Infrastructure charges and increases to new house prices : a preliminary analysis of the US empirical models

Sourcing appropriate funding for the provision of new urban infrastructure has been a policy dilemma for governments around the world for decades. This is particularly relevant in high growth areas where new services are required to support swelling populations. The Australian infrastructure funding policy dilemmas are reflective of similar matters in many countries, particularly the United States of America, where infrastructure cost recovery policies have been in place since the 1970’s. There is an extensive body of both theoretical and empirical literature from these countries that discusses the passing on (to home buyers) of these infrastructure charges, and the corresponding impact on housing prices. The theoretical evidence is consistent in its findings that infrastructure charges are passed on to home buyers by way of higher house prices. The empirical evidence is also consistent in its findings, with “overshifting” of these charges evident in all models since the 1980’s, i.e. $1 infrastructure charge results in greater than $1 increase in house prices. However, despite over a dozen separate studies over two decades in the US on this topic, no empirical works have been carried out in Australia to test if similar shifting or overshifting occurs here. The purpose of this research is to conduct a preliminary analysis of the more recent models used in these US empirical studies in order to identify the key study area selection criteria and success factors. The paper concludes that many of the study area selection criteria are implicit rather than explicit. By collecting data across the models, some implicit criteria become apparent, whilst others remain elusive. This data will inform future research on whether an existing model can be adopted or adapted for use in Australia.

Challenges of Measuring Learning Outcomes for Property Students Engaged in Work Integrated Learning

Work integrated learning (WIL) or professional practice units are recognised as providing learning experiences that help students make successful transitions to professional practice. These units require students to engage in learning in the workplace; to reflect on this learning; and to integrate it with learning at university. However, an analysis of a recent cohort of property economics students at a large urban university provides evidence that there is great variation in work based learning experiences undertaken and that this impacts on students’capacity to respond to assessment tasks which involve critiquing these experiences in the form of reflective reports. This paper highlights the need to recognise the diversity of work based experiences; the impact this has on learning outcomes; and to find more effective and equitable ways of measuring these outcomes. The paper briefly discusses assessing learning outcomes in WIL and then describes the model of WIL in the Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The paper elaborates on the diversity of students’ experiences and backgrounds including variations in the length of work experience, placement opportunities and conditions of employment.For example, the analysis shows that students with limited work experience often have difficulty critiquing this work experience and producing high level reflective reports. On the other hand students with extensive, discipline relevant work experience can be frustrated by assessment requirements that do not take their experience into account. Added to this the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has restricted both part time and full time placement opportunities for some students. These factors affect students’ capacity to a) secure a relevant work experience, b) reflect critically on the work experiences and c) appreciate the impact the overall experience can have on their learning outcomes and future professional opportunities. Our investigation highlights some of the challenges faced in implementing effective and equitable approaches across diverse student cohorts. We suggest that increased flexibility in assessment requirements and increased feedback from industry may help address these challenges.

Land use planning for privatized airports

Problem, research strategy, and findings: The privatization of airports in Australia included airport property development rights, regulated only by federal, not local, land use control. Airports then developed commercial and retail centers outside local community plans, resulting in a history of poor coordination of planning and reflecting strong differences between public and private values in the role of the airport. Private owners embraced the concept of an Airport City, envisioning the airport as a portal of global infrastructure, whereas public planning agencies are struggling with infrastructure coordination and the development of real estate outside of the local planning regulations. Stakeholder workshops were conducted in each of the cases where key stakeholders from airports, regulating agencies, state and local governments participated in identifying key issues impacting the planning in and around airports. This research demonstrates that if modes of infrastructure provision change significantly (such as through privatization of public services), that transformation would best be accompanied by comprehensive changes in planning regimes to accommodate metropolitan and airport interdependencies. Privatization has exacerbated the poor coordination of planning in the past, and a focus on coordination between public and private infrastructure planning is needed to overcome differences in values and interests. Takeaway for practice: Governance styles differ considerably between public agencies and private corporations. Planners should understand the drivers and value differences to better coordinate infrastructure delivery and effective planning. Research support: The Airport Metropolis Research Project under the Australian Research Council's Linkage Projects funding scheme (LP0775225).

Threshold concepts in property education : a case study

First year Property Economics students enrolled in the Bachelor of Urban Development at QUT are required to undertake a number of compulsory subjects, alongside students undertaking studies in other disciplines. One such common unit is ‘Stewardship of Land’, an interdisciplinary unit that introduces students to the characteristics of land and land tenure with a focus on land use and property rights. It covers a range of issues including: native title, land contamination, heritage values, alternative uses, the property development process, impact of environmental and social factors, and the management of land, both urban and regional. Teaching such a diverse content to a diverse audience has in previous years proved difficult, from the perspectives of relevance, engagement and content overload. In 2011 a project was undertake to redevelop this unit to reflect ‘threshold concepts’, concepts that are “transformative, probably irreversible, integrative, often troublesome and probably bounded” (Meyer & Land, 2003) . This project involved the development of a new set of underlying concepts students should draw from the unit, application of these to the unit curriculum, and a survey of the student response to these changes. This paper reports on the threshold concepts developed for this unit, the changes this made to the unit curriculum, and a preliminary report on survey responses. Recommendations for other educators seeking to incorporate threshold concepts into their curricula are provided.

Considering research enquiry into biophilic urbanism and office worker productivity

In cities, people spend a significant portion of their time indoors, much of which is in office buildings. The quality and nature of these spaces have the potential to be a strong determinant of people’s health and wellbeing. There is a body of evidence that suggests experiences of nature increase the rate of attention recovery, reduce stress, depression and anxiety, and increase cognitive abilities. Further, the presence of nature inside buildings (such as pot plants and internal green walls) can improve indoor air quality, potentially reducing illness and increasing cognitive function. Urban design that integrates nature into the built environment to provide these benefits, among others, is called ‘biophilic urbanism’ and is the subject of growing international interest and research. The potential for these benefits to increase worker productivity in office buildings is of particular interest, as this could significantly increase the financial performance of office building-based organisations. However, productivity is a complex concept that is difficult to define, and affected by a multitude of factors, which make it difficult to measure. This inability to quantify productivity increases from investments in nature- experiences in office buildings is currently a significant barrier to such investments. Within this context, this paper considers opportunities for research to explore the relationship between office-based nature experiences and productivity, by reviewing existing research in this field and reflecting on the authors’ own experiences. This review has a particular focus on the importance of quantifying this link in order to encourage private property owners to voluntarily integrate nature into buildings to provide city-wide ecosystem service benefits. The paper begins with a contextual overview of how biophilic urbanism can potentially increase worker productivity. Existing methods of measuring and evaluating the performance of biophilic urbanism within the context of office buildings are then explored, along with a discussion of issues with such methods that are currently limiting investment in biophilic urbanism to increase worker productivity and wellbeing. This includes a summary of a survey within a Perth office building to explore the impact of views of nature through a window. Drawing on these insights, the paper makes recommendations regarding opportunities for focusing future investigations to enhance understanding of how biophilic urbanism can contribute to increased wellbeing and productivity in office buildings. This paper builds on work conducted as part of the Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre Project 1.5, Harnessing the Potential of Biophilic Urbanism in Australia, which considered the role of nature integrated into the built environment in responding to emerging challenges of climate change, resource shortages and population pressures, while providing a host of co- benefits to a range of stakeholders.

How does access to development finance shape our cities?

In market economies the built environment is largely the product of private sector property development. Property development is a high-risk entrepreneurial activity executing expensive projects with long gestation periods in an uncertain environment and into an uncertain future. Risk lies at the core of development: the developer manages the multiple risks of development and it is the capital injection and financing that is placed at risk. From the developer's perspective the search for development capital is a quest: to access more finance, over a longer term, with fewer conditions and at lower rates. From the supply angle, capital of various sources - banks, insurance companies, superannuation funds, accumulated firm profits, retail investors and private equity - is always seeking above market returns for limited risk. Property development presents one potentially lucrative, but risky, investment opportunity. Competition for returns on capital produces a continual dynamic evolution of methods for funding property developments. And thus the relationship between capital and development and the outcomes for the built environment are in a restless continual evolution. Little is documented about the ways development is financed in Australia and even less of the consequences for cities. Using publicly available data sources and examples of different development financing from Australian practice, this paper argues that different methods of financing development have different outcomes and consequences for the built environment. This paper also presents an agenda for further research into these themes.

Can playing Monopoly™ enhance learning for property students

This paper outlines the initial results from a pilot study into the educational use of the board game Monopoly City™ in a first year property economics unit. This game play was introduced as a fun and interactive way of achieving a number of desired outcomes including: enhanced engagement of first year students; introduction of foundational threshold concepts in property education; introduction of problem solving and critical analysis skills; early acculturation of property students to enhance student retention; and early team building within the Property Economics cohort, all in an engaging and entertaining way. Preliminary results in this research project are encouraging. The students participating in this initial cycle have demonstrated explicit linkages between their Monopoly City™ experiences and foundation urban economic and valuation theories. Students are also recognising the role strategy and chance play in the property sector. However, linking Monopoly City™ activities to assessment has proved important in student attendance and hence engagement.

The land hoarding and land inspector dilemma in China : an evolutionary game theoretic perspective

China has experienced considerable economic growth since 1978, which was accompanied by unprecedented growth in urbanization and, more recently, by associated rising urban housing and land banking issues. One such issue is that of land hoarding - where real estate developers purchase land to hold unused in the rising market for a future lucrative sale, often several years later. This practice is outlawed in China, where land use is controlled by increasingly strengthened Government policies and inspectors. Despite this, land hoarding continues apace, with the main culprits being the developers and inspectors working subversively. This resembles a game between two players - the inspector and the developer - which provides the setting for this paper in developing an evolutionary game theory model to provide insights into dealing with the dilemmas faced by the players. The logic and dilemma of land banking strategy and illegal land banking issues are analysed, along with the land inspector’s role from a game theory perspective by determining the replication dynamic mechanism and evolutionary stable strategies under the various conditions that the players face. The major factors influencing the actions of land inspectors, on the other hand, are the costs of inspection, no matter if it is strict or indolent, conflict costs, and income and penalties from corruption. From this, it is shown that, when the net loss for corruption (income from corruption minus the penalties for corruption and cost of strict inspections) is less than the cost of strict inspections, the final evolutionary stable strategy of the inspectors is to carry out indolent inspections. Then, whether penalising developers for hoarding is severe or not, the evolutionary strategy for the developer is to hoard. The implications for land use control mechanisms and associated developer-inspector actions and counteractions are then examined in the light of the model's properties.

A new approach to presales?

The traditional residential development process uses pre-sales to manage risk and lock in demand so that development financiers can be kept happy. However, obtaining the requisite level of presales is an expensive business, a cost that is ultimately borne by the new home buyer. With housing affordability at the front of everyone’s mind, we ask: is there a better way? How can housing be supplied more innovatively? A research collaboration between QUT, Swinburne Social Research Unit and the Office of the Victorian Government has been investigating this very issue.

Developer charges and housing affordabilty in Brisbane, Australia

Purpose - This paper empirically examines the effect of developer charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia. Developer paid fees or charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to pay for new urban infrastructure. Despite numerous government reports and many years of industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify passing on of these charges to home buyers. Design/methodology/approach - This research applies a hedonic house price model to 4,699 new and 25,053 existing house sales in Brisbane from 2005 to 2011. Findings – The findings of is research are consistent with international studies that support the proposition that developer charges are over passed. This study has provided evidence that suggest developer charges are over passed to both new and existing homes in the order of around 400%. Research limitations/implications - These findings suggest that developer charges are thus a significant contributor to increasing house prices and reduced housing affordability. Practical/Social Implications: By testing this effect on both new and existing homes, this research provides evidence in support of the proposition that not only are developer charges over passed to new home buyers but also to buyers of existing homes. Thus the price inflationary effect of these developer charges are being felt by all home buyers across the community, resulting in increased mortgage repayments of close to $1000 per month. Originality/value - This is the first study to empirically examine the impact of developer charges on house prices in Australia. These results are important as they will inform governments on the outcomes of growth management strategies on housing affordability, providing the first evidence of its kind in Australia.

An Uber for apartments could solve some common housing problems

Speculative property developers, criticised for building dog boxes and the slums of tomorrow, are generally hated by urban planners and the public alike. But the doors of state governments are seemingly always open to developers and their lobbyists. Politicians find it hard to say no to the demands of the development industry for concessions because of the contribution housing construction makes to the economic bottom line and because there is a need for well located housing. New supply is also seen as a solution to declining housing affordability. Classical economic theory however is too simplistic for housing supply. Instead, an offshoot of Game Theory - Market Design – not only offers greater insight into apartment supply but also can simultaneously address price, design and quality issues. New research reveals the most significant risk in residential development is settlement risk – when buyers fail to proceed with their purchase despite there being a pre-sale contract. At the point of settlement, the developer has expended all the project funds only to see forecast revenue evaporate. While new buyers may be found, this process is likely to strip the profitability out of the project. As the global financial crisis exposed, buyers are inclined to walk if property values slide. This settlement problem reflects a poor legal mechanism (the pre-sale contract), and a lack of incentive for truthfulness. A second problem is the search costs of finding buyers. At around 10% of project costs, pre-sales are more expensive to developers than finance. This is where Market Design comes in.

Submission to Senate Economics References Committee, An Inquiry in to Affordable Housing

Developer paid fees or infrastructure charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to pay for new infrastructure. However, property developers claim that these costs are merely passed on to home buyers, with adverse effects to housing affordability. Despite numerous government reports and many years of industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify this passing on effect to home buyers and the consequent effect on housing affordability. Hence there remains no data from which governments can base policy decision on, and the debate continues. This research examines the question of the impact of infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Australia. It employs hedonic regression methods to estimate the impact of infrastructure charges on house prices and vacant lot prices in Brisbane, Australia during 2005-2011, using a data set of 29,752 house sales, comprising 4,699 new house sales and 25,053 existing house sales and 13,739 lot sales. The regression results for the effect of infrastructure charges on house prices in Brisbane indicated that for every $1.00 of infrastructure charge levied on developers, all house prices increase by $3.69 or a 369% overpassing of these government levies onto home buyers. Thus, this one government levy could be responsible for $877 per month on home owner mortgage repayments in Brisbane, Queensland. This research is consistent with international findings, that support the proposition that developer paid infrastructure charges are passed on to home buyers and are a significant contributor to increasing house prices and reduced housing affordability. Understanding who really pays for urban infrastructure is critical to both the housing affordability and infrastructure funding debates in Australia and this research provides the first empirical data for policy makers to assess their policy objectives and outcomes against.

Identifying the financial barriers to deliberative, affordable apartment development in Australia

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the financial barriers to the supply of affordable apartments in Australia and examine whether demand aggregation and ‘deliberative development’ (self-build) can form a new affordable housing ‘structure of provision’. Design/methodology/approach Market design, an offshoot of game theory, is used to analyse the existing apartment development model, with ‘deliberative development’ proposed as an innovative alternative. Semi-structured interviews with residential development financiers are used to evaluate whether deliberative development could obtain the requisite development finance. Findings Our investigation into the financial barriers of a deliberative development model suggest that while there are hurdles, these can be addressed if key risks in the exchange process can be mitigated. Hence, affordability can be enhanced by ‘deliberative development’ replacing the existing speculative development model. Research implications Market design is a new innovative theoretical approach to understanding the supply of housing, offering practical solutions to affordable apartment supply in Australia. Originality/value This research identifies financial barriers to the supply of affordable apartments; introduces theoretical understandings gained from market design as an innovative solution; provides evidence that a new structure of building provision based on ‘deliberative development’ could become a key means of achieving more affordable and better designed apartments.

Infrastructure charges and residential land prices in Brisbane, Australia

This paper examines the question of whether the imposition of developer infrastructure charges on housing developers affects the price of residential land. Developer paid fees or charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to fund new infrastructure as a “user pays” method of funding new urban infrastructure. Some argue these costs are passed back to the original land owner by way of lower land prices. However, property developers claim these charges are added on to new land prices, with flow on negative impact to housing affordability. This paper presents the findings of a hedonic land price model that provides the first empirical evidence that infrastructure charges do increase residential land prices in Brisbane, Australia. This research is consistent with international findings and supports the proposition that developer paid infrastructure charges are over-passed to home buyers and are a significant contributor to reduced housing affordability.

Submission to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics Inquiry into Home Ownership

This paper empirically examines the effect of current tax policy on home ownership, specifically looking at how developer contributions impact house prices. Developer contributions are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to pay for new urban infrastructure. This research applies a hedonic house price model to 4,699 new and 25,053 existing house sales in Brisbane from 2005 to 2011. The findings of is research are consistent with international studies that support the proposition that developer contributions are over passed. This study has provided evidence that suggest developer contributions are over passed to both new and existing homes in the order of around 400%. These findings suggest that developer contributions are thus a significant contributor to increasing house prices, reduced housing supply and are thus an inefficient and inequitable tax. By testing this effect on both new and existing homes, this research provides evidence in support of the proposition that not only are developer contributions over passed to new home buyers but also to buyers of existing homes. Thus the price inflationary effect of these developer contributions are being felt by all home buyers across the community, resulting in increased mortgage repayments of close to $1,000 per month in Australia. This is the first study to empirically examine the impact of developer contributions on house prices in Australia. These results are important as they inform governments on the outcomes of current tax policy on home ownership, providing the first evidence of its kind in Australia. This is an important contribution to the tax reform agenda in Australia.