Public Housing

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us our health is intimately connected to the health of the person next to us, and that everyone needs shelter. It has created unprecedented urgency about moving people who are homeless into emergency accommodation – for their health and ours. So what happens next?
Getting people into hotel and motel rooms and off the streets is a good thing, but these are stopgap measures. They don’t provide a home.
The rush to shelter people before the peak of the virus has been driven by a pressing need to protect us all. As the only seven-day-a-week mobile outreach service still operating in Victoria, <a href="https://www.launchhousing.org.au/">Launch Housing</a> has temporarily housed 800 people, half of whom were sleeping rough. So what will happen to them and the thousands of other Australians in emergency accommodation when social-distancing restrictions ease and our world returns to something resembling normal?
Will they exit back into street homelessness to become the face of fear and stigma, while the rest of the community returns to more social activities?
A way to find homes right now
Australia has a significant but solvable homelessness problem, so let’s start solving it right now.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330009/original/file-20200423-47804-1m369kz.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/330009/original/file-20200423-47804-1m369kz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
 Image: AAP, Author provided
To avoid people being deposited back onto the streets, we’re asking state and territory governments to fund a rapid spot-purchasing program. The Victorian government has done it before on a smaller scale in 2016, and it worked. It’s time to do it again, but on a bigger scale and around the country.
The spot-purchasing program would fund community housing agencies to enter the property market to buy up “distressed” or cheap housing assets. These properties would be let at below market rent to people who pay 30% of their income as a social rent.
Vendors and developers would get <a href="https://www.domain.com.au/news/price-cuts-on-the-rise-as-vendors-rush-to-sell-in-coronavirus-pandemic-950402/?utm_campaign=strap-masthead&amp;utm_source=the-age&amp;utm_medium=link&amp;utm_content=pos5&amp;ref=pos1">much-needed sales</a> and thousands of people would get a home. Taxpayers would get an enduring social benefit for years to come, as expensive nightly motel bills – without any long-term benefit – get converted to community-owned property assets.
We estimate the program would cost about A$210 million in Victoria and a similar amount in other states. It <a href="https://theconversation.com/supportive-housing-is-cheaper-than-chronic-homelessness-67539">costs more to treat street homelessness than it does to fix it</a>. So, it makes economic and social sense to put the fix in now.
This is our mirror moment. We simply can’t afford to drop people when no one is looking and attention turns elsewhere.
People in emergency accommodation can’t wait years for new housing to be built. They (and we) need those homes now while longer-term solutions are developed.
Meeting rising needs in the longer term
Many people who are not homeless have lost jobs or had their work hours cut, and are facing their first-ever brush with housing insecurity. They are struggling, paying more than 30% of their income for housing.
There was a housing crisis before this latest upheaval, and these conditions haven’t changed. Rents were too high and there <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-housing-system-needs-a-big-shake-up-heres-how-we-can-crack-this-130291">weren’t enough affordable homes</a>.
The health and economic fallout from COVID-19 has exposed the urgent need for more homes that are cheaper to rent for people on moderate, low or no incomes.
Crucially, we are also calling for the Australian government to fast-track the building of more social and affordable housing as part of an economic stimulus package.
A national social housing stimulus package will help get people back to work, speed the recovery, give the building industry the confidence to retain more workers and put roofs over people’s heads.
Initiatives to fund the construction of new social housing could be rolled out quickly. The industry capacity is there to do it, in partnership with the community housing sector.
The early stages of the stimulus would bring forward maintenance and new construction projects that are already on the drawing board.
By targeting locations with transport and facilities but <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-puts-casual-workers-at-risk-of-homelessness-unless-they-get-more-support-133782">high levels of rental stress</a>, new social housing buildings can be built quickly and integrated well into local communities.
The stimulus should be designed to encourage new mixed housing models, including properties that are “<a href="https://theconversation.com/build-to-rent-could-shake-up-real-estate-but-wont-take-off-without-major-tax-changes-119603">built to rent</a>”.
It would increase the supply of social housing for households that are homeless, or at risk of becoming so, and would stimulate the building, maintenance and construction industry.
A building-led recovery
The program would build on the <a href="http://www.nwhn.net.au/admin/file/content101/c6/social_housing_initiative_review.pdf">Social Housing Initiative</a> that was launched in response to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Some 20,000 new social housing units were built throughout Australia.
This time, we think it is possible to deliver 30,000 new units. Community housing organisations could raise extra private finance to build another 5,000 homes.
We’ll need this <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-social-housing-essential-infrastructure-how-we-think-about-it-does-matter-110777">social infrastructure</a> more than ever after the pandemic. <a href="https://theconversation.com/growing-numbers-of-renters-are-trapped-for-years-in-homes-they-cant-afford-125216">Rental stress</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/6-steps-towards-remaking-the-homelessness-system-so-it-works-for-young-people-136385">homelessness</a> are increasing and the <a href="https://www.anglicare.asn.au/research-advocacy/the-rental-affordability-snapshot">lack of low-price rental housing</a> are issues we can no longer ignore.
The pandemic has created some very real challenges, but it also creates some unique opportunities to accelerate progress on ending homelessness, to recognise our interconnectedness and to give people the best possible protection of all – a home.
<hr>
This article was co-authored by Bevan Warner, CEO of Launch Housing.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137069/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ron-wakefield-1044738">Ron Wakefield</a>, Professor of Construction, Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor, International, and Dean, School of Property, Construction and Project Management, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-need-to-house-everyone-has-never-been-clearer-heres-a-2-step-strategy-to-get-it-done-137069">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

The need to house everyone has never been clearer, a 2-step plan to do it

<html><body>
Social housing is part of the lives of a surprising number of Australians. On any one night in Australia, just over 4% of households rent social housing. Yet it has housed many more people than this for brief, and sometimes repeated, periods. We estimate up to 10% of Australians have called social housing home at some time in the past 20 years.
Throughout the postwar era, Australians have used social housing in various ways. Social housing can be:
<ul>
<li>
a place to raise a working family
</li>
<li>
a “springboard” to owning a home
</li>
<li>
a brief “safety net” to escape domestic violence
</li>
<li>
a stable home following homelessness.
</li>
</ul>
Today the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (<a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/about-us/who-we-are-and-what-we-do" target="_blank">AHURI</a>) releases a <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/326" target="_blank">major commissioned study</a> tracking the pathways of people into and out of social housing from 2000 to 2015. Our analysis, using national data, provides many interesting insights into how Australians use social housing.
Try to picture a “typical” social housing tenant. You might imagine a single mother, or an elderly lady who has lived and raised family there. Or do you see a single man who has fallen out of the workforce? Regardless of whom we picture, most of us will probably see social housing as an end-point in their housing journey – a stable home.
The truth is Australians use social housing in several very different ways. A home for life is just one of those ways.
<h2>Who uses social housing?</h2>
When we look over time (in this case 15 years) at everyone who has lived in social housing, we find only about a third of people lived continuously in the tenure. Almost another third entered social housing in that time and remained there. But a surprisingly large proportion entered and left the sector either once or multiple times.
So social housing represents different things – a long-term home, a springboard, a safety net – to different people.
The likely role of social housing depends a lot on what else is going on in people’s lives. When we compared characteristics of all people who were “social renters” at some time in the 15 years, we found:
<ul>
<li>
the group who lived continuously in social housing were generally older (average age 60) and more likely to be female than people on other housing pathways, with age pension and disability benefits the most common types of government assistance received
</li>
<li>
those who left social housing (and never returned) were the second-oldest group (average age 50), also predominantly female, with unemployment and disability support the most commonly received government assistance
</li>
<li>
the group who entered (and then remained in) social housing was distinct in its high proportion of refugees and other people born overseas, with unemployment and disability support again the most common government assistance
</li>
<li>
more than a quarter of all pathways could be described as more transitory, involving multiple entrances or exits. This group as a whole was younger, more likely to be Australian-born and more likely to be Indigenous than the other groups. It was also distinct in the dominance of unemployment benefits among the forms of government assistance received.
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Social housing has broad benefits</h2>
The people who enter social housing, and their patterns of behaviour, are nowhere near as predictable as many of us thought. There are many pathways. Only about one-third are long-term tenancies.
Despite the shrinkage of this sector, and a relative lack of investment in it, social housing does much more than simply house the elderly, sick and most disadvantaged people in our society.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319788/original/file-20200311-116275-1c67o3y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank">Click here </a>to enlarge:
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319788/original/file-20200311-116275-1c67o3y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319788/original/file-20200311-116275-1c67o3y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Social housing (public and community housing) as a proportion of all households in Australia. <a class="source" href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/policy/ahuri-briefs/census-shows-falling-proportion-of-households-in-social-housing" target="_blank">AHURI, using ABS Census data, 1981-2016</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-NC-SA</a>
More than one in four people who enter social housing use it as a launchpad to more stable employment and market housing. Clearly, then, the sector plays a valuable role in stabilising lives and raising prosperity. These important functions should be safeguarded in the future as pressures on the sector continue to grow.
Overall, one of the things this new work gives us is a long view – hopefully a different view – of the social housing sector and its role over time in Australian lives. It reminds us the impact of social housing is felt well beyond the 4% of the population who may live in it at any one time.
Our social housing infrastructure has certainly been part of the housing experience of many Australians or their parents. We therefore underestimate the effectiveness of social housing as a springboard into home ownership, or a temporary safety net, when we only think of the 4% it currently houses.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/133436/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-baker-172081" target="_blank">Emma Baker</a>, Professor of Housing Research, School of Architecture and Built Environment, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119" target="_blank">University of Adelaide</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chris-leishman-391783" target="_blank">Chris Leishman</a>, Professor of Housing Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119" target="_blank">University of Adelaide</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-bentley-173502" target="_blank">Rebecca Bentley</a>, Professor of Social Epidemiology, Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722" target="_blank">University of Melbourne</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/the-many-faces-of-social-housing-home-to-1-in-10-australians-133436" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

The many faces of social housing – home to 1 in 10 Australians

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
In the year since the Australian government created the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC), its bond aggregator, AHBA, has raised funds for affordable housing providers, allowing them to refinance loans under better conditions. Its first, A$315 million bond issue was in March. The second A$315 million bond issue this week offers providers 2.07% for 10-year interest-only loans.
The NHFIC has released its first <a href="https://www.nhfic.gov.au/our-organisation/reporting-and-disclosures/" target="_blank">annual report</a>. So what progress has been made? And what could be done better?
Providers get better loans
<a href="https://communityhousing.org.au/about_us/what-is-community-housing/" target="_blank">Community housing providers</a> are certainly getting finance through the NHFIC on much better terms than their previous short-term bank loans. An example is <a href="https://bluechp.com.au/" target="_blank">BlueCHP’s</a> $A70 million 10-year loan.
Borrowers’ terms should improve further as the market for quality, government-guaranteed bonds grows. This has been the experience of Swiss government-backed intermediary <a href="http://www.egw-ccl.ch/fileadmin/files/pdf/dokumente/globalkostenabrechnung/EGW_Globalkostenabrechnung_62_d.pdf" target="_blank">EGW</a>. This month, its 62nd bond issue of CHF195 million (A$289 million) had all-in borrowing costs of 0.32% per annum (only slightly more than the government bond) over 20 years.
A good time to invest directly in new housing
To be even more effective the NHFIC needs to go beyond refinancing loans to support long-term investment in building much-needed affordable and green housing. With <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/8731.0Main%20Features2Sep%202019?opendocument&amp;tabname=Summary&amp;prodno=8731.0&amp;issue=Sep%202019&amp;num=&amp;view=" target="_blank">construction in the doldrums</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">experts</a> <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">are</a> <a href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/2019/09/learning-from-past-mistakes-lessons-from-the-national-rental-affordability-scheme/" target="_blank">calling</a> for a second <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/11_2013/social_housing_initiative_fact_sheet.pdf.docx" target="_blank">Social Housing Initiative</a> to meet critical housing needs and <a href="https://providencehousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Housing-and-Economic-Development-Report-2011.pdf" target="_blank">provide jobs</a>. The first initiative <a href="http://www.nwhn.net.au/admin/file/content101/c6/social_housing_initiative_review.pdf" target="_blank">stimulated the construction sector and the wider economy</a>, secured 14,000 skilled jobs and inspired innovative design.
With <a href="https://qz.com/1683976/why-are-interest-rates-low-and-how-long-will-it-last/" target="_blank">interest rates for government borrowing near zero</a>, the NHFIC’s impact could be maximised if coupled with long-term public investment – tied to performance targets – as exemplified by <a href="https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/105204.aspx" target="_blank">Scotland</a>.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302597/original/file-20191120-515-l80qn4.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/302597/original/file-20191120-515-l80qn4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Government bond yields – effectively the rates at which governments can borrow money – are close to zero. Data: Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis
Many countries – including Finland, the UK, Austria and France – have long-term programs that bridge the funding gap to make green <a href="https://www.housing.vic.gov.au/social-housing" target="_blank">social housing</a> a reality. Clear guidelines and responsible oversight guide direct equity investment.
AHURI has helped develop the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">Affordable Housing Assessment Tool</a> to estimate the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">number and location of dwellings required</a>, as well as the most effective ways of funding affordable housing.
The approach taken by the <a href="https://www.ara.fi/en-us/About_ARA" target="_blank">Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland</a> is widely considered <a href="http://www.housingeurope.eu/resource-1024/why-housing-policy-in-finland-is-a-success-story" target="_blank">Europe’s most effective</a>. It’s an “expert partner, developer and moderniser of housing and promotes ecologically sustainable, high-quality and reasonably priced housing”.
Finland has a clear national strategy in response to well-researched market challenges. The <a href="https://www.ara.fi/en-us/" target="_blank">Finnish model</a> provides tailored grants and interest rate subsidies and selectively applies a government guarantee to drive long-term investment in affordable housing. This ranges from homelessness prevention, student housing and shared ownership for young starters to affordable home ownership and supported accommodation for the aged.
Not all social landlords qualify
Only registered not-for-profit providers that comply with the <a href="https://www.nrsch.gov.au/" target="_blank">National Regulatory System for Community Housing</a> can get a loan through the NHFIC. A <a href="https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/about/reforms/NRSCH/review-of-the-national-regulatory-system-for-community-housing/" target="_blank">review</a> of the system is under way.
In Europe, social bonds are open to providers that satisfy basic criteria: be not-for-profit and for a social purpose, meet local needs, promote social inclusion and apply affordable rent-to-income ratios.
Despite the obvious need in Australia, NHFIC funding excludes public housing, which is also constrained by caps on public investment.
In the UK, public investment has been lifted after decades of constraint. This has generated a flurry of social house building, particularly in <a href="https://www.gov.scot/policies/more-homes/housing-infrastructure-fund" target="_blank">Scotland</a>.
Good regulation is vital
Scotland, Finland, Switzerland and Austria are particularly careful to ensure only not-for-profit organisations with a social purpose can use special purpose funds. Australia’s regulatory system also needs to ensure social bonds serve a social purpose. For instance, the Water Bank <a href="https://www.nwbbank.com/sustainable-bond-sdg-housing-bond-3" target="_blank">Affordable Housing Bond</a> has very specific guidelines on the type of provider, rent regime, household eligibility and income allocation.
Most importantly, regulation protects funds from extraction by shareholders – public or private.
Revolving funds are the lifeblood of well-maintained and growing social housing. Operating surpluses (such as savings from NHIFC refinancing or sales of social dwellings) are used for maintaining and renovating housing, or building more of it, as in Scotland and the Netherlands. They also ensure rent increases are manageable for tenants following renovations and improvements, as in Denmark and Austria.
Governments can also revolve public loan repayments to sustain supply programs, as in Austria and Finland. Even in Slovakia, the scene of mass housing privatisation in the 1990s, far-sighted policymakers established a revolving fund to ensure owners and tenants live in the best-maintained former Soviet housing today.
Board expertise matters too
The <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2019-fsrc-final-report/" target="_blank">Hayne Royal Commission</a> stressed the vital role of boards in ensuring the good conduct of their organisations and quality outcomes for stakeholders. In the case of the NHFIC, its board <a href="http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/stuart-robert-2018/media-releases/morrison-government-strengthens-nhfic/" target="_blank">must</a> have a range of relevant skills.
Land development, infrastructure and real estate experts dominate the relatively small NHFIC board. It lacks capabilities in the corporation’s core tasks of banking (credit risk assessment), treasury management, housing policy, not-for-profit regulation and development finance. The term of the only member experienced in social housing expires in 2021.
The boards of similar bodies overseas, such as <a href="http://www.egw-ccl.ch/de/portrait/" target="_blank">Switzerland</a>, <a href="https://www.hfa.ie/hfa/Live/Release/WebSite/HomePage/index" target="_blank">Ireland</a> and <a href="https://www.thfcorp.com/_uploads/downloads/254649THFCweb.pdf/" target="_blank">the UK</a>, have capabilities in affordable housing policy, not-for-profit housing provision, public banking and treasury management.
Most boards also include representatives of governments and regulators. Both are missing from the NHFIC board.
Missing pieces of the puzzle
AHURI and the <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/170921-AHWG-final-for-publication.pdf" target="_blank">Affordable Housing Working Group</a> have long argued that, beyond efficient financing, social housing requires other key conditions for growth. The working group recommended: "The Commonwealth and State and Territory governments progress initiatives aimed at closing the funding gap, including through examining the levels of direct subsidy needed for affordable low-income rental housing, along with the use of affordable housing targets, planning mechanisms, tax settings, value-adding contributions from affordable housing providers and innovative developments to create and retain stock."
AHURI <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/293" target="_blank">research</a> has found the most effective policy levers are pro-social land policy (involving purposeful land banking and regulatory planning), needs-based direct equity investment (nuanced to match needs, land and construction costs), efficient revolving loans and not-for-profit management.
Without these features, the government will miss its <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2019/housing-and-homelessness/housing" target="_blank">own targets</a> and underinvest in this <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">much-needed social infrastructure</a>. Both the precariously housed and productivity growth in the wider economy will suffer.
Three recommendations
We suggest the following:
<ol>
<li>
Develop key indicators focused on the number of additional affordable dwellings and the discount to market rents achieved across different submarkets. Targets should be derived from a national housing strategy to guide the NHFIC, its corporate plan and the board’s KPIs.
</li>
<li>
Design a nuanced capital investment program to drive construction of green, social housing together with NHFIC loans that deliver more than refinancing.
</li>
<li>
Benchmark NHFIC performance against similar guaranteed bond issues, all-in loan costs and intermediary running costs and governance expertise. This would reassure government and the affordable housing sector about its cost-effectiveness.
</li>
</ol>
The NHFIC is an innovative and promising initiative. It is one bright light in an otherwise bleak policy landscape. It could shine even more brightly when combined with complementary funding and land policies to end homelessness and ensure access to affordable housing for all.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126922/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Julie Lawson, Honorary Associate Professor, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University.
Mike Berry, Emeritus Professor, RMIT University.
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/how-1-bright-light-in-a-bleak-social-housing-policy-landscape-could-shine-more-brightly-126922" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

How one bright light in a bleak social housing policy landscape could shine more brightly

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Many of us do not need to hear any more warnings from <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/" target="_blank">the IPCC</a>, <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2209126-david-attenborough-on-climate-change-we-cannot-be-radical-enough/" target="_blank">David Attenborough</a> or climate activists like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/11/greta-thunberg-schoolgirl-climate-change-warrior-some-people-can-let-things-go-i-cant" target="_blank">Greta Thunberg</a>. We have seen enough to be convinced that limitless <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/post-capitalism-life-within-environmental-limits" target="_blank">economic growth and the globalisation of high-consumption lifestyles</a> have <a href="https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/whatliesbeneath" target="_blank">brought our planet’s life-support systems to the brink of collapse</a>.
In response to today’s urgent ecological and social problems, we often hear calls from sustainability advocates about the need to “<a href="https://www.sloww.co/downshifting-simple-living/" target="_blank">downshift</a>” away from consumer lifestyles, to practise <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-revolution-disguised-as-organic-gardening-in-memory-of-bill-mollison-66137" target="_blank">permaculture</a> and to embrace <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-simple-life-manifesto-and-how-it-could-save-us-33081" target="_blank">simpler ways</a> to live. When these <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-suburbs-are-the-spiritual-home-of-overconsumption-but-they-also-hold-the-key-to-a-better-future-108496" target="_blank">movements scale up</a>, the argument goes, we will “<a href="http://theconversation.com/life-in-a-degrowth-economy-and-why-you-might-actually-enjoy-it-32224">degrow</a>” our economies to a sustainable scale.
Important though these analyses and perspectives are, they almost always leave something critical out of the conversation. There is a very powerful reason we are currently unable to move toward a simpler and sustainable society: the costs of securing access to land for housing often mean only the relatively affluent can afford such “green lifestyles”.
In response to this problem, we offer some ideas to show how public land could be used for sustainable forms of community-led development.
Creating a place like Sustainable Fawkner’s ‘Dandelion Patch’ depends on access to suitable land. More creative public housing policies could lead the way in developing more community food gardens.
The property system makes simple living hard
Recognition of the need for <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-strikes-greta-thunberg-calls-for-system-change-not-climate-change-heres-what-that-could-look-like-112891" target="_blank">system change</a> is growing. But those arguing for high-impact societies to downshift toward cultures of sustainable consumption need to acknowledge a fundamental problem more clearly: simply keeping a roof over our heads can demand an energy-intensive lifestyle and a dependence on market growth.
Why? Having to buy or rent a home in capitalist societies like Australia has huge implications for most of us. It affects what we do for work, how much we work, our need for a car, etc. And, if you can barely afford land or your own home, putting solar panels on the roof, working part-time or growing your own organic food all become very unlikely.
In short, securing the basic need for housing is putting people in <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/more-home-owners-falling-behind-on-mortgage-as-debt-climbs-20190617-p51yhg" target="_blank">more and more debt</a>. This often means any attempt at “dropping out” of market consumerism first involves a whole lot of “dropping in”. The consequences of this reality are anything but <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.amazon.com/Affluenza-When-Much-Never-Enough/dp/1741146712" target="_blank">simple, local and sustainable</a>.
A different type of land and housing opportunity is needed for reasons of sustainability and equity. Central here is the recognition that access to land, just as with air and water, is not a market product. <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/LandAndHR/Pages/LandandHumanRightsIndex.aspx" target="_blank">It is a human right</a> and should be recognised as such.
Even discussing land reform in terms of “affordable housing” still frames land as a market commodity. These discussions often rely on notions of charity and welfare to increase access to land when it really should be available as a right.
But in a nation where simply <a href="https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/07/negative-gearing-reform-dead-buried-cremated/" target="_blank">abolishing negative gearing appears to be politically unpalatable</a>, it would be pragmatic, as a first step, to explore less controversial but still effective policy approaches.
Pointers to rethinking how we govern land
There are <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1941069" target="_blank">many conceptions</a> of property, which means we do not simply have to choose between free market capitalism and state socialism. In Singapore, for example, <a href="https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/about-us/history" target="_blank">more than 80% of residents live in state-provided housing</a>.
Societies can govern access to land in an infinite variety of ways. Each way distributes or concentrates wealth and power in progressive or regressive ways.
One policy deserving of attention involves attempting to transcend the “welfare” framing of existing uses of public housing. Already, secure access to public land has empowered some residents to participate <a href="https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/housing/living/rights-responsibilities/get-involved/chapters/community-greening-program" target="_blank">in programs such as community food gardens, resources repair/share programs, housing management, maintenance</a> and, in the UK, even <a href="http://www.forevergreen.org.uk/Forever_Green_Ecological_Architects/hedgehog-self-build-housing-co-op" target="_blank">housing construction</a>.
In New South Wales, <a href="https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/housing/living/rights-responsibilities/get-involved/chapters/community-greening-program" target="_blank">50,000 public housing residents</a> have converted many hectares of land in social housing areas into gardens growing vegetables, fruit and flowers. In Victoria, <a href="http://www.cultivatingcommunity.org.au/community-gardens/our-services-2/" target="_blank">more than 20 public housing estates</a> have established community gardens.
If these self-selecting residents could be <a href="http://ntwonline.weebly.com/" target="_blank">better supported and validated</a>, their status in society (and how they might conceive of themselves) could move from being regarded as “social dependants” to “pioneers of a new economy”. By showing that access to public land can help with the emergence of local and sustainable <a href="https://thenextsystem.org/cultivating-community-economies" target="_blank">community economies</a>, such experiments could be the cultural driver of a broader policy rethink of how we govern land.
For example, more public land could be made available for <a href="http://www.forevergreen.org.uk/Forever_Green_Ecological_Architects/hedgehog-self-build-housing-co-op" target="_blank">housing construction collectives</a>, where people participate in building their own homes under the guidance of experts. Australia could seek inspiration from Senegal, where <a href="https://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/17/senegal-transforming-14000-villages-into-ecovillages/" target="_blank">14,000 ecovillages</a> are being developed.
In governing land we are limited only by our imaginations. Currently, a chronic lack of imagination is being shown. It is time to experiment with new frameworks that can increase access to land and thereby empower more people to explore lifestyles of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-suburbs-are-the-spiritual-home-of-overconsumption-but-they-also-hold-the-key-to-a-better-future-108496" target="_blank">reduced consumption and increased self-sufficiency</a>. 
The first step is recognising the obstacle
We call on the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1469540512444019" target="_blank">simple living</a>, <a href="https://retrosuburbia.com/" target="_blank">permaculture</a> and <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9789811321306" target="_blank">degrowth</a> movements – and the sustainability movement more generally – to better recognise the obstacle that access to land presents to achieving their goals. More energy and activism should be dedicated to envisioning, campaigning for and experimenting with <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.routledge.com/Housing-for-Degrowth-Principles-Models-Challenges-and-Opportunities/Nelson-Schneider/p/book/9781138558052" target="_blank">alternative property and housing arrangements</a>.
Our purpose is not to dismiss the importance of the various <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/post-capitalism-life-within-environmental-limits" target="_blank">downshifting movements</a>. We need as many people as possible pushing against the tide of consumerism and showing that low-impact living can be <a href="http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue61/Alexander1_61.pdf" target="_blank">good living</a>.
These social movements will help create the culture of <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sufficiency-Economy-Samuel-Alexander/9780994160614" target="_blank">sufficiency</a> that is needed to support a politics of sustainability. But any such politics must include more empowering and creative land policies.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121246/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Alex Baumann, Casual Academic, School of Social Sciences &amp; Psychology, Western Sydney University. 
Samuel Alexander, Research fellow, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne.
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/access-to-land-is-a-barrier-to-simpler-sustainable-living-public-housing-could-offer-a-way-forward-121246" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Access to land is a barrier to simpler, sustainable living

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The public housing estates built in cities around the world since the <a href="https://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/heritage/boundary-of-old-nichol-s-vice-filth-death-1-666236" target="_blank">first public housing was built in the 19th-century London</a> have long been home to the very vulnerable, including refugees and immigrants. At the level of their lived experience – home and neighbourhood – the architectural and spatial qualities of public spaces and housing affect refugees’ and migrants’ ability to <a href="http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/Habitat-III-Issue-Paper-2_2_Migration-and-Refugees-in-Urban-Areas-2.0.pdf" target="_blank">integrate into their new home</a>. We can see this in the public housing estates of two cities on opposite sides of the world, Paris and Melbourne.
In their new communities, refugees are also trying to adapt to new cultural norms, language, access to employment and education and even to stigma and blame for their need of public housing.
<a href="https://espace.curtin.edu.au/bitstream/handle/20.500.11937/4568/192969_192969%20Hartley.pdf?sequence=2" target="_blank">Refugees are among those hardest hit by social and economic challenges</a> that are being deepened by <a href="https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&amp;httpsredir=1&amp;article=1011&amp;context=soci_honors" target="_blank">structural economic changes</a>. This includes <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">the challenge of finding affordable housing</a>. By 2025 an estimated <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/urbanization/tackling-the-worlds-affordable-housing-challenge" target="_blank">one-third of the world’s city dwellers</a> will struggle to secure decent, affordable housing.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265501/original/file-20190325-36279-1kbfrcf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;rect=622%2C35%2C6870%2C2932&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="File 20190325 36279 1kbfrcf.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1">
Public housing in Paris (left) and Melbourne (right) has similar impacts on residents’ integration into the community. Wissem Felah, Sandra Carrasco, Author provided
The HLM of Paris
The French government has been discussing issues related to public housing or habitation à loyer modéré (or HLM, which means “rent-controlled housing”). In 2018, <a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2018/04/04/reforme-des-hlm-que-represente-le-logement-social-en-france_5280726_4355770" target="_blank">the government and its Ministry of Territorial Cohesion</a> suggested a plan to generate funds to build and renovate this housing.
Over 20% of immigrants live in the HLM of Paris and the Seine Saint-Denis department. Arab and Sub-Saharan African immigrants experience high levels of ethnic segregation, <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/mgrsd.2013.17.issue-2/v10288-012-0040-3/v10288-012-0040-3.pdf" target="_blank">reaching 30% by the late 1990s</a>. African immigrants and refugees tend to live in clusters <a href="http://ftp.iza.org/dp5456.pdf" target="_blank">in segregated and more disadvantaged neighbourhoods</a> away from the city.
The public still has a negative view of the public housing estates, located in many <a href="https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/11/the-othered-paris/543597/" target="_blank">banlieues</a>, as declining and segregated “<a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-other-france" target="_blank">immigrant-dominated slums</a>”.
Saint-Denis is a working-class neighbourhood in the northern suburbs of Paris. Despite the positive impact of its shops, bazaars, diverse communities and residents’ recent <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/20180822-france-tourism-sightseeing-paris-suburbs-saint-denis-greeters-local-volunteers" target="_blank">initiatives to boost tourism</a>, it is still struggling with social inequality as one of the most impoverished areas in Paris.
Violence and drug trafficking are two key issues that impact people and their HLM housing. In 2016, an increase in violent crime led the HLM Office, which manages 18,000 social housing estates in Seine-Saint-Denis, to hold the government responsible due to a sharp <a href="http://www.leparisien.fr/villetaneuse-93430/plaine-commune-mine-par-l-insecurite-l-office-hlm-attaque-l-etat-07-11-2016-6300573.php" target="_blank">increase in insecurity</a>.
Many similar issues, and some different ones, affect public housing provision and tenancy in Melbourne. It’s where many refugee arrivals are first housed in Australia. As in Paris, Melbourne’s public housing is associated (fairly or unfairly) with <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/multimillion-dollar-drug-trafficking-ring-run-out-of-fitzroy-public-housing-flat-20150722-gihu4t" target="_blank">crime</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">social isolation</a> and <a href="https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-east/stonnington-council-slams-plan-to-redevelop-prahran-and-south-yarra-estates/news-story/43d3edd0954f94ea1e4c61480bdc9e65" target="_blank">urban blight</a>.
A more pressing problem in Melbourne, however, is the gap between housing supply and demand. Public housing stock across Australia is <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-to-reboot-affordable-housing-funding-not-scrap-it-72861" target="_blank">declining and ageing</a> while waiting lists grow.
The list is growing by <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-06/victorias-public-housing-waiting-list-growing-by-500-a-week/9837934" target="_blank">500 people a month</a> in Victoria. In this state alone, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/06/almost-25000-children-waiting-for-social-housing-in-victoria" target="_blank">nearly 25,000 children are waiting for social housing</a>.
Amid increasing concerns about the affordability and availability of public housing, the sociology, design/architecture and aesthetics of existing estates become even more vital in terms of their effects on social cohesion and well-being. These impacts are critical for those whose first home in Melbourne is a public housing estate.
The disrepair and poor quality of buildings and grounds of many of Melbourne’s older, inner-city estates are obvious. Building materials (like concrete) are degraded. The design of common areas, like foyers and hallways, does not promote social interaction.
The grounds also fall short of what’s needed, despite <a href="http://www.aila.org.au/imis_prod/documents/AILA/VIC/Prahran%20Masterplan_Phase3_Consultation%20report%20executive%20summary_190416%20(003).pdf" target="_blank">the opportunities they offer</a> for varied outdoor activity and social encounters. Public housing estates are often gated, either physically or psychologically, from the surrounding community. This results in enclaves of social disadvantage, often within otherwise wealthy suburbs.
<a href="http://theconversation.com/voices-of-residents-missing-in-a-time-of-crisis-for-public-housing-93655">Many have questioned</a> whether public housing renewal is improving these conditions. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/social-mix-in-housing-one-size-doesnt-fit-all-as-new-projects-show-80956" target="_blank">public-private mix in some new estates has resulted in gated gardens</a> being provided for the exclusive use of the private residents of <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/social-mix-approach-to-public-housing-is-failing-research-finds-20170616-gwsj3m" target="_blank">apartment buildings and not the public tenants</a>.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260510/original/file-20190223-195876-m6yadu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260510/original/file-20190223-195876-m6yadu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></a>
A public housing estate in North Richmond, Melbourne.
The monumental scale of Melbourne’s largest estates is intimidating for visitors. Finding one’s way to a particular address can be challenging. All buildings take the same form and, lacking individual identity, are recognisable by numbers only.
The scale of the buildings and the dull colours and textures of their facades coupled with the repetitive, gridded network of windows are reminiscent of a Soviet era that never existed in Melbourne. One can see similar layouts, colours and materials on the facades of the HLM of Saint Denis. This speaks to the ubiquity of public housing design.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260512/original/file-20190223-195864-1cb9r9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260512/original/file-20190223-195864-1cb9r9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The intimidating scale and uniformity of public housing can be a problem in Melbourne – this estate is in Carlton – or Paris. Sandra Carrasco, Author provided
How can public housing be made better?
Public housing estates often have a pronounced cultural and social mix, with first-generation migrants and refugees from across the globe living as neighbours. This can have benefits including cultural exchange and mutual understanding but can also trigger <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">social withdrawal and isolation</a>. The risks are particularly high for people from new cultural groups arriving in neighbourhoods with settled (and culturally different) populations.
Cultural differences certainly affect relationships between individuals, but also apply to the ways people use the private and public spaces of their new homes. What an Australian-born, wealthy white person would expect and need of “open space” is potentially quite different to what a black, Sudanese-born survivor of conflict might expect or need.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260513/original/file-20190223-39858-niwqxj.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260513/original/file-20190223-39858-niwqxj.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></a>
Inside a Carlton public housing estate. Majdi Faleh, Author provided
Arguably, what is being offered as places for people to connect with their new community in and around public housing meets few people’s needs or expectations. The interior spaces, such as long interior corridors with blank walls, do not provide for comfort, communication and interaction between tenants. The exterior spaces delineate rather than join up the communities of public and private housing.
These dimensions of Melbourne’s public housing may set up a spatial tension that mirrors the occupants’ lives. Yet they could also offer an opportunity to be a canvas for a new interpretation of architecture and urban development, as German sociologist Martina Low notes in her book, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137487711" target="_blank">The Sociology of Space: Materiality, Social Structures, and Action</a>.
Low’s principle focuses on the emergence of space as a result of interplay between social structure, the material world of objects and bodies, and the symbolism of the social world. This new interpretation needs to reflect the lives and experiences of refugee migrants making a new home as well as more established members of the community.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110284/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
Majdi Faleh, Teaching Assistant, University of Melbourne
Andrea Cook, Melbourne Early Career Academic Fellow, Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne
Ashleigh Haw, PhD Candidate in Sociology, University of Western Australia, and Research Assistant at RMIT (School of Global, Urban and Social Studies), University of Melbourne
Sandra Carrasco, McKenzie Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne
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/paris-melbourne-public-housing-doesnt-just-look-the-same-its-part-of-the-challenges-refugees-face-110284" target="_blank">original article</a>.
Main photo: A street view of public housing in Carlton, Victoria. Majdi Faleh, Author provided
</body></html>

Paris? Melbourne? Public housing doesn’t just look the same, it’s part of the challenges refugees face

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
After years of strong housing market growth, Sydney’s property market is slowing. Despite this, housing stress remains a reality for many Sydneysiders, with rents remaining largely untouched.
Public housing is a lifeline for those who can’t afford to rent in the private market, but the numbers of households in this position means many must wait years for a place.
Median rents for apartments in Sydney fell only 0.9% in the September quarter, to $545 a week. This means a household needs to earn about $94,000 a year to avoid housing stress. About half of the households in Sydney earn less than this.
Adding to these cost pressures, tenancy laws are strongly weighted in favour of landlords. This gives tenants little security of tenure and exposes them to frequent upheaval, inadequate conditions and rental hikes.
But public housing tenants are also facing upheaval and uncertainty in inner-city areas such as Waterloo and Redfern, as a result of redevelopments that they feel are aimed at pushing their communities out of the city.
What is happening to public housing?
The lack of public housing investment in New South Wales and the costs of private rental mean over 50,000 people are on the state waiting list. In inner-city areas, they face a wait of five to ten years for public housing.
Through the Communities Plus program and the Social and Affordable Housing Fund, the NSW government plans to build 27,000 more social and affordable homes. But this figure is somewhat misleading. In the last three years, the government has sold off half as much public housing as it has built. And the figure of 27,000 looks more like 9,900 when you consider that this includes around 17,000 dwellings that will be demolished and rebuilt.
Several of the housing estates that remain will undergo massive redevelopment. One of these projects involves Sydney’s largest inner-city public housing estates, in Waterloo. The redevelopment will transform it into a mixed estate of 70% private housing and 30% social housing, going from just over 2,000 dwellings to potentially more than 7,000.
Residents fear being pushed out
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246155/original/file-20181119-27770-5vm6vj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The Waterloo redevelopment will produce a mixed estate of 30% social housing and 70% private. Carol Tang, Author provided
Since the redevelopment was announced in 2015, we have been working with the residents of Waterloo to understand their experience of the redevelopment. Many residents feel the project is a ploy to “move the poor people out of the city”, as one of them put it.
While the government has promised everyone the right to return, there is still a huge amount of uncertainty. And this is justified given that, like many large infrastructure projects conceived during Sydney’s boom time, the Waterloo project will be subject to many changes and delays.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246164/original/file-20181119-76131-1afyq2u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Residents of the Matavai and Turanga towers installed coloured lights in their windows to make a statement: ‘We live here’. Nic Waler, Author provided
The residents of Waterloo, however, will not go quietly. “People are trying to speak up,” says Maryanne Laumua, a Waterloo tenant and key team member of the WeLiveHere2017 project.
One of the ways that residents are speaking up is by making their presence known on Sydney’s skyline. In September 2017, residents in the tallest of Waterloo’s towers, Matavai and Turanga, installed coloured lights in their apartment windows to make a statement: “We live here”. The residents’ efforts are chronicled in a new ABC documentary, There Goes Our Neighbourhood.
A long history of displacement
A history of displacement through colonialism, redevelopment and evictions has shaped Waterloo and neighbouring Redfern. The Gadigal people were violently dispossessed of their country after European invasion. Throughout the last century, “slum clearance” displaced many working-class households.
The demolition of The Block in Redfern removed many Aboriginal families from their homes. The redevelopment in neighbouring Waterloo comes at a time when approval has been given to redevelop The Block. The Redfern development includes construction of student housing that seems to have priority over affordable Indigenous housing.
These areas also have a long history of organising against displacement. Waterloo residents joined with the unions as part of the 1970s Green Bans campaigns to limit the destruction of working-class housing in the suburb. Jenny Munro and other Aboriginal leaders have campaigned tirelessly for the rights of their community, which includes a years-long tent embassy protest on the site of The Block.
The redevelopment of Waterloo’s public housing estate will hardly make a dent in easing housing pressure in Sydney. And as Waterloo resident Karyn Brown puts it: 
"To solve the city’s housing crisis, they are picking on public housing tenants, those on the second rung of the housing ladder."
Waterloo tenants resisting the redevelopment are concerned that it’s a form of state-led gentrification. They see the notion of “social mix” — the idea that introducing private owners and tenants can “fix” disadvantaged communities — as a smokescreen for the class upgrading of their neighbourhood. Indeed, there is little empirical evidence to support the notion that social mix can solve a community’s problems.
Rather than a project intended to alleviate their disadvantage, many tenants feel that “social mix” is both classist and racist. As Lorna Munro and Joel Sherwood-Spring put it, the dilution of the existing community including the Aboriginal population is simply a continuation of the colonial project.
The residents of Waterloo’s public housing might be far from the city’s wealthiest residents, but they’ve got fighting spirit and community pride in spades. As There Goes Our Neighbourhood shows, this community is diverse, creative and determined to fight for their right to remain in the city.
Pratichi Chatterjee, PhD Student, Urban Geography, University of Sydney
Alistair Sisson, PhD Candidate, Urban Geography, University of Sydney
Jenna Condie, Lecturer in Digital Research and Online Social Analysis, Western Sydney University
Laura Wynne, PhD Candidate, School of Social Sciences, UTas and Senior Research Consultant, Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS, University of Tasmania
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/we-still-live-here-public-housing-tenants-fight-for-their-place-in-the-city-107188" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Public housing tenants fighting for their place in the city

<html><body>
Australian not for profit housing provider Community Housing Limited (CHL) has announced the integration of Horizon Housing, Queensland’s largest housing provider into the CHL Group of Companies.  
The integration will boost CHL’s current portfolio to over 11,000 properties, making it the largest community housing provider in the country.
The combined group will manage community and affordable housing properties across the six states with nearly 300 staff. 
The new arrangement will consolidate expertise and strengthen the reach and services offered by both community housing providers.
Horizon Housing, Queensland’s largest housing provider with operations in fifteen local government areas across Queensland and parts of New South Wales, provides both community housing programs and affordable housing projects and has over 2,400 properties in its portfolio.
“This new arrangement further strengthens the position of both organisations, providing each with mutually beneficial outcomes aligned to our shared vision of providing the communities we serve with affordable housing solutions that are available and accessible by those in need,” Community Housing Limited Group’s, Managing Director, Steve Bevington, said. 
Bevington said for 25 years, CHL haD been considered a sector leader, supporting and growing the industry both locally and internationally, providing end to end affordable housing developments and long term housing and tenancy management operations in Australia. 
“Horizon’s integration within the CHL Group is another step in that direction," he said.
THE CEO of Horizon Housing, Jason Cubit, said the integration of the two entities creates a powerful alliance to fight the problem recently highlighted by the latest Anglicare Rental Affordability Snapshot, which categorised three out of 67,365 rental properties listed in Australia as “affordable” for a single person on Newstart Allowance.
</body></html>

Community housing group combines with Queensland provider

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Revitalisation projects aimed at increasing residential populations in inner urban areas since the 1980s have resulted in almost wholesale expulsion of the marginally housed. The now mythic “doughnut city” that Melbournians became so embarrassed about, and so proud to repopulate, was in fact a city that housed its homeless.
The critic John Berger observed: "The 20th-century consumer economy has produced the first culture for which a beggar is a reminder of nothing."
We might ponder his concern in the Australian city today where the homeless have never been more visible and yet so ignored in mainstream urban discussion.
Infrastructure Australia’s recent report, Future Cities: Planning for our growing population, doesn’t mention homelessness once. This is sadly typical of major urban policy statements in the past few decades, many of which have championed inner-city renewal.
From doughnut city to cafe society
Melbourne, like most Western cities, experienced population decline in its core from the 1960s as relentless suburbanisation drew population outwards.
In 1977, the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works chairman, Alan Croxford, lamented: "Melbourne’s trend towards a ‘doughnut’ type of development is revealing the first signs of serious problems experienced in other cities of the world."
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212173/original/file-20180327-109193-1ujvgrb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212173/original/file-20180327-109193-1ujvgrb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The Department of Infrastructure’s 1998 report, From Doughnut City to Café Society. Author provided
Similarly, Jan Ghel describes Melbourne in the 1970s as a “neutron-bombed” city. The architectural commentator Norman Day portrayed it as “an empty useless city centre”.
The “doughnut” trope certainly stuck in the planning imagination. Urban strategies and programs in the 1990s were decidedly aimed at reintroducing a residential population and revitalising the city centre.
The Postcode 3000 program and the Keys to the City campaign were a resounding success. Residential accommodation in central Melbourne increased from 738 units in the 1980s to 9,895 units by 2002. The figure today is nearly 30,000 units.
This renaissance has been retailed and celebrated globally. It is, however, partial truth. The uplift was certainly not felt by all.
Melbourne when relief was cheap
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212174/original/file-20180327-109193-p7cbuv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Gordon House Lodgings in Little Bourke Street, in the late 1960s, had about 500 beds. Alan Jordan/State Library of Victoria
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212175/original/file-20180327-109182-cj27t9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212175/original/file-20180327-109182-cj27t9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Relocated to Lorimer Street, Gordon House had about 300 beds. Graeme Butler, 1982
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212179/original/file-20180327-109182-9nqpt4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212179/original/file-20180327-109182-9nqpt4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Aerial view of Gordon House on South Wharf, 1979. Wolfgang Sievers/National Library of Australia
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214444/original/file-20180412-549-19unoty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214444/original/file-20180412-549-19unoty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Aerial view of South Wharf showing the Melbourne Exhibition Centre, built in 1996, located where Gordon House used to be. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/popcorncx/155407300/" target="_blank">Stephen Edmonds/Flickr</a>, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-SA</a>
The “doughnut city” in fact offered cheap accommodation for the marginal and homeless. This included night shelters, rooming houses, private residential hotels, and crisis accommodation.
Gauging the exact number of low-cost beds in the inner city at this time is difficult. Homeless population estimates and reported losses in crisis and transitional housing during this period give us some idea.
Alan Jordan’s seminal work on Melbourne’s inner-city homeless population in 1973 noted: “… at any given time in the period there were at least 3,000 and probably 4,000 homeless men within two or three miles of the centre of Melbourne who were currently using night shelters, lodging houses and handouts”.
A 1984 report on the City of Melbourne and its homeless indicated that about 3,700 rooming house rooms were available for rent. These housed an estimated 4,500 people.
In 1990, a report by the Council for Homeless Persons and the Victorian Council of Churches estimated that each night, within 5 kilometres of the GPO, there were 4,000 people in large rooming houses and private hotels, 930 in crisis accommodation, and 530 in squats and sleeping rough. The report estimated that rooming house stock had shrunk by 48% in the seven years from 1981 to 1988.
The erosion of low-cost accommodation in the 1980s and ’90s made way for the repopulation of inner Melbourne. A 1998 study on rough sleeping commissioned by the City of Melbourne reported an overall reduction of 78% in short-term housing stock between 1987 and 1997. This amounted to the loss of 1,400 crisis accommodation and low-cost hotel beds.
This transitional housing was hardly ideal, but its loss deprived homeless people of temporary shelter and no doubt contributed to burgeoning numbers of rough sleepers. It also signifies that Melbourne’s “doughnut city” was never entirely hollowed out. It offered relief to, and was occupied by, the homeless.
More homeless, more visible
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212180/original/file-20180327-109196-1pxizul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212180/original/file-20180327-109196-1pxizul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Remnants of Melbourne’s Skid Row: Three private hotels on the corner of Spencer and Flinders streets had about 268 low-cost rooms, early 1980s. Public Record Office Victoria<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212182/original/file-20180327-109193-18z8gq9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212182/original/file-20180327-109193-18z8gq9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Sir Charles Hotham Hotel on Skid Row, which sold last year for a speculated $30 million. Melbourne History Workshop
Recently released 2016 Census results estimate about 116,000 people are homeless on any given night in Australia. Rough sleepers represent just 7% of the homeless population, but are increasingly visible in Australian cities.
In Melbourne, the increasing visibility of homelessness sits jarringly alongside its growing prestige as a thriving, culturally diverse and vibrant city. Being crowned the world’s “most liveable city” seven years in a row has helped to resurrect the narrative of “Marvellous Melbourne”.
Significant work has been done over this time to provide specialist homelessness services and support in the inner city. But accompanying low-cost accommodation to house the users of these services has become ever more residual. With about 36,000 applicants on the social housing register, and very little increase in supply, the demand for crisis and transitional accommodation is mounting.
Urban renaissance, a mixed tale
Urban redevelopment and displacement are intertwined trends familiar to many cities around the world. As with Melbourne, these revitalisation stories are often partial accounts, which smother more subjugated histories of a city.
By celebrating the demise of a doughnut city and its replacement by a superior café society, “liveable Melbourne” overlooks the vast dispersal that made way for a residential population that reinforces the commercial prospects of the city. The previous, more marginal city dwellers are simply abandoned. Versions of this are recurring today.
None of this is to wish a return to the past but to remind us of what can be lost in contemporary urban narratives – in this case Melbourne’s history of homeless occupation and subsequent displacement.
To heed Berger, the swelling of homelessness should remind us of the property dysfunction and spatial injustice that underlie our cities’ seeming prosperity. We can celebrate successes, but must also concede that urban renaissance is often a mixed tale of blinding optimism for the elite and cruel loss for the poor. Planning for future cities ought to take more care.
Claire Collie, PhD candidate in Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
Brendan Gleeson, Director, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/melbournes-doughnut-city-housed-its-homeless-93062" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

The story of how Melbourne’s ‘doughnut city’ housed its homeless

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The 30% increase in the number of homeless people between the 2006 and 2016 censuses is likely to continue in the absence of evidence-based public housing policy. We need to rapidly extend public housing and services, according to housing and homelessness research.
Despite this research, the common approach by governments, in Australia and overseas, is to adopt a program of “renewal” and “regeneration” funded by the transfer of public lands to private hands. Housing estates are sold, transferred or redeveloped in partnership with a private developer. This often results in a shift of social housing dwellings from 100% publicly owned to mixed forms of tenure.
For public housing residents, being told that their estate is to be “renewed” is destabilising and can cause extreme stress. A lack of clarity about relocation timelines and processes compounds this.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212559/original/file-20180329-189816-orifz6.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The Northcote housing estate in Melbourne occupies prime real estate along Merri Creek. David Kelly
Similar issues in Sydney, Melbourne and London
Residents’ acceptance of this “renewal” approach varies greatly. While some are happy with the promise of a new home, opposition is growing in Australia and internationally.
The main issues being contested are planning approaches, consultation processes and the loss of public land overseen by housing authorities steering estate regeneration.
In Sydney, the government’s Communities Plus program is redeveloping public housing assets and land through partnerships with not-for-profit and private developers.
The City of Melbourne recorded a 74% increase in the numbers of people sleeping rough between 2014 and 2016. Opposition to the government’s public housing renewal program is now growing in Melbourne. The government is relocating residents from nine inner-city housing estates, demolishing homes and transferring public land to private developers.
In London, Harringey Council is working with Australian developer Lendlease to transfer over £2 billion in council assets, including several housing estates across the borough. In response, the Stop-HDV campaign is challenging the partnership and lack of community consultation through direct action, political campaigning, media representation and an ongoing legal challenge.
Opposition is fuelled by the redevelopment of the Heygate estate in Elephant and Castle. This has resulted in the loss of over 1,000 social housing units at council rental rates.
Affordable housing stock, rented at 80% of the standard market rate, replaced social housing. This makes it difficult for low-income residents to return to the estate.
Residents struggle to be heard
While government and developers undertake forms of consultation, residents affected by renewal repeatedly report that their voices are not being heard. This poses major problems for the reception of viable alternatives presented to development authorities by residents.
At a local scale, residents work to find other ways to make their voices heard. Visible across Sydney, a community light sculpture at the Waterloo estate expressed residents’ feelings about the redevelopment of their homes through coloured lights.
Other responses to regeneration by estate residents include theatre, book writing, spoken word and street art.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212561/original/file-20180329-189795-12antvi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Graffiti protests against the sale of the Northcote estate. David Kelly
In Melbourne, the government claims the “renewal” of the nine estates will result in an increase of 180 (10%) public housing dwellings.
This claim requires closer scrutiny. On the Northcote estate, for example, there are 85 dwellings with 201 bedrooms. According to a government-commissioned report from September 2017, the public component of the redevelopment will have 96 properties with 139 bedrooms. That’s an 11% increase in dwellings, but a 31% decrease in bedrooms.
Even if the overall number of public housing bedrooms increased by 10%, this would not be enough. According to the Victorian Housing Register, in December 2017 there were over 36,000 applications for public housing and over 7,000 waiting for more adequate housing.
Alternatives need to be heard
One of the underpinning assumptions made by government is that dispersing disadvantage will lead to better outcomes for public housing residents.
This, and the resulting social mix, is the rationale for the program. This assumption is completely flawed. It imagines a fallacy of trickle-down socioeconomics achieved through minimal government spending.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212560/original/file-20180329-189795-h4y7xt.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
A boarded-up public housing residence on the Northcote estate. David Kelly
Academic experts and public housing resident activists continually express their objections to the rhetoric of renewal. Kate Shaw, an urban geographer with expertise in housing and planning, says: "Pretty much everything about the program in its current approach is wrong."
Delegates at a December 2017 public housing forum in Melbourne called on the government to impose a moratorium on the process so alternatives can be heard. Yet voices continue to be ignored.
The progressive rhetoric of renewal obscures the displacement of residents, the fragmentation of lives and the privatisation of the public realm. Narratives of improvement drown out objections by residents and the wider public. Any argument against renewal is falsely equated with an argument against improving the lives of public housing residents.
This misdirection infects the public discourse around housing more generally. We are witnessing the complete reorganisation of the home. We think of homes as exchangeable stock.
For residents of public housing estates, the public realm is home, and home is a place of sanctuary and respite. The voices of residents need to be to the fore in the conversation if evidence-based public housing policy is to prevail. Retaining public places should be of interest to all who count themselves as part of the public.
David Kelly, PhD Candidate, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93655/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">This article was written in conversation with public housing advocate and resident William Gwynne. The author thanks William for his integral insights.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/voices-of-residents-missing-in-a-time-of-crisis-for-public-housing-93655" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Voices of residents missing in a time of crisis for public housing: David Kelly

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The recent Closing the Gap <a href="https://closingthegap.pmc.gov.au/" target="_blank">report</a> has highlighted the lack of progress in Indigenous affairs since the apology to the Stolen Generations a decade ago. Although not a specific target, safe, appropriate and affordable housing is acknowledged to be a fundamental building block for improving the well-being of Aboriginal people and closing the gap on many of the target indicators. For these reasons, it is unfortunate to learn the Commonwealth may be seeking to withdraw its support for remote Indigenous housing programs.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/research-and-policy-bulletins/216" target="_blank">Our research</a> and that of others provides evidence these programs are producing significant improvements. A sustained Commonwealth commitment to remote housing programs is essential for closing the gap.
Crowding and inadequate housing are linked to poor physical and mental health. They result in higher rates of infectious diseases such as rheumatic fever and eye and ear infections, emotional stress and conflict in the home.
<a href="http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/Publications/housing-health.pdf" target="_blank">A New South Wales study</a> demonstrated that in communities whose housing was improved, the rate of hospital admissions for infectious diseases was 40% less than in communities where no housing improvements had taken place. Other research has shown that poor housing has negative impacts on educational and employment outcomes.
Job is only half done
The central role of housing in Closing the Gap was acknowledged in 2007 when the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) established a 10-year A$5.5 billion remote Indigenous building and refurbishment program. This aimed to bring living standards in remote Indigenous communities to the same standards as comparable locations elsewhere, and to improve the management and maintenance of houses.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206712/original/file-20180216-131006-15s0ul7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
A Commonwealth review found houses like this one built under the remote housing program had improved conditions in Indigenous communities. Author provided
Last October, a federal government review of the remote Indigenous housing program found crowding has been reduced and housing management is more consistent and effective. But the job remains half done. Importantly, levels of household crowding (no more than two persons per bedroom) in remote communities are still around 37%.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/research-and-policy-bulletins/216" target="_blank">Our research</a> tells a similar story. Crowding remains high in some locations. There are problems of fairness and efficiency in the application of mainstream rent settings. There are also questions about the most effective model of housing delivery and who should be responsible for it.
However, in the five communities we examined in three states, we found the program had led to significant improvements on a range of indicators. This was particularly evident when the housing was managed by an Indigenous housing provider that employed Indigenous people and provided a culturally adaptive service.
The complexities of remote settings mean that for these gains to be maintained and continued, the Commonwealth needs to maintain its commitment. Delivering and maintaining housing in remote locations is costly, so subsidies will be needed in most regions.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206711/original/file-20180216-131024-1rywae9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206711/original/file-20180216-131024-1rywae9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
On the road to the APY Lands in South Australia, a remote region where the costs of providing and maintaining housing require subsidies. Author provided
Commonwealth oversight is also essential to ensure appropriate regulatory frameworks are in place. Monitoring and quality assurance procedures are needed to maintain standards.
The building and refurbishment program was revised and renegotiated with the states and the Northern Territory in 2016. That program ends this June. To date, there has been no indication of what will replace it.
Most worrying are reports that Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland have been advised that remote Indigenous housing is a state responsibility and that Commonwealth funding may end when the current program ends. Even in the Northern Territory, which had seemed quarantined from these developments because of the extent of the housing crisis in remote communities there, there are signs that the Commonwealth may withdraw its commitment to addressing this.
If this is true, it’s likely the political commitment to improvement will wane, investment will decline and gains in housing standards will reverse.
At risk of losing hard-won gains
In 10 or 20 years’ time, we might once again be looking at a housing crisis in remote Indigenous communities.
To avoid such a policy failure – and its implications for Indigenous well-being – it’s time for governments to recognise that real progress can only be made if they stop turning Indigenous programs off after they have been positively evaluated. They need to accept that improvements will be slow and what’s needed is incremental, consistent and preferably bipartisan commitment over the medium to long term.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206714/original/file-20180216-130997-5b4sr8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206714/original/file-20180216-130997-5b4sr8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
 Improvements have been delivered to remote communities, like this playground in the East Kimberley region, but much work remains to be done. Author provided
Current arrangements for remote Indigenous housing are not perfect, but our work suggests that, at this stage, a hybrid model is likely to be most effective. This is one that involves a partnership between state housing departments and knowledgeable, preferably Indigenous, third-party providers delivering a culturally appropriate service.
There are also opportunities to explore new models of housing delivery. These could leverage off the Indigenous estate and engage with the Indigenous and non-Indigenous community housing sector. Any model should contribute to the sustainability of communities by maximising opportunities for local partnerships and employment for local Indigenous people.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91835/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Without ongoing Commonwealth engagement and investment, remote Indigenous housing policy risks remaining stuck in a depressing cycle of government neglect, public crisis, too-rapid policy development and change, and a return to failure. It will become yet another sorry example of political agendas obstructing good policy.
Daphne Habibis, Associate Professor, University of Tasmania
Peter Phibbs, Director, Henry Halloran Trust, University of Sydney
Rhonda Phillips, Adjunct Research Fellow, Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR), The University of Queensland
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-wont-close-the-gap-if-the-commonwealth-cuts-off-indigenous-housing-support-91835" target="_blank">original article</a>.
Main photo: A remote community in the Cape York region of Queensland. Author provided
</body></html>

Public Housing

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Public Housing

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News