Development

The Andrews Labor Government is getting on with transforming central Dandenong into a vibrant new residential, retail, and commercial hub.

Minister for Transport Infrastructure Jacinta Allan today announced the Revitali​sing Central Dandenong project has taken another step forward, with the project&rsquo;s next phase draft masterplan released by Melbourne developer Capital Alliance for community feedback, along with design renders to give locals a glimpse of what it will look like.

&ldquo;We encourage locals to have their say on the draft masterplan and will continue to work with them on progressing this project &ndash; which will transform Dandenong and create thousands of jobs at a time our community needs them most,&rdquo; said Minister Allan.

The draft masterplan showcases the proposal for Dandenong and includes creating at least 470 new dwellings, a hotel and conference centre, offices and community spaces. An urban brewery entertainment district will also be built, as well as an education facility, retail, a medical facility, a cinema and dining.

&ldquo;We&rsquo;re proud to share this draft master plan with the community to rejuvenate central Dandenong &ndash; with the project to benefit generations to come,&rdquo; said Capital Alliance Founder and Chief Executive Mohan Du.

To maintain the site&rsquo;s strong cultural identity, the project will also deliver a brand-new Little India precinct. The new Little India will provide more modern facilities and services, as well as better spaces for tenants, and will be built as part of the development&rsquo;s first stage to minimise disruptions to traders.

Construction on the development&rsquo;s first stage is expected to commence in 2023 &ndash; which also includes delivering a supermarket, food market hall and residential building. Capital Alliance will invest $600 million to develop the area next to the Dandenong transport hub &ndash; creating more than 2,600 jobs during construction and close to 5,000 ongoing positions once complete.

The project will complement the Labor Government&rsquo;s transport investments in the south-east, better connecting locals with $15 billion to upgrade the Cranbourne/Pakenham line &ndash; slashing travel times, delivering bigger trains and creating a direct link to Melbourne Airport through the Metro Tunnel.

&ldquo;We&rsquo;re not only delivering more trains, more often to Dandenong &ndash; we&rsquo;re delivering more housing, and jobs for this local area,&rdquo; Du added. &nbsp;

The Government is delivering the Revital​ising Central Dandenong project through Development Victoria, with support from Greater Dand​enong Council.

The Government is delivering the Revitalising Central Dandenong project through Development Victoria, with support from Greater Dand​enong Council.

alisonwarters@gmail.com

Central Dandenong revitalization planned

Developers Tribeca and Jayland Group have teamed up to deliver the suburb of Plumpton, near the well-established suburb Caroline Springs, fixed-price&nbsp;house and land packages at Majesty Estate.

It&#39;s just $607,000 to secure a house and land package, which includes the one-level, four-bedroom home.

Majesty has been a popular choice for new home buyers thanks to its affordability, easy access to the CBD, and growing amenities within easy reach.

As the newest estate in Plumpton, it offers sustainability, connectivity and established amenities designed for modern living.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=28198 project_image_fid=155419]

Surrounded by quality educational institutions and various shopping centres, you will be right in the heart of a vibrant location so that the whole family&rsquo;s needs are met.

Each home features one ensuite and one family bathroom as a minimum, while some floorplans feature an extra toilet and refreshment room for added comfort.

Single-storey, four-bedroom, two-bathroom homes are currently available, offering alfresco space that blends your indoor and outdoor spaces, flexibility, and full turnkey inclusions.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=28198 project_image_fid=155421]

High-quality finishes include window furnishing, quality appliances, manufactured stone benches, air-conditioning and quality joinery.

The developers are committed to continuous improvement in their designs, with a six-star rated energy efficiency rating and seven-year structural warranty upgrade options.

Plumpton has&nbsp;convenient public transport options and accessible roads makes thanks to the M8 motorway and the newly upgraded Rockbank Train Station.

The house and land packages on offer are ready to move into straight away, with no hidden or extra costs.

[smartcode_project_cta: project_id=28198]

Situated in Plumpton, Majesty Estate is a popular choice for new home buyers thanks to its affordability, easy access to the CBD and growing amenities within easy reach

max.kwok_55688

Majesty Estate offering affordable house and land packages in Plumpton 

<html><body>
<h4> </h4>
GUEST OBSERVER
The internet has reached our cities. A smart city is optimised for efficiency, productivity and comfort.
The smart city uses intelligent transport systems. It is administered by integrated urban command centres, which analyse the omnipresent raw material of the digital era: big data. As citizens go about their everyday lives, they leave data traces everywhere, even in the sewers.
Many technology companies and city governments celebrate the new enfant terrible of smart city research: the urban scientist who finally imposes a rigorous scientific (that is, positivistic) mindset on city governance. However, Jeremy Kun confirms that:
… being quantitative doesn’t protect against bias.
Commentators such as Cat Matson, Charles Landry and Paul Masonadvocate a people-centred approach to city design. In our own work, we warn that ignoring decades of research by architects, geographers, urban planners, designers and sociologists could lead to a dystopian future where humans lose agency if we mindlessly pursue convenience and efficiency.   Big data requires analysis by algorithms, and they in turn create filter bubbles. Corporations such as Facebook and Google deploy sophisticated algorithms to help us navigate the otherwise bloated social mediascape. The content displayed on Facebook’s news feed is selected based on a user’s profile, location, interests, online habits – what they post, share, recommend and “like”.
The popularity of social media stems from its power to create personalised spaces, walled gardens, which are tailored to individual preferences and favour content relevant to each user. Proprietary algorithms determine what is deemed relevant.
Without ethics, it is these algorithms that determine the make-up of the Facebook news feed, Google’s top search results and the recommendations on whom to follow on Twitter and what to buy on Amazon. They are optimised to prioritise content that generates more business. As Gilad Lotan has observed:
We’re not seeing different viewpoints, but rather more of the same. A healthy democracy is contingent on having a healthy media ecosystem. As builders of these online networked spaces, how do we make sure we are optimising not only for traffic and engagement, but also an informed public? … The underlying algorithmics powering this recommendation engine help reinforce our values and bake more of the same voices into our information streams.
The diversity advantage of cities
As more and more social media platforms embrace urban environments as their playground, this algorithmic culture has important implications for cities. People come together in cities not just for the infrastructure and convenience they provide, but for offering choice. Cities are fundamentally about possibilities, opportunities and diversity.
Jane Jacobs notes: Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.
Ethan Zuckerman thinks of cities as serendipity engines:
By putting a diverse set of people and things together in a confined place, we increase the chances that we’re going to stumble onto the unexpected.
However, Zuckerman also asks:
… do cities actually work this way?
It’s a timely question for smart cities governed by big data and algorithmic analysis. How can a smart city become a serendipity engine? Can we design smart cities for getting lost?
Here are some examples of why that may not be such a bad idea.
Getting lost and getting to know strangers
Public transport journey planners are usually optimised for two factors: the fastest speed and shortest distance to get you from A to B. Yet there are opportunities beyond telematics.
Why don’t we offer the choice to go slow, to take the least polluted route to work, or the scenic way home?
Experimental prototypes such as Martin Traunmueller’s Likeways and Mark Shepard’s Serendipitor allow you to lose yourself and rediscover your city. The Likeways app lets users choose routes that wander past restaurants, pubs, shops, museums or art galleries. Screenshot, courtesy Martin Traunmueller   In addition to a diversity of places, cities also offer a diversity of people. However, all too often we stay within our existing social networks of friendship and convenience. Eric Paulos’s Familiar Stranger Project investigated anxiety, comfort and play in public places.
Yet our ability to unlock the advantage of a city’s social diversity is still in its infancy. Early examples include co-working spaces and meet-up groups that bring diverse people together, airlines offering social seating, and design interventions such as Jokebox that foster playfulness and curiosity. 
Saskia Sassen warns that the privatisation of public spaces in the city:
… has deep and significant implications for equity, democracy and rights.
This also stifles innovation, as people are lacking the kinds of “skunkworks” that foster creativity and diversity.
Deliberative democracy and the city
Besides the nascent opportunities vested in people and places, what may well be the final frontier of a truly smart (as in intelligent) city is content and discourse. Seeking to burst the filter bubbles, Eli Pariser created Upworthy:
… on a mission to change what the world pays attention to.
It curates news you should read rather than just “the news you want” to read.
Another illustrative example is Rebecca Ross’s project London is Changing. Large digital displays visualise local community voices and juxtapose diverse opinions about the impact of gentrification in London.
To uphold a citizen’s right to the digital city and strengthen the role of cities in a deliberative democracy, cities should empower citizens to be smart. Smart cities should allow us to get lost and find new places, to meet strangers who may become new friends, and to engage in discussions with diverse others so we may form new opinions.
Alexandros Washburn observes:
In talking about the anticipational Smart wonders of ‘our city’, we really mean ‘my city’. We confuse the collective with the personal. If collective, that is, civic intelligence is what makes cities smart, we need more serendipity engines. 
Smart cities should be open and agile and employ what Bob Dick calls “dialectical processes” and what Anna Cox calls “design friction”. That way we may change algorithmic filters for the sagacious discovery of diversity in the city. Diversity fuels innovation, and innovation is what we need to be sustainable.
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>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Why we should design smart cities for getting lost

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Infrastructure Australia’s latest report, Australian Infrastructure Plan, is a substantial contribution to better infrastructure planning.
For our cities, it cogently argues for more compact settlement patterns and transport pricing reform. However, it has some substantial weaknesses.
<h2>Integrating land use and transport priorities</h2>
The report’s discussion about the need for more compact cities is impressive but falls into the same trap as the state governments it criticises for failing to adequately integrate land use development directions and transport priorities.
The Infrastructure Priority List is rather light on initiatives that will support development of Australia’s four largest cities as more compact cities, rather than just cities with a compact core.
For example, while many public transport projects are included, these are mainly rail projects focused on feeding central business districts. These are worthy projects that will improve services and promote agglomeration economies. However, they deal with only part of the overall public transport needs for development of more compact cities.
The report clearly recognises that higher-frequency public transport services will be needed more broadly across our cities. It includes some rail projects for growth areas and bus rapid transport in some locations. It does not focus sufficiently, however, on public transport, walking and cycling projects that will help the middle suburbs achieve their potential.
These are the areas where much more employment and residential development needs to take place if our cities are to become more compact. Supportive infrastructure, particularly public transport and active transport, is central to this goal.
Another illustration of the failure to adequately integrate land use and transport thinking is the discussion of servicing the outskirts of our cities.
A major reason these areas have infrastructure and service delivery problems is that their development densities are too low. Yet I found no reference to the need to increase densities in outer urban areas. This would help with issues such as the need to improve public transport services and associated cost-recovery rates.
<h2>Urban governance</h2>
There is useful discussion in the plan on governance matters but also a significant hole.
International conversations about cities currently emphasise the importance of someone being able to “speak for the city” and of cities having more financial autonomy. These matters are important for cities to have the resources to perform their roles more effectively and be more accountable for their performance.
The plan looks at the need to reform local government, as well as project planning and delivery arrangements, but does not consider the central governance question: “who speaks for our cities?”. This is a challenge that is fundamental to our cities' common difficulties of sustaining long-term land use transport plans.
The apparent answer is “state governments” at present, but the recent Sydney introduction of a Greater Sydney Commission is a very innovative step to strengthen partnerships between the state and local governments at city-wide level. This move is recognition that the right answer needs to be wider than simply the state government. New governance arrangements should have figured more prominently in the report.
 
On funding, the report cites London on a number of occasions. There is no better city to use as a model, given that its population is about what Sydney and Melbourne can expect in 40 years – and that nobody does it better. London has already resolved the problem of “who speaks for the city”.
Under the mayor’s leadership, London is pursuing greater financial autonomy. The city is using measures such as value capture quite aggressively to increase its financial autonomy. The plan discusses value capture to an extent, but it needs a stronger focus on this as a great funding opportunity for more autonomous and accountable cities.
<h2>Externalities and pricing reform</h2>
From a public transport perspective, the weak treatment of externalities is the biggest problem in the plan.
There is much discussion of congestion and recognition of potential issues of social disadvantage, but not much systematic recognition of other externalities of cities, particularly transport externalities. The assumption seems to be, for example, that:
<ul>
<li>
agglomeration economies (or wider economic benefits more broadly) will be recognised somehow and dealt with at an appropriate time in some way;
</li>
<li>
greenhouse gas emissions will be dealt with by whatever Australia decides to do to meet its international obligations;
</li>
<li>
air pollution externalities will be met by vehicle emission standards; and
</li>
<li>
accident and health externalities do not exist or are not important.
</li>
</ul>
This provides scant comfort for the pricing reform the plan proposes. Road pricing reform is about more than recovering infrastructure costs and making motorists aware of congestion costs.
It is about improving the efficient allocation of scarce resources by making road users (and public transport users) more accountable for all the net external costs attributable to their travel choices. This includes (for example) the air pollution costs that remain after emission standards are applied, the accident costs not covered by insurance, rising health costs from a lack of exercise linked to motor vehicle dependence, and the costs of greenhouse gas emissions.
The report should have been much stronger on all the externalities involved in all modes of transport being internalised within reformed transport pricing arrangements.
The plan cites evidence that Australia’s urban public transport cost-recovery rates are low by comparison with similar cities elsewhere. If road pricing reform is implemented and includes a wide range of external costs, the case for increasing these cost-recovery rates is defensible, on two conditions:
<ol>
<li>
measures are in place to support particular disadvantaged groups (which could be through government funding of targeted fare concessions); and
</li>
<li>
external benefits of public transport (for example, agglomeration economies) are recognised as warranting cost-recovery rates that are less than 100%.
</li>
</ol>
<h2>Road funding model</h2>
The discussion about reforming the road funding model is hard to evaluate because the treatment of external costs of vehicle use is too vague.
If those costs were all internalised, as they should be for more efficient asset use, then it would be a mistake to hypothecate all the revenue in the road funding model to roads. The payments for air pollution damage, health and accident costs, for example, would need to be separated and be available for other uses that help lower such external costs.
More broadly, the process of determining road infrastructure priorities should not be ultimately devolved to the board of a road funding entity. It should be subject to an integrated process of planning land use and transport, to which that board contributes. Elected politicians ought to remain the ultimate decision-makers on major works.
<h2>Infrastructure planning vs integrated planning</h2>
The plan’s discussion about long-term infrastructure planning being “an opportunity to improve the value of community engagement” needs to provide more clarity about just what this means.
If long-term integrated land use transport planning had been undertaken more effectively in Australian cities, we would not need separate infrastructure agencies at federal and state levels.
If the report is suggesting community consultation on strategic infrastructure planning that is separate to what should be happening around long-term land use transport plans, which are becoming increasingly broad in international best-practice cities, then we will have very confused communities.
The long-term process of planning integrated land use transport should be where strategic consultation takes place. Infrastructure would be one of the matters subject to consultation and infrastructure priorities one output from the planning process.
The fundamental discussion point needs to be what we want our cities to be like in 30 to 40 years' time. Transport and other infrastructure discussions and priorities should be placed in the context of creating those cities.
<h2>The market’s role in public transport</h2>
The plan argues for more competition in the delivery of public transport services.
The cost savings it cites are essentially from settings where a private operator replaces a public operator (the greater the savings, the more bloated the initial public operator). International experience is that subsequent rounds of market testing, once a private provider is in place, deliver few savings.
Furthermore, recent research by David Hensher, from the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at University of Sydney, suggests that if you have an efficient private operator operating under a negotiated performance-based contract, this will be as efficient as a tendered outcome. The report does not seem to be aware of these important nuances.
<h2>Improving the policy debate</h2>
Infrastructure Australia has done much to raise the quality of debate about infrastructure planning and delivery. Its Australian Infrastructure Plan continues this contribution.
However, so far as our cities are concerned, the effectiveness of the plan will be compromised unless Infrastructure Australia walks the walk in terms of land use transport integration. It needs to align its priorities much more comprehensively with its well-framed land use development directions, and take a broader perspective on pricing reform and associated funding and governance matters.
This is about better integration and delivery in the broadest sense.
John Stanley is adjunct professor, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The Business School, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-stanley-115" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Australian infrastructure plan has some way to go to give our cities what they need

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The announcement by the NSW Government of the preferred route of the light rail from Parramatta to Strathfield should lead to significant new development along the route. 
The selection of the light rail route through the urban renewal areas of Camelia and then the Olympic site at Homebush is clearly seen as a driver of new development.
This is a great opportunity to champion a new form of mixed use urban density where jobs, recreation, retail and living all work together.
The connection to Westmead is important as this is clearly a major centre of jobs and of potential urban renewal. The transport link can also connect the proposed development at North Parramatta back into the centre of Parramatta.
The connection with Sydney Olympic Park should give this precinct the direct transport connection it desperately needs and hopefully stimulate new jobs as well as residential accommodation.
The branch to Carlingford along the existing heavy rail line is another opportunity to encourage urban renewal with mixed use development.
The Urban Taskforce is concerned about the proposed Special Infrastructure Contribution (SIC) of $200 per square metre of GFA of new residential developments. While providing funds for the Light Rail itself the contribution will also increase the cost of housing. A 100 square metre apartment will clearly have an extra $20,000 added to its cost. The danger of adding a high contribution amount is that development may not be economically viable and so funds will not flow to the infrastructure. Further discussions with industry are needed to ensure that the SIC is workable.
The Urban Taskforce has argued strongly for a clear link between infrastructure and density and the announcement about the light rail route opens the opportunity to deliver significant new density. One advantage of the SIC is that it is an encouragement to planning bodies to support significant amounts of development so that funds are raised. Without significant density uplift there will be little funds raised.
While the SIC does not apply to development related to jobs there needs to be strong planning incentives to support more jobs in Western Sydney and particularly related to transport infrastructure.
Chris Johnson is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Parramatta- Strathfield light rail must drive significant new development: Urban Taskforce

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63992/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The creative industries – ranging from game development to architecture, media, design and the arts – are a hot issue in urban development.
Creative businesses, almost by definition, are innovative. They drive new ideas, people and technologies into the market from the experimental edge. It follows, then, that strategies to make a state, city or town more creative can fuel cultural development, urban regeneration and economic growth.
The logic flows: attracting creative talent is increasingly tied to competing in global markets. Places with a creative industries base attract businesses and skilled workers from other knowledge-intensive industries like health, science, engineering and technology. This realisation has prompted regional governments across the globe, including some in Western Australia, to implement policies to make themselves more creative.
Australia’s creative industries contribute A$90 billion to the economyevery year. While making a city “more creative” has obvious economic rewards, gaps can emerge between policy and reality.
Creative businesses often struggle in the face of rising rents and development pressures. They may have difficulty in accessing property, finance and business advice.
The sector is also characterised by freelance, part-time and portfolio work. This means financial insecurity, uncertain employment and demanding working conditions are real challenges for a large proportion of its workers.
What do creative industries need to thrive?
Many cities, including some Australian state capitals, have to unpick the mechanics of city regeneration, which complicate creative industry development, through investment.
This public investment is often most visible in designated innovation or cultural precincts. The large public institutions and signature buildings typically found in these areas make plain governments’ involvement.
However, iconic architecture and major events alone aren’t enough to build robust creative economies. The creative economy in Australia is underpinned by the 98% of creative businesses with fewer than 20 employees. This sector plays an outsized role in innovation, experimentation and new ideas.
When municipal or state governments join forces with these smaller creative communities to shape urban regeneration the results can be far-reaching, although government’s role is often less visible.
The creative sector feeds on affordable commercial space, physical and digital connectivity and a critical mass of like-minded but diverse neighbours.
Small-to-medium creative enterprises are often deeply embedded in their local contexts. They are also highly networked, using formal and informal platforms to match ideas with potential collaborators, as well as private, government and third-sector investors.
Creating clusters from scratch is notoriously difficult. Building on latent and emerging clusters by leveraging existing property assets and local knowledge is far simpler. It also usually works a lot better.
This approach sounds intuitive, but often doesn’t happen. The reason is a heavy stakeholder focus on building something new, as well as control over land and property use.
Lessons from Amsterdam and Toronto
Amsterdam’s municipal council has introduced economic, cultural and spatial development policies that involve partnering small-to-medium creative entrepreneurs to rehabilitate brownfield sites. Creative-led partnerships have developed clusters at De Ceuvel, NDSM Wharf and Tolhuistuin.
The municipality has ceded some of its usual powers to the sector, with responsibility for delivery and success shared.
At Tolhuistuin, the council provides the land, old building stock and a maintenance budget for a fixed period while the creatives develop the precinct themselves (under the watch of a board). The outcome is a new asset-based blueprint for sustainable mixed-use urban development.
Tolhuistuin’s early seeded clusters set the stage for larger projects. These include the Eye Film Institute, the A’DAM Toren and the redevelopment of the Van Der Pek and Overhoeks precincts.
This all builds on the municipality’s longstanding broedplaatsen (breeding ground) program. This promotes creative clustering in underutilised buildings across the city by releasing 10,000m² of studio space per year.
The creative industries are empowered to take the lead in developing these projects. Amsterdam council unlocks funding sources and offers expert advice on bureaucratic and legal processes.
In Canada, Section 37 of the Ontario Planning Act has helped transform private, government and creative sector partnerships. It allows development regulations to be relaxed in exchange for community benefit, which includes creating living spaces for creatives.
In the early 2000s, social enterprise Artscape, supported by the City of Toronto, leveraged Section 37 to develop Artscape Triangle Lofts, home to 68 creative live/work units and Propeller Gallery. An innovative affordable ownership and rental program ensures a mix of uses and incomes in the building.
Toronto’s far-sighted policy decision helped the city retain and grow its creative community in the face of rising property prices. Today the sector contributes C$9 billion a year to Toronto’s GDP and employs 130,000 people.
Get in early, start small
The takeaway from this is that constructing a creative economy means implementing long-term transitional strategies to build talent and capacity over time. This avoids the need for more interventionist, expensive and risky strategies down the line.
WA towns and cities have an enviable opportunity to set up the conditions for a healthy creative economy before regeneration of their older building stock comes to pass. Nurturing this sector through a mix of smaller policy interventions could be an affordable and effective way to kick-start sustainable creative economies.
More modest interventions allow the luxury of learning from failure and trialling more experimental ideas. These can then flow through to the wider creative ecology.
All ecologies rely on an ongoing interplay between the large, medium and small. Each brings something different to the table to create a whole greater than the sum of its parts.
This requires a policy mix that can support big-ticket projects along with investment in sustainable careers and spaces for small-to-medium creative enterprises. This is true creativity at work.
Bree Trevena is PhD researcher, Research Unit in Public Cultures, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bree-trevena-292259" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Create to regenerate: cities tap into talent for urban renewal

<html><body>
 
 
<img src="/images/2015/06/25/Holdencapital_banner.jpg" alt="">
SPONSORED POST
Nine reasons why developers fail to secure finance quickly or at all
1.     You expect banks/lenders to fund your project.
Whilst banks and lenders generally have clearly defined policies outlining what they can and cannot do, it is not automatic that just because your loan fits within their policy that they will fund it. This is particularly true in the current market with the volume of sound projects that we are seeing since the residential markets picked up in 2014. Lenders are being more selective and do not have to fund every project that lands on their desk, so It is imperative to present your project in the right way to motivate the lender to do the deal from the start, even after they hear about the 1 or 2 leniencies you might require or those boundaries that HCAP as your advisor are pushing to get you a better deal. Remember, approval is not automatic, we need to create a desire by the lender to be a part of your deal
2.     You negotiate terms before giving the lender the chance to understand the deal.
Similarly, it is understandable that everyone wants a good deal on finance, but starting the finance discussion by asking for or even dictating the terms you want before we or the lender know anything about your project or your capabilities to deliver it, is a fast road to disappointment. Borrowers with this approach have a long road in front of them to reach their destination. Any financier/broker/real-estate-agent can over-promise and under-deliver, and for some people that matches perfectly because they just want to be told what they want to hear. Smart developers are patient and understand that by firstly explaining their motivations and background and then providing the transaction details, including all the pros and cons (and their means of dealing with them), provides us with a reason to want to do the deal. Once this is established, we are motivated to provide competitively priced terms that reflect the relevant risks and meet the required timeframes. This then allows you to get on site quickly and do what you do what you hopefully do best, develop properties. So, explain first, ask later.
3.     You don’t have a genuine reason why you are doing the project.
As Henry Ford said “A business that only makes money, is a poor business”. Doing a project just because you out-bid a bunch of other developers to win it or because you own it and think it’s a good idea is not a reason of itself. Regardless of the state of the market cycle, site selection strategy differentiates the elite from the amateur developers. It is surprising how many developers base their acquisition strategy on being “friendly” with a few agents. Being close to the top of an agents speed dial list isn’t the sustainable business model a financier wants to hear. The elite developer identifies his target locations based on researching the demand supply due diligence he undertakes. They then scour the area (some literally go door to door having cups of tea) to capitalise on opportunities because to succeed they know that they need to understand the better sized lots on which to fit the best number of product per square metre of land; the neighbourhood plan and what they can push council for relaxations on; what the marketers can achieve in terms of sales rate per month from launch and all the other key issues that will ensure a viable project. Essentially, living and breathing a location and knowing where you can push and pull the boundaries to make a project to stack is the key. These smarter developers wear their ‘why’ on their sleeve and you can see it in the way they approach their business. These guys lead the market while the rest follow and some get left behind. Be strategic and have purpose if you want to be successful.
4.     There are gaps in your capability to deliver the deal but “you will find a way”.
Developers who have this problem, which can be financial or capabilities, fall into two categories; those who know it and are looking for someone else to solve their problems; and those that don’t. Whilst it can be admirable to see these people invest heavily in a project, it is also a concern. Frankly, those that don’t know they have a problem often never get it and like many things in this world, you can’t change them no matter how hard you try, so best to walk away. But for those who do understand their deficiencies there can be a solution if they are willing to listen and adapt. The secret is, understanding what you can do and being prepared to let others do what you cant. It is this second part, which is the hardest because it usually means that you have to give something up and that usually comes at a cost and can be both financial and some cases, control. This is probably the hardest process to undertake and the one that most often results in costly mistakes, by all concerned. To get the deal done, all parties concerned need to understand their strengths and weakness’ and be prepared to compromise to achieve a positive result. Quite often 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
5.     Can you control the key delivery elements of the project? 
An often seen issue is the inability for developers to recognise that they don’t have all the requisite skills to complete a project “in-house”. Property development is a complex process that requires many skill sets and even the elite developers know when to hire in the right professionals to help them out. Often a developer will try and bolt on skill sets to bolster their capabilities which is great, but having someone apply their time/service on an “all care no responsibility” basis is higher risk for you as the developer and us as a lender/investor in your project. As a lender/investor, we would much rather see you try and get their interests aligned with yours. Nearly all consultants will offer their time for a fixed fee or a per month rate, but if their services are a critical part of your delivery process why not incentivise them to the end objective which is a completed and profitable project? As an example, rather than paying $10k/month for 18 months ($180k), why not $6k/month ($108k) and a $120k performance bonus payable when there are surplus sales proceeds after repayment of the project debt. This ensures that person/company is very motivated to see the overall project succeed and is tied to the ultimate goal, which is profit. If an external party is critical to the project success, try to align their interests with yours.
6.     A one-page feasibility is not a “Finance Application” end of topic, just don’t do it. Ever.
7.     You’re not crunching your numbers over and over and over again.
Elite property developers constantly crunch their numbers over and over again to be sure they are not missing anything. They acquire or construct their own spreadsheets that allow them to continually refine price points, costs and timeframes as they gather more and more due diligence about these elements of their deal and they never stop the process. When asked questions about these elements, they have a good grip on their base case as well as optimistic and worst case results. Those who struggle often can’t tell you their break-even point per product, their cash flow requirements from now until project settlement, or marketing aspects like cost per lead and conversion rates to unconditional presale. If you want to impress us and the lender. Know your numbers.
8.     You don’t have a strategic and sustainable business model.
In addition to seeing that you have a purpose, a financier wants to see your business plan. It’s not all just about the one deal. Yes, sometimes a project is a once off because an owner decides to redevelop a site, but these are few and far between. In most cases you are intending to undertake multiple transactions and the lender wants to understand your ability to maintain sustainable flow of profitable transactions. So, what will you do for the next 18-24 months until that last apartment is sold and you have seed money again? How does your business grow? Cash is oxygen to any business and a lack of it limits growth potential. Developers often have A&amp;L statements showing all their capital invested in two or three projects and they can’t do another project until all the stars align and they get their money back from their current workload. What they also need to see is a carefully considered group cash flow that demonstrates how you are using your capital strategically and that you can do another project within the window of the current market cycle (maybe partner with a capital provider like Queen Street Invest). Again, show you have purpose, are a sustainable player and not a one-project wonder.
9.     Underprepared marketing and sales strategy.
Probably the single most common mistake we see from developers is a failure to understand the importance of and difference between marketing and sales and how to use the right resources. It doesn’t matter that you have secured the best team of professionals such as town planner, architect, builder and other technical support, if you don’t know how to tell the market about your product and you don’t have a team of skilled negotiators to secure sales, you can’t make a profit other than by accident! Time and again we see a blind faith in the reliance on local agents or ill-conceived marketing strategies that results in a failure to meet everyone’s expectations, often with catastrophic results. Remember, you don’t make a profit until the final sales are sold and settled. The secret is to do your homework and appoint professionals based on their proven expertise. As noted earlier, ensure that they are properly incentivised and that their remuneration is tied to the project profit! Don’t be afraid to spend money on marketing and sales, understand the difference, how and when to use them and why they are the key to delivering your profit.
To find out more about which option best suits your next project, contact Dan Holden at HoldenCAPITAL on 0401 669 502 or visit HoldenCAPITAL <a href="https://www.holdencapital.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Nine reasons why developers fail to secure finance quickly or at all: Holden CAPITAL 

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
Mixed-use developments are back in favour and a growing trend, with many developers opting to incorporate several property uses into new projects.
Many factors are driving this trend including uncertainty in the residential market, growth in the hotel sector, the continuing scarcity of prime sites and the creation of activated lifestyle precincts.
Today’s mixed-use development model is emerging as a modern fusion of commercial, retail, residential and even hotel uses to maximise planning criteria. 
Rather than relying on one “star performer” property type, such as residential over the last five years, risk is now being reduced with developments incorporating several uses. 
In addition to risk being minimised by using the mixed-use development model, another core benefit for developers is that mixed-use projects are a highly efficient way to unlock the best value out of land and potentially increase return on investment. 
I liken it to a return to the good old-fashioned mixed business retail model we all grew up with. A bit of this and a bit of that for sale, and not all the eggs in “one basket” so to speak. 
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Rather than asset classes having to independently compete against each other in silos to generate the highest return, a mixed-use project enables different property types to work together and collaboratively deliver maximum value. 
Interestingly, hotels are now being proposed on the lower levels of new high rise residential towers where solar and ventilation criteria can't be met for residential uses. It’s an organic move, a bit like complimentary planting to create a sustainable garden, but rather complimentary planning where property uses complement each other to safeguard their individual on-going survival. 
In this case the hotel can be constructed on the lower levels not suited for residential development and create an opportunity for on-going cashflow or immediate sale, yet the upper levels with views can be developed as apartments and derive higher profit margins. 
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The on-going trend toward the creation of lifestyle precincts is also another factor influencing the surge in mixed-use developments. This is particularly evident in CBD and fringe environments with the focus in activating beyond the traditional “9 to 5” hours of an office building. 
Mixed-use developments have the added benefit of creating active and connected communities where people can work, rest, sleep and play. This supports the property sector’s fascination with sustainability and also ensures further opportunities for developers to maximise returns on investment are not missed. 
The benefits of mixed-use developments are far-reaching and transpire beyond developer profits to improve communities and ensure efficient use of our space. We certainly have not seen the end of mixed-use projects and will see more interesting combinations of property uses in new developments over the next few years as developers become more experimental in their planning. 
Drenka Andjelic is managing director of Construction Assignments and can be contacted <a href="https://www.constructionassignments.com" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

The secret is in the mix: Mixed-use developments cut risk, deliver value 

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
City and local governments anchor our democracy. They do so by providing opportunities for local communities to address their interests and needs of living in the 21st century. To prepare for the next decade, the City of Melbourne has undertaken public consultations to refresh its strategic goals.
Melbourne City Council has a responsibility beyond those who live and do business in the city. Its capital city role and status have direct impacts across metropolitan Melbourne.
Future Melbourne 2026 provides an opportunity for the city council to recognise its role as a collaborative city. It should be proactive and acknowledge the role of the city across metropolitan Melbourne. This requires increased collaboration working toward a metropolitan authority where our collective futures lie.
All the metropolitan city councils need to work together to achieve a post-carbon and resilient future for all Melburnians.
Melbourne City Council has over recent decades developed and implemented polices to deliver a liveable and sustainable city. The council has set the bar high in undertaking work to become a post-carbon and resilient city. This has received national and international recognition.
The rapid growth of Melbourne’s metropolitan population, from its current 4.3 million to an anticipated 7.7 million by 2051, presents the challenge of working toward a sustainable region. Meeting energy, water, waste, transport and food needs will require whole-of-government collaboration between federal, state and local levels.
<h2>Models of metropolitan governance</h2>
An interim collaborative approach would encourage us to consider governance models such as the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC).
The London Assembly, which comprises 25 councillors plus the mayor of London, governs the GLA. With a population of eight million and encompassing 32 boroughs plus the City of London, the authority may well provide a blueprint for our future.
The New South Wales planning minister has established the GSC to promote the integration of state and local government decision-making for the Sydney metropolitan region. It is led by Chief Commissioner Lucy Turnbull, a former lord mayor of Sydney. The commission’s membership includes economic, social and environment commissioners, plus six district commissioners reflecting the interests of the current 41 local government authorities.
<h2>Starting the groundwork</h2>
The City of Melbourne should start the groundwork for a Greater Melbourne Authority.
The first step is to identify the city as a collaborative city in Future Melbourne 2026. This means working in partnership with metropolitan city councils to develop projects and activities that make progress towards a post-carbon and resilient region in energy, food, water, waste and transport.
An example of how Melbourne City Council has already initiated metropolitan action is “Resilient Melbourne”. The council delivers this Rockefeller Foundation-funded initiative in collaboration with the other 30 metropolitan city councils. The project began in 2014 and is developing a strategy to:
… foster the long-term viability, safety and wellness of our interconnected communities and municipalities.
The state can drive a metropolitan agenda through Plan Melbourne, the Victorian government’s planning strategy to 2050. It was released in 2014. In October 2015, the state Labor government announced an update known as Plan Melbourne Refresh.
The refresh has focused on climate change, housing affordability and updating Plan Melbourne to reflect current government transport commitments and priorities. In the foreword to Plan Melbourne Refresh, Planning Minister Richard Wynne writes:
"I want to see us build a city that sets an example to the world for environmental sustainability, social equity, enhanced liveability and economic strength."
Such a vision will require the support and actions of all 31 Melbourne metropolitan city councils.
To achieve this vision we need to establish a Melbourne Metropolitan Commission. It would include representation from metropolitan city governments for collaborative decision-making to achieve integrated strategic planning for all Melburnians.
The ministerial advisory committee for Plan Melbourne Refresh recommended that the Metropolitan Planning Authority be retained. However, the board lacks authority, a broad agenda and local government representation.
The OECD’s 2015 report, Governing the City, presents a range of metropolitan governance arrangements. The report provides advice for cities seeking more effective co-ordination for strategic urban growth involving transport and spatial planning. The report says:
A governance model depends on the capability to address three principal challenges: co-ordination, action and trust.
Metropolitan Melbourne needs to provide for a population almost doubling in the next 35 years in a carbon-restrained world. It must be resilient to climatic, economic and social shocks. To achieve those goals, we will need a metropolitan governance structure that delivers a whole-of-city approach.
Martin Brennan is senior research fellow Victorian Eco-Innovation Lab (VEIL), University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation.
He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/martin-brennan-249474" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Towards a collaborative city: the case for a Melbourne Metropolitan Commission

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Australia may be home to some of the world’s most liveable cities, but we have a long way to go to meet the world’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Australia ranks 20th in the world – well behind Canada and many European countries but ahead of the United States – according to a new index that compares different nations' performance on the SDGs, which were adopted last September.
Launched at this week’s United Nations SDG talks in New York, the index marks each country’s performance towards the 17 goals. These aim to put the world on a more sustainable economic, social and environmental path, and feature 169 targets to be met over the next 15 years in areas such as health, economic growth and climate action.
The ranking, called the SDG Index and Dashboard and prepared by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the German think tank Bertelsmann Stiftung, ranks countries' performance using a set of 77 indicators.
<h2>Australia: good water, bad energy</h2>
Australia, with some of the world’s highest carbon emissions per person, rates poorly on the clean energy and climate change goals. It also falls down on the environmental goals, with high levels of solid waste and land clearing as well as loss of biodiversity.
Despite the long life expectancy and general good health of Australians, the index highlights that Australia has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world.
As shown in the performance chart below, Australia rates relatively highly on lack of poverty, education and water quality. Inequality, while increasing, is not as bad as it is in the United States or the United Kingdom.
<a href="/images/2016/07/27/image-20160721-8642-mbf3mp.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/07/27/image-20160721-8642-mbf3mp.png" alt="">
<h4>
Australia’s performance on each of the Sustainable Development Goals. <a class="source" href="https://issuu.com/unsdsn/docs/sdg_index_and_dashboards_country_pr">SDG Index and Dashboards report</a>
</h4>
The best-performing countries on the list are mainly the northern European countries. Sweden, Denmark and Norway are at the top of the pile. Yet even these nations have significant challenges to achieve the climate change and environmental goals.
<h4><a href="/images/2016/07/27/image-20160721-8650-1llss6.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></h4>
<img src="/images/2016/07/27/image-20160721-8650-1llss6.png" alt="">
<h4>
The top of the rankings… SDG Index and Dashboards report
</h4>
<div class="enlarge_hint"><a href="/images/2016/07/27/image-20160721-8663-2d6hcy.png" target="_blank"> Click to enlarge</a></div>
<div class="enlarge_hint"><img src="/images/2016/07/27/image-20160721-8663-2d6hcy.png" alt=""></div>
<h4>
…and the lowest-ranked nations. SDG Index and Dashboards report
</h4>
At the bottom of the rankings are sub-Saharan African countries: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia and the Central African Republic, which face extreme poverty, hunger and major health problems.
In Asia, Japan and Singapore both rate above Australia, in 18th and 19th places respectively. Thailand (61st), Malaysia (63rd) and China (76th) are in the middle of the pack.
<h2>Priorities for action</h2>
The purpose of the report is to help countries identify the gaps that must be closed in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 and to identify priorities for early action.
The SDG Index notes that Australia performs much better in the UN’s Human Development Index (on which it ranks second), which focuses on social and economic development but not environmental sustainability. This clearly demonstrates that Australia needs to act urgently to address the climate and environmental goals. It is in Australia’s interest to do so as we are more vulnerable to climate change than most comparable countries.
The report also highlights some other specific challenges for Australia, including fisheries management and sustainable use of nitrogen-based fertiliser. While Australia is not the worst performer on gender equality, many countries have a higher proportion of women in national parliaments than our 26.7 percent and we have a significantly larger gender wage gap than New Zealand.
The SDG Index will be updated regularly to improve its quality and coverage and allow people around the world to measure progress against the goals. Australia’s plan for implementing the SDGs within Australia is not yet clear and this will be an important item on the agenda for the re-elected Turnbull government.
John Thwaites is chair, Monash Sustainability Institute &amp; ClimateWorks Australia, Monash University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-thwaites-16830" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Development

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Development

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News