Housing: What We Want, What The Market Isn’t Providing
Indigenous Business, Corporations & Entrepreneurship Conference
November 19, 2011Employee Buyout A Viable Exit For ‘Trapped’ Businessowners
November 20, 2011Recently released research by the Grattan Institute shows that:
“We’re just not building the variety of housing that Australians want.”
Stereotype Not Accurate
A detailed survey into the housing preferences of more than 700 Melburnians and Sydneysiders found that once people take into account real-world factors such as current housing costs and their income, they choose a far wider range of housing types than the stereotype of all Australians wanting a detached home on a large block.
Shortages
In particular there are shortages of semi-detached homes and apartments in the middle and outer areas of both Sydney and Melbourne.
Probably the same in other states/territories?
Barriers
The barriers to delivering the housing people want are:
- the cost of materials and labour for buildings over four storeys
- land assembly and preparation
- the uncertainty of our planning systems
Our Future Cities
Jane-Frances Kelly, Cities Program Director of the Grattan Institute says:
“We should not be afraid to shape our cities: otherwise we risk them shaping us..
But we should shape them in accordance with what Australians say they want, not just what we think they want.”
Sustainable Cities
Given the moral need to consider sustainability and future generations’ as well as our own urban living needs, for me, the following points from a New Zealand study ‘From Urban Sprawl To Compact City – An Analysis Of Urban Growth Management In Auckland’ sum up the problems government/business/private citizens face:
- Developed world cities need to curb their sprawl to make better use of land and infrastructure resources – poor quality development will not solve current problems just shift them.
- The need for stronger local government guidance and control is obvious.
- The laissez-faire attitude to planning post WWII must stop.
- For intensification/higher density living to be successful you need a strong focus on quality urban design proposed at all levels to win the trust of residents that intensification can occur without loss of character, overcrowding and visual pollution.
- There are four main principles for guiding a change from urban sprawl to compact city:
1. Strong supportive cities
2. A high quality living environment
3. A region that is easy to get around
4. Protection of the coast and surrounding natural environment (Auckland Regional Growth Forum 1999)
Some Overseas Cities Have Managed Growth Well
Vancouver, Seattle and Portland ensured residents had a real say in decision-making and have managed growth well.
People in these cities were more than capable of accepting trade-offs, making tough choices and working with developers and governments.
Recommendations
The Grattan Report, as well as deeper engagement, recommends some major reforms:
1. Piloting neighbourhood development corporations to oversee substantial redevelopment of specific areas – they would be independent bodies with real powers over planning and delivery.
Corporations should develop diverse housing that features good urban design and high environmental standards. They should offer developers certainty but also give residents more control over how their neighbourhoods change.
A new Commonwealth-State Liveability Fund would support the development corporations by providing funding for new parks, community facilities etc in return for neighbourhoods accepting more households.
2. As the corporations would not be right for most parts of the city, high-quality smaller developments such as those built on one or two lots should be encouraged. These make up the bulk of current developments and some of the most contentious development for existing residents. A mechanism is needed to balance the interests of developers and residents.
A Small Redevelopment Housing Code that established clear standards for new housing of up to two storeys could do this. If these standards were met planning approval would be given in 15 days. The code would focus on the things that worry neighbours most:
- overlooking
- overshadowing
- the appearance of bulk
- privacy in backyards
____________________________________________
What IS Australia’s Current Urban Planning Approach?
There is a plethora of Urban Planning documents available on the net but Wikipedia’s comments on the Australian situation I suspect is accurate:
“The Australian government has begun to see community engagement in the decision making process of urban planning is of fundamental importance. Due to this engagement local governments have looked for ways to design urban infrastructure in a way that helps to encourage social cohesion. However, there is still room for developing a method that uses community involvement more effectively. Community participation has also created many barriers along the way by preventing urban planning projects from proceeding.”
____________________________________________
“We need political leadership to break the deadlock in our cities.”
2 Comments
The results has generally been poorly received by those in the planning profession who have analysed it which is a pity because the Grattan Institute often do pretty god stuff.
It has generally been seen as pandering to the politicians with recommendations supported by sketchy peocesses which are unlikely to be effective. It is what is known in the profession as a JWPN which politely put means it will appear reasonable enoug to the press and the public who won’t bother to analyse it in detail, but doesn’t propose any measurable outcomes which can be sheeted back to the reporting body.
You can see a typical professional response at:
http://melbourneurbanist.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/has-the-grattan-institute-got-the-answer-to-our-housing-woes/
Peter
Thanks for the link Peter – The Melbourne Urbanist thinks this report just “puts up the politician’s standard solution – more bureaucracy, more money, and little explanation”. It finishes up saying:
“The Institute has enormous faith in the power of consultation. However if there’s a will to improve the quality, depth and conviction of consultation, it isn’t necessary to create a new organisation. Conversely, creating an NDC won’t guarantee the quality of consultation or the will for it..It’s hard to put forward a specific solution that others won’t find fault with. Where I have most trouble with this report, though, is in the lack of analysis and evidence to support the proposed NDCs. The report reminds me of how politicians respond to issues – propose a new body, propose some dollars, check the boxes and away you go. And go light on the detail. New administrative structures might well have a role in any solution to the supply problem, but they’re the tail, not the dog. There’s not enough bite in this report.”
Thanks for the link Peter.
Peter’s suggested link – The Melbourne Urbanist – thinks this report just “puts up the politician’s standard solution – more bureaucracy, more money, and little explanation”. It finishes up saying:
“The Institute has enormous faith in the power of consultation. However if there’s a will to improve the quality, depth and conviction of consultation, it isn’t necessary to create a new organisation. Conversely, creating an NDC won’t guarantee the quality of consultation or the will for it..It’s hard to put forward a specific solution that others won’t find fault with. Where I have most trouble with this report, though, is in the lack of analysis and evidence to support the proposed NDCs. The report reminds me of how politicians respond to issues – propose a new body, propose some dollars, check the boxes and away you go. And go light on the detail. New administrative structures might well have a role in any solution to the supply problem, but they’re the tail, not the dog. There’s not enough bite in this report.”