dtYK8y-rANkLZ-7i8NLy-8fw2gu-cwmC4w-r2Wz6h-rwF335-9wYGv5-rjkHjs-i1Aabs-bmk7EY-rATZYz-9ufECd-q352dL-9yPVUH-rANkGv-vW28x7-i6495b-kd6Gn-DutKoG-bSmNgR-kd6Gj-6jhqG8-q9aDVx-kd6Go-bDs3Po-cEpavY-i644yg-6SbQQN-bNzwpz-8fsMWX-bNzkfk-bzEAro-mT7W98-mT7XCR-661yd-5P5fqD-roR35E-qswdu1-gAumbA-4G1r74-amC8j1-bNzfVM">Steven Vance/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></figcaption></figure><h2>Who gains and who loses?</h2>

An obvious question is: who would be disadvantaged? The main impact would be on landowners who lose potential windfall gains.

Developers would not be disadvantaged; the changes would not prevent them from being able to make acceptable profits. Obviously, the proposed measures would restrict some possibilities, but the market would adjust to new prices and developers would still be able to choose projects fitting their investment criteria.

While restrictions would apply, developers would gain benefits from increased densities, besides those from removing stamp duty.

The proposed measures do not disadvantage state government budgets. Reduced expenditures on housing and infrastructure that is financed by special rates would offset the loss of stamp duty.

We need to think about urban development in a new way. Transit-oriented centres can be seen as a form of infrastructure – since they are an essential part of an efficient system – similar to engineering infrastructure. The proposed approach would complement the provision of engineering infrastructure, by capturing benefits used in their financing.

A critic may say the proposed measures add regulation and complexity. But this regulation is strategic; it aligns developer and public interests.

Criticism about additional complexity would be valid if such measures were unnecessary. That would be the case if our current system were delivering good outcomes, or we had adequate resources to fund good outcomes without any reforms. But this is not so. The problem is complex, with no simple answers.

The measures outlined above are innovative, but all are practical in not requiring major legislation or funding commitments. They are advanced to promote thinking about what can be done to gain more resources and produce better urban outcomes. Also, readers are invited to contemplate whether it is moral to not innovate, and to continue gifting away potential resources, while producing inferior outcomes.

<hr>
Acknowledgement: An earlier version of this piece was discussed with Professor Peter Phibbs and presented at a seminar he organised.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/71071/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1">

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/martin-payne-323295">Martin Payne</a>, Casual Lecturer in Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a>

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/make-housing-affordable-and-cut-road-congestion-all-at-once-heres-a-way-71071">original article</a>.

Lead image credit: TOD scenario for Sunshine from the paper: <a href="https://msd.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/Intensifying%20Melbourne%202014_180dpi.pdf">Intensifying Melbourne, Transit-Orientated Urban Design for Resilient Urban Futures</a>
</body></html>

Make housing affordable and cut road congestion all at once? Here's a way

<html><body>
By <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brian-feeney-317083">Brian Feeney</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a>.

Growing the economy – not city planning – has become the government’s main rationale for building urban transport infrastructure.

Soon after becoming prime minister in September 2015, Malcolm Turnbull <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/10/11/turnbull-i-want-be-infrastructure-prime-minister">declared</a>:

<blockquote>
I will be an infrastructure prime minister.
</blockquote>

Subsequently, his government’s focus seems to be largely on infrastructure projects – including urban transport infrastructure – <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2016-02-17/launch-infrastructure-australia-plan">“which drive … growth and jobs”</a>.

Transport infrastructure is seen as a facilitator of growth and competitiveness in our cities. This is where much of <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-cities-work-better-heres-what-the-government-needs-to-do-61668">Australia’s economic growth</a> is generated. But, while important, promoting economic growth is not transport’s only major function.

<h2>Increasingly divorced from city planning</h2>

Until recently, it was generally accepted that urban transport and land development needed to be <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-infrastructure-plan-has-some-way-to-go-to-give-our-cities-what-they-need-54954">planned in an integrated way</a>, having regard to what city future was desired. Transport infrastructure investment would then help to achieve that city future.

While city planning was once a <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lqEDQlUgWZEC&amp;pg=PA129&amp;lpg=PA129&amp;dq=the+raison+d%E2%80%99etre+of+planning+as+a+tool+for+correcting+and+avoiding+market+failure&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=FTAVZqRzyP&amp;sig=n5NMKzf57BZ29TPCsOLVl_jtaII&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjI1LWiqubPAhVOzWMKHVpSCz4Q6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&amp;q=the%20raison%20d%E2%80%99etre%20of%20planning%20as%20a%20tool%20for%20correcting%20and%20avoiding%20market%20failure&amp;f=false">“tool for correcting and avoiding market failure”</a>’, it is now much more about <a href="http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/2412.pdf">promoting economic growth</a> by providing certainty for the development industry and reducing regulation.

Under this increasingly dominant view, city planning (by governments) is seen as a generally distorting influence on property markets. Regulation is a <a href="http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/2412.pdf">“transaction cost”</a>.

Major urban transport investment is increasingly divorced from achieving broader city planning objectives. This includes equitable access to services and facilities.

For example, <a href="http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/29803/56942_1.pdf?sequence=1">there is a disconnect</a> between the TransApex major road program and urban planning in southeast Queensland. This program of four major road projects in Brisbane aimed to improve cross-city travel and keep the economy strong. However, TransApex was at odds with the <a href="http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/resources/plan/seq/regional-plan-2009/seq-regional-plan-2009.pdf">southeast Queensland regional plan’s aim</a> of promoting sustainability and reducing car dependency.

<h2>Cost-benefit analysis is preferred</h2>

Instead of an integrated city planning approach, governments are increasingly basing transport investment decisions on cost-benefit analyses.

Cost-benefit analysis for transport projects involves weighing up the costs (construction and operating costs) and benefits (travel time savings, vehicle operating cost savings, crash cost savings and wider economic benefits). If the dollar value of the benefits exceeds the costs, the project is considered justified.

It has <a href="http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/869-Roads-to-Riches.pdf">recently been suggested</a> that all transport projects where benefits exceed costs by some margin should be built, apparently with little regard to the effects of those projects on city planning.

The significant limitations of cost-benefit analyses are <a href="http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Ack_UK_CBAcritique.pdf">well documented</a>. It is particularly troubling that, for transport projects, these analyses rely on a <a href="https://theconversation.com/modelling-for-major-road-projects-is-at-odds-with-driver-behaviour-63603">flawed assumption</a> that motorists aim to minimise generalised costs.

Cost-benefit analyses also provide limited guidance in deciding which projects <a href="https://www.sgsep.com.au/about/latest-news/what-will-change-game">advance broader city planning objectives</a>.

<h2>Transport decisions are about values</h2>

Decisions about transport investments are really about <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-infrastructure-plan-has-some-way-to-go-to-give-our-cities-what-they-need-54954">what kind of future city</a> we desire.

These are decisions about values as much as they are about economics. American philosopher Michael Sandel is concerned that conversations about the future are largely framed in technocratic (often economic) terms. This leaves public discourse “<a href="http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2013/05/bst_20130523_0831.mp3">hollowed out</a>”.

<figure class="align-right zoomable"><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/148793/area14mp/image-20161206-25738-1osyhh3.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/148793/width237/image-20161206-25738-1osyhh3.jpg"></a>

<figcaption>The Gold Coast light rail project neglected the social equity effects of a roughly $1 billion public investment. AAP/Dave Hunt</figcaption></figure>The social equity effects of transport investment are not usually taken into account. The public investment of about A$1 billion in the Gold Coast light rail disproportionately <a href="https://theconversation.com/gold-coast-light-rail-study-helps-put-a-figure-on-value-captures-funding-potential-65084">benefits residents, landowners and businesses</a> close to the stations. Other Gold Coast residents – including many disadvantaged people – have to drive or make do with a relatively low-quality bus service.

With cities now urged to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_marketing">market themselves</a>, “flagship” projects like the light rail are valued as means of giving cities an advantage in a world of footloose businesses and investors. These projects are considered important for growing the economy.

The Gold Coast light rail is an 18-year public-private partnership (PPP). PPP contracts frequently include <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=jmeSmr0n6RMC&amp;pg=PA32&amp;lpg=PA32&amp;dq=public+private+partnerships+non-competition+clause&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=tZh6LMF-KK&amp;sig=gm_FDjXW143ZD8Ue3Dww3N3amPk&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi1kpKbkLbQAhWDi5QKHcydB60Q6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&amp;q=public%20private%20partnerships%20non-competition%20clause&amp;f=false">“non-compete” clauses</a> (no new competition with the PPP infrastructure). These can constrain future city planning decisions, however desirable they may be.

<h2>‘Splintered’ development is poor planning</h2>

The influence of cost-benefit analysis, city marketing and PPPs works against an integrated approach to land use and transport planning.

This situation can be described as <a href="http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/29803/56942_1.pdf?sequence=1">“splintered” infrastructure development</a> and raises questions about its impacts on the achievement of broader city planning objectives. While individual infrastructure investments with a positive benefit-cost ratio may help grow the economy, the idea that this will trickle down to better social or environmental outcomes for city residents is problematic.

It doesn’t have to be like this. One <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.planning.org.au/documents/item/281">policy proposal</a> for Adelaide offers examples of how transport and land use can be better integrated to support an overall city vision.

New transport infrastructure will clearly be needed in Australia’s growing capital cities just to maintain current levels of accessibility. There will be plenty of scope for Turnbull to leave a legacy of transport infrastructure that not only helps grow the economy but also supports integrated city planning.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/69880/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1">

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brian-feeney-317083">Brian Feeney</a> is an Urban Planning Researcher at <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a>.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbulls-report-card-on-urban-transport-projects-reveals-narrow-economic-focus-69880">original article</a>.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm/status/649700119806214144/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">Malcolm Turnbull on Twitter</a>.
</body></html>

Turnbull’s report card on urban transport projects reveals narrow economic focus

<html><body>
By <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alexei-trundle-11956">Alexei Trundle</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andre-stephan-14991">André Stephan</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hayley-henderson-288490">Hayley Henderson</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hesam-kamalipour-288498">Hesam Kamalipour</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/melanie-lowe-288493">Melanie Lowe</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>.

The <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www2.habitat3.org/file/535859/view/588897">New Urban Agenda</a> was officially adopted in Quito, Ecuador in the last plenary of the <a href="https://habitat3.org">Habitat III</a> conference.

The agenda provides a <a href="https://theconversation.com/habitat-iii-the-biggest-conference-youve-probably-never-heard-of-63499">20-year “roadmap”</a> to guide sustainable urban development globally.

The text of the New Urban Agenda itself was agreed well before Habitat III at the UN General Assembly <a href="http://sdg.iisd.org/events/informal-negotiations-on-habitat-iii-outcome-document/?rdr=sd.iisd.org">in September</a>, during an extraordinary informal negotiation session that lasted for <a href="http://citiscope.org/habitatIII/news/2016/09/final-burst-talks-results-consensus-draft-new-urban-agenda">more than 30 hours</a>.

This allowed the focus in Quito to shift towards commitment and action. Under the banner of the “<a href="https://habitat3.org/quito-implementation-plan">Quito Implementation Plan</a>”, commitments ranged from the development and enhancement of <a href="http://unhabitat.org/mayor-sally-lee-sorsogon-launches-addressing-climate-change-in-national-urban-policy-publication-at-habitat-iii/">national urban policies</a>, to integration between <a href="http://www.un.org/pga/71/2016/10/16/world-mayors-assembly-of-habitat-iii/">different levels of government</a>.

The conference also saw announcements of new sources of <a href="https://habitat3.org/programme/habitat-for-humanitys-launch-of-commitments-under-the-quito-implementation-plan/">international development assistance</a> for countries to provide better access to housing and shelter for millions more people worldwide.

<h2>Sustainable urban development for all</h2>

<a href="https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2014-Highlights.pdf">More than half</a> of the world’s population now lives in cities. So it makes sense that the New Urban Agenda will significantly shape the <a href="https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld">UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development</a>.

The 2030 agenda is built around a series of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Most relevant to the New Urban Agenda is <a href="http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/">SDG 11</a>, which aims to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”. However, the New Urban Agenda has been <a href="http://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/citiesalliance.org/files/Opportunities%20for%20the%20New%20Urban%20Agenda.pdf">criticised</a> for lacking direct links to the <a href="https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg11">targets</a> set out within Goal 11.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
What are the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/globalgoals?src=hash">#globalgoals</a>? The full list is here. <a href="https://t.co/wS27ckOzeE">https://t.co/wS27ckOzeE</a> <a href="https://t.co/nkJkpJQU7z">pic.twitter.com/nkJkpJQU7z</a>
— UN Foundation (@unfoundation) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/unfoundation/status/789534481464102912">October 21, 2016</a>
</blockquote>

Unlike their predecessors the <a href="http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/">Millennium Development Goals</a>, the SDGs apply to all UN members states equally.

While most of the world’s rapid urban growth is in the Global South, challenges abound in the cities of Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and East Asia. In these regions, upgrading existing infrastructure and avoiding “<a href="https://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WP-2015-11-C40-Cities-carbon-lock-in.pdf">carbon lock-in</a>” - where old, carbon-intensive structures prevent the adopting of lower carbon alternatives – will require significant transformative efforts.

Much of Habitat III focused on the application of new technologies and the harvesting of big data, particularly in these established urban centres. Under the umbrella of <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/articles/data-driven-cities-a-key-to-the-habitat-iii-new-urban-agenda/85843">Smart Cities</a>, using open data networks for better urban planning provided an optimistic, technology-based future for cities. However, questions about the security, ethics, and oversight of large-scale information gathering remain largely <a href="http://cityminded.org/smart-technology-ethics-15967">unanswered</a>.

<figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/142709/area14mp/image-20161021-1763-oabs20.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/142709/width754/image-20161021-1763-oabs20.jpg"></a>

<figcaption>Melbourne, Australia, is consistently rated as the world’s ‘most liveable city’, but it’s also very carbon intensive. Alexei Trundle</figcaption></figure>Also included in the New Urban Agenda are renewed efforts to help developing countries urbanise. These build on earlier work under the <a href="http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/">Millennium Development Goals</a> and <a href="http://www.un.org/en/development/devagenda/habitat.shtml">Habitat II</a>. Related commitments focus on emerging concepts, such as <a href="http://www.iclei.org/details/article/iclei-launches-resilient-cities-report-2016">urban resilience</a> and <a href="http://citiscope.org/habitatIII/commentary/2016/10/placemaking-and-promise-new-urban-agenda">inclusive public spaces</a>.

Commitments from individual countries under the Quito Implementation Plan <a href="http://citiscope.org/habitatIII/news/2016/10/official-commitments-new-urban-agenda-slow-start?utm_source=Citiscope&amp;utm_campaign=4901066977-Mailchimp_Quito_2016_10_19&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=0_ce992dbfef-4901066977-118056697">were underwhelming</a>. Instead, civil society and academia led the way with a range of commitments to <a href="http://citiscope.org/habitatIII/news/2016/10/habitat-iii-ngo-makes-major-commitments-strengthen-access-housing">new initiatives</a>. This included a new $15 million <a href="https://habitat3.org/programme/habitat-for-humanitys-launch-of-commitments-under-the-quito-implementation-plan/">Terwilliger Centre for Innovation in Shelter</a> funded by Habitat for Humanity, and $2.3 million by the <a href="http://citiscope.org/habitatIII/news/2016/10/fund-seeks-strengthen-climate-action-cities">C40 Cities Finance Facility</a> to upscale urban climate action. A full list of commitments to the Quito Implementation Plan can be found on the <a href="https://habitat3.org/quito-implementation-plan">Habitat III website</a>.

Despite references to <a href="http://unctad.org/en/pages/aldc/Least%20Developed%20Countries/UN-list-of-Least-Developed-Countries.aspx">Least Developed Countries</a> and <a href="https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sids">Small Island Developing States</a> in the agenda, support for sustainable urbanisation in areas such as the Pacific was limited. As noted by one Pacific delegate:

<blockquote>
There are not enough people talking about the Pacific, and the Pacific’s problems with urbanisation. We don’t have the means, but we are the ones being heavily impacted by disasters and climate change.
</blockquote>

The role of partnerships between city authorities and universities in the Global South and their more developed neighbours was also strongly emphasised. UN-Habitat is soon to release a Higher Education <a href="https://habitat3.org/programme/hesi-global-meeting-of-universities-action-plan-for-universities-to-maximize-impact-of-higher-education-in-the-sustainability-of-urbanization/">Action Plan</a>.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/142715/width754/image-20161021-1763-n6gba7.JPG"><figcaption>Participants in a training session on urban climate action planning in Small Island Developing States. Bernhard Barth, UN-Habitat</figcaption></figure><h2>Was Habitat III a success?</h2>

Views on the success of the conference varied among Habitat III’s <a href="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=55360">36,000</a> participants. This was perhaps inevitable given the contested nature of cities and urban space.

A clear highlight was the participation of countless young Quito residents. Many attended side events and UN-Habitat’s <a href="https://habitat3.org/programme/children-and-youth-assembly/">Youth Assembly</a>. The continued growth in the role of civil society, mayors and advocacy groups is a positive trend that should be supported.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/142745/width754/image-20161022-1773-nb4d93.JPG"><figcaption>Young Quiteñas and Quiteños participate in a UN-Habitat Training Session. Bernhard Barth, UN-Habitat</figcaption></figure>The parallel <a href="http://citiscope.org/habitatIII/news/2016/10/alternative-forums-offer-urban-visions-outside-habitat-iii">Alternative Habitat</a> forums provided a platform for challenging some of the consensus-based narratives.

Bridging these official and unofficial events was the launch of <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/top-down-bottom-up-urban-design">the Quito Papers</a>. Authored by a trio of world-renowned urban experts, The Quito Papers provide an alternative vision for cities of the future.

Unlike the <a href="http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/research_resources/charters/charter04">Charter of Athens</a>, which likened cities to machines, the Quito Papers consider cities as adaptive and evolving open systems. These papers urge decision-makers to give cities back to the people that inhabit them, and promote equality and socially interactive spaces.

<h2>Towards Habitat IV</h2>

All countries will need to step up their commitments if the aspirations set out in Habitat III are to be achieved. Key concepts, such as integrated planning and models for local-national government cooperation, will need further work.

Although Habitat IV will not take place until 2036, a four-yearly review process has been agreed upon, building on the biannual <a href="http://unhabitat.org/wuf/">World Urban Forum</a>.

Also included in the New Urban Agenda is a review of UN-Habitat’s role in its implementation. It is not yet known whether a new “<a href="http://citiscope.org/habitatIII/news/2016/08/un-cities-rumoured-proposal-gains-steam">UN-Cities</a>” entity will emerge when the review concludes in 2017.

From a planning perspective, 20 years is a short space of time to change the trajectory of global cities. However, the unplanned changes in our cities over the next two decades are almost equally unimaginable.

With the New Urban Agenda as a road map, it is hoped that we can rise to the challenge of creating more liveable, resilient and sustainable cities. Because without global urban transformation, we cannot achieve sustainable development as a whole.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/67432/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1">

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alexei-trundle-11956">Alexei Trundle</a>, PhD Candidate, Australian-German Climate &amp; Energy College, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andre-stephan-14991">André Stephan</a>, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hayley-henderson-288490">Hayley Henderson</a>, PhD Candidate in Urban Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hesam-kamalipour-288498">Hesam Kamalipour</a>, PhD Candidate and Research Assistant in Urban Design, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/melanie-lowe-288493">Melanie Lowe</a>, Research Fellow, McCaughey VicHealth Community Wellbeing Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/habitat-iii-is-over-but-will-its-new-urban-agenda-transform-the-worlds-cities-67432">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Habitat III is over, but will its New Urban Agenda transform the world's cities?

<html><body>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/neil-coffee-301251">Neil Coffee</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-baker-172081">Emma Baker</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jarrod-lange-301835">Jarrod Lange</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a>

Since settlement, Australian cities have been shaped and reshaped by history, infrastructure, natural landscapes and – importantly – policy.

So, have our cities changed much in the last 30 years? Have consolidation policies had any effect? Have we contained sprawl? Yes, probably and maybe, according to our <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00049182.2016.1220901">newly published research</a>.

<h2>Reviving the centre</h2>

The great Australian baby boomer dream of home ownership caused our cities to spread out during the second half of the 20th century. Urban fringes expanded with affordable land releases, large residential blocks and cheap private transport.

By the 1980s, across Australia’s cities, the urban fringes were ever-expanding. Inner areas had become sparsely populated “doughnut cities”.

By the end of that decade urban researchers, planners, geographers and economists began to warn of looming environmental, social and housing affordability problems due to unrestrained sprawling growth.

Governments responded swiftly, focusing policy attention on urban consolidation through programs such as Greenstreet and <a href="http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p118181/mobile/ch08">Building Better Cities</a>. Concerned individuals formed groups such as <a href="http://www.smartgrowth.org/">Smart Growth</a> and <a href="http://www.newurbanism.org/">New Urbanism</a> to promote inner-city development and increased urban density.

Since this time, large- and small-scale policy interventions have attempted to repopulate the inner- and middle-urban areas. The common policy goal has been to encourage more compact, less sprawling cities. Subdivision, dual occupancy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-cut-urban-sprawl-we-need-quality-infill-housing-displays-to-win-over-the-public-63930">infill development</a>, smaller block sizes, inner-city apartments and the repurposing of non-residential buildings have all been used.

<h2>Mapping the changes</h2>

In a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00049182.2016.1220901">newly published paper</a>, we map the changing shape of Australia’s <a href="http://blog.id.com.au/2016/population/australian-population/latest-population-figures-top-50-largest-cities-and-towns-in-australia/">five largest mainland cities</a> from 1981 to 2011.

Across each of these cities, which together are <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3218.0Main%20Features12014-15?opendocument&amp;tabname=Summary&amp;prodno=3218.0&amp;issue=2014-15&amp;num=&amp;view=">home to 60% of Australians</a>, there has been substantial, suburbanisation and re-urbanisation. In the last 20 years this has resulted in a repopulation of inner cities.

In Melbourne’s case, the return to the inner city has been particularly pronounced in the last decade. Here, the population jumped from around 3,000 to 4,000 people per km². The extent of this change is visualised in the chart below.

<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="450" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ks1q3/3/" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="100%"></iframe>

Melbourne may well be the exemplar for inner-city rebirth. More than any other Australian city it demonstrates the 30-year turnaround from inner-city decline to densification.

Between 1981 and 1991 Melbourne became a classic “doughnut city”: population declining in inner areas, density increasing in the middle-ring suburbs, and growth steady in the outer suburbs. For example, in the inner 5km ring there was a decrease during this time of almost 200 people per km².

From 1991 to 2001, even though growth was still focused on the middle and outer areas, the inner area began to be repopulated. Overall, between 1981 and 2011 there were approximately 1,500 more people per square kilometre living in the inner 5km ring.

Over the last decade, greenfield development, infill and urban regeneration have increased urban density throughout Melbourne – as shown in the five-yearly map animation below.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/139093/width754/image-20160925-13519-19e0mei.gif"><figcaption>Changes in Melbourne population density over the 30 years to 2011 (red is increasing, blue is decreasing). Author provided</figcaption></figure>While the turnarounds in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth have been less marked than in Melbourne, they are all no longer “doughnut cities”. This means that where people live in these cities has changed.

Australia’s cities are now more densely populated – and we are much more likely to live in inner areas than we were 30 years ago.

<h2>A result of government policy?</h2>

We can probably attribute the changes in where urban Australians live to government consolidation policies.

The policy focus throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s was based on incentives to repopulate inner and middle areas.

Policies were changed from 2000 to increase population density across whole metropolitan areas. State and territory strategic plans aimed to promote urban consolidation, with a focus on the inner city.

State and territory plans now focus much more on specific zones throughout the whole of the city, including former industrial areas and surplus government land. New housing development occurs within these defined zones, particularly around transport and areas with urban-renewal potential.

South Australia’s <a href="https://livingadelaide.sa.gov.au/">30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide</a> targets growth in “current urban lands”, along major transport corridors and hubs. Similarly, the <a href="http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/Plan-Melbourne">Plan Melbourne – Metropolitan Planning Strategy</a> plans to establish the “20-minute neighbourhood”, contain new housing within existing urban boundaries, and focus development in new urban renewal precincts.

The map visualisations reinforce the scale of this absolute growth across each of the five major Australian cities over the last 30 years.

<h2>Have we contained sprawl?</h2>

Our research would suggest urban-consolidation policies have slowed but not prevented sprawl, especially in the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3218.0Main%20Features152014-15?opendocument&amp;tabname=Summary&amp;prodno=3218.0&amp;issue=2014-15&amp;num=&amp;view=">faster-growing cities</a> like Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Sydney.

So, have we reached the point at which our cities are full? How can we accommodate future population growth? And do we need to focus our attention on new urban areas?

Containing and, more importantly, controlling sprawl may present the next big challenge.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65870/count.gif" width="1">

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/neil-coffee-301251">Neil Coffee</a>, Senior Research Fellow in Health Geography, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-baker-172081">Emma Baker</a>, Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Built Environment, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jarrod-lange-301835">Jarrod Lange</a>, Senior Research Consultant (GIS), Hugo Centre for Migration and Population Research, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a>

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/density-sprawl-growth-how-australian-cities-have-changed-in-the-last-30-years-65870">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Density, sprawl, growth: how Australian cities have changed in the last 30 years

<html><body>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hayley-henderson-288490">Hayley Henderson</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alexei-trundle-11956">Alexei Trundle</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andre-stephan-14991">André Stephan</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hesam-kamalipour-288498">Hesam Kamalipour</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/melanie-lowe-288493">Melanie Lowe</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>

More than 25,000 delegates will meet in Quito, Ecuador, in October to set out the United Nations' <a href="http://citiscope.org/habitatIII/explainer/2015/06/what-new-urban-agenda">New Urban Agenda</a> for member states. The <a href="http://citiscope.org/habitatIII/explainer/what-habitat-iii">Habitat III</a> conference will mandate the UN’s work in cities and settlements for the next 20 years. But Australia, one of the <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?year_high_desc=true">world’s most urbanised nations</a>, is yet to play a major role in negotiations.

If you haven’t heard of the Habitat conference series, you’re not alone. Steered by one of the UN’s smaller organisations – <a href="http://unhabitat.org/">UN-Habitat</a> – it is the key negotiation process within the UN for planning the development of cities and human settlements.

Unlike the annual “<a href="http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6383.php">Conference of the Parties</a>” held by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, these events <a href="http://citiscope.org/habitatIII/explainer/2015/06/whats-history-habitat-process">take place only once every 20 years</a>. The Habitat conference has been held twice previously: in Istanbul in 1996, and in Vancouver in 1976.

Since then, humanity has crossed an urbanisation milestone. Half the world’s population now lives in cities. At the time of Habitat I, <a href="http://mirror.unhabitat.org/cdrom/docs/WUF1.pdf">just over one-third</a> were urban dwellers. Habitat III and the New Urban Agenda therefore represents a watershed moment for urban development globally.

<h2>Setting the New Urban Agenda</h2>

The 1996 <a href="http://www.un-documents.net/ha-4.htm">Habitat Agenda</a> called for sustainable development and access to adequate shelter. These goals have driven progress in many places. For instance, provision of adequate housing is now included in many national constitutions.

The Habitat Agenda also formed a platform for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), agreed in 2000. The MDGs expired in 2015 and <a href="https://theconversation.com/weve-reached-the-end-of-the-millennium-development-goals-period-so-are-children-better-off-52122">were superseded</a> by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/infographic-how-are-we-progressing-on-the-sustainable-development-goals-45441">Sustainable Development Goals</a> (SDGs). These goals lie at the centre of the UN’s <a href="https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld">2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development</a>.

Habitat III, unlike Habitat II, builds out of these targets, not the other way around. The New Urban Agenda is therefore aiming to implement these goals in cities, particularly <a href="http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/">SDG 11</a>: to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”.

<figure class="align-right zoomable"><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/135760/area14mp/image-20160829-17845-1behgah.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/135760/width237/image-20160829-17845-1behgah.jpg"></a>

<figcaption>The New Urban Agenda will be finalised in Quito, Ecuador, the third city in 40 years to host the Habitat conference. <a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jchification/24484961539/in/photolist-DiDQ2i-FqGXU2-BQQwbm-yCK9FL-xVnLBG-yE6orb-yCK6jq-GqoSeb-BhKZMp-FiAJGo-GqoWRN-EkvuZ7-GwhReA-G9r2s1-GsPyXV-GcPS5G-FDhDop-FD5aG7-Fqx6F5-FDhQdF-CUCwvG-Gf8FCk-Gf9JYX-FqHrCP-FVSWmW-Gf9Gwn-Gf8ZBX-GiGeWS-GkZs4k-xRVJgF-FqwvbJ-FqHiSD-DsrpPg-x1yG9V-FqHLNT-FqHyLX-AGDHqR-Gf9N5X-FqxpC7-wHS75D-wZ4Hcv-LkxAL7-KyfYKT-KyfUka-Kt6U7J-LcApef-LcAoWw-KiE8QG-Kk3AeK-JYJ6kf">John Haxby/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></figcaption></figure>The current version of the agenda, the “<a href="http://citiscope.org/sites/default/files/h3/Draft_outcome_document_Habitat_III_Conference_May_6_2016.pdf">zero draft</a>”, was released at the end of July 2016, having undergone a series of revisions at preparatory negotiations. Unusually for the UN, this included direct feedback from civil society and other stakeholders, following public release of the draft.

The draft <a href="https://www.habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda">New Urban Agenda</a> recognises that decisions about how we house, feed and mobilise urban populations will have a critical impact on human wellbeing and sustainability. Key focus areas include guiding national urban policies and systems of urban governance. The draft also has a strong emphasis on citizen participation and democratic processes.

What sets the agenda apart from its predecessors is the elevation of pressing global issues, such as urban informality, gender equity and disaster and climate resilience. It also recognises cities as drivers of economic and social development.

It is estimated that <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/urban-world-mapping-the-economic-power-of-cities">70% of global economic activity</a> is in cities. Cities also account for more than <a href="http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2008-1994/weo2008.pdf">70% of greenhouse gas emissions</a>. The agenda will therefore be critical in achieving the <a href="http://www.cop21paris.org/">COP21 targets</a> agreed in Paris last year.

The current draft is not without controversy. Inclusion of the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-habitat-iii-defend-the-human-right-to-the-city-57576">Right to the City</a>” has already stalled talks. And the <a href="http://citiscope.org/habitatIII/news/2016/07/final-talks-fail-deliver-consensus-new-urban-agenda">future role of UN-Habitat</a> is being <a href="http://citiscope.org/habitatIII/news/2016/07/will-new-urban-agenda-define-future-un-habitat">hotly contested</a>.

In its current form, the agenda redefines informal settlements and sectors as assets with the capacity to promote economic growth. It also recognises the right to equal access to jobs, urban infrastructure and affordable housing, emphasising design, participation and empowerment in meeting the challenges of informal settlements.

The key challenge for the New Urban Agenda will be distributing implementation to the thousands of cities that need development assistance across the world. Crucially, it is unclear who will monitor and evaluate progress, and how.

<h2>Australia missing in action</h2>

Unlike the Paris Agreement, the New Urban Agenda is not intended to be a legally binding document. Instead, it aims to provide guidance to member states and UN agencies. However, several nations are yet to engage with the Habitat III process, either through preparatory meetings or by <a href="https://www.habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/regions/Asia-and-the-Pacific">submitting country-level urban reports</a>.

The Australian government has so far been absent from the Habitat III process. In regional thematic meetings the Australian chair has remained empty, despite our heavily urbanised population, <a href="https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/economic-infrastructure-development-strategy.pdf">regional investment in urban development</a>, and urban policy expertise.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Day 3 of Habitat III Consultative Meetings in NYC and Australia's chair still disappointingly empty. <a href="https://t.co/aOI1sYmRqH">pic.twitter.com/aOI1sYmRqH</a>
— Jago Dodson (@urbanizationist) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/urbanizationist/status/725344392249266176">April 27, 2016</a>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>The agenda represents a key opportunity to reflect on Australia’s role in engaging with pressing urban development questions at home and abroad.

Establishment of Australia’s first <a href="https://theconversation.com/urban-policy-could-the-federal-government-finally-get-cities-47858">minister for cities</a> by the Turnbull government in 2015 was seen as a strong platform for redefining an Australian national urban policy. However, the portfolio was short-lived, being downgraded to an assistant ministry <a href="http://architectureau.com/articles/minister-for-cities-lost-in-reshuffle/">six months later</a>.

Australian cities face many challenges associated with sustainability and population growth. These include housing affordability and deficits in provision of essential infrastructure and services.

Stronger federal government leadership on national and international urban policy could promote economic prosperity and the sustainability of urban settlements at home. It could also improve Australia’s ability to engage with our Asia-Pacific neighbours on shared urban challenges, such as urban migration, the health and social impacts of climate change, and managing environmental resources for current and future generations.

More than 30 representatives of Australian non-governmental organisations, municipalities, peak bodies and universities are registered to attend Habitat III. However, it is not yet clear whether the government will be participating in the Quito negotiations.

Despite its challenges, the New Urban Agenda is persuasive. It will inspire urban actors to champion its cause and drive its implementation. It will undoubtedly be used to frame funding policies of important bodies like the <a href="http://www.undp.org/">UN Development Program</a>, the <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/">World Bank</a> and <a href="http://www.adb.org/">Asian Development Bank</a>.

Fulfilling our UN member state role in Habitat III is an opportunity not to be missed. Through Quito, we can reinvigorate our national urban policy, build our regional profile and leverage and export our urban expertise. But, more importantly, by taking our seat at the table we will be playing our part in the transition of humanity into a sustainable, urbanised world.

<hr>
You can read other articles about Habitat III <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/habitat-iii-26850">here</a>.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63499/count.gif" width="1">

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hayley-henderson-288490">Hayley Henderson</a>, PhD Candidate in Urban Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alexei-trundle-11956">Alexei Trundle</a>, PhD Candidate, Australian-German Climate &amp; Energy College, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andre-stephan-14991">André Stephan</a>, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hesam-kamalipour-288498">Hesam Kamalipour</a>, PhD Candidate and Research Assistant in Urban Design, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/melanie-lowe-288493">Melanie Lowe</a>, Research Fellow, McCaughey VicHealth Community Wellbeing Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/habitat-iii-the-biggest-conference-youve-probably-never-heard-of-63499">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Habitat III: the biggest conference you’ve probably never heard of

The residential transformation of St Kilda Road is set to continue into with more new apartment plans for the sought-after boulevard.

Wing Tai Asia has lodged plans for a major residential tower at 464-466 St Kilda Road, replacing the former VACC House with an 18-storey mixed-use development designed around a retained heritage podium and a sculpted contemporary tower.

The proposal, prepared under Victoria’s Significant Residential Development with Affordable Housing pathway, would deliver 325 apartments and ground-floor retail across the prominent 4,653 sqm boulevard site in Melbourne’s St Kilda Road North Precinct.

The project centres on the adaptive reuse of the site’s heritage-listed VACC Building, an eight-storey office designed by Bernard Evans that has occupied the address for decades. Planning documents state the development would involve “carefully dismantling and conserving off-site the original metal fabric of the podium visible from St Kilda Road,” before reinstating it as the defining frontage of the new scheme.

Above the restored podium, Wing Tai is proposing a curvilinear residential tower. The scheme includes 172 one-bedroom apartments, 63 two-bedroom apartments, 66 three-bedroom apartments, and 24 four-bedroom apartments, alongside two ground-floor food and beverage tenancies fronting St Kilda Road.

The tower has been designed with substantial articulation and variable setbacks to minimise perceived bulk and maintain view corridors along the boulevard. Urbis, which prepared the planning report, said the design “has been significantly articulated through a curvilinear design” with “an interplay with materials, façade expression and depth” to create visual separation and visual interest.

The proposal also includes 254 basement car spaces, landscaped pedestrian links connecting St Kilda Road and Queens Lane, and a biophilic landscape strategy featuring canopy trees, raised planters, cascading greenery and a glass oculus pool overlooking the eastern frontage.

Planning documents confirm the $270.1 million development will contribute 3 per cent of project costs to the Social Housing Growth Fund as part of the application process.

Wing Tai acquired the St Kilda Road property in 2018 alongside Abacus Property Group for $95.38 million, before later consolidating ownership of the site. The property previously served as the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce headquarters for around 60 years.

The transformation of the St Kilda Rd boulevard is already beginning to materialise, with a number of high-profile projects recently completed, launched, or approaching launch as developers continue to back the long-term appeal of the precinct.

Among the most notable recent completions is Louise by Samuel Property Group, just off the strip on Queens Lane, the same pocket Hirsch &amp; Faigen recently launched The Queensbury. Mirvac is too on the same street with The Albertine, which is approaching completion.

Dexus recently secured approval for its slice of St Kilda Road, while Gurner also has approved plans for the precinct.

Joel Robinson

Wing Tai unveils 325-apartment St Kilda Road tower on former VACC House site

Malaysian developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/s-p-setia">SP Setia</a> is the latest to jump into St Leonards booming Transport Oriented Development precinct.

The developer, which has previously delivered Sapphire by the Gardens apartment development in Melbourne, identified the Atchison Street site in 2023. It filed a Scoping Report around 12 months ago, and now has revealed the designs for the new&nbsp;40-storey mixed-use tower.

The State Significant Development Application covers <a href="https://next-portal.urban.com.au/projects/14650/summary">20-22 Atchison Street</a>, a 1,374 sqm site positioned between St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">COX Architecture</a>, the project would deliver 181 apartments, above a four-storey commercial podium, five basement levels, and new public domain works along Mitchell Street. The apartment mix comprises 35 one-bedroom apartments, 39 one-bedroom-plus-study apartments, 85 two-bedroom apartments, and 22 three-bedroom residences.

The proposal has been lodged as a shop-top housing development under the NSW Government’s TOD planning pathway, which allows increased density around key transport infrastructure. The site sits within the recently rezoned Crows Nest Accelerated TOD Precinct.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b799673d-48e2-46b0-801a-0e33a9330100" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20site.png?VersionId=dPh0UfwfaHpbFL1R7H1cbZNbIW0CHbCC" />

SP Setia acquired the Atchison Street site as part of its continued expansion into the Australian apartment market. In comments made to City &amp; Country (The Edge Malaysia) in 2023, SP Setia President and CEO Datuk Choong Kai Wai described the acquisition as “a strategic move” aligned with the group’s post-pandemic market recovery strategy.

“Our target for this exceptional development is local and overseas buyers, including first-home buyers, downsizers and investors,” Choong said.

The tower has been designed as a slender vertical form rising from a mixed-use podium, with COX Architecture positioning the development as a response to the evolving St Leonards and Crows Nest skyline.

“The purpose of the project is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality housing at a strategically located site and deliver a built tower outcome that is consistent with the desired future character of St Leonards and aligns with the TOD controls,” the design report stated.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b1a85eee-76f7-436c-a6da-73ba827b9b13" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20entry.png?VersionId=dA9jHGPMcm.dDbwk4QfxqWiY5bfh3UVt" />

The podium would incorporate retail uses fronting Atchison Street, commercial tenancies, landscaped communal areas, and pedestrian improvements along Mitchell Street. Vehicle access and loading would be consolidated via Atchison Lane.

Residents would have access to more than 665 sqm of communal indoor and outdoor spaces, while the development proposes 96 parking spaces across five basement levels.

The proposal also includes a commitment for 10 per cent of residential floor space to be allocated toward affordable housing through a monetary contribution.

COX said the tower form responds directly to the emerging high-density character of the precinct while seeking to maximise solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook from apartments.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2163f85c-f63b-4be3-aafa-f8763976cec5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Article%20Feature%20Image%20%28Grid%29_5.png?VersionId=WiAmtIKJ6.ZQ41EtYEQ1fol7AeorKBlL" />

“The building is orientated towards north,” the Apartment Design Guide compliance report noted, adding that the tower’s slim form was driven by the constrained inner-urban site dimensions.

The design also incorporates landscaped setbacks and communal open space at podium level, intended to soften the interface with surrounding streets and improve pedestrian amenity.

The project adds to a growing wave of redevelopment proposals reshaping St Leonards and Crows Nest following the opening of the Sydney Metro City line and the NSW Government’s push for higher-density housing around major transport nodes.

Last week Stockland filed plans just down the road. They want to build a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/601-pacific-highway-st-leonards-nsw-2065">52-storey tower on Pacific Highway</a>.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">First look: Stockland plans 52-storey, 538-apartment St Leonards tower&nbsp;</a>

First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> has revealed plans for a new mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, advancing a proposal that would reshape the southern gateway to Newcastle’s city centre with one of the city’s tallest residential buildings.

The State Significant Development proposal, now on exhibition, seeks approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/bowline-10-dangar-street-wickham-nsw-2293">43-storey tower</a> immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange. The project would deliver around 200 apartments, including 42 affordable housing dwellings, alongside 99 co-living units, a 171-room hotel, retail space, and new public domain integrated through the site.

The scheme marks a significant escalation of plans previously approved for the site. Urban Property Group took over the prominent 2,904 sqm parcel, where excavation and demolition had already commenced under an earlier consent for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="58a96dd9-407f-4d20-86b4-94e4bfeef74b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20podium.png?VersionId=LGlf08pdFGAZDzvx_CXC4XakHNZRuEE0" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/sjb-architects">SJB</a>, the tower has been conceived as a landmark transit-oriented development anchored to the Newcastle Interchange precinct. The proposal includes 245 build-to-sell apartments across a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom residences, as well as two penthouses. Fifteen apartments and one operational unit are earmarked for NDIS housing. The co-living component would add a further 99 units, while the podium would accommodate retail uses and hotel facilities.

SJB said the site presents “a valuable opportunity to anchor the precinct by setting the standard for design, active ground planes and character at the key southern gateway.”

The architecture responds directly to the site’s position beside major transport infrastructure and within one of Newcastle’s fastest-evolving urban renewal precincts. The tower form sits above a sculpted podium designed to frame new public spaces, including a through-site pedestrian link connecting Station Street to Hannell Street, landscaped plazas, and activated retail edges.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a7bd6ff0-f7db-4ce8-a6dc-ea56e72c6149" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20lanne.png?VersionId=xzf39VADyhj7zBQY2I9fx9vI62u2tuSb" />

The design report describes the project as part of the broader transition of Wickham into “a vibrant, high-quality mixed-use urban precinct” that leverages proximity to the station, open space, and regional connectivity.

A detailed public art strategy has also been prepared for the development. The strategy positions the project as “a transit-oriented development of state significance at the gateway to Newcastle’s city centre” and outlines a series of integrated artworks responding to Newcastle’s industrial and transport heritage.

Creative Road’s curatorial framework for the project, titled Unveil, draws on “stratified surfaces, carved volumes, and light-filled apertures” while referencing Newcastle’s transformation from an industrial city into a contemporary education and technology hub.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="77a882bb-14b1-4d28-99ff-9438e39508c0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20site.png?VersionId=cevgo_vN0eKPK78P8YcEu3mKPLkpFqE7" />

The proposal is being advanced through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway after being declared State Significant Development in June 2025. The accompanying scoping report states the development aims to “maximise the site’s proximity to the Newcastle Interchange by delivering transit-oriented development” while increasing housing supply and affordable housing provision within the Newcastle LGA.

Urban Property Group’s plans align with the long-term strategic vision established under the Wickham Master Plan, which identified the interchange precinct as suitable for substantial uplift in height and density. The current proposal would significantly intensify that vision, positioning the tower among the tallest developments proposed for Newcastle.

The site sits immediately north of the Newcastle Interchange, bounded by Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing cluster of residential towers and mixed-use projects that have emerged following the completion of the light rail and transport interchange.

First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s latest tower at Wickham interchange

Bottega House has completed settlement of a landmark riverfront site in Macquarie Street, St Lucia, representing its first major Brisbane development.&nbsp;

Positioned on the banks of the Brisbane River, the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/180-macquarie-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">premium site at 180 Macquarie Street</a> features uninterrupted river frontage in one of Brisbane’s most tightly held residential precincts.&nbsp;

The proposed development, currently under assessment with Brisbane City Council, has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/plus-studio">Plus Studio</a> with interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/mim-design">Mim Design</a> and will deliver a boutique collection of premium residences positioned specifically for owner occupiers and downsizers.&nbsp;

The residences are set to redefine luxury apartment living in the area, with a focus on architectural quality, refined finishes, landscape integration and elevated amenities including curated wellness facilities, resort-style pools and recreation spaces rarely seen in the local market.&nbsp;

Exclusive sales for the project will be led by Keenan &amp; Byrne, ahead of an anticipated launch later this year.&nbsp;

Bottega House Managing Director Nick Malloch said the project reflects the group’s ambition to deliver a highly curated residential offering within one of Brisbane’s most tightly held precincts.&nbsp;

“This is an incredibly rare riverfront opportunity and one we have approached with a long-term perspective,” Malloch said.&nbsp;

“Our vision from the outset was to create a boutique collection of residences that feel more like private homes than traditional apartments, with generous proportions, refined finishes and exceptional amenity throughout."

Malloch says there is a&nbsp;lack of premium owner-occupier stock of this quality in the market, particularly for downsizers wanting space, privacy and a true lifestyle offering without compromise.&nbsp;

"Demand is expected to be strong given the scarcity of premium riverfront opportunities of this nature within Brisbane’s inner-west."&nbsp;

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" dir="auto">
<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-2" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" dir="auto">
The arrival of the first piling rig officially marks the commencement of construction at SIERA’s new beachside apartment development, Exhale, in Northcliffe.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/exhale-surfers-paradise-8-enderley-avenue-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Exhale</a>, a glass-encased tower featuring 54 large-scale apartments at 8 Enderley Avenue, is SIERA’s third Gold Coast development. It follows the recently completed PIPIS Bilinga beachfront project, which achieved suburb-record prices, and the soon-to-be-completed Chevron Island development, Tapestry.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359603]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/siera">SIERA</a> Founder and Managing Director Brent Thompson said the arrival of the piling rig represented a significant milestone for the development, which is scheduled for completion in late 2028.

Over the next month, around 260 piles are expected to be installed as work progresses on the basement structure. The building is anticipated to rise above ground level early next year, before unveiling its sculptural glass curtain wall, developed in collaboration with specialist façade engineers.

“The façade was designed to maximise panoramic coastal views while creating a distinctive architectural identity,” Thompson said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=355935]

Designed by BDA Architecture, Exhale will comprise just 54 two- and three-bedroom residences across 26 levels, a level of low-density living rarely delivered in this beachside pocket between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach.

The project has been conceived as a resident-only building, with no short-stay accommodation permitted. SIERA says the model is intended to appeal to long-term owner-occupiers rather than transient holiday demand.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=361052]

Residences have been designed with large-format layouts and expansive glazing, with most apartments featuring more than 30 metres of glass frontage to maximise natural light and ocean views.

The amenity offering spans two levels and centres on wellness and lifestyle, including a heated magnesium pool, sauna, yoga and Pilates studio, gymnasium, private dining facilities, cinema lounge, and dedicated surfcraft storage.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359607]

More than half of the apartments have already sold. SIERA has also opened a sales gallery for Exhale at its Chevron Island commercial premises, near its Tapestry tower and the site of its second Chevron Island apartment development, which is slated to launch in early 2027.
</section>
</section>

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112661]

The Conversation

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News