<html><body>
By <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>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-beer-111469">Andrew Beer</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-bentley-173502">Rebecca Bentley</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a>.

Truth be told, most Australians live in good housing. This is good news for all of us because our housing is a major determinant of our health and wellbeing. But our very recent <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10852352.2016.1197714">research findings</a>, published this month in the Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, and the lessons of history tell us this good news story is at risk.

Ideally, housing provides us with the secure, comfortable shelter that people and their families need to live healthy, productive lives. In general, we have a modern housing stock with good heating and cooling, few major structural problems and few problems with damp and mould. By contrast, bad housing makes it much more likely you will get sick and stay sick once ill.

In Australia’s early years, much of the housing stock was of poor quality, often overcrowded, and posed real risks to people’s health. Slums were common in the inner parts of the major cities and in many country towns.

<figure><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="300" scrolling="no" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AoYxCZiqAik?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" width="100%"></iframe>

<figcaption>Scenes from the Fitzroy slums in Melbourne in the early 20th century.</figcaption></figure>As late as 1915 <a href="https://www.emknowledge.org.au/resource/194/1900/epidemic---bubonic-plague-australia-wide-1900-1925">bubonic plague was a reality</a> in the poorer parts of our cities and other contagious diseases remained an ever-present risk. Numerous letters to the editor documented a real social concern with the housing standards of the poor.

Government intervention, economic prosperity and tenancy laws all improved housing conditions across Australia. Within a century Australia was defined by good housing and high rates of home ownership. The nation <a href="http://blogs.slv.vic.gov.au/such-was-life/the-slums-of-melbourne/">saw off the last of its slums</a> in the late 1940s.

Now the same conditions that gave rise to substandard housing in the 19th century are returning in the 21st, with a likely similar outcome. Recently, the Reserve Bank governor acknowledged young Australians <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/rba-chief-glenn-stevens-says-children-need-help-from-parents-to-enter-sydney-property-market-20160816-gqu4wk">need their parents' help</a> to buy a home in Sydney. But most Australians don’t have a wealthy and doting parent to fund them into the house of their dreams.

The alternative is to live in lower-quality housing and to make do with a home that is relatively inaccessible, fundamentally unaffordable or both.

<h2>A million Australians on the housing brink</h2>

The confronting reality is that poor housing conditions are more prevalent in Australia than we think.

We have a sizeable “hidden fraction” of Australians living in poor-quality housing. In particular, many of our most vulnerable have the double disadvantage of also having housing conditions that we might deem as falling below an unacceptable standard.

In one of the few contemporary analyses of this issue, we used the Household Income and Labour Dynamics (<a href="https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/">HILDA</a>) Survey, a national longitudinal dataset, and find compelling evidence of a substantial stock of poor-quality housing in Australia.

The scale of our findings is somewhat surprising: we found almost a million Australians are living in poor or very-poor-quality housing. Within this total, more than 100,000 are residing in dwellings regarded as very poor or derelict.

These simple findings are important. They show the existence of a significant (and currently little known) population of individuals living in very poor conditions. At the very least, we need to monitor Australian housing conditions in a systematic way if we are to avoid this problem worsening.

<h2>Harms of poor housing multiply</h2>

Poor-quality housing makes the already disadvantaged even worse off. Younger people, people with disabilities and ill health, those with low incomes, those without full-time (or any) employment, Indigenous people and renters are much more likely to be found in the emerging slums of 21st-century Australia.

Importantly, many of these groups are already disadvantaged and (most probably) have a pressing need for housing that improves or supports their health and wellbeing. People with an existing illness or disability, for example, are almost twice as likely to live in dwellings in very poor condition as people without a disability or illness.

These findings about the size and uneven distribution of the problem should force us to ask what effects poor-quality housing has on people – on their mental, physical and general health? It is clear from our analysis that such housing has measurable impacts on mental, physical and general health. This impact is large enough to be statistically significant.

Given the time it takes to reform policy and plan for our cities and regions, Australia urgently needs to face up to the dismal reality that once again many Australians are living in housing not fit for habitation.

Governments must take steps to ensure the supply of affordable housing of reasonable quality. Otherwise, we are destined to become a nation scarred once again by slums, reduced life chances and shortened lives.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/64153/count.gif" width="1">

<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>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-beer-111469">Andrew Beer</a>, Dean, Research and Innovation, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-bentley-173502">Rebecca Bentley</a>, Associate Professor, Centre for Health Equity, 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/why-100-years-without-slum-housing-in-australia-is-coming-to-an-end-64153">original article</a>.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/statelibraryofvictoria_collections/7007477611/in/photolist-bFe9Xv-bsjgtf-bFe9Yv-bFe9Wr-bsjgy1-9MiKSE">State Library of Victoria/Flickr</a>
</body></html>

theconversation

Why 100 years without slum housing in Australia is coming to an end

<html><body>
<a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/nicole-gurran-759">Nicole Gurran</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney">University of Sydney</a> and <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/stewart-lawler-262628">Stewart Lawler</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney">University of Sydney</a>

Value capture secures some of the benefits delivered by public investment to offset the costs of provision. The notion has been around in various forms for a while, but recently gained steam. Prime Minister’s Malcolm Turnbull’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/30-minute-city-not-in-my-backyard-smart-cities-plan-must-let-people-have-their-say-59161">Smart Cities Plan</a> touts value capture as a way to better distribute “the costs and benefits in publicly funded infrastructure to facilitate a project that may not otherwise occur”.

But there’s a lot of confusion about what value capture actually means and how it might operate in Australia.

<h2>What is ‘value capture’?</h2>

Public investment in a new rail line or motorway can generate huge increases in surrounding land values. In part the increase derives from improved accessibility for existing residents and businesses. High windfalls also arise once land has been rezoned to capitalise on higher development opportunities generated by the new infrastructure.

Since public investments and decisions are intended to maximise community benefit, it seems unfair and inefficient that some private landowners profit immensely from the process while others gain little or may even be disadvantaged.

Value capture mechanisms seek to rectify this by clawing back at least some of the increased business revenue or land value. These funds are then allocated towards the initial costs of infrastructure provision. In the case of a planning change, land value uplift can also help ensure that affordable housing for low income groups is included in new development.

<h2>How does value capture work?</h2>

The PM’s Smart Cities Plan doesn’t offer much detail as to how a value capture model would operate in Australia. Several different approaches are used overseas, but their potential transferability is unclear.

Transit value capture is used in Hong Kong and Japan to fund railway lines and new town development. This is a project-based approach which packages investment in railway and housing development together. Commercial holdings along the railway line deliver an ongoing revenue stream as does long term investment in residential development. In Hong Kong, a significant program of public rental and subsidised home ownership has also been delivered as part of this model.

Project-based transit value depends on access to large swathes of low cost land (in Hong Kong the government retains land ownership, so the land component is essentially free). It also depends on ongoing residential and commercial investment along the new route over time, which in turn assumes buoyant economic growth. When the Japanese economy stagnated, the potential for railway operators to self-finance their projects did too.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is used widely in the US to finance new transit and urban renewal projects. The model draws on anticipated increases in business revenue or rents in areas where incremental value uplift will occur. A portion of the increase is captured via a special property tax which is then allocated to repay the debt.

Australian local governments can also introduce special purpose levies to fund specific items through property taxes or rates. The Gold Coast light rail project for instance, was partly financed via the council’s annual transport levy (now around $111). However, since the levy applies to all ratepayers, rather than confined to areas where direct value uplift occurred, this doesn’t represent value capture in the strict sense of the term.

Value capture through the planning process is another approach. Unlike development contributions, which in Australia are used to internalise the costs of servicing a particular project (like roads, carparks, or footpaths), so they aren’t borne by existing ratepayers, value capture focuses on the benefits (often called “betterment” or “planning gain”) accruing from public investment or planning decisions.

One way of capturing value created through public investment or planning is to levy the charge on the first property transaction (ie. land sale) following the change. Another is to add an additional levy to existing contributions paid by developers.

The NSW government’s foreshadowed “Special Infrastructure Contribution” for new residential development along the Parramatta Rd light rail corridor ($200 per metre of gross floor area) is a recent example.

While this amounts to around $20,000 an apartment (at most about 3% of current sales prices), industry lobby group the Urban Taskforce claim the levy will discourage development and hurt home buyers. That’s cheeky since house prices are set by the market – which in the case of a light rail corridor will rise by much more than 3%. Ultimately the Taskforce worries that value capture places “an unfair burden on particular sectors of society” by which they presumably mean landowners and developers.

<h2>What would need to happen to extend value capture models in Australia?</h2>

Besides the politics, a number of issues must be addressed if value capture is to be extended in Australia. First, calculating value uplift is complex. Often land prices rise well in anticipation of investment or a planning change, so robust framework for value capture should be in place well before such speculation might occur.

Second, value capture should not discourage development or make land acquisition more expensive. This means close attention to project viability when setting capture requirements. Third, robust mechanisms for collection through either the planning process, as an ongoing property tax, or when land is sold, are needed.

Finally, although the current conversation focuses on transport, over time there will be pressure to fund other socially beneficial infrastructure. Two obvious candidates are schools, which also improve land values, or affordable housing, which is often lost when land values rise.

However fuzzy current conversations about value capture may be, the Commonwealth’s new interest in cities and the need to support more affordable homes near public transport, is welcome. So too the recognition that public investment and policy changes in urban and regional areas generate enormous value, which can and should be shared more widely.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/58776/count.gif" width="1">

<a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/nicole-gurran-759">Nicole Gurran</a>, Professor - Urban and Regional Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney">University of Sydney</a> and <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/stewart-lawler-262628">Stewart Lawler</a>, Lecturer in Property and Built Environment, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney">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/explainer-what-is-value-capture-and-what-does-it-mean-for-cities-58776">original article</a>.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/t3rmin4t0r/2292995709/in/photolist-4uCcJM-4nnmMJ-67v2mV-GAL5Kq-67zdjJ-67v2Sz-vgJ6wb-bybG9g-tuuEwx-cVxjEG-eGAVDq-hGtGi9-5tYLhD-9Gqrxo-q86B72-DHvmt-azx5tb-aSjhpx-o8XgLj-8jdxwX-fhy7Ff-4pf1WD-iJDzfE-vjn7ni-99a7uj-qR8Y5-55geMa-9BesFJ-7oDnjL-fhiSmF-jBGDpZ-FPwqc-55kp8y-5bXsQy-5TSttb-54kNJv-gxWWZE-aWPHGa-q2VDHr-prxghL-p5sn4C-q2f66a-q1EZq5-3omfu3-dz5Az6-pZ9WA7-89es27-6jZNaA-qeJEiM-zCbCV">flickr</a>
</body></html>

Explainer: what is ‘value capture’ and what does it mean for cities?

<html><body>
<a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-newman-1858">Peter Newman</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/curtin-university-of-technology">Curtin University</a>

As an urban rail activist, academic and commentator, including a spell on Infrastructure Australia, I can say from the start I was delighted that we have a consortium prepared to have a go at high-speed rail using <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-value-capture-and-what-does-it-mean-for-cities-58776">value capture</a>.

Consolidated Land and Rail Australia (CLARA) is the first group in Australia to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-14/high-speed-rail-linking-sydney-and-melbourne-one-step-closer/7627990">suggest that a major rail option</a> can be funded without government capital. This fits with what we have been saying for a number of years (for example, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/want-to-build-better-cities-get-the-private-sector-involved-in-rail-projects-52204">entrepreneur rail model</a>).

It is not just a way of bringing financing groups like superannuation funds into such major infrastructure projects where governments have no hope of finding the cash, but it is also a better way: it inherently integrates with land development opportunities to make less car-dependent cities.

High-speed rail is needed. We are the last major developed area without it.

It is now a well-established technology that can simultaneously reduce car use and plane use. It is a way to reduce our oil dependence and to help us meet our greenhouse emissions, as have <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter8.pdf">Japan, China and Europe</a> in recent decades.

<h2>Key issues to be overcome</h2>

However, some issues need to be resolved for this proposal and, indeed, the other three consortia that I have heard are also keen to build high-speed rail in Australia.

First, it’s not a project that should be an unsolicited bid with all its high commercial-in-confidence process. Such a project will have huge public significance and demands that we address the full implications – A$200 billion over 40 years is a lot of money for infrastructure and land development.

If this project goes ahead, many other infrastructure projects and land developments will not happen in the competitive marketplace of our cities and rural areas. This project will need to show great public benefit as well as enabling the private sector to take the risk and do the investing.

Second, what are we looking for from infrastructure like this? Surely we want it to build up our cities and the regional towns in between to have a more sustainable, productive and liveable future.

This project is very light on detail, understandably, about how it would come into the cities (it seems to just go from airport to airport on the urban fringes). It completely <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/australia-could-soon-get-its-own-dormitory-towns-thanks-to-fast-rail/news-story/17674fcabf605308faea9d9164a23ded">misses all the major regional centres</a> like <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/fast-train-sydney-to-melbourne-in-110-minutes/news-story/e7ca20287a5b60974c99f6127dd0942f">Canberra, Wagga Wagga and Albury-Wodonga</a> in order to go much faster and cheaper <a href="https://theaustralianatnewscorpau.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/web-news-main-rail-map.pdf">through farmland</a>.

The Canberra Times <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/how-clara-links-canberra-to-sydneymelbourne-high-speed-train-20160714-gq5dx5">reported</a> a CLARA spokesperson saying:

<blockquote>
The project would be privately funded on a value-uplift model. This needs new city development where maximum uplift in land values is available, which is not available in existing cities like Canberra, with elevated real estate prices. ‘They must be greenfield.’
</blockquote>

Value capture worldwide and in our model is done to facilitate urban regeneration, not to create new car-dependent greenfield suburbs. CLARA’s model is <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/valuecapture-process-could-help-fund-building-of-very-fast-train/news-story/adc815db4c51947ed8e401d014c33669">seeking cheap, easily obtainable land</a> on the urban fringe and in rural areas rather than helping our cities and country towns. Not only is the value of this to Australia very debatable, it is not likely to be as successful in raising land values to achieve their goals.

There is a limit to how many wealthy, long-commute exurbs or retirement villages could be induced to invest in such places in the countryside. The strong economic demand is for <a href="http://islandpress.org/book/the-end-of-automobile-dependence">urban regeneration</a> inside the old parts of our cities and towns. This has been an important part of the rationale for high-speed rail in other places.

The CLARA model is an extension of the failed idea of building new towns in greenfield areas. It has failed in Australia and in the UK and US because urban development needs to be more organic, building on the historic processes, local communities and multiple services of the cities and towns built up over hundreds of years. The modernist new towns have all struggled as they are designed from the top down.

It may be appealing to take a fresh sheet and drop it from on high, and very messy to have to deal with so many land owners and local governments in the old cities and towns, but it should not be beyond us.

<h2>Principles to guide a successful project</h2>

To make high-speed rail and urban development happen in a way that benefits Australian cities and towns, I suggest we should try to follow the principles below.

<ol>
<li>
	It is important to attract private capital for combined land development and transport, but this should be led by locational strategies where redevelopment is most needed, not by transport engineering simplicity.
	</li>
	<li>
	Benefit-cost assessments should include long-term urban and sustainability goals.
	</li>
	<li>
	Public-private partnerships (PPPs) should include core commitments to community engagement, integrated public transport delivery, equitable and time-of-travel-dependent fare structures, safety, consumer and environmental protection, and urban design quality.
	</li>
	<li>
	The projects should not just be innovative in financing and PPP delivery but be agile enough to include disruptive innovations such as solar PV-based electric rail, new carbon fibre and other materials, very smart systems for control at high speed, and effective noise management.
	</li>
</ol>
High-speed rail has been a long time coming for Australia. It’s a very big and beautiful opportunity, so let’s get it right.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/62541/count.gif" width="1">

<a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-newman-1858">Peter Newman</a>, Professor of Sustainability, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/curtin-university-of-technology">Curtin University</a>

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/high-speed-rail-at-200-billion-wed-better-get-it-right-62541">original article</a>.

Lead image credit: Google Streetview - approximate location of a future Wodonga station from the 2013 <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/">AECOM study</a>.
</body></html>

High-speed rail? At $200 billion we'd better get it right

<html><body>
<a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-baker-172081">Emma Baker</a>; <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-beer-111469">Andrew Beer</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia">University of South Australia</a>, and <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-bentley-173502">Rebecca Bentley</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne">University of Melbourne</a>

In his 1972 election campaign, Gough Whitlam <a href="http://whitlamdismissal.com/1972/11/13/whitlam-1972-election-policy-speech">loudly proclaimed</a> that in modern Australia an individual’s health, wellbeing and life chances were shaped more by where they lived than by the job they held, their religion, race or ethnicity.

It was a powerful statement that spoke to an Australian population scarred by decades of urban growth unsupported by the infrastructure needed to make places decent, worthwhile environments to raise children, live a productive life and contribute to society.

Fast-forward almost 50 years and urban issues are once again on the agenda. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s <a href="https://cities.dpmc.gov.au/smart-cities-plan">Smart Cities Plan</a> would deliver new transport infrastructure, better urban planning, and the sort of “urban visioning” that earned Whitlam praise and damnation in equal measure.

But there is a big difference this time around. The Whitlam agenda was informed by a fundamental concern with social justice, a desire to improve the lot in life of the most deprived, and a belief in a fairer Australia.

The 2016 articulation of an urban agenda has no such commitment to social ideals. Instead, it assumes building more highways, railways and trams will produce better, more productive cities that somehow give everyone a job.

We know it doesn’t work that way. Our <a href="http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1T8V6Wf-Aydxr">recent research</a> has highlighted both the unequal nature of Australia’s cities and the processes that keep poor places poor.

<h2>Upwardly and downwardly mobile</h2>

On average, about 15% of Australians move house each year. Generally, when they move they shift to places that are a bit better than the places they left – that is, places with good access to employment, quality environments, and social settings.

Our research suggests, however, that this statistical average hides a very interesting two-speed process that is neglected by the Smart Cities Plan. The relatively well-off and the upwardly mobile improve the areas in which they live over an extended period. The more economically vulnerable tend to make more frequent, multiple moves – living in slightly less advantaged areas each time.

To put it in plain terms, the poor move to poor areas where they may become even more disadvantaged. Meanwhile, the middle classes move through our cities gradually climbing the housing ladder.

This process has immediate as well as intergenerational implications, gradually filtering some families into areas with fewer and fewer opportunities, poorer educational outcomes, higher transport costs and few resources to deal effectively with health conditions. In some cases, jobs can’t be found, or are simply too far away to be practical.

<h2>Housing affordability widens the gap</h2>

In the current climate of ongoing <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-cities-will-stop-working-without-a-decent-national-housing-policy-60537">housing affordability “crisis”</a> and highly localised house price differentiation, more and more Australians are forced to move through the market because of the (un)-affordability of their housing. Housing affordability should be a key question when we think about our cities.

In our <a href="http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1T8V6Wf-Aydxr">new paper</a>, we examine if housing affordability problems are concentrating some people into less advantaged areas. When we track the residential mobility of Australians, we find that housing affordability is “sorting” some people into more and less advantaged places.

Australia’s housing affordability problems are much more complex than simple supply problems. Cities are shaped by the people who live within them. Some people need <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-national-affordable-housing-strategy-necessary-attainable-and-maybe-on-its-way-49943">affordable housing responses</a> that are smarter than the market alone <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-we-seeing-a-new-dawn-for-affordable-housing-52286">can supply</a>.

Our work indicates that some people’s access to the good things smart cities have to offer is limited by the location of housing they can afford – be it ownership or rental.

Smart cities of the future will need to address the consequences of housing-generated social and economic inequalities in Australia.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/61213/count.gif" width="1">

<a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-baker-172081">Emma Baker</a>, Reader in Housing; <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-beer-111469">Andrew Beer</a>, Dean, Research and Innovation, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia">University of South Australia</a>, and <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-bentley-173502">Rebecca Bentley</a>, Associate Professor, Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne">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/smart-cities-wouldnt-let-housing-costs-drive-the-worse-off-into-deeper-disadvantage-61213">original article</a>.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyonwater54/21180570241/in/photolist-ygDXBx-wHvxwM-vMvBs6-vgazZB-vVxt6R-vZ9H12-vGDV4D-vD9841-vnfkWM-sy8qs1-scYLZm-rrNMNK-s73v3S-qA8Awp-xMd2dp-q6S6mb-p5H5u9-pb9Svf-nCnSEw-nCjrVK-nxeSDv-kFLMXF-kp1WVg-kLrbMR-iNr9uj-iSeYZ2-iMc7MT-iMc4b4-iM6Qt2-sosgzs-CopiUh-qA2vBY-qSqGWk-qAaiLe-rgAGF9-qLdn4P-q6Ja7M-oPyn2m-pLu9Ss-oPBuNM-pJjsRE-ptXJHh-pLtYmN-pEKirV-oLkrCd-oDF5zW-oDFtkd-otiriv-o7eSDV-ooHvRD">flickr</a>.
</body></html>

Smart cities wouldn't let housing costs drive the worse-off into deeper disadvantage

<html><body>
<a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/crystal-legacy-18412">Crystal Legacy</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university">RMIT University</a>; <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/dallas-rogers-5269">Dallas Rogers</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-western-sydney">Western Sydney University</a>; <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/kristian-ruming-173545">Kristian Ruming</a>, and <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/nicole-cook-220909">Nicole Cook</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne">University of Melbourne</a>

The federal government’s <a href="https://cities.dpmc.gov.au/smart-cities-plan">Smart Cities Plan</a> is framed around the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-30-minute-city-how-do-we-put-the-political-rhetoric-into-practice-56136">30-minute city</a>”. In this city, journeys will <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/malcolm-turnbull-to-borrow-big-in-multibilliondollar-smart-cities-plan-20160428-gohbym">take no more than half an hour</a>, regardless of your location.

The recently released plan has significant implications for population, transport provision and land-use intensity in neighbourhoods – the places where people live and how they get around. The realisation of its goals will require ongoing densification of Australian suburbs.

<h2>Cities with more houses, more people, more NIMBYs</h2>

The doubling of the population in some Australian cities by 2045 is likely to generate fierce opposition to housing and transport projects.

Many medium-density housing projects prompt residents <a href="http://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/2238/AHURI_Final_Report_No197_Resident_third_party_objections_and_appeals_against_planning_applications.pdf">to act strategically to protect their neighbourhoods</a>, even when these projects improve housing affordability and access to jobs and services.

Resistance is also directed at major infrastructure. Fierce campaigns are being (or have been) waged against Melbourne’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-sky-rail-saga-can-big-new-transport-projects-ever-run-smoothly-54383">“sky rail” project</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/east-west-link-shows-miserable-failure-of-planning-process-40232">East West Link</a>, Sydney’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/trees-versus-light-rail-we-need-to-rethink-skewed-urban-planning-values-57206">ANZAC Parade light rail</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/opposition-to-westconnex-grows-as-council-blocks-contractors-from-streets-20160407-go0j3i">Westconnex</a> projects, and the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-23/shorten-to-commit-to-1bn-metronet-rail-in-wa-if-elected/7436062">Perth Freight Link</a>.

Such opposition is not only felt through the planning system. Residents also <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08111146.2015.1081845">use political channels</a> to stop projects, <a href="http://usj.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/08/27/0042098015602649.abstract">as with the East West Link</a>.

<h2>How should government respond to community resistance?</h2>

Contestation over city planning should not be shut down. Rather, we need to think about citizen opposition as a constructive process for working through difference. Here are five points to consider when including people in the delivery of the 30-minute city.

Point 1: We need active governments and active citizens

Private-sector lobbyists argue government is poorly placed to deliver small- and large-scale infrastructure. But think about a city with no roads, sewers, hospitals or schools. Without government-led planning, our cities would be dysfunctional places to live.

However, governments are not benevolent institutions. Active citizenries have long scrutinised the efficacy of government decisions.

The introduction of private and non-government infrastructure providers <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-uneasy-marriage-planners-public-and-the-market-struggle-to-work-well-together-54405">further complicates</a> the relationship between citizens and governments. Whose interests does urban development then serve – a local community, regional community, or developers?

Governments need to be ready to answer questions about the role of the private sector and to change their plans following <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07293682.2015.1135816">community input</a>.

Point 2: More than finding better participation tools

Urban planning systems play important roles in engaging residents. However, community consultation has been sporadic. Neighbourhood meetings and letterbox notifications often fail to ignite engagement.

Then there is the question of representation. Community consultations attract the “usual suspects”. Time-poor working-age households and young professionals find it difficult to fit engagement with planning into their busy lives. Even more rarely does planning engage with youth and children about their visions and hopes for cities.

<figure class="align-right zoomable"><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/123491/area14mp/image-20160523-9557-58h3ot.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/123491/width237/image-20160523-9557-58h3ot.jpg"></a>

<figcaption>Some issues mobilise people across social and age groups, but achieving representative public input to urban planning can be difficult. Tony Markham/AAP</figcaption></figure>Local and state governments are aware of the need for new ways to bring citizens into decision-making. Infrastructure Victoria’s <a href="http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/citizen-jury">citizen jury panels</a> are meeting mid-2016. Social media is also being considered as a way to <a href="http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/future">engage a broader public about city futures</a>.

However, when planning departments use social media the uptake by communities is poor. Our research suggests <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07293682.2015.1019755">opponents to planned projects</a>, rather than planning departments, are more likely to use social media.

The problem with current participation tools is their failure to account for conversations, debates and protests that <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08111146.2015.1077804">take place outside</a> the formal planning process. We need ways to include these discussions.

Point 3: Moving beyond NIMBYism

Not all community campaigns are the same. The dominant narrative around community participation in urban planning centres on the pejorative idea of “the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2012.00751.x/abstract">NIMBY</a>” (not in my backyard).

The term NIMBY is frequently used to delegitimise the claims of citizens opposing planned developments. They are characterised as self-interested residents who resist the inclusion of new social groups in their neighbourhoods, or any change to the built or natural environment.

Deliberately labelling these residents as self-interested fails to recognise the positive roles they can play. Local resident campaigns can focus on city-wide or local issues. They can range from <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07293682.2013.776982">unwavering opposition to more flexible and reflexive engagement</a> in an urban discussion.

Some community campaigns might be viewed as vital forms of urban citizenship. Others are seen as “protecting their patch” against the best interests of the broader citizenry. Both views should be part of our discussion about city planning.

Point 4: The conversation never stops

An active citizenry is involved in short-term “one-off” planning and long-term strategic planning. Too often, public participation roles are confined to one end of this spectrum. For example, the NSW government recently attempted to <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07293682.2014.889183">limit public participation</a> to high-level strategic planning documents, reducing community input into individual developments.

<figure class="align-left zoomable"><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/123493/area14mp/image-20160523-9554-18ke5wk.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/123493/width237/image-20160523-9554-18ke5wk.jpg"></a>

<figcaption>Most of the city’s residents seem unaware of the Sydney metropolitan plan and its reliance on higher-density living. AAP/Dean Lewins</figcaption></figure>Most people have little knowledge of the urban planning system. A <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837714000301">recent study</a> found only 24% of Sydney residents surveyed were aware of the <a href="http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans-for-Your-Area/Sydney/A-Plan-for-Growing-Sydney">Sydney metropolitan plan</a>. Confining participation to upfront strategic consultation limits community involvement.

For most people, engagement with planning and development issues will be reactionary. People engage with the planning system when a development is proposed for their area.

However, a recent national survey revealed that 65% of responses believed urban residents should be involved in each stage of the strategy-making process. Most will not be involved, but options for participation should not be confined to upfront consultation.

By engaging the community in an ongoing discussion we can listen and respond to local interests without compromising the broader strategic and long-term vision for our cities.

Point 5: Metropolitan-wide but locally situated debate

There will be winners and losers in the 30-minute city. Houses will be acquired, buildings will be demolished and sections of the natural environment will make way for new infrastructure.

Over the last decade, the idea of consensus has dominated participatory approaches. However, consensus-seeking is not always the best way to work through community disagreement. In some cases, consensus can be manipulative, or useful for mobilising resident opposition.

We need to recognise that cities are home to many different people who hold diverse views and values, and who will not always agree. Rather than aiming for consensus, we should set our sights on metropolitan-wide, locally situated debate, which supports an active citizenry.

In the end, the difference between no action and implementation may be in “agreeing to disagree” through open discussion about the planning of the city.

<hr>
This article draws on research by the authors and recent discussions about a possible crisis of participation in Australian cities at a <a href="http://cur.org.au/events/urban-theory-symposium-series/">symposium in Sydney in April 2016</a>.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/59161/count.gif" width="1">

<a href="http://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">RMIT University</a>; <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/dallas-rogers-5269">Dallas Rogers</a>, Lecturer in Urban Studies, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-western-sydney">Western Sydney University</a>; <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/kristian-ruming-173545">Kristian Ruming</a>, Associate Professor in Urban Geography, and <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/nicole-cook-220909">Nicole Cook</a>, Researcher, School of Geography, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne">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/30-minute-city-not-in-my-backyard-smart-cities-plan-must-let-people-have-their-say-59161">original article</a>.

Lead image credit: <a href="http://rethink-iot.com/category/markets/smart-cities/">ReTHINK</a>
</body></html>

'30-minute city'? Not in my backyard! Smart Cities Plan must let people have their say

<html><body>
<a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/kim-dovey-107660">Kim Dovey</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne">University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/elek-pafka-128908">Elek Pafka</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne">University of Melbourne</a>

In debates about urban density we often find comments about buildings being too tall or not tall enough, about too many people in a neighbourhood or too few, about streets and buildings being overcrowded or empty.

We are told that Melbourne is <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-09/melbourne-develops-the-city-centre-with-dire-consequences/6080146">building at four times the density of Hong Kong</a>, or that <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/be-happy-be-more-interesting-be-dense-20111019-1m809">density is good</a> and will make us happy. As these debates over density in Australian cities continue, what is most often missing is any clear understanding of what people mean when they use the word “density”.

Is it the volume or height of buildings? Or is it the numbers of people? One person’s high density may be another’s sprawl; the same tall building may be experienced as oppressive or exhilarating; a “good crowd” for one can be “overcrowded” for another. One is reminded of Humpty Dumpty’s logic in Through the Looking Glass:

<blockquote>
When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.
</blockquote>

What such debate most needs is greater density literacy. Density is a concept borrowed from physics where the meaning is clear – mass divided by volume. Yet when transferred to the city nothing is so simple.

<h2>Are we talking about buildings or people?</h2>

First, we need to clarify whether we are talking about concentrations of people or of buildings. If we take population densities first, these are generally measured as residents per hectare based on census data.

But we also need to distinguish between “internal” and “external” densities – the numbers of people in a room or apartment versus those in an urban precinct. If you look at new high-rise housing in the evening, you can find many apartments unoccupied. At the other extreme, internal crowding largely defines a slum. Building density does not mean population density.

<figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122221/area14mp/image-20160512-18152-14tv47q.png"><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122221/width754/image-20160512-18152-14tv47q.png"></a>

<figcaption>Building density does not necessarily mean population density, an example being low-occupancy housing in Melbourne Docklands. Kim Dovey, Author provided</figcaption></figure>Population densities cannot be based on residents alone since the numbers of people in a given neighbourhood at a given time include those who work there or are visiting. In a mixed-use neighbourhood, residents may be a small proportion of the population density.

There are also population density rhythms as people move from place to place throughout the day and week. The same urban precinct can be densely populated during work hours and empty on weekends. Population density is not only the number of residents but fluctuates over time and with functional mix.

<h2>And how do you measure building density?</h2>

When we shift attention to building densities, we soon encounter some unavoidable jargon. The most common measure of building density is the “floor area ratio” (known variously as FAR, FSI, FSR and plot ratio) – the ratio of floor area to land area. This is the most widely used measure for limiting the bulk of development on any given plot.

However, it does not control the building height, “footprint” (the area occupied by the building) or “coverage” (the proportion of land covered by buildings). Thus it is quite possible to build high-rise low-density (with very low coverage or small footprints) or low-rise high-density (with high coverage or large footprints).

Most high-rise public housing from the 1960s and 70s is roughly the same FAR as the low-rise housing that was demolished to build it.

Building height is not a measure of density, although sometimes the two align. Confusions here abound; press reports (such as <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-city-height-limits-to-hit-new-ceiling-20160425-goec15">here</a> and <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/skyscraper-height-limits-to-reshape-melbournes-skyline/news-story/43071a2d90ea1841379167c1036bb58f">here</a>) regularly equate FAR with height control.

<figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122223/area14mp/image-20160512-18168-14q272r.png"><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122223/width754/image-20160512-18168-14q272r.png"></a>

<figcaption>Areas of different heights but similar building density in Fitzroy, Melbourne. Kim Dovey, Google Earth, Author provided</figcaption></figure>Another common measure of density is dwellings per hectare. This is often used as a means of assessing population and building densities at the same time. But it does neither, unless we know the size of dwellings and of households. Thus <a href="http://www.soacconference.com.au/2013-conference/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Pafka-Structure.pdf">dwellings per hectare is a very blunt measure of density</a>, although a useful proxy for comparing housing projects.

Then there is the distinction between gross and net densities. Urban planning controls are focused on the net density on a particular site. Yet such measures are of little use in understanding how cities work because they do not include the public space of streets and parks.

The gross density is always lower than net density and it is the one that matters in debates over urban density. While we might be packed in on a particular site, the street network of a car-based city tends to keep us apart. Net density is not an effective measure of urban density.

As we measure densities of people or buildings at larger scales, we also incorporate water bodies, freeways and unbuildable sites, so the average density diminishes. Where one draws the boundary is a crucial decision in measuring urban density, or in getting the answer one wants.

Even urbanists such as <a href="http://mams.rmit.edu.au/j4oa4rdaow29.pdf">Paul Mees</a> can be guilty of this when using broad metropolitan density measures to advocate for public transport at suburban densities. <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/be-happy-be-more-interesting-be-dense-20111019-1m809">Elizabeth Farrelly</a>, a vocal proponent of higher density, compares it to the thread-count of luxury sheets (her minimum is 1,000), yet her only measure for urban density is “dwellings per hectare” – whatever the scale, net or gross.

Here we encounter the politics of density literacy and return to the logic of Humpty Dumpty:

<blockquote>
The question is which is to be master – that’s all.
</blockquote>

There is no single scale at which to measure urban density, but the larger the scale the lower the density. The best approach is to understand density as multi-scalar: for any location there is an internal density, a net density, a walkable density and a metropolitan density.

<h2>High density is no guarantee of urban buzz</h2>

Finally, there is the question of streetlife density – of people in public space, of crowds and crowding. Here the complexities multiply. While we can measure the outcomes in pedestrians per minute or per square metre, we are far from understanding the ways in which streetlife is geared to building and population densities.

These connections depend at least on numbers of jobs and visitors, functional mix, car dependency, access networks and walkability. Yet this is where density delivers its greatest benefits in social and economic encounters – what we often call the urban “buzz” or “intensity” – along with disbenefits such as congestion.

<figure class="align-right zoomable"><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122225/area14mp/image-20160512-18152-1qm0hms.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/122225/width237/image-20160512-18152-1qm0hms.jpg"></a>

<figcaption>Density without intensity in the car-dependent city – in this case, Tampa, Florida. Kim Dovey, Author provided</figcaption></figure>In Australian cities we have become quite good at generating high <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07293682.2013.776975">density without intensity</a>. Think of car-dominated high-rise districts where few people use the street. Yet we also have good inner-city examples of intensity without high density.

For many people, density has become a negative word. Those who want more of it often use other words and phrases: the “<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697459.2014.945376?journalCode=cppr20">compact city</a>”, “<a href="http://www.conferenz.co.nz/conferences/smart-urban-intensification-0">urban intensification</a>”, “<a href="https://msd.unimelb.edu.au/intensifying-places-transit-oriented-urban-design-resilient-australian-cities">transit-oriented development</a>” and the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-30-minute-city-how-do-we-put-the-political-rhetoric-into-practice-56136">30-minute city</a>”.

This can be useful language but the question of what it means remains. The challenge is to raise the standard of <a href="http://www.palgrave-journals.com/udi/journal/v19/n1/abs/udi201313a">urban density literacy</a> – not to make density mean one thing but, as Alice might put it, to understand the ways it is made to mean so many different things.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/58977/count.gif" width="1">

<a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/kim-dovey-107660">Kim Dovey</a>, Professor of Architecture and Urban Design, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne">University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/elek-pafka-128908">Elek Pafka</a>, Research Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne">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/urban-density-matters-but-what-does-it-mean-58977">original article</a>.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/briangiesen/4919302861/">flickr</a>
</body></html>

Urban density matters – but what does it mean?

<html><body>
By <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/phillip-oneill-125643">Phillip O'Neill</a>, Director, Centre for Western Sydney, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-western-sydney">Western Sydney University</a>.

Mounting public debt has sucked infrastructure spending capacity from the nation’s public balance sheets. The federal government proposes a new way forward, called “<a href="https://theconversation.com/city-deals-nine-reasons-this-imported-model-of-urban-development-demands-due-diligence-57040">City Deals</a>”. But the budget papers contain no further details, which is disappointing.

Infrastructure provision in Australian cities, especially for transport, is in crisis. Our cities are growing rapidly, they are congested and they lack planning direction.

The crisis has been elevating for some time. It has many origins – most notably in the aggressive paying down of government debt under four successive Howard governments. Between 1996-97 and 2006-07, net Australian government debt fell by more than A$125 billion. With the sale of Telstra, a further A$50 billion was made available to establish the Australia Future Fund.

There are good arguments for lowering public debt and setting aside savings to cover liabilities for public servant pensions. However, under the Howard government, actions to enhance the liveability of our cities were not given spending priority.

<h2>A continuing story of rising debt</h2>

The election of a Rudd Labor government in 2007 came with the promise of major infrastructure spending on our failing cities.

Instead, a global financial crisis led to the federal government balance sheet exploding with debt to fund massive spending injections and shovel-ready infrastructure projects, especially in the education sector. By the end of the 2013-14 financial year net Australian government debt exceeded A$200 billion.

The Abbott Coalition government eased back on spending with non-metropolitan roads spending preferred to the urgent refits our cities cry for. Now the 2016-17 budget papers tell us debt will exceed A$325 billion in the coming financial year, or 18.9% of GDP. That is Australia’s highest debt ratio in modern times.

When the Howard government was elected in 1996, Australia had just over 18 million residents. Since then another six million have been added; all are urban dwellers.

In this 20 years, Sydney has grown by one million people and Melbourne by 1.2 million; yet neither city has been the target of significant transport infrastructure spending by government. The major transport investment in each city has been by the private sector on motorways.

<h2>Private sector role favours roads</h2>

Look closely at this recent history and perhaps the logic of the City Deals initiative becomes clear. In 1994, the Kennett Coalition government granted Australia’s first tolled-motorway concession to the CityLink consortium.

Motorway deals in New South Wales and Queensland, for all their start-up failures and hiccups, have reproduced the CityLink model in three major ways.

First, they have used private finance to pay for the capital investments required.

Second, users must pay tolls to use the service the infrastructure provides, which, after deducting the minimal operating costs needed to keep a road open, forms the basis of a reliable return to private investors over many decades.

Third, and unlike the operation of a public transport system, the user fully bears the costs of providing and running a vehicle on the motorway.

Not surprisingly, cash-strapped governments have encouraged motorway investments in our cities and remained wary of new public transport investments. The latter depend heavily on public finance – and are also hideously expensive to run with low cost recovery from fare revenues.

For instance, after fare revenues, each of Sydney’s and Melbourne’s public transport systems still needs annual taxpayer injections of around A$5 billion to cover operating costs. Roads cost governments significantly less.

<h2>So what about City Deals?</h2>

In announcing City Deals as part of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/smart-cities-plan-offers-signs-of-hope-but-are-turnbull-and-taylor-just-dreamin-58628">Smart Cities Plan</a> last week, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that the days of the federal government acting as an ATM for the states’ infrastructure spending were over. This seems a most peculiar warning given the major role of the Commonwealth as a collector of taxes and their efficient deployment.

But if direct federal government spending on infrastructure is scaled back in favour of encouraging private finance into the void, then the rules of financing and funding infrastructure need to be obeyed.

The parameters are clear. Where there is risk – be it construction risk or revenue risk – then private finance will demand government pick up the tab for cost blowouts and revenue shortfalls. Then reliable funding streams must be created to feed competitive returns to the private capital investors. Funding can only come from two places: taxes or user fees.

Funding is the harsh discipline of private infrastructure investments. Public transport deals especially will be starved of private finance because in Australian cities commuters refuse to pay the full costs of their train, bus, ferry and tram rides. But without higher fares, or continued public sector fare subsidies, private sector finance won’t be attracted.

Private infrastructure investment is a complex process, especially in multi-billion-dollar projects. The detail matters and is different in every case. Yet last week’s announcement of City Deals as a solution to the nation’s failing urban infrastructure systems was, in the end, the launch of a brochure.

Perhaps an election campaign will tell us more.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/58737/count.gif" width="1">

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/city-deals-still-no-more-than-a-pamphlet-after-budget-2016-58737">original article</a>.

Lead image credit: ABC.
</body></html>

City Deals still no more than a pamphlet after Budget 2016

<html><body>
By <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/carolyn-whitzman-9944">Carolyn Whitzman</a>, Professor of Urban Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne">University of Melbourne</a>. The co-author of this article is Brad Hosking, the corporate director of Common Equity Housing Limited.

Average house rents in metropolitan Melbourne have <a href="http://www.domain.com.au/news/renting-in-melbourne-median-house-apartment-price-soars-20160406-gnyyhv/">increased by 5.3%</a>, with apartment rents growing by 2.8%, over the last three months. A <a href="">lack of affordable rental properties</a> is a problem in Sydney too. This has fuelled speculation of a <a href="http://thenewdaily.com.au/money/2016/01/15/australia-rental-rates-apartment-glut/">housing bubble</a>, particularly in the wake of falling investor demand for new high-priced CBD apartments in these capital cities and others.

But beyond the headlines lies a difficult policy task for all three levels of government, in conjunction with the private sector and civil society. They need not only to create more affordable housing, but to keep it affordable in the long run.

Recent discussions with private developers and investors suggest there is growing willingness to collectively tackle the problem. However, some common misapprehensions remain about who needs affordable housing and how those needs might be met.

<h2>Looking beyond the stereotypes</h2>

There continues to be two quite different stereotypes about the people who need affordable housing:

<ul>
<li>First, there is the older single man with mental health and/or addiction issues, who may need therapeutic assistance and housing.</li>
	<li>Second, there is the “key worker” individual or couple – young, working in education, medicine or emergency services – who just simply need “more supply”.</li>
</ul>
The reality is that there are many different kinds of households requiring affordable housing. Many different mechanisms will need to come into play to meet their needs.

Penny the pensioner is living in poverty, like <a href="https://www.lmcf.org.au/images/2016-Time-of-Our-Lives-Report-LMCF.pdf">one in three</a> older women. She spent many years bringing up two children full-time and did not accumulate retirement savings or assets. As a very-low-income person, she receives <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/rent-assistance">Commonwealth Rent Assistance</a>. However, she is among the 35,000 Victorians <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorias-public-housing-waiting-list-skyrockets-20151109-gkuao1">on the waiting list</a> for public housing.

Penny can no longer afford to live in or near Port Melbourne, her home for her entire life. This is because there are simply no rental apartments available there for A$165 per week, which is what she could afford.

Penny wonders if Australia’s largest urban redevelopment project next to Port Melbourne, <a href="http://www.mpa.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Affordable-Housing-Options-Paper.pdf">Fishermans Bend</a>, could have an apartment for her sometime soon. But with no new Commonwealth affordable housing program in place, no inclusionary zoning or financial incentives at the state level, and rate capping at the local government level reducing capacity to invest in affordable housing, at most 1.3% of the total 40,000 projected housing units will be available to middle-income households – let alone low-income people like her.

Even if new units were developed in Fishermans Bend, a 50m² apartment would cost about $300,000 to build, given land, construction and financing costs. Rates, water, maintenance and management would cost about $9,000 a year per unit to deliver.

These costs could not be recovered fully through Penny’s rent, even if construction was completely subsidised. There would need to be a combination of lower-cost land, subsidised construction, guaranteed finance, rate relief and ongoing subsidy to make her living unit viable for the private sector to deliver and a community housing provider to own and manage.

Naresh is a nurse. He would be classified as a moderate-income earner. He lives with his wife Nadira. They recently had a child; Nadira is a full-time parent.

Because he is a shift worker, Naresh’s public transport options are not reliable. He would prefer to live within walking or cycling distance of his workplace, even in a smaller unit, as he does not own a car.

Naresh can afford to pay 30% of his $60,000 annual gross income on rent, which works out to $340 per week. This is still below the average rent in Melbourne for a 70m² two-bedroom unit.

A few two-bedroom apartments are available for that price – about an hour’s public transport ride away from his job. However, he works in a well-serviced but conservative inner suburb, where new apartments aren’t being constructed and existing flats are rented by much-higher-income households.

Naresh would have to add the cost of buying and maintaining a car to his rental cost and a long commute to an already difficult work-life balance. This is hardly affordable or family-friendly living.

Even if new apartments were being constructed where they are most needed, it would cost at least $400,000 to build and require about 50% construction subsidy for a community housing provider to be able to rent to Naresh and Nadira. The alternative would be short-term renting in the private market with the likelihood of having to relocate every year or two.

<h2>Signs of progress</h2>

Across Australia, there was <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/2081/AHURI_Final_Report_No241_Supply-shortages-and-affordability-outcomes-in-the-private-rental-sector-short-and-longer-term-trends.pdf">a shortage</a> of 122,000 affordable and available dwellings nationwide in 2011. This was a 40% increase from 87,000 in 2006. The problem has worsened since the last census in 2011.

There are some signs of progress across Australia. After a cross-party <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Affordable_housing_2013/Report">Senate inquiry into affordable housing</a> in 2015, the Affordable Housing Working Group is <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/ConsultationsandReviews/Consultations/2016/CFFR-Affordable-Housing-Working-Group">looking at</a> “innovative financial models” to scale up production.

Several states are taking concrete actions. Western Australia was the first cab off the rank and had attained its <a href="http://www.dhw.wa.gov.au/aboutus/affordablehousingstrategy/Pages/default.aspx">ten-year targets</a> by 2015. New South Wales has established the <a href="http://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/reforms/social-housing/SAHF">Social and Affordable Housing Fund</a>. Queensland’s <a href="https://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/gi/consultation/2851/view">Affordable Housing Strategy</a> is at the discussion stage.

In Victoria, the previous Coalition government’s strategic plan for metropolitan Melbourne is <a href="http://refresh.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/">being “refreshed”</a>, including a greater emphasis on housing need. In advance of a promised affordable housing strategy, the current Labor government <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-pledges-half-a-billion-dollars-to-family-violence-services-20160413-go521s">recently announced</a> a $150 million “housing blitz” for women and child survivors of family violence.

Several local governments in Melbourne have also led the way in donating land to affordable housing, particularly the <a href="http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/www.foskbg.org.au/print_/In_Our_Backyard_-_draft_for_adoption_April_2016_V2_-_7_April_2015(1).pdf">City of Port Phillip</a>.

The trick is going to be combining various actions by Commonwealth, state and local government to support private developers and community housing providers in not only developing new housing, but keeping it affordable for hundreds of thousands of Australians.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57628/count.gif" width="1">

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/where-do-record-rental-prices-leave-low-income-earners-57628">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Where do record rental prices leave low-income earners?

<html><body>
<a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/tony-matthews-234160">Tony Matthews</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university">Griffith University</a> and <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/jason-byrne-6066">Jason Byrne</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university">Griffith University</a>

Our cities are getting hotter, more crowded and noisier. Climate change is bringing <a href="https://theconversation.com/sydney-so-hot-right-now-whats-behind-the-citys-record-run-of-warm-weather-55756">more heatwaves</a>, placing <a href="https://theconversation.com/adapt-now-to-prevent-poor-health-from-climate-change-report-40958">pressure on human health</a>, urban amenity, productivity and <a href="https://theconversation.com/building-climate-resilience-in-cities-lessons-from-new-york-52363">infrastructure</a>.

Urban residents naturally want to stay cool. Air conditioning is the usual choice, but it can be expensive to run. Air conditioning also adds carbon pollution, creates noise and can make outdoor spaces hotter.

So what else can we do to manage increasing urban heat? And who has the ability to act?

Urban planners are increasingly involved in developing and delivering urban greening strategies. While it seems like a “no brainer” to green cities, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204615000419">our international research</a> shows that planners are not always comfortable with this idea.

However, <a href="https://www.asla.org/greeninfrastructure.aspx">green infrastructure</a> – including street trees, green roofs, vegetated surfaces and green walls – is emerging as a viable way to help cities adapt to increased heat. Uptake of these technologies is slowly increasing in many cities around the world.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/114028/width754/image-20160307-30500-gr7yt.jpg"><figcaption>Green walls cooling a building in Singapore. Tony Matthews</figcaption></figure>The Australian government has recognised this trend. An <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/hunt/2016/mr20160212">agenda to green Australia’s cities</a> is now in place. Stated aims include managing climate change impacts, reducing urban heat, improving urban well-being and increasing environmental performance.

This urban greening agenda is part of the Clean Air and Urban Landscapes hub, under the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/2f561690-b47e-4bf2-b028-d18739b3486f/files/nesp-research-priorities-2015.pdf">National Environmental Science Program</a>.

<h2>Benefits of urban greening</h2>

The broadening appeal of green infrastructure is helped by the fact it offers <a href="https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/275107/urp-rp32-matthews-2011.pdf">multiple benefits</a>.

For example, shading from strategically placed street trees can lower surrounding temperatures by <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273764538_Residents%27_understanding_of_the_role_of_green_infrastructure_for_climate_change_adaptation_in_Hangzhou_China">up to 6℃, or up to 20℃ over roads</a>. Green roofs and walls can naturally cool buildings, substantially lowering demand for air conditioning. Green infrastructure can also provide habitat for wildlife, recreational opportunities for people, better management of stormwater runoff and improved urban aesthetics.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/114029/width754/image-20160307-30476-eemx0t.jpg"><figcaption>Street trees and green walls helping to reduce urban temperatures. Tony Matthews</figcaption></figure>Hard surfacing, including concrete, asphalt and stone, is common in cities. It <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-are-cities-warmer-than-the-countryside-53160">can increase urban temperatures</a> by absorbing heat and radiating it back into the air. Green infrastructure can minimise this difficulty as it better regulates ambient air temperatures. Foliage allows local cooling through evapotranspiration, where plants release water vapour into the surrounding atmosphere.

<h2>Why planners are cautious</h2>

<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204615000419">Our research</a> examined urban planners' attitudes towards green infrastructure use in Australia, England and Ireland. We found that planners are broadly aware of green infrastructure as an urban intervention. They understand its use, application and capacity to provide multiple benefits, especially in terms of managing urban heat.

The planners we interviewed, while recognising the potential value of green infrastructure, strongly cautioned that delivering the technology can be an uncertain process. The biggest barrier cited was that planning departments are not experienced with green infrastructure.

Put simply, they tend to avoid it because it has not traditionally featured on planning agendas. Like any new planning endeavour, green infrastructure can create institutional, legal, economic, social and environmental challenges.

Some of the biophysical challenges associated with green infrastructure delivery are novel. Choosing appropriate forms of vegetation, for example, may be difficult. Decisions must be made based on prevailing climactic conditions, drainage capacity and species growth patterns.

Will root systems damage buildings or underground utility networks? Might trees topple during storms and damage houses? Are roofs strong enough to support a rooftop garden? Planners may not be able to answer these questions, which creates a need for external experts to advise them.

Our findings also highlight socio-political factors as barriers. These include governance concerns such as the political context in which planning decisions are made.

Management issues also feature. Chief among these are government commitments to budget for green infrastructure delivery and management.

Planners are also wary of public involvement. They know that public sentiment about green infrastructure can be influenced by perceptions of modified access, changed use, or loss.

<h2>What can be done?</h2>

The urgency for providing urban green infrastructure increases as climate change makes our cities hotter. Our research suggests the principal task for planners is to overcome embedded practices and to accept green infrastructure as an emerging but permanent urban feature.

This will not be easy. For example, a decision to use a road easement for green infrastructure may require multiple meetings with other government departments, utility companies and residents. Planners will need to coordinate these, manage stakeholder expectations and ensure cost sharing where necessary.

Legal, economic, social and environmental issues will require innovative solutions.

Planners will increasingly be tasked to deliver green infrastructure in cities. They will need to be clear on its value, be prepared to lead its delivery and learn from new challenges and solutions encountered along the way.

Urban residents all over the world stand to benefit if planners can successfully meet this challenge, particularly as hotter temperatures threaten urban comfort and habitability.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/55753/count.gif" width="1">

<a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/tony-matthews-234160">Tony Matthews</a>, Lecturer in Urban &amp; Environmental Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university">Griffith University</a> and <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/jason-byrne-6066">Jason Byrne</a>, Associate Professor - Environmental Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university">Griffith University</a>

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-planners-understand-its-cool-to-green-cities-whats-stopping-them-55753">original article</a>.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jlascar/11884387654/">flickr</a>
</body></html>

If planners understand it's cool to green cities, what's stopping them?

<html><body>
By <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/kim-dovey-107660">Kim Dovey</a>, Professor of Architecture and Urban Design, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne">University of Melbourne</a>.

With debate raging over who wins and who loses with proposed <a href="https://theconversation.com/sacred-cow-no-more-what-proposed-changes-to-negative-gearing-really-mean-54737">major changes to negative gearing</a>, attention also falls on which Australian suburbs are most likely to suffer.

The Australian Financial Review recently discussed the “<a href="http://www.afr.com/news/economy/top-10-suburbs-set-to-suffer-under-negative-gearing-plan-20160216-gmv5m1#http://www.afr.com/news/economy/top-10-suburbs-set-to-suffer-under-negative-gearing-plan-20160216-gmv5m1">Top 10 suburbs set to suffer under negative gearing plan</a>”. The Australian <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/labors-negative-gearing-plans-could-hit-nearly-400-suburbs/news-story/8a78d5a30fd8291cb851174bbe2b31b3">soon joined</a> this scare campaign. Mandurah in Western Australia, where I spent a recent weekend, is on the AFR’s list.

When I grew up this was a lazy holiday town at the entry to an inlet. It’s now one of Australia’s fastest-growing suburbs with a 50-minute train connection to central Perth. Within walking distance of the town centre is a cluster of relatively recent medium-density mixed-use developments on or near the waterfront. The dolphins and crabs are prolific and opportunities for swimming, boating and kayaking are at everyone’s doorstep.

Unlike most outer suburban developments, the housing is relatively dense – mostly about four to five storeys high, with a couple of blocks up to ten storeys. This is a highly walkable neighbourhood with generous public space. Shops and cafes line much of the ground floor.

<h2>Built density but lacking intensity</h2>

This is not far from the kind of urban development we need a lot more of in Australian cities – places that encourage people to walk to work, shopping and recreation; where densities are high enough to support a good range of shopping and public transport.

The main problem here is that while the built density is relatively high, the population density is less than your average suburb.

The AFR article suggests this is the kind of place that is “set to suffer”, yet these parts of Mandurah already suffer from an occupancy rate that locals estimate at 20%. The empty housing has <a href="http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/mandurah-city-of-broken-dreams/story-e6frg2ru-1226381291918">had a spillover effect</a> into empty shops and offices, empty streets and parks, and poor public transport.

The public space is bereft of vitality (and the safety that comes with it); beaches, parks and walkways are largely empty even on a warm February weekend. While there is lots of built density, there is little intensity of public life. The streets are lined with empty shops used as billboards for real estate and financial services.

<figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/113832/area14mp/image-20160304-20111-v38nz3.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/113832/width668/image-20160304-20111-v38nz3.jpg"></a>

<figcaption>Beneath empty housing and balconies, the streets are lined with empty shops are used as billboards for real estate. Kim Dovey, Author provided</figcaption></figure>While much of this is holiday housing, it is within commuting distance of a major city. How much of it is going to waste simply because those who own it can profit from making a loss under the current negative-gearing rules?

<h2>Bringing empty housing onto the market</h2>

While curbing negative gearing would ease house prices in the short term, in the longer term suburbs like this are set to benefit because it will surely bring much of this empty housing onto the market. Then the synergies of higher-density mixed-use development within reach of good public transport will begin to come into play.

As more residents live within walking distance, more amenities will become viable. The more people walk or cycle, the better the health and transport outcomes.

Ultimately, this is the kind of vibrant walkable city we need to build more of to achieve serious reductions in CO2 emissions – places where we can live great and healthy lives with less reliance on cars.

<figure class="align-right zoomable"><a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/113835/area14mp/image-20160304-20137-po46k8.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/113835/width237/image-20160304-20137-po46k8.jpg"></a>

<figcaption>Despite the allure of its waterfront, Mandurah’s public spaces are strangely bereft of people and activity. Kim Dovey, Author provided</figcaption></figure>It is impossible to say how much this production of empty architecture is a function of negative gearing since it also goes hand-in-hand with neoliberal markets and high disparities of wealth. However, the curbing of negative gearing will have a significant impact in getting empty housing onto the market.

This in turn could go some way to reversing this cycle of emptiness – bringing life to the shops, offices, streets, parks and public transport.

<h2>‘Positive gearing’ across Australia</h2>

This is not just a benefit to places like inner Mandurah. It also applies to other empty suburbs and even high-density inner-city neighbourhoods. <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-09/melbourne-develops-the-city-centre-with-dire-consequences/6080146">Southbank</a> and <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/melbourne-vic/foreign-buyers-behind-melbournes-hidden-housing-vacancies/news-story/26490dfcf186b70c017b23e85346dd47">Docklands</a> in Melbourne come to mind as places that produce largely empty buildings – density without intensity.

Negative gearing produces an underutilisation of urban space. The imperative to curb it has important implications for the future of Australian cities.

And this raises a further question – why stop there? If we are looking for new tax revenues that will help to balance the budget, curb CO2 emissions and increase the productivity and vitality of cities, then why not tax the underuse of urban space? Perhaps we could call it “positive gearing”.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/55750/count.gif" width="1">

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-negative-gearing-changes-can-bring-life-back-to-eerily-quiet-suburbs-55750">original article</a>.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mugley/2191518199/in/photolist-4kE71x-5Z3mf-54kNJv-L9jt-fowhDJ-qy4FkM-7S4pzZ-7j4JVd-7iZRMR-4eBLEe-7iZRRT-rdgRMm-569CjL-jWwqB-5QGCiu-beNPri-E7Bwm-kLrbMR-5BzVz1-tgwo1-9EMhh7-8KV5Un-7TRyzX-e1H3Kg-989TNd-7BzSKH-7uh4cr-E7BzL-9wCXa-7ukX1E-7TRwN6-e1NG5h-e1NDSL-986JQx-e1H1D6-oWAKne-pKEJso-5y4Uti-pKEZgb-9MxXjS-atPEV8-iMG3pY-atSm6C-5CqRch-4yXQpV-7VLJRr-sgS7AL-21J5H-brKLFZ-5BvNqe">flickr</a>
</body></html>

How negative-gearing changes can bring life back to eerily quiet suburbs

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