City Population

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
In 1988 the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) projected a population of 25 million by 2050. Australia reached that estimate 30 years earlier. Our population grew by more than 400,000 in 2018-19, and the ABS now projects a population of 30 million by 2030.
At this growth rate, Australia will need to house an additional 16.8 million residents in the next 40 years. This is the equivalent of a new city the size of Canberra every year for the next 40 years – or a city the size of Darwin every 12 weeks.
Mike provides recommendations to governments and urban developers building sustainable cities that will avoid putting further strain on our existing capital cities, maintain our standard of living and health, provide local jobs, make housing attainable for every generation, save water and create safe streets for pedestrians and cyclists.
Mike’s 7 recommendations to building new cities that will ease the squeeze:
1. Locate new cities between Sydney and Melbourne. Mike says now is the time to think about potential sites for new cities. For instance, eight could be built along the Sydney-to-Melbourne high-speed rail service that is being considered by government. Connecting the two cities provides an opportunity to promote the ‘twin cities’ of Melbourne and Sydney, considered by many as the world’s most liveable and beautiful cities.
2. Build ‘urban’ cities from the start. Mike says new cities must be medium- to high-density from the outset, be connected within by sustainable forms of transport and offer local jobs. A specific rapid mixed use, walkable, urban city model is being advocated to Federal and State Governments by Consolidated Land and Rail Australia (CLARA) – a private group RobertsDay is assisting – which is offering solutions to re-balance Australia’s existing settlement and deliver new ways of planning and building liveable, sustainable, connected cities, transport and infrastructure.
3. De-centralise jobs. Mike says most land uses can now happily co-exist. However, any new cities that we build will require multiple ‘outer-suburb mixed use urban centres with mixed-use retail, commercial and residential areas that are transit-based, compact and walkable. This will ensure short commute times and avoid putting pressure on transport systems and roads. Mike says our existing cities – especially Sydney and Melbourne, where the cost of commuting and housing attainability is a major problem – would also benefit from additional outer-suburb mixed use urban centres.
4. Create low-water-use outdoor community spaces. Grass requires a lot of water. With water levels expected to be a major long-term issue, Mike says cities can better manage water usage by developing courtyard-style housing, and European-style outdoor community spaces (much like piazzas) that are water-wise through the use of materials such as pea gravel to replace turf and drought-tolerate plant species such as olive trees.
5. Build water-wise, medium-density homes. NSW planning minister Rob Stokes is pushing for more medium-density housing in the State. This will bring residents multiple benefits. Townhouses and courtyard homes, with their turf-free outdoor spaces, will result in a significant reduction in water usage. In contrast to apartment complexes, townhouses and terraces provide individual street frontages, allowing residents to feel connected to their neighbourhoods. If townhouses are designed like the successful terrace models in Sydney, Melbourne, Vancouver, Seattle and Toronto, homeowners will be able to capitalise on their properties by building 40 sqm granny flats above their garages.
6. Recognise walking and cycling as the privileged modes of transport. Townhouse communities can be designed with small streets at their rear providing access to garages. This minimises garages and driveways at the front of properties, enabling uninterrupted walking and cycling along tree-lined street frontages. This will improve safety and quality of life for pedestrians and cyclists. Imagine kids being able to safely walk to school again!
7. Strive to embrace the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. All 193 United Nations member countries have adopted the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to be achieved by 2030. These SDGs envisage the delivery of sustainable cities and neighbourhoods, protecting the planet and ensuring prosperity for all. Mike says that the bushfires have raised our awareness internationally, and that we need to act on them now. The Federal Government, State Government and the urban development industry need to more comprehensively action the SDGs.
MIKE DAY is one of Australia’s best-known urban planners and designers, the co-founder and director of <a href="https://www.robertsday.com.au/people/mike-day/" target="_blank">RobertsDay</a> and a fellow of the Planning Institute of Australia 
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Australia needs to build a new 'Canberra' every year: Mike Day

<html><body>
Australia is increasingly linked to a <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">fast-growing global population</a>. The populations of Sydney and Melbourne are both expected to <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/australian-cities-face-great-growth-challenge/news-story/a89da2e7a566bd2c6d03cde4ed377bc7" target="_blank">exceed 8.5 million by 2061</a>. What will Australia’s cities look like then? Will they still be among the world’s <a href="https://chartingtransport.com/2015/11/26/comparing-the-densities-of-australian-and-european-cities/" target="_blank">lowest-density cities</a>?
Such sprawling cities result in economic (productivity), social (spatial disadvantage) and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705817316685" target="_blank">environmental weaknesses</a> (including a very big ecological footprint). Can our cities transform themselves to become more competitive, sustainable, liveable, resilient and inclusive?
Australian governments at all levels aspire to these goals, but they require <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/5854/" target="_blank">multiple transitions</a>. The prospects of success depend on the transformative capacity of four groups of stakeholders: state government, local government, the property development industry, and community residents.
Our <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/10/1718" target="_blank">newly published research</a> has found such capacity is lacking, so transformation on the scale required <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/ITC/DevelopmentofCities" target="_blank">remains a major challenge</a>. Our research included a survey in Sydney and Melbourne of suburban residents’ attitudes to medium-density living and neighbourhood change – essentially “sounding out” community capacity for change. This article explores some of the findings.
So why do community attitudes in the suburbs matter? The key change involves the form and fabric of Australian cities: from a low-density suburban city to a more compact form characteristic of Europe. This requires regenerative redevelopment: redirecting population and property investment inwards to brownfields and <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">greyfields redevelopment</a>, rather than outwards to greenfields development, and increasing the supply of medium-density housing – the “<a href="https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy-and-Legislation/Housing/Medium-Density-Housing" target="_blank">missing middle</a>”.
Unlike greenfields and brownfields, however, greyfields are occupied. More intensive urban infill represents a challenge to residents of established suburbs to share their higher-amenity, low-density space. And elected local councillors tend to align with their residents’ resistance to “overdevelopment” and changes in “neighbourhood character”.
<h2>Are attitudes changing?</h2>
In September 2016, the <a href="https://www.swinburne.edu.au/research/urban-transitions/about/" target="_blank">Centre for Urban Transitions</a> surveyed 2,000 Sydney and Melbourne households in established middle-ring suburbs.
Asked “What type of dwelling would you want to live in?”, nearly 60% of residents in both cities favoured a detached house and yard. This is down from 90% in the early 1990s. So, in the space of one generation, attitudes have shifted significantly toward embracing higher-density living.
However, living arrangements extend beyond the dwelling. They include the neighbourhood and wider suburban context. Our survey explored three distinctive living environments:
<ol>
<li>
a separate dwelling with a garden in a suburb with poor public transport
</li>
<li>
a medium-density dwelling with no garden but close to public transport
</li>
<li>
a high-rise apartment in the CBD or surrounding areas.
</li>
</ol>
Responses revealed that when location was combined with housing type, this significantly increased preference for medium-density housing when located in established suburbs with good public transport and access to jobs and services. In both Sydney and Melbourne, 46% favoured this. That was the same proportion as preferred a separate dwelling and garden in a car-dependent suburb. Just 8% opted for apartments.
The question is whether these shifts in preference are reflected in residents’ attitudes to higher-density housing in their own neighbourhoods.
The survey found 71% of respondents were “aware of neighbourhood change in their locality”. This figure was identical for renters and property owners.
Fewer than 10% of residents in both cities think such change is a good thing, but almost 40% understand it has to happen. Just over 10% are neutral. Preference for less or no change sits around 45%.
This suggests capacity to accept change is growing, but it is grudging and not strongly endorsed.
The survey’s final stage probed the extent to which property owners contemplating a move were aware of, or open to, options of selling as a consortium of neighbours. While not common, examples are being reported with value uplifts resulting from lot consolidation ranging from 10% to 100%.
One-quarter of Sydney respondents were open to consolidating property for sale with neighbours. This number was even higher (39%) for investment properties.
<h2>What needs to be done?</h2>
Consolidated lot sales are not part of the business model of most real estate agencies, local government, or property developers.
It’s an area where the property development industry lacks capacity and is still failing to respond to the medium-density urban infill challenge. And state governments are reluctant to extend mid-rise medium-density zones in the big cities beyond designated activity centres and transport corridors.
Supply of well-designed medium-density housing needs to be greatly increased in the well-located, established, low-density, middle-ring suburbs. And it needs to happen at a precinct scale of redevelopment beyond that of knock-down-rebuild. This would enable more innovative, sustainable and aesthetically attractive development.
Infill targets for new housing in Australia’s largest cities range from 65% (Brisbane) to 85% (Adelaide), with Melbourne and Sydney in between. But these targets are not being achieved (not even Perth’s 47%). Greenfield development is still the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://apo.org.au/node/75359" target="_blank">main demographic absorber</a>.
The Victorian government’s <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">latest metro strategy</a> introduced a new policy direction to “provide support and guidance for greyfield areas to deliver more housing choice and diversity”. That doesn’t alter many residents of these areas remaining resistant to change.
State and local governments need to introduce new statutory planning instruments and guidelines to enable greyfield precinct redevelopment. These are the focus of research in three Commonwealth Co-operative Research Centres (see <a href="https://www.crcsi.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="https://www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://watersensitivecities.org.au/" target="_blank">here</a>).
In an urban planning system that remains strongly top-down, local government serves as the main interface with local communities and property developers due to its role in planning approvals. Often this is reflected in local government’s gaming of the state government’s residential zoning schemes to ensure housing is “locked up” in minimal change zones. This effectively indicates that more intensive infill housing should happen “somewhere else” (the NIMBY syndrome).
<a href="https://www.constructionedge.com.au/about/" target="_blank">David Chandler</a>, a leading figure in Australia’s building and construction industry, <a href="https://sourceable.net/shutting-the-garage-door-after-the-car-has-bolted/" target="_blank">sums up the challenges</a>:
<ul>
<li>The capabilities needed to design and build small-scaled medium-density housing projects of three to ten dwellings up to three storeys atop below-grade parking have yet to be developed. If medium-density dwellings of the type described here are to make up a third of the housing landscape, a new marketing platform and delivery model will be required.</li>
<li>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84693/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">If governments are seriously minded to harvest the potential of greyfield sites and the urban middle, they will not only need to bring the community along in support of these more modest densification initiatives, they will need to be proactive in making sure the housing industry has the capabilities to deliver them.</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-newton-2278" target="_blank">Peter Newton</a>, Research Professor in Sustainable Urbanism, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767" target="_blank">Swinburne University of Technology</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/becoming-more-urban-attitudes-to-medium-density-living-are-changing-in-sydney-and-melbourne-84693" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

pt-i5odL9gUVz

Becoming more urban: attitudes to medium-density living are changing in Sydney and Melbourne

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/75544/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">GUEST OBSERVER
Melbourne is Australia's most rapidly growing city, a title it wrested from Perth around 2013-14. Several of Australia's big cities are growing well above the national average population growth rate.
At around 1.5 percent, Australia’s current population growth rate is above the world rate of about 1.2 percent, and among the highest in the OECD.
Net international migration comprised about 55 percent of Australia’s population growth in 2015-16. Natural increase – that’s births minus deaths – makes up the rest.
<h2>Victoria is Australia’s fastest-growing state</h2>
Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that, since about 2013, Victoria’s population growth rate has risen to become the highest of all the states and territories in Australia.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/04/10/april%20obs%201.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/04/10/april%20obs%201.jpg" width="600" height="299">
<div class="dw-chart-notes">Victoria’s population growth rate (the pale green line) has risen to become the highest of all the states and territories. Western Australia (the black line) was previously the most rapidly growing state but the growth rate has fallen rapidly.</div>
<div class="dw-chart-notes">Source: ABS Cat 3218.0 Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2015-16</div>
<div class="dw-chart-notes"> </div>
<div class="dw-chart-notes">
Western Australia was previously the fastest-growing state but its population growth rate has fallen sharply (by about 70% since 2011-12), likely driven by the demise of the mining boom. Queensland’s growth has declined more gradually.
Victoria’s higher population growth rate is due to it having the highest per capita rate of net international migration of all the states and territories and the largest net in-movement from elsewhere in Australia.
The most important reason for Victoria’s higher rate of net international migration was its higher per capita inflow of international students. Victoria also gained more people due to permanent migration.
After 2012, the net movement of New Zealand citizens to Australia fell rapidly (by 83% in two years). Due to its fall in numbers being shallower, Victoria replaced Queensland as the state receiving the largest net inflow of New Zealand citizens.
About 68% of the precipitous drop in Western Australia’s population growth rate since 2011-12 is because international migration to that state has fallen away. Previously, more people moved to Western Australia from the other states than in the other direction. Now, that trend has reversed.
Decreased net international migration also explains most of the decrease in Queensland’s growth rate over this period.
<h2 class="caption">Big city squeeze</h2>
In recent years, Australia’s population has become increasingly concentrated in its largest cities, and several big cities are growing at well above the average Australian population growth rate.
Melbourne is Australia’s most rapidly growing city, a title it wrested from Perth around 2013-14.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/04/10/april%20obs%202.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/04/10/april%20obs%202.jpg" width="600" height="372">
Australia’s population has become increasingly concentrated in its largest cities. By 2013-14, Melbourne had replaced Perth as the most rapidly growing city.
Source: ABS Cat 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 
</div>
<div id="footer"> 
Sydney’s population, which the ABS says recently reached 5 million, is also growing at above the national average rate. Net in-migration (people moving to Sydney) is the major component of Sydney’s population growth, as opposed to natural increase (births minus deaths).
Brisbane’s growth has slowed but remains above the national average. In contrast, many already sparsely settled areas in inland Australia are experiencing population decline.
<h2 class="caption">The mix of overseas-born residents is changing</h2>
About 28.5% of Australia’s population was born overseas. People born in the United Kingdom are still the biggest group of overseas-born residents, making up 5% of Australia’s population. That picture is changing, however, as chart 1.2 from the ABS shows here.
The share of UK-born residents in Australia is declining, and the proportion of people born in New Zealand has grown over the last decade. Over the same period, the share of China-born residents has increased, and that’s also true for India-born residents.
Australia’s India-born resident population remain predominantly male (119 males per 100 females in 2016), although not as heavily so as previously.
In contrast to China’s male-dominated population back home, among the China-born residents in Australia females are increasingly outnumbering males (just 80 males per 100 females in 2016).
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/04/10/april%20obs%203.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/04/10/april%20obs%203.jpg" width="600" height="253">
The closer the line is to 100, the more even the sex ratio. So while there's a fairly even ratio of women to men among UK-born, Australian-born and NZ-born residents in Australia, there are more Chinese-born women than Chinese-born men in Australia. Among India-born residents, there are more men than women.
Nick Parr is anAssociate Professor in Demography, Macquarie University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nick-parr-5830" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Three charts on Australia’s population shift and the big city squeeze: Nick Parr

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/69775/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Australia’s global cities are a very large part of the nation’s economic success, but they are also generating significantly unequal incomes. 
Our recent research found that as Australian cities have grown, their income inequality has increased.
Cities provide many social and cultural opportunities and allow large numbers of people to stay connected. But bigger is better only if we can make it better for everyone.
We propose a solution: rather than concentrate activity around a single city centre, we need to develop multiple centres of activity – polycentric cities.
How are city size and incomes related?
Large cities, particularly global cities, are great sources of wealth and income generation. Their impacts on inequality, though, are less positive.
Much recent research has focused on measuring the relationship between city size and income and wealth generation. Various studies show that as cities increase in size, income and wealth grow “superlinearly”. This means that if the city size grows by 10 percent, income and wealth generation grow by more than 10%.
The benefits of large cities to the economy overall are well recognised. The most significant economic engines of many countries are one or two of the largest cities – think New York for the US, London for the UK, Sydney and Melbourne for Australia.
Large cities may be where growth and wealth are concentrated. And, by inference, average quality of life is improved. But the uneven distribution of wealth among residents is of concern.
A reasonable question might be whether cities, which many regard as humankind’s greatest invention, are machines for concentrating wealth inequitably. Is there any relationship between city size and income distribution?
We investigated this relationship across the entire spectrum of Australian cities. Using income distribution data from the 2011 Census across all the 101 significant urban areas, or “cities”, we did find a superlinear relationship. That is, overall, as city populations increased, total income did increase by more than the rate of population growth.
Bigger is better for the rich
We also analysed the proportion of households in different income bands. This analysis showed that while income growth increased as Australian cities got larger, this was concentrated in the upper income categories.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics defines ten income categories, ranging from lowest to highest incomes per capita, with people counts in each category. We found that incomes of poor and middle-income categories grow in proportion with city size, or more slowly. Those of the higher-income categories grow disproportionately faster.
Every citizen should be concerned about this trend. If total incomes and the incomes of top earners grow faster than city size, but not those of lower income earners, then most of the income that makes bigger cities richer is only going to the top earners.
Why do cities concentrate wealth?
This is probably not a surprising finding. Large cities attract many economic activities, particularly those in financial services, that can generate very large incomes. However, it highlights an issue that has received increasing attention in recent years – the significant increases in inequality in many Western economies.
While our research was largely a data-driven exercise, it does help us think about what might be some of the sources of inequality in our cities and the geography of that inequality. What policy response might help to counter this characteristic of increased city size?
The agglomeration and spillover effects of clustering related businesses, particularly finance and business service and “knowledge workers”, is well recognised, but these beneficial effects are indeed highly concentrated. An extensive global review of agglomeration in 2014 noted that “agglomeration economies do not spill over much space”.
How do we spread the benefits?
As big cities like Sydney and Melbourne expand, it will be very important to establish and support clusters of activity away from the principal city centre. Polycentric cities are more likely to achieve more equitable access to higher-paying jobs.
Additionally, it will be important to establish spatial policies that support a mix of higher, middle and lower-income jobs in business districts to prevent the agglomeration of the super-rich in pockets of the city.
This has implications for establishing housing market stability (encouraging a good spatial mix of all housing types in the vicinity) and efficient commuting (middle-income or poorer people not needing to travel long distances for work).
This has been a strategic planning objective for decades. Yet only now, in Sydney’s case, does the city’s economic geography have the potential to be significantly rebalanced. One example would be the development of a new airport in western Sydney.
Proximity to the airport is likely to stimulate investment in other economic activities. Population demand itself combined with the development of the “second city” of Parramatta, which is now capitalising on its geographic centrality, and will become more pronounced as the west develops.
The development of a “third city” centred on the airport, but building on a network of existing centres, has the potential to significantly change the distribution, accessibility and types of employment across the city.
Housing policy has a critical role to play
If we want to tackle inequality in our cities, housing is a very good place to start.
As city housing markets become more expensive, households on lower and moderate incomes spend an increasing proportion of their incomes on housing. The number of locations where they can live in the city becomes smaller, especially when certain pockets show agglomerations of super-rich.
The costs of housing mean the amount of spare income those on moderate and low incomes can invest in themselves and their children to improve their employment prospects (what economists call investing in human capital) becomes smaller. The educational outcomes for their children are often poor. Also, because of rising transport costs, the number of potential jobs they can access gets smaller.
This is why developing polycentricity is so critical.
To reduce inequalities in cities, it is also important that we spread affordable housing out across the city. Proposed inclusionary zoning provisions in the new Sydney District Plans, while modest, are a good first step.
Whether such measures will be sufficient to counter the inherent tendency for income inequality to increase non-linearly as city size grows remains to be seen.
Economic processes will take their own course: generally the larger the agglomeration, the higher the probability of further growth. However, recognising and reducing spatial inequality and changing the economic geography of the city should be planning’s role.
And finally, there is the question of city size distributions, and focusing on the growth of regional and smaller cities, instead of putting every cent of focus on our biggest cities. These are, clearly, very long-term goals in the current environment.
 
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/somwrita-sarkar-320241" target="_blank"></a>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/somwrita-sarkar-320241" target="_blank">SOMWRITA SARKAR </a>is senior lecturer in Design and Computation, University of Sydney  
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/somwrita-sarkar-320241" target="_blank"></a>
<a href="https://donate.theconversation.com/au?utm_source=theconversation.com&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_campaign=friend_of_the_conversation_badge" target="_blank">PETER PHIBBS </a>is chair of Urban Planning and Policy, University of Sydney.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/somwrita-sarkar-320241" target="_blank"></a>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/roderick-simpson-320302" target="_blank">RODERICK SIMPSON</a> is associate professor of Urban Design, University of Sydney.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/somwrita-sarkar-320241" target="_blank"></a>
All are authors for The Conversation.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/somwrita-sarkar-320241" target="_blank"> </a>
</body></html>

City Population

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

City Population

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News