Abadeen has released the whole-floor penthouse crowning its recently completed <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/buildings/park-residences-cremorne-2-sutherland-street-cremorne-nsw-2090">Park Residences</a> development in Cremorne, bringing the near-300 sqm residence to market for the first time.

Occupying the entire top floor of the boutique Lower North Shore development, the penthouse includes 221 sqm of internal living and a 74 sqm wraparound terrace, with a prized north-facing aspect taking in views across Middle Harbour.

The residence has been completed and fully furnished following a collaboration between Abadeen Executive Chairman Justin Brown and internationally recognised interior designer Jack Freeman, Founder and Managing Director of FREEMAN &amp; CO.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/abadeen">Abadeen</a> and Freeman approached the penthouse as a finished home, sourcing furniture, artwork, lighting and objects from Australia and overseas.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=114246 project_image_fid=378718]

Pieces from Parisian design house Pierre Augustin Rose sit alongside contemporary artworks and bespoke lighting, with Freeman drawing on recent visits to PAD Paris and Salone del Mobile Milano for the final collection.

Brown said the aim was to create a penthouse that felt more like a large-scale private home than a traditional apartment.

"The experience begins the moment the lift doors open. You're welcomed into an elegant dining room before the home opens into an extraordinary living space framed by sun-drenched harbour views.

"Every time someone walks through the front door they pause. It's not just the view, it's the incredible sense of space, the warmth created by the northern sunlight that fills the interiors, and the way every room connects so effortlessly.

"It has all the proportions of a luxury home, while delivering the effortless lifestyle and personalised experience of living in a world-class six-star hotel, combined with the simplicity and convenience of apartment living."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=114246 project_image_fid=378713]

A secure lift provides exclusive access to the penthouse level, opening to a dedicated arrival foyer and dining area before the residence expands into its main living and entertaining spaces.

Floor-to-ceiling glazing runs across the northern side of the home, connecting the interiors with the terrace and Middle Harbour outlook.

The penthouse also features a fireplace and substantial chef's kitchen, while the wraparound terrace has been designed to accommodate both everyday outdoor living and larger-scale entertaining.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=114246 project_image_fid=378720]

Freeman said the interiors had been deliberately kept restrained to complement the scale, natural light and outlook already established by the architecture.

"The penthouse is a serene study in quiet luxury," Freeman said.

"The interior pairs soft, sculptural forms with warm timber, pale stone and a restrained neutral palette. Curated artwork and metallic accents add depth, while abundant natural light creates a calm, effortlessly refined atmosphere. In my world, less is always more."

Freeman said the approach was centred around collecting individual pieces rather than simply decorating the apartment.

"Every material, every object and every piece of furniture has been curated with intention. I am a true believer in collecting versus decorating.

"The architecture already provided extraordinary natural light, remarkable volume and an uninterrupted connection to Middle Harbour. Our role was to complement those qualities with unique one-of-a-kind pieces of fine art and collectible design sourced from recent travels around the world."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=114246 project_image_fid=378694]

Among the collection are solid bronze sculptures by Lorenzo Quinn, alongside a curated crystalware collection and pieces sourced from international design fairs.

Park Residences sits opposite Cammeray Golf Club, Cammeray Croquet Club and Grand Slam Tennis Cammeray, around 300 metres from Neutral Bay Village and its established collection of restaurants, cafés and retail.

Brown said the combination of a whole-floor floorplan, northern aspect and proximity to Neutral Bay was becoming increasingly difficult to find on the Lower North Shore.

"Completed whole-floor penthouses with a sun-drenched north-facing aspect and sweeping Middle Harbour views are exceptionally rare," Brown said.

"Add a quiet position opposite golf, croquet and tennis facilities, a level walk to Neutral Bay Village and only minutes to the CBD, and you have a lifestyle that's incredibly difficult to replicate.

"This is a home that offers the privacy and generosity of a luxury residence together with the convenience of one of Sydney's best-connected harbourside locations."

The penthouse will be exclusively marketed by SRM Residential.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=114246]

Joel Robinson

Abadeen unveils penthouse at Park Residences in Cremorne

New Brisbane developer Dalcott has unveiled Marrone, the first of three residential projects it is planning in and around Browning Street in South Brisbane.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/marrone-south-brisbane-39-browning-street-south-brisbane-qld-4101">Marrone</a> will comprise 97 predominantly two- and three-bedroom apartments, with larger residences aimed squarely at the owner-occupier market.

The project will sit in a quiet pocket of South Brisbane between South Bank and West End, close to the restaurants, cultural attractions and riverfront amenity that have driven the suburb's continued transformation.

Dalcott is targeting buyers looking for more space and amenity than has traditionally been offered in the inner-city apartment market, particularly downsizers and professionals wanting to remain close to the city.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=149951 project_image_fid=377072]

Resident facilities will be concentrated around an extensive rooftop amenity offering, including a swimming pool, spa, infrared sauna, warm and cold magnesium plunge pools, private lounge, dining room and outdoor entertaining areas.

Dalcott Managing Director Lachlan Cottee said South Brisbane's combination of lifestyle, connectivity and established character had been central to the approach to Marrone.

“South Brisbane offers a combination of lifestyle, connectivity and character that’s difficult to replicate elsewhere in Brisbane,” Cottee said.

“Our focus has been on creating homes that feel connected to that environment while providing the level of design, functionality and quality that today's owner-occupiers expect.”

The residences will feature an expressive material palette. Italian Calacatta Viola marble, known for its deep burgundy veining, will be paired with aged brass tapware, Chestnut engineered timber flooring and Tuscan Oak joinery.

<img alt="Marrone" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b8d833da-3b30-496a-ae30-07bdff371b50" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-25%20at%2010.52.35%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=P6DAgOfaQzIXljKKK5j3e5NhWtrHIu9G" />

Bathrooms will feature Nara Japanese ceramics and glass bricks, while clay, walnut and brass lighting will be used throughout the apartments.

Dalcott has appointed Realm Projects, led by Managing Director Shane Foley, to handle sales and marketing following previous sold-out collaborations between the groups.

Foley said the Brisbane apartment buyer had become increasingly focused on the quality of the home itself rather than simply securing an inner-city address.

“We expect to see strong demand from buyers who still want all the advantages of inner-city living but aren’t prepared to compromise on the quality of their home,” Foley said.

“Many will be downsizers looking to leave behind the maintenance of a traditional family home without giving up the space they enjoy, while others are likely to be professionals wanting a residence that reflects the way they live today.”

“Marrone responds directly to that demand, with generous floorplans, exceptional resident amenity and a location that places some of Brisbane’s best dining, entertainment and cultural attractions within walking distance.”

<img alt="Marrone" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="61f7b22f-899e-4c0f-940a-7d3ab1bfb93a" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-25%20at%2010.52.44%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=PvN1JYxBgUpyCB7efKo52WGdSDs9nmim" />

Marrone will be the first project delivered as part of Dalcott's broader investment in the precinct.

It will be followed by La Terra, a boutique project comprising penthouse-style, single-level apartments on a northeast corner site with extensive resident amenity and city views.

Cottee said Marrone represented the first stage of the group's longer-term plans for the area.

Dalcott was established in 2025 by Lachlan Cottee and Ben Dalgliesh, combining development and construction capability under an integrated model and focusing on architecturally considered residential projects.

Marrone will initially be offered through a pre-release registration campaign ahead of its broader public launch.

Dalcott targets owner-occupiers with South Brisbane debut Marrone

Parnell Developments is the latest to seek significant uplift through the NSW Government's Housing Delivery Authority on a Strathfield site previously approved for a much smaller apartment development.

Parnell has sought approval for a 32-storey mixed use tower across&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/7-lyons-street-strathfield-nsw-2135">3-7 Lyons Street and 18 Parnell Street</a>, a&nbsp;1,857 sqm site around 400 metres from Strathfield Station. The building would yield 160 apartments, 15 per cent of which will be dedicated affordable as per the government mandate for buildings seeking additional uplift.

Approved previously was a nine-storey building back in 2022 with just over 30 apartments. That approval came prior to the project being&nbsp;progressively reconsidered as planning policy shifted toward greater density around transport hubs.

<img alt="Strathfield" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c5af5281-a643-4eb2-b8c4-0081b59c04c7" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-25%20at%209.16.48%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=37bd3mI7rHNpThOV_75VO8xsGFwWOi1u" />

Turner has designed the latest building that would replace&nbsp;existing detached homes across the four lots.

The apartment mix comprises 22 one-bedroom apartments, 107 two-bedroom and two-bedroom-plus configurations, and 31 apartments with three or more bedrooms. The scheme also includes 203 car spaces across six basement levels and 58 bicycle spaces.

The proposal has been designed around a three-storey podium addressing Lyons Street, with the tower rising above and stepping toward its upper levels.

Turner said the podium was deliberately scaled to respond to the existing street, while the taller element has been designed as part of the emerging skyline anticipated around Strathfield Town Centre and the wider Homebush transport-oriented development precinct.

The Lyons Street frontage would have a more active, pedestrian-focused character, incorporating the commercial tenancy, landscaping and a brick-framed podium with an awning.

<img alt="Strathfield" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="14b20874-b8c3-4ac7-bc03-92be9a69fb78" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-25%20at%209.17.48%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=av.9TxtqIRTC6v3PkSuu1rL9rreWoe2h" />

Parnell Street, which faces the railway corridor, has been given a different architectural treatment, with double-height breeze blocks, landscaping and communal areas used to soften the interface with the rail infrastructure.

The tower itself uses curved and recessed facade elements, with wave-like indentations across the northern elevation breaking the building into three vertical forms.

A palette of grey concrete, brick and breeze blocks is complemented by clay and terracotta accents, while the upper tower adopts a lighter expression through articulated slab edges, vertical fins and recessed glazing.

Residents would have access to 467 sqm of communal open space spread across three levels. The ground floor would accommodate the more active resident areas, including barbecue and group gathering spaces and an internal communal room capable of being used for working from home.

A more passive viewing deck is proposed at level three, overlooking the ground-level landscaping and neighbouring tennis courts, while a rooftop "sunset deck" at level 30 would provide another social and relaxation space.

<img alt="Parnell" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c3dce401-a80f-4682-8471-4caa01180880" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-08-25%20at%209.17.34%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=Xyo8JVqbOhSJXNy6Ih.1cHL.O6i0bGR." />

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Strathfield has been earmarked for substantial change through the Strathfield Town Centre planning work and the nearby Homebush TOD precinct.

Turner's report says the project has been designed to act as a transition between the existing low and mid-rise development surrounding the site and the taller built form expected to emerge across the town centre.

The proposal is being assessed as State Significant Development under the HDA pathway, alongside the concurrent request to amend the Burwood Local Environmental Plan.

First look: New apartment tower pitched for Strathfield Town Centre precinct

An $18 million penthouse has hit the market in Main Beach as construction tops out on La Mer, the $155 million apartment development rising just metres from the beach.

Spanning around 600 sqm across the top two levels of the 29-storey tower on Main Beach Parade, the four-bedroom penthouse is one of the latest eight-figure residences to test the upper end of the Gold Coast apartment market.

Its launch comes amid continued activity at the very top of the market, following the $30 million off-the-plan sale of a Burleigh Heads penthouse earlier this year, which surpassed the Gold Coast's previous $24 million apartment record set in 2023.

The <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/la-mer-main-beach-3580-main-beach-parade-main-beach-qld-4217">La Mer penthouse</a> has been designed as a private residence in the sky, with 360-degree views spanning the ocean, Broadwater, hinterland and Gold Coast skyline.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=95606 project_image_fid=378731]

All four bedrooms have ensuites, while the ocean-facing master retreat occupies around half of the upper level and includes its own lounge, private balcony, two walk-in wardrobes and an oversized ensuite with a freestanding stone bath positioned to take in the views.

The residence also features a kitchen designed to accommodate a private chef, a 3.6-metre island bench, expansive butler's pantry, wine cellar and integrated bar.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=95606 project_image_fid=378732]

A rooftop pool and substantial outdoor entertaining area with its own kitchen sit above the residence, while a grand staircase connects the two internal levels. The penthouse also has its own express lift.

OTP Group Director James Elliott, who is marketing La Mer, said the penthouse was expected to appeal to high-net-worth buyers seeking either a permanent Main Beach residence or Gold Coast holiday home.

“The La Mer penthouse represents exceptional value, considering its quality design, size, privacy and location, not to mention the 360-degree views capturing the beach and Gold Coast Broadwater,” Elliott said.

“We’re anticipating interest from high-net-worth individuals and couples seeking a residence or holiday home in the sought-after village enclave of Main Beach, taking advantage of the unprecedented growth underway in the area and neighbouring The Spit.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=95606 project_image_fid=378736]

La Mer is being developed by developer-builder ODUS and Nazero, in partnership with funder Metrics Credit Partners.

ODUS Director Byron Sakha said topping out the tower had provided the opportunity to release the project's most significant residence.

“We’ve worked with internationally-recognised studio Sici Design on the penthouse interiors, with a focus on ensuring it isn’t luxury for luxury’s sake. Every element has been thoughtfully designed to enhance quality of life for those who call it home,” Sakha said.

“The views are the hero of virtually every space, but we’ve given equal attention to the fittings and finishes, so every detail exudes elegance and refinement.”

Sici Design Founder and Director Maria Papadopoulos said the extensive views became an integral part of the interior design rather than simply something the residence was designed around.

“The views weren't something we designed around, they became part of the design itself, with the true luxury of La Mer in its feeling of peace, calm and wellbeing,” Papadopoulos said.

“Luxury isn't defined by how something looks, but how it makes you feel, and we believe a luxurious home should be beautiful to live in, not stressful to maintain.”

The interiors combine Austral Dream Dolomite natural stone and travertine with timber flooring and a restrained coastal palette.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=95606 project_image_fid=378734]

Designed by Plus Studio, La Mer is one of the more boutique additions to the rapidly changing Main Beach apartment market.

The tower comprises just 24 full-floor, three-bedroom plus multipurpose room apartments below the two-level penthouse, giving the project a considerably lower density than many of the larger towers being developed across the Gold Coast.

Residents will have access to a pool and spa, gym, sauna, barbecue facilities, private sun lounges, yoga lawn and outdoor beach shower.

The penthouse has been released as part of the final collection of residences at La Mer, with remaining apartments priced from $4.3 million.

Construction is expected to complete later this year, with a fully furnished display apartment now open on level four.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=95606]

ODUS releases $18 million penthouse crowning La Mer Main Beach

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/far-east-consortium">Far East Consortium</a> is preparing to commence construction on <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/640-bourke-street-melbourne-640-bourke-street-melbourne-vic-3000">640 Bourke Street</a> this October, marking the next milestone for the Melbourne CBD development and its higher-end Eliza Collection.

Spanning levels 44 to 68 of the 68-storey <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/rothelowman">Rothelowman</a>-designed tower, the Eliza Collection has been conceived as a lower-density offering within the broader development, with only five apartments on each floor, dedicated lift access and a collection of resident spaces reserved exclusively for Eliza Collection residents.

The Eliza Collection forms part of Far East Consortium's broader move toward larger-format residences at 640 Bourke Street, where the number of apartments was reduced from earlier plans as apartment sizes increased.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=509 project_image_fid=365685]

"What it's meant for 640 Bourke is we've actually reduced the number of apartments. We've increased the overall size of the apartments. We don't have any studios in here, and what that does for a project is it elevates it," Far East Consortium Director of Sales and Marketing Lauren Sheldon said.

Rothelowman Associate Jun Chang said the design process provided an opportunity to create more generous floorplans.

"We were given the opportunity to be more generous. The apartments became bigger and squarer than any other apartments which had been designed in the CBD before that."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=509 project_image_fid=368869]

That thinking carries through to the Eliza Collection, where the residences have been designed around the space and functionality associated with a larger home, but positioned high above the centre of Melbourne.

Kitchens are equipped with Gaggenau appliances, a butler's pantry, temperature-controlled wine cabinet and sculptural pendant lighting, while engineered timber flooring, stone and porcelain finishes and custom cabinetry feature throughout the broader interiors.

Privacy and security are another point of distinction. Eliza Collection residents have dedicated lift access, while 640 Bourke Street will provide concierge services and secure resident parking. Short-stay accommodation, including Airbnb, will not be permitted within the development.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=509 project_image_fid=365689]

Eliza Collection residents will also have exclusive access to selected amenity spaces across levels one and three of the restored Eliza Tinsley building. These include the Salon with grand piano, an art therapy room, private dining rooms and treatment rooms.

They sit within more than 3,000 sqm of amenity planned across 640 Bourke Street, alongside facilities including a pool, gym, whisky lounge and further social and wellness spaces.

The Eliza Tinsley building itself is central to the wider project's identity. Rather than treating the existing Eliza Tinsley façade as a separate element, Rothelowman used it as a starting point for the architecture of the new tower, with the historic building to accommodate the project's gallery and lobby.

"It's a significant asset and wants to be celebrated and experienced by all residents every single time they go in and out of the building," Rothelowman Principal Stuart Marsland said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=509 project_image_fid=368872]

The tower will rise behind the retained heritage building at 640 Bourke Street, placing residents within walking distance of Southern Cross Station, Flagstaff Gardens, Queen Victoria Market and the Docklands waterfront.

With construction scheduled to begin in October, Far East Consortium has established an onsite display gallery at 640 Bourke Street, including fully built apartments that allow the project's layouts, materials and finishes to be inspected at full scale.

A fully built Eliza Collection apartment is also available to view at the display suite by appointment ahead of the planned October construction commencement.

Eligible purchasers who buy before construction commences can secure the full available off-the-plan stamp duty savings, subject to eligibility and applicable conditions.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=509]

Far East Consortium brings Eliza Collection to 640 Bourke Street ahead of October construction start

Smart Cities

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63097/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
There is a strong geographic element to the transitions in the Australian economy that our prime minister so frequently refers to.
Generally, the old economy, based on manufacturing, mining and agriculture, provided employment and opportunity in regional Australia, whereas the new jobs in knowledge-intensive industries are predominantly created in the centre of our largest cities.
The federal government’s recent Smart Cities Plan states: Australia’s growth as a knowledge-based economy, and the prosperity this offers, goes hand in hand with the growth of our cities and the regions surrounding them.
But how does this growth in city-centric industries translate to regional growth? Commuting may provide the answer.
That people travelling from regional areas to work in cities may distribute both financial and population growth was first proposed by Gunnar Myrdal in 1963. This applies particularly when this commuting is associated with the relocation of households from the cities.
More recently, the CLARA proposal bases regional development on high-speed city rail access and attracting commuters to new cities between Sydney and Melbourne.
In Victoria, the flight of city dwellers to picturesque regional cities and towns has received regular media coverage over the past decade. An example is the Northcote North phenomenon: 2006 Census data indicated most of the new residents of Castlemaine had relocated from Melbourne’s inner north.
Rise of the long-distance commuter
Census data also indicate that a significant number of these metropolitan escapees work in Melbourne. In Geelong, 2011 Census data show that more than 11,000 residents of the regional city travelled to work in Melbourne. That was nearly 13 percent of the city’s resident workforce.
This growth in commuting has occurred across Australia. Wollongong Lord Mayor Gordon Bradbery said it’s no longer a steel city but “a lifestyle city” when proposing that Sydney commuters may help offset continued job losses at the local steel plant. He said more than 20,000 of the city’s residents commute to the New South Wales capital each day.
For cities like Wollongong and Geelong, commuting may provide important economic benefits as their traditional industrial strengths decline and even close.
The increase in regional-urban commuting can be seen as not just the result of the increase in well-paid employment towards the centre of our larger cities. Rising housing costs have also played a part.
In a recent interview, a new resident of Torquay said that, for similar prices, it was a choice between the beachside town and a new housing development on the outskirts of Melbourne. Other reasons for regional relocation include friends and family, rural amenity and work arrangements for other household members, but metropolitan housing costs appear to be a significant factor.
What do regions get out of this?
Regional-urban commuters’ access to well-paid employment is an important factor in spreading economic benefits. For example, about 30% of Geelong residents who earned more than $2,000 per week in 2011 worked in Melbourne.
It is also important to note that, in 2011, more than 50 percent of the Victorian regional-urban commuters had changed their place of residence in the preceding five years: people are moving to commute and bringing higher incomes and families with them. There is evidence to suggest that this additional income may lead to higher regional employment in retail and service industries.
However, research indicates that many people do not continue long-distance commuting for more than a few years. This can be attributed to the links between long-distance commuting and poor physical and mental health, family problems and reduced community engagement.
Economists suggest that when deciding to commute long distances, people are not good at evaluating the non-pecuniary costs of commuting and the higher wages associated with commuting do not fully compensate for these costs.
Regional-urban commuters are more likely to work in the growing knowledge-based industries than their regional counterparts, in the census categories information, media and telecommunications; financial and insurance services; and professional, scientific and technical services.
When commuters tire of the travel, should they continue to live regionally and seek local work, this may be more significant for regional growth than the impact of the additional income. Some of these people may start new businesses closer to home, or provide a labour pool for other businesses in the area.
A survey is under way asking regional-urban commuters about their work and considerations of change. Preliminary results indicate that the main reason people start regional-urban commuting is that their work is not available where they live. Many would work locally if they could.
The tendency for commuters to find or create local employment as they tire of the time spent in transit is central to understanding how regions can grow through interactions with larger cities.
Todd Denham is PhD candidate, School of Global, Urban &amp; Social Studies, RMIT University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/todd-denham-282116" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Commuters help regions tap into city-driven growth

<html><body>
<h4> </h4>
Marion Terrill, Grattan Institute
Every decade or two, Australia focuses on cities. Leading into the election, the government talked of smart cities, innovative cities, productive cities. But somehow there’s been no trade-off of costs and benefits – just more expensive infrastructure promised in the cities and in the regionstoo.
What’s missing is an explanation of how to support productivity in cities – to help regional people as much as city dwellers themselves. Will it be different this time?
Australia’s prosperity depends on managing cities well. Contrary to our myths about rugged outback pioneers, Australia is highly urbanised, with the biggest share of population in its two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, of any developed nation.
This is a good thing for our prosperity.
Cities have more productivity growth than towns, and bigger cities more than smaller ones.
When a city doubles in size, wages, output and innovation per capita more than double. All the benefits of human interaction play out in a more productive and dynamic economy.
But as cities grow, the negative impacts of interaction grow too. These include more pollution and more congestion per person. Governments need to make sure the positive impacts of cities outweigh the negatives.
<h2>Well-connected cities work best</h2>
Cities work best when they actually operate as cities – with all the choice of jobs and employers and goods and services that are available as long as the city is not simply a series of disconnected villages.
The trend to greater urbanisation is set to continue. Even during the mining boom, most economic activity occurred in Australian capital cities, as the chart below shows.
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/130319/width754/image-20160713-17976-s9uyng.png" alt="">
Not only are most existing jobs in the cities, so too are most new jobs. More than one-quarter of all jobs are located within five kilometres of the CBDs of the major capital cities. Around 40% are within ten kilometres.
At the same time, people who live in growing cities face real pressures. While job growth is strongest in the CBD, most housing growth occurs on the outer fringes.
This mismatch between where the people are and where the jobs are makes us all less prosperous if people decide it’s too hard to commute to work, or commute to a job that best suits their skills, and instead settle for something that they’re less suited to, or work less, or don’t work at all.
<h2>Better use of the infrastructure dollar</h2>
Governments try periodically to make cities easier to get around, generally by announcing major new transport infrastructure. The growth in the big capital cities has led many people to feel that the transport infrastructure we have is no longer up to the job, and will only struggle more over time.
So the government made plenty of transport infrastructure promises in the election campaign – A$5.4 billion worth.
Yet, of this, only $800 million was for projects that Infrastructure Australia had fully assessed as nationally significant and worth doing. One-quarter was for projects that sit nowhere on Infrastructure Australia’s list – because they’re not nationally significant, because they’re not worth doing, or because nobody has even asked Infrastructure Australia whether they justify public money.
With the federal budget under pressure, a more disciplined approach to investment is vital. The Commonwealth should defer funding for any project until Infrastructure Australia has assessed it as nationally significant and worth doing.
In other words, a large number of campaign promises to fund specific projects should be deferred. If these promises are allowed to override disciplined project assessment – as they have over the last decade – then vested local interests override the public interest.
To institutionalise this approach, the National Land Transport Act and the Federal Financial Relations Act should be amended so that the minister may commit public money only after an independent evaluation of the project and the business case (by Infrastructure Australia, for example) has been tabled in parliament.
<h2>A cost-effective alternative to building roads</h2>
Before building more roads, which will only fill up soon with more cars, there is unexplored potential to improve the use of what already exists.
The existing road network could work much harder for us. Within cities, every driver who sets out onto a congested road imposes costs on all the other drivers through his or her contribution to overall congestion.
Over and above the financial costs of buying a car and filling up with fuel, congestion represents a further cost to our time and convenience. This cost is real, and it’s larger than it needs to be. 
Governments could consider changing this from a time cost to a money cost. In other words, instead of sitting in traffic jams, people could pay to drive on freer-flowing roads. The choices we would face would be: pay to use key roads at peak hour; take our trip at another time; take a different route; or avoid the trip altogether. Some people will take one option; others will take another.
A small change in the number of cars on a stretch of road can make a big change to congestion on that road. The NRMA estimates that when traffic volume drops by 5%, speeds increase by 50%.
The federal government could encourage states to take two small preliminary steps. First, it could require states to include an in-principle application of road pricing on any new urban transport proposal seeking Commonwealth funding. Second, it could provide policy support and funding to any state willing to trial congestion pricing in its capital cities.
With these small and reversible steps, city dwellers and governments could start to find out whether the benefits of congestion charging are worth it. We may find, as the designer of the highly successful Stockholm congestion charge said:
If you do it right, people will actually embrace the change, and if you do it right, people will actually even like it.
To read more from <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-cities-work-better-heres-what-the-government-needs-to-do-61668?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%2014%202016%20-%205230&amp;utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%2014%202016%20-%205230+CID_c1ac821b0ce0ec6179282c4295468077&amp;utm_source=campaign_monitor&amp;utm_term=How%20to%20make%20cities%20work%20better%20%20heres%20what%20the%20government%20needs%20to%20do" target="_blank">The Conversation, click here.</a>
 
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

How to make cities work better

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Value capture secures some of the benefits delivered by public investment to offset the costs of provision. The notion has been around in various forms for a while, but recently gained steam. Prime Minister’s Malcolm Turnbull’s Smart Cities Plan touts value capture as a way to better distribute “the costs and benefits in publicly funded infrastructure to facilitate a project that may not otherwise occur”.
But there’s a lot of confusion about what value capture actually means and how it might operate in Australia.
<h2>What is ‘value capture’?</h2>
Public investment in a new rail line or motorway can generate huge increases in surrounding land values. In part the increase derives from improved accessibility for existing residents and businesses. High windfalls also arise once land has been rezoned to capitalise on higher development opportunities generated by the new infrastructure.
Since public investments and decisions are intended to maximise community benefit, it seems unfair and inefficient that some private landowners profit immensely from the process while others gain little or may even be disadvantaged.
Value capture mechanisms seek to rectify this by clawing back at least some of the increased business revenue or land value. These funds are then allocated towards the initial costs of infrastructure provision. In the case of a planning change, land value uplift can also help ensure that affordable housing for low income groups is included in new development.
<h2>How does value capture work?</h2>
The PM’s Smart Cities Plan doesn’t offer much detail as to how a value capture model would operate in Australia. Several different approaches are used overseas, but their potential transferability is unclear.
Transit value capture is used in Hong Kong and Japan to fund railway lines and new town development. This is a project-based approach which packages investment in railway and housing development together. Commercial holdings along the railway line deliver an ongoing revenue stream as does long term investment in residential development. In Hong Kong, a significant program of public rental and subsidised home ownership has also been delivered as part of this model.
Project-based transit value depends on access to large swathes of low cost land (in Hong Kong the government retains land ownership, so the land component is essentially free). It also depends on ongoing residential and commercial investment along the new route over time, which in turn assumes buoyant economic growth. When the Japanese economy stagnated, the potential for railway operators to self-finance their projects did too.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is used widely in the US to finance new transit and urban renewal projects. The model draws on anticipated increases in business revenue or rents in areas where incremental value uplift will occur. A portion of the increase is captured via a special property tax which is then allocated to repay the debt.
Australian local governments can also introduce special purpose levies to fund specific items through property taxes or rates. The Gold Coast light rail project for instance, was partly financed via the council’s annual transport levy (now around $111). However, since the levy applies to all ratepayers, rather than confined to areas where direct value uplift occurred, this doesn’t represent value capture in the strict sense of the term.
Value capture through the planning process is another approach. Unlike development contributions, which in Australia are used to internalise the costs of servicing a particular project (like roads, carparks, or footpaths), so they aren’t borne by existing ratepayers, value capture focuses on the benefits (often called “betterment” or “planning gain”) accruing from public investment or planning decisions.
One way of capturing value created through public investment or planning is to levy the charge on the first property transaction (ie. land sale) following the change. Another is to add an additional levy to existing contributions paid by developers.
The NSW government’s foreshadowed “Special Infrastructure Contribution” for new residential development along the Parramatta Rd light rail corridor ($200 per metre of gross floor area) is a recent example.
While this amounts to around $20,000 an apartment (at most about 3% of current sales prices), industry lobby group the Urban Taskforce claim the levy will discourage development and hurt home buyers. That’s cheeky since house prices are set by the market – which in the case of a light rail corridor will rise by much more than 3%. Ultimately the Taskforce worries that value capture places “an unfair burden on particular sectors of society” by which they presumably mean landowners and developers.
<h2>What would need to happen to extend value capture models in Australia?</h2>
Besides the politics, a number of issues must be addressed if value capture is to be extended in Australia. First, calculating value uplift is complex. Often land prices rise well in anticipation of investment or a planning change, so robust framework for value capture should be in place well before such speculation might occur.
Second, value capture should not discourage development or make land acquisition more expensive. This means close attention to project viability when setting capture requirements. Third, robust mechanisms for collection through either the planning process, as an ongoing property tax, or when land is sold, are needed.
Finally, although the current conversation focuses on transport, over time there will be pressure to fund other socially beneficial infrastructure. Two obvious candidates are schools, which also improve land values, or affordable housing, which is often lost when land values rise.
However fuzzy current conversations about value capture may be, the Commonwealth’s new interest in cities and the need to support more affordable homes near public transport, is welcome. So too the recognition that public investment and policy changes in urban and regional areas generate enormous value, which can and should be shared more widely.
Nicole Gurran is professor - Urban and Regional Planning, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicole-gurran-759" target="_blank">here</a>.
Stewart Lawler is lecturer in Property and Built Environment, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stewart-lawler-262628" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

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

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The federal government’s recently released Smart Cities Plan is built on three pillars: smart investment, smart policy and smart technology. Yet, it also suggests that cities are first and foremost for people and if our cities are to continue to meet their residents’ needs, it is essential for people to engage and participate in planning and policy decisions that have an impact on their lives.
Despite this quintessential policymaking statement, the plan largely uses language that conveys a limited role for people in cities: they live, work and consume. The absence of a more thorough response is surprising considering the rich body of work calling for better human engagement in the smart city agenda.
South Korea’s early “U-city” (ubiquitous city) experiments, such as New Songdo, were engineered by the national chaebol such as Samsung and SK Telecom, and their deployment was assisted by top-down policy directives. Germaine Halegoua laments a missed opportunity to use the ubiquitous computing at the core of the U-city for community engagement and participation.
Eric Jaffe critiques Rio de Janeiro’s flawed smart city brain, the Integrated Centre of Command and Control, made by IBM. He <a href="">proposes four key lessons</a>, all of which point to the forgotten focus on people. In the same city, however, there is also hope.
<h2>People-first approach</h2>
Alessandra Orofino founded Meu Rio, Rio de Janeiro’s largest mobilisation network, which is now expanding to the rest of the world. In her TED talk, she suggests:
It’s our city. Let’s fix it.
What this simple statement entails is profound: the citizen’s right to the digital city. It is a cultural shift in thinking that people have to be at the core of any smart city agenda. And urban dwellers ought to be enabled not only to actively participate in city-making, but also to lead such initiatives.
There are more and more accounts reminding us that the city is more than just a space governed by investments, policies and technology. Martijn de Waal describes his notion of city as interface. Barbara Thornton considers the city as platform. And Ethan Zuckerman takes us back to when cities were appreciated for their function as serendipity engines that allow for the sagacious discovery of diversity.
<h2>Open and agile cities</h2>
What comes hand in hand with this renewed focus on people is a changing role of local governments away from roads, rates and rubbish, and towards enabler and facilitator, and towards cities being open and agile.
Open data is a pertinent example to illustrate this process. In the early days of Government 2.0, the focus was on identifying government-held datasets that could be made available in public repositories such as data.gov.au.
These days, the Open Data Institute Queensland, the Open &amp; Agile Smart Cities network and other entities are prompting governments to go further: to support new private-public partnerships that bridge the common triad of disconnect between technology and government, government and people, and people and technology. Nationally, a leader of such partnership models is Code for Australia.
Cat Matson is on a quest as the City of Brisbane’s chief digital officer to transform it into a truly smart, connected city. From her recent visit to Singapore, she brought back key lessons for Brisbane and other local governments:
<ul>
<li>Design a city (or a solution/system) that, when you’re no longer in government, you’ll be proud of.</li>
<li>Identify real problems, for industry, citizens or government, which could be solved with a digital solution.</li>
<li>Use design thinking to develop solutions to those problems.</li>
<li>Get as many stakeholders involved in that design-thinking process as possible.</li>
<li>Be smart about the role of government and industry in executing those solutions.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Spaces for urban and civic innovation</h2>
Cities have not only to focus on people first and be open and agile, they also have to provide space – digital and physical – for people to come together and collaborate on urban and civic innovations. The most successful examples demonstrate an appreciation for a diverse range of places that form a network or a local innovation ecosystem.
Such spaces are not limited to the typical business startup incubators. In fact, they are often skunkworks that are free, open and messy, because the process of creative imagination that leads to innovation is messy.
In London, the British government’s innovation program devoted to cities, the Future Cities Catapult, has paired up with 100 Resilient Citiesand Ordnance Survey’s Geovation Hub to create the Urban Innovation Centre.
In Vancouver, local universities and the City of Vancouver have partnered to create CityStudio Vancouver:
… an innovation hub inside City Hall where staff, university students and community members co-create, design and launch projects on the ground. The central mission of CityStudio is to innovate and experiment with the ways cities are co-created, while teaching students the skills needed to collaborate on real projects in Vancouver with City staff and community stakeholders. These projects improve our city and enrich our neighbourhoods, making the city more liveable, joyful and sustainable.
In Melbourne, Code for Australia has opened the first Civic Lab.
Considering Australia’s staggering level of urbanisation – close to 90 percent of the population – it will be paramount to think carefully about how best to invest in the future of our cities. Governments and policymakers have to recognise and enable people as active agents of change towards more habitable and sustainable cities.
Marcus Foth is professor, Urban Informatics, Queensland University of Technology and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marcus-foth-199317" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Early experiments show a smart city plan should start with people first

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In his 1972 election campaign, Gough Whitlam loudly proclaimed that in modern Australia an individual’s health, wellbeing and life chances were shaped more by where they lived than by the job they held, their religion, race or ethnicity.
It was a powerful statement that spoke to an Australian population scarred by decades of urban growth unsupported by the infrastructure needed to make places decent, worthwhile environments to raise children, live a productive life and contribute to society.
Fast-forward almost 50 years and urban issues are once again on the agenda. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s Smart Cities Plan would deliver new transport infrastructure, better urban planning, and the sort of “urban visioning” that earned Whitlam praise and damnation in equal measure.
But there is a big difference this time around. The Whitlam agenda was informed by a fundamental concern with social justice, a desire to improve the lot in life of the most deprived, and a belief in a fairer Australia.
The 2016 articulation of an urban agenda has no such commitment to social ideals. Instead, it assumes building more highways, railways and trams will produce better, more productive cities that somehow give everyone a job.
We know it doesn’t work that way. Our recent research has highlighted both the unequal nature of Australia’s cities and the processes that keep poor places poor.
<h2>Upwardly and downwardly mobile</h2>
On average, about 15 percent of Australians move house each year. Generally, when they move they shift to places that are a bit better than the places they left – that is, places with good access to employment, quality environments, and social settings.
Our research suggests, however, that this statistical average hides a very interesting two-speed process that is neglected by the Smart Cities Plan. The relatively well-off and the upwardly mobile improve the areas in which they live over an extended period. The more economically vulnerable tend to make more frequent, multiple moves – living in slightly less advantaged areas each time.
To put it in plain terms, the poor move to poor areas where they may become even more disadvantaged. Meanwhile, the middle classes move through our cities gradually climbing the housing ladder.
This process has immediate as well as intergenerational implications, gradually filtering some families into areas with fewer and fewer opportunities, poorer educational outcomes, higher transport costs and few resources to deal effectively with health conditions. In some cases, jobs can’t be found, or are simply too far away to be practical.
<h2>Housing affordability widens the gap</h2>
In the current climate of ongoing housing affordability “crisis<a href="https://theconversation.com/our-cities-will-stop-working-without-a-decent-national-housing-policy-60537">”</a> and highly localised house price differentiation, more and more Australians are forced to move through the market because of the (un)-affordability of their housing. Housing affordability should be a key question when we think about our cities.
In our new paper, we examine if housing affordability problems are concentrating some people into less advantaged areas. When we track the residential mobility of Australians, we find that housing affordability is “sorting” some people into more and less advantaged places.
Australia’s housing affordability problems are much more complex than simple supply problems. Cities are shaped by the people who live within them. Some people need affordable housing responses that are smarter than the market alone can supply.
Our work indicates that some people’s access to the good things smart cities have to offer is limited by the location of housing they can afford – be it ownership or rental.
Smart cities of the future will need to address the consequences of housing-generated social and economic inequalities in Australia.
 
Andrew Beer is dean, Research and Innovation, University of South Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-beer-111469" target="_blank">here</a>.
Emma Baker is reader in Housing, University of Adelaide and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-baker-172081" target="_blank">here</a>.
Rebecca Bentley is associate professor, Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-bentley-173502" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

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

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Australian government recently released an ambitious Smart Cities Plan, which suggests that cities should be first and foremost for people:
If our cities are to continue to meet their residents’ needs, it is essential for people to engage and participate in planning and policy decisions that have an impact on their lives.
Such statements are a good starting point – and should probably become central to Australia’s implementation efforts. A lot of knowledge has been collected over the past decade from successful and failed smart cities experiments all over the world; reflecting on them could provide useful information for the Australian government as it launches its national plan.
<h2>What is a smart city?</h2>
But, before embarking on such review, it would help to start from a definition of “smart city”.
The term has been used and abused in recent years, so much so that today it has lost meaning. It is often used to encompass disparate applications: we hear people talk and write about “smart city” when they refer to anything from citizen engagement to Zipcar, from open data to Airbnb, from smart biking to broadband.
Where to start with a definition? It is a truism to say the internet has transformed our lives over the past 20 years. Everything in the way we work, meet, mate and so on is very different today than it was just a few decades ago, thanks to a network of connectivity that now encompasses most people on the planet.
In a similar way, we are today at the beginning of a new technological revolution: the internet is entering physical space – the very space of our cities – and is becoming the Internet of Things; it is opening the door to a new world of applications that, as with the first wave of the internet, can incorporate many domains.
From a more philosophical point of view, one could refer to the great Xerox-Park computer scientist Mark Weiser, and his idea of non-intrusive – or “calm” – technology. Weiser wrote:
Ubiquitous computing names the third wave in computing, just now beginning. First were mainframes, each shared by lots of people. Now we are in the personal computing era, person and machine staring uneasily at each other across the desktop. Next comes ubiquitous computing, or the age of calm technology, when technology recedes into the background of our lives.
<h2>What should governments do?</h2>
In the above technological context, what should governments do? Over the past few years, the first wave of smart city applications followed technological excitement.
For instance, some of Korea’s early experiments such as Songdo City were engineered by the likes of Cisco, with technology deployment assisted by top-down policy directives.
In a similar way, in 2010, Rio de Janeiro launched the Integrated Centre of Command and Control, engineered by IBM. It’s a large control room for the city, which collects real-time information from cameras and myriad sensors suffused in the urban fabric.
Such approaches revealed many shortcomings, most notably the lack of civic engagement. It is as if they thought of the city simply as a “computer in open air”. These approaches led to several backlashes in the research and academic community.
A more interesting lesson can come from the US, where the focus is more on developing a rich Internet of Things innovation ecosystem. There are many initiatives fostering spaces – digital and physical – for people to come together and collaborate on urban and civic innovations.
In the US, the general idea of smart urban space has been central to the current generation of successful start-ups. One of the latest examples is Uber: a smartphone app that lets anyone call a cab or be a driver. The company’s operations are polarising – Uber has been the subject of protests and strikes around the world (mainly in Europe) – yet it was recently valued at a stratospheric US$50 billion.
Beyond Uber, the Nest learning thermostat, the apartment-sharing website Airbnb and the recently announced “home operating system” by Apple, to name a few, attest to the new frontiers of digital information when it inhabits physical space.
Similar approaches now promise to revolutionise most aspects of urban life – from commuting to energy consumption to personal health. As such, they are receiving eager support from venture capital funds.
In such a context, governments could use their funds to develop an organic innovation ecosystem geared toward smart cities, similar to the one that is growing in the US. It is more about bottom-up innovation than top-down schemas.
This must go beyond supporting traditional incubators and aim to produce and nurture the regulatory frameworks that allow innovations to thrive. Considering the legal hurdles that continuously plague applications like Uber or Airbnb, this level of support is sorely needed.
<h2>So, any active smart city role for Canberra?</h2>
That isn’t to say that governments should take a completely hands-off approach to urban development. Governments certainly have an important role to play. This includes supporting academic research and promoting applications in fields that might be less appealing to venture capital – unglamorous but nonetheless crucial domains such as municipal waste or water services.
The public sector can also promote the use of open platforms and standards in such projects, which would speed up adoption in cities worldwide.
Still, the overarching goal should always be to focus on citizens. They are in the best position to determine how to transform their cities and to make decisions that will have – as the Australian Smart Cities Plan puts it – “an impact on their lives”.
Carlo Ratti is director of MIT Senseable City Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carlo-ratti-260160" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Smart cities: while governments talks, it's citizens who create them

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Property Council heralded the federal government’s proposal to introduce UK-style City Deals as part of a new Smart Cities Plan as:
"a real innovation in policy [that will] break down the barriers between federal, state and local government – and make all of them partners in economic growth."
Our evidence from the UK experience suggests there are pros and cons in both City Deals and Devolution Deals.
<h2>The pros and cons</h2>
These deals have emerged as the preferred methods of formulating public policy and resource allocation in UK decentralisation. This kind of explicitly “informal governance” is novel and innovative.
“Deal-making” is good at providing a channel for local authorities to talk to central government. It empowers local actors, encourages strategic thinking, promotes innovation and stimulates governance reform.
But the process is marked by problems. These include:
<ul>
<li>
uneven information and power between central and local actors;
</li>
<li>
the ambiguous role of the centre as supporter and appraiser of the plans of local actors;
</li>
<li>
capacity nationally and centrally limited by budget austerity;
</li>
<li>
lack of transparency;
</li>
<li>
highly uneven resource allocation;
</li>
<li>
slippage from announcement to implementation; and
</li>
<li>
limited evaluation of progress to date.
</li>
</ul>
As the process has matured with each new round of deal-making, common elements have emerged alongside more bespoke and particular dimensions. But participants are fatigued by the centrally orchestrated deal-making process and episodic timetable, are unclear about the criteria for assessing proposals and uncertain about where it is heading next – and to what ends.
Those negotiating the deals have experienced the paradox that central government is dominating this chapter of decentralisation.
<h2>What Australia might expect</h2>
Unpacking some of these issues may help us understand the rationale behind Australia’s interest in City Deals.
First, against a background of rising public debt, City Deals are said to represent an attempt by the federal government to introduce a new approach to investing in urban infrastructure. However, Australia’s net debt-to-GDP ratio (19 percent) remains a fraction of the UK’s, which is nearly 83 percent.
Clues as to what is expected of City Deals were evident in the press release launching the Smart Cities Plan. The government said the plan will:
"draw on the Commonwealth’s co-ordination capacity and the strength of its balance sheet at a time of historically low interest rates, to get the best infrastructure projects off the ground."
The government’s fiscal position can be used in various ways – either through direct borrowing or de-risking private investment. The City Deal approach’s logic suggests that, in return for “drawing upon” federal capacity, states and local government will be asked to agree mechanisms that ensure local areas prioritise infrastructure projects that deliver growth.
Despite the rhetoric surrounding innovative funding and financing, such concepts have proved difficult to implement in the UK. Instead, emasculated local authorities, facing continued budgetary pressures, have sought long-term (up to 30 years) grant funding from the national government.
For its part, the UK government has also found grants easier to manage than complex earn-back arrangements of the kind devised initially in the Greater Manchester City Deal.
Second, if City Deals are introduced in Australia, then individual agreements will be negotiated between three tiers of government. The experience of the newer City Deals in Scotland (Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness) and Wales (Cardiff) – involving UK government, devolved administrations and local authorities more akin to a federal-type situation – may be more instructive for Australian policymakers.
Like the UK, Australia’s national government is proposing to incentivise actions and accountabilities at the sub-national level.
The UK government has dangled the carrot of long-term grant funding to “encourage” local authorities to establish statutory governance partnerships across city regions.
City Deals in Australia may be part of a similar drive for local government reform. This reflects arguments that direct funding of local government by federal government creates efficiencies, and that new investment in local infrastructure requires effective cross-border local government collaboration.
Finally, statements that the City Deals have been instrumental in the “renaissance of Greater Manchester and Glasgow” should be treated with great caution. UK City Deals and Devolution Deals are still at an early stage. Monitoring and evaluation of their impact remains in its infancy.
Ultimately, City Deals may prove successful in Australia and the UK. But, at this initial stage, adopting the model without careful scrutiny and analysis feels more like taking a punt than backing a certainty.
Peter O'Brien is research associate, Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-obrien-97345" target="_blank">here</a>.
Andy Pike is professor of Local and Regional Development, Newcastle University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andy-pike-130682" target="_blank">here</a>.
John Tomaney is professor of Urban and Regional Planning, UCL and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-tomaney-148821" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Deal or no deal: are UK-style City Deals a good bet for Australia?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The federal government’s Smart Cities Plan is framed around the “30-minute city”. In this city, journeys will take no more than half an hour, regardless of your location.
The recently released plan has significant implications for population, transport provision and land-use intensity in neighbourhoods – the places where people live and how they get around. The realisation of its goals will require ongoing densification of Australian suburbs.
<h2>Cities with more houses, more people, more NIMBYs</h2>
The doubling of the population in some Australian cities by 2045 is likely to generate fierce opposition to housing and transport projects.
Many medium-density housing projects prompt residents to act strategically to protect their neighbourhoods, even when these projects improve housing affordability and access to jobs and services.
Resistance is also directed at major infrastructure. Fierce campaigns are being (or have been) waged against Melbourne’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-sky-rail-saga-can-big-new-transport-projects-ever-run-smoothly-54383">“</a>sky rail” project and East West Link, Sydney’s ANZAC Parade light rail and Westconnex projects, and the Perth Freight Link.
Such opposition is not only felt through the planning system. Residents also use political channels to stop projects, as with the East West Link.
<h2>How should government respond to community resistance?</h2>
Contestation over city planning should not be shut down. Rather, we need to think about citizen opposition as a constructive process for working through difference. Here are five points to consider when including people in the delivery of the 30-minute city.
Point 1: We need active governments and active citizens
Private-sector lobbyists argue government is poorly placed to deliver small- and large-scale infrastructure. But think about a city with no roads, sewers, hospitals or schools. Without government-led planning, our cities would be dysfunctional places to live.
However, governments are not benevolent institutions. Active citizenries have long scrutinised the efficacy of government decisions.
The introduction of private and non-government infrastructure providers further complicates the relationship between citizens and governments. Whose interests does urban development then serve – a local community, regional community, or developers?
Governments need to be ready to answer questions about the role of the private sector and to change their plans following community input.
Point 2: More than finding better participation tools
Urban planning systems play important roles in engaging residents. However, community consultation has been sporadic. Neighbourhood meetings and letterbox notifications often fail to ignite engagement.
Then there is the question of representation. Community consultations attract the “usual suspects”. Time-poor working-age households and young professionals find it difficult to fit engagement with planning into their busy lives. Even more rarely does planning engage with youth and children about their visions and hopes for cities.
Local and state governments are aware of the need for new ways to bring citizens into decision-making. Infrastructure Victoria’s citizen jury panels are meeting mid-2016. Social media is also being considered as a way to engage a broader public about city futures.
However, when planning departments use social media the uptake by communities is poor. Our research suggests opponents to planned projects, rather than planning departments, are more likely to use social media.
The problem with current participation tools is their failure to account for conversations, debates and protests that take place outside the formal planning process. We need ways to include these discussions.
Point 3: Moving beyond NIMBYism
Not all community campaigns are the same. The dominant narrative around community participation in urban planning centres on the pejorative idea of “the NIMBY” (not in my backyard).
The term NIMBY is frequently used to delegitimise the claims of citizens opposing planned developments. They are characterised as self-interested residents who resist the inclusion of new social groups in their neighbourhoods, or any change to the built or natural environment.
Deliberately labelling these residents as self-interested fails to recognise the positive roles they can play. Local resident campaigns can focus on city-wide or local issues. They can range from unwavering opposition to more flexible and reflexive engagement in an urban discussion.
Some community campaigns might be viewed as vital forms of urban citizenship. Others are seen as “protecting their patch” against the best interests of the broader citizenry. Both views should be part of our discussion about city planning.
Point 4: The conversation never stops
An active citizenry is involved in short-term “one-off” planning and long-term strategic planning. Too often, public participation roles are confined to one end of this spectrum. For example, the NSW government recently attempted to limit public participation to high-level strategic planning documents, reducing community input into individual developments.
Most people have little knowledge of the urban planning system. A recent study found only 24 percent of Sydney residents surveyed were aware of the Sydney metropolitan plan. Confining participation to upfront strategic consultation limits community involvement.
For most people, engagement with planning and development issues will be reactionary. People engage with the planning system when a development is proposed for their area.
However, a recent national survey revealed that 65 percent of responses believed urban residents should be involved in each stage of the strategy-making process. Most will not be involved, but options for participation should not be confined to upfront consultation.
By engaging the community in an ongoing discussion we can listen and respond to local interests without compromising the broader strategic and long-term vision for our cities.
Point 5: Metropolitan-wide but locally situated debate
There will be winners and losers in the 30-minute city. Houses will be acquired, buildings will be demolished and sections of the natural environment will make way for new infrastructure.
Over the last decade, the idea of consensus has dominated participatory approaches. However, consensus-seeking is not always the best way to work through community disagreement. In some cases, consensus can be manipulative, or useful for mobilising resident opposition.
We need to recognise that cities are home to many different people who hold diverse views and values, and who will not always agree. Rather than aiming for consensus, we should set our sights on metropolitan-wide, locally situated debate, which supports an active citizenry.
In the end, the difference between no action and implementation may be in “agreeing to disagree” through open discussion about the planning of the city.
Crystal Legacy is Australian Research Council (DECRA) Fellow and Vice Chancellor's Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/crystal-legacy-18412" target="_blank">here</a>.
Dallas Rogers is lecturer in Urban Studies, Western Sydney University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dallas-rogers-5269" target="_blank">here</a>.
Cristian Ruming associate professor in Urban Geography, Macquarie University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kristian-ruming-173545" target="_blank">here</a>.
Nicole Cook is researcher, School of Geography, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicole-cook-220909" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

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

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Significant urban policy and planning efforts have been directed at the problem of rising heat in cities.
“Smart” cities create new relationships and interdependencies between people, technology and urban environments. The concept rests on the efficient, responsive and adaptive capacities of urban infrastructure. But how well does the smart city respond to the devastating scale and impact of urban heat threats such as bushfires and heatwaves?
The Australian Medical Association has warned heat is a “silent killer”. It notes that more Australians die each year due to heat than on the roads. Heatwaves have contributed to more deaths in Australia than any other natural disaster.
Bushfires are also expected to increase, with significant impacts on Australian cities and urban communities such as the greater Melbourne region.
This is a pressing issue for Australian cities and urban regions, at a time when Australian climatologists are warning of the increasing frequency, severity and duration of heatwaves and bushfires.
Smart urban infrastructure
New digital technology is entering cities, homes and workplaces. These are performing complex tasks. Self-driving cars and cashless payment systems are examples of significant change. But they also increase a city’s vulnerability in the event of a system breakdown or failure.
The ways that these dependencies make cities highly vulnerable during a crisis are poorly understood. For example, smartphone-enabled bushfire and heatwave warning systems are one of the key policy responses proposed and trialled as part of the smart city. But, the benefits and challenges of such responses are still largely unknown.
While the invisibility of smart city technology and infrastructure may rise to the surface and become exposed in the face of urban heat-related threats and crises, an array of important considerations lurk in the shadows.
These include financial arrangements, decision-making processes and discussions about security that are often imbued with statutory power, force and intent that work to inform and structure the experience of everyday urban life.
System resilience or collapse?
Smart systems are far from resilient. Outside their design range they are prone to sudden collapse. Any failure in energy or IT systems can lead to cascading crisis in the capacity for smart city responses to heat threats and disasters.
In a heatwave, as demand increases for cooling mechanisms such as air conditioning and refrigeration, an overloaded system may break down.
The rapid expansion of mobile and computer warning and alert systems could keep people more aware of risks. But, it also creates dependencies and a reliance on external agents for tasks we currently manage. The relationship between emergency communication processes and protocols is a key area whereby vertical, authorised and often-slow communications must interact with horizontal, real-time, networked and participatory processes.
The royal commission into Victoria’s Black Saturday bushfires recommended that more efficient and effective use of technology was needed in key areas such as fire risk assessment, tracking and monitoring – particularly when different, incompatible systems were in use.
The commission highlighted widespread problems with communication technology, use and access due to system incompatibility, poor coverage, radio black spots and channel congestion. Under-investment in new technology was exacerbated when fire damaged or destroyed critical radio and telecommunications infrastructure.
An urgent cities agenda
Urban heat threats and disasters have an impact on the critical infrastructure that undergird the smart city response to such disasters and their associated technology, infrastructures and networked systems – namely in the areas of energy, water, ICT and transport.
The impacts are felt predominantly by those most vulnerable in the community: children, the elderly, the poor and people with existing health conditions.
Understanding the dynamism and tension of new technologies, networks and infrastructure is critical, particularly when urban systems are threatened or break down. Despite recognition of the complexity in smart city debates, policy and industry commentary places clear demarcations between the social and the technical.
There is an urgent need to develop new understandings and ways of implementing the potentials and possibilities the smart city presents in order to better tackle urban heat threats and disasters in Australia.
 
Wendy Steele is associate professor (urban policy and planning), RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wendy-steele-4698" target="_blank">here</a>.
Ian McShane, senior research fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-mcshane-101456" target="_blank">here</a>.
John Handmer is leader, Centre for Risk and Community Safety, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-handmer-116367" target="_blank">here</a>.
Sarah Pink is professor of Social Sciences, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sarah-pink-109198" target="_blank">here</a>.
Yolande Strengers is senior research fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yolande-strengers-15350" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Smart Cities

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Smart Cities

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News