<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sunland-group">Sunland Group</a> has officially lodged plans for its first Gold Coast apartment project since the departure of the Abedian family from the company three years ago, unveiling a new high-rise proposal for a prominent Broadbeach corner site on Old Burleigh Road.

The application was submitted by an entity directed by Tom Jamieson, stepson of longtime Sunland leader Soheil Abedian, and Riaz Rezvanipour, brother-in-law of Sahba Abedian, Soheil’s son.

Sunland acquired the 1,283 sqm site on the corner of Old Burleigh Road and Armrick Avenue for $9.5 million late last year and is now seeking approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/99-101-old-burleigh-road-broadbeach-qld-4218">42-storey tower with 81 apartments</a>.

<img alt="First look: Sunland Group returns to Broadbeach with new Old Burleigh Road tower plans" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fea2946d-90ee-4cfc-babe-2a8ad5db2cb6" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/pers.png?VersionId=BV0fihJw31nDIQ8ozY_h3GbS8mxDyhnm" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/contreras-earl-architecture">Contreras Earl Architecture</a>, the proposed tower at 99-101 Old Burleigh Road would deliver a predominantly larger-format apartment mix aimed at the owner-occupier market. Plans include 17 two-bedroom apartments, 55 three-bedroom apartments, and nine four-bedroom residences across 35 residential levels.

The development also incorporates three basement levels, four podium parking levels, two levels of communal recreation facilities, and rooftop plant and equipment. A total of 189 car spaces are proposed, significantly exceeding the 90 spaces required under the planning scheme.

The architecture adopts a sculpted, curvilinear form, with deep wraparound balconies and integrated landscaping intended to soften the tower’s vertical expression. The planning report states the building’s “slender footprint/form provides a complimentary yet varied built form within the local streetscape” and contributes to “a varied, yet ordered skyline.”

Contreras Earl noted in its Architectural Statement that from the early stages, the project addressed a fundamental challenge: how to accommodate the required residential yield while avoiding the conventional model of a tower sitting on a rigid, fully resolved parking podium.

“The most direct response would have been to consolidate parking into a singular, flat podium and extrude a repetitive tower above,” the statement said. “While efficient, this approach would result in a consolidated built form with limited engagement with the surrounding landscape and public realm.”

Instead, the conventional podium model was “deliberately rejected”. The architects described the base of the building as “a landscaped architectural condition where structure, planting and circulation are integrated”.

“Rather than presenting a continuous built mass, the base of the building is articulated through a series of concrete planter elements that organise the podium into a fragmented system,” the statement said. “This approach reduces the perceived bulk of the lower levels while establishing a more permeable interface with the streetscape and adjacent open space.”

<img alt="Sunland" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="923fad8d-c960-4527-8fbe-975cf1ddf88d" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-25%20at%2010.32.03%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=pngwb0hYOIUpq9vDw6F2EsOiVuHF3DiX" />

&nbsp;

The site sits within the High Density Residential Zone and inside the City of Gold Coast’s unrestricted “HX” building height area, where the planning framework anticipates intensified residential development tied to the expanding light rail corridor. The planning report notes the area is undergoing “transition toward more intense development forms” given its proximity to Broadbeach, Surfers Paradise, and high-frequency public transport infrastructure.

Positioned directly opposite Broadbeach Park and within walking distance of Florida Gardens light rail station, the development would sit among a rapidly evolving stretch of Old Burleigh Road that has become one of the Gold Coast’s most active apartment development corridors.

The application joins a growing pipeline of luxury residential projects reshaping Broadbeach, including nearby developments by 5Point Projects, Polycell, and Graya.

The planning report argues the project contributes toward the Gold Coast’s long-term housing targets under the South East Queensland Regional Plan, which forecasts the need for more than 100,000 additional high-rise dwellings across the city by 2046.

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-4" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-1" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-1" dir="auto">
The Abedian family departed Sunland Group in late 2023, ending a four-decade association with the company, and subsequently established the private development firm Abedian &amp; Co. The group is currently delivering <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/greenmount-residences-cnr-hill-street-and-marine-parade-coolangatta-qld-4225">Greenmount Residences</a> at Rainbow Bay and recently launched <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/18-mary-avenue-14-18-mary-avenue-broadbeach-qld-4218">18 Mary Avenue</a> in Broadbeach.
</section>

Joel Robinson

First look: Sunland Group returns to Broadbeach new apartment market with new Old Burleigh Road tower plans

The Minns Labor Government has established the new Bays West Delivery Authority to lead the development&nbsp;of the Bays West Precinct and Blackwattle Bay Precinct.&nbsp;

The Authority is charged with creating Sydney’s newest precinct, a thriving, connected, sustainable hub with White Bay Power Station as its cultural heart. Its vision is to build on the area’s natural, cultural and industrial history to shape a vibrant new neighbourhood.

The precinct will deliver up to 8,500 well-located homes, including a minimum of 10 per cent affordable and essential worker homes. Combine new housing with public open space, opening public access to the waterfront for the first time in more than 100 years, while retaining important deep-water facilities to support Sydney’s working harbour.

Located just minutes from the Sydney CBD and connected to a world-class metro, ferry, walking and cycling links, the Bays West precinct will rebalance housing growth towards well-serviced inner-city locations and help tackle the state’s housing crisis.

The Bays West Delivery Authority,&nbsp;an agency of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, will report to the NSW Minister for Lands and Property who already has oversight of major precinct renewal projects including at Blackwattle Bay and Barangaroo.

As part of the broader Bays West transformation, the Minns Government recently announced that a proposal from Lendlease to redevelop part of the Bays West Precinct has progressed to Stage 2 of the NSW Government’s unsolicited proposals process.

<img alt="Sydney" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2ed71eb9-d8e8-4fa7-b9d1-de4531dcf2f3" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-25%20at%209.42.31%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=IDryFIbped9SNDg72LEN_EecvhUsOPvp" />

The Minns Labor Government has also confirmed the Bays West precinct will have a new suburb name. This will be the first major suburb built in close proximity to Sydney’s CBD in decades and will encompass the area currently being referred to as Bays West, including Glebe Island and the White Bay Power Station. Served by a new Metro station just five minutes from the CBD, it will become one of the most populous suburbs in the Inner West and one of Sydney’s premier cultural destinations.

An early works program is taking shape, which&nbsp;includes the first stages of an international design competition.&nbsp;

The aim of the Bays West&nbsp;International&nbsp;Design Competition is to&nbsp;ensure design excellence is embedded in the project from the start. The competition will deliver an&nbsp;urban framework that defines the character, ambition and long-term identity of&nbsp;this&nbsp;former industrial precinct as it transitions to a vibrant, inclusive and sustainable residential&nbsp;neighbourhood.

The competition will be led by the Bays West Delivery Authority in partnership with Government Architect NSW.&nbsp;

It will launch with an invitation for a global Expressions of Interest, before moving to an invitation-only stage that will be assessed by a panel that&nbsp;will provide advice to Cabinet who will select a winner.

Premier of NSW, Chris Minns said the establishment of the new Authority is the first step in transforming the Bays West precinct into a vibrant, livable suburb minutes from the Sydney CBD and two stops from Hunter St Station on the Metro West line.

“The Authority will deliver well-located homes close to the heart of the city and integrate the new precinct with Blackwattle Bay and the new Sydney Fish Market.

“This is a generational opportunity to build a new suburb on the city’s edge and open the harbour foreshore to the public for the first time in a century.”&nbsp;

Minister for Lands and Property Steve Kamper said the new Bays West Delivery Authority established by the Minns Government will turbocharge the development of Sydney’s newest suburb.

“The Authority is working at a record pace to deliver an international design competition, planning pathways and a financial model so that this development benefits Sydney with well-designed homes in a central location, close to public transport, jobs, entertainment and essential services.

“If we want Sydney to stay liveable and affordable, we need to be bold about using underutilised government-owned land to deliver homes for the future while making sure essential working harbour functions can be accommodated.”

Bays West Delivery Authority established to "turbocharge" Sydney’s newest suburb

Around 400 additional homes could be built at Southwark Grounds on Port Road, lifting total site capacity from 1300 to around 1700 dwellings.

A recently approved code amendment would allow apartment towers of up to 14 storeys in some areas of Renewal SA’s redevelopment of the former West End Brewery.

Renewal SA Acting Chief Executive Shane Wingard said he welcomed the code amendment, with the increase in heights and homes making a positive impact on the supply of high-quality, well-connected housing close to the city.

“By going higher across some parts of Southwark Grounds, we are adding a substantial number of very well-located homes with little impact on project delivery time or planned open space,” Mr Wingard said.

Since the project officially launched in 2025, Mr Wingard said more than 12,000 enquiries had been received about living at Southwark Grounds.

“The very strong early interest we’ve seen since homes were first released in the precinct reinforces our plans to create more housing opportunities,” he said.

The Southwark Grounds code amendment was launched in December last year, with community engagement undertaken over five weeks from January.

It proposed increasing maximum building heights from eight to 14 storeys on the eastern section of Southwark Grounds, and to 12 storeys across the remainder of the site, with minimum building heights ranging from two to four storeys.

The code amendment was implemented through an Early Commencement policy in late January, allowing developers to quickly explore the viability of increased height and housing yield while other planning processes continue.

One of the first developers delivering apartment sites have already finalised redesigns to increase the number of apartments following the code amendment.

Samaras’ development adjacent to the future Colonel Light Park is now planning to deliver 125 apartments across 11 storeys, significantly greater than original plans of around 50 apartments across four storeys.

The developer is also exploring the potential for additional affordable housing outcomes.

Most of the apartments at Southwark Grounds will be delivered within a master-planned precinct on a large parcel of land on the eastern portion of the site, covering around two-thirds of its 8.4 hectares.

Wingard said detailed precinct planning over the coming months may identify further opportunities to increase yield further that could see total apartment numbers at Southwark Grounds, exceed this number.

Affordable homes at Southwark Grounds will also see a net increase, with Renewal SA maintaining its commitment to a minimum of 20 per cent affordable housing across the development.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Civil works have begun across the site, with construction under way on the first new roads surrounding a townhouse precinct in the south‑west corner of Southwark Grounds. This includes Renewal SA’s 17 Founder’s Row homes, which are on track for completion by Christmas.

“We expect to have people living at Southwark Grounds by the end of the year, so delivering roads and public spaces for those residents is among our highest priorities.”

Construction of 40 townhouses off Anderson Street, known as West Village and being delivered by Contour, is forecast to begin in mid‑2026. Kolabb’s Anderson Lane development will follow shortly after, delivering a further 26 townhouses.

Southwark Grounds is a state government‑led urban renewal project now set to deliver around 1,700 homes over the next decade.

Homes will be supported by a supermarket, a range of retail and hospitality offerings anchored by a revitalised Walkerville Brew Tower, a childcare centre, car parking and well‑connected public spaces.

400 new homes planned for Adelaide's former West End Brewery site

Brisbane developer&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/cavcorp">Cavcorp</a> has lodged plans for a new mixed-use residential development at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/55-wyandra-street-teneriffe-qld-4005">55 Wyandra Street</a>, Teneriffe, anchored by an 85-metre public laneway designed to reconnect the suburb’s riverfront with the Gasworks precinct.

The buildings, known as Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane, would replace the existing Queensland Cotton head office site with a 15-storey residential tower transitioning to eight storeys toward Helen Street. The project has been designed by Plazibat Architects and lodged as a code assessable development application for 93 apartments across a 3,401 sqm mixed-use site within the Newstead and Teneriffe Waterfront neighbourhood plan.

Central to the scheme is the transformation of an existing service easement into a publicly accessible cross-block connection linking Wyandra and Helen Streets. Cavcorp says the new laneway will act as both a pedestrian shortcut and a landscaped civic space between the Teneriffe Riverwalk, ferry terminal, and Gasworks precinct.

<img alt="First Look: Cavcorp unveils Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane plans for landmark wellness tower in Teneriffe" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="26e7f058-b065-4de8-b13d-a2b8cb64dfcc" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/bldg.png?VersionId=sELS0ZKYi361oYipUa1BIKfe_.DLZoFV" />

“The revised proposal delivers a legacy public-realm cross-block link, permanently secured for community use, transforming an existing private easement into a safe, high-quality pedestrian connection between the Teneriffe heritage riverwalk and the Gasworks–Long Island precinct,” the planning report states.

The laneway will sit beneath a large subtropical loggia integrated into the podium levels of the development. The design incorporates deep landscaping, water gardens, lobby spaces, business lounges, and ground-floor apartments to create what Cavcorp describes as a climate-responsive “urban verandah.”

The tower itself has been designed as a slender form with recessed floorplates and curved translucent corners inspired by contemporary Japanese architecture. The building height aligns with the Commercial Road precinct controls, which permit towers up to 15 storeys within proximity to Longland Street.

<img alt="First Look: Cavcorp unveils Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane plans for landmark wellness tower in Teneriffe" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a8a17d40-43b6-4718-b3fd-67676fcbb485" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/pers%202_1.png?VersionId=i3VwDtp5AmL_8InW7w4qRbDFEpb744Jt" />

The project will comprise a mix of larger-format apartments aimed at owner-occupiers, downsizers, and families. The proposed apartment mix includes 11 loggia apartments across the lower levels, 50 four-bedroom Sky-Terrace apartments from levels three to seven, and 32 Sky-Pool Homes occupying the upper tower levels. The Sky-Pool Homes will feature private thermal plunge pools integrated into oversized balconies.

According to the application, the apartments are intended to reinterpret the scale and character of Teneriffe’s woolstore conversions and Queensland homes within a vertical residential format.

“The sky-pool homes build on Cavcorp’s previous projects and introduce a distinct apartment typology to Teneriffe, informed by both local and international precedent and responding to an identified market demand for enhanced safety, space and amenity,” the planning submission notes.

A major focus of the proposal is its five-level wellness and lifestyle offering, extending from the basement through to the rooftop.

Amenities proposed include a rooftop Swim &amp; Racquet Club with a 25-metre Olympic lap pool and tennis court, coworking spaces and libraries, golf simulators, wine storage, concierge facilities, business lounges, pet wash areas, and rooftop longevity-focused wellness spaces with spas, outdoor fitness zones, and landscaped terraces.

<img alt="First Look: Cavcorp unveils Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane plans for landmark wellness tower in Teneriffe" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="944b352c-49b9-4247-a4c6-5967b4b69fda" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/amenity.png?VersionId=Ed_qKjAtMwFT.5gfl3jiA9QwdWxSMsaX" />

All parking will be concealed within basement levels accessed from Wyandra and Helen Streets. Cavcorp says the deep-basement engineering approach allows the entire ground plane to prioritise landscaping, pedestrian movement, and active frontage rather than vehicle infrastructure.

The development continues Cavcorp’s concentration in Newstead and Teneriffe, where the Brisbane developer has delivered a number of apartment projects including Lucent, Le Bain, and Luminare, as well as the Long Island Wellness Precinct nearby. Several of those projects have received national design and architecture awards, including recognition under Brisbane’s “Buildings that Breathe” program.

Cavcorp unveils wellness-focused Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane apartment buildings

Focus Group Investments has lodged plans for a new apartment development at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/64-70-hanover-street-fitzroy-vic-3065">64–70 Hanover Street</a> in Fitzroy, seeking to utilise the Victorian Government’s recently introduced Great Design Fast Track pathway to accelerate approvals for the project.

The proposal is among the latest developments to emerge through the state-led initiative, which was established to fast-track well-designed residential projects in activity centres and transport-connected inner-city locations. The pathway allows qualifying developments that meet elevated design and housing benchmarks to bypass traditional council planning timeframes and instead be assessed directly by the Department of Transport and Planning.

Designed by SJB, the development will comprise a mix of apartments above activated lower levels, with a strong focus on architectural articulation, landscaping, and communal amenity. The design response seeks to balance the industrial character of Richmond’s former warehouse precincts with a more contemporary residential form.

<img alt="First look: Focus Group Investments taps Victoria’s Great Design Fast Track for Richmond apartments" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="abea51cc-d85b-479e-9aef-a589f3b37ca7" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/ground.png?VersionId=e1Kf8EyPWwyiVumtqQ4rM5S4GpOR3CCz" />

Proposed are 63 new dwellings, a wide ranging mix of studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments, and townhouses and duplexes. They will be spread across a part-three, part-eight storey building.

The Planning and Urban Context Report by Tract says the development is of an "exemplary architectural standard" and has been carefully crafted by SJB Architects.

"Dwellings&nbsp;will benefit from excellent access to natural light, cross-ventilation opportunities and extensive communal space," the report noted.

The architectural material highlights the project’s integration of landscaped elements and communal spaces throughout the building. The proposal also incorporates sustainability initiatives aligned with the Victorian Government’s push for higher-performing apartment developments under the fast-track program.

The Great Design Fast Track was unveiled by the Victorian Government in 2024 as part of a broader housing supply strategy aimed at accelerating the delivery of new homes. Projects assessed through the pathway must demonstrate high-quality architecture, sustainability outcomes, and housing diversity while being located close to public transport and existing infrastructure.

<img alt="First look: Focus Group Investments taps Victoria’s Great Design Fast Track for Richmond apartments" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="afdbe834-8dc4-4a77-a943-ba07bc927348" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/site_11.png?VersionId=0J657j.TaChAZfp93wqJYBTqSsnREJx2" />

Focus Group, founder and led by Paul De Lutiis, is increasingly active across Melbourne’s inner suburbs, targeting well-connected urban renewal locations suited to medium and higher-density residential development. The Fitzroy proposal continues that strategy, leveraging the area’s strong transport links, established retail amenity, and proximity to the CBD.

Fitzroy has been one of the most popular spots for developers and buyers in recent years. The likes of PACE Development Group, SMA Projects, Crema Group and Chapter Group, currently selling projects in the suburb.

First look: Focus Group Investments taps Victoria’s Great Design Fast Track for Fitzroy apartments

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