Liveability

<html><body>
Cecille Weldon believes that —within not too many years— you could well be trading on energy markets, the way people today trade shares, using dedicated apps to get higher prices for the energy you capture and store through your home’s solar and batteries. 
More importantly, she says there is a quiet revolution building in real estate that is starting to impact property value. When you’re ready to sell or rent a home, a new property appraisal will allow you to showcase how many “Liveability Features” the home has to make it more marketable. 
I worked with Weldon while I was CEO at LJ Hooker. In fact, I put her on that company’s Executive Leadership Team. Today, I talk to her about how the power of Liveability is changing the way we Australians live in our homes – and how much we pay to do so.
Challenged to think differently by a Famous Father
Weldon isn’t just any random visionary. She has vision in her genes.  
Cecille is daughter of famous Australian publisher and entrepreneur Kevin Weldon, whose publishing empire came to rank alongside big mining and manufacturing companies as one of the country’s 200 largest exporters. Kevin Weldon also helped found the International Lifesaving Federation and Earthwatch Australia. His latest venture “The Ripper Group” is behind the world’s first drone surf rescue. He received the Order of Australia from a grateful nation in 1994.
With this kind of father, it’s no surprise that Cecille Weldon started her first business while still in high school – manufacturing silkscreened shoulder bags for the travel industry. 
“I didn’t realize 16-year-olds weren’t supposed to call up marketing managers and ask for a meeting,” she told me. “Business was part of everyday conversation with Dad, and you felt compelled to act on your ideas, not just talk about them”
Changing the Way We Value Our Homes
By the time she joined LJ Hooker, Weldon was already a recognized brand expert and an innovative thinker. The company hired her to identify and qualify future brand opportunities and give its agents an advantage. But her work is now recognized on a national level. It stands to benefits every property owner, buyer and renter in Australia.
Back in 2010, Weldon identified the first signs of what is now recognized as a key factor in a new value proposition, enabling home owners and investors to unlock the hidden value in their homes and connect to an exciting new market in residential real estate. Fundamental to its success was specialist training for real estate professionals. She developed the 17 key features that have been proven to make a home more comfortable and affordable to live in. 
Under her guidance, agents trained in her new Liveability Real Estate Framework began helping vendors and investors highlight these 17 features in their property marketing. In many cases, this was delivering a new perceptions of value, creating the opportunity to achieve a higher price in a shorter time frame. That made everyone happy.
The <a href="https://liveability.com.au/">Centre for Liveability Real Estate</a> was established as it become clear that what Weldon had created at LJ Hooker was too big and important for just one agency. When CSIRO acquired it, Weldon joined with them to turn the framework into a nationally consistent independent platform empowering both consumers and the property industry to deliver better more trusted information about home’s Liveability Features at point of sale or rent.
Innovation Is More Powerful Than the Word Sustainability 
The 17 Liveability features that Weldon identified are:
1. Climate Zone of your city
2. Living Locally 
3. Orientation 
4. Cross-ventilation 
5. Zoning 
6. Insulation 
7. Density of Building Materials 
8. Windows 
9. Shading or Sun Control 
10. Efficient Heating and Cooling Devices 
11. Energy Efficient Lighting 
12. Efficient Hot Water System 
13. Solar Photovoltaic (PV) System 
14. Low Water Garden 
15. Water Efficiency Devices 
16. Rainwater Tanks 
17. Home Energy Rating
Many of these features are often associated with the idea of sustainability, but don’t tell that to Weldon.
“The word “sustainability” is paradoxically a barrier in this situation,” she said. “Liveability Features deliver a better home in every measure of the word – one that is healthy, efficient, comfortable, and affordable to run. And also one that has less of an impact on the environment. The word ‘sustainability’ limits our understanding of ALL the benefits available from these features, which are really just an aspect of good building design.”
Weldon points out that housing affordability and energy prices are two of Australia’s major preoccupations, but they are seldom looked at together. 
“They are actually two sides of the same affordability debate: afford to buy and afford to run,” Weldon says. “We all know you can have a cheap house that is really expensive to run. The costs of paying for your home and of paying to operate your home should be considered as the one measure of affordability in the value chain. That’s the only way you can accurately decide how much you can afford to pay for a property.”
At any open for inspection, Weldon says research shows that nine out of 10 people are wondering in the back of their minds how much the property is going to cost to run. 
“We’ve been tracking how many people ask to see a power bill when looking at a house. That’s a way of saying, ‘I want to know the running costs.’ The real estate industry with the right tools and training, can now be a catalyst to deliver better, more trusted information on a property’s true Liveability features.”
Advice to Vendors and Landlords
Weldon’s advice for vendors and landlords who want to get the most when they sell or rent their property is to make sure their agent has upskilled with this award winning Liveability Real Estate Specialist Training, so they can showcase your home’s verified Liveability Features in their marketing campaign. 
“You don’t want to feel like. ‘Why has my agent ignored all these other features I have invested in? I could have gotten a higher price,’” she says.
In any property that you own, Weldon says, over time you should focus your renovations on reducing running costs and increasing comfort and convenience. This is the new value opportunity for Australian property. It means that the renovation will deliver a more comfortable, healthy home that’s cheaper to run. This benefits you when you’re in the home and now you’ll be rewarded when you’re ready to sell the home.
You may even be able to get a government incentive to do so. Weldon says many state governments are working on the idea of tax relief to encourage investors to upgrade with some of these Liveability Features because many rental properties are too expensive to run. 
“If landlords don’t start upgrading things like the hot water system and heating and cooling devices, then their properties will struggle to maintain their rental value.
“Rising running costs are responsible for a significant share of rent defaults, higher vacancy rates, and shorter tenancies,” said Weldon. “On 7:30 Report a few months ago, a tenant said the bills were so high they had no alternative but to leave.”
Believe it or not, the two most cost-effective improvements you can make are not solar panels or rainwater tanks, even though they are the poster children for sustainability. 
“The features that give you the biggest bang for your buck and are easiest to do,” she told me, “are ceiling insulation and shading. The shading stops that sun from hitting the window in the first place. For most of Australia (except the Top End) the shading that matters is on the north and the east/west sides.
A Bright Future
 In our conversation, Weldon ticked off some of the changes she thinks are coming to the way we Australians live and invest in our homes.
There’s a new breed of real estate agent coming down the line with better, more relevant, and future focused property knowledge about what really matters.
Renovators are going to start to look “beyond the bling” when they’re creating their property wish list … bringing in these new Liveability Features to deliver health, comfort, and lifestyle with the assurance of ongoing affordability.
If you are an investor, Weldon says there some exciting opportunities for both you and your renter to benefit. Initiatives like <a href="https://www.suntenants.com/howitworks/">SunTenants</a> can help you purchase solar panels and how much you can increase your rent to help pay for the investment. This is matched by a 100% guarantee to the renter that the saving on their energy bill will always be more than the rent increase. 
“The running costs are absolutely going to impact property value,” said Weldon. “It won’t be long before your solar panels, battery, and electric car will all work together to keep your costs as low as possible. More and more homes will be energy positive – meaning they produce more energy than they consume. This will open a whole new opportunity to gain value from our homes.”
That will be good for you, your budget, and for Australia’s environment.
GEORG CHMIEL, the chairman of Juwai, a Chinese website for buyers of overseas property, was speaking to Cecille Weldon in his regular column giving insight into the leading minds of Australian property experts.
He has spoken with LJ Hooker agent Bill Malouf about the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/investing/82193-georg-chmiel-chats-with-bill-malouf" target="_blank">ins and out of the Sydney market</a>, REINSW president Leanne Pilkington about <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/investing/83830-georg-chmiel-chats-with-reinsw-president-leanne-pilkington-on-women-in-real-estate" target="_blank">women in real estate</a>, developer Larry Kestelman about <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/investing/85169-georg-chmiel-chats-with-larry-kestelman-about-developing-your-first-property" target="_blank">developing your first property</a>, Harcourts boss Mike Green on <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/investing/86232-georg-chmiel-chats-with-harcourts-boss-mike-green-on-real-estate-investment-secrets" target="_blank">real estate investment secrets</a> and Ironfish chief Joseph Chou on <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/investing/87440-georg-chmiel-talks-with-ironfish-ceo-joseph-chou-about-whether-to-invest-in-today-s-market" target="_blank">investing in today's market.</a> 
 
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Georg Chmiel talks with liveability guru Cecille Weldon about unlocking a home's hidden value 

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Sydney Metro median property prices increased by 1.3 per cent for houses, according to PRD's Affordable and Liveable Property Guide Sydney 1st Half 2020.
Affordable and liveable suburbs are those with a maximum property sale price of the average state home loan, plus a 15 per cent deposit.
In the 1st half of 2020, 139 suburbs were within this price range, greater than the 119 suburbs identified in the 2nd Half 2019 report. 
The most affordable and liveable house suburbs include: 
<table style="width: 688px;" border="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>Approx. radius from the Sydney CBD</td>
<td>Median House Price</td>
<td>2 Bed Median Price </td>
<td>3 Bed Median Price </td>
<td>4+ Bed Median Price </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Miranda</td>
<td>20km</td>
<td>$1,160,000</td>
<td>$1,055,000</td>
<td>$1,092,500</td>
<td>$1,210,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rockdale </td>
<td>10.9km</td>
<td>$1,100,000</td>
<td>$1,075,000</td>
<td>$1,160,000</td>
<td>$1,237,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Tempe</td>
<td>7.7km</td>
<td>$1,093,000</td>
<td>$1,042,500</td>
<td>$1,243,850</td>
<td>$1,425,000</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Affordable and liveable unit suburbs include: 
<table border="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>Approx. radius from the Sydney CBD</td>
<td>Median House Price</td>
<td>1 Bed Median Price </td>
<td>2 Bed Median Price </td>
<td>3+ Bed Median Price </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rockdale</td>
<td>10.9km</td>
<td>$610,500</td>
<td>$482,500</td>
<td>$615,000</td>
<td>$718,880</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bexley</td>
<td>11.1km</td>
<td>$610,000</td>
<td>$442,500</td>
<td>$600,000</td>
<td>$768,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Peakhurst</td>
<td>16km</td>
<td>$659,000</td>
<td>$495,000</td>
<td>$635,000</td>
<td>$842,500 
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
A cooling in median property prices in early to mid-2019 has led to more suburbs identified as affordable in the 1st half of 2020. However, this also meant there were a large number of suburbs with negative median price growth.
In line with the methodology set, suburbs with median price growth close to neutral (i.e. zero) were chosen. A premium of 95 per cent for houses and 11 per cent for units was added to the NSW average home loan, to ensure suburbs chosen met all other set criteria. This is well below the 2nd Half 2019 report premium and below the percentage premium needed to reach Sydney Metro’s median property price. Thus there is improved access to liveable suburbs for buyers.
Median property prices in Sydney Metro increased by 1.3 per cent for houses to $1,355,000 from 2018 to 2019/20 and remained steady for units at $796,500. By comparison, from 2017 to 2018 the median house price in Sydney Metro softened by -4.5 per cent, and the median unit price softened by -2.6 per cent.
The market has recovered from the significant price drop seen in mid-2019. There is a unique opportunity in Sydney Metro, as the current market is more affordable than in 2017 (median house price of $1,401,000 and median unit price of $819,500), yet at the same time owners can be confident in their asset’s ongoing value.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2020/6/26/9_Houses.jpg" target="_blank">Click here </a>to enlarge: 
<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/2020/6/26/9_Houses.jpg" alt="" width="491" height="278">
<div class="page" title="Page 5">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Sydney Metro sales and median price growth. Source: PRD.
The Sydney Metro rental market recorded a median rental price of $500 per week for houses and $530 per week for units, representing quarterly median price growth of one per cent for houses and 1.9 per cent for units. This occurred despite an annual increase in vacancy rate, which was at 3.9 per cent in April 2020.
 Sydney Metro recorded average yields of 2.5 per cent for houses and 3.5 per cent for units, which saw a slight softening in the 12 months to April 2020. Despite this however, Sydney Metro still offers investors long-term historical strength and stability in its rental market.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2020/6/26/9_Rental.jpg" target="_blank">Click here</a> to enlarge: 
<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/2020/6/26/9_Rental.jpg" alt="" width="504" height="337">
Sydney rental market analysis. Source: PRD. 
The top three lowest priced suburbs in Greater Sydney are Villawood whose 2019/20 median price is $697,500, Granville ($730,000) and Guildford ($740,000). While there is no project development value offered by PRD for Villawood, its 2019/20 median rent is $500 with a 2.9 per cent rental yield.
Granville has a project development value of $22.6 million and a median rent of $460 with a 3.3 per cent rental yield. Guildford has a project development value of $9.8 million and median rent of $450 with a 2.8 per cent rental yield. 
Meanwhile, the top three highest priced suburbs are St Leonards (with a $12.05 million median), Point Piper ($8.825 million) and Lavender Bay ($7 million). 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
An estimated $17.5 billion of developments is planned in the 1st half of 2020 for Greater Sydney, in many sectors. Major projects include the $1 billion Stage One M6 Extension infrastructure project, the $636.7 million Park Sydney Mixed Use Development (1,400 units), and the $200.0M Westfield Parramatta Stage One extension. These projects highlight the strength of the development pipeline for the 1st half of 2020. This will generate more commercial activity, and infrastructure projects will create additional employment; resulting in positive spill-over effects on the property market.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Sydney Metro median house prices increase by 1.3 per cent: PRD

<html><body>
<h1> </h1>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
The main concern when talking about the liveability of a city like Melbourne should be sustaining the health and well-being of residents.
For seven years, Melbourne boasted the title of “world’s most liveable city”, but <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-14/melbourne-loses-most-liveable-city-title-to-vienna/10117338" target="_blank">recently lost the top spot to Vienna</a>. The Economist Intelligence Unit awards the title each year when it publishes its <a href="http://www.eiu.com/topic/liveability" target="_blank">Global Liveability Index</a>. This ranks 140 cities for their urban quality of life based on assessments of stability, health care, culture and environment, education and infrastructure.
The rankings have their <a href="https://theconversation.com/melbourne-the-worlds-most-liveable-city-not-exactly-17677" target="_blank">limitations</a>, which have been <a href="https://theconversation.com/liveability-prizes-are-nice-but-we-have-to-er-live-here-3194" target="_blank">criticised</a>. To regain top spot, or indeed just to become a <a href="https://theconversation.com/liveability-prizes-are-nice-but-we-have-to-er-live-here-3194" target="_blank">better place for the people who actually live in the city</a>, perhaps Melbourne and other cities like it should go beyond the traditional indicators. This means considering other factors that affect not only liveability but also health and sustainability.
Health and mobility are linked
Urban and transport planning has a large impact on sustainability, liveability and health. <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27346385" target="_blank">A recent study in Barcelona</a> estimated 3,000 people die prematurely each year (20% of total mortality) because of urban and transport planning-related environmental and lifestyle factors. The largest contributor to premature death was lack of physical activity, followed by air pollution, noise, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/feb/21/urban-heat-islands-cooling-things-down-with-trees-green-roads-and-fewer-cars" target="_blank">heat island effects</a> and lack of green space.
A city that makes walking more convenient has many benefits for health and well-being. 
Melbourne is a sprawling city with <a href="https://theconversation.com/city-by-city-analysis-shows-our-capitals-arent-liveable-for-many-residents-85676" target="_blank">not enough public and active transport</a>. The result is a high level of <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27671671" target="_blank">car dependency (85% of trips are by car). </a>
There are <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319749822" target="_blank">direct links between urban and transport planning, level of environmental exposures and physical activity and health and well-being</a>. For example, infrastructure for cars results in higher car use and increases in air pollution, noise, CO2 emissions, stress, mental health problems and heat island effects, and lack of physical activity, green space and social contacts.
On the other hand, an investment in infrastructure for active transport such as cycling and walking leads to reductions in air pollution, noise, CO2 emissions, stress, mental health problems and heat island effects, and increases in physical activity, social contacts and possibly green space.
Climate change is a real threat and motorised traffic is one of the large contributors to CO2 emissions. And motorised traffic takes up a lot of public space in a city – <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27276440" target="_blank">up to 60%-70%</a>. This space could be used in much better ways to make a more pleasant living environment.
A shift from cars to cycling could free up a lot of road and parking space in the city.
Creating a sustainable, liveable and healthy city
So how do we make Melbourne not only more liveable, but also more sustainable and healthy? We urgently need to reduce urban sprawl and car dependency, increase public space for people, increase public and active transport, and increase green space.
Resulting reductions in air pollution, noise and heat island effects and increased physical activity will improve health and well-being. Furthermore, the changes in transport modes and CO2 storage by greening will mitigate climate change effects.
There are no magic bullets to achieve these goals. It requires a package of measures, strong political leadership and large investments.
The following are seven strategies, with examples of specific measures:
1. Put people at the centre of public spaces
<ul>
<li>
change the hierarchy of planning from car/motorbikes, public transport, cycling and pedestrians to pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and car/motorbikes
</li>
<li>
adopt the <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12342806/barcelona-superblocks" target="_blank">Barcelona superblock model</a> for the CBD to start with, to increase public space for people
</li>
<li>
introduce a 30km/h speed limit for neighbourhoods.
</li>
</ul>
2. Increase density and land-use mix
<ul>
<li>
increase urban density (make the city more compact) and reduce sprawl, but do not build high-rises – limit buildings to 5-6 floors
</li>
<li>
increase the mix of housing, places of work or schooling and access to basic services and shopping, and improve walkability to reduce the need for travelling longer distances.
</li>
</ul>
3. Reduce motorised traffic and move towards public and active transport
<ul>
<li>
reduce the number of motorised vehicles circulating (50% reduction by 2030) with an overall aim of a car-free city, starting with making the CBD car-free
</li>
<li>
introduce levies for parking at work in the city (e.g. $500-1,000 per year) that can be used to fund public transport
</li>
<li>
introduce transport planning policies that result in the same travel time for cars and public transport from and to a given destination, by giving priority to public transport
</li>
<li>
make a shared delivery system for shops to reduce the number of vehicles
</li>
<li>
increase the cycling network with a segregated cycling lane on each road and make sure it is well connected
</li>
<li>
encourage and provide financial incentives for electric bicycles for long-distance cycling and/or cycling in hilly areas
</li>
<li>
create policies and infrastructure so all children can get to school by active and public transport.
</li>
</ul>
4. Zero-emission motorised traffic by 2035
<ul>
<li>
make all remaining buses, trucks, cars and motorbikes electric by 2035 – all new motorised vehicles should be electric from 2025 onward
</li>
<li>
use roof tops for a distributed solar power system (with solar panels) to provide renewable energy for electric vehicles and households.
</li>
</ul>
5. Increase green space
<ul>
<li>
create more green space with trees in every street, greening of vacant lots and tunnelling of roads with green space on top (target a green space of 1 hectare within 300 metres of every residence)
</li>
<li>
increase green roofs and walls on buildings
</li>
<li>
green school patios and make these areas accessible to the neighbourhood on weekends and holidays
</li>
<li>
connect existing green infrastructure by creating green corridors that are also suitable for active transport.
</li>
</ul>
6. Control pollution emissions from other sources
<ul>
<li>
stricter control on emissions from the port
</li>
<li>
stricter control on emissions from other sources, such as industry and rubbish
</li>
<li>
better insulation of buildings to reduce energy use for heating and cooling
</li>
<li>
aim for a low-carbon city with zero CO2 emissions by 2035.
</li>
</ul>
7. Improve governance
<ul>
<li>
strong political leadership to make changes
</li>
<li>
provide administrative structure within the metropolitan area that integrates urban and transport planning, environment and public health policies to promote sustainability, health and well-being
</li>
<li>
work more closely with regional authorities and councils on integrating the transport system
</li>
<li>
create genuine participatory processes and involve citizens.
</li>
</ul>
We can make our cities more sustainable, liveable and healthy, but it requires a large joint effort and can only be achieved with a strong vision and commitment. However, the results can be highly rewarding.
Most people nowadays choose cities to live. These currently have detrimental effects on the environment, health and well-being, so let’s create more liveable cities that promote health and well-being.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-nieuwenhuijsen-509819" target="_blank">Mark Nieuwenhuijsen</a>, Professorial Fellow, ACU, and Research Professor ISGlobal, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/instituto-de-salud-global-de-barcelona-isglobal-3626" target="_blank">Instituto de Salud Global de Barcelona (ISGlobal)</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/seven-steps-melbourne-can-take-to-regain-its-liveable-city-crown-113726" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Seven steps Melbourne can take to regain its ‘liveable city’ crown: Mark Nieuwenhuijsen

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Melbourne lost its “most liveable city” title and is confronting being runner-up to Vienna after seven years at the top. These rankings are based on The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Global Liveability Index, which “assesses which locations around the world provide the best or the worst living conditions”.
But the tool was actually designed to help companies decide how much “hardship” allowance they would need to pay employees who relocate. So, The Economist suggests that none of the top cities – including Melbourne, Vienna and other Australian cities – need a hardship allowance at all. But it recommends a 20% allowance for cities at the bottom of the ranking like Port Moresby, Tripoli and Karachi.
Despite the hype, the Global Liveability Index focuses on things that matter to expats, not citizens. This is different to what is important to the average person living in Vienna, Melbourne or any other city – such as housing affordability, walkability, access to public transport and education, and the number of bike paths.
What the index measures
The Economist’s Global Liveability Index uses 30 indicators to measure five categories of liveability: stability (safety), health care, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure. And 26 of the indicators are based on the “judgement of in-house expert country analysts and a field correspondent based in each city”.
These unknown critics score the performance of a city as acceptable, tolerable, uncomfortable, undesirable or intolerable.
There is no freely available information about the qualifications of these judges, why the categories were chosen to represent liveability, or how indicators in a category are weighted. While the summary report is free, a more detailed report will set you back US$620 and the actual data sets a smooth US$9,210, which we didn’t purchase. Our comments are based on the freely available information.
It appears that, beyond the well-designed league tables and flurry of media attention, The Economist’s Global Liveability Index is a mostly subjective rating with opaque methods for comparing cities.
Take for example the stability category. This includes crime, terror attacks and civil unrest, and makes up 25% of the total liveability score. Out of 100, Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide are judged to be five points less “stable” than Vienna, Osaka and Toronto. But there is no information on how The Economist’s experts came up with this conclusion.
Some of the indicators could be objectively measured, such as the prevalence of violent and petty crime, but they are still given a rating by The Economist’s experts. It isn’t clear what types of crime are included in this decision or how they are weighted.
Two indicators rate the availability and quality of private education, but there are no equivalent indicators for public education. Most students (65.6%) in Australia are enrolled in government schools. So, for the average family in Australia the availability and quality of the public education system is more important than private.
And, most importantly, the index seems to miss the things that affect the lived experience of city residents. Although housing “quality” and the availability and quality of private education are included, housing affordability, traffic congestion, walkability and lack of public transport, bike paths and essential services don’t appear to be in the index.
Yet these are some of the real problems facing Australians.
What it doesn’t measure
Both Sydney and Melbourne got full points in the “infrastructure” category. This includes the quality of public transport and roads, international links and quality of water provision and telecommunications.
While this may be true for inner-city residents, our research has found that some suburbs – particularly those on the urban fringe – are less lucky. Public transport in particular is often missing in outer suburbs. The index doesn’t consider how liveability is distributed across a city and if some people are missing out.
It also doesn’t take into account the environmental sustainability of cities. One study, which compared the liveability score of cities with their ecological footprint, found that Vienna’s is almost half that of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. However, none of these cities was found to be sustainable.
Better measures of liveability
If we really want to create liveable cities that promote the quality of life of citizens, we need transparent and objective measurements.
Our team has previously defined the key ingredients of a liveable city. These include safety, environmental sustainability and affordable and diverse housing linked by public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure to employment and the amenities needed for daily living.
These measures are based on our research of what affects the health and well-being of communities.

Chasing the hollow crown of the Global Liveability Index will not make Melbourne or any other city a better place to live. Instead, all levels of government should focus on creating and implementing policies that improve the liveability of cities for their residents.
Julianna Rozek, Research Officer, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
Billie Giles-Corti, Director, Urban Futures Enabling Capability Platform and Director, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, RMIT University
Lucy Gunn, Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-most-liveable-city-title-isnt-a-measure-of-the-things-most-of-us-actually-care-about-101525" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

The ‘most liveable city’ title doesn't mean what you probably think it does

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Our research on the liveability of regional cities in Victoria has identified an important element: liveability in these areas requires fast, reliable and frequent rail connections to capital cities.
Previous research has established that we need better models of early transport delivery in growth areas of Melbourne. Public transport, in particular, is an essential ingredient for a liveable community. Less attention has been paid to transport in regional areas, particularly regional areas with growing populations.
People living in regional areas still need access to capital cities. The reasons include employment, education, medical services, shopping, arts, culture and visits to family and friends.
Regional Victorians who lack access to reliable rail services remain deprived of non-car travel options. This forces them to drive and that adds to traffic congestion in our capital cities. Car dependency is costly for health and wealth.
Regional rail is important both to meet the needs arising from predicted population increases across regional areas and to manage the rapid population growth and sprawl of our capital cities. Australia’s population is predicted to increase by 45 million by 2100 and our cities are already expanding rapidly. We need to start thinking about where these extra people are going to live.
At present, most people (more than 80%) in Australia live in capital cities. However, as populations grow, more people will start moving to regional areas. This means we need to pay more attention to the liveability of regional Australia as well as capital cities.
Wherever they live, people need transport to get to employment, education, shops and services, and to socialise with friends, family and community members. Furthermore, our research has found that having close access to a range of these things is associated with better health and well-being. Good access to frequent, reliable and fast transport is not a luxury. It is a critical factor influencing liveability and is described as a social determinant of health – one of the conditions (where we live, learn, work and play) that influence our health.
Liveable places promote health and well-being among the people who live there. However, they also require transport options, including public transport such as trains, buses, trams as well as walking and cycling. In regional areas expansive distances make it hard to get by without a private vehicle.
A good example of this is Mitchell Shire. It begins at the northern edge of metropolitan Melbourne and extends to the regional town of Seymour in northeastern Victoria.
The population is booming in this non-metropolitan shire. The small town of Beveridge is expecting to accommodate at least 150,000 people in new urban development over the next 30 years. To put that into context, the town had a population of just over 2,300 people in 2016.
To understand the current regional rail services (and liveability) for areas like Beveridge we produced the summary map below.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220913/original/file-20180530-120508-16cd43p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220914/original/file-20180530-120484-sx7yqm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Wait times between 6am and 9pm for regional train routes with a daily service on weekdays. Calculated using Public Transit Victoria data from April 12 to June 10, 2018. Author provided
Developers’ signs in the Beveridge area are advertising “40 minutes to the city” along the Hume Highway. Perhaps they are including a helicopter in their house and land packages. Based on current regional rail options, residents must drive to their nearest station 10-15 minutes away, wait for a train – services depart at intervals of 34-105 minutes – and then travel up to an hour to the city during peak hour.
Alternatively, these developments might be encouraging car use as the main means of transport. In that case, Google Maps suggests peak-hour travel from Beveridge to the Melbourne central business district takes between one and two hours on a weekday. Again, as well as being associated with poor health outcomes, long commutes by car will increase traffic congestion along the route and in the city.
Regional rail services are highly uneven
The map above also suggests that some areas of regional Victoria are doing better than others in terms of regional rail connections to Melbourne.
Consider the examples of Bendigo and Shepparton in central and north-eastern Victoria. Shepparton is a large regional centre, with an economy established in health services and agriculture. Its population is projected to grow to 315,000 people by 2046.
Shepparton Council planning is guided by a liveability framework, a 30-year plan and has recently completed a liveability assessment. However, Shepparton’s economic and social development is restricted by only four train services to Melbourne per day compared to Bendigo’s 27 services.
Similarly, Geelong has a projected population increase of 56% to 445,000 people by 2046. However, duplication and electrification of the overcrowded line remains an unfunded long-term project.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96462/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Car dependency, transport planning and urban design are critical social determinants of health that also need to be considered in creating liveable, well-connected communities in regional areas. We need to act now if we are to learn from the liveability lessons of our capital cities and avoid repeating the mistakes.
Melanie Davern, Senior Research Fellow, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
Carl Higgs, Research Officer, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
Claire Boulange, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
Jonathan Arundel, Senior Research Fellow, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
Lucy Gunn, Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
Rebecca Roberts, GIS Analyst, Centre for Urban Studies, RMIT University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/rail-access-improves-liveability-but-all-regional-centres-are-not-equal-96462" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Rail access improves liveability, but all regional centres are not equal

<html><body>
Melbourne’s appeal as an investment hot spot and an alternative for Sydney owner occupiers has been rising, according to John McGrath, especially with many Sydneysiders being priced out of their home market.  
The Victorian capital’s comparatively affordable property, a strong economy, top schools and the tag of one of the most ‘liveable cities’ are all fuelling Melbourne’s record population growth.
And there is still room for future property price growth despite exceptional capital gains over the boom, says McGrath in a recent Switzer blog.
“Taking a two-decade view, Melbourne’s annual compound growth rate for house prices is 8.4%, a whisker ahead of Sydney on 8.2%,” he writes.
And Melbourne is far more affordable than Sydney today, with the median house price more than $200,000 cheaper, according to CoreLogic figures.
In the 12 months to June 2017, Melbourne house prices rose by 9.8% to a median $675,000 while apartment prices rose by 2.0% to $500,000.
“Outstanding value for money is helping Victoria remain the fastest growing residential population in Australia, with record numbers of new interstate and overseas residents choosing Melbourne as their home and more investors seeing better potential here,” says McGrath.
Melbourne is also turning a favourite for investors for its lower price base, strong population growth and buoyant economic landscape, with a state budget surplus of $1.2 billion forecast for FY2018 and $22 billion flagged for infrastructure spending.
Good job prospects and top schools are a big factor in Melbourne’s population and property price growth.
Jobs in Melbourne grew by 94,100 in the year to July 2017 – more than anywhere else in Australia; and the city has been ranked the world’s most liveable for the seventh consecutive year.
Top public education campuses, including two in the Top 100 World University Rankings, helped attract 65,007 migrants in FY16 alone.
Many Melburnian families are willing to upsize or even downsize their homes in order to enter top secondary school catchment zones in suburbs like Balwyn, Mount Waverley and McKinnon.
In these suburbs, housing stock is already in short supply due with empty nesters and retirees opting to stay put in family homes, resulting in fierce competition for limited listings, price rises and often price ripples to adjacent suburbs, says McGrath.
For example, median house prices in Bulleen rose 13.9% in FY17 as neighbouring Balwyn North became too expensive. Buyers are also finding better value in Cheltenham over next door neighbour Black Rock, he adds.
Meanwhile, stamp duty exemptions for first home buyers for properties up to $600,000 and concessions up to $750,000 are encouraging them back into the market. 
FHB hot spots include Hoppers Crossing and Werribee in the west, Craigieburn in the north and Pakenham and Clyde in the outer south east. The city fringe is also attractive to FHBs, with 17 new suburbs offering 100,000 rezoned lots to be released by the end of 2018.
At the same time, Melbourne’s trophy homes command record prices. The city’s record house price reached $40 million in August 2017 when the Toorak home of Mirvac director, Marina Darling sold to a Chinese buyer, smashing the previous record of $26.25 million set in December 2016.
Melbourne CBD is now the most densely populated region of Australia with 37,754 residents living within 2.4 square kilometres. Chinese buyers, local downsizers and students flock to the CBD.
An oversupply of new apartments is softening prices, but also creating buying opportunities for those with a long-term view.
“We see an exciting future for investors who can expect strong long-term capital gains, as well as owner occupiers who can also expect great growth as they continue to enjoy living in one of the most desirable cities on the planet,” he concludes.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Melbourne attractive to both investors and owner occupiers: John McGrath

<html><body>
‘30 minute cities’ have been much in the news lately – the idea being that, as Australia grows, we need to develop decentralised hubs where people can work, live and play without being forced to endure crushing commutes. 
In Sydney, the Greater Sydney Commission recently launched a vision of a <a href="https://www.greater.sydney/three-cities" target="_blank">‘metropolis of three cities’</a> – Eastern Harbour City (the current CBD), the Central City (Parramatta and surrounds) and the ‘Western Parkland City’ (clustered around the Badgerys Creek Airport, Penrith and Campbelltown). 
In Melbourne, PWC has outlined a <a href="https://www.pwc.com.au/agendas/cities/cities-30-minute-melbourne-2017.pdf" target="_blank">similar vision</a> without specifying where the centres should be – other than to mention locations such as Fishermen’s Bend, Arden McCauley and Monash.
And, in Brisbane, Elton Consulting has run the ruler over two suburbs – Upper Mount Gravatt and Chermside – and <a href="http://elton.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/A-Tale-of-Three-Cities-Final.pdf" target="_blank">modelled the potential savings</a> when compared to a CBD location for a hypothetical building that would accommodate approximately 1800 government employees over 25 years. 
The arguments in favour of a ‘30 minute city’ as outlined by PWC for Melbourne could apply equally to other cities. These include improved liveability because of reduced commute times and traffic congestion, the potential for increased housing supply around key centres, productivity gains from more efficient transport and increasing sustainability of public infrastructure by increasing its use.
On Elton’s figures, taxpayers could also save $48 million on rent over a 25-year lease in a suburban hub as against the Brisbane CBD, and the community benefit in terms of less time spent travelling would total $94 million. 
The figures for other capital cities, locations and building types would vary – but the reality is that CBD rents are eye-wateringly higher than those in the suburbs.
If a business chooses to ‘wear’ that cost, fine. However, as taxpayers, there is a serious case to be made for government to put their ‘30 minute city’ policies into action by moving at least some departments away from CBDs and into the suburbs – and saving an absolute motza in the process.
Our company has a building in planning for one of the areas Elton examined, Upper Mount Gravatt, and we’ve done some modelling as part of our preparation and application for development approval.
On our particular project, we believe we can save taxpayers even more than Elton assumptions had predicted – $90 million over a 10-year lease. To put that in context, the savings could fund tuition for 3,365 nursing students, cover 2.48 million standard bulk-billed doctor consultations or pay the average annual salary of 1,400 teachers.
And that’s just for one office. Imagine the savings if further government departments – state and federal – moved out the CBD?
Modelling on our proposed building at 643 Kessels Rd by consultants Urbis puts ongoing direct and indirect economic benefits (gross value added) to the Queensland economy at more than half a billion a year once it the building is fully occupied, and $68.7 million during construction.
The project would also lead to the creation of 96 direct jobs during construction, and a further 347 indirect jobs. And, once complete, the project would deliver over 3,800 jobs – over 1,650 within the building directly and the remainder indirect.
The site is across the road from Westfield Garden City shopping centre, and has excellent access to public transport, cycle paths, plentiful parking and the Pacific Motorway.
As Elton’s modelling shows,  there are over 200,000 people (including children) living in close proximity to Upper Mount Gravatt – including almost 19,000 who are tertiary educated, meaning a big pool of quality potential employees close at hand.
If a government department were to move into our building, it would be a massive boost for the economy of Upper Mt Gravatt, and Queensland as a whole.
It could be a win-win-win, where Government lowers its cost base, the community gets local jobs and employees enjoy a conveniently-located, high-quality, brand new workspace. The masterplan also includes future development of a neighbouring mixed-use project earmarked for a hotel, childcare centre, cafes, gymnasium, medical centre and co-working office space. 
I think you’d struggle to argue that the CBD passes the pub test when you’ve got a building that’s every bit as good, if not better, at dramatically lower cost.
Shane Quinn is the CEO of Quintessential Equity, a diversified unlisted property group with a strong track record of successful building redevelopment, quality service to tenants and excellent returns to investors.
</body></html>

Decentralisation: put policy into practice in commercial property for public servants

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
We know what makes for healthy and liveable communities, which in turn produces massive payoffs. But we often lack comprehensive policies and frameworks to deliver on the promise. In producing Australia’s first baseline measure of liveability across our capital cities, we found none of them perform well across all the key indicators.
<a href="https://cur.org.au/project/national-liveability-report/" target="_blank">Our report</a> considers seven domains of a city’s liveability that also promote health and wellbeing:
<ul>
<li>
walkability
</li>
<li>
public transport
</li>
<li>
public open space
</li>
<li>
housing affordability
</li>
<li>
employment
</li>
<li>
food environment
</li>
<li>
alcohol environment.
</li>
</ul>
When it comes to delivering liveability, the evidence of geographical inequities within and between cities is widespread. Outer suburban areas are clearly less well served than inner-city suburbs.
To highlight just how much work needs to be done, and what’s at stake if we don’t get it right, we delve here into three key domains: walkability, public transport, and housing affordability.
Walkability
Walkability is the foundation for achieving liveable, healthy cities. But our analysis of Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and Sydney reveals a mismatch between the aspiration of walkable communities and the policies needed to achieve this.
This was particularly evident when considering dwelling density. State policies in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane all include a density standard for suburban development of 15 dwellings per hectare. This is a low policy ambition that will perpetuate urban sprawl.
Perth has a more ambitious target for new suburban development – 26 dwellings per hectare – while Brisbane’s target for “urban” development is 30 per hectare.
These latter targets – still low by international standards – are more consistent with the evidence on the density needed to create walkable neighbourhoods, with more shops, services and public transport.
But despite state governments setting very modest density targets, there is little evidence that even these policies are being implemented.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190334/original/file-20171016-27711-lt587m.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190334/original/file-20171016-27711-lt587m.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Author provided
Only Perth and Melbourne appear to have measurable policies and targets for increasing access to local destinations. However, only a minority of dwellings in both cities (less than 10% and 40% respectively) meet their state government targets.
This is important: local destinations are essential for walkable neighbourhoods.
The final element that makes neighbourhoods walkable is the design of the street network. More connected street networks, like grid-patterned networks, increases proximity to local destinations and provides residents with alternative routes.
We found that all cities except Sydney have measurable spatial policy targets to increase street connectivity (block and/or lot size), but few have street connectivity targets.
Public transport
Policies and targets that combine proximity (having a public transport stop within 400 metres) with frequent service (at least every 30 minutes) are a better indicator for healthy, liveable communities.
When this more ambitious target was applied, we found around 36% of dwellings in Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney have this level of access. The proportion is 18% in Perth and between 11% and 13% in Brisbane, Canberra and Hobart. In Darwin, only 4% of dwellings have this level of access.
Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and Sydney show a clear pattern of better access to nearby and frequent public transport in areas closer to the city centre.
Fewer areas in smaller cities such as Canberra, Darwin and Hobart have access to public transport comparable to that of larger cities. The spatial pattern of access is less clear, though in Adelaide and Hobart public transport access is higher closer to the inner city.
Residents of some cities face greater public transport access barriers than others. But these results show the majority of dwellings in the capital cities do not have access to nearby and frequent public transport services during weekday work hours.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190332/original/file-20171016-27721-q9ro43.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190332/original/file-20171016-27721-q9ro43.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Author provided
Proximity targets are easier to achieve. However, other Australian cities could consider following New South Wales’ lead by adopting more ambitious public transport targets. These should combine proximity with frequent services, with short-, medium- and long-term targets for achieving these more ambitious goals.
Housing affordability
We identified no state-specific measurable spatial policy standards for improving housing affordability, availability or quality.
With such a major policy gap, we assessed housing affordability using the only two national liveability indicators found to be associated with health and wellbeing: the 30/40 measure of housing affordability, and the proportion of households renting.
The <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/glossary/glossary-items/housing-affordability-stress-3040-indicator-or-ratio-approach" target="_blank">30/40 indicator</a> identifies households as being in housing affordability stress when a household’s income is in the bottom 40% of Australia’s income distribution and it uses more than 30% of its income to pay for housing.
Using the 30/40 indicator (based on the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/0" target="_blank">2011 Census</a>), more than one-third of lower-income households in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Darwin and Perth appear to be experiencing housing affordability stress. Sydney had the highest percentage (38%), closely followed by Brisbane (37%). Fewer lower-income households in Canberra (31%) appeared to be encountering housing affordability stress based on the 30/40 indicator.
The proportion of households renting varies significantly between cities. It’s highest in Darwin, where 43% are renting.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190335/original/file-20171016-27705-oi28i7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190335/original/file-20171016-27705-oi28i7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Author provided
In Sydney and Brisbane, and to a lesser extent in Melbourne, housing affordability stress appears to spread across much of the city.
Low-density housing on the urban fringe is sometimes seen as a policy solution to housing affordability problems. However, we found the suburbs with the highest housing affordability stress were located toward the urban fringe.
Given that outer suburbs have poor access to public transport and are less likely to be walkable, these are the areas most at risk of mortgage stress, given high household spending on private car use. Suburban expansion without considering these other factors is unlikely to relieve the housing affordability stress these households experience.
We need comprehensive, integrated planning to ensure they have access to walkable communities, public transport, cycling infrastructure and local jobs to reduce their car dependence.
How to make our cities more liveable
All three levels of government share the goal of increasing the liveability of our cities. But our study identified only a limited number of measurable spatial policy standards that could be used to assess progress toward achieving this goal.
Our research has shown it is possible to create spatial indicators that will allow urban policies to be benchmarked and monitored over time, and for the level of implementation to be assessed. This could assist in assessing progress and in determining the highest priorities for local, state and federal investment.
And if linked to desirable results (such as use of active and public transport, shorter commuting times, less traffic congestion, and better health), these indicators could provide an early warning of unintended outcomes that require policy adjustment.
We discovered that Australia urgently needs integrated and comprehensive urban policies that will better shape cities that foster health and wellbeing for all residents. Walkable urbanism, even on the city fringe, must underpin healthy liveable cities.
This will require leadership from all levels of government, as well as the development industry which delivers suburban development.
Billie Giles-Corti, Director, Urban Futures Enabling Capability Platform and Director, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, RMIT University
Jonathan Arundel, Senior Research Fellow, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/city-by-city-analysis-shows-our-capitals-arent-liveable-for-many-residents-85676" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

City-by-city analysis shows our capitals aren’t liveable for many residents: RMIT

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/78030/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Sydney is frequently placed in the top ten of global “liveability” rankings. But despite the growing popularity of the buzzword liveability, questions remain about what it actually entails. What does a liveable city look like? How do we measure liveability? And, most importantly, liveable for whom? 
The idea of liveability and liveability rankings has some usefulness. However, such rankings mask the disadvantaged, marginalised and excluded within cities, including Sydney. 
In yet-to-be-published research, our analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data from 1991, 2001 and 2011 indicates there are clear “winners” and “losers” in Sydney. Despite the strong economic growth in the 1990s, there is still a clear divide between eastern and western Sydney. 
<h2>Who defines and rates liveability?</h2>
The term liveability has proliferated in planning and public discussions, but few definitions are provided. 
Liveability is usually captured by published indices. Broadly speaking, there are three categories of indices: those that focus on decision-making from the perspective of individual lifestyle preferences, the firm, and policymakers. 
The best-known liveability indices are developed commercially. These include the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Global Liveability Index, the Mercer Quality of Life Survey, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Cities of Opportunity Quality of Life, and the Global Liveable Cities Index. 
More recently, Sydney suburbs have been ranked according to various liveability indices (such as Domain Liveable Sydney 2016 and the Urban Living Index). However, overall these liveability indices tend to simplify or disregard crucial factors.
These indices tell a particular and incomplete story about the city. When viewed through the lens of spatial geography, it is clear that Sydney’s ranking as a liveable city requires greater recognition of the ways in which some Sydneysiders experience inequality and disadvantage.
<h2>What did our study find?</h2>
We compared ABS data from 1991 or 2001 to the data from 2011, focusing on four issues: income, unemployment, travel to work, and housing tenure. 
Our analysis of employment found that the proportion of people employed in Greater Sydney slightly increased (94% in 2001 compared with 94.3% in 2011) and the unemployed decreased (6% in 2001 compared with 5.7% in 2011). People in full-time employment decreased while the number of people working part-time increased, bringing it almost on par with the Australian figure. 
However, the data does not reveal the disparities in people’s incomes according to where they live. When we viewed the data spatially, it was evident that people who live in the central city, inner east, inner west and the north shore of Sydney have higher weekly incomes than those living in the western parts of Sydney.
Income levels in Sydney
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/28/file-20170525-31761-yiq0xt.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/2017/05/28/file-20170525-31761-yiq0xt.jpg" alt="">
Highest-income areas are shown in red, with lowest-income areas in blue. Author provided
Our analysis also found spatial disparities in the way people commute to work. Driving remained the main form of travel (49.2% in 1991 compared to 53.8% in 2011), demonstrating continued car dependence in Sydney. 
The disparity between east and west was evident in people’s opinions and preferences about travel. People in eastern Sydney felt more able to live close to where they work (72% compared with 62% in western Sydney). 
People in western Sydney were less likely to feel they had the transport they needed (86% compared with 91% in eastern Sydney). But, interestingly, they also felt that transport was less important than eastern Sydney residents. 
Finally, our analysis of housing tenure over the 20 years to 2011 found the level of outright home ownership fell by almost 10%. The proportion of people with mortgages increased (26.6% in 1991 compared with 33.2% in 2011), as did the number of people renting (28% in 1991 compared to 30.4% in 2011). 
Housing tenure in Sydney
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/28/file-20170525-31756-1qgbl4f.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/2017/05/28/file-20170525-31756-1qgbl4f.jpg" alt=""> 
Areas with highest rates of outright home ownership are shown in blue, with areas of highest rates of mortgages in red.Author provided
To sum up, the winners: live in the city, inner east, inner west and parts of northern suburbs, have relatively easy access to well-paid work, and own their homes. 
The losers: live further from the concentrations of economic activity (jobs), have higher job insecurity, longer travel-to-work times, poorer transport choices and connections, lower incomes, more rental stress, less time with families, and poorer reported wellbeing.
Our analysis aligns with other recent research – see, for example, findings by the Grattan Institute, the Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and the Australian Housing Urban Research Institute. 
<h2>How can liveability be better shared?</h2>
How then do the various liveability indices account for spatial inequality and disadvantage? In 2012, the Economist Intelligence Unit added a category based on “spatial adjustments”. The Spatial Adjusted Liveability Index now makes up 25% of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s liveability score. 
Various programs and policies have also been designed to tackle liveability. These are helpful initiatives, but a more holistic and interdisciplinary approach is needed. Approaches to liveability need to be integrated (both place-based and people-based).
<ul>
<li>
First, to be effective, institutions need to decrease fragmented responses. 
</li>
<li>
Second, greater social inclusion is vital. This includes participatory approaches to planning and equitable access to jobs, services and amenity.
</li>
<li>
Third, cities need co-operative governance whereby citizens can affect decision-making through legitimate involvement. 
</li>
</ul>
A greater focus on these recommendations might bring Sydney a little closer to being a liveable city for all.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/roberta-ryan-172068" target="_blank">Roberta Ryan</a> is professor and director, UTS Institute for Public Policy and Governance and UTS Centre for Local Government, University of Technology Sydney.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yvette-selim-365400" target="_blank">Yvette Selim</a> is senior researcher and lecturer, UTS Institute for Public Policy and Governance, University of Technology Sydney.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Liveability

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Liveability

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News