City Planning

Urban Taskforce welcomes today&rsquo;s intervention from the Chief Economist of the NSW Treasury, Steven Walter, who says that post COVID-19, Sydney&rsquo;s CBD will not return to pre-COVID employment levels. That means the planning system must be flexible and allow changes of use to apartments as has happened successfully throughout the world.

Urban Taskforce has been calling for increased flexibility in CBD planning since well before COVID-19.

These calls have been supported by the Commonwealth Productivity Commission, the NSW Productivity Commission, the Reserve Bank of Australia, and now the Chief Economist of the NSW Treasury.&nbsp;

It is time the NSW Minister for Planning, Rob Stokes, started to listen to the very people who said planning approvals are too slow, to prescriptive and too few. &nbsp;Urban Taskforce said that this would result in upward pressure on new housing prices and that is exactly what we are seeing now.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=7758 project_image_fid=79424]

Urban Taskforce welcomes the support from the Treasurer, Dominic Perrottet, while noting that any change will require much greater flexibility from the City of Sydney. &nbsp;The State Government has the capacity to assert this through the Central Sydney Planning Committee (CSPC) but to date, the Government representatives has used its authority to take on Council&rsquo;s reluctance to support residential apartments in the CBD of Sydney.

A change to the objectives and the permissible uses in the &ldquo;B3&rdquo; zoned commercial core areas would allow for greater flexibility in CBD locations to stimulate CBD investment across Sydney.&nbsp;

Chatswood is a notable example of a CBD centre that has died under Council&rsquo;s obsession with preserving the town centre as &ldquo;commercial core only&rdquo;. &nbsp;There has not been a new building constructed in their B3 zone since the early 1990s.

Steven Walters&rsquo; suggestion that a flexible mixed-use option is the key to the future is timely.

The GSC also needs to heed the changes in employment habits following COVID-19, and focus policy on delivery of new homes as well as jobs. &nbsp;Increasingly homes will be used as workplaces. &nbsp;That means commercial centres and well located industrial areas should also accommodate apartments &ndash; particularly where those centres are close to public transpory.

Tom Forrest is the CEO at the Urban Taskforce

NSW Treasury’s Chief Economist has called for changes in CBD planning to allow more residential utilisation 

jchancellor

Urban Taskforce welcomes NSW Treasury’s chief economist calls for changes in CBD planning

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Planning decisions across NSW need to be determined by different independent panels depending on project size.
The current suggestions that development applications should be determined by independent panels will take the politics out of decision making. 
But there need to be different panels depending on the scale of development. Small scale projects should remain with council planners to provide reports to a council independent panel but large projects over $20 million will need a different process.
The over $20 million projects inevitably involve state government agencies like roads and transport so these projects are determined by planning panels. 
In Sydney these are chaired by the Greater Sydney Commission’s District Commissioner. 
Under the current arrangements local council planners prepare a planning report which is provided to the panel to make their decision. 
However, the report often takes a negative position on the proposed development, reflecting the views of local councillors rather than providing an independent, merit based analysis of the proposal. A better process for large projects in
Sydney is to establish six District Planning Offices in each of the Greater Sydney Commission’s districts.
Currently only 1.3 percent of the Development Applications that are processed in Sydney are above $20 million but they are the big projects that represent 47.3 percent of the total construction value of DAs.
 These big projects currently take a massive 271 days on average to be approved and they need specialist planning skills to negotiate with government agencies. 
The six District Planning Offices could second skilled staff from councils in the district into a single office to prepare planning reports. 
The other 98.7 percent of DAs should be processed at the local council level by council planners. Both small and large projects can be assessed by independent panels.
If the NSW Government is going to reform the planning system to make it more independent it should do this in a manner that acknowledges the new governance structure established by the Greater Sydney Commission of six districts. 
A decade or so ago there were very few large precinct wide apartment projects involving hundreds of apartments as well as commercial, retail and open space but now these sophisticated and complex projects are far more common. 
The time is ripe for a more sophisticated planning system that supports larger projects that are ultimately the key to driving Sydney’s housing supply.
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">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Keep planning decisions for small projects with council panels and for large projects with regional panels

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63322/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Various cities in Australia have developed creative economy policies with the aim of diversifying their economy.
These policies are about attracting and retaining entrepreneurs and firms from the creative industries sector, such as the music and fashion industries.
Creative economy policies were often based on the cluster concept developed by Michael Porter in the 1990s. This was the case for the creative city strategy in Brisbane and also for the more recent music industry policy in Melbourne.
Brisbane has been very active in this area. The objective was to be less dependent on natural resources in the future.
Planning initiatives such the Kelvin Grove Village are examples of economic development strategies based on the cluster concept that translated into planned projects. But positive steps are being taken to provide affordable spaces for creative workers.
Recent research on the video game industry in Australia has shown that new technologies have greatly influenced the production of games. The industry functions as a “networked community” and not strictly as spatially bounded clusters. The use of new platforms such as the internet enables small companies to produce games from remote areas.
<h2>Industry structures are changing</h2>
The composition of the industry has changed significantly since 2006-07, with the closure of several development studios that focused on console games, such as Krome Studios. A variety of platforms – Unity 3d, mobile phones etc – is now available to game developers.
With the shift from console games to mobile phone games, the industry has changed dramatically. The nature of the demand has changed too: consumers of video games are now looking for a quick and fast experience.
Disparity Games, operating from Noosa on the Sunshine Coast, is an example of these new successful companies located outside the main cluster. The people behind Disparity Games are two video game developers working from home in an idyllic environment. The map below shows the location of video game firms in Queensland, with some of those companies operating from the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast.
In an interview with the author, one of the game developers explained why they decided to move their company to Noosa:
"After the collapse of large studios we decided to go indie. With the smaller indie companies, everyone is more supportive. We have meet-ups on marketing, technical issues, game testing. We are exchanging knowledge at those events, [so] we don’t need to be based in the city anymore to be part of the community."
<h2>New technologies enable new ways of working</h2>
These studios have demonstrated that self-publishing is a viable business model in Australia. Independent developers can now bypass traditional international publishers.
New technologies have thus had the effect of reducing the size of video game companies and increasing their number. This is verified in Queensland, which has become specialised in developing mobile phone games.
New technologies such as the National Broadband Network (NBN) have changed the way video game developers produce games and where they produce them. With the NBN, a small video game company can literally produce a game from anywhere.
If they already have the professional connections, developers can work on the same game with different experts located in different cities. Face-to-face interactions are important, but this does not mean anymore that video game developers need to be located in the city at all times.
In that sense, creative economy policies should think about flexible ways to accommodate creative workers in the city. The opening of co-working spaces in South Bank or the River City labs are good examples in Brisbane.
This research shows it is time to go beyond the cluster type of economic development policies to attract and retain creative workers and firms in cities like Brisbane.
Instead of planning creative neighbourhoods or districts, which are often not affordable for start-up companies, policies should aim for flexible solutions such as co-working spaces. Those are more adapted to an era in which new technologies are to a certain extent changing the geography of creative industries based on technological innovation such as the video game industry.
Sebastien Darchen is lecturer in Planning, The University of Queensland and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sebastien-darchen-6781" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Gaming trends show cities need to rethink how they tap into creative economy

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/81098/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A large body of research shows that living in cities can harm our health. We know poor urban design can lead to people being less physically active, which is a factor in weight problems, obesity and cancers. But did you know urban life might lead to poor mental health?
Recent research points to the possibility that living in cities might be associated with higher rates of depression and anxiety. Some studies suggest that specific aspects of urban life might be “depressogenic” – in other words, lead to poor mental health. 
What is emerging from research is that living in cities may double the risk of schizophrenia and increase the risks of anxiety disorders (by 21%), mood disorders (by 39%), and depression (by 40%).
 
The range of potential explanations for these findings include issues related to the physical environment of cities – such as heat, noise, light, social isolation – and even a concentration of people at risk who may seek out better medical care in cities. 
So what might be driving these poor mental health outcomes? And are urban planners able to do anything about it?
<h2>Do some environments ‘mess with our minds’?</h2>
The bright lights, busy streets and noise of cities can increase our “cognitive load”. Swamped with incoming information, our minds can become stressed and mentally fatigued. 
Night-time lighting, higher noise levels (from traffic, aircraft, industries or neighbours, among other things), congestion and crowding, and even higher temperatures associated with urban heat islands can make it harder for us to concentrate. They also affect our ability to get a good night’s sleep.
It can be difficult to escape that cognitive overload and “decompress” in cities. There are usually fewer green spaces and fewer places to escape crowds. Higher housing density, the canyon effect of tall buildings and even barking dogs can all increase stress levels.
Some contend that the presence of too many liquor stores, higher levels of litter and graffiti, and even neglected landscaping and broken facilities may increase stress for some people. The presence of these elements has been found to signal lower levels of safety.
Recent research has also indicated our gut health and mental health are linked. This could be bad news for some urban residents. 
Research has shown fresh-food markets are scarcer than fast-food outlets in some cities. These food deserts may deny more vulnerable residents access to nutritious diets.
Housing costs are another factor that can heighten stress. But moving to more affordable areas on the fringes of cities and in regional centres is not necessarily a remedy. Doing so may reduce levels of social contact with family and friends. 
 
Researchers are increasingly demonstrating that access to social networks is important for helping us to cope with stressful life events. And not having someone to talk with, to help out looking after children, or just to be there in hard times, can lead to anxiety and depression.
Recent immigrants may also experience discrimination. Not only can they have lower levels of social capital, but experiences of abuse can be very harmful.
<h2>So what is the role of planning?</h2>
While we cannot blame planners for causing all these issues, they do have the ability to intervene and thus a role to play in improving urban life. Design guidelines, for example, can help by ensuring people have more accidental social encounters in spaces like cafes, at mailboxes or in gardens. 
So too can more strategic interventions such as community gardens – places where people grow not only food, but also friendships. More green space can also potentially buffer noise, heat and light, and provide respite from crowds.
In car-dependent outer suburbs and new housing estates, planners would do well to focus on first developing social facilities such as clubs, sporting facilities and parks. Public transport is another important intervention in such suburbs. Good access to public transport also reduces a household’s commuting expenses.
Our research suggests planners and built environment professionals have surprisingly low levels of knowledge about depressogenic environments. 
If planners don’t understand how cities might heighten mental health disorders, then how can we combat depressogenic environments? The good news is that simple steps can make a big difference.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jason-byrne-6066" target="_blank">Jason Byrne</a> is Associate Professor of Environmental Planning, Griffith University and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>..
</body></html>

Planners know depressingly little about a city’s impacts on our mental health

<html><body>
We have seen an unprecedented rise in the number of people working from home as directed by governments and employers around the world to help stop the spread of COVID-19.
If, as some expect, <a href="https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/13/covid-19-could-cause-permanent-shift-towards-home-working" target="_blank">people are likely to work from home more often</a> after the pandemic, what will this mean for infrastructure planning? Will cities still need all the multibillion-dollar road, public transport, telecommunications and energy projects, including some already in the pipeline?
World’s largest work-from-home experiment
Remote working was <a href="https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/flexjobs-gwa-report-remote-growth/" target="_blank">steadily on the rise</a> well before COVID-19. But the pandemic suddenly escalated the trend into the “<a href="https://time.com/5776660/coronavirus-work-from-home/" target="_blank">world’s largest work-from-home experiment</a>”. Many people who have had to embrace remote working during the pandemic might not want to return to the office every day once restrictions are lifted.
They might have found some work tasks are actually easier to do at home. Or they (and their employers) might have discovered things that weren’t thought possible to do from home are possible. They might then question why they had to go into the workplace so often in the first place.
But what impact will this have on our cities? After all, many aspects of our cities were designed with commuting, not working from home, in mind.
Stress test for NBN and energy networks
From a telecommunications perspective, the huge increase in people working from home challenges the ways in which our existing networks were designed.
<a href="https://www.aussiebroadband.com.au/blog/aussie-broadband-reveals-bandwidth-usage-increases-by-25/" target="_blank">Data from Aussie Broadband</a> show evening peak broadband use has increased 25 per cent during the shutdown. Additional daytime increases are expected due to home schooling with term 2 starting.
<a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/publications/demand-fixed-line-broadband-australia" target="_blank">Research by the then federal Department of Communications</a> in 2018 estimated the average Australian household would need a maximum download speed of 49Mbps during peak-use times by 2026. If more people work from home after COVID-19, the size and times of peak use might need to be recalculated.
Another factor not modelled by the government research was the potential impact of an increase in uploads. This is a typical requirement for people working from home, as they now send large files via their suburban home networks, rather than their office networks in the city.
<a href="https://octopus.energy/blog/domestic-energy-usage-patterns-during-social-distancing/" target="_blank">Recent research</a> by Octopus Energy in the UK has found domestic energy use patterns have also changed since COVID-19. With more people working from home, domestic energy use in the middle of the day is noticeably higher. Some 30 per cent of customers use an average of 1.5kWh more electricity between 9am and 5pm.
Conversely, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/08/upshot/electricity-usage-predict-coronavirus-recession" target="_blank">data</a> from the US show electricity use in city centres and industrial areas has declined over the same period.
Less commuting means less congestion
Closer to home, <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/how-coronavirus-turned-peak-hour-into-a-sunday-morning-drive-20200402-p54gem" target="_blank">new data</a> from HERE Technologies illustrate just how much traffic congestion has eased.
Thursday afternoons from 5-5.15pm are normally the worst time of the week for traffic congestion in Melbourne. Last week the city’s roads recorded the sort of free-flowing traffic usually seen at 9.30am on a Sunday. Just 1.8 per cent of Melbourne’s major roads were congested, a fraction of the usual 19.8 per cent at that time.
All of Australia’s major cities are experiencing similar reductions. Transurban has reported traffic is down 43 per cent on the Melbourne airport toll road, 29 per cent on its Sydney roads and 27 per cent in Queensland.
Passengers are also staying away from public transport in droves. For example, South Australian government <a href="https://indaily.com.au/news/2020/03/30/the-overland-in-limbo-public-transport-numbers-crash/">statistics</a> for Adelaide show passenger numbers have slumped by 69 per cent for buses, by 74 per cent for trains and by 77 per cent for trams, compared with this time last year.
What does this mean for infrastructure planning?
With these trends in mind, future investment in roads, public transport, energy and telecommunications will need to consider the likelihood of more people working from home.
Prior to COVID-19, <a href="https://theconversation.com/amp/flexible-working-the-neglected-congestion-busting-solution-for-our-cities-122130" target="_blank">Melbourne research</a> found 64 per cent of city workers regularly worked from home, but usually only one day a week, even though 50 per cent of their work could be done anywhere. While the changes we are now seeing are a result of extreme circumstances, it is not inconceivable that, on average, everybody could continue to work from home one extra day per week after the pandemic. Even this would have significant implications for long-term urban planning.
The most recent <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0.55.001%7E2016%7EMain%20Features%7EFeature%20Article:%20Journey%20to%20Work%20in%20Australia%7E40" target="_blank">Australian Census data</a> show 9.2 million people typically commute to work each day. If people worked from home an average of one extra day per week, this would take 1.8 million commuters off the roads and public transport each day.
Many road and public transport projects will be based on forecasts of continuing increases in commuter numbers. If, instead, people work from home more often, this could call into question the need for those projects.
Areas outside city centres would also require more attention, as working from home creates a need for more evenly distributed networks of services for the likes of energy and telecommunications. Interestingly, such a trend could support long-term decentralisation plans, like those outlined in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">Melbourne’s Metropolitan Planning Strategy</a>. And if such change encourages more people to live away from the big cities, it also could help to make housing more affordable.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-l-hopkins-255434" target="_blank">John L Hopkins</a>, Innovation Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767" target="_blank">Swinburne University of Technology</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-more-of-us-work-from-home-after-coronavirus-well-need-to-rethink-city-planning-136261" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

If more of us work from home after coronavirus we'll need to rethink city planning

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Metropolitan planning has a surprisingly long pedigree in Australia. Practices have evolved steadily in response to shifting large-scale urban problems. However, capital cities today present a suite of complex issues that challenge planning systems and demand better alignment between problem and response.
In major cities across Australia, there’s a stark contrast between lofty planning goals and the sprawling reality on the ground. Central to the story of each capital city is the evidence, after three decades of market-driven development, of a divide in access to opportunities and experiences.
In Sydney it has been dubbed the “latte line”. This is the divide between inner suburbs (affluent, dominating knowledge economy jobs, more likely to benefit from urban design initiatives) and outer suburbs (declining manufacturing employment, poor access to services and high car dependency).
The dominance of metropolitan development is not unique to Australia. Metropolitanisation has been described as “one of the most powerful trends shaping worldwide systems today”.
In The Metropolitan Revolution, Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institution notes the fundamental importance of the urban in national affairs. This rests on a “simple but profound truth: cities and metropolitan areas are the engines of economic prosperity and social transformation”.
This global trend has led to calls for a global “Metropolitan Compact” to advance the UN’s New Urban Agenda. These are based on the need to strengthen connections between government, civil society, industry, academia and media.
This has obvious relevance to Australia. The major cities dominate settlement patterns and population growth. Two-thirds of Australians live in a capital city.
Taking stock of urban divides
Some of Australia’s leading urbanists have contributed to a new book, Planning Metropolitan Australia, with essays examining the spatial strategies governments have used to try to manage Australian metropolitan development in the 21st century.
These strategies are set against a dynamic background of economic change, spatial restructuring and a more diverse population with rising social and spatial inequality.
The book identifies a broad planning consensus about making metropolitan areas more compact and resilient. But there is a persistent gulf between the high-level aims of such strategies and our growing understanding of the complexity and diversity of the communities in which most people live.
So, what has been done in recent times?
Recent planning system reforms have been similar in most capital cities. These include:
<ul>
<li>simplified planning instruments across local council areas</li>
<li>reduced rights of appeal</li>
<li>a limited role for local councillors in assessing development proposals</li>
<li>a correspondingly increased role for state agencies or expert professional bodies.</li>
</ul>
As for the achievements of metropolitan plans, these too are increasingly similar. A wider variety of dwellings is being built in a range of locations. High-rise apartments (of variable quality) are increasingly evident in the central and inner city as plans seek higher density targets.
But metropolitan plans have generally failed to provide affordable housing. Most have also fallen short of their aspirations for higher use of public transport. This is largely because of inadequate investment in infrastructure. Where public transport use has increased, this has mostly involved journeys to the CBD or within the better-served inner suburbs (where most increases in walking and cycling are also observed).
Employment in middle and outer suburbs remains sparse. Poor access to job opportunities in these areas has generally added to labour market inequalities.
Rethinking neoliberal governance
In 2006 Clive Forster observed that Australian metropolitan plans were not sufficiently informed by the findings of urban research. He noted: "The existence of parallel urban universes: one occupied by metropolitan planning authorities and their containment – consolidation – centres consensus; the other by the realities of the increasingly complex, dispersed, residentially differentiated suburban metropolitan areas most Australians live in."
In a concluding essay to Planning Metropolitan Australia, Brendan Gleeson picks up the notion of “parallel universes”. He suggests Australian cities under weak metropolitan planning arrangements have made little progress towards long-held aspirations for sustainable resource use, social justice, inclusive and innovative economies, and more compact urban forms.
Rather, under neoliberal governance regimes, other forces have largely shaped our metros this century. These include national immigration, tax and finance policies, disruptive technological innovations, cultural shifts and increasingly dominant market power.
As we move deeper into the “metropolitan century”, more effective, nuanced, evidence-based metropolitan planning and governance arrangements become ever more urgent.
Robert Freestone, Professor of Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW. 
Stephen Hamnett, Emeritus Professor of Planning, University of South Australia.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-cities-and-their-metropolitan-plans-still-seem-to-be-parallel-universes-87603" target="_blank">original article</a>.
Photo: The right side of the ‘latte line’ in Sydney, looking across Paddington towards Bondi Junction and the eastern suburbs. R. Freestone, Author provided.
</body></html>

Australian cities and their metropolitan plans still seem to be parallel universes

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The recent announcement by the Federal, NSW and eight local governments of a City Deal for Western Sydney is good news for driving the planning of future growth around Badgerys Creek airport.
A key component of the Western Sydney City Deal is the formation of a Planning Partnership between the NSW Government and the councils in the area.
We have long advocated for a more regional approach to planning for large scale projects and the Western Sydney Planning Partnership with its accelerated planning systems and uniform standards should lead to this model occurring across all of the Sydney Planning Districts.
The new planning regime proposes to cut development costs and to boost housing supply. The Urban Taskforce is keen to work with the NSW Government in the detail development of the planning regime particularly in relation to the proposed lifting of contribution caps that the government has proposed which are likely to increase development costs.
The announcement of the North South rail line from the airport to St Marys will be a great stimulus to new development along this corridor as will the specific Greater Penrith to St Marys Growth Area.
While the North South rail line is welcomed there will still need to be a fast rail link from the new airport and its aerotropolis back to the centre of Sydney.
The focus on jobs in the aerotropolis is very positive particularly the formation of the Aerotropolis Development Authority and the Investment Attraction Office.
The Urban Taskforce will be interested to see what types of housing evolve in the new plans to be developed within two years. With Sydney housing costs being very high it will be important that more affordable housing is provided as part of the 148,500 new homes planned over the next 20 years. It is likely that apartments and townhouses will need to be an important part of the mix.
The announcement of the Western Sydney City Deal is a very positive move forward in Sydney's evolution into a city of 8 million people as proposed by the Greater Sydney Commission. The development industry is keen to be involved in the exciting process of building the city's future.
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>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Local and state government planning partnership key to Western Sydney City Deal: Chris Johnson

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Although 90% of our population lives in cities, Australia lacks a national urban policy and our government provides insufficient funding for urban sustainability projects.
Good urban planning is important for a number of reasons. Australian cities face the possibility of significant disasters due to climate change. Air pollution kills 3,000 people a year. A housing price crisis has taken hold. Reports on the energy and oil vulnerability of Australian cities are disquieting. And food and water security often seem like policy afterthoughts.
Despite these major concerns, little funding has been provided for urban planning research, and the distribution of this funding is uneven.
Lean funding for urban planning research
Australia has a total of 48 accredited planning degrees at 24 universities, staffed by 196 planning academics. We assessed Australian Research Council (ARC) grants to urban and regional planning. The ARC is the largest and most prestigious public research funding body in Australia. It provides the lion’s share of funding for planning research, which is very little.
A total of A$31.7 million was provided for 91 planning projects between 2010 and 2018. To place these sums in perspective, consider the funding in some related fields: human geography research received A$58.8 million for 151 projects; demography research attracted A$88.7 million for 76 projects; and political science collected A$88.7 million for 229 projects.
On average, A$17,970 per academic per year was provided for planning projects. Unfortunately, this amount of funding does not go very far. For instance, conducting a travel survey of 500 participants costs about A$50,000. Hiring a part-time research assistant costs about A$50 an hour.
Meanwhile, several universities have set minimum grant funding expectations or “aspirations” for planning staff. A quick survey of our colleagues suggests these vary between A$20,000 and A$80,000 per year.
We found that departments with more staff win more research grants (as teams typically submit their proposals). But planning programs in Australia are minuscule. On average they are staffed by only six or seven academics. This is another reflection of the meagre funding provided to the planning profession.
In contrast, North American and European countries provide much more financial support to planning academics through government grants for research and salaries for staff. Departments with 15 to 20 planning academics are common. On both sides of the Atlantic, the planning discipline is more consolidated and has a longer history than in Australia.
We still plan our cities without considering planning research. Traditionally, the government has demonstrated little interest in funding planning research, possibly because the development industry is a source of income for the major political parties. This industry has often viewed planning as a constraint on its activities. As Professor Patrick Troy puts it, there is fear that rigorous research into urban Australia might reveal “too many inconvenient truths”.
And some studies suggest that few practitioners read planning research. Grant proposals involving early career planning researchers and collaborations between academic planners and industry partners have become more successful in recent years.
Big fish dominate small funding pool
While 59% of planning academics did not attract any ARC grants between 2010 and 2018, the likelihood of being awarded an ARC grant increases considerably for more senior planning academics. Professors receive more than twice as many grants as associate professors. Associate professors in turn receive about twice as many grants as senior lecturers. However, most planning programs expect junior academics to successfully lead ARC grant applications.
Senior planning academics may be more successful winning grants because they are more experienced at grant writing. They may also have larger networks of academic colleagues (with whom to form bidding teams) and industry colleagues (who might help locate matching funds).
But these data also imply that ARC grants “snowball” (holding one grant substantially affects the chances of winning another) and tend to cluster around certain individuals. Grant acquisition rates are more closely correlated with publication and citation rates in earlier career stages. The concern here is that an “old boy network” effect may be in place.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206345/original/file-20180214-174969-1aeqpcx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Timeline of planning research funding: 2002-2015.
Significant gender differences in grant acquisition rates appear to confirm this. While males were the lead investigators on 59 ARC grants between 2010 and 2018, females led only 32 grants. Although differences are small among lecturers, the “funding gender gap” broadens considerably at the professorial levels. Male professors hold 6.4 times as many ARC grants as female professors, although there are only 2.7 times more male professors than female professors.
Why the gender gap? International research has suggested that male-dominated grant review committees generally evaluate women, especially younger women, more harshly. In the ARC College of Experts, which evaluates grant applications, only 70 of the 176 members – 40% – are female.
Inequitable allocation of ARC research funding occurs in other disciplines too. But in planning it is more problematic due to the sexism inherent in urban development. Virtually everything in our cities – streets, squares, parks, buildings – has been designed and shaped by men. Nearly all of the references for urban best practices, as taught in Australian universities, are written by men.
What would urban planning research and practice be like if it were female-led? Might women rewrite the rulebook? Might cities become less car-dependent and more cycling-friendly? Might they have fewer dark alleys and more sunlit parks and kindergartens?
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91651/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">We could begin to answer some of these questions if planning research was prioritised.
Dorina Pojani, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, The University of Queensland.
Jaime Olvera-Garcia, PhD Candidate at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland.
Jason Byrne, Professor of Human Geography and Planning, University of Tasmania.
Neil Sipe, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, The University of Queensland.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-cities-are-crying-out-for-better-planning-but-the-research-funding-is-missing-91651" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Australian cities are crying out for better planning, but the research funding is missing

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Overcrowding is an inevitable and often overlooked result of the affordable housing shortage in our cities.
When a dwelling requires four or more extra bedrooms to reasonably accommodate occupants, the standard commonly used in Australia defines that as severe overcrowding. In 2011, 41,390 Australians lived in severely overcrowded dwellings, an increase of one-third from 2006. This increase occurred mostly in cities where house prices had risen sharply.
Our recent research, to be published soon, examined where overcrowded housing is located in our capital cities. We found:
<ul>
<li>Sydney and Melbourne are most affected by concentrated overcrowding</li>
<li>levels of overcrowding are highest in middle-city areas (except in Adelaide)</li>
<li>overcrowding overlaps strongly with socioeconomic disadvantage.</li>
</ul>
What exactly do we mean by overcrowding?
Pressure in the affordable housing sector has led to increases in overcrowding. Media reports describe situations of “ten people in a two-bed unit”, “58 beds crammed into 19 dirty, makeshift rooms” and “ten people shoehorned into one bedroom, tenants sleeping in bathrooms, and in one case, a pantry”.
Living in severely crowded dwellings has been described as the most common form of homelessness.
Security and safety can be an issue when residents do not have privacy and control of their own space. But people sacrifice space and safety to secure affordable accommodation.
An example of the dangers was a fatal fire in an apartment illegally partitioned to create a fourth bedroom.
Commonly used standards of overcrowding range from simple indicators such as persons per bedroom (e.g. American Crowding Index) to more sophisticated indicators that consider family size and composition (age, gender and marital status).
One such measure, the Canadian National Occupancy Standard (CNOS), is officially recognised in Australia. It assesses a household’s bedroom requirements using the following criteria:
<ul>
<li>no more than two people should share a bedroom</li>
<li>children of different sexes under five years of age may reasonably share a room</li>
<li>children of different sexes should not share a bedroom when aged five or older</li>
<li>children under 18 and of the same sex may reasonably share a bedroom</li>
<li>parents, couples and household members aged 18 or older should have a separate bedroom.</li>
</ul>
Under this standard, households that need at least one extra bedroom are considered overcrowded. A shortfall of four or more bedrooms is severe overcrowding, with greater risks for health and safety.
One standard doesn’t fit all situations
Measuring overcrowding is not straightforward. The age and sex separation thresholds involve assumptions about the age of puberty and adulthood.
CNOS is the preferred measure of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Statistics New Zealand and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). This is because it takes the age and sex of occupants into account and matches our values and expectations of how space is used.
In Australia, it is usually acceptable for children of the same sex to share a bedroom before puberty. But we already know CNOS does not account for differing cultural expectations of the numbers of bathrooms and toilets, and the size of kitchens, bedrooms and living spaces. CNOS embeds assumptions that do not hold across ethnically diverse groups in Australia.
For example, a study of migrant suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne found “it is not uncommon to have families with two adults and five children sharing a two-bedroom property”. This is due to large family size and different cultural norms, including intergenerational occupancy of housing. Few properties are designed for this.
Traditional Pacific houses use living spaces rather than separate bedrooms for sleeping. A bedroom with more than two people is compatible with the attitudes of some Pacific and Mäori peoples to having a sense of adequate space.
Similarly, using the Canadian standard, Indigenous Australians are more than five times as likely to live in overcrowded housing as non-Indigenous Australians. This is alarmingly high and likely driven by high rates of socioeconomic disadvantage. We need to disentangle the extent to which values around space and its use versus socio-economic drivers of overcrowding underlie this statistic.
Do we need better measures?
So should we develop Australian-specific culturally sensitive standards? We think that depends on what we want to know.
Physiological stress and disease risk as a result of crowding occur for different ethnic groups regardless of whether they perceive themselves as crowded. Culturally specific standards may not be necessary when broadly examining the relationships between crowding and transmission of infections such as rheumatic fever, colds, asthma, influenza and meningococcal disease. Living in close quarters is relevant regardless of cultural norms of housing or nuances of measurement of crowding. Standard indices, while not perfect, capture this.
However, expectations about shared space might influence impacts on mental health. Social relations and family bonds are key social determinants of mental health. In particular, shared culture has been identified as a positive resource in improving Indigenous health. Current crowding metrics ignore non-bedroom-related uses of housing.
Crowding indices that capture the use of space – for example, incorporating subjective feelings that too many people are around – could be a step forward. Given our climate of wide temperature ranges and the high cost of utilities, such indices might also consider “functional overcrowding” – people sharing small spaces or beds due to concerns about heating/cooling and security.
Research on wellbeing would benefit from integrating a better understanding of the variety of needs of cultural groups and tailoring measures to our climatic conditions. However, such measures would be more subjective than current standard measures, more difficult to collect at a population level and less comparable with international standards.
What can we do about harmful overcrowding?
Cultural preferences mean low levels of overcrowding may not always be problematic. But overcrowding is a problem when generated by socio-economic disadvantage and when it compromises people’s safety and security. This is likely in cities where housing costs are high.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96110/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Broader measures are needed to improve the supply of affordable housing. This includes dedicated programs such as the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) and extra funding for social housing. Enforceable laws that go beyond the Public Health and Wellbeing Act in Victoria and NSW Fair Trading strata reforms are also needed to monitor overcrowding and avoid the negative impacts of severe overcrowding.
Shanaka Herath, Vice-Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Wollongong
Rebecca Bentley, Associate Professor, Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/overcrowded-housing-looms-as-a-challenge-for-our-cities-96110" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Overcrowded housing looms as a challenge for our cities

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
We live in an urban world. By 2030, 66% of the world’s population will live in cities, concentrated in only 3% of the planet’s land area. But city sizes vary greatly, so what can city size tell us about their residents’ quality of life?
Our new research shows that city size and population distribution matter when the priorities are access to amenities and equality of opportunities and outcomes – and not just economic growth. Larger cities are associated with greater inequality in both Australia and the United States. This is because a concentration of high incomes and wealth in the biggest cities flows on to spatial justice issues such as high housing costs and poor access to amenities for lower-income residents.
This suggests planning must focus on the development of cities of all sizes, not just the largest ones.
Further, development and growth should be measured not only in aggregative ways, such as the gross domestic product (GDP), but in ways that show how well this is distributed – such as distributions of income, housing stock and access to services. A massive global city, with a rising share of the nation’s GDP, but with segregation between rich and poor, and unaffordable housing and long commuting hours for most, should fare very poorly on such measures.
Why the focus on larger cities?
The development of ever-larger cities is a global phenomenon. In Australia, both Sydney and Melbourne are projected to have populations of 8 million by mid-century.
Large cities are often said to be innovation drivers, wealth producers, the economic engines of the country. The focus on large cities’ wealth generation and agglomeration economies – the benefits when firms and people come together in cities – means the distributive aspects are neglected. In our previous research, we found larger cities have more unequal income distribution.
The largest cities have disproportionate numbers of high-income earners. It’s not just a matter of large income gaps between rich and poor. High-income earners also push out or displace low-income earners.
Empirical evidence indicates that traditional metrics fail to capture the reality of these displacements and expulsions.
So how do Australian and US cities compare?
In our new research, we analysed all cities across Australia and the United States. Across both countries, larger cities were much more likely to have disproportionately high concentrations of high-income earners and disproportionately high housing costs.
We tested this finding by the geography of concentration. Using a measure called the location quotient (LQ), we compared the local city-wide proportion of people in each income or housing cost category to the same proportion nationally. A higher LQ implies greater local concentrations of a particular category in comparison to the national average proportion: note the starkly different signatures for the largest and smallest cities below. Sydney, specifically, is a very poor performer.
<iframe style="border: none;" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/276/f88a80619773479230a47de5fc9d6be52c492af2/site/index.html" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="820"></iframe>
Source: Author calculations from 2011 Census data. All 19 ABS 2011 rent categories are shown, lowest ($1-$74 per week) to highest (&gt; $650 per week). In the largest cities, the higher rent categories show high location quotients, meaning larger cities concentrate higher numbers of households in high rent categories. Adelaide is an exception. Melbourne is performing better than Sydney.
<iframe style="border: none;" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/277/f7cf7e2335f1cb25bbcc91796c6d93b9d12f04a1/site/index.html" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="820"></iframe>
Source: Author calculations from 2011 Census data. All 19 ABS 2011 rent categories are shown, lowest ($1-$74 per week) to highest (&gt; $650 per week).
But isn’t this a tautology? Larger cities have always had higher living costs, haven’t they? Two very subtle effects, that even an established measure of inequality like the Gini coefficient would miss, exist.
First, if high-income residents push out low-income residents, then the Gini won’t show this. But the fact there are no poor people left to measure is a sign of heightened inequities.
Second, large cities do not seem to be generating harmful consequences for everyone. Only lower-income earners face this disadvantage, since a low-income person in a large, high-cost city is worse off than a high-income earner in the same city and than all other earners in smaller or medium-sized cities.
However, since the largest cities have the best amenities and services, the best is available only to the richest.
What are the implications of these findings?
The research points to a need for some conceptual changes.
1. Reconceptualise inequality
Instead of the narrower term “income inequality”, inequality should be thought as the differential in individuals’ access to the resources, amenities and abilities needed for their wellbeing. Larger, more expensive cities must be disproportionately responsible for ensuring this access is affordable for all residents, not just high-income earners.
2. Recharacterise supply and demand
Large cities make the mismatch of housing supply to specific pockets of demand worse: housing as basic need clashes with housing as economic investment.
The high supply of mansions, luxury apartments and investment properties is inaccessible for living in if you don’t earn enough. It also enables wealth accumulation in a few hands. In addition, high-income earners with the ability to pay for a resource will inflate prices, further reducing affordability for low-income earners.
Thus, the (in)ability to pay for housing becomes a decisive factor in shaping wellbeing for residents of large cities.
Larger cities have a greater responsibility for correcting this mismatch between supply and demand.
3. Rethink planning and design
These developments affect the ability of communities to have a real say in the design and planning of cities. A community dominated by high-income earners is unlikely to make choices that represent the needs and wants of everyone. The absence of low-income earners in decision-making is likely to contribute to conditions such as segregation, displacement or polarisation.
When a city crosses a threshold where incomes of a few and living costs for all begin to rise disproportionately, affordability, accessibility and socio-spatial justice become important urban policy issues.
A greater spread of city sizes offer a way forward
Geoffrey West, in his book Scale, writes: "The great metropolises of the world facilitate human interaction, creating that indefinable buzz and soul that is the wellspring of its innovation and excitement and a major contributor to its resilience and success."
However, these great metropolises are also where we see the deepest troughs of poverty and injustice. A larger number of cities of varying sizes, with a diversity-specialisation balance of economic functions, could maintain the variation needed for innovative and, more importantly, equitable growth.
In terms of absolute population numbers, cities like Tokyo, Shanghai and Delhi each house populations larger than the entire population of Australia: it’s not the total population that is of concern, but its distribution. Australia has a “missing middle” of cities: many small cities of up to half-a-million, almost no medium-sized cities (half to one million), three large cities and two very large cities. Nearly 40% of Australians live in Sydney and Melbourne.
Our findings suggest a super-concentration of the population in very few mega-urban regions is undesirable. Instead, we must plan for cities of all sizes, increasing people’s choices of where to live and work. It is critical to plan for equitable growth of cities where, regardless of income, everyone can have a decent quality of life.
Somwrita Sarkar, Senior Lecturer in Design and Computation, University of Sydney
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/aim-for-cities-of-all-sizes-to-give-everyone-a-fair-go-94657" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

City Planning

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

City Planning

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News