I’m originally from Canberra — a city that I love for its original architecture, layout, and greenery — but as you say, there is a huge pressure to expand, and some of how they are doing that in Canberra is really nice (apartment blocks that look over the lake or interesting higher rise blocks in the city centre and on the north side) but some of it is just so tragic and exactly reminiscent of the first image in this newsletter of the big houses on tiny blocks that are so close together you could reach in and borrow your neighbours shampoo. That style just isn’t in keeping with the Canberra spirit and vernacular, for one, but it also just doesn’t seem like the right way to foster successful and happy communities. It really flummoxes me!
(Can you tell that I am catching up on your newsletter? Two comments within the space of 10 mins haha I appreciate your perspective so much!)
Yes I secretly love Canberra but I do have a lecture that I give called “why Canberra sucks so bad” that touches upon some of the points you raise. Thanks for reading!
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.
I think it’s extremely important for people to understand where these ideas come from in the first place, and perhaps I do have some insights into this. In the US, most housing is provided in one of two forms, single family homes in subdivisions that are governed at least in part by private agreements, or in large so-called garden apartment complexes that can have hundreds of units and are again at least partly governed privately, in this case by a corporate property manager. Incredibly, the later’s residents are not seen as politically important by local officials and are frankly a marginalized group who get little to no influence, and are prone to be subject of criticism and scapegoating. So not surprisingly many officials propose simply banning garden style apartments altogether. Importantly this form is how America provides housing at scale for the working class, and it creates serious dysfunction in the housing market more broadly where it is most difficult to build, like California. This is the context in which private planning consulting firms must market their services. Missing Middle Housing is a marketing tagline first and foremost. This type of development will not provide housing at scale and typically is most viable in urban pre-war neighborhoods that — of course — are usually minority-majority. Further, it leaves existing HOAs and gated communities out of conversation because they are out of the reach of local government. To be fair, a diversity of housing types a desirable thing, but it seems like it is most attractive to affluent young people who are not happy with their life in the suburbs and is not original to people advocating for housing people at scale. Sooooo… if you couldn’t tell, I think the answer is in IN-YOUR-FACE BIG HOUSING.
I’m originally from Canberra — a city that I love for its original architecture, layout, and greenery — but as you say, there is a huge pressure to expand, and some of how they are doing that in Canberra is really nice (apartment blocks that look over the lake or interesting higher rise blocks in the city centre and on the north side) but some of it is just so tragic and exactly reminiscent of the first image in this newsletter of the big houses on tiny blocks that are so close together you could reach in and borrow your neighbours shampoo. That style just isn’t in keeping with the Canberra spirit and vernacular, for one, but it also just doesn’t seem like the right way to foster successful and happy communities. It really flummoxes me!
(Can you tell that I am catching up on your newsletter? Two comments within the space of 10 mins haha I appreciate your perspective so much!)
Yes I secretly love Canberra but I do have a lecture that I give called “why Canberra sucks so bad” that touches upon some of the points you raise. Thanks for reading!
I hope that in your lecture you say that you secretly love it! The world doesn’t need any more people with grudges against it 😋
Ahaha yes I criticise it in a way that only someone who secretly loves it can
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.
I think it’s extremely important for people to understand where these ideas come from in the first place, and perhaps I do have some insights into this. In the US, most housing is provided in one of two forms, single family homes in subdivisions that are governed at least in part by private agreements, or in large so-called garden apartment complexes that can have hundreds of units and are again at least partly governed privately, in this case by a corporate property manager. Incredibly, the later’s residents are not seen as politically important by local officials and are frankly a marginalized group who get little to no influence, and are prone to be subject of criticism and scapegoating. So not surprisingly many officials propose simply banning garden style apartments altogether. Importantly this form is how America provides housing at scale for the working class, and it creates serious dysfunction in the housing market more broadly where it is most difficult to build, like California. This is the context in which private planning consulting firms must market their services. Missing Middle Housing is a marketing tagline first and foremost. This type of development will not provide housing at scale and typically is most viable in urban pre-war neighborhoods that — of course — are usually minority-majority. Further, it leaves existing HOAs and gated communities out of conversation because they are out of the reach of local government. To be fair, a diversity of housing types a desirable thing, but it seems like it is most attractive to affluent young people who are not happy with their life in the suburbs and is not original to people advocating for housing people at scale. Sooooo… if you couldn’t tell, I think the answer is in IN-YOUR-FACE BIG HOUSING.