Public Housing

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
To see Australia’s shortage of affordable housing as a failure of government is to misunderstand the politics that underpin housing.
The vast proportion of government money spent on housing directly benefits the well-off at the expense of private renters and public housing tenants.
Government policy has not, on the whole, failed. It has been a huge success insofar as protecting the opportunities for speculative investment and profit for homeowners and private landlords.
If the government was serious in wanting to end the housing crisis it would need to invest in new social housing and pursue measures that choke off, via tax reform, the opportunities for profiteering currently enjoyed by landlords and homeowners.
The pursuit of these options would be bitterly opposed – not least by many homeowners and property investors, as it would lead to a fall in house prices.
<h2>Why this misdiagnosis persists</h2>
The government’s current housing response can be viewed as a charade. Ministers have been able to convince many that the government is working hard to put in place measures to fix the problems faced by low-income households.
There are two discernible ways that the government has maintained this charade. The first is by permeating an impression that action will be forthcoming. Social Services Minister Christian Porter recently announced that he would be establishing a working group to explore ways to improve the availability of affordable housing.
Porter’s working party should come as no surprise. Over many years, governments have undertaken many reviews and enquiries.
Second is the recycling of a set of myths. Among these is that public housing is a failed policy that reinforces welfare dependency and that state and territory planners impose arbitrary rules and regulations that impede new housing development.
Public housing and planning regulation are framed as dysfunctional. We are told that affordable housing would be built quickly if the commercial sector were not impeded by bureaucratic demands.
Should we discard statements from the government that effective reforms are underway and recognise that the prospects for low-income Australians will deteriorate over the coming years? Already there are as many as 105,000 people who are without a home and 160,000 households on public housing waiting lists. The overall stock of public housing had fallen from 331,000 units in 2007-08 to 317,000 in 2013-14.
The Productivity Commission estimated that the proportion of low-income households in housing stress – that is, those that pay more than 30% of their income on housing-related costs – increased from 35% in 2007-08 to 42% in 2013-14.
In its 2012 report, the former National Housing Supply Council highlighted that between 2002 and 2012 rents increased in nominal terms by 76% for houses and 92% for flats. And the median value of a home in Australia is now A$576,100.
<h2>Sticking to the script</h2>
There are already signs in 2016 that the government intends on sticking to the usual script – one that frames the affordability crisis as stemming from a shortage of land, excessive red tape, and high labour costs within the building industry.
Acting Cities Minister Greg Hunt recently identified three critical elements that require government attention. One – land release. Two – the cost of building – and this is in particular in relation to the inner city apartments where there is an urban infill. The third is bureaucracy.
Hunt’s attribution of the causes of the housing affordability crisis are broadly in line with the pronouncements of finance, developer and real estate lobbyists. All have made similar claims and work tirelessly to safeguard the opportunities for profit-making that exist when housing is in short supply.
It is no coincidence that supply-side interventions, such as sustained investment in public housing, have been eschewed in favour of demand-based subsidies. The latter includes initiatives such as Commonwealth Rental Assistance and inputted tax subsidies that enable landlords to boost their profits, alongside first homeowner grants and the exemption of capital gains tax for owner-occupiers when they sell their home. This amounted to A$54 billion of revenue forgone in 2016.
For those who wish to reap profits from their housing investment, there are good reasons to maintain the status quo; for a shortage of supply to continue and for public housing to remain a stigmatised tenure only available for those without any recourse elsewhere.
Stressing land release as a significant cause of the affordability crisis is misleading but not surprising. This is the claim repeated by developers who wish to increase their profits. It is not uncommon for developers to delay development plans on land they have acquired on the expectation that the opportunity to secure greater profits will accrue when the land value increases at a later stage.
It is disappointing that Hunt offered such a myopic explanation of the housing affordability crisis. A more insightful analysis would attend to the failure to invest in public housing, the subsidies that distort the private rental market such as negative gearing, and the tax privileges that are extended to homeowners.
The housing problems experienced by low-income households are a symptom of entrenched inequality within Australia. Public and private tenants remain disadvantaged and have to endure problematic tenancies that are increasingly insecure. Unless this inequality is addressed, Australia’s housing problems will endure. 
Keith Jacobs is professor of sociology and ARC Future Fellow, University of Tasmania and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/keith-jacobs-5861" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

How policy success, not failure, has driven Australia's housing crisis

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/64363/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In March 2014, New South Wales government minister Pru Goward announced that all of the 293 public housing dwellings in Millers Point, Dawes Point and the Rocks, as well as the 79 apartments in the Sirius Building built for public housing in the 1970s, were to be sold.
Their tenants would be moved. At first, residents felt they could fight the removal, but over time most have capitulated.
The stress and the not knowing what would happen were too difficult to bear. An ex-Millers Point resident (he had been in the same house for 36 years) explained:
"We fought it at first you know. We thought this is terrible. They can’t do this to us. Well actually we don’t own the houses. They’ve got you by the balls, so to speak, and we just faced the fact that we’re going to have to move …"
In July 2016, the Department of Family and Community Services reported that only 42 tenants were left to move.
<h2>How does the government justify the move?</h2>
The Baird government has justified its decision on two main grounds.
The first is that the money from the sale would be used to build 1,500 new social housing dwellings and thereby reduce the NSW public housing waiting list of 59,000 households.
A related argument is that maintaining the Millers Point homes – many are more than 100 years old – cost four times more than for the average public housing dwelling and was thus untenable.
These justifications may have some legitimacy if the move is assessed solely through an economic prism. However, this is a limited and questionable approach.
<h2>Reasons to respect residents and heritage</h2>
The historical, social and moral reasons for retaining at least part of Millers Point and the whole of the Sirius Building for public housing are compelling.
First, Millers Point has a rich and unique history. The Heritage Council recognised this in 1999 when it declared the area a Heritage site. The Office of Environment and Heritage concluded:
"Millers Point Conservation Area is an intact residential and maritime precinct of outstanding state and national significance …"
The 1999 assessment of significance went on to state:
"Its unity, authenticity of fabric and community, and complexity of significant activities and events make it probably the rarest and most significant historic urban place in Australia."
The removal has already severely undermined this uniqueness. It is likely that the physical fabric of the area will be constantly eroded as the new owners endeavour to evade any heritage demands.
A second reason for retaining at least some public housing in Millers Point and reserving the Sirius Building for public housing tenants is that the removal will mean that another neighbourhood in Sydney will become an enclave for wealthy households. This will further cement the spatial division of the city based on social class.
At the end of July 2016, the NSW government refused to grant heritage status to the Sirius Building despite the Heritage Council recommending this. The decision was justified on the basis that a heritage listing would reduce its value by A$70 million.
A third objection relates to the human cost of the move. The government’s insistence that all of the residents have to move out of their homes, whatever their history, age and disability, has been viewed as particularly harsh.
<h2>Who considers the human toll?</h2>
In March 2016, I interviewed a 91-year-old ex-Sirius Building resident who had been moved. He did know anybody in his new location and was totally isolated.
Mary, who has lived in the area for around 55 years, is refusing to move. She described the devastating psychological impact of the government’s intentions:
"I don’t think I’ve been the same person, emotionally you know. I’ve been a bit of a nervous wreck. I’ve been angry and can’t sleep … So you just think, “What’s life all about?”"
In November 2015, the government agreed to renovate existing stock and create 28 apartments (24 were one-bedroom, one is two-bedroom and three are three-bedroom) to accommodate Millers Point residents who were refusing to move. However, most of the residents had moved by the time of this announcement.
Most of those who remained felt the units were too small and not suitable for older, more frail residents. By August 2016, only 13 of the units had been occupied.
What the remaining residents are demanding is that they, and especially the elderly among them, be allowed to stay in Millers Point in their present homes or alternatives ones that they have identified as suitable. Their lives are totally enmeshed with the area.
<h2>State enjoys windfall, tenants lose out</h2>
At the beginning of August 2016, 94 Millers Point properties had been sold for $264 million, with a median sale price of $2.48 million per dwelling. If the trend continues, it is estimated that the sale will realise $884 million, nearly $400 million more than the government’s projection of $500 million.
Residents posed the obvious questions: why can’t some of this largesse be used to repair the public housing dwellings, which they argue have been severely neglected? And why is the building of more public housing solely dependent on the sale of public housing in Millers Point and the Sirius Building?
Surely, the building of social housing should be financed by general revenue. This question becomes more pressing in light of the NSW government having a budget surplus of $3.4 billion in 2015-16, which is forecast to grow to $3.7 billion in 2016-17.
The surplus is mainly due to the property boom in Sydney since mid-2013. Revenue from stamp duty totalling $8.9 billion in 2016-17 is predicted to rise to $9.8 billion in 2019-20.
A just city is premised on democratic decision-making, the maintenance of diversity and social mix, and the dissipating of inequality. The removal of Millers Point residents and the decision to sell off and demolish the Sirius Building has been an intensely undemocratic process. Residents’ requests for a genuine dialogue and compromise have been largely ignored.
The move will intensify the already severe spatial divide between rich and poor in Sydney. The social mix that is a feature of Millers Point will be obliterated along with its rich history – an irreversible tragedy.
Alan Morris is chair professor, University of Technology Sydney and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alan-morris-13337" target="_blank">here.</a>
</body></html>

Why moving out public housing tenants is a tragedy for Millers Point and for Sydney

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/81560/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Public housing reform is again agitating the inner suburbs, just as it did four decades ago when citizen action and courageous academic research brought the tower-block model crashing down. 
Michael Jones exposed it as cost-ineffective and socially destructive, but he also discovered a dirty little secret about the Victorian Housing Commission: the system paid for itself because only the “deserving” working class were admitted.
Forty years on, the physical legacy of that heroic era of tower blocks and walk-up flats is shabby and in need of renewal. 
Whereas the Victorian housing program was designed to be self-funding from public rents, these days public housing is the only viable option for an expanding population of older residents, newly settled migrant families, sole parents, people with disabilities and those experiencing chronic physical and mental ill-health, most of whom are on pensions.
But there are new groups in need of social housing: people trapped in the gig economy, hawking their ABNs as drivers, disability carers, child-carers, removalists, tradespeople, casual office workers of all kinds, hospitality workers. They are the growing army of the precariat who may even have a couple of university degrees but who cannot find job security. 
They cannot see, even when they earn good money, a predictable path to home ownership while rents and insecurity rise all around them.
Then there are essential city workers who have a secure job but who need to live near their work. In Melbourne, city hospital nurses should not be commuting from Craigieburn and Frankston; teachers should be able to live near their school; service workers of all kinds should not be travelling for hours to do their jobs. 
All big cities have to deal with this as gentrification and property speculation squeeze the lower-income earners out of the inner city.
Class prejudice: a case study in Flemington
The immediate controversy is in the inner Melbourne suburb of Flemington. Here, the walk-up flats are to be replaced with apartment blocks of varying heights, with one to match the high rises that have to remain. 
The town plan will be denser, with street frontages for apartment buildings, nearby parking and landscaped gardens. 
The Kensington estate overlooking J.J. Holland Park has already had such a makeover. The new public and private buildings are indistinguishable from each other, with gardens cascading down the embankment.
Local residents have several objections to the Flemington proposals. The estate will be too dense and too tall for the surrounding suburb, and its redevelopment has to be funded by selling part of the land to private developers for a mix of social, affordable and shared equity housing. The public component will increase by 10%. 
The residents are supportive of public housing and want more, but more would have to be on the existing footprint, which will increase the population density that they deplore. More importantly, the inhabitants will remain sequestered.
Another objection is that the development is intended to break up the old public estate into a mixed community and that research can be foundthat engineered social mixing doesn’t “work”. 
Certainly, many inner Melbourne families go to extraordinary financial and geographic lengths to ensure their children do not go to school with children from “the flats”. 
The primary school at the edge of the Flemington estate was built for 1,000 and has fewer than 100 students, while all the surrounding schools are bursting at the seams. The same applies in the inner suburbs Carlton and Fitzroy. 
The arguments are more sophisticated — that social mixing is “gentrification by stealth” — but the result remains that public tenants must inhabit a world apart.
But research can also be found that social mixing is working all around us every day. It’s working in streets sprinkled with infill housing, small developments, mixed developments, public apartments in private developments. It already works in Flemington away from the flats and in Kensington, where the two local schools are flourishing. 
Above all there is abundant research to show that concentrating people into public housing estates breeds social exclusion and that’s bad for all of us.
A city needs social and economic diversity to function, but it doesn’t need enclaves and ghettos. And a creative, knowledge city of the future will need to remain affordable for young creatives, just as it needs a mix of people to make it work. 
All great cities are grappling with this downside of gentrification, and public and affordable social housing has to be part of the solution. 
London has teachers, police, nurses and young doctors in council housing. Yet Paris has got it horribly wrong, with its banlieues full of great architecture and human misery that can only make itself heard by burning cars and detonating bombs.
Solutions must embrace diversity
Solutions will be various. They will need imaginative and bold leadership from governments and well-regulated partnerships with the private sector to raise the funds. 
The walk-ups and sequestered public estates of Melbourne have passed their use-by date both physically and socially. 
With land prices so high, the private sector will have to step up and contribute, and its pleas that it’s uneconomic regulated away. In Canberra, public housing is sprinkled throughout the city. Other countries, such as Germany and Japan, can do it and so can we.
But to do all this we also need a new civility in our inner suburbs, a civility that endorses necessary change for the common good above private interests. And we will know that we are succeeding when all our schools represent the diversity that is modern Australia.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/janet-mccalman-447" target="_blank">Janet McCalman</a> is Professor of Population Health, University of Melbourne.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/deborah-warr-143875" rel="author">Deborah Warr</a> is Associate Professor, Honorary Principal Fellow, University of Melbourne.
Both are authors for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Class divide defies social mixing and keeps public housing stigma alive

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/79581/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Victorian government’s 2017 housing policy contains a bulk transfer of public housing to housing associations. Housing Minister Martin Foley’s explanation is that “the state is a terrible housing manager”. 
A similar rationale underlies the handing of public housing estates to private developers to build private housing, the sales of which fund some new public dwellings with the added justification of increasing social mix.
Our soon-to-be-published research examines the rollout of this program. In inner Melbourne, following redevelopment of the Kensington, Carlton and Prahran estates, nine more estates have been targeted. The tenants of buildings to be demolished will be relocated from mid-2018, according to a government briefing paper.
The federal Greens MP for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, has criticised the program as selling public land to private developers “for a bagful of cash and a smattering of new social housing”. He adds that Melbourne needs “a large-scale build of new public housing on a 1960s scale”. 
Foley’s defence of the rollout, in an odd non sequitur, is that Labor:
… can’t condemn another generation of Victorians to live in housing poverty.
A flawed idea that began with Thatcher
Public housing stock transfer and estate redevelopments in public-private mix are part of a trend that began in Thatcher’s Britain. The Blair government continued the approach, which has become neoliberal policy orthodoxy in the UK and Australia. 
This allows governments to wriggle out of providing housing for people on low incomes by transferring responsibility to non-government and private sectors. 
The thing is, housing associations are not necessarily secure or better managers, especially as they become institutions in their own right. Furthermore, privatisation of public land to fund upgrades to public housing not only fails to deliver good value for taxpayers, but is unsustainable. At some point there will be further upgrades needed and no land left to sell.
The argument that the state should not be in the business of managing or building housing is one we’re hearing more often. It’s connected to the small-government case more broadly: should the state be involved in health care, education, the media?
As the ABC and BBC demonstrate, however, state-owned enterprises can operate perfectly efficiently. And, ironically, they provide a rare source of ideological independence from both government and big business.
Why shouldn’t the state fund an ongoing program of upgrading, replacing and building public housing? Why shouldn’t it establish a regional organisational structure which is locally responsive? There is no case for assuming that, simply because the state is involved, construction and management must be inferior and people will be consigned to “housing poverty”. 
The major determinant is a matter of finance. And the state will always have better and cheaper access to finance than the non-government and private sectors. 
If finance were really as impossible a problem as governments like to make out, and if it were deemed reasonable that privatisating public land could help fund this process – and these are big ifs, which should be publicly debated – then the government should be the developer, to retain control of the profits. These should go back into public housing instead of disappearing with a private developer. 
Lessons from Carlton and Kensington
The Victorian government’s call for tenders for its Public Housing Renewal Program does indicate some learning from the experiences at Kensington and Carlton.
The sale price for the public land “will reflect the land value and must meet a minimum threshold based on a market value mechanism agreed by the Valuer General Victoria [VGV]”. This is an important concession, though VGV valuation is no guarantee of market price. 
The tender document notes that “where the return achieved by the development proceeds exceeds a benchmark, it is anticipated that there will be an agreed sharing of the excess”. The government will need to keep a close eye, though, on the costs and profits declared by the developer. 
The specification for the number of social housing dwellings on the redeveloped estates to “exceed the current number of public housing dwellings by 10%” is a definite improvement on the Kensington project. But replacing three-bedroom family dwellings with studio apartments, as is the case at Carlton, doesn’t constitute an increase in tenants. 
Even if tenant numbers do increase, 10% seems a disappointingly modest aim.
It is the social mix objective that really brings this approach unstuck, however, especially when the favoured model of private developers is to separate public and private residents by buildings, if not entire precincts. 
The minister reacts with horror to the suggestion that inner-city public land should start from the presumption of 100 percent public housing and work back from there according to the development economics. It seems a manufactured horror. Gentrified inner Melbourne is not Brixton or Baltimore – these estates are surrounded by private housing and excellent public services and community facilities where opportunities for interaction are plentiful.
Let’s dismiss the fig leaf of increasing social mix on estates in privileged inner cities. We should concentrate instead on providing as much low-income housing as we possibly can for people who desperately need somewhere decent to live.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kate-shaw-39629" target="_blank">Kate Shaw</a> is Future Fellow, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Why should the state wriggle out of providing public housing? Kate Shaw

<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>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

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>
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
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>

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

<html><body>
Evolve Housing, a not-for-profit national Community Housing Provider, has launched a real estate agency called Echo Realty.
The Echo Realty team, will be led by CEO Andrea Galloway.
She said unlike traditional real estate agents, Echo Realty will focus on creating thriving communities means and deliver high quality outcomes for the property owner, the tenant and the local community.
“Affordable housing gives low to moderate income workers the opportunity to find affordable accommodation close to where they work, without forfeiting their ability to possibly save for a house deposit or a private rental arrangement," she said.
“Through our services, we want to change the perceptions of those in the community who oppose affordable housing developments.
"After all, it could be their own children that may have to rely on it as house prices continue to soar. It’s my belief that Australians cannot afford to not support affordable housing. With the support of Government policy and everyone in the community, affordable housing can be a win-win for all stakeholders.” 
Speaking at the official launch, Member for Parramatta, Dr Geoff Lee MP, said affordable housing is a significant issue in NSW and we need to work with the community and industry to find real solutions.
"Most people agree we need to increase supply of affordable housing," he said.
"I commend CEO Andrea Galloway and Evolve Housing for leading in innovation in this area.
"This new initiative demonstrates their dedication and commitment to driving better outcomes and to helping people achieve independence.”
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Not-for-profit national housing provider launched

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
An innovative project designed to house people at risk of homelessness will soon deliver 57 transportable homes across nine sites in Melbourne’s inner west. Victorian Planning Minister Richard Wynne approved the social housing project on Ballarat Road last week. The proponent is Launch Housing, a Victoria-based community organisation that provides housing and homelessness support services.
The addition of 57 dwellings for vulnerable Melburnians is valuable in its own right, particularly given the rapid increase in the numbers of people sleeping rough in Melbourne. However, it is the potential for expanding the concept that makes the project so exciting.
I started researching this project and interviewing the key stakeholders earlier this year. Several elements embedded in the Ballarat Road project represent both innovative and scalable responses to Australia’s urgent social and affordable housing needs.
Elements of an innovative solution
Innovation rarely results in an entirely unprecedented idea, product or service. More often it recombines existing elements in novel ways to create a new solution.
In the Ballarat Road case, all the elements of the project already existed. It is the interaction between the involved partners, the design and construction techniques and the land leasing arrangements that make it so interesting.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193718/original/file-20171108-6758-puky3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The project uses vacant land on Ballarat Road that would otherwise remain unused for several years. Schored Architects
The construction
Schored Architects designed the homes to a six star green rating. The units, designed for singles or couples, will be built in a factory before being transported to the sites.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194071/original/file-20171109-13311-17xgpfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Temporary transportable units are not new. In Amsterdam, the Keetwonnen project was developed in 2005 to provide 1,000 affordable, transportable units for students.
However, prefabrication and modular design is still embryonic in Australia. It accounts for about 3-5% of all new construction and housing.
The size of the industry constrains innovation, competition and variety. It also presents challenges in terms of managing projects. As one participant I spoke to explained: 
"The pre-fab world and modular design world is very much in its infancy … to the point where the prefab – there are no standards around documentation when you purchase a pre-fab home. So what you are using is existing architectural builder’s contracts rather than using something specific …"
It has the complications of ‘How is it transported? How is it stored? Does it meet Australian Building Code standards?’ It opens up that myriad of questions which the pre-fab world hasn’t answered yet.
The partnership
The project is the product of a collaboration between a community organisation, a government transport department (VicRoads) and a philanthropic donor. The connection, born of a series of serendipitous meetings and events, pulls together different resources and skill sets.
This kind of partnership is increasingly common as social housing moves towards a multi-provider system. Instead of a focus on government funded public housing, there is a greater reliance on partnerships between government, philanthropy, the not-for-profit sector and private industry. This requires commercial know-how and networking on the part of housing providers - the capacity to be a “pivot point”. As one participant from Launch Housing explained:
"Once people have locked in and engaged with an idea, they bring their own ideas. You don’t need to know what to ask for … And then it is about being an agency that has some kind of position or authority being a kind of pivot point for these offers and allowing things to happen. We are that."
The project is also significant because it attracted substantial philanthropic support. The Harris family contributed A$4 million and continue to advise on and support the project. For them, the capacity for scaling up the project is a significant factor in supporting it.
The land leasing
This project is an interesting case study because it leases VicRoads land. It is financially viable because the land is being leased at a “peppercorn rate” – a nominal fee to meet legal requirements.
VicRoads is willing to do this because the units are transportable. This means they can be moved to a new site when the land is eventually required for road expansion.
As one of the largest landowners in the state, VicRoads owns thousands of properties and vacant land parcels that have been acquired for future road widening.
A scalable solution
The project is scalable if key elements are assembled effectively: constructed dwellings, funding mechanisms, planning permissions and land.
The capacity to bolster existing factories or create new factories to build pre-fabricated homes exists. Evidence of demand and the success of this pilot project could help support that goal.
Housing projects designed to be affordable for very low-income individuals or households are not financially viable without significant subsidy. To scale up this solution would require government funding, another tranche of philanthropic donation, or a hybrid commercial and not-for-profit structure.
This project has undergone a fraught planning process. Maribyrnong City councillors unanimously supported the plan. But many members of the local community opposed the project, which the planning minister eventually “called in” for assessment.
Ongoing implementation of projects like this one may be supported by either better community engagement or fast-tracked planning processes for underutilised government land and social housing, as highlighted in the state government strategy, Homes for Victorians.
Various government departments, religious groups, philanthropic organisations and individuals manage significant land resources. Land is held vacant in anticipation of future needs, often sitting unused for decades.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86753/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Temporary dwellings could be an interim solution to urgent housing need and can be removed when land is required for other uses. This approach goes a long way to removing the barriers to use and could challenge how we think about vacant land in Australia.
Katrina Raynor, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Transforming Housing Project, 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/portable-units-and-temporary-leases-free-up-vacant-land-for-urgent-housing-needs-86753" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</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