Socially adaptable housing new housing model for families living with disability

In Australia as far back as 1993, researchers such as Baladin and Chapmen reported that "18% of the total Australian population and 51% of the population over 60 years of age were identified as having a disability" (2001; p38.2). Statistics such as these are not by any means astonishing, even to members of the general public, and it is widely understood that these are only to increase significantly in our near future. What is particularly surprising however is, in the face of such statistics, the lack of new and creative responses to this demographic shift, particularly by the architecture and construction industries. The common response from a range of sectors seems to be the repetition of a series of models which offer limited, and often undesirable, housing options. It is this against this backdrop, characterized by a lack of original options from mainstream practitioners and relevant government bodies, that the need has arisen to develop alternative models at grass-roots level. This paper reports primarily on the work of one group comprising a not-for-profit organization, a pro-bono design practice group and a local university working together to design a more holistic, emotionally sustainable independent living model of housing for families where a member of the family has a disability. This approach recognizes the limitations of universal design in that it often does not " ... meet all the housing needs that arise for people with moderate to severe disabilities" (Scotts, Margie et al, 2007; p.17). It is hoped that by examining the work of such a collective which is not driven by profit or policy, but rather born with the aim to address first and foremost individual and community need, that better insight can be gained into the real requirements of individuals and families as well as open up a view to new ways of fulfilling them.

Assessing the awareness and importance of housing sustainability in Queensland

Sustainability has been a major factor and determinant of commercial property design, construction, retro-fitting and landlord and tenant requirements over the last decade, supported by the introduction of rating tools such as NABERS and GreenStar and the recently mandated Building Energy Efficiency Certificate (BEEC). However, the movement to sustainable and energy efficient housing has not been established for the same period, and although mandatory building regulations have been in place for new residential housing construction since 2004, the requirement to improve the sustainability and energy efficiency of housing constructed prior to 2004 has not been mandatory. Residential dwelling energy efficiency and rating schemes introduced in Australia over the past decade have included rating schemes such as BASIX, NatHERS, First rate, ACTHERS, and Building Code of Australia and these have applied to new dwelling construction. At both National and State level the use of energy efficiency schemes for existing residential dwellings has been voluntary and despite significant cash incentives have not always been successful or achieved widespread take-up. In 2010, the Queensland Government regulated that all homes offered for sale, whether a new or existing dwellings require the seller to provide a ―sustainability declaration‖ that provides details of the sustainability measures associated with the dwelling being sold. The purpose of this declaration being to inform buyers and increase community awareness of home sustainability features. This paper uses an extensive review of real estate marketing material, together with a comprehensive survey of real estate agents to analyse the current market compliance, awareness and acceptance of existing green housing regulations and the importance that residential property owners and purchasers place on energy efficient and sustainable housing. The findings indicate that there is still little community awareness or concern of sustainable housing features when making home purchase decisions.

On the contemporary position of the Indigenous peoples of Australia

This paper highlights the contemporary disadvantaged position of Indigenous peoples of Australia.∗ It discusses a number of data quality issues on Indigenous data, before examining Indigenous disadvantage across five key areas: (1) education; (2) employment; (3) housing and living conditions; (4) health and wellbeing; and (5) crime and justice. Given the call for all governments to implement a framework to overcome Indigenous disadvantage, we recommend that future research begin with an investigation of non-Indigenous attitudes towards, and knowledge of, the position of Indigenous peoples in Australia. This is essential towards developing an understanding of the general public’s current perceptions of Indigenous peoples’ position in Australia, particularly where the development of policies pertaining to Indigenous peoples requires cooperative action and the support of the broader Australian population.

Residential satisfaction in inner urban higher-density Brisbane, Australia : role of dwelling, neighbours and neighbourhood

Increasing the population density of urban areas is a key policy strategy to sustainably manage growth, but many residents often view higher density living as an undesirable long-term housing option. Thus, this research explores the predictors of residential satisfaction in inner urban higher-density (IUHD) environments, surveying 636 IUHD residents in Brisbane, Australia about the importance of dwelling, neighbours and neighbourhood. Relationships with immediate neighbours did not predict residential satisfaction, but features of the neighbourhood and dwelling were critical, specifically satisfaction with dwelling position, design and facilities, and social contacts (family and friends) in the neighbourhood. Identifying the factors that influence residential satisfaction in IUHD will assist with both planning and design, helping ensure a lower resident turnover rate and greater uptake of high density living.

Livable housing design: Is it likely to work?

The need for accessible housing in Australia is acute. Both government and the community service sector recognise the importance of well designed accessible housing to optimise the integration of older people and people with disability, to encourage a prudent use of scarce health and community services and to enhance the liveability of our cities. In 2010, the housing industry, negotiated with the Australian Government and community representatives to adopt a nationally consistent voluntary code (Livable Housing Design) and a strategy to provide minimal level of accessibility in all new housing by 2020. Evidence from the implementation of such programs in the United Kingdom and USA, however, serves to question whether this aspirational goal can be achieved through voluntary codes. Minimal demand at the point of new sale, and problems in the production of housing to the required standards have raised questions regarding the application of program principles in the context of a voluntary code. In addressing the latter issue, this paper presents early findings from the analysis of qualitative interviews conducted with developers, builders and designers in various housing contexts. It identifies their “logics in use” in the production of housing in response to Livable Housing Design’s voluntary code and indicates factors that are likely to assist and impede the attainment of the 2020 aspirational goal.

The impact of infrastructure charges on new housing costs : an international comparison

Sourcing 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. Existing communities resist the introduction of new taxes to fund such infrastructure, hence the introduction of charges to the developer has flourished. The Australian infrastructure funding policy dilemmas are reflective of similar matters to some extent in the United Kingdom, and to a greater extent the United States of America. In these countries, infrastructure cost recovery policies have been in place since the 1940’s and 1970’s respectively. There is an extensive body of theoretical and empirical literature that discusses the passing on (to home buyers) or passing back (to the englobo land seller) of these increased infrastructure charges, and the corresponding impact on housing cost and supply. The purpose of this research is to examine the international evidence that suggests infrastructure charges contribute to increased house prices as well as reduced land supply. The paper concludes that whilst the theoretical work is largely consistent, the empirical research to date is inconclusive and further research is required into these impacts in Australia.

Performance evaluation of eight contemporary passive solar homes in subtropical Australia

Subtropical south-east Queensland’s expanding population is expected to lead to a demand for an additional 754,000 dwellings by 2031. A legacy of poor housing design, minimal building regulations, an absence of building performance evaluation and various social and market factors has lead to a high and growing penetration of, and reliance on, air conditioners to provide comfort in this relatively benign climate. This reliance impacts on policy goals to adapt to and mitigate against global warming, electricity infrastructure investment and household resilience. Based on the concept of bioclimatic design, this field study scrutinizes eight non-air conditioned homes to develop a deeper understanding of the role of contemporary passive solar architecture in the delivery of thermally comfortable and resilient homes in the subtropics. These homes were found to provide inhabitants with an acceptable level of thermal comfort (18-28oC) for 77 – 97% of the year. Family expectations and experiences of comfort, and the various design strategies utilized were compared against the measured performance outcomes. This comparison revealed issues that limited quantification and implementation of design intent and highlighted factors that constrained system optimisation.

Smarten up! applying market design theory to greyfields housing supply : a background paper

This paper examines whether recent innovation in market design can address persistent problems of housing choice and affordability in the inner and middle suburbs of Australian cities. Australia's ageing middle suburbs are the result of a low density and highly car-dependent garden city greenfield approach to planning that failed to consider possible future resource or environmental constraints on urban development (Newton et al., 2011). Described as 'greyfield' sites in contrast to greenfield (signalling the change from rural to urban land use) and 'brownfield' (being the transformation of former industrial use to mixed use, including housing), intensification of development in such areas is expected to deliver positive social, economic and environmental outcomes (Trubka et al., 2008; Gurran et al., 2006; Newton et al., 2011; Goodman et al., 2010). Yet despite broad policy consensus progress remains elusive (Major Cities Unit, 2010). In this paper we argue that the application of market design theory, specifically through the internet-based coordination of market information, offers a new policy approach and practical measures to address these problems.

Sustainable and affordable housing : a myth or reality

The Australian government has released a draft National Building Framework that will likely tighten the building standard for new houses to meet higher sustainability requirements. There are uncertainties about the impact this could have on the cost of housing and the supply of affordable housing. This paper aims to provide evidence-based conclusions on the possibility of delivering sustainable and affordable housing for low income people. The case studies are gathered from Brisbane and Gold Coast. Case studies are analysed by unpacking the features that were included to meet sustainability and affordability goals for housing. This paper outlines the key factors for their success and also challenges for replication of the projects. The study shows that the key success drivers for delivering sustainable and affordable housing are providing planning incentives, subsidies for increased energy efficiency, supportive regulatory frameworks and appropriate allocation of infrastructure charges. It shows that government can prioritise their resources to support affordable and sustainable housing for low income people.

A Sustainable Community for Older People : Case Studies of Green Retirement Villages in Australia

In Australia, the proportion of the population aged 65 years and over reached 13.5% in 2010 and is expected to increase steadily to around 20% by the year 2056 [Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2010], creating what has been regarded as a looming crisis in how to house and care for older people. As a viable accommodation option, the retirement village is widely accepted as a means of promoting and enhancing independence, choice and quality of life for older people. Recent research by Barker (2010) indicates that the current and potential residents of retirement villages are generally very conscious of resource consumption and would like their residences and community to be more sustainable. The aim of this study was to understand the perception of older people toward sustainability ideas and identify the sustainable practices involved in retirement villages to improve the wellbeing of residents. Multiple research methods, including content analysis, questionnaire survey, interviews and case studies were conducted for the research purpose. The results indicate that most retirement village residents understand and recognize the importance of sustainability in their lifestyle. However, their sustainability requirements need to be supported and enhanced by the provision of affordable sustainability features. Additionally, many retirement village developers and operators realize the importance of providing a sustainable retirement community for their residents, and that a sustainable retirement village (that is environmental-friendly, affordable, and improves social engagement) can be achieved through the consideration of project planning, design, construction, and operations throughout the project life cycle. The clear shift from healthcare to lifestyle-focused services in the recent development of retirement villages together with the increasing number of aged people moving into retirement villages (Simpson and Cheney, 2007) has raised awareness of the need for the retirement village industry to provide a sustainable community for older people to improve their life quality after retirement. This is the first critical study of sustainable development in the retirement village industry and its potential in addressing the housing needs of older people, providing a contribution towards improving the life quality of older people and with direct and immediate significance to the community as a whole.

Does sustainable housing construction provide the home owner with a greater investment return?

Over the past 20 years there has been a considerable push at all three tiers of Government and private industry in Australia to improve the energy efficiency and sustainability levels of residential housing. A number of these initiatives have been voluntary, such as solar power and solar heating rebates, with other mandatory measures being incorporated into building standards and codes. Although the importance of energy efficiency and sustainable materials have been widely conveyed both at the academic and public level, it does not always reflect in the residential house purchase decision by typical house buyers, including residential property investors. This paper will analyse a range of housing markets in Brisbane to determine the investment performance of those markets over the past 3 years to determine any significant differences between new residential suburbs and older residential suburbs where houses have not been constructed to the current energy efficiency and sustainability guidelines. The range of suburbs to be analysed will focus on middle to lower high value suburbs, with a particular focus on residential housing in Master Planned Communities to determine if socio-economic factors and development size and scope have an impact of the purchase and investment performance of sustainable houses in comparison to older housing stock. The paper confirms that the residential property market shows a higher capital return for residential property built under stricter sustainability guidelines than similar located and type of property built prior to the BCA 2004 and older style project type homes erected prior to 2000.

Livable Housing Design : Who will take responsibility?

Current housing design and construction practices do not meet the needs of many people with disability and older people, and limits their inclusion and participation in community and family life. In spite of a decade of advocacy for regulation of access within residential environments, the Australian government has opted for a voluntary approach where the housing industry takes responsibility. Housing industry leaders have indicated that they are willing to transform their established practice, if it makes good business to do so, and if there is a demand from home buyers. To date, there has been minimal demand. In 2010, housing industry and community leaders formalised this commitment in an agreement, called Livable Housing Design, to transform housing design and construction practices, with a target of all new housing providing minimal access by 2020. This paper reports on a study which examined the assumption behind Livable Housing Design agreement; that is, individuals in the housing industry will respond voluntarily and take responsibility for the provision of inclusive housing. From interviews with developers, designers and builders in Brisbane, Queensland, the study found a complex picture of competing demands and responsibilities. Instead of changing their design and construction practices voluntarily to meet the future needs of users over the life of housing, they are more likely to focus on their immediate contractual obligations and to maintain the status quo. Contrary to the view of the government and industry leaders, participants identified that an external regulatory framework would be required if Livable Housing Design’s 2020 goal was to be met.