Urban Taskforce Australia

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER

The NSW Minister for Planning has released an analysis of housing demand and supply trends which highlights the urgent need for more and faster housing approvals if massive price rises are to be avoided.

Urban Taskforce welcomes the frank assessment which clearly states the need for more housing and more infrastructure to support our growing and ageing population.

DPIE Housing Demand forecasts are based on the Greater Sydney Commission’s (GSC) 2016 numbers – which find the over the next 20 years (2016 – 2036) the number of new homes in Greater Sydney needed will be 725,000 (36,000 per year).

The Draft NSW Housing Strategy Discussion Paper and Fact Book released by Minister Pavey and Minister Stokes in May 2020 was clear that the forecast for Growth in the population of Greater Sydney had grown and so too had the forecast need for new homes.  The May 2020 document is clear in stating that there will need to be 1 million new homes in the 20 years between 2020 and 2040 (that means 50,000 new homes every year).

The big question is: why is DPIE still clinging to the old data?  The 2020 Housing Strategy documents were based on sound analysis by DPIE staff and were informed by Demographic analysis and by the NSW Inter-Generational Report.

The Planning System was slowed by the focus on Strategic Planning documents.  Councils were not supposed to delay rezoning applications while preparing their new Local Environment Plans and their Local Strategic Planning Statements, but they did.

The data released by Minister Stokes today shows the extent of the problem created by the resultant chronic slowdown in approvals prior to COVID-19.

Between 2015-2018 approvals were going well and this, combined with the extension of construction operational hours and the early declaration of construction as an essential service kept this part of the economy working reasonably well.  However, through 2019, before COVID-19, approval numbers were dropping off in NSW.

As shown in the marked-up table, there is a lag between approvals and the completion of new homes.  The impact of the 2019 slowdown (which got worse in 2020 due to COVID-19) is yet to flow through to household completion numbers – but it will – and this will exacerbate the current rising prices in the Greater Sydney market.

<img alt="" height="630" src="https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/urban_taskforce_councils.jpg" width="541">

Minister Stokes has sent a clear signal to Councils which are refusing to adopt the GSC 5-year Housing Targets (which are themselves based on the lower 2016 housing forecasts not the more recent May 2020 analysis).  Ryde Council and Ku-ring-gai are the worst offenders. They have publicly rejected the GSC targets. If this flows through to other Councils, housing supply will crash, pushing prices up and costing thousands of jobs in the sector.

The fact that prices are rising despite the drop off in overseas migration reflects the fundamental economic reality: demand is greater than supply, so prices are rising.

The numbers quoted in the Minister’s media release will not meet the May 2020 Draft NSW Housing Strategy forecasts for growth. 

154,550 new home over the next 5 years equates to only 31,000 new homes each year (well below the GSC 2016 forecast requirement of 36,000 per year and a mile away from the 2020 NSW Housing Strategy target of 50,000 new homes per year.

Tom Forrest is the CEO of the Urban Taskforce.

Subsequent to publication Tom Forrest advised The Hills Shires Council had been exemplars in the area of Urban Planning and Housing Supply. 

He sincerely apologised for confusing The Hills Shire Council with Ku-ring-gai in the media statement.

The Council which has been the most opposed to the GSC Housing targets has, of course, been Ku-ring-gai Council.  

GSC set a reasonable 5-year target of 5,000 – 5,500 for Ku-ring-gai Council.  They passed a resolution to change that to 250 (over 5 years).

 
</body></html>

The data released by Minister Stokes shows the extent of the problem created by the resultant chronic slowdown in approvals prior to COVID-19.



Joel Robinson

Minister Stokes lights a fire under NSW council planners to drive housing supply

<html><body>
EXPERT INSIGHT

Minister for Local Government, Hon Shelly Hancock MLA, has released a draft Bill for public consultation to implement reforms to the rating system for councils and ratepayers.

The draft bill contains a mechanism to allow councils to seek rate rises in response to population growth. This is supported.

The new mechanism will incentivise councils to accept additional growth and increased density and give local government the ability to respond to increasing expectations for its role as a community service provider.

The draft Bill, if made, will also allow councils to levy special rates above the rate peg for infrastructure jointly funded with other levels of government without IPART approval. This is also supported as it will allow for the efficient sharing of the cost of infrastructure delivery when the benefits extend beyond a precinct, suburb or council area.

The current rate pegging system has meant that Councils with growing populations have been strapped for cash and have progressively pushed more and more costs onto developers and new home buyers. These additional costs are passed onto new home buyers – often those young people who can least afford the extra costs.

Mr Forrest said he was disappointed some of the of the additional proposals in the draft bill appeared to run counter to affordability outcomes. Limiting postponement of rates on rezoned land and charging rates on land that is required to be protected under conservation agreements is likely to add to the risk and costs of delivering new homes and jobs in NSW.

Urban Taskforce will analyse the contents of the draft Bill over the coming weeks. We will likely urge the Government to reconsider some aspects of the draft Bill to avoid disincentivising investment in property and employment - the last thing we need during the COVID-19 economic downturn.

Tom Forrest is the CEO at Urban Taskforce Australia
</body></html>

Urban Taskforce CEO, Tom Forrest, today acknowledged the NSW Government’s progress in implementing their response to IPART's review of the local government rating system.

urban.com.au

Government’s draft Bill to reform council rating system is a mixed bag

<html><body>
An announcement last week by the NSW state government has advanced plans for the urban renewal of Waterloo's public housing estate.

Options for the renewal of the estate sees towers of up to 40 storeys envisaged, effectively making the current public housing estate an add on the the adjacent <a href="https://www.ugdc.nsw.gov.au/growth-centres/redfern-to-waterloo/metro-quarter/">Waterloo Metro Quarter</a> development. As many as 7,200 new dwellings are expected within the estate, effectively tripling the current housing number.

Private dwellings are on the agenda, accounting for as many as 70 per cent of the expected housing stock, with the balance dedicated toward affordable and public housing.

<a href="https://www.communitiesplus.com.au/major-sites/waterloo">Three options have been tabled for the 18 hectare estate</a>, dubbed Waterloo Estate, Waterloo Village Green and Waterloo Park.

<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/image142_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The area subject to renewal. Image: Communities Plus"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="337" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files//styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image142_1.jpg?itok=0KsQHK1U" title="The area subject to renewal. Image: Communities Plus" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The area subject to renewal. Image: Communities Plus</figcaption></figure>Unsurprisingly development industry peak body Urban Taskforce Australia was highly supportive of Waterloo's renewal. Additionally Urban Taskforce CEO Chris Johnson also passed comment on the current wider Sydney planning environment.

<blockquote>
The NSW Government’s promotion of high rise development at Waterloo should also occur on private sector sites around railway stations but in a pre-election environment much planning is on hold.

We support the extent of development proposed at Waterloo but the government seems to be concerned about similar developments in Marrickville and Ryde where planning has been delayed. It is pleasing to see the NSW Government proposing 40 storey buildings along with 20 and 30 storey residential towers around the proposed metro station.

This gives the private sector confidence that tall residential buildings are supported at a time when there is much community concern about the changing character of Sydney.

The Urban Taskforce supports the use of large sites, like the old brewery site on Broadway, for urban renewal projects as their scale can create the amenities and open space for the new community. We believe that there are many decaying industrial sites across the inner west that could produce quality developments like the one proposed at Waterloo.

At a time of a big swing in Sydney towards urban living the government must provide leadership to the community about the new shape of the city by supporting private development as well as public development. Unfortunately the pre-election environment has made the government nervous about development on private land and this will slow down housing supply.
</blockquote>

<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/image143_3.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Waterloo Redevelopment Options is available for public comment. Image: Communities Plus"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="568" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files//styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image143_3.jpg?itok=c5tGYZez" title="Waterloo Redevelopment Options is available for public comment. Image: Communities Plus" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Waterloo Redevelopment Options is available for public comment. Image: Communities Plus</figcaption></figure>With a development timeframe of 15 to 20 years, the estate's masterplan is taking shape with an aim of "reflecting the community’s needs and priorities along with the findings from a range of technical studies".

The trio of development options are now subject to a period of public feedback prior to a preferred plan being adopted. Beyond the adoption of and implementation of the preferred masteplan, it will be referred to Department of Planning and Environment for assessment in order to be ratified.

Further information on the Waterloo estate urban renewal can be found <a href="https://www.communitiesplus.com.au/major-sites/waterloo">here</a>.
</body></html>

silvermb

UTA lauds Waterloo's proposed urban renewal as a benchmark for Sydney

<html><body>
Parramatta's Altitude Towers, Docklands' Banksia and Brisbane South City Square among some of the winners from the Urban Taskforce Australia's Development Excellence Awards that were handed down at a dinner last week.

Altitude is a dual tower development that included 629 units across a 170m, 53 level 'West' Tower and a 128m, 39 level 'East Tower located on the banks of the Parramatta River with a street frontage to Church Street.

The development includes both serviced apartments and private apartments as well as a child care centre and several eateries and drinking establishments.  The building topped out in January 2017.

Chair of the judging panel and NSW Government Architect Peter Poulet said "Altitude in Parramatta ticks all the boxes, it is a commercial success, it has an elegant and striking deisgn, it creates excellent community amenities and it contributes a ring of confidence to the City of Parramatta."

<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/banksia_syd.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Banksia - image: Sydney Struwig"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="870" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files//styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/banksia_syd.jpg?itok=23n0uGQB" title="Banksia - image: Sydney Struwig" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Banksia - image: Sydney Struwig</figcaption></figure>MAB Corporation's Banksia Apartments took out the award for top High Rise City Apartments Development with the jury acknowledging the building "broke out of the usual apartment mould with its round shape and interesting facade."

Chris Johnson, UTA's CEO, went on to say "it does seem that Melbourne apartment design is more innovative than many Sydney apartments that much comply with the many rules in the NSW Apartment Design Guide."

The Urban Taskforce Australia, a non-profit lobby group that represents developers and equity financiers and primarily focused on the development scene in Sydney, <a href="http://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/urbanideas/august2017/?page=1">has long drawn a distinction between design regulations in NSW and Victoria</a>, even going so far as to say if Victorian standards were applied in NSW, it would save Sydney buyers $150,000 when making an apartment purchase.

<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/south_city_square_perri_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="South City Square. Image: Perri Projects"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="322" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files//styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/south_city_square_perri_1.jpg?itok=lfT9jMhD" title="South City Square. Image: Perri Projects" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>South City Square. Image: Perri Projects</figcaption></figure>Pellicano and Perri Project's South City Square in Brisbane took out the award for top Mixed Use Development which includes hotel suites, 860 apartments and 13,000 square metres of retail space and a new public square.

Located at the intersection of Logan Road and Deshon Street in Woolloongabba, South City Square has completed stages 1 and 3 with stage 3 due to be complete by early 2019 and the site is located within a 1km walk of the fuiture Woolloongabba station to be built as part of the Cross River Rail project.

The jury for the Development Excellence Awards included Peter Poulet - NSW Government Architect, Carolyn Cummins - SMH journalist, John Wynne - Urbis, John Ferrarin - Quantity Surveyor and David Tanevski - Secretary-Treasurer UTA.

Winner's list.

Winner of Development of the Year 
Altitude, Parramatta by Meriton Group

Winner of Retail Development 
Narellan Town Centre by Greenfields Development Company &amp; D.Vitocco Constructions

Winner of Commercial Office City Development 
Commonwealth Bank, Darling Square by Lendlease

Winner of High Rise City Apartments Development 
Banksia by Mab Corporation

Winner of Medium Rise City Apartments Development 
Eighty-Eight, Kensington by Luxcon Group

Winner of Medium Rise Metro Apartments Development 
Woolooware Bay Stage One by Capital Bluestone

Winner of Mixed Uses Development 
South City Square by Pellicano &amp; Perri Projects

Winner of Urban Renewal Development 
Kensington Street &amp; Spice Alley by Greencliff &amp; Frasers Property Australia

Winner of Masterplanned Community Development 
Willowdale by Stockland Development

Winner of Seniors Living/Retirement Development 
St Basil's Randwick by St Basil's Homes

Winner of Affordable Housing Development 
Harts Landing by PAYCE &amp; Evolve Housing

Winner of Sustainable Development 
International House Sydney, Barangaroo South by Lendlease

Highly Commended Mixed Uses Development 
Esprit by Bridgehill Group
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Parramatta's Altitude Towers takes top gong at UTA's Development Excellence Awards

<html><body>
Peak body Urban Taskforce Australia has weighed in on the release of Infrastructure Australia's Future Cities report.

Future Cities tackles the planning issues surrounding Australia's sustained population growth and calls on the Federal Government to take a leadership role in the development of Australia's cities. While noting that the nation's four largest cities will see 75% of population growth through to 2046, the paper particularly focuses on Melbourne and Sydney.

<blockquote>
The paper compares the performance of the three hypothetical scenarios for Sydney by modelling their respective impact on the performance of the city’s infrastructure. It provides evidence of the trade-offs which will be faced by Australia’s largest cities as they grow over the next 30 years, and presents an urban reform agenda for Australian governments.
<cite>Future Cities - Sydney</cite>
</blockquote>

Along similar lines to Melbourne's differing growth scenarios, three separate models have been put forward for Sydney, for which Urban Taskforce Australia has identified its preferred ‘Centralised High Density’ model which best matches the emerging living options for a vast number of Sydneysiders.

<blockquote>
The report on the future form of Australian cities is an excellent contribution to the discussions of how growth will be accommodated in Sydney and Melbourne. The presentation of three options, a Low Density, High Density and Medium Density scenarios is a good way to focus on the way forward.

The actual differences between these three options are not that great with the low density having 30% of new housing in greenfield areas, the medium density having 20% in greenfield and the high density having 10% in greenfield areas.
<cite>Urban Taskforce CEO, Chris Johnson</cite>
</blockquote>

Chris Johnson goes on to explain that the three scenarios work in a band where 1.43 million new homes is the lower expected outcome, cycling up to 1.65 million new homes for the high density option. The majority of this new housing stock will account for infill sites across existing Sydney suburbs.

How this change translates to the physical urban environment and the possible consternation that many may experience in this new higher density Sydney is a pertinent issue.

<blockquote>
Whether the infill is 70% (minimum) or 90% (maximum) it is clear that the existing suburbs of Sydney will have to change their character. The Urban Taskforce believes that centralised high density development around railway stations is the best way to accommodate new housing in existing suburbs.

Under this model most of Sydney’s existing low density suburbs will be retained as detached houses. A ring on medium density housing around the high density housing can provide a transition between the two urban forms.

The high density approach will better support investment into metro rail infrastructure which will be necessary as the city grows.
</blockquote>

Any which way Infrastructure Australia's Future Cities report is interpreted or potentially implemented, whats's clear is that the urban character of Australia's major cities will further change. Sydney has traditionally been at the vanguard of higher density living, stealing a march on other Australian cities who have come to accept higher density living relatively recently.

<blockquote>
The ‘Future Cities’ report also highlights the dramatic shift underway in Sydney and Melbourne to urban living which has different characteristics to suburban living.

The Urban Taskforce has recently undertaken research into Sydney’s emerging urban lifestyles and an understanding of the demographics of those now preferring urban apartment living will be important for planning bodies.
</blockquote>

Lead image: Meinhardt
</body></html>

Urban Taskforce Australia says IA report reinforces the need for urban densities

<html><body>
It's intriguing to take note of how differing interests play out in the Australian property development industry.

In stark contrast to Sydney's regimented planning controls which have long been in place and Melbourne's recently overhauled inner-city planning controls which are now in play, Urban Taskforce Australia (UTA) last Friday called for a greater number of taller towers across Australia's major cities. The call was made via UTA's <a href="http://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/urbanideas/july2016/?page=1">Urban Ideas</a> magazine and places the peak body at odds with current policy.

Representing Australia's most prominent property developers, UTA acts with a heavily slanted view toward the New South Wales property industry, so it comes as no surprise that they have shown concern over Sydney's inability to maintain pace with the rest of the nation (essentially Melbourne, Brisbane and the Gold Coast) in the race to create taller skyscrapers.

Whether this is materially relevant to Sydney's growth and prosperity is of course debatable, but UTA argues that increased tower height has a direct relationship to accommodating increased population growth.

The latest Urban Ideas issue shows that Sydney and Parramatta combined will sport only three of Australia's future top 20 tallest towers. Seen below is the up-to-date Urban Ideas table highlighting Australia's current and future tallest buildings.

<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/image15_4.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Urban Taskforce Australia's cyrrent and proposed tall towers list. Source: CTBUH via UTA"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="426" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image15_4.jpg?itok=PESCyiM1" title="Urban Taskforce Australia's cyrrent and proposed tall towers list. Source: CTBUH via UTA" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Urban Taskforce Australia's current and proposed tall towers list. Source: CTBUH via UTA</figcaption></figure><h2>Australian cities will need to grow up rather than out</h2>

<blockquote>
Australian cities have grown over the last 200 years on the suburban, garden city model. As these cities grew to 2 or 3 million the low rise model could still work but with Sydney now at 5 million, travel to work has led to massive congestion.

Further horizontal spread will be limited so an increase in densities and heights will be essential to accommodate the growth predicted. 
<cite>UTA Chief Executive Officer: Chris Johnson</cite>
</blockquote>

Melbourne has been doing some growing of its own over recent years, with a well publicised squad of 200 metre plus towers ranging from planning through to construction.

It has been a little over a year since discretionary plot ratios, mandatory podium height, mandatory setback requirements and mandatory height controls were introduced, intending to provide better amenity outcomes for new inner city developments. Has this policy change adversely affected Melbourne's development industry in any tangible way?

There has been a noticeable slow down in large scale applications handled by the State, but is that the work of policy or organic market forces?

Developers are a shrewd lot and it could be argued that they have merely followed prevailing trends. The buyers current appetite now lies with larger dwellings within smaller projects, with the middle and outer suburbs now doing the heavy lifting of absorbing buyer demand whilst the CBD in particular absorbs higher levels of supply.

Merely asking for taller developments for the sake of continuing growth is an interesting stance as taken by the UTA. Does it really matter that Sydney has a disproportionately small representation of the nation's tallest buildings?

<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/img_6952.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Melbourne's move upwards is in full swing"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="386" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/img_6952.jpg?itok=KyNzPsUO" title="Melbourne's move upwards is in full swing" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Melbourne's move upwards is in full swing</figcaption></figure><h2>Melbourne standing tall</h2>

Policy aside the roll-out of new Melbourne skyscrapers continues at pace.

With Brady Group's Vision Apartments approaching practical completion, six additional projects over 200 metres are at construction. Such is the lag between entering planning and reaching construction, the policy changes implemented by the current State Government last year will have almost an immaterial effect upon the roll-out of projects such is their lengthy delivery timeline.

Massive projects yet to appear on the skyline include <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/projects/tower-melbourne-150-queen-street-melbourne">Tower Melbourne</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/projects/queens-place-350-queen-street-melbourne">Queens Place</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/west-side-place-250-spencer-street-melbourne">West Side Place Towers 1 and 2</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/melbourne-square-93-119-kavanagh-street-southbank">96 Kavanagh Street</a> and <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/38-freshwater-place-southbank">38 Freshwater Place</a>. 

Even with rejigged planning laws there still remains scope for exceedingly high towers to take their place in Melbourne's skyline. Crown's hulking <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/one-queensbridge-street-1-23-queensbridge-street-southbank">Southbank mixed-use project</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/projects/51-65-clarke-street-southbank">51-65 Clarke Street</a> and Sterling Global's Jean Nouvel-designed <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/projects/383-la-trobe-street-melbourne">383 La Trobe Street</a> are examples of skyscrapers that have been submitted post the new planning regime, with the shortest of the trio at 239 metres.
</body></html>

Tall tales and Sydney's slump in the skyscraper stakes

<html><body>
In what is billed as a first, <a href="http://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/">Urban Taskforce Australia</a> has released the results of a poll it commissioned specifically targeting the views of apartment dwellers in the city it calls home, Sydney.

The timing of the poll could not be more pertinent with New South Wales heading to the polls at the end of March and perhaps more importantly with a "Battlelines" Prime Minister in the Lodge, the message from the poll is that people who choose urban living have a different worldview to some of the paint-the-electorate-with-the-same-brush policies of the major parties.

As mentioned above, Urban Taskforce Australia is located and most active in Sydney and Sydney-sider apartment dwellers were the sole target of the poll. It would not be outrageous to assume that had a poll been conducted with similar parameters on a Melburnian sample then there would be a similar outcome given our nation-leading position in the urban development stakes.

On some of the highlights: urban dwellers are generally happy to see more urban growth whereas suburban dwellers are not; across the political spectrum, urban dwellers responded with little enthusiasm when asked the question "I actively fight growth and development plans".

Perhaps the fascinating snippet of the poll is the voting intentions. Again, we must look at this from an outsiders point of view in light of the sample's location and the upcoming state election however this poll smashes the stereotype that urban dwellers generally lean left.

Urban dwellers value lower-car ownership and use, more attractive streetscapes &amp; walkability and 51% of NSW Liberal voters living in an urban dwelling think it's important to live close to Public Transport.

On the importance of car parking in apartment developments there's a clear gap between those who provide the capital - investors - and those who are the clientele - the renters. 81% of Sydney apartment investors think private car parking is important yet only 56% of renters agree - the question must be asked: is there scope to place even less emphasis on car parking in new developments?

The ResearchNow poll splits urban dwellers into four groups: renters, owners, investors and intenders. The first three are self-explanatory, and the 'intenders' are those that aim to live in an apartment.

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th class="rtecenter">Political Party</th>
			<th class="rtecenter">Renters</th>
			<th class="rtecenter">Owners</th>
			<th class="rtecenter">Investors</th>
			<th class="rtecenter">Intenders</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Liberal</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">19%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">33%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">40%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">29%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Labor</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">25%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">27%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">22%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">27%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Greens</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">13%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">9%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">11%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">8%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Others</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">8%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">7%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">4%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">8%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>'Rather not say'</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">35%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">25%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">23%</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">23%</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
What does this all mean? Well for a start, I look at the data in the table above and see a broad spread of party voting intentions. Assuming a similar result were to be returned on a Melbourne sample, in all the areas outside of the City of Melbourne which are seeing small-scale yet rapid change through apartment development, the North/South of the Yarra blue and red political divide might become more purple in the long run.

The full media release and accompanying poll findings are embedded below (political advisors, influencers and policy-makers would be wise to pay attention to page 2) and be sure to check out <a href="http://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/images/stories/Extras_for_Newsletters/Report_by_Seonaid_Chappell-_ResearchNow.pdf">further poll data</a> from Urban Taskforce Australia's website.

<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_18217" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/259106194/content?start_page=1&amp;view_mode=scroll&amp;show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe>

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.flickr.com/photos/aidan_jones/1859073197">flickr</a>.
</body></html>

Landmark poll of apartment dwellers' views revealed

<html><body>
The most recent monthly housing approvals released from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show Victoria continues to cater for future housing stock with a combined 5,009 new approvals during November 2014. Of those approximately 2,350 were for high density living with apartments and townhouses the major contributors.

The figures and associated graph were highlighted on January 8th by Urban Taskforce Australia, a peak industry body charged with representing property development interests across Australia although with a strong Sydney focus.

<blockquote>
While housing approvals across Australia are reaching record levels NSW approvals have dropped. Victoria is leading the country with 5,009 home approvals in November compared to 3,958 for NSW which is a significantly larger state.

The state election in NSW is only a few months away and clearly the attitudes to growth and the impact on housing supply and therefore the affordability of housing will be an important election issue. We can’t let NSW slide off its Number One status in Australia so we must support growth to remain the Premier State.
<cite>Chris Johnson, Urban Taskforce Australia</cite>
</blockquote>

Sydney parochialism aside, monthly high density approvals over the best part of 30 years can be seen in the below graph. Most noticeable is the Victorian sector lagging well behind the other states for many years, although in recent years this trend has reversed, in line with the increased penchant for apartment living principally throughout inner Melbourne.

<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/image295.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Private sector higher density home approvals. Image courtesy Urban Taskforce Australia"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="376" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image295.jpg?itok=l2xtkOM0" title="Private sector higher density home approvals. Image courtesy Urban Taskforce Australia" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Private sector higher density home approvals. Image courtesy Urban Taskforce Australia</figcaption></figure>A number of articles on the matter have been published via various media outlets in recent days along with the almost obligatory associated potential for oversupply of apartments in the Melbourne markets; the same spectre which has been present since 2011, yet for the most has been staved off.

Special kudos is reserved though for <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/01/08/vic-home-building-approvals-stay-ahead">SBS online</a> which reported the direct correlation between heightened Victorian approvals and an increase in apartment oversupply; quite a supposition given these additional approvals are nothing more than paper approvals and do not add to the physical stock of available dwellings.

See the Australian Bureau of Statistics <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/8731.0Main%20Features3Nov%202014?opendocument&amp;tabname=Summary&amp;prodno=8731.0&amp;issue=Nov%202014&amp;num=&amp;view=">latest figures on the topic</a>.
</body></html>

Victorian apartment approvals at a record high

<html><body>
Read Editor Alastair Taylor's blog post on the parallels that can be drawn on the EcoDenCity initiative in Sydney and the Planning Zone reforms currently underway in Victoria <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/blogs/melburnists-braindump/2013/10/02/utas-ecodencity-initiative-and-victorias-reformed-planning-zone-parallels" target="_blank">here</a>.

A new initiative by Urban Taskforce Australia seeks to address the issues in housing Sydney's diverse and growing communities. Named EcoDenCity, it echoes many aspects of the approach Vancouver took in the last decade to address its growth. 

In June 2006, the then Mayor of Vancouver, Sam Sullivan, launched an initiative called Ecodensity. This initiative sought to address Vancouver's vast and growing ecological footprint by committing to environmental sustainability in all future planning decisions. The central tenet of the Ecodensity initiative is that high quality densification, in itself, is one of the most effective sustainable measures a city can take to reduce its ecological footprint. The benefits of a denser city are numerous; it allows people to live closer to workplaces and amenities, promotes more efficient and cost-effective public transport, reduces trip length which in turn encourages walking and cycling, promotes the use of green energy initiatives, reduces both infrastructure costs and duplication and limits urban sprawl.

Despite the benefits of densification, the very idea and even the word itself, is often met in the community with fear and derision. At the extreme end of community concern are the NIMBYs and their cries of 'Dubai-ification' that are often levelled at development proposals not much taller than a two storey house with a pitched roof.

But it is these same communities who must absorb the millions of new residents in our cities in the next two decades. Furthermore, within these communities, a growing proportion are seeking more cosmopolitan lifestyles that only urban areas can bring, further propagating the need for high-density housing.

In a pitch to both those who see the need for densification and those who fear it, Urban Taskforce Australia last week launched the concept of EcoDenCity, which spells the need for housing Sydney's diverse and growing communities and the variety of ways this can be achieved. The launch of the EcoDenCity publication and website was supplemented with a presentation by Chris Johnson, CEO of Urban Taskforce Australia, along with a panel of community, council, and government representatives.

Recognising Sydney's diverse population, the presentation wound through seven residential development types proposed by Urban Taskforce as the answer to a growing Sydney. The seven types are: R2; R4; R6; R8; R12; R25 and R35+. The 'R' represents 'Residential' and the number indicates building height in storeys. Each of the residential development types was then defined in relation to their most likely demographic, population density, location within the metropolitan area and amenities they are likely to support. The following diagram summarises the attributes of each residential type.

<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/BuildingTypes.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Building types and their characteristics - image © Urban Taskforce of Australia"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/BuildingTypes.png?itok=eBqJLU_c" title="Building types and their characteristics - image © Urban Taskforce of Australia" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

R2, R4 and R6 were said to be at or below tree canopy height and therefore suitable for normal suburban streets. In the case of R6, setting back the top levels to reduce apparent height was particularly effective in achieving good scale on the street. R8 was singled out for being the maximum height before expensive fire sprinklers and other controls were required. R8, along with R12 saw the shift in location to urban renewal sites, urban corridors and town centres. R25 and R35+ represented towers to be located in major centres and the CBD respectively, with a shift to smaller floor plates and a more tower-like structure.

One of the biggest fears communities have of densification is the idea that it encroaches on open space that the community might enjoy. However, if a development site or new suburb has been mandated a maximum density, a developer can opt for medium density (R4 to R12) and more open space or low density (R2) and little open space. It is often the views of the surrounding communities that determine which the developer will choose to build.

In reality, most developments in existing areas as well as many new suburbs contain a mixture of heights in their built forms to attain a desired density. On a suburb scale, higher densities and taller buildings may occur on busier roads, near shopping centres or transport hubs and taper towards lower densities further away. On a development site scale, tall buildings may occur where they impact less on the neighbouring fabric and taper down towards the boundaries. To illustrate this, the following diagram explain how these mixed-height buildings can achieve a range of desired built forms, open space and density outcomes.

<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/DensityTypes.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Density types showing a range of height and open space possibilities - Image © Urban Taskforce of Australia"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/DensityTypes.png?itok=gfAWln2H" title="Density types showing a range of height and open space possibilities - Image © Urban Taskforce of Australia" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

Some of the scenarios presented in this diagram correspond to developments that are either built or under-construction in the Sydney metropolitan area. Examples of these were displayed in the Urban Taskforce presentation, with developments ranging from a suburban scale of 100 people per hectare to an urban scale of 1000 people per hectare. It is interesting to note that every example development in the presentation contained 25% to 35% open space, regardless of their urban or suburban settings and all had their place in metropolitan Sydney. Some examples are listed below.

<h3>Oran Park</h3>

Oran Park is a low-density development of about 100 people per hectare on the outskirts of Sydney. Whilst it has higher density than many suburbs built in the last 40 years, 75% of the land area is either 2 story housing or open space, giving it the same feel and look of neighbouring suburbs. The increased density comes mostly from a compact urban town centre with only 25 % of the suburb containing development of 4 storeys or more, up to 8 storeys.

<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/OranParkDetails.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Oran Park fact sheet"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/OranParkDetails.png?itok=cFZlfLvT" title="Oran Park fact sheet" typeof="Image"></a>

<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/OranParkPhoto.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Aerial of Oran Park"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/OranParkPhoto.jpg?itok=s8T2SBEe" title="Aerial of Oran Park" typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

<h3>Harold Park</h3>

Harold Park is an urban infill development in the inner suburb of Glebe in Sydney. Surrounding the site are many heritage-listed two-story terrace houses, so a sensitive solution was required. With 35% open space, the remaining 65% of land area consists of building heights of 4-8 storeys. In particular, the use of setbacks on the top few floors significantly lowers the apparent height of the buildings. At a population density of about 300 people per hectare this type of development is suited to middle ring suburbs as well as heritage inner suburbs.

<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/HaroldParkDetails.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Harold Park fact sheet"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/HaroldParkDetails.png?itok=Cht24xNx" title="Harold Park fact sheet" typeof="Image"></a>

<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/HaroldParkPhoto.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Render of Harold Park apartment block"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/HaroldParkPhoto.png?itok=-shzHWd-" title="Render of Harold Park apartment block" typeof="Image"></a>

<h3>Central Park</h3>

Central Park is a development on the fringe of Sydney’s CBD, with excellent rail and bus services on its doorstep. Half built, it will soon cater for a density of 1000 people per hectare with 25% open space and roughly equal amounts of R8, R12, R25 and R35+ buildings on the remaining land. It is a development clearly aimed at those wanting an urban lifestyle and the amenities it can offer.

<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/CentralParkDetails.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Central Park fact sheet"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/CentralParkDetails.png?itok=osD8BeNQ" title="Central Park fact sheet" typeof="Image"></a>

<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/CentralParkPhoto.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Aerial of Central Park development "><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="http://urbanmelbourne.info/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/CentralParkPhoto.jpg?itok=D24RyOYx" title="Aerial of Central Park development " typeof="foaf:Image"></a>

Following the EcoDenCity presentation, each of the panel members gave a short response with respect to their backgrounds in industry, community and government. They are summarised below:

Peter Spira - General Manager, Meriton

Peter commented on the 50-year history of Meriton and noted that in that time, apartments have gone from a choice of last resort to first resort. The stigma of apartment living has well and truly disappeared and a whole new generation of young adults - mostly the children of baby-boomers - have in the last 15 years embraced the urban cosmopolitan lifestyle.

Geoff Turnbull - Spokesperson for REDWatch

Geoff spoke of his concerns regarding the EcoDenCity initiative, citing the examples used in the presentation and unintended problems these developments might cause to the existing community. Traffic and transport problems were mentioned in regard to the ‘Erko’ development, which despite being close to Erskineville station, trains were often at capacity and passengers at the station were unable to board. Lack of schools, or places to put them was cited as a problem when an influx of new residents into an already existing area occurs, as has been recently reported in the media. Geoff spoke of the large segment of social housing residents in his community and argued that there was no consideration for their amenity and no provisions for fostering a social mix between them and the new residents. Also mentioned was a complaint that in the preparation of the new planning laws for NSW, the various interest and community groups were segmented during consultation, and an argument was put forward for integrated discussion involving all relevant parties. In response, Chris Johnson suggested that many of the major concerns Geoff raised like public transport and community facilities were outside the scope of developers. Developers also paid Section 94 contributions to government which should be directed towards the funding of such amenities. 

Sima Truuvert - Director of City Planning, Randwick Council

Sima spoke about the main urban activation areas in the Randwick Council area, surrounding the Anzac Parade route and the University of NSW/hospital precinct. She reiterated the concerns of local residents, namely lack of privacy, loss of views and overshadowing and that to overcome these concerns, the need for transparency is crucial.

Ross Grove - Councillor, Holroyd Council (former Mayor)

Ross explained his time as Mayor of Holroyd Council as one of success, going from the second slowest council for DA approvals to being a top 10 performer. With new LEP’s, DCP’s and slashing Section 94 developer contributions by 30%, the council fostered a culture of growth that residents could adapt to. By articulating clarity of vision, the council were able to stymie NIMBYism. By communicating the benefits of development, including life choices, diversity of housing for different stages of life, providing more affordable housing options and improved infrastructure for the area, residents were able to accept this vision for growth. Most importantly, by showcasing to the residents that building higher densities in the central areas where they would be better suited to, the ‘quarter acre block’ prevalent in the Holroyd Council area would be protected.

Trish Oakley - Executive Director, Community and Stakeholder Engagement, NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Trish stressed the need to cater for growth in a sustainable, workable way and the importance of not doing so in an adversarial way with the community. The current planning system was said to be very inaccessible to the community and that any new planning system must engage people at the strategic planning stage. She welcomed the EcoDenCity initiative, and emphasised strongly the need for community consultation.

---

Final thoughts

The idea that density can drive a reduction in the ecological footprint of a city is an idea lost, either reflexively or perhaps conveniently, to many of those who would otherwise champion every other measure of sustainability. Density can be done badly or it can be planned. If planned, it would be better still to include the community in the discussion.

Urban Taskforce's EcoDenCity initiative recognises that some locations are ideal for lower densities and some locations are ideal for higher densities. It showcases the different physical forms each density level can take. It prepares for a population growth of 1.5 million people in Sydney in the next twenty years as well as the growing popularity of urban living. It might well be incidental, but by pursuing higher densities, it is in sync with sustainability and the reduction of Sydney’s ecological footprint. The EcoDenCity initiative may well be a self-serving vision for the industry that created it, but it is a positive plan for the growth of our cities. It's time for the community and their representatives to do the same. ‘Not-in-my-backyard’ isn't good enough. Instead of ad-hoc campaigns against ad-hoc densification, it would serve the community well to instead band together and demand better quality densification at the strategic stage.

 

<h3>Further Information:</h3>

http://www.ecodencity.com.au

http://www.urbantaskforce.com.au

<h3>EcoDenCity for Sydney: Urban Taskforce</h3>

Presenter:

Chris Johnson - Chief Executive Officer, Urban Taskforce

Panel:

Peter Spira - General Manager, Meriton

Geoff Turnbull - Spokesperson for REDWatch

Sima Truuvert - Director of City Planning, Randwick Council

Ross Grove - Councillor, Holroyd Council (former Mayor)

Trish Oakley, Executive Director, Community and Stakeholder Engagement, NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

 

All images sourced from http://www.urbantaskforce.com.au
</body></html>

Urban Taskforce Australia

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Urban Taskforce Australia

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News