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]

SIERA kicks off construction at Northcliffe tower Exhale

Infrastructure

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
After the tragedy in the Italian city Genoa, where a highway bridge collapsed killing more than 40 people, nations seem to be taking stock of the maintenance levels of their bridges. There are reports thousands of UK bridges are at risk of collapse, and there are hundreds of similarly damaged bridges in France, Germany and Italy itself.
Australia is no different to other developed countries in this regard, where a lot of bridges are old and deteriorating, and we would be foolish to think we are immune. That said, bridges are generally safe structures, with the risk of fatality from a bridge collapse being around one in 100 million per year. This is roughly 100 times less likely than being killed by lightning.
So yes, our bridges are safe, but they need to be kept up-to-date to maintain these low statistics. So how are bridges in Australia managed, and who is responsible?
The age of Australia’s bridges
Bridges are nominally designed to last for some long period of time, such as 100 years. However, such claims are reasonably arbitrary, since much of the technology used in bridge construction hasn’t even existed for 100 years.
Accelerated deterioration testing in laboratories does help make predictions, but it’s not necessarily a good reflection of field performance. This is because of differences between naturally occurring, and artificially impressed, corrosion.
Both age and traffic volume are significant factors in the rate of deterioration of bridge surfaces. Age is likely a proxy for the combination of weather effects and the natural degradation of the material. To combat these effects, inspections and maintenance – or better yet, live monitoring – of bridges, are the best ways we have to ensure public safety.
In Australia, around 800 organisations are responsible for around 53,000 public road bridges. Some (about 23,000) are managed by state road authorities, who manage the high-capacity arterial roads, and local councils who manage the remaining local roads (about 30,000). Of course, the eight state and territory road authorities are the main road bridge owners.
Bridge safety, as with all structural engineering, is a question of whether the imparted load is less than the structure’s strength. Since loads and material strengths are variable, high estimates of loads are used, and low estimates of strengths are used. These extreme (high) loads and (low) strengths are further factored to achieve an acceptably small probability of failure when checking structural adequacy.
Highway traffic loads are known as “normal” when referring to everyday ordinary loading and “abnormal” in the case of special heavy transport. The high estimate of normal traffic loading represents a once in a 1000-year likelihood of a critical event (known as the return period). Abnormal special vehicles might be 300 or 400 tonne loads. During movements of these vehicles, no other traffic will be permitted on the bridge.
Before 1950 Australia’s road bridges were built to design standards set at state level. Around 15% of our bridges on main roads come from this era.
Considering normal traffic use, from 1950 to 1976 short-to-medium span bridges were designed for the MS18 load model. This is roughly a 33 tonne semi-trailer vehicle, or about 20 cars. These now comprise about 50% of the bridge network. From 1976 to 2004 it was the T44 load model, or roughly a 44-tonne vehicle, and these are about 25% of the network. Today, it is the M1600 load model (roughly a 160-tonne vehicle) and these make up about 10% of the network.
These load models have different weight and other aspects, so it isn’t meaningful to rely on the quoted gross weight – it strongly depends on how that load is distributed, and the other factors involved. Still, the loads bridges are designed for have increased together with legal truck weight limits, which themselves have increased by about 10% per decade since the 1950s.
So, how healthy are Australian bridges?
In Australia there are mostly three levels of bridge examination, but NSW has a fourth level. Level 1 inspections are essentially drive-bys to ensure there are no gross deformities present. This takes place roughly twice a year. Level 2 inspections are an “arms-length” visual inspection of all bridge surfaces and components and should take place around every five years at most. The scope of what is included in Level 2 inspections varies across jurisdictions.
Level 3 inspections are detailed engineering inspections, including material sampling and structural modelling. NSW’s level 4 inspections are typically proof load testing. Level 3 (and 4) inspections take place in special circumstances, such as a natural hazard, or change in legal load limits.
Unfortunately, it’s difficult to give a snapshot of the current state of Australia’s bridges. The state road authorities make public very little information about bridge conditions, or inspection and maintenance budgets. In South Australia, bridge inspection results are not available, even under Freedom of Information it seems. Tasmania, the ACT, and NSW offer no data, at least from their websites.
Queensland data is available via email, but has no inspection information. Western Australia offers a GIS interface, but again no inspection data. Victoria seems to be best, offering a GIS website, which includes condition ratings (using Vicroads’ own Bridge Condition Number).
What could we do better?
An open access national bridge inventory, such as exists in the United States, would be of enormous benefit in the study and management of Australia’s bridges. For this to happen, harmonisation of inspection and maintenance routines would be necessary, along with condition rating schemes.
While the present system reflects environmental, practice, and legislative differences between the states and territories, a reasonably general national system with jurisdiction-level tuning is surely feasible.
Risk assessments should move away from subjective qualitative approaches, and adopt an objective quantitative framework. This should help minimise problems associated with loss of corporate knowledge (which contributes to collapses). Such quantitative safety data would enable budgeting for inspection and maintenance to be done on a needs basis, with clear reference to minimum acceptable levels of safety.
There are no simple answers to the complex problems bridge management throws up. The ideal combination of field inspection, expert technical knowledge, management processes, and political decision-making is hard to find. Nevertheless, the case of the Ponte Morandi in Genoa should serve as sufficient warning to be vigilant.

It might be some comfort to the families of the 43 people who died to know their loss has motivated agencies around the world to ensure foreseeable bridge failures are prevented.
Colin Caprani, Senior Lecturer, Structural Engineering, Monash University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-australian-bridges-safe-and-can-we-do-better-101825" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Are Australian bridges safe, and can we do better?

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The major commitment to fund infrastructure, particularly for Sydney, in the NSW Budget will underpin the state’s growth.
The ongoing funding of major infrastructure by the NSW Government will future proof the state as the population grows.
The commitment to funding Metro West with $3 billion is an example of the forward thinking required to ensure Sydney grows in a sustainable manner.
This connection between the Harbour City and the River City of Parramatta will enhance both cities and generate significant development between the two cities
The allocation over the forward estimates of $8 billion to health infrastructure and $6 billion to schools infrastructure is a further support for the states strong growth.
The NSW Generation Fund (NGF) with $3 billion seed funds is a good way to plan ahead for Sydney's rapid growth.
The allocation of $27.5 million from the NGF for the ‘My Community Dividend’ is clearly a sweetener to communities to support growth. The funds will allow communities to vote for projects up to $200,000 that add value to their neighbourhood.
The Urban Taskforce, however, is concerned that last year's focus on housing affordability has not been repeated. Last year there was a strong commitment to the Premier’s priority to drive housing supply and the report by the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, raised important issues about housing affordability and supply. We now have a slow-down in housing supply as evidenced by the budget's acknowledgement that $6 billion of income from stamp duty will be eliminated from the forward estimates.
Clearly the supply of housing is slowing down and we would have expected some actions in the budget to ensure a continuous supply of much needed housing. In particular a hold on the removal of the cap on council infrastructure levies would help the housing industry as would a hold on potential affordable housing levies by councils.
The recently announced NSW Productivity Commission is an opportunity to remove red tape from the planning system to help with housing affordability.
The funds allocated to Sydney's Third City in Western Sydney including the $439.4 million for infrastructure is positive as is the $258 million allocated to the Parramatta Light Rail project.
While the focus on infrastructure is the strength of this budget there does seem to be a missed opportunity to encourage Sydney communities to be part of the massive change that is occurring to the city's structure and form.
The Treasurer, Dominic Perrottet's speech titled 'Building for Tomorrow, Delivering for Today' sets the tone for the government's long term commitment to delivering essential infrastructure for the growth of the state. Many of the budget commitments help families including, increases to apprentice numbers, employing more teachers and health professionals and these are positive contributions.
The missing element is more support for new housing that is needed particularly in Sydney. The NSW planning system is still very complex and the delegation to councils to manage population growth is leading to an increase in community concerns about growth.
Overall this is a good budget for setting the framework for growth in urban areas of the state. The commitment to metro rail projects is the key to underpinning growth and the government deserves credit for driving this.
The Urban Taskforce is keen to work with the NSW government, including the NSW Productivity Commission, to find ways to help with housing supply and affordability particularly by reducing red tape in the planning system.
Chris Johnson is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

cjohnson-8xfqfuuCSq

Infrastructure budget does little for housing: Urban Taskforce

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
The proposal for a high level control of infrastructure delivery for Western Sydney by former NSW Premier John Fahey is needed for efficient delivery.
Currently the developers providing new housing in greenfield areas of Western Sydney find that there is little coordination of the multiple state government agencies who deliver infrastructure.
It seems to be left to each developer to coordinate with the agencies that deliver roads, sewers, water and electricity rather than having a single agency ensuring all of this infrastructure delivery is managed efficiently.
Former Premier Fahey has stated that multiple authorities should answer to a single boss through a coordinator general working for the Premier.
Fahey is reported as saying that Western Sydney needs ‘a coordinator general with wide-ranging powers to go around councils and various agencies and to bring them to the party, without delays’.
The Urban Taskforce agrees completely with this proposition and that it is required immediately as the current system is at the mercy of different infrastructure agencies.
The coordination role for the City Deal announced by the NSW Premier at the recentAerotropolis Conference, where Geoff Roberts will take on this role, may be what Mr Fahey is considering but it needs to relate to a broad range of greenfield land release areas for housing as well as a jobs focus.
The Aerotropolis seems to be mainly about jobs for Western Sydney that are very much needed but the delivery of new housing is equally important.
A stronger state government role that ensures efficient delivery of infrastructure like roads, sewer, water and electricity is desperately needed.
The Queensland Government has established the State Assessment and Referral Authority (SARA) to give a single point of contact for those developing new housing to ensure all infrastructure is coordinated properly.
The NSW Government should look at this example in its response to former Premier Fahey’s proposals.
Chris Johnson is the Urban Taskforce CEO.
</body></html>

John Fahey’s proposal for Western Sydney infrastructure coordination is essential: Chris Johnson

<html><body>
Infrastructure Australia has released a new report titled Making Reform Happen and it argues the Federal Government, who holds most of the purse strings across Australia's three tiers of Government, should make additional investments - over and above existing commitments - in return for delivery of reforms.

One of the highest priority recommendations from IA is that Canberra should establish mechanisms that link and provide additional infrastructure funding to the delivery of reform outcomes - for instance, the asset recycling program set up during the Abbott Government incentivised state governments to privatise assets in return for bonus payments on top of the sale prices.

The report claims after reforms through the urban water, public transport, land tax, electricity market and road user charging sectors, Australia's GDP would increase by $66 billion and the country would enjoy a $19 billion ongoing increase in national tax revenue.

Land tax reform and road user pricing reform are the two main revenue sources which make up the vast majority of the projected $19 billion of national tax revenue by 2047.

IA notes 'the revenue gathered through [fuel excise and vehicle registration] is not directly linked to the cost of road use' and that 'Australia needs to adopt a new approach to the way we fund, deliver and operate our roads, otherwise we can expect significant deterioration and congestion across the nation's networks over coming decades'.

Victorians might find this familiar, as Infrastructure Victoria has put road user pricing reform in its top three infrastructure priorities for the state.

<blockquote>
A reformed charging framework for roads would see all existing taxes and fees removed and replaced with direct charging that reflects each user’s own consumption of the network, including the location, time and distance of travel, and the individual characteristics of their vehicle such as weight and emissions.

This would also include the implementation of supporting technologies, and fundamental change to legislative and funding arrangements.
<cite>Infrastructure Australia - <a href="http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/files/IFA_224631_Making%20Reform%20Happen%20Reform%20Paper_WEB_FA3.pdf">Making Reform Happen</a></cite>
</blockquote>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public//pictures/article-images/making_reform_happen1.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Projected impacts of road user pricing reform - Infrastructure Australia"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="173" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files//styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/making_reform_happen1.png?itok=dCXGKqse" title="Projected impacts of road user pricing reform - Infrastructure Australia" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Projected impacts of road user pricing reform - Infrastructure Australia</figcaption></figure>To read the Making Reform Happen report, see <a href="http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/making-reform-happen.aspx">infrastructureaustralia.gov.au</a>

<h2>Comment</h2>

Marking Reform Happen has an indicative reform agenda which includes Federal Government responses.

The first recommendation on introducing road user charging states that 'Federal, state and territory governments should commit to the full implementation of a heavy vehicle road charging structure in the next five years'.  

Likewise, 'federal, state and territory governments should commit to the full implementation of a light vehicle road charging structure in the next ten years'.

The heavy vehicle road charging structure is supported by Canberra and it notes the recommendation for light vehicles.  When the Federal Government 'notes' the recommendation, in the road user pricing reform area, it is referring to the fact the matters are primarily state/territory issues.

Notice that as soon as reform agenda gets closer to the individual - the voter - the enthusiasm recoils?  That's what happened when Infrastructure Victoria recommended, for the most part, the same thing - the Andrews Government ruled it out almost immediately.  
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Infrastructure Australia argues for greater federal investments in state and territory infrastructure

<html><body>
<div>
The ASX-listed property group Boyuan Limited will lead a consortium to develop a 344-hectare masterplanned health, retail and logistics development, the "Northern Gateway development", at Sydney's proposed second airport, Badgerys Creek.
The proposed Northern Gateway development will create 38,000 new jobs across the education, health, entertainment, retail, tourism, transport and logistics sectors, resulting in $14.3 billion economic output into the Western Sydney Region, according to analysis carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
The project – a mini city within a city – will incorporate a new university, a wellness and healthcare centre to be led by neurosurgeon Professor Charlie Teo.
There will also be a Westfield-anchored retail precinct and a logistics hub in Badgerys Creek, which accords with NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian's move to fast-track infrastructure and planning at Badgerys Creek.
Local and international businesses are being offered incentives to establish their offices at Badgerys Creek following an Aerotropolis Investor Forum.
The consortium for the Northern Gateway is made up of Boyuan, Western Sydney University, Professor Charlie Teo, Scentre Group and logistics firm LOGOS, which will operate The Northern Gateway Logistics Estate.
</div>
<div>It will include plans for 9000 new dwellings for Aerotropolis workers.</div>
<div>
The medical precinct will be a centrepiece of the project, and will include a Wellness Centre of Healthcare Excellence and Centre for Cognitive Enhancement comprising a teaching and research facility and medi-hotel/aged care facility, Professor Teo said.
Scentre's plans for a 200,000sq m mixed-use precinct including hotels, public facilities, retail and public spaces will also be a highlight.
Architecture firm Office for Metropolitan Architecture will design the project.
"Boyuan's vision includes the civic and community aspects needed to balance the airport and make this Aerotropolis a very special, people-focused new city in Australia," Boyuan spokesman Chris Gardiner said.
</div>
<div>Boyuan is a real estate company listed on the ASX, an offshoot of the Hong Kong-listed $806 million real estate company Jiayuan.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It listed in 2016 and has other development projects such as a 158-lot subdivision in Austral, also close to Sydney's second airport. BHL is committed to creating communities and is focused on developing residential sites at Pokolbin. BHL also owns and operates the Peachtree Hotel in Penrith, NSW.</div>
</body></html>

Aerotropolis masterplan unveiled by Boyuan for Badgerys Creek 

<html><body>
The Property Council of Australia has launched its Great Cities research project that aims to provide an 'outside in' perspective on Australia's cities based on megatrends, case studies and benchmarks.

The PCA commissioned Professor Greg Clark and Dr Tim Moonen of <a href="http://thebusinessofcities.com/">The Business of Cities</a> to author the reports.  Prof. Greg Clark also appears alongside the PCA's Chief Executive Ken Morrison in many video summaries now published on the PCA's <a href="https://www.propertycouncil.com.au/greatcities">website</a>. 

'Low public-investment model of urbanisation that served to support cities with smaller populations and less urbanised economies' is a phrase that is often referred to in the research project and reflects the light-touch approach to infrastructure provisioning and land development which Australian cities have traditionally undertaken when compared to cities overseas.

The metropolitan age, which the research papers say we are currently living in, is characterised by the global urbanisation &amp; population growth concentrating in cities; employment growthalong with it, and in an Australian context, the PCA's Great Cities thought-leadership piece argues Australia needs to change.

Change in the way planning is conducted in multi-council metropolitan areas, change in the way we finance infrastructure and change in what we build to house growing populations.

Professor Greg Clark said Australia is not alone in facing these challenges.

<blockquote>
All of the great cities of the 21st century have been through some version of this trek. Australian cities are starting from further behind, but they can also benefit from the experience of comparable cities around the world.

Australians are being challenged to rethink their traditional ideas about their cities, including a future that involves shifting from the low-density sprawl of the past to high quality, medium density living.

Addressing the challenges and opportunities of the metropolitan century is not just an agenda for politicians, urbanists, metropolitan elites or city planners.

It needs to be a national project that touches every aspect of public life and demands the support of every Australian.
<cite>Professor Greg Clark, Lead researcher on the Property Council's Great Cities research project</cite>
</blockquote>

<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" scrolling="no" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5DYpiumOk3E" width="100%"></iframe>

There is an emphasis on the jobs of the future contained within the research as well - with case studies highlighting how cities and metropolitan areas are working together to carve out niche &amp; focus on a specific sector of an industry and calls for Australian cities to do the same.

The research also calls for a broad brush stroke view of making cities more polycentric across metropolitan areas and introduces an interesting term to the Australian urban debate: unicorn cities. The term relates to encouraging cities to focus on building ecosystems that foster innovation and then commercialise the ideas - Stockholm is cited as an <a href="http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/how-stockholm-became-a-unicorn-factory/">example</a>.

Great Cities is broad in that it touches a lot of governance, planning, business and industry issues and the full document suite along with summary videos can be seen on the PCA's <a href="http://www.propertycouncil.com.au/greatcities">website</a>.
</body></html>

Property Council weighs into urban debate with its Great Cities research project

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
When we think about infrastructure it’s most often about bridges or roads – or, as in this week’s federal government AU$1.9 billion <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/government-response-2016-national-research-infrastructure-roadmap" target="_blank">National Research Infrastructure announcement</a>, big science projects. These are large assets that can be seen and applied in a tangible way.
It’s not hard to get excited over <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/funded-research-infrastructure-projects" target="_blank">money that will support</a> imaging of the Earth, or the <a href="https://www.ala.org.au/" target="_blank">Atlas of Living Australia</a>.
But important as these projects are, there’s a whole set of infrastructure that rarely gets mentioned or noticed: “soft” infrastructure. These are the services, policies or practices that keep academic research working and, now, open.
Soft infrastructure was not featured in this week’s announcement linked to budget 2018.
Ignored infrastructure
An absence of attention paid to soft infrastructure isn’t just the case in Australia, it’s true globally. This is despite the fact that such infrastructure is core to running the hard infrastructure projects.
For example, the <a href="https://www.openssl.org/" target="_blank">Open SSL software library</a> – which is key to the security of <a href="https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/OpenSSL" target="_blank">most websites</a> – has just a handful of paid individuals who work on it. It’s supported by fragile <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://figshare.com/articles/Software_in_Research_Underappreciated_and_Underrewarded/5518933/1" target="_blank">finances</a>. That’s a pretty frightening thought. (There’s another issue in that researchers doing this work get no academic credit for their efforts, but that’s a topic for another time.)
There are other high profile, globally used, open science infrastructures that also exist hand to mouth. The <a href="https://doaj.org/" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access journals</a> which began at Lund University relies entirely on voluntary donations from supporting members and on occasional sponsorship.
Similarly, <a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php" target="_blank">Sherpa Romeo</a> – the open database of publishers’ policies on copyright and self-archiving – came out of projects at Nottingham and Loughborough Universities in the UK.
In some ways these projects’ high visibility is part of their problem. It’s assumed that they are already funded, so no-one takes responsibility for funding them themselves – the dilemma of collective action.
Supporting open science
Other even more nebulous types of soft infrastructure include the development and oversight of standards that support open science. One example of this is the need to ensure that the metadata (the essential descriptors that tell you for example where a sample that’s collected for research came from and when, or how it relates to a wider research project or publication) are consistent. Without consistency of metadata, searching for research, making it openly available or linking it together is much less efficient, if not impossible.
Of course there are practices in place at individual institutions as well as national organisations. The soon-to-be-combined organisations -Australian National Data Service, the National eResearch Collaboration Tools and Resources project and Research Data Services (<a href="https://www.ands-nectar-rds.org.au/" target="_blank">ANDS-Nectar-RDS</a>) - are supported by national infrastructure funding. These provide support for data-heavy research (including for example the adoption of <a href="https://www.force11.org/group/fairgroup/fairprinciples" target="_blank">FAIR</a> - Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable standards for data).
But without coherent national funding and coordination, specifically for open science initiatives, we won’t get full value from the physical infrastructure just funded.
What we need
What’s needed now? First, a specific recognition of the need for cash to support this open, soft infrastructure. There are a couple of models for this.
In an article last year it was suggested that libraries (but this could equally be funders – public or philanthropic) should be committing around <a href="http://intheopen.net/2017/09/join-the-movement-the-2-5-commitment/" target="_blank">2.5% of their budget</a> to support open initiatives. There are some international initiatives that are developing specific funding models - <a href="http://scoss.org/" target="_blank">SCOSS</a> for Open Science Services and <a href="https://www.numfocus.org" target="_blank">NumFocus</a> for software.
But funding on its own is not enough: we need a coordinated national approach to open scholarship – making research available for all to access through structures and tools that are themselves open and not proprietary.
Though there are groups that are actively pushing forward initiatives on open scholarship in Australia – such as the <a href="https://aoasg.org.au/" target="_blank">Australasian Open Access Strategy Group</a>, the <a href="http://www.caul.edu.au/" target="_blank">Council of Australian University Librarians</a>, and the <a href="https://acola.org.au/" target="_blank">Learned Academies</a> as well as the <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/arc-open-access-policy" target="_blank">ARC</a> and <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/policy/nhmrc-open-access-policy" target="_blank">NHMRC</a> who have open access policies - there is no one organisation with the responsibility to drive change across the sector. The end result is inadequate key infrastructure - for example, for interoperability between research output repositories.
We also need coherent policy. The government recognised a need for national and states policies on open access in its response to the <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/departmental-news/government-response-productivity-commissions-intellectual-property-report" target="_blank">2016 Productivity Commission Inquiry on Intellectual Property</a>, but as yet no policy has appeared.
It’s reasonable to ask whether in the absence of a national body that’s responsible for developing and implementing an overall approach, what the success of a policy on its own would be. Again, there are international models that could be used.
Sweden has a Government Directive on Open Access, and a <a href="http://www.kb.se/dokument/open%20access/OpenAccess_National_Library_Sweden_2017_2019.pdf" target="_blank">National Body for Coordinating Open Access</a> chaired by the Vice-chancellor of Stockholm University.
The Netherlands has a <a href="https://www.neth-er.eu/en/news/Netherlands-Publishes-National-Plan-Open-Science" target="_blank">National Plan for Open Science</a> with wide engagement, supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. In that country, the Secretary of State, Sander Dekker, has been a key champion.
The EU has had a long commitment to open science, underscored recently by the appointment of a high-level envoy with specific responsibility for open science, <a href="https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/open-access-scientific-publications-must-become-reality-2020-robert-jan-smits_en" target="_blank">Robert-Jan Smits</a>.
Private interests might take over
Here’s the bottom line: national coordinated support for the soft infrastructure that supports open science (and thus the big tangible infrastructure projects announced) is not just a “nice to have”.
One way or another, this soft infrastructure will get built and adopted. If it’s not done in the national interest, for-profit companies will step into the vacuum.
We risk replicating the same issues we have now in academic publishing - which is in the hands of multi-billion dollar companies that report to their shareholders, not the public. It’s clear how well that is <a href="https://theconversation.com/publisher-pushback-puts-open-access-in-peril-42050" target="_blank">turning out</a> – publishers and universities globally are in <a href="https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-cancellation-tracking/" target="_blank">stand offs</a> over the cost of publishing services, which continue to rise inexorably, year on year.
Virginia Barbour<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/virginia-barbour-170992" target="_blank"></a>, Director, Australasian Open Access Strategy Group, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847" target="_blank">Queensland University of Technology</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-was-missing-in-australias-1-9-billion-infrastructure-announcement-96723" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Australia's $1.9 billion infrastructure announcement - what was missing?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Infrastructure Australia’s latest infrastructure priority list has been criticised for being “too Sydney-centric” and for giving Melbourne’s East West Link, cancelled in 2014, “high priority” status. The cancelled Roe 8 project in Perth was removed from the list.
So how does a project get onto Infrastructure Australia’s list? This requires submission of a full business case, which then needs to be “positively assessed” to be given priority status.
But our research, yet to be published, has found these business cases leave out highly significant costs. This article looks at three prominent projects – the WestConnex and East West Link motorways in Sydney and Melbourne respectively, and Cross River Rail in Brisbane – to illustrate how business cases submitted to Infrastructure Australia do not follow its requirements in key respects. This casts serious doubt on the business cases used to justify major motorway projects, as well as on how priority projects are selected.
What do business cases assess?
Ensuring business cases are completed before investment decisions are finalised is critical to “good planning”. Part of Infrastructure Australia’s remit is to head off concerns that projects are committed to before business cases are fully evaluated. This can help minimise “optimism bias” and ensure investments deliver community benefit.
But we must also examine what the business case is actually showing us. The main part of each business case is the cost-benefit analysis. This compares the money value of project benefits and project costs. Economically viable projects should have a benefit-to-cost ratio above 1:1.
Infrastructure Australia requires project business cases to consider non-monetised benefits and costs, including community impacts. These benefits and costs are required to be quantified in some other way, or at least described. The basis used to estimate “external costs” must also be provided.
The cost-benefit methodology requires any significant positive or negative impacts on third parties – externalities – to be included. Examples include air quality, carbon emissions, noise, biodiversity and climate adaptation.
Social impacts to be covered include equity or the distribution of benefits (which Infrastructure Australia says need to be identified since cost-benefit analysis does not explicitly take these into account), and affected local communities and other individuals/groups. The non-monetised benefit and cost categories listed as relevant are: social impacts, cultural impacts, visual amenity/landscape, biodiversity and heritage impacts.
In support of monetary estimates, proponents must “describe and provide supporting material that demonstrates how land use, population and employment projections are modelled”.
The guidelines stress that the supporting conditions for expected land use impacts will be in place – for instance, necessary infrastructure investment where densification is assumed. Factors that can hinder the realisation of such benefits (such as local opposition to increasing density) must also be included.
This process would seem to produce a rational prioritisation of national infrastructure projects. The problem is that the business cases submitted to Infrastructure Australia do not follow its requirements.
High-priority projects with problematic business cases
To illustrate this, we analysed the business cases of three projects designated as “high priority” for Commonwealth funding:
<ul>
<li>
East West Link, to which the Commonwealth allocated A$1.5 billion before the new Victorian government cancelled the project
</li>
<li>
WestConnex, which has been allocated A$3.5 billion
</li>
<li>
Cross River Rail, which is yet to receive funding.
</li>
</ul>
A key problem in these business cases is that significant project cost items have not been monetised. These include costs relating to environmental effects such as noise and visual amenity and to other impacts on businesses, households and property values.
For example, none of the three cases includes a valuation of the costs of lost business and disruption to household travel and amenity during construction. (This is a big issue with Sydney’s southeast light rail project.)
There is also no costing of the loss of property values along motorways, especially around exhaust emission vents. The East West Link and Cross River Rail business cases make some allowance for this by including the value of general changes in amenity from noise, urban landscape and visual amenity. None of these are costed in the WestConnex case.
Another significant omission relates to the costing of land use impacts. The WestConnex and East West Link business cases both forecast more, and longer, road trips across the network as a result of the projects.
The WestConnex scheme will increase vehicle kilometres by 600,000 per day and make outer suburbs more accessible relative to the inner city. The potential extra costs from greater sprawl are high, estimated at A$4.99 billion for Sydney over 25 years from 2011 if greenfield housing was 50% of new dwellings rather than 30%.
The opposite is the case for Cross River Rail. Increased higher-density development around rail stations would produce infrastructure savings, but the business case does not give these a value.
Furthermore, the valuation of changes in transport mode resulting from each project is inconsistent.
The Cross River Rail business case includes savings resulting from motorists switching from road to rail after the line is built.
The WestConnex project will have the reverse effect, with 45,000 public transport trips per day being switched to the motorway. But the business case does not put a value on the costs of this. These include bus and train revenue losses, or reduced service frequency and increased waiting time to reduce losses.
Debatable ‘wider economic benefits’
The most contentious business case component is wider economic benefits. These are productivity improvements arising from increased central city job density as a result of the projects improving access.
These benefits needed to be included to lift the East West Link benefit-cost ratio above one. But this is only achieved through sleight of hand – public transport improvements into central Melbourne are included as part of the full project cost. As the public transport component of the business case had low costs compared to its benefits, including these wider economic benefits was enough to push the overall ratio above 1.
Similar benefits are part of the WestConnex cost-benefit analysis. However, these benefits are to be achieved from extra car trips to the centre. This takes no account of the disincentives of road congestion and lack of parking.
Current central Sydney planning controls allow a maximum of one new parking space per 75 square metres of floor area for not-so-tall offices - or one space for about five new workers - and even fewer spaces relative to floor area for higher buildings. This means most increased job density will not come from people driving to work.
By contrast, the wider economic benefits of the Cross River Rail resulting from increased job density in central Brisbane are not valued for inclusion in the cost-benefit analysis.
Rethinking the business case
Our work points to several real concerns:
<ul>
<li>a lack of consistency in what is included in business cases</li>
<li>questions about how cases can be reasonably compared across projects</li>
<li>discretionary inclusion or exclusion of critical items that bias results in favour of projects.</li>
</ul>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94489/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">We need more holistic and integrated analysis of projects. This will take into account not only the “nation-building” aspects – the jobs and growth projects might inspire – but also the disrupting and displacing effects they produce across transport modes, land uses and people’s experiences of the city.
Glen Searle, Honorary Associate Professor in Planning, University of Queensland and, University of Sydney
Crystal Legacy, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-closer-look-at-business-cases-raises-questions-about-priority-national-infrastructure-projects-94489">original article</a>.
</body></html>

‘Priority’ national infrastructure projects have questionable business cases

<html><body>
Submissions to the Fishermans Bend Planning Review Panel have a strong theme of calling out the lack of commitments and funding in the transport component of the framework and likewise, the preferred tram bridge across the Yarra from Docklands remains a flashpoint.

There are multiple submissions from landowners in Fishermans Bend as well as many other submissions focusing on the individual precinct planning controls - Goodman as the largest landowner in the area has made a <a href="/news/goodman-group-outlines-its-future-fishermans-bend-expectations">very detailed submission</a>.

In its submission, CBRE noted it had held discussions with developers that indicated they would only consider developing in Fishermans Bend once the public transport strategy had been implemented.

<blockquote>
CBRE firmly believe that the success of Fishermans Bend is reliant on the provision of public transport. The plan clearly outlines a number of new transport strategies that will connect the precinct to the surrounding area.

CBRE believe that the office components of the plan will not be viable unless the extension to the tramline is constructed in the short term.

Developers and tenants will require certainty around the likelihood and timing of any potential train line running through the site. Anecdotally, a number of developers have indicated that they would only consider development once the public transport strategy has been implemented otherwise there would be too much risk.
<a href="https://engage.vic.gov.au/application/files/9115/1313/4873/Submission_40_-_CBRE.pdf"><cite>CBRE</cite></a>
</blockquote>

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/tram.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Yarra River tram crossing options that were considered - image: fishermansbend.vic.gov.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="380" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/tram.png?itok=IUEOo_V4" title="Yarra River tram crossing options that were considered - image: fishermansbend.vic.gov.au" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Yarra River tram crossing options that were considered - image: <a href="http://www.fishermansbend.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/87059/Fishermans-Bend-Integrated-Transport-Plan-Final.docx.pdf">fishermansbend.vic.gov.au</a></figcaption></figure>The draft framework's transport plan outlines multiple options for adding tram line capacity into Fishermans Bend.  The #109 tram line currently serves parts of the Montague precinct and owing to operational and capacity constraints further upstream, this corridor would not be expanded to include new links branching off it.

Therefore the focus for tram connections shifted to creating a new river crossing with the Charles Grimes Bridge and a new bridge connecting Collins Street and Point Park considered.

The preferred option was for a fixed bridge raised 6m above the river and remaining elevated to cross the West Gate Freeway - the submissions in response to this paint and interesting picture, and note the contrast between corporate and individual interest in the case study below.

An individual who lives in Yarra's Edge was positive above the inclusion of a fixed bridge as he weights the benefits of better connectivity between Docklands precincts - the predominantly residential Yarra's Edge with the mixed-use and far better amenities on offer in Victoria Harbour - higher than any impacts on the marina upstream.

<blockquote>
It is accepted that any new bridge will prevent some boat owners from accessing the Yarra Edge marina. However, the severity of this impact is grossly overstated. The recommendation from Transport Victoria under the Transport Plan is for a bridge with 6 meter clearance. 

This height clearance will allow the vast majority of users of the Yarra Edge marina to pass beneath the Tram Extension bridge and access the marina. In fact, the Transport Plan notes that in its survey of boats in the Yarra Edge marina that the 6m clearance height would only impact 9 boats.
<a href="https://engage.vic.gov.au/application/files/8215/1364/7865/Submission_204_Bryce_Paterson_Attachment_Missing.pdf"><cite>Bryce Paterson</cite></a>
</blockquote>

On the flipside ANZ which is a significant landowner in Docklands, would be impacted by any new tram bridge that would connect with the Collins Street tram network outside its headquarters.

They argue The Framework Plan has failed to give proper consideration to the impact of the proposed tram route on the Docklands Precinct and the significant planning work undertaken for the development of the Docklands Precinct.

<blockquote>
ANZ submits that the proposed tram route identified in the Framework Plan:

<ol>
<li>Fails to have proper regard to the existing public realm works between the ANZ Centre and Building Y3, resulting in an unjustified loss of public open space;</li>
	<li>Will adversely affect the amenity of the existing public realm between the ANZ Centre and Building Y3;</li>
	<li>Will pose a safety risk to users of the ANZ Centre and Building Y3;</li>
	<li>Will result in unacceptable traffic conditions; and</li>
	<li>Has not been properly considered in light of technical constraints. </li>
</ol>
<a href="https://engage.vic.gov.au/application/files/6115/1364/8439/Submission_216_-_ANZ.pdf"><cite>ANZ</cite></a>
</blockquote>

The ANZ submission furthermore refers to the City of Melbourne's refusal to approve a sky bridge to provide an internal link between its two campuses and the company has concerns for its workers who will need to traverse the tram route at ground level.

<blockquote>
Melbourne City Council (MCC) resolved to recommend refusal of a proposed sky bridge between the ANZ Centre and Building Y3 (Planning Permit application 2012/004820-3, referred to MCC by the Minister for Planning).

Therefore the expectation is that workers needing to transition between the buildings, will do so at ground level.

ANZ has significant concerns regarding the safety of workers needing to traverse the proposed tram route between the ANZ Centre and Building Y3.

The current tram stop congestion already creates a safety concern during peak hours, which will be further exacerbated by the proposed tram route. 
<a href="https://engage.vic.gov.au/application/files/6115/1364/8439/Submission_216_-_ANZ.pdf"><cite>ANZ</cite></a>
</blockquote>

In any case, the authority whose job it is to flesh out the transport plan has its work cut out for itself. 

To view all the submissions made to the Fishermans Bend Draft Framework Plan, see <a href="https://engage.vic.gov.au/fishermans-bend-draft-framework/fishermans-bend-submissions">engage.vic.gov.au</a>.
</body></html>

Fishermans Bend framework submissions highlight angst over Yarra tram bridge

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Australian governments have stepped into the market at critical times since the late 19th century to encourage and channel investment in affordable housing. With rising housing stress in Sydney, Melbourne and other areas, the Australian government has now done just that.
On Friday, Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar slipped into the National Housing Conference in Sydney to announce a government guarantee on investment in affordable housing.
The announcement went largely unreported, but it was significant. The guarantee is a crucial piece of the affordable housing policy architecture, complementing the “bond aggregator” (or intermediary) mechanism announced in the budget. Treasurer Scott Morrison and Treasury officials have been working on this intermediary, a National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, over the past 18 months.
These combined measures should create an efficient private investment pathway into social and affordable housing for super funds, insurance companies and other entities hungry for low-risk returns.
The government’s Affordable Housing Working Group outlined this approach, drawing on a number of our reports commissioned through the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI). These assembled powerful evidence from a range of countries of the proven record of government-backed financial intermediaries and debt guarantees in affordable housing finance systems.
Judging from responses to the Treasury consultation paper, the guarantee enjoys strong industry and political support.
This development could also catalyse efforts to build a national housing accord backed by industry, civil society and welfare groups to expand affordable housing for the growing number of Australians in need. A campaign in support of this, Everybody’s Home, was foreshadowed at last week’s conference.
New model based on an old principle
A government guarantee to back bonds issued by the new NHFIC marks a welcome return to the Commonwealth’s former role of actively enabling investment in housing for low and moderate-income households. Historically, this involved reshaping circuits of investment to increase supply, improve quality, deliver better-planned suburbs, ensure returning soldiers were housed, broaden access to home ownership and provide security for households not served by a failing market.
The government support for investment will guarantee access to cost-effective private finance for community housing providers. It will be backed by a secure cash flow from rental income supported by Commonwealth Rent Assistance.
Affordable housing includes not only rental housing geared to income but also below-market-rate rental housing and home ownership. This offers a refuge for households unable to afford housing at market rates.
Coupled with dedicated public funding, the guarantee could turn what has been a trickle of short-term and costly bank debt into a hugely increased flow of longer-term and lower-risk investment.
Why invest in social housing?
Our AHURI-funded international research has found that long-term and patient capital makes an ideal partner for affordable rental housing. Instead of capital gains from sales, the steady cash flows from rent revenue offer secure returns. This is what makes it attractive to pension funds.
Combined with public co-investment and not-for-profit management, secure affordable housing outcomes are more assured.
This investment ultimately saves us all money. Too many Australian households are one step from homelessness, which is devastating for any family. The costs of homelessness to the nation are also huge.
But it’s not just a matter of cost. Homelessness is an affront to the Australian values of compassion and a fair go, often underestimated by political leaders.
Lessons from overseas are clear
The government’s re-engagement with efforts to boost affordable rental housing is in tune with moves in other similar countries.
Just last month Canada released its first national housing strategy, highlighting housing as a human right. The aim is to increase the supply of moderate rent and supportive housing by at least 100,000 homes over 11 years. A National Housing Co-investment Fund will provide A$16.5 billion to repair and expand the affordable housing stock.
Also last month, the UK government announced a new round of debt guarantees for “build to rent” development, alongside A$15.7 billion in direct investment and increased borrowing caps for social housing.
It is true the most effective affordable housing policy levers available to governments are land supply and direct public investment. This was the approach taken in early postwar Australia.
But since the 1990s Australian governments have shown no inclination to re-adopt this model. As an alternative, international best practice combines the most cost-effective long-term investment with strategic public investment in well-regulated not-for-profit landlords.
Finland offers an example. In a country one-fifth the size of Australia, 9,000 social housing dwellings are built each year. This is financed by low-cost government-guaranteed loans via a public intermediary, with interest subsidies and conditional grants to not-for-profit providers.
Finland has the lowest rate of homelessness in Europe. Young Finns leave their parental home and become independent earlier than anywhere else in the European Union. It’s a clever housing system, not based on the luck of the market or family fortune.
Now to tackle the public funding gap
Australian governments have long talked the talk of decent homes for all. But they have struggled to align policy on land development, property taxation and social security accordingly. Our political leaders have simply failed to reform our planning and tax systems to favour affordable housing.
The social housing investment guarantee represents an important return by the Commonwealth to leadership in housing policy and investment. It will bring in a large and willing industry super sector, delivering not only returns for policy holders but also real gains for society at large.
However, enabling more cost-effective private finance can narrow but not eliminate the shortfall in funding for social and affordable housing so that the books balance. As the government’s own advisory body made clear, this policy framework can realise its potential only when government commits the funding needed to bridge this gap.
Julie Lawson, Honorary Associate Professor, RMIT University.
Hal Pawson, Associate Director - City Futures - Urban Policy and Strategy, City Futures Research Centre, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW.
Vivienne Milligan, Senior Visiting Fellow - City Futures Research Centre, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-guarantee-opens-investment-highway-to-affordable-housing-88549" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Infrastructure

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Infrastructure

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News