Processes for Developing Affordable and Sustainable Medium
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Processes for developing affordable and sustainable medium-density housing models for greyfield precincts authored by Shane Murray, Nigel Bertram, Lee-Anne Khor, Deborah Rowe, Byron Meyer, Catherine Murphy, Peter Newton, Stephen Glackin, Tom Alves and Rob McGauran for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute at Monash University January 2015 AHURI Final Report No. 236 ISSN: 1834-7223 ISBN: 978-1-922075-75-8 Authors Murray, Shane Monash University Bertram, Nigel Monash University Khor, Lee-Anne Monash University Rowe, Deborah Monash University Meyer, Byron Monash University Murphy, Catherine Monash University Newton, Peter Swinburne University of Technology Glackin, Stephen Swinburne University of Technology Office of Victorian Government Alves, Tom Architect McGauran, Rob MGS Architects Processes for developing affordable and sustainable medium- Title density housing models for greyfield precincts ISBN 978-1-922075-75-8 Format PDF Infill, precinct redevelopment, middle suburbs, greyfields, social Key words housing, design research Editor Anne Badenhorst AHURI National Office Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Publisher Melbourne, Australia Series AHURI Final Report; no. 236 ISSN 1834-7223 Murray, S., Bertram, N., Khor, L., Rowe, D., Meyer, B., Murphy, C. Newton, P., Glackin, S., Alves, T. and McGauran, R. (2015) Processes for developing affordable and sustainable medium- density housing models for greyfield precincts, AHURI Final Preferred citation Report No.236. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. Available from: <http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/52012>. [Add the date that you accessed this report: DD MM YYYY]. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This material was produced with funding from the Australian Government and the Australian state and territory governments. AHURI Limited gratefully acknowledges the financial and other support it has received from these governments, without which this work would not have been possible. AHURI comprises a network of university Research Centres across Australia. Research Centre contributions, both financial and in-kind, have made the completion of this report possible. The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Human Services in Victoria for supplying geo-spatial data of public housing assets in metropolitan Melbourne for the purposes of this research (DHS 2012). It is noted that the research has been independently conducted by the authors and the outcomes contained in this report do not reflect the opinions or policies of the Victorian Government. The authors would like to further acknowledge the contribution of Roger Dench (Dench Analytics) for his collaboration with the Monash Architecture Studio to model the impact of the proposed greyfield precincts over time; Kerry O’Neill for her advice and direction in structuring the community engagement processes; Rutger Pasman for his teaching assistance during the architectural design studio and support during the community engagement events; and the cohort of Monash Architecture students who worked tirelessly with the research team to generate compelling design ideas, visual material and physical models for presentation and discussion with the local communities in each study area. Student participants included: Lara Pannuzzo, Michael Truong, Emilia Fabris, Radoslaw Buczek, Sophie Weber, Gretel Stent, Michael Bradey, Stacey Epstein, Beshara Taouk, Nancy Iosofidis, Sera Borensztajn, James Kladouris, Ellie Kirk, Miranda Keogh and Joel Grey. DISCLAIMER AHURI Limited is an independent, non-political body which has supported this project as part of its program of research into housing and urban development, which it hopes will be of value to policy-makers, researchers, industry and communities. The opinions in this publication reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of AHURI Limited, its Board or its funding organisations. No responsibility is accepted by AHURI Limited or its Board or its funders for the accuracy or omission of any statement, opinion, advice or information in this publication. AHURI FINAL REPORT SERIES AHURI Final Reports is a refereed series presenting the results of original research to a diverse readership of policy-makers, researchers and practitioners. PEER REVIEW STATEMENT An objective assessment of all reports published in the AHURI Final Report Series by carefully selected experts in the field ensures that material of the highest quality is published. The AHURI Final Report Series employs a double-blind peer review of the full Final Report where anonymity is strictly observed between authors and referees. ii CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... VI LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................VII ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ X EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Research methods ............................................................................................. 10 1.3 Structure of this report ........................................................................................ 11 2 STRATEGIC REDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF PUBLIC HOUSING LAND IN THE MIDDLE SUBURBS .............................................................................. 12 2.1 Redeveloping the greyfields ............................................................................... 12 2.2 Barriers to design innovation: business as usual infill housing in greyfields ........ 14 2.2.1 Standard industry practice ........................................................................ 15 2.2.2 Extant planning controls ............................................................................ 15 2.2.3 Market demand ......................................................................................... 15 2.2.4 Community resistance .............................................................................. 16 2.2.5 Short and long-term viability imperatives ................................................... 17 2.3 Dispersed public housing stock: a timely opportunity ......................................... 18 2.3.1 Case study: Ashwood Chadstone Gateway Project .................................. 19 3 STAGE 1: DESIGN INNOVATIONS DELIVERED UNDER THE NATION BUILDING ECONOMIC STIMULUS PLAN—SOCIAL HOUSING INITIATIVE .. 21 3.1 Method ............................................................................................................... 21 3.2 Research findings .............................................................................................. 22 3.2.1 Methods of procurement ........................................................................... 22 3.2.2 Urban location ........................................................................................... 23 3.2.3 Design innovations .................................................................................... 23 3.2.4 Business-as-usual housing outcomes ....................................................... 24 3.3 Identifying design innovations delivered under the SHI ...................................... 24 4 STAGE 2: SURVEY OF PUBLIC HOUSING LAND HOLDINGS IN METROPOLITAN MELBOURNE....................................................................... 29 4.1 Method ............................................................................................................... 29 4.2 Research findings .............................................................................................. 32 4.2.1 Factors influencing precinct selections ...................................................... 33 4.3 Selection of two study areas for comparative design investigations ................... 38 5 STAGE 3: SCENARIOS FOR PRECINCT REDEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC HOUSING LAND IN MELBOURNE’S MIDDLE SUBURBS ............................... 49 5.1 Masters of Architecture design studio and community consultation .................... 49 5.1.1 Masters of Architecture design studio ....................................................... 49 5.1.2 Community engagement ........................................................................... 51 5.1.3 Findings .................................................................................................... 52 5.1.4 Study Area A ............................................................................................. 54 iii 5.1.5 Study Area B ............................................................................................. 55 5.1.6 The benefits of community engagement ................................................... 56 5.2 Coordinated precinct designs ............................................................................. 57 5.2.1 Precinct design objectives ......................................................................... 57 5.2.2 Precinct types ........................................................................................... 58 5.2.3 Precinct design #1: Park edge, Study Area A (1) ...................................... 59 5.2.4 Precinct