Not all apartment amenities are immediately visible.

Swimming pools, gyms, rooftop terraces and residents' lounges have long featured on buyers' wishlists, but as the way Australians live has changed, so too have the features that make apartment living more convenient.

Increasingly, buyers are placing value on the practical aspects of day-to-day life. Fast internet, EV charging, secure bike storage, flexible workspaces and parcel management are becoming just as relevant as lifestyle amenities, reflecting changing habits and expectations.

Online shopping has been one of the biggest drivers of that shift.

Australians spent a record $82.6 billion shopping online in 2025, with almost one in every four retail dollars now spent digitally, making parcel deliveries a routine part of everyday life rather than an occasional convenience.

For apartment residents, however, receiving those deliveries isn't always straightforward.

Without someone home to accept a parcel, deliveries can be redirected to a nearby Post Office, left in building foyers or common areas, or require building management to temporarily store packages. As apartment living continues to grow across Australia's cities, parcel management has become an increasingly important consideration for both residents and developers.

Australia Post's Parcel Locker network is one response to that shift.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KPZ9j5FRdsQ?si=Qztc1dNP3ZvEIUhb" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>

Rather than relying on home delivery, eligible parcels can be directed to a nominated Parcel Locker, where they're securely stored until collected. Once a parcel arrives, residents receive a notification through the AusPost app or SMS and can retrieve it using a one-time code or QR code at a time that suits them.

The network has expanded to more than 1,500 locations nationwide, with Parcel Lockers positioned at Post Offices, shopping centres, supermarkets, transport hubs and, increasingly, within or alongside residential developments.

That growing presence reflects a broader change in how apartment buildings are being planned.

Developers are increasingly considering the operational side of apartment living alongside traditional lifestyle amenities. Just as secure mailrooms, bicycle storage and EV charging have become more common inclusions, parcel management is emerging as another feature that supports everyday convenience.

It also helps preserve the arrival experience within a building. Carefully designed lobbies and communal spaces can quickly become cluttered when deliveries accumulate, while secure parcel solutions reduce the likelihood of missed deliveries or parcels being left unattended.

For buyers comparing apartments, these everyday details are becoming part of the decision-making process.

Location, floorplans and finishes remain fundamental, but the features that simplify daily life are carrying greater weight than they once did. As online shopping continues to shape consumer behaviour, secure parcel delivery is increasingly becoming another amenity worth looking for.

Joel Robinson

Parcel delivery is joining the apartment amenity checklist

Inca Property Group has lodged a State Significant Development Application (SSDA) for Dawn, a 53-apartment oceanfront development overlooking Mona Vale Beach.

The proposal, at 35-39 Darley Street East, would replace an existing 18-apartment strata building with a new owner-occupier-focused development comprising 53 two and three-bedroom apartments, including nine affordable built-to-rent residences delivered under the State's infill affordable housing scheme.

Positioned on a 2,679 sqm elevated site around 280 metres from Mona Vale Beach, the development has been designed to maximise panoramic ocean views while responding to the site's sloping topography.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/inca-property-group">Inca Property Group</a> Managing Director Josh Thompson said the State Significant pathway provided greater certainty for projects of this scale.

"This State Significant pathway gives the team real certainty to progress <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/dawn-35-39-darley-street-east-mona-vale-nsw-2103">Dawn</a> through to completion," Thompson said.

"It allows us to acquire a one-off site, design it carefully and deliver the right offering for the suburb, assessed by the NSW Government's planning department."

The project is one of the first developments in the area to be assessed under the NSW Government's Low and Mid-Rise Housing policy, with the site sitting on the edge of the policy's designated inner area.

The proposal includes three basement levels providing 124 car spaces, alongside a range of resident amenities including a swimming pool, gym, sauna, wellness facilities and private plunge pools for selected ground-floor and penthouse apartments.

<img alt="Dawn" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fc1a1daf-0ce4-4f12-9076-b1fa553c7a91" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-07-21%20at%208.42.11%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=4GZ9h.gpNkTljbxyAET8Jfhv51XUamDm" />

Thompson said Dawn had been designed specifically for owner-occupiers and downsizers, a buyer profile that has driven demand across Inca's recent Upper North Shore developments.

"The majority of buyers in our recent North Shore projects have been downsizers, and we are learning exactly what this market is looking for. Beyond the location itself, we have included resort-style amenities to deliver a genuine lifestyle offering," Thompson said.

Located within walking distance of Mona Vale Beach, the town centre, Mona Vale Golf Club and the Royal Motor Yacht Club, Dawn represents Inca's first Northern Beaches project following the sell-out of Tara on Park in Waitara and Ellis Residences, currently under construction in St Ives.

Construction will be undertaken by Inca's in-house construction arm, GOP Constructions.

Dawn is the latest major apartment proposal for Mona Vale, with the suburb emerging as one of the key beneficiaries of the NSW Government's new Low and Mid-Rise Housing policy.

New developer One Living, led by industry veteran Joseph Scuderi, recently secured a site on Mona Vale Road, on the border of Mona Vale and Pymble, where it is planning around 140 apartments.

IPM is also planning its third project in Mona Vale, significantly increasing the scale of its previous developments with an 82-apartment proposal at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/159-167-darley-street-west-mona-vale-nsw-2103">159-167 Darley Street West</a>, opposite Bayview Golf Course and less than 800 metres from Mona Vale town centre.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/one-living-enters-sydneys-new-apartment-market-with-northern-beaches-site-acquisition">One Living enters Sydney's new apartment market with Northern Beaches site acquisition</a>

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-ipm-plans-third-mona-vale-project">First look: IPM plans third Mona Vale project</a>

First look: Inca eyes Mona Vale with State Significant DA for Dawn apartments

Seasoned Victorian apartment developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/central-equity">Central Equity</a> has logged more than $400 million in sales in its luxury apartment project Palmera Residences at Northcliffe on the Gold Coast.&nbsp;

Central Equity Director Karl Kutner said the sales result reflected a combination of location, product quality and delivery certainty with the project already under construction by building powerhouse Multiplex.&nbsp;

"Surpassing $400 million in sales since launch is a significant milestone and an outstanding endorsement of <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/palmera-residences-gold-coast-18-garfield-terrace-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Palmera Residences</a>,” he said.&nbsp;

"We believe one of the key reasons for this strong result is the confidence purchasers have in knowing the project is under construction with Multiplex. Buyers are increasingly looking for certainty. They want to know that the project they commit to today will be delivered by an experienced team with a proven track record."&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365782]

Kutner said it was clear there was still high demand for luxury projects that offered certainty of delivery.&nbsp;

“We are in a market where many residential developments have faced delays due to rising construction costs, labour shortages and financing challenges,” said Kutner.&nbsp;

"But having construction underway has provided our buyers with resounding confidence backed by more than 40 years of development delivery by Central Equity combined with construction by one of Australia's most respected construction companies."&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365785]

Central Equity is one of Australia's most experienced privately-owned property developers. Over more than four decades, the company has delivered in excess of 85 residential developments including 10,000 apartments and many thousands of stand alone homes.&nbsp;

Located on Garfield Terrace at Northcliffe, between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach, Palmera Residences occupies one of the Gold Coast's most sought after beachside locations. The development has been designed to appeal to owner occupiers seeking premium residences that combine generous living spaces and resort style amenities.&nbsp;

Palmera Residences will feature an exceptional collection of resort style amenities, including two swimming pools: a generously sized family pool with safe shallow zones for relaxed recreation, and a 20 metre lap pool positioned to maximise all day sunlight.&nbsp;

Residents will also enjoy exclusive access to wellness and recreational facilities including a magnesium pool, sauna, yoga studio, expansive fitted gymnasium, resident lounge, outdoor BBQ’s&nbsp;and indoor and outdoor dining areas, together with a dedicated concierge and luxurious hotel inspired entrance foyer.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365767]

A unique feature at Palmera Residences has been designed to enhance the Gold Coast lifestyle which includes both indoor and outdoor gymnasium facilities, together with thoughtfully designed indoor and outdoor dining and entertaining areas. A corner café has also been incorporated to provide residents with a destination for their everyday needs.&nbsp;

Kutner said buyer demand had been broad based with purchasers attracted from interstate as well as throughout South East Queensland.&nbsp;

"We're seeing strong interest from owner occupiers, lifestyle buyers and people relocating to the Gold Coast. Many purchasers have been searching for a premium beachside residence where quality, design and delivery are equally important."&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365771]

Kutner said the sales milestone was an important achievement, but the focus remained firmly on delivering an exceptional development.&nbsp;

"While reaching $400 million in sales is an important milestone, our priority remains delivering a project that exceeds purchaser expectations,” he said.&nbsp;

"Palmera Residences has been designed to become one of the Gold Coast's landmark residential addresses, and we look forward to welcoming our purchasers to their new homes."&nbsp;

There are a limited number of residences remaining in selected configurations with pricing from $2,950,000 to $8,950,000. Palmera Residences is also crowned by expansive penthouses with wrap around views.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=108274]

Construction certainty and strong buyer demand drive major sales result for luxury Gold Coast development

Palmera Residences fly out the door as sales pass $400 million

National property developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/goldfields-group">Goldfields</a> has appointed BINAH as its construction partner for Quartet, its new Brisbane apartment development in the undersupplied suburb of <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/milton-qld-4064">Milton</a>.

Located just two kilometres from the Brisbane CBD and moments from key 2032 Olympic precincts, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/quartet-milton-33-manning-street-milton-qld-4064">Quartet</a> will deliver 131 one, two, three, and four-bedroom apartments priced from $1 million to $4.2 million, combining elevated design with a wellness-focused lifestyle offering.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108736 project_image_fid=368000]

Goldfields’ Chief Executive Officer, Lachlan Thompson, said the appointment of <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/builders/binah-constructions">BINAH</a> marked an important milestone for the project.&nbsp;

“Bringing BINAH on board as our construction partner will allow us to bring our vision for Quartet forward with a team that has a proven track record of delivering high-quality residential projects,” Thompson said.&nbsp;

“We’ve taken a considered approach to progressing the site because we wanted to deliver the whole package. Buyers ultimately back great developers, great projects and great builders, and with Quartet, we’ve made sure all three line up.

“People want certainty, they want to know the project will be built, that the homes will be delivered as promised, and that the developer stands behind the quality of what they create. That’s something Goldfields has built its reputation on over many years.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108736 project_image_fid=367993]

BINAH’s Managing Director, Khalil Hafza, said the company was proud to be partnering with Goldfields to deliver Quartet.&nbsp;

“Quartet is an exciting project to bring to life, particularly given the level of detail in the residences and the extensive rooftop amenity planned for the building,” Mr Hafza said.&nbsp;

“Our focus is on delivering a high-quality build that brings that design vision to life and creates homes residents will enjoy for many years.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108736 project_image_fid=367999]

The facilities at Quartet have been feared towards the roof, with a&nbsp;25 metre lap pool, spa, sauna and cold plunge, and a communal barbecue area and alfresco.

Town planning was designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/rothelowman">Rothelowman</a> and brought to life by Melbourne-based architecture firm Cera Stribley.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/cera-stribley">Cera Stribley</a> Co-Founder and Managing Principal, Dom Cerantonio, said the project responds to both its riverside setting and Brisbane’s evolving urban character.&nbsp;

“Quartet has been designed to sit comfortably within its riverside context, offering a refined take on urban living through well-planned, generously proportioned residences that will stand the test of time,” Mr Cerantonio said.&nbsp;

“An emphasis on natural light, natural textures and carefully selected finishes from timber and marble to premium appliances, creates calm, considered interiors designed for comfort and long-term liveability.”&nbsp;

Construction of Quartet will commence in July 2026, with completion anticipated in Q4 2028.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=108736]

Construction to commence on 131-residence tower designed around wellness-focused living

Goldfields appoints BINAH for Quartet apartments in Milton

The first partnership between national developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/fortis">Fortis</a> and Adelaide-based developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/otello">Otello</a> has made a strong start, with the pair securing $21 million in unconditional sales at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/one-four-four-hutt-adelaide-144-hutt-street-adelaide-sa-5000">One Four Four Hutt</a>&nbsp;on the edge of the Adelaide CBD.

Over a third of apartments have been snapped up in the boutique 44-apartment project on the corner of Hutt Stret and Wakefield Road. Local downsizers and owner-occupiers wanting to remain in Adelaide's tightly-held southeast quarter have been the most prominent purchasers.

The DKO-designed, mixed-use development is one of the few new apartment projects in the precinct, an area where new housing supply has remained limited despite continued demand from buyers wanting to stay close to the CBD, Victoria Park and Adelaide's established east-end amenities.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=151233 project_image_fid=375378]

Fortis Head of Development SA Arthur Dendrinos said the early sales reflected both the strength of the local owner-occupier market and confidence in the Hutt Street location.

"The level of early commitment reflects the confidence local buyers have in the Hutt Street precinct," Dendrinos said.

"Many purchasers are long-term east-end residents who love the area and want to stay connected to the neighbourhood. They recognise the value of a well-designed, well-located development.

"Our partnership with Otello has been central to this success, and the number of unconditional sales at this stage only strengthens our confidence in the South Australian market."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=151233 project_image_fid=375379]

Otello Director Daniel Harris said the sales result also highlighted the lack of new apartment opportunities within the Hutt Street precinct.

"One Four Four Hutt has clearly resonated with buyers, with strong early sales reflecting both the appeal of the Hutt Street corridor and the lifestyle on offer," Harris said.

"The activated ground-floor retail has also been a key drawcard, with purchasers responding to the vision of a more vibrant and connected streetscape, not just the residences themselves."

One Four Four Hutt will deliver 44 one, two and three-bedroom apartments, alongside a collection of penthouses, above a ground-floor retail offering designed to further activate the Hutt Street precinct.

Construction is scheduled to commence in the third quarter of this year, with completion anticipated in 2028.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=151233]

Fortis Head of Development SA Arthur Dendrinos said the early sales reflected both the strength of the local owner-occupier market and confidence in the Hutt Street location.

Fortis makes Adelaide debut with Otello as One Four Four Hutt records strong early sales

Public Housing

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Transforming Housing research network recently held a workshop on how the Victorian government can maximise the social benefits of its Public Housing Renewal Program. The workshop attracted more than 100 participants – local government, non-profit housing providers, public housing residents and researchers. Despite being invited, the state government was notable for its absence.
This apparent reluctance to engage with stakeholders adds to a serious concern over government secrecy about social housing projects involving private developers. There are many basic pieces of information interested members of the public might want to find out but cannot.
The number of private units versus new public units, and the size of the units, is just one example. Another example involves the government target of an increase of “at least 10%” in social housing units on former public housing land sold to developers. There has been no discussion of the rationale behind that figure.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204132/original/file-20180131-38190-1byb13k.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The development potential of sites such as the old Northcote housing estate is clear, but the public has no way of knowing if the deals are good value. Victorian government
Similarly, what prices will be charged for land currently occupied by public housing? The government forecasts Melbourne’s population will grow to 8 million by mid-century. This means any underutilised land in the inner city will become much more valuable.
By selling off public housing land in well-located inner suburbs, the government is forfeiting the future benefits of that land, including the opportunity to add to desperately needed public housing stock in these areas. How is the public supposed to evaluate the trade-offs between costs and benefits if critical information like the repair cost versus the costs of demolition and sale is kept secret?
More social housing is badly needed
What we do know is that the need for social housing is acute. The percentage of Australian families living in government and non-profit-owned housing (collectively called “social” housing) has declined from over 7% in 1991 to a little over 4.2% in 2016. This is the lowest proportion in 35 years. Victoria would require almost 70,000 more social housing homes over the next 20 years to meet the needs of lower-income households now facing severe housing stress in the private rental market.
As public housing represents such a small proportion of total housing stock, only the most vulnerable households that are least able to pay rent are eligible to live in this housing. At the same time, federal government subsidy shortfalls have created a maintenance backlog for an ageing public housing stock.
Successive reports by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office in 2010, 2012 and 2017 have identified the absence of a sound and sustainable mechanism for maintaining, let alone expanding, non-profit housing stock. A year ago, the independent state government advisory body Infrastructure Victoria recommended as one of three infrastructure priorities that the government repair existing stock and create new social housing.
Many questions about public housing renewal
In the context of low government funding and high repair bills, it is understandable that the Victorian government is seeking partners to renew estates. New South Wales is taking a similar approach with its Communities Plus program and it’s central to the US Choice Neighbourhoods program.
What is less understandable is why the state government is selling public housing land in nine central Melbourne estates to private developers in return for very low increases in social housing. The requirement of “at least” 10% of 1,110 units – the quantum being “renewed” – amounts to just 110 units.
That’s a drop in the ocean of need in exchange for selling off irreplaceable, well-located land. Moreover, there is a push towards demolishing four-bedroom homes and replacing them with one- and two-bedroom units. The result could be fewer beds for those in most need.
Our comparative research, covering Australia and overseas, shows that renewal with much higher social housing returns is possible in partnership with non-profit housing providers. 
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204138/original/file-20180131-38216-12hwmrj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
The secure private garden on the redeveloped Carlton estate. Kate Shaw
Evaluations of previous public housing renewal in Kensington, Carlton and Prahran estates also suggest the government undervalued the land and was not able to increase the amount of public housing as promised. The private developers created effectively “gated” private community features that did not benefit public housing residents.
Many submissions to a parliamentary inquiry by residents and neighbours of the nine affected estates express frustration and fear over the government’s secretive approach. One frustrated neighbour noted that he had to dig through the appendices of a traffic analysis to find out how many new market-rate units would be built near his home. As housing academics, we share residents’ frustrations at the unnecessary level of secrecy.
Concerns over the absence of a transparent cost-benefit approach to infrastructure planning are evident as well in the debates over the West Gate Tunnel and the recent re-emergence of the East-West Link in the appendix of a budget report. The current government spent A$1 billion to bury the latter project three years ago. The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office also expressed concerns about misreporting costs, benefits and risks under the previous state government.
Other countries show the way on transparency
In many American states, such as California, housing developers receiving government funds have their development cost details published before subsidies are awarded. Details include the cost of the land, numbers of subsidised and market units, and the costs of development. The evaluation of Choice Neighbourhoods is thorough and transparent.
Over the border in Canada, the funding and planning behind the large-scale Regent Park Public Housing renewal in Toronto is publicly available.
Developers and other providers interested in lucrative government contracts complain that transparency jeopardises their hard-earned trade secrets, and thus their businesses. We disagree. The transparency we see elsewhere isn’t stopping developers from doing business.
More importantly, should private firms that keep information about public benefit “commercial in confidence” be in the business of serving taxpayers at all? Shouldn’t those whose “business” is assured by the tax-levying powers of the state be able to be held publicly to account?
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90847/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Government officials assure us these deals go through complex layers of intergovernmental review to safeguard the public interest. We doubt that any amount of bureaucratic review can replace the accountability of simply revealing these deals to the public, and we suspect the public agrees with us.
Matthew Palm, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Transforming Housing Research Network, University of Melbourne.
Carolyn Whitzman, Professor of Urban Planning, University of Melbourne.
Katrina Raynor, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Transforming Housing Project, University of Melbourne.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/governments-have-no-excuse-for-keeping-public-in-the-dark-on-public-housing-deals-90847" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Governments have no excuse for keeping public in the dark on public housing deals

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
An innovative project designed to house people at risk of homelessness will soon deliver 57 transportable homes across nine sites in Melbourne’s inner west. Victorian Planning Minister Richard Wynne approved the social housing project on Ballarat Road last week. The proponent is Launch Housing, a Victoria-based community organisation that provides housing and homelessness support services.
The addition of 57 dwellings for vulnerable Melburnians is valuable in its own right, particularly given the rapid increase in the numbers of people sleeping rough in Melbourne. However, it is the potential for expanding the concept that makes the project so exciting.
I started researching this project and interviewing the key stakeholders earlier this year. Several elements embedded in the Ballarat Road project represent both innovative and scalable responses to Australia’s urgent social and affordable housing needs.
Elements of an innovative solution
Innovation rarely results in an entirely unprecedented idea, product or service. More often it recombines existing elements in novel ways to create a new solution.
In the Ballarat Road case, all the elements of the project already existed. It is the interaction between the involved partners, the design and construction techniques and the land leasing arrangements that make it so interesting.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193718/original/file-20171108-6758-puky3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The project uses vacant land on Ballarat Road that would otherwise remain unused for several years. Schored Architects
The construction
Schored Architects designed the homes to a six star green rating. The units, designed for singles or couples, will be built in a factory before being transported to the sites.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194071/original/file-20171109-13311-17xgpfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Temporary transportable units are not new. In Amsterdam, the Keetwonnen project was developed in 2005 to provide 1,000 affordable, transportable units for students.
However, prefabrication and modular design is still embryonic in Australia. It accounts for about 3-5% of all new construction and housing.
The size of the industry constrains innovation, competition and variety. It also presents challenges in terms of managing projects. As one participant I spoke to explained: 
"The pre-fab world and modular design world is very much in its infancy … to the point where the prefab – there are no standards around documentation when you purchase a pre-fab home. So what you are using is existing architectural builder’s contracts rather than using something specific …"
It has the complications of ‘How is it transported? How is it stored? Does it meet Australian Building Code standards?’ It opens up that myriad of questions which the pre-fab world hasn’t answered yet.
The partnership
The project is the product of a collaboration between a community organisation, a government transport department (VicRoads) and a philanthropic donor. The connection, born of a series of serendipitous meetings and events, pulls together different resources and skill sets.
This kind of partnership is increasingly common as social housing moves towards a multi-provider system. Instead of a focus on government funded public housing, there is a greater reliance on partnerships between government, philanthropy, the not-for-profit sector and private industry. This requires commercial know-how and networking on the part of housing providers - the capacity to be a “pivot point”. As one participant from Launch Housing explained:
"Once people have locked in and engaged with an idea, they bring their own ideas. You don’t need to know what to ask for … And then it is about being an agency that has some kind of position or authority being a kind of pivot point for these offers and allowing things to happen. We are that."
The project is also significant because it attracted substantial philanthropic support. The Harris family contributed A$4 million and continue to advise on and support the project. For them, the capacity for scaling up the project is a significant factor in supporting it.
The land leasing
This project is an interesting case study because it leases VicRoads land. It is financially viable because the land is being leased at a “peppercorn rate” – a nominal fee to meet legal requirements.
VicRoads is willing to do this because the units are transportable. This means they can be moved to a new site when the land is eventually required for road expansion.
As one of the largest landowners in the state, VicRoads owns thousands of properties and vacant land parcels that have been acquired for future road widening.
A scalable solution
The project is scalable if key elements are assembled effectively: constructed dwellings, funding mechanisms, planning permissions and land.
The capacity to bolster existing factories or create new factories to build pre-fabricated homes exists. Evidence of demand and the success of this pilot project could help support that goal.
Housing projects designed to be affordable for very low-income individuals or households are not financially viable without significant subsidy. To scale up this solution would require government funding, another tranche of philanthropic donation, or a hybrid commercial and not-for-profit structure.
This project has undergone a fraught planning process. Maribyrnong City councillors unanimously supported the plan. But many members of the local community opposed the project, which the planning minister eventually “called in” for assessment.
Ongoing implementation of projects like this one may be supported by either better community engagement or fast-tracked planning processes for underutilised government land and social housing, as highlighted in the state government strategy, Homes for Victorians.
Various government departments, religious groups, philanthropic organisations and individuals manage significant land resources. Land is held vacant in anticipation of future needs, often sitting unused for decades.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86753/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Temporary dwellings could be an interim solution to urgent housing need and can be removed when land is required for other uses. This approach goes a long way to removing the barriers to use and could challenge how we think about vacant land in Australia.
Katrina Raynor, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Transforming Housing Project, University of Melbourne
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/portable-units-and-temporary-leases-free-up-vacant-land-for-urgent-housing-needs-86753" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Portable units and temporary leases free up vacant land: Katrina Raynor

<html><body>
Evolve Housing, a not-for-profit national Community Housing Provider, has launched a real estate agency called Echo Realty.
The Echo Realty team, will be led by CEO Andrea Galloway.
She said unlike traditional real estate agents, Echo Realty will focus on creating thriving communities means and deliver high quality outcomes for the property owner, the tenant and the local community.
“Affordable housing gives low to moderate income workers the opportunity to find affordable accommodation close to where they work, without forfeiting their ability to possibly save for a house deposit or a private rental arrangement," she said.
“Through our services, we want to change the perceptions of those in the community who oppose affordable housing developments.
"After all, it could be their own children that may have to rely on it as house prices continue to soar. It’s my belief that Australians cannot afford to not support affordable housing. With the support of Government policy and everyone in the community, affordable housing can be a win-win for all stakeholders.” 
Speaking at the official launch, Member for Parramatta, Dr Geoff Lee MP, said affordable housing is a significant issue in NSW and we need to work with the community and industry to find real solutions.
"Most people agree we need to increase supply of affordable housing," he said.
"I commend CEO Andrea Galloway and Evolve Housing for leading in innovation in this area.
"This new initiative demonstrates their dedication and commitment to driving better outcomes and to helping people achieve independence.”
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Not-for-profit national housing provider launched

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/81560/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Public housing reform is again agitating the inner suburbs, just as it did four decades ago when citizen action and courageous academic research brought the tower-block model crashing down. 
Michael Jones exposed it as cost-ineffective and socially destructive, but he also discovered a dirty little secret about the Victorian Housing Commission: the system paid for itself because only the “deserving” working class were admitted.
Forty years on, the physical legacy of that heroic era of tower blocks and walk-up flats is shabby and in need of renewal. 
Whereas the Victorian housing program was designed to be self-funding from public rents, these days public housing is the only viable option for an expanding population of older residents, newly settled migrant families, sole parents, people with disabilities and those experiencing chronic physical and mental ill-health, most of whom are on pensions.
But there are new groups in need of social housing: people trapped in the gig economy, hawking their ABNs as drivers, disability carers, child-carers, removalists, tradespeople, casual office workers of all kinds, hospitality workers. They are the growing army of the precariat who may even have a couple of university degrees but who cannot find job security. 
They cannot see, even when they earn good money, a predictable path to home ownership while rents and insecurity rise all around them.
Then there are essential city workers who have a secure job but who need to live near their work. In Melbourne, city hospital nurses should not be commuting from Craigieburn and Frankston; teachers should be able to live near their school; service workers of all kinds should not be travelling for hours to do their jobs. 
All big cities have to deal with this as gentrification and property speculation squeeze the lower-income earners out of the inner city.
Class prejudice: a case study in Flemington
The immediate controversy is in the inner Melbourne suburb of Flemington. Here, the walk-up flats are to be replaced with apartment blocks of varying heights, with one to match the high rises that have to remain. 
The town plan will be denser, with street frontages for apartment buildings, nearby parking and landscaped gardens. 
The Kensington estate overlooking J.J. Holland Park has already had such a makeover. The new public and private buildings are indistinguishable from each other, with gardens cascading down the embankment.
Local residents have several objections to the Flemington proposals. The estate will be too dense and too tall for the surrounding suburb, and its redevelopment has to be funded by selling part of the land to private developers for a mix of social, affordable and shared equity housing. The public component will increase by 10%. 
The residents are supportive of public housing and want more, but more would have to be on the existing footprint, which will increase the population density that they deplore. More importantly, the inhabitants will remain sequestered.
Another objection is that the development is intended to break up the old public estate into a mixed community and that research can be foundthat engineered social mixing doesn’t “work”. 
Certainly, many inner Melbourne families go to extraordinary financial and geographic lengths to ensure their children do not go to school with children from “the flats”. 
The primary school at the edge of the Flemington estate was built for 1,000 and has fewer than 100 students, while all the surrounding schools are bursting at the seams. The same applies in the inner suburbs Carlton and Fitzroy. 
The arguments are more sophisticated — that social mixing is “gentrification by stealth” — but the result remains that public tenants must inhabit a world apart.
But research can also be found that social mixing is working all around us every day. It’s working in streets sprinkled with infill housing, small developments, mixed developments, public apartments in private developments. It already works in Flemington away from the flats and in Kensington, where the two local schools are flourishing. 
Above all there is abundant research to show that concentrating people into public housing estates breeds social exclusion and that’s bad for all of us.
A city needs social and economic diversity to function, but it doesn’t need enclaves and ghettos. And a creative, knowledge city of the future will need to remain affordable for young creatives, just as it needs a mix of people to make it work. 
All great cities are grappling with this downside of gentrification, and public and affordable social housing has to be part of the solution. 
London has teachers, police, nurses and young doctors in council housing. Yet Paris has got it horribly wrong, with its banlieues full of great architecture and human misery that can only make itself heard by burning cars and detonating bombs.
Solutions must embrace diversity
Solutions will be various. They will need imaginative and bold leadership from governments and well-regulated partnerships with the private sector to raise the funds. 
The walk-ups and sequestered public estates of Melbourne have passed their use-by date both physically and socially. 
With land prices so high, the private sector will have to step up and contribute, and its pleas that it’s uneconomic regulated away. In Canberra, public housing is sprinkled throughout the city. Other countries, such as Germany and Japan, can do it and so can we.
But to do all this we also need a new civility in our inner suburbs, a civility that endorses necessary change for the common good above private interests. And we will know that we are succeeding when all our schools represent the diversity that is modern Australia.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/janet-mccalman-447" target="_blank">Janet McCalman</a> is Professor of Population Health, University of Melbourne.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/deborah-warr-143875" rel="author">Deborah Warr</a> is Associate Professor, Honorary Principal Fellow, University of Melbourne.
Both are authors for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Class divide defies social mixing and keeps public housing stigma alive

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/79581/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Victorian government’s 2017 housing policy contains a bulk transfer of public housing to housing associations. Housing Minister Martin Foley’s explanation is that “the state is a terrible housing manager”. 
A similar rationale underlies the handing of public housing estates to private developers to build private housing, the sales of which fund some new public dwellings with the added justification of increasing social mix.
Our soon-to-be-published research examines the rollout of this program. In inner Melbourne, following redevelopment of the Kensington, Carlton and Prahran estates, nine more estates have been targeted. The tenants of buildings to be demolished will be relocated from mid-2018, according to a government briefing paper.
The federal Greens MP for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, has criticised the program as selling public land to private developers “for a bagful of cash and a smattering of new social housing”. He adds that Melbourne needs “a large-scale build of new public housing on a 1960s scale”. 
Foley’s defence of the rollout, in an odd non sequitur, is that Labor:
… can’t condemn another generation of Victorians to live in housing poverty.
A flawed idea that began with Thatcher
Public housing stock transfer and estate redevelopments in public-private mix are part of a trend that began in Thatcher’s Britain. The Blair government continued the approach, which has become neoliberal policy orthodoxy in the UK and Australia. 
This allows governments to wriggle out of providing housing for people on low incomes by transferring responsibility to non-government and private sectors. 
The thing is, housing associations are not necessarily secure or better managers, especially as they become institutions in their own right. Furthermore, privatisation of public land to fund upgrades to public housing not only fails to deliver good value for taxpayers, but is unsustainable. At some point there will be further upgrades needed and no land left to sell.
The argument that the state should not be in the business of managing or building housing is one we’re hearing more often. It’s connected to the small-government case more broadly: should the state be involved in health care, education, the media?
As the ABC and BBC demonstrate, however, state-owned enterprises can operate perfectly efficiently. And, ironically, they provide a rare source of ideological independence from both government and big business.
Why shouldn’t the state fund an ongoing program of upgrading, replacing and building public housing? Why shouldn’t it establish a regional organisational structure which is locally responsive? There is no case for assuming that, simply because the state is involved, construction and management must be inferior and people will be consigned to “housing poverty”. 
The major determinant is a matter of finance. And the state will always have better and cheaper access to finance than the non-government and private sectors. 
If finance were really as impossible a problem as governments like to make out, and if it were deemed reasonable that privatisating public land could help fund this process – and these are big ifs, which should be publicly debated – then the government should be the developer, to retain control of the profits. These should go back into public housing instead of disappearing with a private developer. 
Lessons from Carlton and Kensington
The Victorian government’s call for tenders for its Public Housing Renewal Program does indicate some learning from the experiences at Kensington and Carlton.
The sale price for the public land “will reflect the land value and must meet a minimum threshold based on a market value mechanism agreed by the Valuer General Victoria [VGV]”. This is an important concession, though VGV valuation is no guarantee of market price. 
The tender document notes that “where the return achieved by the development proceeds exceeds a benchmark, it is anticipated that there will be an agreed sharing of the excess”. The government will need to keep a close eye, though, on the costs and profits declared by the developer. 
The specification for the number of social housing dwellings on the redeveloped estates to “exceed the current number of public housing dwellings by 10%” is a definite improvement on the Kensington project. But replacing three-bedroom family dwellings with studio apartments, as is the case at Carlton, doesn’t constitute an increase in tenants. 
Even if tenant numbers do increase, 10% seems a disappointingly modest aim.
It is the social mix objective that really brings this approach unstuck, however, especially when the favoured model of private developers is to separate public and private residents by buildings, if not entire precincts. 
The minister reacts with horror to the suggestion that inner-city public land should start from the presumption of 100 percent public housing and work back from there according to the development economics. It seems a manufactured horror. Gentrified inner Melbourne is not Brixton or Baltimore – these estates are surrounded by private housing and excellent public services and community facilities where opportunities for interaction are plentiful.
Let’s dismiss the fig leaf of increasing social mix on estates in privileged inner cities. We should concentrate instead on providing as much low-income housing as we possibly can for people who desperately need somewhere decent to live.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kate-shaw-39629" target="_blank">Kate Shaw</a> is Future Fellow, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Why should the state wriggle out of providing public housing? Kate Shaw

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/64363/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In March 2014, New South Wales government minister Pru Goward announced that all of the 293 public housing dwellings in Millers Point, Dawes Point and the Rocks, as well as the 79 apartments in the Sirius Building built for public housing in the 1970s, were to be sold.
Their tenants would be moved. At first, residents felt they could fight the removal, but over time most have capitulated.
The stress and the not knowing what would happen were too difficult to bear. An ex-Millers Point resident (he had been in the same house for 36 years) explained:
"We fought it at first you know. We thought this is terrible. They can’t do this to us. Well actually we don’t own the houses. They’ve got you by the balls, so to speak, and we just faced the fact that we’re going to have to move …"
In July 2016, the Department of Family and Community Services reported that only 42 tenants were left to move.
<h2>How does the government justify the move?</h2>
The Baird government has justified its decision on two main grounds.
The first is that the money from the sale would be used to build 1,500 new social housing dwellings and thereby reduce the NSW public housing waiting list of 59,000 households.
A related argument is that maintaining the Millers Point homes – many are more than 100 years old – cost four times more than for the average public housing dwelling and was thus untenable.
These justifications may have some legitimacy if the move is assessed solely through an economic prism. However, this is a limited and questionable approach.
<h2>Reasons to respect residents and heritage</h2>
The historical, social and moral reasons for retaining at least part of Millers Point and the whole of the Sirius Building for public housing are compelling.
First, Millers Point has a rich and unique history. The Heritage Council recognised this in 1999 when it declared the area a Heritage site. The Office of Environment and Heritage concluded:
"Millers Point Conservation Area is an intact residential and maritime precinct of outstanding state and national significance …"
The 1999 assessment of significance went on to state:
"Its unity, authenticity of fabric and community, and complexity of significant activities and events make it probably the rarest and most significant historic urban place in Australia."
The removal has already severely undermined this uniqueness. It is likely that the physical fabric of the area will be constantly eroded as the new owners endeavour to evade any heritage demands.
A second reason for retaining at least some public housing in Millers Point and reserving the Sirius Building for public housing tenants is that the removal will mean that another neighbourhood in Sydney will become an enclave for wealthy households. This will further cement the spatial division of the city based on social class.
At the end of July 2016, the NSW government refused to grant heritage status to the Sirius Building despite the Heritage Council recommending this. The decision was justified on the basis that a heritage listing would reduce its value by A$70 million.
A third objection relates to the human cost of the move. The government’s insistence that all of the residents have to move out of their homes, whatever their history, age and disability, has been viewed as particularly harsh.
<h2>Who considers the human toll?</h2>
In March 2016, I interviewed a 91-year-old ex-Sirius Building resident who had been moved. He did know anybody in his new location and was totally isolated.
Mary, who has lived in the area for around 55 years, is refusing to move. She described the devastating psychological impact of the government’s intentions:
"I don’t think I’ve been the same person, emotionally you know. I’ve been a bit of a nervous wreck. I’ve been angry and can’t sleep … So you just think, “What’s life all about?”"
In November 2015, the government agreed to renovate existing stock and create 28 apartments (24 were one-bedroom, one is two-bedroom and three are three-bedroom) to accommodate Millers Point residents who were refusing to move. However, most of the residents had moved by the time of this announcement.
Most of those who remained felt the units were too small and not suitable for older, more frail residents. By August 2016, only 13 of the units had been occupied.
What the remaining residents are demanding is that they, and especially the elderly among them, be allowed to stay in Millers Point in their present homes or alternatives ones that they have identified as suitable. Their lives are totally enmeshed with the area.
<h2>State enjoys windfall, tenants lose out</h2>
At the beginning of August 2016, 94 Millers Point properties had been sold for $264 million, with a median sale price of $2.48 million per dwelling. If the trend continues, it is estimated that the sale will realise $884 million, nearly $400 million more than the government’s projection of $500 million.
Residents posed the obvious questions: why can’t some of this largesse be used to repair the public housing dwellings, which they argue have been severely neglected? And why is the building of more public housing solely dependent on the sale of public housing in Millers Point and the Sirius Building?
Surely, the building of social housing should be financed by general revenue. This question becomes more pressing in light of the NSW government having a budget surplus of $3.4 billion in 2015-16, which is forecast to grow to $3.7 billion in 2016-17.
The surplus is mainly due to the property boom in Sydney since mid-2013. Revenue from stamp duty totalling $8.9 billion in 2016-17 is predicted to rise to $9.8 billion in 2019-20.
A just city is premised on democratic decision-making, the maintenance of diversity and social mix, and the dissipating of inequality. The removal of Millers Point residents and the decision to sell off and demolish the Sirius Building has been an intensely undemocratic process. Residents’ requests for a genuine dialogue and compromise have been largely ignored.
The move will intensify the already severe spatial divide between rich and poor in Sydney. The social mix that is a feature of Millers Point will be obliterated along with its rich history – an irreversible tragedy.
Alan Morris is chair professor, University of Technology Sydney and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alan-morris-13337" target="_blank">here.</a>
</body></html>

Why moving out public housing tenants is a tragedy for Millers Point and for Sydney

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
To see Australia’s shortage of affordable housing as a failure of government is to misunderstand the politics that underpin housing.
The vast proportion of government money spent on housing directly benefits the well-off at the expense of private renters and public housing tenants.
Government policy has not, on the whole, failed. It has been a huge success insofar as protecting the opportunities for speculative investment and profit for homeowners and private landlords.
If the government was serious in wanting to end the housing crisis it would need to invest in new social housing and pursue measures that choke off, via tax reform, the opportunities for profiteering currently enjoyed by landlords and homeowners.
The pursuit of these options would be bitterly opposed – not least by many homeowners and property investors, as it would lead to a fall in house prices.
<h2>Why this misdiagnosis persists</h2>
The government’s current housing response can be viewed as a charade. Ministers have been able to convince many that the government is working hard to put in place measures to fix the problems faced by low-income households.
There are two discernible ways that the government has maintained this charade. The first is by permeating an impression that action will be forthcoming. Social Services Minister Christian Porter recently announced that he would be establishing a working group to explore ways to improve the availability of affordable housing.
Porter’s working party should come as no surprise. Over many years, governments have undertaken many reviews and enquiries.
Second is the recycling of a set of myths. Among these is that public housing is a failed policy that reinforces welfare dependency and that state and territory planners impose arbitrary rules and regulations that impede new housing development.
Public housing and planning regulation are framed as dysfunctional. We are told that affordable housing would be built quickly if the commercial sector were not impeded by bureaucratic demands.
Should we discard statements from the government that effective reforms are underway and recognise that the prospects for low-income Australians will deteriorate over the coming years? Already there are as many as 105,000 people who are without a home and 160,000 households on public housing waiting lists. The overall stock of public housing had fallen from 331,000 units in 2007-08 to 317,000 in 2013-14.
The Productivity Commission estimated that the proportion of low-income households in housing stress – that is, those that pay more than 30% of their income on housing-related costs – increased from 35% in 2007-08 to 42% in 2013-14.
In its 2012 report, the former National Housing Supply Council highlighted that between 2002 and 2012 rents increased in nominal terms by 76% for houses and 92% for flats. And the median value of a home in Australia is now A$576,100.
<h2>Sticking to the script</h2>
There are already signs in 2016 that the government intends on sticking to the usual script – one that frames the affordability crisis as stemming from a shortage of land, excessive red tape, and high labour costs within the building industry.
Acting Cities Minister Greg Hunt recently identified three critical elements that require government attention. One – land release. Two – the cost of building – and this is in particular in relation to the inner city apartments where there is an urban infill. The third is bureaucracy.
Hunt’s attribution of the causes of the housing affordability crisis are broadly in line with the pronouncements of finance, developer and real estate lobbyists. All have made similar claims and work tirelessly to safeguard the opportunities for profit-making that exist when housing is in short supply.
It is no coincidence that supply-side interventions, such as sustained investment in public housing, have been eschewed in favour of demand-based subsidies. The latter includes initiatives such as Commonwealth Rental Assistance and inputted tax subsidies that enable landlords to boost their profits, alongside first homeowner grants and the exemption of capital gains tax for owner-occupiers when they sell their home. This amounted to A$54 billion of revenue forgone in 2016.
For those who wish to reap profits from their housing investment, there are good reasons to maintain the status quo; for a shortage of supply to continue and for public housing to remain a stigmatised tenure only available for those without any recourse elsewhere.
Stressing land release as a significant cause of the affordability crisis is misleading but not surprising. This is the claim repeated by developers who wish to increase their profits. It is not uncommon for developers to delay development plans on land they have acquired on the expectation that the opportunity to secure greater profits will accrue when the land value increases at a later stage.
It is disappointing that Hunt offered such a myopic explanation of the housing affordability crisis. A more insightful analysis would attend to the failure to invest in public housing, the subsidies that distort the private rental market such as negative gearing, and the tax privileges that are extended to homeowners.
The housing problems experienced by low-income households are a symptom of entrenched inequality within Australia. Public and private tenants remain disadvantaged and have to endure problematic tenancies that are increasingly insecure. Unless this inequality is addressed, Australia’s housing problems will endure. 
Keith Jacobs is professor of sociology and ARC Future Fellow, University of Tasmania and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/keith-jacobs-5861" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Public Housing

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Public Housing

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News