Urban Sprawl

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Melbourne is well-suited to urban sprawl; it’s flat, easy to build on and lacks geographic boundaries like waterways and cliffs that force other cities into higher densities.
It’s possible to continue building low-density housing out as far as Geelong in the west, Seymour in the north and Warragul in the east. But is that really the best way forward for Melbourne’s population growth and housing affordability?
Broadly speaking, urban sprawl works in this country because Australians prefer to live in houses with a yard. The most popular search criteria on realestate.com.au in 2016 was for a four-bedroom, two-bathroom, two-car garage house on a 708 sqm block, all for the bargain price of $520,000. But, finding a house that fits this criteria in Melbourne is almost impossible in the inner and middle ring suburbs. And the preference for the Aussie house means neighbourhoods end up opposing council plans for higher density developments. The result is far greater house and land development on the outer fringes of the city.
So far, Victoria has done very well out of its widening sprawl. One of the key drivers of the Victorian economy over the past decade has been housing development on the fringes. Victoria has developed more housing than any other state, which means greater affordability for all job types, not all of whom are high-income earning.
Affordability may seem like a big problem in Melbourne, but Sydney is worse. Sydney has built 30% fewer dwellings over the past 10 years than Melbourne and housing continues to be the main problem in the NSW capital. Continuing to provide affordability through increasing housing supply has been crucial in maintaining Victoria’s economic growth. 
If more housing is the key to maintaining affordability, and if people prefer to live in big homes and are happy to live on the fringes of big cities to do so, then why do we need to consider alternatives? There are three main problems with this scenario:
1. Cost: It’s far more expensive to develop and maintain infrastructure and public services in low density areas. From greater car dependency to the provision of water, sewers and electricity, many of these government-funded services are more expensive to provide in outer areas.
2. Isolation: There are important social disadvantages in living in low densities. There is less social interaction, there is a lack of walkability in neighbourhoods because destinations like shops, services and and restaurants are concentrated too far away from housing, and residents often face long commutes to places of employment.
3. Jobs: The final challenge is that it’s easy to get urban sprawl but harder to form employment hubs close to where the sprawl is occurring. The radial nature of our road and public transport networks makes it easy to get people into the CBD and inner suburban locations, not fringe employment hubs. Ultimately, companies want to locate in areas where they can get the best talent.
Locating in an outer suburban area close to where much of the house and land development is taking place, such as Craigieburn or Cranbourne, would make sense for some occupiers, but the reality is that the majority of people would find it far easier getting to the CBD. Rent may be cheap but access to the right type of workers is almost impossible.
The solution is to provide the housing that people want while reducing the sprawling nature of our cities. That will mean developing regional cities where people can access houses without being isolated from the city centre, and encouraging a greater acceptance of apartment dwelling in Melbourne.
Although large homes remain the preferred dwelling type on realestate.com.au, suburbs that provide good schools, public transport and retailing tend to see the highest engagement. These amenities are typically found in the inner and middle ring suburbs, which will require higher densities if more housing is to be provided. However, more and more, they can also be found in regional cities such as Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat. Importantly, these cities also contain employment.
For those wanting to remain close to central Melbourne, people need to get more comfortable with the idea of apartment living. Over the next five years, living in an inner Melbourne house will continue to become more expensive, but apartment living, influenced by massive development, is going to become more affordable.
In the Melbourne CBD alone, around 18,000 apartments will be completed this year, almost 10 times the annual average. Prices are already coming down and affordable options are no longer restricted to the urban fringe.
Urban sprawl is the simple solution to providing affordable housing in a growing city, but it is not the best way forward. By focussing on regional city development, as well as continuing to encourage higher densities in inner and middle ring suburbs, we can create the types of housing that people most desire, or alternatively, housing in locations that people most desire. This will give people choice and allow them to make trade-offs between living in a big city but small home, or in a smaller city with a big home.
Nerida Conisbee is REA Group Chief Economist. 
This article was first published on <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/" target="_blank">Pursuit</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Greater residential density or urban sprawl - solving the housing challenge 

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63930/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
With state governments across Australia acknowledging the need to limit urban sprawl, fill the gaps within existing metropolitan areas and build higher-density housing on selected sites, many opportunities have opened up. Demonstration projects are key to ensuring quality outcomes, and government has a leading role to play.
The Western Australian target for urban infill is at the lower end compared to other states. In August 2010, the Department of Planning and the Western Australian Planning Commission released Directions 2031 and Beyond, a report that proposed a more consolidated Perth, with an infill target of 47% of new housing.
The report stated that 328,000 new dwellings would be needed by 2031. The 47% target translates to 154,000 of these. This target was a 50% increase on infill trends at the time.
In 2015, the same two government agencies released the draft document, Perth and Peel@3.5 million, which again nominated the 47% infill target. However, the authors acknowledged that urban infill rates had reached only 28% in 2014. This means that, to reach the 47% goal, the required increase in infill has moved from 50% to 68% more than the actual infill numbers in the five years between the two reports.
<h2>Filling the housing gap</h2>
This is a substantial change, and one that will require significant shifts from “business-as-usual” approaches to housing delivery along with community acceptance of higher residential densities. Government can assist with these shifts and, in doing so, help to fill a conspicuous gap in the content of the reports.
This gap is the absence of anything more than the briefest of references to the nature of the housing that will provide the increased infill and density. There is no real discussion of housing types and design, methods of construction and delivery, or forms of ownership that may encourage a greater take-up of such housing.
Higher residential density and infill continue to face a level of community resistance. Some of this is justified, in that much of the completed suburban infill is of a poor quality and too fragmented to deliver the positive changes and level of amenity that higher density can bring.
A quick Google Maps scan across the middle suburbs of Perth shows the dominant form of suburban infill in the city. It is a compressed suburbia. Large houses are squeezed together onto sites, shrinking usable private outdoor space to leftover space, reducing access to sun and cross-ventilation, and diminishing existing tree canopy. Driveways, car courts and double garage doors engage with the street. 
<h2>How do we improve infill?</h2>
Looking at this prompts the question: how do we improve the standard? Researchers at Swinburne and Monash universities in Melbourne and at the Australian Urban Design Research Centre (AUDRC) at the University of Western Australia have proposed solutions.
The Monash project, Infill Opportunities: Design Research Report, prepared for the Office of the Victorian Government Architect, explores how considered design strategies can contribute to better-quality infill redevelopment in the middle-ring suburbs.
The strategies include:
<ul>
<li>
going above a single storey, with the height shifted away from site boundaries to reduce overlooking and shadow-casting of neighbours;
</li>
<li>
allocating usable private courtyards to each unit;
</li>
<li>
providing good solar access, cross-ventilation and outlook; and
</li>
<li>
developing a car-parking strategy that can change over time.
</li>
</ul>
In addition, the idea is for the units to have a degree of inbuilt flexibility so they can adapt to changing household circumstances. While this work remains diagrammatic, it nevertheless demonstrates that, with a clear focus on how design can enable amenity to be optimised, suburban infill can provide attractive housing options.
There are infill projects being built in Perth that demonstrate what is possible when real design intelligence is at play.
For example, LandCorp’s stage 1 development of Knutsford, 1.5 kilometres from the centre of Fremantle, provides a mix of well-considered housing types. These feature good indoor-outdoor relationships and clever spatial strategies to enable a high degree of internal flexibility.
This housing is being offered to the market at very reasonable prices. In stage 1, 23 units were completed, with 33 being built in stage 2, all designed by Spaceagency.
We need more good examples like this, with a greater diversity of housing types. The potential that is implicit in higher-density housing – the opportunities for social engagement, sharing of facilities, fewer cars, richer urban potential, better public space and urban realm – needs to be made explicit.
<h2>Time to revisit the display village</h2>
For more than 50 years, display villages have been used to promote and sell detached project housing. These displays have enabled buyers to see what they are buying and to understand the potential of the broader setting of the house.
Historically, display villages promoted, through built example, the houses that eventually formed suburbia. In the same way, a display village for higher-density housing units could promote options that are not currently on offer in the housing market.
Potential buyers would be able to experience and understand the qualities of the housing on display. A higher-density display village would demonstrate how, with intelligent design, these units can be spacious, adaptable and work effectively with outdoor space.
For Perth, such a display village would provide a valuable means for industry to innovate with housing types and forms of construction. A government imprimatur and the willingness to underwrite the first projects should ensure this outcome.
The village would offer design diversity in terms of type and form, construction innovation including modular and prefabrication techniques, use of new materials, and the ability to test new strategies for utilities and waste.
It would showcase design for low energy use on a precinct scale and for reduced car dependency. It would take advantage of Perth’s climate and allow a fluid relationship between indoors and outdoors, creating a sense of space, light and air.
<h2>Infill can add value to suburbs</h2>
Government and industry would plan and promote the project. Government would provide the land and industry would build the housing. The display housing would be open to the public for a period of time, then sold to individual buyers.
Affordability remains a major obstacle to broader acceptance of higher-density housing. This is because selling prices per square metre are considerably more than those of a detached new house on the suburban fringes. The display village could explore alternative forms of land and house delivery and ownership.
Higher-density housing isn’t necessarily a threat to the traditional Australian notion of suburbia. It need not be seen as a denigration of the values that recognise suburbia as having a particular quality that helps establish the idea of an Australian way of life based on the detached house and its backyard. There is a vast existing stock to ensure those values will remain in place.
The development of well-designed, high-performing and higher-density infill housing will, in fact, protect existing suburbs from the poorer-quality infill that is occurring, while allowing the benefits of an enhanced public realm to be shared.
The WA government has a major challenge in meeting its infill targets. It can help meet this challenge by initiating a government-assisted display village of quality higher-density housing. It would be the first state government in Australia to do so.
Geoffrey London is professor of Architecture, University of Western Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/geoffrey-london-292101" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Urban Sprawl

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Urban Sprawl

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News