Firstly I was the guy annoying you on reddit about writing more posts, so i'm glad that you're back. Hope all is well with your new baby as well.
This article gave me a few thoughts.
Firstly i'm glad you mentioned Canberra. I used to live there and thought it was a bit odd that there were detached houses a stone's throw from the centre of town (if you call Civic the centre of town, that's debatable), while out on the outskirts of the newer suburbs (Gungahlin, Belconnen etc) had all the big towers going up. Sort of like an upside down city with density at the edges. Not real logical but it's what they're stuck with.
As for block amalgamation, we use land resumption/compulsory acquisition every time we build another dumb toll road. Could we ever use it for housing? Maybe our politicians aren't capable of selling that to voters, maybe they will when the streets fill up with tents.
Most legislation relating to compulsory acquisition (it varies by State and Territory) generally has a public purpose provision. That is, the compulsory, as opposed to negotiated, acquisition firstly has to pass a public purpose test. I think most politicians and technocrats would find it hard, legally and politically, to start using these powers to compulsorily acquire private property in order to increase density as a public purpose.
The general theory to date is to plan it (increase allowable density through the zoning) and it will come. But as many others have pointed out, most land owners are asset rich, but cash poor. So whether this redevelopment occurs is often left in the hands of a developer, who is often looking for maximum profit, rather than good planning outcomes.
Hello again! I wonder where I’ll see you next? Pornhub comments section perhaps haha
Canberra has at least invested in the light rail project, so there is at least some forethought going into what they’re doing down there.
I can’t say I know a heap about compulsory acquisition but I’ve heard that the legal process in doing so is so expensive, time consuming and fraught that they avoid it as much as possible. This is why the inland rail project is going to travel all the way from Melbourne but stop 40km short of the Port of Brisbane (essentially defeating much of the point of the thing) because plowing through that many suburbs is more trouble than it’s worth.
I think post-car cities are just going to continue to struggle with this type of thing until things get so bad that people will actually vote for change. What would that take? Maybe the average boomer needs to step over someone shooting up in their front yard before they’ll connect the dots - who knows! Next 5-10 years are gonna get bumpy I think.
Good article on what is a complex multi-dimensional problem that I can't see being "fixed" anytime in the near future.
As a (retired) local government planner I often pondered about the range of issues raised here and seen the (non) results of traditional "planning" attempts to solve this problem. I have since come to the view that possibly the current business model has now / is now failing, much like it is failing in many other industries (including the housing construction industry).
So for me the first thing to do is to rethink the whole business model of planning and development. Plan it and they will comes works in some places and not in others, most notably outside of high value redevelopment places. Secondly we have gone done the path of developers being the faucet through which all things must flow, of which LG and the community have no leverage to influence / control (i.e. market segmentation and design etc). Thirdly and in my experience, the missing middle has more to do with the people not mentioned here - the actual land owners who either resist or feel they have no role in possibly sharing in the benefits of any such redevelopment - it is hard yakka trying to convince local residence that redevelopment is in THEIR interests.
My more radical proposal is that planning and development takes on a more co-operative model that involves LG, land owners, people interested in buying into any such redevelopment and developers. It means a move away from the zoning approach and towards a negotiated approach (i.e. a general zone that allows for minimum use rights, BUT Council is prepared to upzone the area on the basis of a negotiated Plan of Development that will have a set of interested parties who have a say in the type of housing they want (i.e. mixed) and possibly design elements, existing residents can buy back into the redevelopment if that is their want or walk away on a scheduled buy out, LG get to nut out planning and infrastructure issues through the negotiated approval and developers can then become tender bidders for actually doing the work based on a higher degree of certainty. It it radical and it will naturally attract resistance because at present developers hold all (well most of) the aces. But if my premise is right (the business model is broken), then we need to try something different and not just play around at the edges.
I also forgot to mention, that LG have a potential role to be more hands on here. They need to get in and get their hands dirty and work as a honest broker between developers, land owners and potentially future buyers. It is not a role they will willingly walk towards, but I think it is vitally necessary.
For instance, imagine if they set up a register of interested parties who want to live in such re-developed areas they can start to work with these people to talk through housing needs issues, special needs, intention to commit and potentially become a quasi bank for taking deposits that go towards financing the development and buying out existing residents in a timely manner (i.e. staging). That last one will possibly come up against some regulatory hurdles, but IMHO not insurmountable if structured right.
From time to time I have see overseas and local reporting of something similar, but not exactly, how I envisage it.
I am yet to sit down and work it through completely because as you would expect, it would be more complex that what I could outline here and it extends well beyond just town planning. But, simplistically, the standard zones as prescribed by State Legislation could be expanded to include a new "Redevelopment Zone" or "Missing Middle Zone" if you want to sex it up (as far as TP is sexy). Use rights are scaled right back (possible compensation issues) and any Material Change of Use is by negotiation. Perhaps the Code (for each specific precinct) will set out broad planning and infrastructure parameters that must be considered and possible acceptable solutions. From there it is all up for negotiations - innovating ideas are welcomed and should be encouraged. But developers are a funny breed they want both certainty (zoning and use rights) and flexibility (innovation) both at the same time.
I must admit that in my model, LG are in a tricky position in being both the regulator and an honest broker. That is why I am leaning more towards Council doing real local area planning in consultation with residents AND future residents to develop more concrete proposals, that could then be put out to developers for tender. Council can, through an in house specialist team, resolve most of the issues to its satisfaction and then say to a range of developers - here is an as of right development right here - best tender wins and lock them in tight in the contract.
Another great article, thanks! I'm always very impressed by your work and learn a lot from your thoughts. You'll have a book soon!
Thank you that’s so nice! I’m so impressed by people who can actually write a whole book. My attention span is completely fried haha - maybe one day.
hmmmm much to think about.
Firstly I was the guy annoying you on reddit about writing more posts, so i'm glad that you're back. Hope all is well with your new baby as well.
This article gave me a few thoughts.
Firstly i'm glad you mentioned Canberra. I used to live there and thought it was a bit odd that there were detached houses a stone's throw from the centre of town (if you call Civic the centre of town, that's debatable), while out on the outskirts of the newer suburbs (Gungahlin, Belconnen etc) had all the big towers going up. Sort of like an upside down city with density at the edges. Not real logical but it's what they're stuck with.
As for block amalgamation, we use land resumption/compulsory acquisition every time we build another dumb toll road. Could we ever use it for housing? Maybe our politicians aren't capable of selling that to voters, maybe they will when the streets fill up with tents.
Most legislation relating to compulsory acquisition (it varies by State and Territory) generally has a public purpose provision. That is, the compulsory, as opposed to negotiated, acquisition firstly has to pass a public purpose test. I think most politicians and technocrats would find it hard, legally and politically, to start using these powers to compulsorily acquire private property in order to increase density as a public purpose.
The general theory to date is to plan it (increase allowable density through the zoning) and it will come. But as many others have pointed out, most land owners are asset rich, but cash poor. So whether this redevelopment occurs is often left in the hands of a developer, who is often looking for maximum profit, rather than good planning outcomes.
Hello again! I wonder where I’ll see you next? Pornhub comments section perhaps haha
Canberra has at least invested in the light rail project, so there is at least some forethought going into what they’re doing down there.
I can’t say I know a heap about compulsory acquisition but I’ve heard that the legal process in doing so is so expensive, time consuming and fraught that they avoid it as much as possible. This is why the inland rail project is going to travel all the way from Melbourne but stop 40km short of the Port of Brisbane (essentially defeating much of the point of the thing) because plowing through that many suburbs is more trouble than it’s worth.
I think post-car cities are just going to continue to struggle with this type of thing until things get so bad that people will actually vote for change. What would that take? Maybe the average boomer needs to step over someone shooting up in their front yard before they’ll connect the dots - who knows! Next 5-10 years are gonna get bumpy I think.
Good article on what is a complex multi-dimensional problem that I can't see being "fixed" anytime in the near future.
As a (retired) local government planner I often pondered about the range of issues raised here and seen the (non) results of traditional "planning" attempts to solve this problem. I have since come to the view that possibly the current business model has now / is now failing, much like it is failing in many other industries (including the housing construction industry).
So for me the first thing to do is to rethink the whole business model of planning and development. Plan it and they will comes works in some places and not in others, most notably outside of high value redevelopment places. Secondly we have gone done the path of developers being the faucet through which all things must flow, of which LG and the community have no leverage to influence / control (i.e. market segmentation and design etc). Thirdly and in my experience, the missing middle has more to do with the people not mentioned here - the actual land owners who either resist or feel they have no role in possibly sharing in the benefits of any such redevelopment - it is hard yakka trying to convince local residence that redevelopment is in THEIR interests.
My more radical proposal is that planning and development takes on a more co-operative model that involves LG, land owners, people interested in buying into any such redevelopment and developers. It means a move away from the zoning approach and towards a negotiated approach (i.e. a general zone that allows for minimum use rights, BUT Council is prepared to upzone the area on the basis of a negotiated Plan of Development that will have a set of interested parties who have a say in the type of housing they want (i.e. mixed) and possibly design elements, existing residents can buy back into the redevelopment if that is their want or walk away on a scheduled buy out, LG get to nut out planning and infrastructure issues through the negotiated approval and developers can then become tender bidders for actually doing the work based on a higher degree of certainty. It it radical and it will naturally attract resistance because at present developers hold all (well most of) the aces. But if my premise is right (the business model is broken), then we need to try something different and not just play around at the edges.
I also forgot to mention, that LG have a potential role to be more hands on here. They need to get in and get their hands dirty and work as a honest broker between developers, land owners and potentially future buyers. It is not a role they will willingly walk towards, but I think it is vitally necessary.
For instance, imagine if they set up a register of interested parties who want to live in such re-developed areas they can start to work with these people to talk through housing needs issues, special needs, intention to commit and potentially become a quasi bank for taking deposits that go towards financing the development and buying out existing residents in a timely manner (i.e. staging). That last one will possibly come up against some regulatory hurdles, but IMHO not insurmountable if structured right.
Thanks Neil - very interesting ideas. Are you aware of anywhere that has tried these negotiated agreement type strategies? Would love to hear more.
Do you think that LGs would have the power to do this now? Or would it require some kind of planning scheme amendment?
From time to time I have see overseas and local reporting of something similar, but not exactly, how I envisage it.
I am yet to sit down and work it through completely because as you would expect, it would be more complex that what I could outline here and it extends well beyond just town planning. But, simplistically, the standard zones as prescribed by State Legislation could be expanded to include a new "Redevelopment Zone" or "Missing Middle Zone" if you want to sex it up (as far as TP is sexy). Use rights are scaled right back (possible compensation issues) and any Material Change of Use is by negotiation. Perhaps the Code (for each specific precinct) will set out broad planning and infrastructure parameters that must be considered and possible acceptable solutions. From there it is all up for negotiations - innovating ideas are welcomed and should be encouraged. But developers are a funny breed they want both certainty (zoning and use rights) and flexibility (innovation) both at the same time.
I must admit that in my model, LG are in a tricky position in being both the regulator and an honest broker. That is why I am leaning more towards Council doing real local area planning in consultation with residents AND future residents to develop more concrete proposals, that could then be put out to developers for tender. Council can, through an in house specialist team, resolve most of the issues to its satisfaction and then say to a range of developers - here is an as of right development right here - best tender wins and lock them in tight in the contract.