Innovative design : developing strategies to improve developer attitudes to sustainable housing

The literature advocates more widespread adoption of a particular type of house – a manufactured high performance green house and/or house components (MHPGH) and this is the focus of the research proposal outlined in this conceptual paper. The aim of the current paper is to outline a robust program of work to improve adoption of MHPGH. The contribution of houses to climate change is investigated, the conservatism of the construction industry is documented, a conceptual framework through which to understand the problem is presented; a program of research to bring about change is outlined; and the benefits of doing so are summarised. The contribution of the paper is the presentation of novel theory and methods to address sustainability problems in the construction industry. Future work will involve execution of the proposal. A limitation of the paper is that the effectiveness of the proposed theory and methods are yet to be tested.

Reshaping housing : the role of prefabricated systems

Prefabricated housing innovations have the potential to reduce the environmental impact of construction through improving efficiency and quality. The current paper systematically summarises the published evidence since 1990 that describes the barriers and drivers affecting the uptake of prefabricated housing innovations. These are discussed in relation to a ‘Project-Based Product Framework’ which considers multiple stakeholders including builders and other intermediaries, suppliers, end-users, the broader policy context and technical issues. The framework facilitated identification of central issues such as the prevalent business and cultural resistance associated with process changes; the potential for efficiency and quality improvements and cost savings; the simultaneous risks and benefits of close supplier-builder relationships, and negative user perceptions towards prefabricated houses. Though there is a lack of evidence regarding the effects of regulations and government policies on prefabrication uptake, there are indications of the positive potential of financial and social incentives. Directions for further research include understanding how to: manage the industry’s transition to prefabricated houses; appropriately compare prefabricated housing to traditional housing on cost, efficiency and quality measures; reconcile the differing perspectives of various stakeholders; quantify and identify the perspectives of the potential end-user population, and manage the interface between the emerging industry and information technology improvements.

Profiling the nature and context of the Australian prefabricated housing industry

The current state of the prefabricated housing market in Australia is systematically profiled, guided by a theoretical systems model. Particular focus is given to two original data collections. The first identifies manufacturers and builders using prefabrication innovations, and the second compares the context for prefabricated housing in Australia with that of key international jurisdictions. The results indicate a small but growing market for prefabricated housing in Australia, often building upon expertise developed through non-residential building applications. The international comparison highlighted the complexity of the interactions between macro policy decisions and historical influences and the uptake of prefabricated housing. The data suggest factors such as the small scale of the Australian market, and a lack of investment in research, development and training have not encouraged prefabrication. A lack of clear regulatory policy surrounding prefabricated housing is common both in Australia and internationally, with local effects in regards to home warranties and housing finance highlighted. Future research should target the continuing lack of consideration of prefabrication from within the housing construction industry, and build upon the research reported in this paper to further quantify the potential end user market and the continuing development of the industry.

What’s driving the uptake of prefabricated housing in Australia?

Prefabrication has been promoted as a means to improve the efficiency of the Australian house building industry. Issues affecting the uptake of prefabrication were identified through interviews with small and medium sized building companies. Prefabrication’s specific impact on housing construction and smaller organisations has not been frequently investigated. Similar past research has been conducted without the use of a clear theoretical grounding guiding the identification of relevant issues. The current study is guided by a combination of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). This allowed the identification of a broad range of issues across attitudinal, normative, behavioural control and technology adaptation domains. Results revealed improved quality was often offset against practical cost implications. While a high quality of prefabricated products was reported, key technical challenges included coordinating the transporting of modules, and balancing standardisation and product flexibility. Resistance from traditional industry stakeholders regarding build methods, financing, and openness to encouraging prefabrication was commonly reported. The key role of government decision making in facilitating greater demand and competitiveness of prefabricated businesses in the consumer marketplace was also highlighted. Further research is currently being undertaken by the authors, which builds on the exploratory results of the current study through confirmatory, quantitative surveying.

Who really pays for urban infrastructure? : the impact of developer infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia

This thesis advances the understanding of the impact of developer infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia through the development of an econometric model and empirical analysis. The results indicate substantial on-passing of these government charges to purchasers of both new and existing homes, thus negatively impacting housing affordability across the whole community. The results of this thesis will inform policy makers and assist in the development of evidence based policy related to housing affordability and funding of urban infrastructure. Being generic, the econometric model is expected to be a tool that is suitable for estimating similar house price effects in other housing markets.

Improving access to housing for low-income communities in Dhaka: From rhetoric to reality in community participation

The research explores how community participation can address affordable housing problems of the poor in Dhaka. The research, based on extensive interviews, community focus groups and household surveys in different Dhaka slums, identifies the limiting factors to promote community participation in affordable housing creation. In Dhaka housing options for poor are currently limited to affordable shelters in informal settlements. Public housing programs have failed to reach the poor and meet affordability levels due to a number of factors including lack of beneficiary participation. Beneficiary participation, though widely recognized for success in housing initiatives, often deteriorates in process of implementation into mere involvement, not reflecting community needs and aspirations and thus failing to meet its core objectives. This research identified the most significant impediments as well as opportunities to advance participation in their own housing provisions in Dhaka city.

The provision of visitable housing in Australia: Down to the detail

In response to the ratification of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), Australian housing industry leaders, supported by the Australian Government, committed to transform their practices voluntarily through the adoption of a national guideline, called Livable Housing Design. They set a target in 2010 that all new housing would be visitable by 2020. Research in this area suggests that the anticipated voluntary transformation is unrealistic and that mandatory regulation will be necessary for any lasting transformation to occur. It also suggests that the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement are unfounded. This paper reports on a study that problematised these assumptions. The study used eleven newly-constructed dwellings in three housing contexts in Brisbane, Australia. It sought to understand the logics-of-practice in providing, and not providing, visitable housing. By examining the specific details that make a dwelling visitable, and interpreting the accounts of builders, designers and developers, the study identified three logics-of-practice which challenged the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement: focus on the point of sale; an aversion to change and deference to external regulators on matters of social inclusion. These were evident in all housing contexts indicating a dominant industry culture regardless of housing context or policy intention. The paper suggests that financial incentives for both the builder and the buyer, demonstration by industry leaders and, ultimately, national regulation is a possible pathway for the Livable Housing Design agreement to reach the 2020 goal. The paper concludes that the Australian Government has three options: to ignore its obligations under the CRPD; to revisit the Livable Housing Design agreement in the hope that it works; or to regulate the housing industry through the National Construction Code to ensure the 2020 target is reached.

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.

De-risking development of medium density housing to improve housing affordability and boost supply

Housing price inflation is a national concern given the serious decline in the number of low and middle income households able to purchase housing. In addition housing supply lags well behind demand. In Melbourne, urban consolidation policies explicitly seek intensification to promote housing supply but planning regulation is often criticised for being a significant cost driver for medium density housing. It is assumed that easing supply constraints will improve affordability. We suggest that laissez-faire planning exacerbates affordability issues because this approach fails to address the basic economic problem: the current inability of the market to efficiently match supply and demand in order to progress an orderly and de-risked development process. The role of “exchange” one of the four housing market sub-systems identified by Burke (2012) has until recently generally been ignored but our examination reveals significant economic transaction costs that manifest as development risks that impact on affordability. Fortunately these can be mitigated, but only if there is a more consumer driven supply response.

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.

Ecologies of housing and underlying assumptions of vulnerability

Purpose This paper is informed by a study that aimed to understand the difficulties in implementing models of housing, and to help address the lack of accessible and affordable private housing for people with disability in Australia. In responding to this aim, the study formulated an ecological map of housing models, which are examined in this paper in terms of their underlying assumptions of vulnerability. Design/methodology/approach The study involved explanation building, using a multiple case study approach, informed theoretically by an ecological framework. It included organisations, families and individuals with disability. Findings For the purpose of this paper, the study revealed a direct relationship between the nature of the housing models proposed, and assumptions of vulnerability. In the context of the study findings, the paper suggests that attempts to address individual housing needs are more likely to achieve a positive outcome when they are person driven, from a premise of ability rather than disability. Overall, it invites a ‘universalistic’ way of conceptualising housing issues for people with disability that has international relevance. Practical implications This paper highlights how assumptions of vulnerability shape environmental responses, such as housing, for people with disability. Originality/value This paper is based on a study that reconciled a person-centred philosophy with an ecological appreciation of the external and internal factors impacting housing choice for people with disability.