Housing Development

<html><body>
Sydney’s established suburbs have just one thing in common when we talk about their existing houses in that for years now we have seen no new housing developments – they have simply dried up.
They no longer exist nor will we see any more new developments, so the number of houses in a particular suburb is all but fixed forever. Unlike outer Sydney where new housing estates are being released at the fastest rates ever witnessed before to meet the growing consumer demand – however the new markets are totally different from the established property markets.
It’s interesting to note that the established housing markets are contracting with less properties being offered to the marketplace which is underpinning property prices. Just as interesting is the observation that the overseas buyers are now strong participants in the established Sydney property markets followed by the local buyers in close pursuit.
This is what many are calling the perfect storm where if you removed the overseas buyers the Sydney established property markets would bear no resemblance to what we witnessed in 2015. With the NSW government now fixated on high – density residential strata developments many property buyers are observing that established houses are the best investments because production has ceased.
Whilst the NSW government has no problems encouraging the new residential subdivisions of airspace we certainly don’t envisage we will see any outdoor public spaces being converted to residential housing subdivisions.
We can also throw into the ‘perfect property storm’ record low interest rates where households are leveraging their borrowings to the maximum in order to take full advantage of the lowest rates in property history. When they leverage high this takes longer to pay down the principal home loan which in turn slows down the number of properties being offered to the market place which is exactly what we are witnessing today.
Just as interesting is that the last cash rate increase by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) was back on November 3, 2010 when the RBA increased the cash rate +0.25 percent to 4.75 percent.
To show further proof a recent analysis by Digital Finance Analytics identified that 13 percent of households with an owner occupied loan would be in financial discomfort if rates were to rise at all. This is a smaller proportion to investment property owners who came in at 27 percent. However, more than one third of households said that they would be in difficulty if rates rose by 3 percent.
With many property owners closely following the cash rate musings emanating from the RBA – they may be better advised to watch their respective lenders a lot more closely.
Business analysts warned this week if there are no RBA cuts in 2016 then the banks would again act independently by announcing their own independent rate increases. Many quickly forget that in 2015 the big banks joined hands and raised their respective rates between 15 and 20 basis points.
Based on this data, for that to happen we would see the investment property hardest hit with a very distinct possibility of surging nervous investors trying to off – load their newly acquired investment properties. On the flip – side the major banks are most concerned that this newly created investment property loan portfolio has them exposed – so we in all probability will see them massaging their mortgage books in 2016.
This of course does not bode well for all the new developments awaiting release to the respective marketplaces where Melbourne has approximately another 20,000 new apartments ready to be released over the next five years with Sydney sitting at around 6,000 new apartments.
Then of course we have the dilemma with the apartments already sold off – the – plan with plenty of talk that many of those won’t proceed with their contracts. In particular the Big Four banks are only too well aware of their exposure to these new markets. That would explain why they have commenced their whisper campaigns – where we can expect to read plenty more in coming months.
When the property flows are weak the prices shoot up which is exactly what has happened to the established markets. The new investment markets are the ones that dominated in 2015 so there is a very good chance they may dominate conversations in 2015 for all the wrong reasons. What also needs to be factored in are the new developments where 100 per cent of these apartments were sold offshore. It’s anyone’s guess what may happen should we see these newly created markets start showing the first signs of panic.
<h5>MOSMAN – 2088</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 58
• Number of houses on the market last week – 36
• Number of houses on the market this week – 45
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 43
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 32
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 38
<h5>CREMORNE – 2090</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 8
• Number of houses on the market last week – 9
• Number of houses on the market this week – 11
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 18
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 11
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 15
<h5>NEUTRAL BAY – 2089</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 4
• Number of houses on the market last week – 6
•Number of houses on the market this week – 6
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year– 37
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 23
*Number of apartments on the market this week – 27
 ROBERT SIMEON is a director of <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/" target="_blank" title="RWM" rel="nofollow">Richardson Wrench Mosman and Neutral Bay</a> and has been selling residential real estate in Sydney since 1985.  He has also been writing real estate blog <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/news/" target="_blank" title="Virtual Realty News" rel="nofollow">Virtual Realty News</a> since 2000. 
</body></html>

robertsimeon-hRNTwJyXkQ

Simply put, property will be as steady as she flows: Robert Simeon

<html><body>
Cities are ever changing environments that are continuously evolving and they reflect the varied and always developing needs of the population.
The complexity of the population is naturally reflected in the make-up of the housing market and while fashions change, our underlying housing preferences appear to be somewhat more rigid than might be expected. And so the question will always be – are we matching demand and how we market to this audience? 
It appears that at times we have a disconnection between where we live and where we would like to live. Work, family, finances and lifestyle balance all play their part, alongside our national, still very dominant desire to have our own homes. This area is still driven by emotion and aspiration. There’s a lot of emotion in almost all parts of the housing market and the desire for homeownership is also closely tied to a feeling of achievement, personal growth and self-worth.
In almost any casual conversation we are often asked, where do you live? And where do you work and what do you do? Where we live in particular is very much seen as part of who we are, and so the character of the housing market is a constant source of fascination.
A Large House Near The City
In research published by the Grattan Institute, a large house near the city was seen as the most desirable goal for many people, but the actual structure of our housing market is somewhat different.
Homeownership is falling, and the numbers of people renting is on the rise. Both trends were evident. When measured in the last census in 2011, homeowners (either owned or with a mortgage) was around 67%, and rental accommodation sat around 29.6%, but the falling trend among homeowners has been constant and was closer to 75% in the 1960’s.
At the same time rents and mortgage repayments have been on the constant increase, and one particular measure remains on an upward trend and that’s the number of households where rent or mortgage payments are taking more than 30% of incomes, with rents at 10.4% and mortgage loan repayments at 9.9%. It’s a trend that the 2016 census is bound to see continue as house prices have increased over recent years.
There’s also a link between the size of families and their incomes and the ability to buy a home. Couples and sole parents with children account for 60.5% of households with both parents being employed either full or part-time making up 25.4%, with only 15.7% being households with just one parent working full-time, and even less with one parent in part-time employment at just 5.4% supporting the household.
Most of Us Still Live in Detached Homes
Where we live and the impact that has on household size and the importance of location also shows some related trends. As the figures above might help reinforce, families are more concerned about the size of a home.
The split is currently 75.6% living in detached homes, but that figure is gradually falling, 9.9% then live in semi-detached and 13.6% in apartments, with both are on an upward trend. The fall in the numbers of people living in detached homes is shown by the fact that in 1976 the figure stood at 78%, and while the decline is not huge, it’s now a constant trend and may well be more marked with recent trends towards the popularity of apartments.
What is somewhat a surprise is that evidence points to the popularity and demand for medium density housing, in reality the supply of semi-detached homes and townhouses has been falling way behind demand. Medium density sits somewhere between high-rise apartment living and the larger more traditional detached home and this would help explain, not surprisingly why these homes are so popular. And when it comes to size, we see that 3-bedroom and 4-bedroom homes together account for 73.9% of housing stock, with the demand for 4-bedroom homes on the increase.
When Location Is Key
While for families home size and the number of bedrooms are the most important factors, location is much more important as we get older and it’s also the same for singles.
While families are concerned about house size, as we get older we look for closer connections to work, being closer to family and facilities like transport, and the same goes for singles as they look for wider community connections. For these groups a central or CBD location and all that it entails is driving demand and pushing prices as sites are absorbed.
Then we also find that across all groups affordability always comes into the picture. This will then influence size, condition, access to transport and the key suburbs people are most attracted to. Our housing preferences are well-established but changing.
However as is clearly demonstrated by some of the shortages being experienced in Sydney, meeting all aspects of household demand isn’t easy. There are many layers that add time, cost and complexity to meeting demand. Finding suitable sites in very popular areas, the time to deliver the finished projects, planning delays and the costs involved will explain why in some markets demand is not being met.
Demand is being seen from the inner-city to major new growth regions on the city fringe. Then some housing preferences, like the demand for more mid-range medium density housing may be falling short. There’s a fine balance between location, cost and size that all buyers have to navigate when making a choice of where to live, and prices are reflecting the key areas of demand.
Peter Chittenden is managing director for residential of Colliers International. He can be contacted <a href="https://www.projectagenda.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

pchittenden-eLqUUC8TWW

Where we like to live: Peter Chittenden

<html><body>
A newly completed fully leased 12-unit block in Campsie has been listed for sale.
The 62 Second Avenue offering is among the raft of new boutique blocks that have hit the market in one line.
CBRE is also marketing a 30-unit block at <a href="https://www.commercialrealestate.com.au/property/9-campbell-street-parramatta-nsw-2150-2014331182" target="_blank">9 Campbell Street in Parramatta</a> inconjunction with Walter Herrmann Real Estate.
The block of 30 apartments, comprising of five one-bedroom apartments; 21 two-bedroom apartments, four three-bedroom apartments plus one retail suite, had a gross annual income $823,887.
It is strata subdivision approved.
A nine-level 16-apartment apartment building at 50 Waverley Street, Bondi Junction is on the market through Metro Commercial Property Group.
CBRE's Robert Dowdy said the sellers - and developers - are looking to recycle their capital quicker through one-line sales.
The Australian Financial Review noted there was "good demand" for whole blocks of units, particularly from mum and dad investors with large portfolios, family trusts, self-managed and large superannuation funds.
There has been a regular supply of establish unit blocks for sale too.
At Homebush, an entire building of 10 by two bedroom already strata titled apartments are being offered in one line.
It is currently rented returning $224,000 approx gross per annum at 50 Burlington Road.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Whole block apartment offerings on the rise in Sydney

<html><body>
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The recent interest in Brutalist buildings by the City of Sydney Council and the National Trust has become a new way to stop new housing projects.
The supporters of Brutalist buildings have moved on from their failure to get the Sirius Building listed to another Brutalist building sitting amongst the Victorian streetscapes of Glebe.
The Glebe building is the Bidura Metropolitan Remand Centre (BMRC) that was built in the 1980s to house children going through the Children’s Court system.”
“The recent Central Sydney Planning Committee meeting supported a council proposal to have the Bidura complex becoming a heritage item even though the City Council’s own Local Environmental Plan allows an 8 story apartment building on the site and no heritage controls have existed on the Remand Centre before.
The brutalist BMRC building (above) presents tall blank concrete walls to the street that have very little of the active uses the council normally requires. Proponents of the heritage listing amazingly compared it with the sandstone Queen Victoria Building on George Street in the city with its extensive display windows and many entrances.
But more importantly the moves to keep the building would stop a state government asset sale objective of providing new housing on a site close to a village centre and public transport. It will be almost impossible to find compatible uses for the concrete monolith unless they relate to prison like uses that want to exist in a concrete fortress.
At the time of the sale of the site by the NSW Government to the private sector there was no heritage controls on the site apart from the 1860 original Bidura House and the City of Sydney’s planning rules allowed an eight storey apartment building, similar to neighbouring sites, to be constructed. Now that the site has been sold to the private sector the Sydney City Council wants to change all the rules. The state government must ensure that there are consistent rules when their sites are sold or the private sector will not have confidence in the sale process.
The extensive support documents to the councils proposed heritage listing lauded British Brutalist buildings including the Barbican Centre in London as good examples of Brutalism. The Barbican Centre takes up a full city block but the street edge on all four sides is either a blank concrete wall, a concrete car park or on one side service entries off a covered road that looks like a tunnel. Brutalism seemed to be very unfriendly when it presented to the public realm of the street as demonstrated by London’s Barbican Centre and Glebe’s Bidura Children’s Court and Metropolitan Remand Centre.
The Urban Taskforce is concerned about the sovereign risk that the change of planning rules creates after government disposes of an asset. We are also concerned about the growing trend to try and list as heritage items Brutalist buildings that have poor relationships to the street and are seen by many people as being ugly.
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
CHRIS JOHNSON is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">contacted here. </a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

cjohnson-8xfqfuuCSq

Protection of Brutalist Buildings being used to stop new development

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The proposal by The Hills Shire Council to provide transitional housing through bonus floor space has appropriate incentives to encourage developers.
The Mayor of the Hills Shire Council, Clr Yvonne Keane, has championed an approach to transitional housing that has received the full support of her Council.
Transitional housing is to assist victims of domestic violence, by providing access to a home while they are rebuilding their lives. 
The Council proposal is to encourage developers to provide a single apartment for a 10 year period by allowing two extra apartments above the current planning limits.
This approach is similar to the Urban Taskforce proposal to providing affordable housing for a ten year period through an uplift in floor space and height. 
The development industry can contribute subsidised housing over a ten year period if the incentives for extra floor space are sufficient to make this economically viable.
A number of Urban Taskforce members who are developing apartment projects in The Hills Shire Council area including Sekisui, Mirvac, Aqualand, Dyldam and PAYCE have expressed their support for the transitional housing proposal. Major developers like PAYCE have run the numbers over the proposal and believe it is a viable approach to help provide the subsidised housing that Council is encouraging.
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>.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

Urban Taskforce gives transitional housing proposal by Hills Shire Council green light

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

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Greater residential density or urban sprawl - solving the housing challenge 

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/66410/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Many housing types are totally at odds with how people live today because people don’t have as many material goods as they used to. 
Those under 30 may not own much at all. Music is digitised and streamed (Sonos, Spotify), treasured photo albums live in the cloud or within applications (Dropbox, iPhoto), tools are pooled (Open Shed), vehicles and rides are shared (Flexicar, BlaBlaCar, Uber), there’s no landline phone or TV cable, kitchen appliances are redundant with the ubiquity of food delivery services (Foodora, Deliveroo) and pets are borrowed (DogVacay, BorrowMyDoggy). 
The young are also likely to be renting their accommodation. Data from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research reveal that barely 50 percent of Australians lived in a house they owned in 2014. If this trend continues, many of today’s young Australians will never own their own home.
With transformations in digital technologies and housing-price pressures changing living habits, people will not only possess fewer physical objects in the future, but new apartment dwellers will be more likely to occupy less space at a later age. These private domestic spaces are decreasing in size to become more efficient, hopefully more affordable and, for some restless millennials, more desirable.
<h2>Corporatising the co-living model</h2>
One model to emerge in the trend towards downsizing private domestic space is branded co-living spaces. Examples include The Collective (London), Zoku (Amsterdam) and Roam (London, Madrid, Miami, San Francisco, Tokyo, Ubud). In the corporatised co-living model, occupants rent private bedroom space (some bedrooms are as small as ten square metres) on a rolling contract for weeks or months, but share living and working spaces. 
These collective spaces are often programmed with extracurricular activities such as yoga, business workshops, cooking classes and guest talks that promote social exchange between renters. 
Systems of logistics, such as apps and chat platforms, facilitate the sharing of objects and space. Access to the co-living space is granted if you are part of a tribe (students, communes, families or business people). 
One of the global market leaders in co-living arrangements is the Chinese You+. The company has built over ten co-living spaces and claims to house more than 10,000 people across 25 branches. Private bedrooms (with bathroom) range in size from 20 to 50 square metres. The minimum stay is six months at an average monthly rent of A$470. 
At You+, people over 45 are discouraged. Couples with children or those who are anti-social are not permitted. Tech entrepreneurs tend to be given preference.
Subscribing to a co-living or dormitory arrangement such as You+ can mean lower rental costs (relative to renting a single-bedroom apartment on an above-average income), a surfeit of potential friends and a flexible rental contract. For some, this may be a genuinely desirable option. For others it may be the only option in a competitive rental market at a time when there are few affordable housing options.
<h2>Blurring the public-private divide</h2>
As private interior space contracts and shared domestic spaces become more common, the public realm is also changing.
Formerly private activities such as working and communication are occurring more frequently outside of the home, while the public sphere is taking on characteristics of interior or domestic settings: intimate spaces, interior furnishings and finishes, pocket parks, guerrilla gardening. The idea of what constitutes a home may be changing and expanding to consider urban space.
A lot of hyperbole surrounds the branded co-living spaces like You+ that have emerged under the so-called sharing economy – also known as the communal, collaborative, inclusive, gig or social economy. But there is a tension between the realities of the model and the benevolence of the act of sharing. 
At the behest of the property owner, co-living spaces tend to have less fixed furnishings and cheaper construction. They also have more occupants because typical apartment spaces (living room, laundry, kitchen) are compressed. Behind You+ and its ilk there are venture capitalists looking for high returns.
Co-living arrangements are transforming the physical typologies and financial models of housing and are the latest in a long tradition of collective housing arrangements, from the kibbutz to student dormitories to share houses, baugruppen and boarding houses. 
With lone-person households to account for more than a quarter of all Australian households by 2031, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, we need to rethink how we build collective and individual space in a denser city that reflects how many people want to live today – and tomorrow. 
We can see that market and societal demands are pushing people towards sharing space, but many co-living arrangements do nothing to improve housing affordability in the long term.
Timothy Moore is PhD candidate, Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/timothy-moore-292089" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Reinventing density: co-living, the second domestic revolution

<html><body>
The Australian arm of global property developer, Poly Australia has received development application approval on its house and land estate, Grove Place in Werrington NSW.
Poly has received approval from the Penrith City Council to develop its first house and land masterplanned development just a stone’s throw from the popular hub of Penrith in Sydney’s west.
The development will see the release of 67 lots of land sized between 310sqm to 795sqm and starting from $345,000.
Buyers can commission their own builder, or work with Poly’s preferred builder Rawson Homes, offering buyers the opportunity to design and build the most suitable home for each individual block of land. 
Poly Managing Director Arthur Wang said Poly was excited to receive DA approval for the 30,610sqm site at 229 Victoria Street in Werrington, which Poly anticipates will be a significant opportunity for young families, owner-occupiers, first home buyers and even savvy investors.
“Werrington is well and truly an up and coming suburb, and with nearby town hubs of Penrith and Parramatta on your doorstep, and a raft of transport amenities including Werrington Railway station, and proposed investment in new road infrastructure it is an attractive option for a range of buyers,” he said. 
“Young families will find Grove Place an ideal location with a childcare centre just a few seconds walk from the site, and over 15 hectares of parkland reserves and sporting grounds.”
“When you consider that with the same money you may only be able to purchase an apartment in nearby Parramatta or Penrith, Werrington’s Grove Place becomes a highly attractive option for not only young families, but savvy investors,” he said.
Grove Place by Poly starts construction in the first quarter of 2017 with the first homes expected to be completed by early 2018.
The project’s approval comes at a time when the western suburbs of Sydney are seeing major growth and infrastructure investment including Sydney proposed new airport in Badgerys Creek.
Werrington is a family-friendly suburb located in close proximity to the Napean Hospital and University of Western Sydney. The suburb includes a childcare centre, youth centre and community hall directly located adjacent to the masterplanned estate.
The site is located just five kilometres from the Penrith town centre which offers a range of retail and lifestyle amenities with easy access to other nearby town centres including St Marys and Blacktown. 
</body></html>

Poly receives DA approval for Grove Place

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/64153/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Truth be told, most Australians live in good housing. This is good news for all of us because our housing is a major determinant of our health and wellbeing. But our very recent research findings, published this month in the Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, and the lessons of history tell us this good news story is at risk.
Ideally, housing provides us with the secure, comfortable shelter that people and their families need to live healthy, productive lives. In general, we have a modern housing stock with good heating and cooling, few major structural problems and few problems with damp and mould. By contrast, bad housing makes it much more likely you will get sick and stay sick once ill.
In Australia’s early years, much of the housing stock was of poor quality, often overcrowded, and posed real risks to people’s health. Slums were common in the inner parts of the major cities and in many country towns.
As late as 1915 bubonic plague was a reality in the poorer parts of our cities and other contagious diseases remained an ever-present risk. Numerous letters to the editor documented a real social concern with the housing standards of the poor.
Government intervention, economic prosperity and tenancy laws all improved housing conditions across Australia. Within a century Australia was defined by good housing and high rates of home ownership. The nation saw off the last of its slums in the late 1940s.
Now the same conditions that gave rise to substandard housing in the 19th century are returning in the 21st, with a likely similar outcome. Recently, the Reserve Bank governor acknowledged young Australians need their parents' help to buy a home in Sydney. But most Australians don’t have a wealthy and doting parent to fund them into the house of their dreams.
The alternative is to live in lower-quality housing and to make do with a home that is relatively inaccessible, fundamentally unaffordable or both.
<h2>A million Australians on the housing brink</h2>
The confronting reality is that poor housing conditions are more prevalent in Australia than we think.
We have a sizeable “hidden fraction” of Australians living in poor-quality housing. In particular, many of our most vulnerable have the double disadvantage of also having housing conditions that we might deem as falling below an unacceptable standard.
In one of the few contemporary analyses of this issue, we used the Household Income and Labour Dynamics (HILDA) Survey, a national longitudinal dataset, and find compelling evidence of a substantial stock of poor-quality housing in Australia.
The scale of our findings is somewhat surprising: we found almost a million Australians are living in poor or very-poor-quality housing. Within this total, more than 100,000 are residing in dwellings regarded as very poor or derelict.
These simple findings are important. They show the existence of a significant (and currently little known) population of individuals living in very poor conditions. At the very least, we need to monitor Australian housing conditions in a systematic way if we are to avoid this problem worsening.
<h2>Harms of poor housing multiply</h2>
Poor-quality housing makes the already disadvantaged even worse off. Younger people, people with disabilities and ill health, those with low incomes, those without full-time (or any) employment, Indigenous people and renters are much more likely to be found in the emerging slums of 21st-century Australia.
Importantly, many of these groups are already disadvantaged and (most probably) have a pressing need for housing that improves or supports their health and wellbeing. People with an existing illness or disability, for example, are almost twice as likely to live in dwellings in very poor condition as people without a disability or illness.
These findings about the size and uneven distribution of the problem should force us to ask what effects poor-quality housing has on people – on their mental, physical and general health? It is clear from our analysis that such housing has measurable impacts on mental, physical and general health. This impact is large enough to be statistically significant.
Given the time it takes to reform policy and plan for our cities and regions, Australia urgently needs to face up to the dismal reality that once again many Australians are living in housing not fit for habitation.
Governments must take steps to ensure the supply of affordable housing of reasonable quality. Otherwise, we are destined to become a nation scarred once again by slums, reduced life chances and shortened lives.
Emma Baker is associate professor, School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Adelaide and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-baker-172081" target="_blank">here</a>.
Andrew Beer is dean, Research and Innovation, University of South Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-beer-111469" target="_blank">here</a>.
Rebecca Bentley is associate professor, Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-bentley-173502" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Why 100 years without slum housing in Australia is coming to an end

<html><body>
A pair of office towers across the road from Redfern train station has planning approval to be redesigned for new apartments. 
An application to redesign and reconfigure the existing towers for residential and commercial uses at 1 Lawson Square Redfern was approved in 2014.
The modification, approved by the Department of Planning and Environment, will change the plans to allow for:
* a reduction in the width of both towers
* changes to the internal layouts of each floor of both towers
* six additional residential apartments to the original approval, an increase from 156 to 162 apartments
* amending the proposed design and materials for the external facades of the buildings to include concrete, marble, glazing and metal balustrades
A department spokesperson said the modification application was publicly available on its website and referred to the City of Sydney Council between December 2015 and January 2016.
“Key issues raised during consultation include privacy for nearby residences, size and adequacy of the revised apartments, the new façade design and proposed materials,” a spokesperson said.
“To address the issue of privacy for neighbouring properties the Department has requested south-facing windows to be treated with privacy screens and has included a new condition requiring all window sills in Tower 1 to be 1.7 metres in height.
“In addition to the reconfigured layout which will produce apartments of an acceptable size, the Department has requested larger balconies.
</body></html>

Housing Development

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Housing Development

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News