Subtropical values and principles of subtropical design for the South East Queensland region : a report for the Office of Urban Management Queensland Government

The Office of Urban Management recognises that the values which characterise the SEQ region as 'subtropical' are important determinants of form in urban and regional planning. Subtropical values are those qualities on which our regional identity depends. A built environment which responds positively to these values is a critical ingredient for achieving a desirable future for the region. The Centre for Subtropical Design has undertaken this study to identify the particular set of values which characterises SEQ, and to translate theses values into design principals that will maintain and reinforce the value set. The principles not only apply to the overall balance between the natural environment and the built environment, but can be applied by local government authorities to guide local planning schemes and help shape specific built for outcomes.

Who gets the deposit when trustees for a bankrupt buyer disclaim a real estate contract?

The decision of Henry J in Majet v Goggin and Miller (as joint and several trustees of bankrupt estate of Brett-Hall) [2015] QSC 38 dealt with the fate of a deposit that was paid under a real estate contract that did not complete in unusual circumstances.

Playing Monopoly™ with real estate students

This paper outlines the results from a study into the educational use of the board game Monopoly City™ in a first year real estate unit. This game play was introduced as a fun and interactive way of achieving a number of desired outcomes including: introduction of foundational threshold concepts in real estate education; introduction of problem solving and critical analysis skills; early acculturation of real estate students to enhance student retention; early team building within the student cohort; and enhanced engagement of first year students and, all in an engaging and entertaining way. Results from this two-stage research project are encouraging. The students participating in this project 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 real estate sector. Findings from this project and key success factors are presented.

Integration of Geospatial and Built Environment - National Data Policy

Digital technology offers enormous benefits (economic, quality of design and efficiency in use) if adopted to implement integrated ways of representing the physical world in a digital form. When applied across the full extent of the built and natural world, it is referred to as the Digital Built Environment (DBE) and encompasses a wide range of approaches and technology initiatives, all aimed at the same end goal: the development of a virtual world that sufficiently mirrors the real world to form the basis for the smart cities of the present and future, enable efficient infrastructure design and programmed maintenance, and create a new foundation for economic growth and social well-being through evidence-based analysis. The creation of a National Data Policy for the DBE will facilitate the creation of additional high technology industries in Australia; provide Governments, industries and citizens with greater knowledge of the environments they occupy and plan; and offer citizen-driven innovations for the future. Australia has slipped behind other nations in the adoption and execution of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and the principal concern is that the gap is widening. Data driven innovation added $67 billion to the Australian economy in 20131. Strong open data policy equates to $16 billion in new value2. Australian Government initiatives such as the Digital Earth inspired “National Map” offer a platform and pathway to embrace the concept of a “BIM Globe”, while also leveraging unprecedented growth in open source / open data collaboration. Australia must address the challenges by learning from international experiences—most notably the UK and NZ—and mandate the use of BIM across Government, extending the Framework for Spatial Data Foundation to include the Built Environment as a theme and engaging collaboration through a “BIM globe” metaphor. This proposed DBE strategy will modernise the Australian urban planning and the construction industry. It will change the way we develop our cities by fundamentally altering the dynamics and behaviours of the supply chains and unlocking new and more efficient ways of collaborating at all stages of the project life-cycle. There are currently two major modelling approaches that contribute to the challenge of delivering the DBE. Though these collectively encompass many (often competing) approaches or proprietary software systems, all can be categorised as either: a spatial modelling approach, where the focus is generally on representing the elements that make up the world within their geographic context; and a construction modelling approach, where the focus is on models that support the life cycle management of the built environment. These two approaches have tended to evolve independently, addressing two broad industry sectors: the one concerned with understanding and managing global and regional aspects of the world that we inhabit, including disciplines concerned with climate, earth sciences, land ownership, urban and regional planning and infrastructure management; the other is concerned with planning, design, construction and operation of built facilities and includes architectural and engineering design, product manufacturing, construction, facility management and related disciplines (a process/technology commonly known as Building Information Modelling, BIM). The spatial industries have a strong voice in the development of public policy in Australia, while the construction sector, which in 2014 accounted for around 8.5% of Australia’s GDP3, has no single voice and because of its diversity, is struggling to adapt to and take advantage of the opportunity presented by these digital technologies. The experience in the UK over the past few years has demonstrated that government leadership is very effective in stimulating industry adoption of digital technologies by, on the one hand, mandating the use of BIM on public procurement projects while at the same time, providing comparatively modest funding to address the common issues that confront the industry in adopting that way of working across the supply chain. The reported result has been savings of £840m in construction costs in 2013/14 according to UK Cabinet Office figures4. There is worldwide recognition of the value of bringing these two modelling technologies together. Australia has the expertise to exercise leadership in this work, but it requires a commitment by government to recognise the importance of BIM as a companion methodology to the spatial technologies so that these two disciplinary domains can cooperate in the development of data policies and information exchange standards to smooth out common workflows. buildingSMART Australasia, SIBA and their academic partners have initiated this dialogue in Australia and wish to work collaboratively, with government support and leadership, to explore the opportunities open to us as we develop an Australasian Digital Built Environment. As part of that programme, we must develop and implement a strategy to accelerate the adoption of BIM processes across the Australian construction sector while at the same time, developing an integrated approach in concert with the spatial sector that will position Australia at the forefront of international best practice in this area. Australia and New Zealand cannot afford to be on the back foot as we face the challenges of rapid urbanisation and change in the global environment. Although we can identify some exemplary initiatives in this area, particularly in New Zealand in response to the need for more resilient urban development in the face of earthquake threats, there is still much that needs to be done. We are well situated in the Asian region to take a lead in this challenge, but we are at imminent risk of losing the initiative if we do not take action now. Strategic collaboration between Governments, Industry and Academia will create new jobs and wealth, with the potential, for example, to save around 20% on the delivery costs of new built assets, based on recent UK estimates.

The Google Online Marketing Challenge: A Transnational Comparison of Classroom Learning with Real Clients, Real Money, and Real Advertising Campaigns

In 2008, a collaborative partnership between Google and academia launched the Google Online Marketing Challenge (hereinafter Google Challenge), perhaps the world’s largest in-class competition for higher education students. In just two years, almost 20,000 students from 58 countries participated in the Google Challenge. The Challenge gives undergraduate and graduate students hands-on experience with the world’s fastest growing advertising mechanism, search engine advertising. Funded by Google, students develop an advertising campaign for a small to medium sized enterprise and manage the campaign over three consecutive weeks using the Google AdWords platform. This article explores the Challenge as an innovative pedagogical tool for marketing educators. Based on the experiences of three instructors in Australia, Canada and the United States, this case study discusses the opportunities and challenges of integrating this dynamic problem-based learning approach into the classroom.

Interview with Barbara Comber in "Chapter 3 : Critical Literacy" of "Making Literacy Real : Theories and Practices for Learning and Teaching [2nd. Ed.]"

One of the so-called ‘wicked problems’ confronting most nations is poverty, or the unequal distribution of resources. This problem is perennial, but how, where and with which physical, psychological, social and educational effects, and for which students (and their teachers), needs continual scrutiny. Poverty is relative. Entire populations may be poor or groups of people and individuals within nations may be poor. Poverty results from injustice. Not only the un- and under-employed are living in poverty, but also the ‘working poor’. Now we see affluent societies with growing pockets of persistent poverty. While there are those who dispute the statistics on the rise of poverty because different nations use different measures (for example see Biddle, 2013; http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-poverty-on-the-rise-in-australia-17512), there seems to be little dispute that the gaps between the richest and the poorest are increasing (see http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/sotu/SOTU_2014_CPI.pdf)...