<html><body>
The <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/spring-street-releases-long-awaited-draft-apartment-design-standards">proposed apartment standards</a> will add $62,500 to the construction cost of each apartment. The attached document below illustrates our calculations for each of the standards.

The cost of each standard is calculated by multiplying the construction rate with the increased area of each item. None of the standards are for free. They all come at a cost. The yield of each site will also decrease by 20% to 40% as a result, with the impact on potential development sites, profound.

Supply will reduce and if potential developments are to be unlocked, then the land component of each apartment will increase by $20,000 to $40,000. There are two indisputable requirements for property development: one, the land component of the development must be worth more than the existing building; and two, the development must make a profit otherwise the banks won't fund it.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image58_3.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Industry impact of the design standards"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="373" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image58_3.jpg?itok=0gRUyws-" title="Industry impact of the design standards" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Industry impact of the design standards</figcaption></figure>If a site is vacant, the land value will simply be reduced – bad for the land owners, yes, but for developers, this will have no impact. However, in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/melbourne-vic">Melbourne </a>where the majority of developable sites require the demolition of a pre-existing building, (think every high street within a 5km radius of the CBD), then it is a completely different and far less positive story for the developer.

The proposed apartment standards call for enormous building separation, the extent of which makes many sites un-developable. This means that whatever type of building currently exists on the site, it will remain – no matter how under-utilised it is. 
The overall result? Less supply.

Think of it this way, if every site yields on average, a third less apartments, then there will obviously be a third less apartments on the market and therefore a far lesser supply in established areas. The by-product of this? The population will be pushed further and further out until it reaches the urban growth boundary where prices will increase due to the extra demand.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image62_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Supply and demand fluctuations"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="598" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image62_1.jpg?itok=SeeVGpx7" title="Supply and demand fluctuations" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Supply and demand fluctuations</figcaption></figure>Of course, developers won't develop only to lose money. They will instead hold their land until such a time as demand becomes so high that the public is forced to pay the additional apartment price, at which point making the development profitable again. We saw this happen in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/sydney-nsw">Sydney</a>, where many developers put their projects on hold for some years until the prices reached $15,000 a square metre and then were developed in a frenzy.

This means that as the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments">apartment</a> industry supply slows, prices will rise. Only once the public are willing to pay that extra $100,000 per apartment, will development take off again. It’s a scary truth, but a truth nonetheless.

The government is fully aware that their apartment standards come at a significant cost, but whether they decide to communicate this to the public is an entirely different matter – what do you think they will do?

<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/price_increase_based_on_apartments_draft_standards.pdf">Click here to see our calculations.</a>

Above are images taken from Craig Yelland's/Plus Architecture's response to the Better Apartments Draft Standards as of 15th August, 2016.

This piece was written by Craig Yelland, Director of Plus Architecture – a firm with vast experience in the multi-residential sector, Craig Yelland is an advocate of apartment living and innovative design.

Lead image: Andrew Curtis Photography
</body></html>

cyelland

Calculating the cost of the new Better Apartments Draft Design guidelines

<html><body>
If all of the apartment standards being considered are brought to <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/melbourne-vic?bedrooms%5Bvalue%5D=0&amp;bedrooms%5Bvalue2%5D=5&amp;bedroom-prices%5Bvalue%5D=0&amp;bedroom-prices%5Bvalue2%5D=8">Melbourne</a>, apartments will cost approximately $115,000 to $145,000 more. Perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of this, is that the proposed increase in apartment sizes means an additional $15,000. Where then does the extra $100,000 come from and what is contributing to this spike in price?

Working with Rider Levett Bucknall, the global property and construction practice specialising in cost consultancy, project management and advisory services, I have calculated the very real cost associated with each of the proposed designed standards. Understanding that size accounts for just 10-12% of the overall cost, I think it’s time we realised size, whilst it has been the most publicised factor, doesn’t matter nor cost as much as these other standards.

In confirming that the apartment standards will be released in the same time frame as the C270 amendment, Planning Minister Richard Wynne has verified that we can expect these standards to come in to effect in September this year. The Minister has also said consultation was undertaken with industry bodies, yet no official apartment standards have been released to the public for their feedback, nor have indicative costings been disclosed.

The government seemingly refuses to tell the public what they are in for and what the true cost of these apartment standards will be. They simply plan to set into motion, planning legislation that will forever change our city and hurt housing affordability, without further notice.

You see in 2014, The Office of the Victorian Government Architect (OVGA) drafted their recommended apartment standards, which were subsequently leaked to the press that year – by whom exactly, we don’t know. What we do know is that these leaked standards are very similar to SEPP65 - the NSW apartment standards and appear to be based on this model.

And whilst it must be said that the public survey conducted by the Victorian government covered these same standards, it did so without conveying the price tag associated, thus making the results more or less redundant. After all, what is the point of asking if people want something if you don’t tell them how much it costs to have it? If you don’t communicate that these things come at an expense, you are implying they are free. It’s like asking if someone would like a nicer car, better clothes, longer holidays etc. of course they would, but ask them if they want to pay for such a privilege and many will turn it down.

To better understand the economic trade off I’m talking about here, I have created the following table (see below), which outlines the true cost of each of the standards detailed in the OVGA’s aforementioned documentation.

No one other than the Government knows what the standards being introduced in September will look like, which raises other concerns and begs the question why so much secrecy? What are they trying to hide? And why won’t they just tell us what we’re in for?

It doesn’t instill a lot of faith and quite frankly I’m not alone in my frustrations about the lack of transparency and democracy being exercised here, but those with the most to worry about are those looking to buy an affordable apartment – they stand to suffer the most. Mind you the affects don’t stop at the lower end of the market…

<ul>
<li>Luxury apartments with a view to the south will be banned.</li>
	<li>A development on the northern side of the city won't be able to face the view, meaning <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/developers/mirvac">Mirvac’s</a> <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/buildings/the-eastbourne-280-albert-street-east-melbourne">Eastbourne</a> would cease to exist.</li>
	<li>Anything on the bay won’t face the water.</li>
	<li>And apartments, like my own home, which enjoy lovely roof top views to the south west will be banned.</li>
</ul>
Seems ludicrous right? That’s because it is.

If we take a step back though and consider what prompted this government intervention, we see that this came about at a time when the industry was producing predominantly small, one and two bedroom apartments. Why were we doing that? Because that's what buyers wanted and where the market was experiencing demand.

Today, it’s a very different scenario. Today, the market wants larger more luxurious apartments and so we adjust. The majority of <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/architects/plus-architecture">Plus Architecture's</a> work today, is premium two and three bedroom residences that are designed and developed specifically for the wealthy owner-occupiers that are flooding the market.

That is not to say that we won’t go back to the smaller models, because we will – the market is cyclical and eventually there will be demand for these once again. Whilst the market has moved on for the moment and done so naturally and without government imposed bans might I add, by the time this model returns to favour many will be in for quite the rude shock because the asking price will be $490,000+ as opposed to the $390,000 entry point we now enjoy.

Thus, the introduction of such standards can be seen to severely damage affordability and somewhat unnecessarily so. Last month alone, the Planning Minister approved $2 billion worth of development in inner Melbourne – a record amount set to generate thousands of jobs, more than 2,000 apartments and more than 300 serviced apartments. He did this without design standards.

Both Minister Wynne and his department have proved they are more than capable of assessing the viability and appropriateness of projects without these mandatory measures in place, so why then are we still having this conversation?

Why then are we still willing to risk housing affordability and destroy development opportunity for something that is already happening organically?

That’s what I’m still trying to work out.

Craig Yelland is a Director of Plus Architecture – a firm with vast experience in the multi-residential sector, Craig Yelland is an advocate of apartment living and innovative design.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/image1asprice.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Plus Architecture and Rider Levett Bucknall additional cost calculations"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="1730" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image1asprice.jpg?itok=e60vJpUn" title="Plus Architecture and Rider Levett Bucknall additional cost calculations" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Plus Architecture and Rider Levett Bucknall additional cost calculations</figcaption></figure>
</body></html>

Apartment standards: $145K extra and it's not about the size

<html><body>
C270 is the amendment to the interim planning controls (C262) that landed like a bomb <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/a-city-of-melbourne-amendment-c262-case-study">last year</a>. For the most part, this amendment is a step in the right direction. However, there is one change that will have a profound impact on development viability: the Plot Ratio is now 18:1.

If you own a site and were planning on lodging for a permit based on 24:1 plot ratio, you will be hit hard. Your yield will now be based on an 18:1 plot ratio unless you can convince Council to agree to additional height by providing 10% of your yield above 18:1 for “public benefits”.

Within hours of this news breaking yesterday, we had clients withdrawing offers to buy sites. Unfortunately this change will slow down development acquisition activity considerably.

The basic effect of this bonus scheme is that sites will be worth less. This is potentially damaging if you already own a site. However, this will have no effect for developers looking to buy a site. Developers will now factor this “public benefit” in as an additional tax they have to pay; therefore the amount they will be indebted for the site will decrease.

Here is the trap: If a developer factors in a yield of over 18:1 in their purchase price they will end up paying for it twice. The project won’t stack up with this.

My advice to developers is to buy a site based on an 18:1 plot ratio. Any extra yield will cost the developer 10%. The developer will be able to afford it, provided they haven’t already included this in the land purchase,

Obviously the biggest long term losers are land owners trying to sell their sites to developers. Their sites just went down in value… considerably.

We have been anticipating that the Minister will bring in inclusionary zoning – i.e. developers paying for public housing – for some time, however, this is the first amendment that has given such a number.

Here is more detail on what we have been told yesterday, how it differs from the interim controls (C262), and how it affects development:

<h2>Plot Ratio</h2>

Whilst they have changed the wording from “Plot Ratio” to “Floor Area Ratio”, the meaning remains the same. The maximum is now 18:1 but when considering the “Public Benefits” allowance, you can effectively build to an additional height provided you allow for an additional 10% extra to either:

<ul>
<li>Public open space and laneways on site</li>
	<li>Office use</li>
	<li>Public space in the building</li>
	<li>Social housing in the building</li>
</ul>
The public benefit comes with a bracketed “(agreed with council)”, which suggests the council has to choose the benefit they want or if they want it at all. With this in mind, and at this stage you can’t bank on the additional yield above 18:1.

<h2>Setbacks</h2>

Above the podium:

<ul>
<li>5m front setback from the street</li>
	<li>Side and rear 5m, however, you can now build on a boundary if the site context allows it.</li>
	<li>Side and rear setback over 80m high is now 6% of height, “with discretion to allow the building floor plate to be adjusted” – we interpret this as meaning buildings with larger setbacks at the top and with a step down to 5m at the podium is allowed.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Overshadowing</h2>

This control will only affect the key public spaces such as Federation Square, the State Library forecourt, the Shrine of Remembrance, Yarra River, City Square, Bourke Street Mall, and Boyd Park. It is currently unclear whether the winter or equinox overshadowing will come in to effect. If it is winter, it’s really bad news.

As with the last controls, most of Flinders Street is still unable to be developed.

<h2>Wind</h2>

The revised wind speed criteria is now based, on average comfort levels, not just extreme wind events. This is great news. It must be said that it is impossible to provide comfortable walking criteria on extremely windy days.

<h2>Height Controls</h2>

Unchanged

<h2>Street Wall Height</h2>

Reduced to 20m with discretion to increase to 40m if site context allows. This doesn’t have a big impact because, firstly it is discretionary, and secondly, you can take the lost yield and put it on top of the building.

Now is the time to put in your public submissions.

Craig Yelland is a Director of <a href="http://www.plusarchitecture.com.au/">Plus Architecture</a>
</body></html>

C270: How will it affect development in Melbourne’s central city?

<html><body>
If you read the <a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/43_02s10_melb.pdf">Schedule to DDO10</a> you probably have some questions, like many of my clients do.

Most of the controls are very clear in the Schedule to DDO10. They include height, set back and plot ratio. Some are unclear and dangerously open to interpretation.

On September 16 I attended an information session with the highly articulate Larry Parsons, Director of Development Approvals &amp; Urban Design Development at the Department of Environment, Land, Water &amp; Planning (DELWP). Here is what I learnt:

<h2>Plot Ratio</h2>

The plot ratio is a calculation of the gross floor area (GFA) divided by the site area. The GFA includes all covered areas above the ground, despite their use. This was chosen to encourage developers to put car parks and services in the basement.

The schedule allows for a greater than 24:1 plot ratio if the site is of “state significance”. The Minister will decide this. The example given was Federation Square East.

You can also exceed 24:1 if you can demonstrate “public amenity improvements”. To achieve this, the additional amenity needs to be in line with state policy. The examples given were a new park in a location where the policy wants it. Alternatively, if state policy called for a new library, this might be considered.

<h2>The design objectives</h2>

<blockquote>
To ensure development supports a high quality of pedestrian amenity in relation to human scale and microclimate conditions within the public realm including acceptable levels of sunlight access and wind.
<cite><a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/43_02s10_melb.pdf">Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay, Melbourne Planning Scheme</a></cite>
</blockquote>

This clause is open to interpretation. There is no definition for “high quality of pedestrian amenity” and “human scale”. We learnt that pedestrian amenity and human scale is different in the CBD than the suburbs, and fundamentally you will satisfy this requirement if you keep the street wall under 40m and respect the streetscape of heritage places.

<blockquote>
To provide a high level of internal amenity for building occupants.
<cite><a href="http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/melbourne/ordinance/43_02s10_melb.pdf">Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay, Melbourne Planning Scheme</a></cite>
</blockquote>

There is no definition of “high level of internal amenity” in the planning scheme. We were told that this would be defined at a later date. I personally believe planners will use this clause to force developers to provide large luxury apartments and will ultimately eliminate affordable apartments.

<h2>The OVGA’s role</h2>

My previous comments about the Office of the Victorian Government Architect (OVGA) were wrong. They have no formal role in the planning scheme. They are an independent advisor to the Minister. I now know that the OVGA will have their role formalized once the new Government Architect is appointed. We can expect them to have strict timeframes applied; the Design Review Panel will see only significant projects (the criteria of these reviews are yet to be decided).

There will be a panel of experts advising the state, council and OVGA on the controls. It will consist of economists, planners, lawyers, wind consultants, overshadowing and scenario testers.

<h2>Setbacks</h2>

Setbacks will not be raked or become a “wedding-cake” from podium up. We were told taller buildings need bigger gaps from the top to the podium.

You can buy air rights over your neighbour. This effectively moves your side boundary setbacks over to the neighbour’s boundary. The permit will not be granted until evidence of this land transaction can be proved. You don’t need to combine the titles beforehand.

<h2>The involvement of Melbourne City Council</h2>

Melbourne City Council (MCC) will be involved in the same way they are now.

<ul>
<li>The Minister is not obliged to take MCC’s advice.</li>
	<li>MCC can take the Minister to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) if they disagree.</li>
	<li>MCC now has a strict 28 day timeline to provide their advice.</li>
</ul>
<h2>What happens after the interim controls?</h2>

When the interim controls end there may be a bonus scheme to increase the plot ratio. It was highlighted that the 24:1 might become lower and you actually need the bonuses to get back up to 24:1. Or they might add it to the 24:1. The appropriateness of 24:1 will be tested over the coming year.

The mandatory height controls in the central areas not covered by DDO10 are very unlikely to become discretionary. This is because of the potential amenity impacts.

Craig Yelland is a director of Plus Architecture.
</body></html>

C262 clarification session with the DELWP: what I learnt

<html><body>
The recent, and very quiet, amendment to the <a href="http://dsewebapps.dse.vic.gov.au/Shared/ats.nsf/(attachmentopen)/56223C4737D8B17BCA257EB50080ED28/%24File/Melbourne+C262+Explanatory+Report+Approval+Gazetted.pdf?OpenElement">C262 planning amendment</a> by the Minister for Planning, Richard Wynne, which has placed new plot ratio restrictions and increased setbacks for <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/developments/melbourne-vic">Melbourne CBD buildings</a>, spells disaster for our industry and simply cannot be ignored.

This amendment has far-reaching implications including:

Innovation is now stifled.

If you own a narrow site that is say 15m wide in the CBD, under the new planning amendment your planned development will now be restricted to a 10-storey office building or a 12-storey apartment building, making the project almost certainly unviable to redevelop.

These slim-line sites are difficult to develop but innovation is – or was – possible. Just look at the design-led Phoenix building at 82 Flinders Lane.

This building took an incredibly tight 6.7m frontage and created a refreshing and innovative design-response to the site which has made a positive contribution to the environment in which it sits. The reason this was made possible was due to the ability to utilise most of the tiny site. With the new increased set-back amendment, design responses such as the Phoenix building will become impossible to deliver.

I’m not saying there should be no restrictions on mandatory setbacks as we as architects are seeing the issues caused by the many CBD buildings that were built up to the boundaries in the more lax days of planning in bygone eras. However, I believe that each project should be considered on its own merit, to consider the pros and cons of each individual site and design application.

Only then can we encourage true innovation while still respecting the limitations of each individual site.

This amendment will dramatically reduce development in Melbourne’s CBD. The result will be massive job losses in the construction industry.

In real terms, this amendment removes the opportunity to redevelop a host of C-class office buildings in the city.

Before this amendment, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/architects/plus-architecture">Plus Architecture</a> completed a site analysis for a 13 metre wide site in the CBD. On one side sat a tall office building built right up to the site boundary, the other side was an open space containing a heritage building. Under the previous planning scheme we could have built a 25 storey office building, however because of mandatory setbacks, the site is now limited to 10 storeys.

To a developer, this means the site is worth more as the existing four storey office block and will continue to stand as-is, taking up precious space in our CBD but without any feasible development potential.

Now imagine this scenario across the entire CBD – pretty soon we are going to see a pattern of stagnant urban renewal sites and a stalled development rate. This in turn starts to stifle the economic growth of our city while pushing up prices as supply is literally cut off at the knees.

This new design objective will be the death of affordable apartments and offices.

<blockquote>
To provide a high level of internal amenity for building occupants.
<cite>C262 Planning Amendment</cite>
</blockquote>

The term “high level of internal amenity” is not defined in the planning scheme. It goes above and beyond what is acceptable to the majority of occupants.

What does this statement even mean? Luxury apartments? A corner office for every staff member? Maybe a requirement for a pool and gym in every building? The interpretation of this clause lies in the personal opinion of the planning officer. It gives council authority to reject affordable apartments based on the merit of prejudice alone.

This will result in the sole delivery of large, luxury apartments that only the rich can afford, as large luxury apartments will be the only viable product developers will be able to deliver in order to make their money back on the site.

This therefore restricts future diversity of product which will have a vast and long-reaching impact on the future of our commercial and residential real estate industry.

The approval process just got slower and more expensive.

Before this amendment, buildings over 25000sqm were fast-tracked to the Minister’s office for assessment.

Now each applicant needs to liaise with the Minister’s Office, the Victorian Design Review Panel and Melbourne City Council. Each entity has a different agenda. Each requires different presentations and each work to a different timeframe.

Now, under the new planning amendment, once a developer receives a permit from the Minister they are then faced with the risk that Melbourne City Council could take the Minister to VCAT. This is just ridiculous. If the Minister doesn’t want to be the responsible authority he should just hand over all approval rights to council.

This current situation is at risk of creating a real shortage of development opportunities in the CBD which in turn will hinder our economic growth across multiple industries.

If this government is serious about implementing change for the long term, economic viability of this great state, it should consult with the developers and architects whom must work within these guidelines to deliver Melbourne’s future.

With the dollar falling and foreign investment pushing affordability out of reach for many, now is not the time to be further stifling Melbourne’s development opportunities and therefore the delivery of affordable product to the marketplace.

Craig Yelland is a Director of <a href="http://www.plusarchitecture.com.au/">Plus Architecture</a>.
</body></html>

Comment: Amendment C262 will stifle design innovation in Central Melbourne

<html><body>
On the surface, the Victorian Government’s <a href="http://delwp.vic.gov.au/planning/policy-and-strategy/better-apartments">“Better Apartments” discussion paper</a> seeks to confirm what every apartment occupier would want to hear: mandating bigger, brighter, cross-ventilated apartments with great outlooks. What it fails to address is that this comes at significant cost.

The Government is using this discussion paper as a pre-emptive move to bring Sydney’s SEPP 65 strict planning rules to Melbourne. If this transpires, the industry will be faced with:

<ul>
<li>Massive job losses in the construction industry.</li>
	<li>The cost per apartment will immediately increase by upwards of $150,000.</li>
	<li>Rent will increase 10 percent per apartment.</li>
	<li>The ability for inner-city sites to house our population growth will be reduced by 45% percent.</li>
	<li>Development will be pushed to the fringe where infrastructure costs are greater.</li>
	<li>A lack of new development due to diminished feasibility; a typical two-storey office building in an activity centre will be worth more than the site as an apartment development. Therefore it will not be developed.</li>
</ul>
In essence, supply of dwellings will drop dramatically, and we will be faced with a host of irreversible changes that will affect the industry and the end-user alike.

However, this situation is not a new one…Sydney’s apartment market stopped dead in its tracks for ten years after SEPP 65 was introduced. The market is only just starting to recover now, not because of any reversal of the planning regulations, but because the lack of supply has driven property prices so high that large one-bedroom apartments are fetching upwards of $700,000.

These inflated prices are the only reason why developers can now afford to develop projects which are in line with Sydney’s stringent rules and still offer viable financial returns. Basically, this means that without the inflated prices, developers could simply not afford to develop apartment projects under the planning laws, which has only further perpetuated the cycle of undersupply and market inflation.

Make no mistake – the implementation of design guidelines will remove your right to an affordable apartment in the area you want to live.

Some simple questions the paper fails to address:

Who is complaining that their rent is too low?

Who is asking for apartments to be more expensive?

We need to give apartment buyers a choice. If purchasers want a large one-bedroom apartment there are certainly plenty available. But if purchasers don't have the funds to afford a large apartment, by all means allow them the opportunity to purchase a home; don’t price them out of the market because they can’t afford what the Government is suggesting to mandate. At the end of the day, let the market determine what is desirable and what is a fair price for that dwelling.

In 2014, ‘<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/is-this-melbournes-best-new-residential-development">The Commons</a>’ apartment building in Melbourne was awarded by the National Architecture Awards as the “exemplar of apartment living”.

This project is a fabulous building, where 50 per cent of the apartments are south facing. If south facing apartments are deemed to be so undesirable, why did the project win the industry’s highest architectural award?

Without south facing apartments, anyone who wishes to live north of the city and desires a city-facing view, will simply not be provided the opportunity to do so.

And too bad if you want a view of our stunning bay - it is positioned to the south. If you purchase in a new development, you simply won’t be allowed to face it.

The last government turned off supply of medium density housing in our suburbs, leaving us with a deficit of 6000 much-needed new dwellings per year. If this government brings in minimum design standards they will all but shut down the apartment market in our regeneration and inner-urban areas. And with the projected population estimated to grow to 7.7 million by 2051, supply needs to increase, not diminish, in order to keep up with demand.

The new guidelines want to make you pay $10,000 more so your walk to the lift is 10m shorter.

Let’s not forget, this discussion paper has been drafted in a way that poses a series of loaded questions. Simply asking people if they would prefer a larger kitchen, or more internal space in their living room, is an irresponsible approach by the Government as it fails to address that these lifestyle choices come at a cost.

Larger apartments cost more money to build and they also decrease a project’s overall yield meaning these costs will all be passed on to the end user. Why don’t we ask legitimate questions that will force purchasers to think about their circumstances – questions such as ‘would you be prepared to pay $100 more in rent per week for a larger living room?’ is likely to illicit a more accurate response than simply ‘would you like to live in a larger apartment?’

The existing planning scheme in Melbourne rewards good design through discretionary height controls. It is a great system that has produced some fabulous buildings: ranging from high-end penthouses to affordable compact apartments.

On the other hand, Sydney’s planning scheme is overly prescriptive and complicated. The outcome has delivered large apartments, yes, but you need to be a millionaire to afford one. There is no such thing as an affordable apartment in Sydney.

The beauty of Melbourne’s market is the availability of choice, and the ability to allow most, if not all, professionals earning a modest wage, to one day own their own home. Let’s not take that opportunity away from Victorians just in the pursuit of short-sighted guidelines that will create more problems than it will fix.

Craig Yelland is a Director of Plus Architecture - an Urban.com.au Industry Hub member. With offices in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Christchurch, Plus Architecture is considered one of the leading architectural firms in multi-unit residential development. He lives in a south facing apartment with his wife and two children.
</body></html>

Craig Yelland

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News