Architecture, Building and Planning - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18
-
ItemAgile housing for an ageing Australia(The Architectural Science Association and The University of Adelaide, 2016)By 2055, Australia’s 65+ population will have doubled and, if current strategies are followed, it is likely that the housing available will be inappropriate. Today’s housing stock will still be in use yet few developers and designers are capitalising on the potential of agile housing and, more broadly, the creation of age-friendly neighbourhoods. Current changes in design and prefabrication technology, along with government initiatives for ageing at home in preference to institutional care, have the potential to transform the way we consider housing design to support changing demographics. This research considers agile housing for an ageing population from the perspectives of urban planning, design, prefabrication, sustainability, life-cycle costing and social gerontology. We highlight the need for interdisciplinary perspectives in order to consider how entrenched policy, planning, design and construction practices can be encouraged to change through advocacy, design speculation and scenario testing to deliver right-sized housing. A cradle-to-grave perspective requires the exploration of the social and practical benefits of housing in multigenerational communities. This research links to concurrent work on affordable housing solutions and the potential of an industry, government and academic partnership to present an Australian Housing Exposition, that will highlight the possibilities of a more agile housing approach.
-
ItemCollaborative Governance for Affordable Housing in Toronto and Melbourne(Queen's University Library, 2020-10-01)Policy formation and implementation have largely shifted from a top-down government-led process, to a collaborative governance approach characterised by complex and opaque partnerships, weakly steered by the state. We use 36 interviews, undertaken in Toronto and Melbourne between 2015 and 2018, to assess procedural accountability in these two cities: the extent to which policy outputs developed through a partnership approach are fair, transparent, rational, and intentional. We find that both cities fail the basics of procedural accountability, and that there is little shared understanding amongst key partners – local and provincial/state policymakers, non-profit and private sector housing providers, and philanthropic and private sector finance providers – about the definition and missing quantum of affordable housing, let alone a sense of how to move forward.
-
ItemHow intersectoral policy networks shape affordable housing outcomes(Taylor & Francis (Routledge), 2020-01-01)Affordable housing policy is increasingly formulated and delivered through complex policy networks comprised of state, not-for-profit and for-profit actors. While these arrangements may generate new ideas and create space for more democratic decision-making, international case studies have shown that the devolution of policy responsibility has resulted in increasingly marketised housing solutions and reduced support for low income households. Policy network literature presents a valuable lens for analysing the degree to which state and non-state actors are capable of and willing to shape policy discourses and outcomes. This paper presents a new conceptual framework and typology for interpreting policy networks, identifying integrated vertical governance, advocacy coalitions and agenda setting and shared understandings as central to housing policy and outcomes. Drawing on 54 interviews conducted with members of affordable housing policy networks in Melbourne, Toronto, Vancouver, and Portland, the paper also provides a longitudinal, comparative analysis of policy networks in these cities. We provide insights into the implications of ‘hollowed out’ governance structures characterised by limited internal capacity and steering power. We also comment on the relative success of each city’s network in advocating for increased affordable housing outcomes.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableThe City Under COVID-19: Podcasting As Digital Methodology(WILEY, 2020-06-09)This critical commentary reflects on a rapidly mobilised international podcast project, in which 25 urban scholars from around the world provided audio recordings about their cities during COVID-19. New digital tools are increasing the speeds, formats and breadth of the research and communication mediums available to researchers. Voice recorders on mobile phones and digital audio editing on laptops allows researchers to collaborate in new ways, and this podcast project pushed at the boundaries of what a research method and community might be. Many of those who provided short audio 'reports from the field' recorded on their mobile phones were struggling to make sense of their experience in their city during COVID-19. The substantive sections of this commentary discuss the digital methodology opportunities that podcasting affords geographical scholarship. In this case the methodology includes the curated production of the podcast and critical reflection on the podcast process through collaborative writing. Then putting this methodology into action some limited reflections on cities under COVID-19 lockdown and social distancing initiatives around the world are provided to demonstrate the utility and limitations of this method.
-
ItemThe National Disability Insurance Scheme in an Urban Context: Opportunities and Challenges for Australian Cities(Taylor & Francis (Routledge), 2019-01-02)The NDIS will directly affect the lives of close to half a million people with a disability as well as their formal and informal support providers. In doing so, the $22 billion per annum scheme will have significantly wider impacts on Australian cities. This review paper examines the urban policy and practice context for the NDIS and provides a research agenda for examining the challenges and opportunities the scheme brings. We examine a set of urban policy domains, including housing, employment, governance, mainstream services (particularly health and education) and multiculturalism. We argue that the current Australian urban condition is hardly ideal for the implementation of such an ambitious scheme. Yet, the NDIS will enhance the support available for greater participation of people with disabilities in their communities, and with appropriate adjustments to mainstream urban policy the scheme can make important positive contributions to the social, cultural and economic thriving of Australian cities.
-
ItemCan Australian governments steer ‘just intensification’? Evaluating Victorian affordable housing policy(Australian Cities Research Network, 2018)Over the past two decades, Australian planning policies have supported largely unregulated land speculation and gentrification in relatively well served inner and middle suburbs, leading to displacement of low and moderate income households and growing spatial inequalities. The current Victorian state government signalled a new direction by ‘refreshing’ the third metropolitan strategy in as many decades, Plan Melbourne (2014/2017), with an increased emphasis on ‘diverse housing close to jobs, transport and services. It also established a new independent infrastructure advisory body that defined social housing as an infrastructure priority, and developed a ‘whole of government’ affordable housing strategy. Through a content analysis of Plan Melbourne, along with the two associated recent strategies, this paper asks whether they provide sufficient regulatory, governance and finance mechanisms to address and potentially reverse the trend towards greater social polarisation. We conclude that absence of a coherent vision, strong evidence base, coordinated partnership mechanisms, and ambitious targets combine to make progress towards more just intensification unlikely.
-
ItemTransformational Infrastructure Projects In Australia’s Fast Growing Outer Suburbs(Centre for Urban Research (CUR) RMIT University, 2018)The Fast Growing Outer Suburbs of Australia’s capital cities are home to nearly 5 million people. Growing at double the national rate, their population will grow to 7.5 million buy 2031. Between 2011 and 2016 these suburbs generated 35% of population growth and 25% of job growth but only 13% of jobs and 11% of GDP. Infrastructure is central to economic growth, and investment in the right projects can help to bridge this gap between population and employment. However, between 2011 and 2016 growth areas received only 13% of infrastructure investment and the infrastructure backlog in growth areas will reach $70 billion within 15 years. The need for economic and employment growth and the growing backlog highlight the need for the development of productive and transformational infrastructure in Australia’s growth areas. The infrastructure shortfall combined with high population growth has produced a range of economic and social issues in high growth local government areas, including: • The quality and quantity of local employment opportunities; • Access to employment in other locations, which is associated with long commuting times, high car dependency and the standard of public transport provision; • The quality, diversity and affordability of housing; and • Social cohesion, liveability, culture and amenity, including access to education, health care, and cultural, entertainment and sporting facilities. At the same time, the fast-growing outer suburbs are in demographic and economic transition, providing opportunities to shift thinking on the role of the outer suburbs in our cities., yet population growth is still outpacing jobs and infrastructure growth. Local economies and communities are responding to these issues, but targeted investments supported by commonwealth and state governments are vital in transforming growth areas and improving the lives of this growing population.
-
ItemUrban liveability: Emerging lessons from Australia for exploring the potential for indicators to measure the social determinants of health(PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, 2014-06)It has long been recognised that urban form impacts on health outcomes and their determinants. There is growing interest in creating indicators of liveability to measure progress towards achieving a wide range of policy outcomes, including enhanced health and wellbeing, and reduced inequalities. This review aimed to: 1) bring together the concepts of urban 'liveability' and social determinants of health; 2) synthesise the various liveability indicators developed to date; and 3) assess their quality using a health and wellbeing lens. Between 2011 and 2013, the research team reviewed 114 international academic and policy documents, as well as reports related to urban liveability. Overall, 233 indicators were found. Of these, 61 indicators were regarded as promising, 57 indicators needed further development, and 115 indicators were not useful for our purposes. Eleven domains of liveability were identified that likely contribute to health and wellbeing through the social determinants of health. These were: crime and safety; education; employment and income; health and social services; housing; leisure and culture; local food and other goods; natural environment; public open space; transport; and social cohesion and local democracy. Many of the indicators came from Australian sources; however most remain relevant from a 'global north' perspective. Although many indicators were identified, there was inconsistency in how these domains were measured. Few have been validated to assess their association with health and wellbeing outcomes, and little information was provided for how they should be applied to guide urban policy and practice. There is a substantial opportunity to further develop these measures to create a series of robust and evidence-based liveability indices, which could be linked with existing health and wellbeing data to better inform urban planning policies within Australia and beyond.
-
ItemVertical living kids: creating supportive environments for children in Melbourne's central city high rises(Australian Sustainable Cities Research Network, 2009)
-
ItemFrom accidental planner to agent provocateur: 100 years of women in Victorian planning(University of Melbourne, 2010)