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

Planning

<html><body>
Victorian Planning Minister Richard Wynne is being urged to move quickly on a long list of development applications awaiting his decision. 
Since coming to power in November last year, the new minister and his Acting Minister Robin Scott have granted three approvals (as of late March). A fourth application, which drew objections, has been given a “notice of decision” to grant a permit.
These are: a 34,700 square metre office development of $100 million at 2-12 Batmans Hill Drive, Docklands; a notice of decision for a $174 million, 12- and 17-storeys, 275-apartments and 3500 square metres Freemasons headquarters development at 300 Albert Street, East Melbourne; a 15-storeys, 135-apartments, $30 million development at 4 Neilson Place, Footscray and a $240.5 million 52-and 68-storeys, 728-apartments, hotel, office, retail development at 380 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne.
Melbourne Council planning chair councillor Ken Ong said while they expected the three approvals, they were still waiting on others to come through.
These included a Singapore developer’s application for an apartment and hotel complex at Power Street, Southbank and a Grocon application for 85 Spring Street, Melbourne, which was refused in early April. 
Wynne ruled the proposed 46-level Grocon tower at 85 Spring Street was too high and too close to other buildings in the precinct, preferring the advice of city hall over his planning officers, who had recommended in favour of the tower, with conditions.
There is no height limit at 85 Spring Street, occupied now by a 16-storey office tower which Grocon acquired in 2013 for about $45 million.
Wynne confirmed it was his first development refusal since assuming the Planning Minister role.
"I have to balance up advice. In this circumstance there was competing advice," Wynne was reported in the Australian Financial Review.
"If you look at what else is around it, the rest are substantially lower buildings."
Everyone was waiting because there had only been three approvals for four or five months, Ong recently noted.
“Industry’s concern is we need some sort of response and certainty one way or the other.”
“It is important to have some sort of result because we don’t want the industry to come to a grinding halt suddenly because no new projects are approved.”
Melbourne Council planning deputy chair Stephen Mayne said Minster Wynne had been constrained due to ill-health and not having handled the planning portfolio while in Opposition.
Last month Mayne said, it was time for the minister’s “first refusals”.
“There are probably 20 to 30 decisions pending so he needs to let everyone know where he stands,” Mayne said.
“It has really come down to decision time on the large in-tray he has got.” 
Mayne said the previous Planning Minister Matthew Guy (now State Opposition Leader) approved about 100 towers in Melbourne. 
“Matthew Guy only refused five applications. He was far too permissive in hindsight” Mayne said.
“I think we need a period of more consistent decision making in accordance with the planning scheme.”
Wynne said on winning office, his government had 12 outstanding planning permit applications for central city developments. 
“One of these - for the redevelopment of Dallas Brooks Hall by Fitzroy Gardens- had been in the pipeline for over 400 days,” Wynne said.
“We have now issued a permit for this development, and at a height that better responds to the surrounding context and does not overshadow the gardens.” 
Wynne said he had also given approval for a development at 380 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, where “the developer had worked hard to come up with an amended scheme that achieved better activation at the street level and gave Melbourne a new laneway”. 
“I would like to assure the industry that I am resolving the remaining permits in an orderly and timely fashion,” he said.
</body></html>

NeelimaChoahan-KvJxBRzept

Victorian Planning Minister Richard Wynne refuses Grocon application while list awaiting approval lengthens

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
A key objective of Plan Melbourne is to create a city of 20 minute neighbourhoods, suggesting that 20 minute neighbourhoods are healthy communities, where “housing is within walking, cycling or public transport distance of employment, education, social, cultural, recreational and health facilities, and where people have access to open space and places where they can gather.”
The idea is that the provision of these services will encourage a 'walkable neighbourhood', from which in turn flow the health benefits of a more active lifestyle.
We are all about using hard data to support business decisions, so we have decided to test out whether proximity to transport and services does indeed encourage walking.
The Victorian government undertakes the Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA). The most recent survey was undertaken in 2009/10 and classifies a household as being located within 1 kilometres of a train station (approx 10 mins walk), within 3 kilometres of a train station (approx 30 mins walk), and greater than 3 kilometres of a train station.
As retail and services, as well as other public transport options, are often based around train stations, we have taken the train station as a proxy for the likely centre of a 20 minute neighbourhood.
Chart 1 (below) shows the average number of walking movements per person per day across total Metropolitan Melbourne and for Outer Melbourne regions only. In this instance we refer to a “movement” as a journey from one destination to another, or a component of a journey with more than one mode of travel.
<img src="https://www.bis.com.au/verve/_resources/Walkable_Melbourne_Chart_1.png" alt="">
For total metropolitan Melbourne, those within 1 kilometres of a train station had a much greater propensity to choose to walk, with an average 1.3 walking movements a day undertaken across the whole population. The average dropped to 0.9 movements per day for those living 1 to 3 kilometres from a train station, or around 10 minutes to half an hour walk, and 0.57 movements per day for those living further than 3 kilometres from a train station.
In contrast, the propensity to be walking for those living in outer Melbourne was stable, and lower, at around 0.4 to 0.5 walking movements per day regardless of distance from a rail station.  
Similarly, the amount of walking is greater for those closer to a train station (and consequently the services surrounding most train stations). Across total Metropolitan Melbourne, walking movements of those within 1 kilometres of a train station averaged 1.2 kilometres per day, with the average distance walked steadily decreasing as the distance from a train station increased—thereby increasing the need for other forms of transport such as motor vehicles.
The average daily distance walked by those within 1 kilometres of a train station across total Melbourne is six times larger than for those within 1 kilometres of a train station (at 0.2 kilometres per day) in outer Melbourne, which in turn was also approximately the average distance walked across the all of outer Melbourne regardless of distance from a train station. This suggests that proximity to a train station played little part in encouraging walking in outer Melbourne. 
 <img src="https://www.bis.com.au/verve/_resources/Walkable_Melbourne_Chart_2.png" alt="">
Given most activity centres around a train station in outer Melbourne contain a similar array of services as much of the rest of Melbourne, other factors must be at play that make a neighbourhood conducive to walking. In this regard, outer suburban train stations are more likely to be surrounded by a large amount of car parking and lower density housing, while many activity centres in outer Melbourne also contain freestanding shopping centres that are inwardly focussed and are surrounded by significant parking.
In contrast, train stations in inner and middle Melbourne suburbs typically have a greater level of housing density close by. Retail and services also face the street and passing walking traffic. This encourages interaction between transport modes, services and housing when travelling between each. The increased density in these locations also provides a catchment of sufficient size to support these services at the local level.
This suggests that a neighbourhood not only needs the services required by the surrounding community, but also good design and density that encourages walkability. The challenge for planners in creating new neighbourhoods is to ensure the design will be conducive to walking and avoid the design mistakes of previous town centre developments that discourage walkability.
But why would you want a walkable neighbourhood?
The National Physical Activity Guidelines recommend 30 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity on most days of the week as the minimum requirement for good health. Walkable neighbourhoods go a long way to more of the population achieving this target. With a study commissioned by Medibank Private putting the cost to the economy of the population not meeting this threshold at $13.8 billion per year in 2008, everybody benefits from the improved health outcomes.
<a href="https://www.bis.com.au/key_people/name/angie_zigomanis" target="_blank">Angie Zigomanis</a> is senior manager of <a href="https://www.bis.com.au/" target="_blank" title="BIS Shrapnel" rel="nofollow">BIS Shrapnel.</a>
This article first appeared on BIS Shrapnel's blog.
</body></html>

angiezigomanis-VT64gGbExQ

Encouraging walkable neighbourhoods is about more than proximity: Angie Zigomanis

<html><body>
The New South Wales government's recently released 'A Plan for Growing Sydney' and it has been welcomed by Housing Industry Association's (HIA) executive director NSW David Bare.
“HIA has been calling for housing supply targets that actually reflect true underlying and future demand. A Plan for Growing Sydney delivers on this aspect because the entire strategic plan is based on meeting the future needs of Sydney’s growing population,” he said.
The plan includes a goal to deliver more property supply through a number of initiatives, including accelerating supply with priority precincts, increasing urban renewal by placing homes near to jobs and transport hubs, increasing housing choice and delivering greenfield precincts.
“The focus on urban renewal and infill in a planned fashion is long overdue in housing delivery in Sydney” said Bare.
“Increasing the opportunities for housing type diversity and enabling subdivision of existing homes for higher density outcomes is also welcomed.”
To accelerate housing supply, the plan aims to work with councils and the development sector to introduce flexible planning controls.
It notes that for infill and urban renewal., large lots within the existing urban area and close to centres on the rail, light rail and rapid bus systems are most suitable.
It appears the 10 priority precincts will remain on the radar with North Ryde Station, Epping Town Centre, Wentworth Point, Carter Street Lidcombe, Herring Road Macquarie Park, Showground Station, Bella Vista Station, Kellyville Station, Banksia and Arncliffe all mentioned.
</body></html>

jduke-EHk3XBmHkn

NSW planning focus on infill long overdue: HIA

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
During Queensland’s preparations for Severe Tropical Cyclone Ita earlier this year, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s3983077.htm">Queensland Premier Campbell Newman</a> advised residents who lived in older houses (those built before 1985) to evacuate their homes as they were not likely to stand up to the storm’s destructive winds.
In the event, the damage was <a href="https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cyclone-ita-worsthit-areas-could-go-weeks-without-power-20140414-36m7d" target="_blank">largely to the electricity network</a>, while Cooktown, very close to the path of the storm, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/cooktown-cleans-up-after-cyclone-ita-20140412-36jzz" target="_blank">suffered less destruction than had been feared</a>.
But the episode still begs the question: what was so special about 1985?
That was the year that building regulations changed to require new houses in cyclone-prone areas to be able to withstand higher winds. But how were these regulations determined, what do they mean for modern homes, and why do regulators always seem to wait until after a severe storm before updating the codes?
Updating the regulations
Building codes are drawn up by the <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/" target="_blank">Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB)</a>, which cites its mission as addressing “issues of safety and health, amenity and sustainability”.
Its job is to set minimum standards for the design, construction and performance of buildings to “withstand extreme climate related natural hazard events”. It is then up to each state and territory to adopt the recommended standards.
After natural disasters, the ABCB examines the nature of building damage to decide whether the regulations provide enough protection. During <a href="https://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/tracy.shtml" target="_blank">Cyclone Tracy</a> in 1974, 70% of Darwin’s houses suffered severe damage (90% in some areas), causing 65 deaths and damage worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It was obvious that existing building standards were not protecting the community.
As a result, the regulations were changed in the 1980s to improve the construction processes that attach the roof to the rest of the house, making homes more resistant to severe wind damage.
Analysis after cyclones <a href="https://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/vance.shtml" target="_blank">Vance</a> (1999), <a href="https://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/larry.shtml" target="_blank">Larry</a> (2006) and <a href="https://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/yasi.shtml" target="_blank">Yasi</a> (2011) showed that the updated regulations have resulted in <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/en/education-events-resources/national-conference/~/media/Files/Download%20Documents/Marketing%20Docs/BAF/4%20David%20Henderson%20FINAL.ashx" target="_blank">much less building damage and consequent loss of life</a>. During Cyclone Yasi, for example, 12% of older homes suffered severe roof damage, but only 3% of newer homes.
Of course, this does not mean that newer homes are completely impregnable. <a href="https://www.jcu.edu.au/cts/publications/content/technical-reports/jcu-078421.pdf/view" target="_blank">Analysis of damage from Cyclone Yasi</a> showed some remaining “weak points”: tiled roofs, sheds, garage doors, and doors/windows. It was found that more attention needs to be paid to the design, testing, installation, use and maintenance of products, components and fixings. Revised standards have since been developed for roof tiles, garage doors and shed design.
The right way to think about risk
Campbell Newman’s comment about older houses was partially correct – houses built to older standards were indeed more likely to suffer damage. But his statement is perhaps also misleading. Current building standards for Far North Queensland are designed to protect structural integrity in winds up to a Category 4 cyclone. If Ita had crossed the coast and maintained its Category 5 intensity, it is possible that all of Cooktown’s houses – old and new – would have been subject to severe damage.
It is crucial that the community understands what hazards and risks are being addressed by building regulations, and which ones are not.
For example, current regulations address wind loading associated with cyclones, but take no consideration of wind-driven rain (a major cause of water damage). There are also three specific hazards that are not addressed: hail, storm surges and heatwaves. The first two present risks to property; the third contributes to heat stress, which is in turn linked to health problems and deaths.
When deciding whether and how to update the regulations, the ABCB considers both costs and benefits. Regulations will only change if the ABCB and its stakeholders determine that the cost of the changes (such as higher building costs) are less than the benefits (the expected savings in reduced damage).
As a result, the regulations establish minimum standards, not best practice standards.
This article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
The community’s role
Home owners and residents therefore need to be aware of these limitations in the building regulations, and be much more proactive in determining what level of risk is appropriate to their circumstances. A simple risk assessment identifies three things:
<ol>
<li>
What hazards and risks might your house/unit/building be exposed to?
</li>
<li>
What is the likelihood and frequency of those hazards?
</li>
<li>
What are the consequences if the event happens?
</li>
</ol>
Property damage is perhaps the first risk that people consider, particularly in relation to natural hazards such as cyclones, floods and bushfires. But buildings and their contents can also be damaged by heavy rain, hail, tidal surges, ground movement, and other phenomena.
There are also financial risks associated with not taking action, such as increased power prices and insurance premiums. These financial risks affect everyone in the community.
Meanwhile, people who are directly affected by property loss can also suffer resettlement costs and loss of income.
What should you do?
Listening to the authorities is important, but you should take responsibility for your own household risks too. One way to do it is to take out <a href="https://understandinsurance.com.au/" target="_blank">home insurance</a>, but you need to be aware of what risks your insurance does and does not cover, and what are your responsibilities.
Another way to manage your risk is to take these things into consideration when you are building, buying or renting a property. Find out how a building has been designed and constructed to manage these risks. Ask the architect, designer, builder, estate agent, landlord, body corporate or local council for documentary evidence.
The insurance sector could also play a more proactive role in promoting better building design, perhaps by offering lower premiums for buildings with stronger construction.
Consideration also needs to be given to changing the way damaged buildings are evaluated and repaired after a disaster. New Zealand has acknowledged that the <a href="https://cera.govt.nz/sites/cera.govt.nz/files/common/recovery-strategy-for-greater-christchurch.pdf" target="_blank">earthquake recovery process</a> provides an opportunity for creating a more resilient city, not just restoring what was lost.
What is needed is a more collaborative approach to withstanding risks to our buildings, our property, and even our health. The ABCB seems to be <a href="https://www.abcb.gov.au/~/media/Files/Download%20Documents/Major%20Initiatives/Draft%20ABCB%20Discussion%20Paper%20on%20Resilience%20to%20Extreme%20Weather%20Events.pdf" target="_blank">moving in this direction</a>, and it should not be expected to go it alone.
We all have a role to play in creating robust and resilient neighbourhoods that stand up to natural hazards.
Wendy Miller is senior research fellow at Queensland University of Technology.
Wendy Miller receives / has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Climate Change Adaptation Fund. She is being sponsored by ICPS Australia to present her research findings at the Australian and New Zealand Disaster and Emergency Management Conference on the Gold Coast in May.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

How building codes save homes from cyclones, and how they don’t

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
When you look out of your window in the morning, how many trees do you see? Your answer might depend on <a href="https://202020vision.com.au/media/7145/where_are_all_the_trees.pdf" target="_blank">what suburb you live in</a>.
As you go further from the city centre, the amount of tree cover in a suburb decreases, while the amount of green space, such as lawns and parks, increases.
In Melbourne, for every 10 kilometres you travel from the city centre, the tree cover drops by more than 2%. That means Melbourne’s inner suburbs might have more than 15% cover, but an outer suburb could have less than 10%.
A 5% fall in urban tree cover can lead to a 1-2C rise in air temperature, leaving these communities <a href="https://sfrc.ufl.edu/urbanforestry/Resources/PDF%20downloads/mcpherson_1993.pdf" target="_blank">more exposed to extreme heat</a>. This really matters for community health and well-being, especially for the vulnerable among us – the elderly, young children and those with existing health issues.
There’s also mounting evidence that exposure to greenery and nature <a href="https://theconversation.com/hug-a-tree-the-evidence-shows-it-really-will-make-you-feel-better-21924" target="_blank">improves community mental health and well-being</a>.
So, what is driving this suburb tree cover inequality?
<h3>No single answer</h3>
This is not about a lack of green space, nature strips or roads to plant into. These trees are simply missing from our outer suburbs.
They are missing from backyards — partly because <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-has-happened-to-the-great-aussie-backyard-4506" target="_blank">newer houses in the outer suburbs take up more space</a> — and they are missing from the streets.
The recent property boom has also brought with it a gradual <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-has-happened-to-the-great-aussie-backyard-4506" target="_blank">“thinning out” of tree cover</a> in established suburbs, as residential plots are sub-divided.
But does it matter where these trees are planted in our cities? Well, yes it does if we want the benefits that tree cover provides including cooler temperatures.
It also matters for our weekly household budget, for the lucky among us that have an air-conditioner. This in turn, affects the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132313002060" target="_blank">electricity demand of the city</a> as a whole.
Disturbingly, but perhaps not unexpectedly, suburbs with the least tree cover are the most socially disadvantaged and have the lowest levels of tertiary education.
In Melbourne, suburbs with a higher proportion of tertiary educated residents have more trees shading paved roads and walkways. This could be driven by residents with a higher level of education lobbying their local council more for trees to be planted – but not likely.
The relationships between education, household income, property values, council rates and suburb tree cover are complex and don’t necessarily indicate causality. But tree canopy inequity does exist in our cities, and we need to first identify where this inequity intersects with social and economic disadvantage.
Once we know this, our tree planting efforts can be better targeted to increase the resilience of our most vulnerable communities.
<h3>Taking steps to grow tree cover</h3>
Cities that set targets to increase their tree cover might be swimming against the tide, unless the removal of trees from private and public space during development is regulated. This can be done, and has been done overseas in several cities such as in <a href="https://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cityplanning/completeprojectslist/greenfactor/whatwhy/" target="_blank">Seattle</a>, <a href="https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/landschaftsplanung/bff/index_en.shtml" target="_blank">Berlin</a>, <a href="https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=f85552cc66061410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD" target="_blank">Toronto</a> and Singapore.
Despite the availability of more and more satellite data on tree cover, there have been no published studies of tree cover change over time in Australian cities.
Still, chasing a percentage increase in overall tree canopy cover within a city may not necessarily address the huge inequality in tree cover distribution. We need to identify which neighbourhoods within a city have the least tree canopy cover and target those as a first priority.
We also need to engage with residents of those neighbourhoods to achieve acceptance and ultimately ownership of any tree planting efforts. Assessments of tree cover and community engagement at a whole of city level won’t achieve this. We need to assess tree cover, and engage with communities, in a more targeted way.
Neighbourhoods with the fewest trees shading roads and pavements should also be targeted, because they will get the greatest cooling benefit from planting more trees.
There is huge variation in tree canopy cover within our cities. Tree cover in the suburbs of one city can range from <a href="https://202020vision.com.au/media/7145/where_are_all_the_trees.pdf" target="_blank">less than 10% cover to more than 50%</a>.
Cities across Australia are now setting ambitious targets to increase their urban tree canopy cover.
The <a href="https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/Sustainability/UrbanForest/Pages/About.aspx" target="_blank">City of Melbourne</a> aims to increase tree cover by 75% before 2040, the <a href="https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/live/trees/urban-forest/tree-policies" target="_blank">City of Sydney</a> by 50% before 2030, and the <a href="https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/environment-waste/natural-environment/plants-trees-gardens/brisbanes-trees/brisbanes-urban-forest" target="_blank">City of Brisbane</a> is targeting tree cover for bike and foot paths.
The federal government is also aiming to <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/land/20-million-trees" target="_blank">plant 20 Million Trees by 2020</a>. So, it’s clear that there is going to be a lot of tree planting in our cities over the coming years.
Addressing tree cover inequality in Australian cities is not only an issue for local governments. It’s an issue that should involve the local community itself, as well as state and national governments. As one of the world’s most urbanised nations, we need to ensure that everyone is resilient to the mental pressures of urban living and the hazards of heat waves.
Stephen Livesley is senior lecturer in urban biogeochemistry at <a href="https://www.unimelb.edu.au/" target="_blank">University of Melbourne</a>. <img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/33299/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="line-height: 1.3em;">tephen receives funding from The Australian Research Council, Melbourne Water, City of Melbourne, City of Monash, City West Water and the Nursery and Garden Industry Australia.
 Melanie Davern is research fellow and director community indicators Victoria at <a href="https://www.unimelb.edu.au/" target="_blank">University of Melbourne</a>. Melanie receives funding from Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.
Lachie Alexander, Mohamed Nizam and Kate Denver-Stevenson, students of Stephen Livesley at The University of Melbourne, also contributed to this article.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Fewer trees leave the outer suburbs out in the heat

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The Australian television satire <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/utopia/" target="_blank">Utopia</a> invited the public along for a laugh that architects and planners have been sharing for decades. We laugh at the idea of utopia to disassociate ourselves from the disasters brought on by utopian visions.
Le Corbusier’s is perhaps the most famous. He dreamt of people living in racks of council flats rather than old building stock on the ground.
The only architects who have not gotten too savvy to dream of utopias are men in their 90s who missed the change in public opinion.
<a href="https://www.thevenusproject.com/" target="_blank">Jacque Fresco</a> hopes one day that machines will build mega-structures while we humans relax. Paolo Soleri’s hyper-dense prototype, <a href="https://arcosanti.org/" target="_blank">Arcosanti</a>, remains permanently stalled with 97% of the work incomplete.
These examples are goofy-faced totems for a demon that we actually fear. Serious architectural writers bring up examples like Albert Speer’s plan for Berlin and concentration camps.
Karl Popper cemented the association between utopianism and totalitarianism. Writing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Poverty_of_Historicism" target="_blank">in 1957</a> after making a name for himself as a critic of Marxist epistemology, he said social engineering (especially of the Marxist variety) was despotic, delusional and — you guessed it – utopian. The word has had Orwellian overtones ever since.
Our urban landscapes have utopian pedigrees
That’s fair enough if we’re talking about religious or ideological utopian visions. Urban planning is different. It depends on utopian visions as touchstones. Urban planners need to be granted a unique dispensation and allowed to talk in utopian strains.
One reason was explained by architectural writers <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Concepts_of_urban_design?id=JKU2AQAAIAAJ&amp;amp;redir_esc=y" target="_blank">David Gosling and Barry Maitland</a>. While acknowledging Popper’s concerns, they argued that utopian visions in urban design are catalytic – never mind the handful of fools who treat them as prescriptions. Utopian visions bring clarity to real-world debates, they argued, “by postulating alternative hypotheses in a pure and crystalline form".
Another theorist, <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Rule_and_the_Model?id=cUlQAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;redir_esc=y" target="_blank">Françoise Choay</a>, argues the enterprise we call urbanism would not exist without utopian models. All urban theories, she says, have been indelibly stamped by past utopian models.
Surely that can’t be true of urban theories today, when architects and urban planners laugh at a show called Utopia? It is undeniably true. Current urban theories have utopian pedigrees, some now 100 years old.
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/62809/width237/m24c8x7p-1414374134.jpg" alt="">
We see the mark of Ebenezer Howard’s utopian <a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement" rel="nofollow">Wikimedia Commons</a>
Take the principle of consolidating development within walking distance of train stations: it has been indelibly stamped by Ebeneza Howard’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Howard#mediaviewer/File:Garden_City_Concept_by_Howard.jpg" target="_blank">circular diagram</a> for transit-based <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement" target="_blank">“garden cities”</a>.
Less flatteringly, our permissiveness of ongoing sprawl betrays the indelible stamp of Frank Lloyd Wright’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadacre_City#mediaviewer/File:Wright_Sketches_for_Broadacre_City.jpg" target="_blank">Broadacre City</a>. Wright thought the natural outworking of personal mobility machines (cars) was that every person should get enough land of their own to pretend they are farmers.
Most embarrassing of all are our inner-city apartments. Built over batteries of multi-storey car parking, and beside roads that look like great venues for Formula One racing, most bear the indelible stamp of the General Motors <a href="https://www.1939nyworldsfair.com/worlds_fair/wf_tour/zone-6/general_motors.htm" target="_blank">“Highways and Horizons”</a> pavilion with its Futurama exhibition at the 1939 World’s Fair in New York.
Rarely these days are utopian visions rolled out all at once. They are more typically in the background, like the rules of a game, informing piecemeal implementation.
Many of us will have had firsthand experience with one, the Broadacre game, if ever we have built a house on a large block of land. We would have asked ourselves how the car could be parked between the kitchen and road, and what travel times (never mind distances) that road could promise to roadside amenities.
Velotopia: a new vision
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/62921/area14mp/ynyj89x5-1414450200.png"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/62921/width668/ynyj89x5-1414450200.png" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://cycle-space.com" rel="nofollow">Author/Cycle Space</a>, Author provided
As two authors who choose to rely on our bikes for most of our transport, it bothers us that the rules of our game are not well understood. When we choose where to live, shop, work or send our children to school, we don’t care so much about walking distances, the frequency of public transport or congestion on roads. We want to know where the cycleways are.
Cycleways tend to follow historic rail easements and waterways. This means that as cyclists our cognitive maps of most cities are dominated by the flatlands on the wrong side of the tracks that these cycleways often pass through. Ironically, it is often these very flatlands that, in time, become the new sites for <a href="https://observer.com/2014/06/that-zaha-moment-new-york-finally-gets-the-avant-garde-buildings-it-deserves/" target="_blank">“starchitect” development</a>.
We want to offer a new utopian dream. It is not borne of signature buildings but rather built on a bicycle-oriented lifestyle and informed by a utopian dream we call Velotopia.
In its crystalline form, Velotopia uses pedal power for virtually everything, even <a href="https://www.trisled.com.au/maxi-taxi.asp" target="_blank">taxis</a> and <a href="https://federation.cyclelogistics.eu/" target="_blank">freight</a> — a trend in European town centres already. In this utopia, cyclists cover 10-kilometre trips in 30 minutes of safe and social bliss. There to meet them at both ends are secure and convenient bike-parking facilities inside most buildings; our bikes are as welcome as wheelchairs or prams.
We’re not asking that the rules of our game obliterate those of car lovers, walkers or <a href="https://www.tarasgrescoe.com/straphanger/about" target="_blank">straphangers</a>. We’re simply following the conventions of our disciplines to imagine that our cities could accommodate an extra utopian dream, one that creates a safe cycling space. Put like that, it is a remarkably simple and profoundly utilitarian ask.
Our work is to bring Velotopia into plain view, as a catalytic vision. Some of our ideas for bike-access building types and ground planes designed to prioritise cycling will be on display in the Queensland Museum in Brisbane from November 28, 2014, to June 2015, as part of the National Museum of Australia’s Freewheeling exhibition. In late November we will meet policymakers in Brisbane to explore the principles of Velotopia as a catalyst for bicycle-orientated development.
As Velotopia becomes visible, we envisage a safer and more enjoyable cycling space, which can take its place among other utopias that influence the structure and spaces of our cities.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/33358/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Steven Fleming is senior lecturer, School of Architecture &amp; Design at University of Tasmania. Steven is a member of the Reference &amp; Experts Panel of the Australian Cyclists Party.
Angelina Russo is professor of cultural practice at University of Canberra. Angelina has received funding from the Australia Research Council. She is an invited member of the Reference &amp; Expert Panel of the newly formed Australian Cyclist Party.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/utopia-seriously-good-urban-planning-should-aspire-to-it-33358">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Utopia: seriously, good urban planning should aspire to it

<html><body>
Guest observation
Owning a car can be a hassle, especially if you live somewhere where driving is an occasional, rather than daily, necessity. This might help to explain why car-sharing schemes are going from strength to strength in cities around the world.
Car-sharing has the potential to reduce private car use and ownership, and over the past two decades has been adopted by more than a million users worldwide. Car-sharing schemes now operate in some <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15568318.2012.660103#.VBD9qvmSySo">1,100 cities in 26 countries</a>.
In <a href="https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/live/residents/car-sharing">Sydney</a>, one in ten households is predicted to be a member of a car-sharing organisation by 2016.
What is car-sharing?
In Australia, car-sharing is most frequently a for-profit service that provides members with access to a fleet of vehicles, typically on an hourly basis. Services like <a href="https://www.goget.com.au">Go Get</a> in Sydney and <a href="https://www.flexicar.com.au">Flexicar</a> in Melbourne allow members to book online or by smartphone app. They then unlock their reserved car using an electronic keycard, jump in, and drive off.
Members are billed at the end of the month for time and/or kilometres travelled. Cars are located in central business areas, neighbourhoods and major employment centres, as well as at public transport stations.
This “quick lease” model is the most common, allowing users to do some bulky shopping, run errands requiring a short trip, or go for an out-of-town daytrip, without needing to own their own car. Car-sharing can also be “peer-to-peer”, where an individual car owner makes their car available for others to rent for a short period of time, or one-way, where cars can be picked up and dropped off at different locations, freeing the user from the return journey.
What makes it work?
While we know that more and more people are getting into car-sharing, we don’t know a lot about its ascendance to popularity. To shed some light on its success, we have been investigating the factors that make it work – and we have found three broad reasons:
Technology
Car-sharing could never overturn the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/176">dominance of private cars</a> without the help of technology. Streamlined booking systems, accurate billing, good car security, reliable location mapping: all are crucial to car-sharing’s rise as a viable business model.
Automation also makes car-sharing easy, flexible and reliable, and makes it feel more like driving a private vehicle and less like a car rental.
Existing transport infrastructure
Car-sharing taps into the powerful system that already supports private car use, such as roads, petrol stations, and parking lots. Once you’re behind the wheel, a share-scheme car feels basically the same as driving a private one.
Yet car-sharing also allows users to rely on other transport options, such as public transport, walking or cycling, for their day-to-day mobility. Shared cars then “fill the gaps” left by fixed routes and timetables, and provide extra load-carrying capacity when needed.
Of course, this only makes sense in places where living without a car is a viable option. As a result, car-sharing is overwhelmingly concentrated in inner cities with high density and good networks for public and active transport.
This article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Parking
Ironically enough, car-sharing’s success may come down to the humble parking space. The same inner-urban places where car sharing has flourished are also characterised by parking congestion. On-street parking in these places is at a premium, mainly because of high density but also because road space is more likely to be reserved for bus and bike lanes.
Yet this situation actually makes car-sharing more attractive, because parking spaces are specifically reserved for car-share vehicles.
Essentially, car-sharing is successful because it uses new technologies to tap into and tweak existing transport systems, both private and public. It conveniently borrows roads, petrol stations and parking spaces from private cars, yet at the same time relies on an alternative transport network that is robust enough to support a life lived without a private car.
Thriving despite a lack of support
Car-sharing is thriving in Australia even in the relative absence of support from transport policy. Car-share schemes don’t feature in New South Wales' <a href="https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/content/nsw-long-term-transport-master-plan">Long Term Transport Masterplan</a>, nor in Victoria’s <a href="https://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/Plan-Melbourne">Plan Melbourne</a> strategy.
Our review of car-sharing policy revealed that the area where it most regularly comes into contact with transport planning is the mundane arena of parking regulations. Local councils typically set aside a certain number of on-street spaces for shared cars. It is also increasingly popular for the design controls for new apartments to mandate provisions for car-sharing parking spaces.
It might seem odd that the success of car-sharing rests not on the cars themselves, but on where they can park. Yet parking space is already a source of tension for motorists, and this tension could be raised still further by this highly visible newcomer. It is not the only space where shared and private cars compete, yet for the private car driver on the hunt for a park, it is difficult to ignore the shared car sitting in its guaranteed, VIP parking spot.
Local government parking policies therefore provide a valuable source of support for the nascent car-sharing industry. It is inspiring that a local council will bravely defend the shared car’s right to space in the heated arena that is car parking, and in doing so make a more sustainable mode of transport possible.
Private car use will be challenged not through mass uptake of public transport or cycling, but rather through the subtle orchestration of less problematic alternatives. Car-sharing is such an alternative.
While it has quietly emerged to challenge the private car, its ongoing rise will need continuing support from local governments.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/31179/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
Robyn Dowling is a lecturer in Environmental Planning at Macquarie University. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Jennifer Kent  is a professor of Human Geography and Coordinator Higher Degree Research Development at Macquarie University. She does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/1-000-cars-and-no-garage-why-car-sharing-works-31179">original article</a>.
</body></html>

jrichardson-uRX5hFdKfN

1,000 cars and no garage – why car-sharing works 

<html><body>
In an effort to stop urban sprawl in Perth, Fremantle Council have agreed to a set of draft planning provisions at their latest council meetings. These are to encourage diverse housing across their local government area.
The changes will be focused on low-density zoned properties, that is R30 and below, to allow property owners in more established areas to build grouped dwellings. At present, home owners are unable to do so.
New dwellings would have maximum floor sizes of 120 square metres, with a maximum one car bay for each new dwelling.
No visitor parking would be included for developments of less than five properties.
Requirements for a minimum 60% open space and a minimum 15% deep planting zone for large trees were noted.
</body></html>

Fremantle Council agrees to draft plans allowing smaller grouped dwellings

<html><body>
Developers need to challenge resistance to their planning proposals and encourage community collaboration with projects to address the housing shortage in Australia, the head of a major land development company has said.
Planning processes had moved from being administrative, objective and evidence-based to a situation where agreements were brokered between stakeholders, Investa Land chief executive Cameron Holt told delegates at the 2014 HIA Building Better Cities Summit in Sydney last week.
“The development industry and housing industry needs to push back to objective and evidence-based research,” Holt said.
He cited ANZ and Australian Bureau of Statistics data that suggested there was a looming shortage of around 350,000 dwellings a year in Australia.
In some regions the community accepted there was a need for more housing but in other areas there was strong opposition to extra development, which led to missed opportunities to ease the supply shortage.
Holt said housing developers had a tendency to give in to stakeholder pressure and make concessions with their projects because of the need to quickly deploy capital.
“The cost of capital is burning a hole in their pockets,” he said.
Rather than a combative or deal-brokering approach, greater collaboration between developers, local councils and the community was needed to deliver better development outcomes, he said.
“We can work together and work collaboratively to address the common goal of addressing the housing shortage in Australia.”
</body></html>

zfielding-GvX3Uq9KTa

Development company chief calls for greater community collaboration to meet housing shortfall

<html><body>
Concerns about building approval lapses in the Mackay region has prompted the Queensland Housing and Public Works Minister Tim Mander to review certification requirements in high wind areas.
A compliance audit by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission inspected 112 properties and identified 11 which failed to meet acceptable framing requirements.
“Those results are unacceptable which is why we need to take a close look at the certification system as a whole,” Tim Mander said.
There are currently approximately 409 licensed building certifiers in Queensland, which represents about one third the number of certifiers registered within the states of New South Wales (1,298 certifiers) and Victoria (1,206 certifiers).
Due to the lower numbers, it has been suggested that Queensland’s certifiers are on average subjected to higher workloads than those practising within New South Wales and Victoria. The lower numbers have raised concerns about the capacity of Queensland certifiers to adequately undertake their legislative responsibilities, such as on-site inspections. 
Mander said the review would examine probity, conflicts of interest, quality and accountability for private certifiers to ensure the certification system was responsive to the needs of consumers and the industry.
“As well as looking at certification the review will examine potential improvements to the Building Act that will further cut costs and reduce delays,” he said.
The review will be led by construction-law barrister and licensed builder Andrew Wallace.
<a href="https://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/ReviewOfTheBuildingAct1975AndBuildingCertificationInQueenslandDiscussionPaper.pdf" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">A discussion paper is available</a> with comments being sought until 25 July, 2014.
About 40% of the complaints about private certifiers received by the Commission relate to building development approvals being given without the prerequisite planning approval or in ways that are inconsistent with planning scheme provisions. 
There are approximately 409 building certifiers currently licensed in Queensland. Of these, around 347 are private certifiers. Australian Bureau of Statistics data suggests there were up to 108,877 building approvals issued last year in Queensland. The majority of these approvals are believed to have been issued by private certifiers as most local governments have withdrawn from providing in-house certification services. 
Private certification has reduced the income of local governments. 
The Commission currently receives 56 complaints about private certifiers per year (40% of total complaints received) related to planning matters, mostly from local governments. The matters are usually related to a certifier allegedly misinterpreting a local government planning scheme.
The discussion papers noted a perceived flaw with the system of private certification as the potential for conflicts of interest.
"As private certifiers perform a regulatory role, they must act in the public interest.
"However private certifiers usually have ongoing commercial relationships with individual builders who engage them to provide certification services.
"A potential conflict of interest may arise where a certifier may be tempted to enforce the building standards less strictly in order to preserve that commercial relationship."
Despite the potential for some improvements, there appear to be comparatively few complaints about certifier conduct in Queensland.
Article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
While there were up to 108,877 building approvals issued last year in Queensland, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission receives on average 140 complaints per year about building certifiers. 
Of the total average complaints received, only 35% (or 49 per year) resulted in a negative decision and disciplinary action being taken against the certifier. This broadly equates to one complaint per 2,222 approvals per year.
The building legislation provides that buildings must be inspected throughout construction at the stages generally stated within the building development approval. It is usually the building certifier who decides what inspections will be required for any given project.
However, for detached houses, sheds, carports (class 1a and 10 buildings and structures) the building legislation prescribes minimum inspections to be conducted at certain stages. These mandatory, or “critical” inspections must be conducted at footing, slab, frame, and final stage. There is also a mandatory inspection for temporary fence stage inspections (swimming pools only).
Inspection guidelines assist certifiers to fulfil their legislative obligations regarding the critical inspections.
"Despite the existing inspection regime, the Commission encounters recurring building defects relating to wet area waterproofing, waterproofing of exterior decks and balconies and fire-separating wall construction. With the recurring nature of these defects, consideration may be given to increasing the number of mandatory inspections," the discussion paper noted.
The Building Act 1975 was introduced in Queensland in 1975 and prescribed, for the first time, standard building by-laws for all building work in Queensland. It commenced on 1 April, 1976.
The Building Code of Australia (now known as the National Construction Code) was introduced in the early 1990s and replaced the standard building by-laws. It introduced a nationally consistent set of minimum building standards.
In 1998, the system of private certification commenced in Queensland with the aim of improving efficiency and flexibility within the construction industry, and introducing competition into the choice of service providers. The system also reflected National Competition Policy reforms at the time.
There have been a number of reviews of the Building Act 1975 and the system of private certification since their introduction, including in 2003 and 2006. These reviews implemented a number of improvements including mandatory planning and regulatory training for certifiers, amendments to the certifier’s code of conduct, improved documentation requirements and introducing on-the-spot fines for building certifiers who failed to meet their legislative obligations.
In August 2011, the Queensland government commenced a further review of building certification and released the discussion paper Improving building certification in Queensland for public consultation. The results of the consultation and proposed improvements were being considered by government but the review process was put on hold when the Parliamentary Inquiry into the former Queensland Building Services Authority was announced. The discussion paper was subsequently referred to the inquiry for consideration.
On 2 August 2012, the Legislative Assembly directed the Transport, Housing and Local government Parliamentary Committee to inquire into and report on the operation and performance of the Queensland Building Services Authority in its regulation of the construction industry.
The Parliamentary Committee tabled its report in November 2012. The report contained 41 recommendations based on the information received throughout the public briefing, the public hearing process and written submissions.
The Queensland government provided its response to the report in May 2013 in the form of a Ten Point Action Plan released by the Minister for Housing and Public Works, the Honourable Tim Mander MP.
An implementation committee was established to oversee the implementation of all items in the Ten Point Action Plan and report back to government.
Action Item 9 of the Ten Point Action Plan committed the government to undertake a review of the role of private certifiers practising in Queensland. The item places an emphasis on probity, conflicts of interest, quality and appropriate accountability for private certifiers to ensure they adequately perform their functions. 
</body></html>

Planning

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Planning

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News