Architect Victoria 2026 Issue 1 by Australian Institute of Architects

We acknowledge First Nations peoples as the Traditional Custodians of the lands, waters, and skies of the continent now called Australia. We express our gratitude to their Elders and Knowledge Holders whose wisdom, actions and knowledge have kept culture alive. We recognise First Nations peoples as the first architects and builders. We appreciate their continuing work on Country from pre-invasion times to contemporary First Nations architects, and respect their rights to continue to care for Country.

Jirra Lulla

Kevin

Brad

Claire

Rory

Photo credit: Nicole England | Caption: Following the success of Atlassian’s temporary Melbourne connection hub, Warren and Mahoney and Greenaway Architects delivered a permanent workplace at Queen & Collins that embraces a strong First Nations voice, adaptive reuse, circular design and collaborative working.

Contributors

Dr Marcus Spiller is a founding partner at SGS Economics and Planning, and a past National President and Life Fellow of the Planning Institute of Australia.

Jirra Lulla Harvey is a Yorta Yorta / Wiradjuri woman raised in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. She is the founder of Kalinya – weaving Indigenous knowledge into city-shaping projects through design, strategic investment, brand and activation.

Bob Earl is the co-founder of Landscape and Urban Design practice, OCULUS, dedicated to public space and the importance public life plays in the making of cities, towns and villages.

Sara is a Principal at Australasian architecture and design firm Warren and Mahoney. As AI and Digital Services Lead,

by an unwavering passion for digital evolution.

Leanne Hodyl is director of the urban strategy and design consultancy Hodyl, and an advocate for better cities.

Claire Field is a senior curator at Curatorial+Co. specialising in large-scale public and commercial art projects. She is passionate about supporting artistic practice to create meaningful experiences that positively shape people’s lives

Claire Martin is a registered landscape architect and Associate Director at OCULUS, creating places that combine high levels of amenity with ecological sustainability.

Liam Wallace is the founder and Managing Director, Head of Projects at HIP V. HYPE – an ethical, socially conscious and environmentally focused property developer, sustainability consulting practice and work share provider.

Andy Fergus is an urban designer and design strategist working across all scales of the city from the urban plan to the individual building.

Rory Hunter is the CEO of sustainable BTR developer MODEL. He's deeply committed to improving how the built industry operates and driving meaningful change for the future.

Elliet Spring is an architect, urban designer, and Director at MGS Architects, delivering places with longevity and adaptability that deliver daily value to the people who use them.

David Mahony is a Director and the Head of Better Buildings (ESD) at HIP V.HYPE, leading the technical delivery of environmental and healthbased outcomes across buildings and infrastructure.

Miranda Stewart is Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne and currently the Visiting Professor of Tax Law and Director of the International Tax Program at New York University School of Law.

Kevin O'Brien is an architect and Principal at BVN. He is passionate about the influences of First Nations cultures on architecture and the city. He also regularly collaborates with visual and performing artists.

Storm Bell is the Director of Storm Studio, a creative practice specialising in experiential design, spatial branding, and adaptable architecture.

Brad

he is fuelled

Guest Editors

Sarah Buckeridge is comanaging principal of architecture, urban design and interiors practice Hayball, and co-chair of the AIA Victorian Chapter Housing Committee.

Daryl Maguire is a highly skilled strategic advisor and registered architect, Melbourne Studio Principal at Warren and Mahoney, and a committed champion of great design.

James Legge is a co-founder and director of Six Degrees Architects, and co-chair of the AIA Victorian Chapter Housing Committee.

Kate Roach is a multidisciplinary architecture, interior architecture, and interior design specialist, Warren and Mahoney's Studio Head of Design in Melbourne and a co-leader of WAM's experience sector.

Editorial Committee

James Staughton (Chair)

Elizabeth Campbell

Hugh Goad

Kimberley Hui

John Mercuri

Justin Noxon

Lavanya Arulanandam

Nikita Bopti

Guest Editors

James Legge

Sarah Buckeridge

Daryl Maguire

Kate Roach

Contributors

Andy Fergus

Bob Earl

Brad Sara

Claire Field

Claire Martin

David Mahony

Elliet Spring

Jirra Lulla Harvey

Kevin O’Brien

Leanne Hodyl

Liam Wallace

Marcus Spiller

Miranda Stewart

Rory Hunter

Storm Bell

Production

Bella Walker

Holly Lake

Publisher

Australian Institute of Architects

Victorian Chapter, 41 Exhibition Street

Melbourne, Victoria 3000

Victorian Chapter Executive Director

Sarah Gafforini

On the cover

Merri Northcote, Public Housing Renewal

Program, Six Degrees Architects

Image Credit: Alex Reinders

This publication is copyright

No part of it may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the permission of the Australian Institute of Architects Victorian Chapter.

Disclaimer

Readers are advised that opinions expressed in articles and in editorial content are those of their authors, not of the Australian Institute of Architects represented by its Victorian Chapter. Similarly, the Australian Institute of Architects makes no representation about the accuracy of statements or about the suitability or quality of goods and services advertised.

Warranty

Persons and/or organisations and their servants and agents or assigns upon lodging with the publisher for publication or authorising or approving the publication of any advertising material indemnify the publisher, the editor, its servants and agents against all liability for, and costs of, any claims or proceedings whatsoever arising from such publication. Persons and/or organisations and their servants and agents and assigns warrant that the advertising material lodged, authorised or approved for publication complies with all relevant laws and regulations and that its publication will not give rise to any rights or liabilities against the publisher, the editor, or its servants and agents under common and/ or statute law and without limiting the generality of the foregoing further warrant that nothing in the material is misleading or deceptive or otherwise in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

The

public's understanding of architects and architecture is most appropriately based upon spatial and inter-personal experience; however, community perceptions can also be founded upon received narrative.

Rarely has the work of architects been more visible or more contested in public discourse and in project delivery than it is today. As Victoria confronts a housing crisis of genuine scale, questions of how we build, where we build, and what kind of communities we create have entered mainstream conversation, debated by economists, politicians, and communities in equal measure. Architects sit at the centre of this challenge, yet our capacity to lead depends not only on the quality of what we design, but on our willingness to reimagine how we practice. These are not separate conversations. The housing crisis demands architectural leadership at the very moment the profession is being called upon to fundamentally rethink how that leadership is exercised.

This edition of Architect Victoria holds both questions in view simultaneously. The first half prosecutes an argument for density done well, drawing on essays from urban economists, taxation experts, and planning strategists to untangle the interrelated crises of supply, affordability, and quality that have brought housing to the fore of public life. It is not enough to simply build more; the manner in which we increase density matters enormously, both for the people who will live in these homes and for the neighbourhoods that will absorb them. Case studies from across Victoria demonstrate that when density is guided by good design, it can strengthen neighbourhoods and improve liveability, delivering benefits to the public realm and not just to those who live within the buildings themselves.

The second half turns inward, asking what it means for the profession itself to be future ready. Contributors examine how digital tools, circular design thinking, and more agile and collaborative models of practice are reshaping what architects do and how they do it. The pace of change in technology, culture, and client expectation is accelerating, and the risk for a profession that takes pride in rigour and depth of thought is that these qualities, so essential to good outcomes, become conflated with slowness and resistance. To be future ready is not to abandon the values that define good architecture. It is to find new ways of expressing them, through more responsive processes, more integrated teams, and a willingness to treat the systems within which we work as something to be actively redesigned rather than passively inherited.

The parallels between the two halves are instructive. Just as density done well demands that we move beyond building individual dwellings to consider the broader neighbourhood, a future ready profession must move beyond the individual project to consider the systems, processes, and mindsets that will define architecture's relevance in the decades ahead. In both cases, the answer lies not in doing more of the same, but in asking better questions about what success looks like and who it serves.

Together, these themes reflect a profession at a genuine inflection point, one called upon to deliver more, faster, and better, while simultaneously rethinking the tools and structures through which it operates. The contributors to this edition, drawn from within and beyond architecture, offer perspectives that are at times challenging and at times inspiring, but united in their conviction that architecture's greatest opportunity lies not just in what we build, but in the courage to transform how we work.

Victorian Chapter President Stephanie Bullock FRAIA

Project

Architect

Client Ivanhoe Grammar School

Plenty Campus Coonawarra Willam Aquatic Centre

Peddle Thorp Architects

Density Done Well

The Housing Crises: A Broader Conversation

Words by Sarah Buckeridge and James Legge

Sarah Buckeridge is co-managing principal of architecture, urban design and interiors practice Hayball, advocating for sustainable, equitable and well-connected communities.

Sarah is a Life Fellow of the AIA, a Chapter Councillor and co-chair of the Victorian Chapter Housing Committee. She was awarded the 2025 AIA Victorian President’s Prize for her policy work shaping solutions that embed dignity, quality, and social value within housing delivery.

James Legge is a co-founder and director of Six Degrees Architects, with expertise in Urban Design, Policy, Master Planning and Housing models. James is co-chair of the AIA Victorian Chapter Housing Committee, assists government with policy development and sits on a number of design review panels. His multi-faceted approach to design and advocacy reflects his commitment to creating sustainable, inclusive, and vibrant communities.

Housing is foundational to the sustainability of our settlement strategies. In ways more layered than the mainstream conversation reflects, housing affects social equity, community cohesion, and the productivity of the state. Addressing housing need is not simply a matter of adding rapidly to current housing stock: the well-considered development of housing within urban and suburban contexts is fundamental to the making of our cities, towns and suburbs.

With a ‘housing crisis’ gripping the nation and dominating mainstream media, there is furious debate as to the causes and the cures:

-What has created this situation?

-What are the macro-economics of housing and population growth?

-What levers are available as solutions?

-Does our current taxation system help or hinder the production and affordability of housing?

-What are the ramifications of recently updated planning codes? and -What are the desirable urban design attributes of higher density housing?

Seeking to add an informed voice to the debate, the housing committee at the Victorian Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects recently held an exhibition at State Parliament called Density Done Well that offered in the public arena a fundamental proposition: only well designed denser housing models offer a pathway to increased supply within our cities and towns while offering improved amenity, employment opportunities, and public realm benefits.

The exhibition was aimed towards policy makers to articulate the diverse and aspirational ways in which density can be achieved in response to the simultaneous release of Plan for Victoria and Victoria's Housing Statement, which together make plain the scale of the challenge: we need to construct approximately 2.24 million new homes across Melbourne and Victoria’s regional centres within the next 30 years.

The exhibition featured a series of exemplar case studies designed and constructed in Victoria to illustrate that beyond the provision of dwellings; good housing supports individuals’ health and wellbeing while improving the experience and quality of our neighbourhoods. Success in the best cases thus exists at two scales – private amenity for residents and public amenity for communities. Building upon the success of the exhibition, this edition of Architect Victoria seeks to contextualise the economic and policy landscape around housing, prosecuting an argument for greater density in our cities through discussion (commissioned essays) and case studies (featured projects).

The ongoing reference to the housing crisis in the singular implies that there is one problem and by extension one solution that currently

Architect Victoria

evades us. This of course is not the case: housing in Australia is a complex and multivalent problem. It has become clear that three interrelated crises affect the provision of housing: supply, affordability and quality. An attempt to locate architects in the solution to these crises requires that we understand historic and ongoing tensions between the discrete disciplines that together impact housing, and it is on that basis that we have invited essays from experts in urban economics, taxation policy, and planning and urban design frameworks.

The essays begin with Dr Marcus Spiller, urban economist and Deputy Chair of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. In Anatomy of the Housing Crisis, Spiller confronts the first crisis of supply to land on two fundamental problems: the lack of adequate secure and well-located rental accommodation, and receding access to home ownership for middle income Australians due to ceaseless property price escalation. Spiller explains that Victoria’s transition from historic manufacturing economy to a knowledge economy has exacerbated inequity of access to affordable housing and jobs and created a productivity drag on the economy.

Professor Miranda Stewart, taxation expert at the Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne and Visiting Professor at New York University, tackles the second crisis in Taxation and Housing Affordability, clarifying the distorting effects and inequity of the taxes and tax exemptions that affect housing. Surveying capital gains tax, land tax, stamp duty and inheritance tax, Stewart explains the distortions and how changes could be made to mitigate them.

Urban strategist Leanne Hodyl considers through a planning lens the third crisis – quality – in Planning Reform, which identifies three key flaws in our planning system: a ‘poverty mindset’ focused on achieving bare minimum outcomes that undermine public interest, an ‘atomised assessment of individual site applications’ that precludes best practice placemaking, and a system that undermines development feasibility by rewarding speculation. Together these flaws expose a central tension between efficient approval processes and responsive ‘place-based’ outcomes. Andy Fergus is an urban designer and vocal advocate for better city design. Applying an urban design sensibility to the crisis of quality in More than Housing - Recentering the Neighbourhood in Urban Liveability, he highlights the public realm and neighbourhood benefits beyond the private dwelling as key to convincing Australians to embrace denser living. Exploring examples of ‘zoned based’ vs ‘place based’ developments around the world, Fergus underlines the importance of the public realm in unlocking the social and economic benefits of good neighbourhoods.

The selected case studies illustrate the diversity and quality of projects that are delivering increased density across the state. BKK’s Jewel Station apartments illustrate transport centric development – a notion encouraged by the State government through its expansive program of Activity Centre and Suburban Rail Loop re-zoning. With a tram stop at their front door, the Inkerman and Nelson infill townhouses from MA+Co continue this transit focus while demonstrating increased density through the development of an old industrial site within a low-rise model. Kennedy Nolan’s Wilam Ngarrang is a retrofit of a 1970s six-pack highlighting the sustainability benefits achieved when existing denser housing is reimagined to meet contemporary requirements, while Nightingale Ballarat from Breathe illustrates the potential for increased density within heritage contexts and our regional settings. NMBW’s St Albans project concludes the selection and provides an example of a replicable medium density social/affordable apartment model on a typical suburban lot.

All of these projects are undertaken by architects simultaneously committed to well-crafted buildings, the occupants who live in them, the neighbourhoods where they sit, and the public realms they affect. It is this multivalent commitment that defines ‘density done well,’ reminding us that a positive influence on neighbourhoods is fundamental to the creation of density that resonates with those that live there.

To convince people that medium and high-density living is desirable, and to appeal to diverse resident and household types, it is vital that the affected neighbourhoods are demonstrably desirable places to live. Denser housing by its nature has the potential to borrow from and contribute to the public realm; it is imperative that the streets and precincts where we increase density are well considered and well designed. Without good streets and neighbourhoods, services and public transport, public parks and community amenities, higher density living will not meet the social contract that Government seeks and public resistance will endure.

In justifying increased density and attempting to gain public trust in the widespread transformation that is proposed in meeting policy targets, we need a vision for a reimagined Australian dream –in which the quality of the public realm is primary and benefits for both residents and the community are manifest wherever we look. Density Done Well deployed an exhibition format to centre density and good design in policy conversations around the urgent provision of housing. This edition of Architect Victoria progresses this campaign in the context of multidisciplinary insights to contend that density – done well – is best placed to address at once the three housing crises of supply, affordability, and quality.

How Did it Come to This? Anatomy of the Housing Crisis.

One crisis, two problems.

Words by Marcus Spiller

We are confronted with two housing crises. One relates to the now long-standing struggle that households in the bottom 40% of incomes have in finding secure and well-located rental accommodation within their means. The second is about rapidly diminishing access to home ownership for middle income Australians owing to the sustained and prodigious rise in house prices.

Aggravating both problems is what economists call the price inelasticity of market housing supply. Theory suggests that as prices increase housing developers would be induced to deliver more supply. As well as meeting demand for new housing, this supply response triggers a vacancy chain which ultimately generates additional housing opportunities for those on lower incomes. Sadly, the Australian housing market hasn’t been playing by the theory. According to the Grattan Institute,1 our housing supply is amongst the most inelastic in advanced economies.

Let the market sort it out.

Nevertheless, many mainstream policy thinkers believe that if we can flatten the housing supply curve sufficiently, that is, improve price elasticity through planning deregulation, reduced red tape, innovation in construction and more skilled labour, adequate housing would be generated for almost all households. The exceptions would be those who cannot participate in rental or ownership markets due to extremely low incomes, disability or discrimination. These households would be attended to by government safety-net programs including a relatively small amount of highly targeted social housing. This view of the housing system became the dominant paradigm in policy from the mid1980s and continues to hold that position.

From the early post-war period until the micro-economic reform revolution of the mid-1980s led by the Hawke-Keating Labor government a different view held sway. Governments were actively

involved as direct suppliers of housing. Between 1961 and 1991, the States and Territories were churning out more than 14,000 new units per year on average under the then Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA).

If the nation had continued to invest in social housing at these rates, Australia’s housing stock might have been close to half a million units larger than it is today, enough to fill the measured shortfall in affordable housing for lower income groups. Critics would say that this government led production would have simply crowded out private sector supply, because the land, labour and capital available for housing is limited. The rejoinder would be that, try as we might, the achievement of anywhere near perfect price elasticity in urban housing is a pipedream and substantive public sector involvement in supply is essential if all Australians are to have decent homes close to facilities and services.

Stalled innovation in housing production. Wherever one might stand on the crowding out issue, two things are likely true. Firstly, we would have had no fewer dwellings today had governments continued to invest at scale in social housing (unless one is convinced that the public sector is atrociously inefficient at such things). Secondly, the abrupt rolling back of social housing investment has left us with a less sophisticated supply system. When the post-war ramp-up of investment in social housing was hitting its stride in the early 1950s, the Housing Commission Victoria was delivering more than 1,000 prefabricated concrete houses per year from a converted armaments factory at Holmesglen, East Malvern. This early foray into manufactured housing, which might have otherwise developed into a potent institutional capability for producing high quality dwellings at scale and (relatively) low cost using modern methods of construction, gave way to cottage industry housing production. This is characterised by labour intensive, customized stick-build housing dependent on long chains of subcontractors each comprising a ‘couple of blokes, a ute and a dog’.

Attempted planning reform misses the mark

Meanwhile, moves to boost supply elasticity by reforming planning systems were botched. A major effort on this front was launched on the back of the Hawke-Keating (Labor) (1983 - 1996) government’s micro-economic reform program. This followed the market liberalisation trail blazed by the Thatcher Government in the UK, and the Reagan Administration in the US. Under the umbrella of National Competition Policy, the Commonwealth made advance payments to the States to overhaul laws and regulations which were deemed to unduly stifle investment, innovation and entrepreneurship. The nation’s planning laws, generally adapted from the rigid Town and Country Planning Act adopted in Britain shortly after WW2, were considered prime suspects.

Calls to reform planning in Victoria met a receptive audience with the nominally politically opposed but nonetheless likeminded Kennett (Liberal) Government (1992-1999). The Victoria Planning Provisions were legislated in 1996 with the aim of radically simplifying planning zones and entrenching an ‘enabling’ rather than ‘prescriptive’ posture in statutory planning practice. The philosophical underpinning of these reforms was dubbed ‘performance-based regulation’. This involves codification of the development outcomes which proponents are expected to meet around density, massing, car parking, streetscape harmonization, emissions and noise etc., backed by a set of fixed ‘deemed to comply’ standards. The idea is that proponents would be free to come up with their own solutions to meet the outcome requirements. This would support innovation and productivity. The conservative deemed to comply standards would only be applied when proponents opted not to develop their own responses to the outcome requirements or where regulators found their response wanting against the outcome requirements. All good in theory, but the revamp of the Victorian planning system failed because the discipline of establishing quantifiable outcome requirements was never fully enforced. Under these conditions, performance-based planning can become an interminable process of negotiation and argument about what a project design is expected to achieve. Ironically, reforms intended to simplify planning and embed greater certainty for proponents achieved the opposite.

The almost complete withdrawal of governments from investment in social housing from the mid-1980s in favour of a twin strategy

of improved housing market efficiency and income top-ups for struggling renters has left us with a housing supply system that is less diverse and capable than it might otherwise have been. Arguably, it has bequeathed us an outsized affordability problem for households in the bottom quintile of the income distribution. It hasn’t helped with access to home ownership either, though other factors have been at play on this front.

Forces bearing down on home ownership.

The Global Financial Crisis sparked a long period of low interest rates. Save for the rapid ramp-up in interest rates post Covid, variable home loan rates have hovered around the 5% mark over the past decade. This compares to rates as high as 17% in the 1980s, post de-regulation of the banking system.

Tax laws in Australia provide strong incentives to achieve home ownership. Owner occupiers are exempt from capital gains tax on their home, they do not pay tax on imputed rent2 and the value of their homes is excluded from the means tests for many government transfer payments, including the Age Pension. This incentive, plus the boost to aggregate demand from immigration plus expanded borrowing capacity for households has seen a strong and sustained run up in prices.

Changes within the spatial economy have also played a part in the home ownership crisis. As part of what turned out to be a comprehensive remaking of Australia initiated 40 years ago, the nation embraced and benefitted heavily from the acceleration in global trade symbolically signposted by the fall of the Berlin Wall (November 1989). In Victoria this meant a swift pivot from the ‘making’ component of the value chain – manufacturing – to what might be called the ‘abstract’ component – design, finance, brokerage and entrepreneurship. In contrast to the long post-war boom when well paid jobs underpinned by manufacturing could be found in the burgeoning new suburbs of Melbourne as well as affordable home ownership, the shift to the knowledge economy was associated with a centripetal drift of the most secure and remunerative jobs into the inner city. Intensified competition for space in this now economically privileged region supercharged housing prices versus those in the new suburbs. Affordable home ownership may still be available in these new suburbs, but unlike decades past, it comes at the added cost of diminished access to jobs and opportunity (see Figure 1).

Dr Marcus Spiller is a founding partner at SGS Economics & Planning. He has more than 40 years’ experience in public policy analysis as an urban economist, with expertise covering metropolitan planning and governance, housing policy and the productivity of cities and regions. Marcus is a past National President and Life Fellow of the Planning Institute of Australia.

2. Home owners are their own landlords. They do not pay tax on the income they effectively receive from this asset, that is the rent they would otherwise have to pay to occupy such a home.

1. Brendan Coates, Joey Moloney, and Matthew Bowes (2025) More homes, better cities Letting more people live where they want, Grattan Institute (p 12)

Lynbrook Ofﬁcer Pakenham East

Melbourne

Figure 2

Private rental sector not fit for purpose. Regrettably, Australia’s private rental sector is not built to accommodate the lengthening wait time faced by aspirant first home buyers. It is dominated by so called ‘mum and dad’ investors, a substantial proportion of whom are accidental or reluctant landlords. Many are drawn by negative gearing3 benefits expecting to make good on their investments by realising capital gains on exit. These conditions mean that rental yields, the ratio of net rental income to capital value, tend to be low, even if from a tenant’s point of view rents might be high and rising. Low rental yields make it difficult for institutional investors to get involved in rental housing as has occurred in the UK and the US. The modest number of Build to Rent projects built or in the pipeline across Australia are either pitched at the premium end of the market or are the beneficiary of significant land tax and other regulatory breaks.

So, even though renters now comprise close to a third of all households, the tenant’s experience in Australia is often one of precarity. This is notwithstanding recent moves to improve renter rights in matters like home decoration, keeping pets and exposure to multiple and excessive rent increases over the course of a year.

What is the way out?

Overcoming the twin crisis of severe housing stress for lower income earners and receding home ownership requires a multi-faceted strategy.

A foundation element of any response must be boosting the supply elasticity of market housing. Planning reform should also feature but hopefully executed with greater conceptual robustness and discipline than the failed initiatives of the 1990s. Allied to this regulatory reform should be a recognition that the production of well-located housing is a partnership between the developer who brings commercially at-risk capital and the community which brings infrastructure and provides a social licence. Public policy could play a bigger part in supply elasticity through co-ordinated provision of roads, public transport, water cycle management, parkland, community facilities and other enabling assets, proactively assembling land in activity centres and capturing uplift in land value to help fund better cities and neighbourhoods. While improved market supply is necessary, it is unlikely to be sufficient by itself to resolve our twin crisis. Australia needs more diversity in housing supply to embed greater system resilience. A coherent long term policy on non-market housing is badly needed. This needs to

address both social housing, which in most circumstances requires extended and relatively deep subsidies for tenants, and co-operative housing which mobilises tenant capital and debt servicing capacity and requires modest seed investment rather than extended subsidies. A truly effective strategy would ultimately tackle the housing market distortions arising from the way land is taxed. Stamp Duty on property transactions, for example, frustrates optimal matching of households with the available stock. A still more challenging policy question is the differential taxation of households pending their tenures of owner occupancy, private rental and housing investor. Greater tenure neutrality in the tax system would likely see more capital flow into what are currently regarded as fringe sources of supply such as Build to Rent and co-operatives.

The challenge for designers.

The twin housing crisis has generated a near toxic environment for the prosecution of good design in our neighbourhoods and towns. On the one hand, there is a doubling down by the State Government on urban consolidation. This has been an abiding feature of metropolitan strategic planning in Melbourne for at least 5 decades, but we now have binding housing targets geared to a vision of accommodating 70% of the city’s population growth within the existing urban footprint. Aggressive consolidation is partly an outworking of the fiscal strain generated by inexorable outward urban expansion, but also reflects growing recognition that, as noted, households moving into greenfield growth areas risk severance from jobs and opportunity. This presents a simmering equity problem as well as a productivity drag on the Victorian economy. Households moving into the most recent greenfield suburb in Melbourne’s south-east growth corridor – Pakenham East – will have access to about one third the number of jobs available to the families moving into the then greenfield frontier suburb of Lynbrook back in 1996, despite the overall growth of the metropolitan economy in the intervening period (see Figure 2).

Achieving the now targeted rate of urban consolidation requires a vastly different approach to urbanism to that of well-practised suburban accretion of stick-built housing. At an average site density of 150 dwellings per hectare, more than 360 hectares of development ready land per year will need to be found in the built up areas of Melbourne, year in, year out. That’s one MCG (playing area) every 2 days, or 2.8 ‘Hoddle Grids’ per year (see Figure 3).

On the other hand, crisis conditions have, for some policy advocates, created a burning platform for a dialling down of planning and design standards in the transformation of well-connected suburbs. A brutal trade-off is being orchestrated between the aspiration for quality, sustainability and liveability in housing development and the availability and affordability of housing. Architects have a crucial role to play in demonstrating the falseness of this dichotomy. Privacy, sunlight, deep-rooted trees, walkability, streetscape harmonization and other housing benefits do not need to be sacrificed in pursuit of supply and affordability. It simply requires good design at the project and precinct level.

Figure 3 Melbourne will need to convert the equivalent of 2.8 Hoddle Grids per year to meet the Government’s infill housing targets

Figure 3

Taxation and Housing Affordability

Words by Miranda Stewart

Housing in Australia is affected by a wide range of taxes. Many people are aware of some of these: the income tax exemption for the home, the ability to negatively gear rental investments and pay less capital gains tax (CGT), State stamp duty on conveyances, land tax, and council rates. These Commonwealth, State and local tax laws provide exemptions or concessions for some types of housing investment and use, but high imposts apply to other aspects of housing, distorting the market.

Tax and home ownership

Home ownership remains the Australian dream, but it has become more difficult to achieve. In the 1950s and 1960s, home ownership rates increased rapidly. Today, home ownership rates for people aged 25 to 35 are 25 per cent lower than previous generations at that age (Whelan et al, 2023: Figure 1). The time required to save for a deposit for a median earner has more than doubled to 12 years, since 2000 (ibid.)

It is well known that the main residence is exempt from income tax – both capital gains on sale of the home, and the benefit of living in your own home is tax-free (in contrast to tenants who pay rent out of after-tax income). Homeowners do not pay land tax, but a large impost of stamp duty provides a barrier to entry for home buyers. Tax reform could help protect the Australian dream for younger generations. Most impact could be achieved if State governments phased out stamp duty on property sales and transitioned towards a low, flat rate land tax on unimproved land value for all housing, integrated with council rates for ease of compliance. Current stamp duty provides a significant disincentive to downsize for older home owners, and is a barrier to mobility of home owners, for example

moving to a new job in a different city. The exemption from land tax benefits high-value, high-income home owners the most.

A land tax on all properties would be more efficient and equitable, so this stamp duty-land tax switch has long been recommended by housing and tax experts (Freebairn et al, 2015). A land tax designed at a low rate on unimproved land value would ensure that owners living in higher density housing, such as apartments, would pay a relatively low tax.

But this obvious reform faces some big revenue and political challenges. A revenue-neutral change for State governments may require doubling of the rates bill - a big impost for households, who have legitimate concerns about fairness and cashflow. This means that a gradual transition from duty to land tax, supported fiscally by the Commonwealth Government, is essential. It would be necessary to design rules to defer land tax payment (with an interest rate) in some circumstances, until a home is sold, and credit for duty paid on purchase within a reasonable time in the past.

The CGT exemption should also be reformed. Designed in 1985, it is over-broad for current housing conditions, and inconsistent with policy goals for increased housing density and affordability. The CGT homeowner exemption applies no matter the value or size of a house, or the income or wealth of the homeowner. It exempts gain on up to 2 hectares (20,000 m2) of land adjacent to a house – forty times the median lot size in capital cities (about 400 m2) and thirty times the median lot size in rural areas (about 700 m2). The exemption also applies for substantial periods of absence, including if an owner is no longer living in the house for up to six years if the home is rented, and indefinitely if the home is left vacant.

Serious consideration should be given to limiting the CGT exemption to a smaller lot size, at least in urban areas, and to limit the period of vacancy for which the house remains eligible for the exemption – for example, to three years. This would encourage the rental or sale of the property, increasing housing supply.

The CGT exemption could also be limited or removed for high value houses - the recent sale of a north shore Sydney house for a record $25 million comes to mind. An alternative is for State governments to retain a high rate of stamp duty on sales of such properties, while removing duty on most homes – that would raise some revenue and discourage speculation.

Significant house price increases have benefited homeowners over the last several decades, increasing wealth inequality (Cigdem et al, 2024). As the baby boomers age, we will see growing transfers of valuable homes on death. We could remove the CGT exemption for capital gain where a home is transferred on death, while retaining an exemption for spouses if desired. We should also consider inheritance taxation for assets including the home. The lack of such a tax creates perverse incentives to hold onto a large and valuable house so as to pass it to heirs.

Tax and rental investments

In 2023, more than 2 million Australians were rental property investors (ATO, 2025). Tax statistics indicate that nearly half of rental investors benefited from “negative gearing”, declaring rental losses that sheltered their other income from tax (in total, $6.3 billion of tax loss). Rents are taxable but expenses of maintenance, depreciation, and interest are deductible from gross income. Investors benefit from the 50% CGT discount when the property is sold.

This tax shelter is not available for companies or large investors. As a consequence, Australia’s rental market structure is dominated by individuals owning one or two properties, with investor behaviour driven at least partly by the tax shelter (Gillitzer, 2025). High income investors benefit the most. Seventy per cent of the benefit of negative gearing goes to the top 30 per cent, and eighty per cent of the CGT 50% discount goes to the top 10 per cent.

The CGT 50% discount was introduced in 2000, replacing CPI indexation of the cost base that had applied since 1985. The goal was to encourage investment in shares and to ensure that only real gains are taxed. Today, it is clear that the 50% discount overcompensates for inflation.

Tax reform should reduce the CGT discount. One option is to provide a 40% CGT discount for all investment income and gains,

less investment expenses, as recommended by the Henry Tax Review (Treasury, 2009), which would also have the benefit of limiting negative gearing.

The argument that removing rental tax concessions will reduce the supply of rental housing does not hold up. Every home that is no longer rented will become the residence of a homeowner, and this is likely to free up another home for rental. If some investors move their money out of rental properties, house prices may come down a little –improving affordability.

Targeting tax concessions for affordable housing

It is challenging to move Australia away from being a nation of small rental investors into large scale investment in good quality affordable rental apartments. Commonwealth and State governments have, over the years, offered a variety of tax concessions to encourage more investment in affordable housing.

The stamp duty and land tax reforms proposed above would eliminate some tax barriers to investment in affordable rental housing. A low-rate flat land tax on unimproved value removes the bias against large investors in multiple dwellings or multi-unit complexes. Increased housing supply could also be supported by legislating a lower tax rate for gains or income derived by corporate or institutional investment in housing.

The Commonwealth National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) operated between 2008 and 2018, providing an annual credit, or grant, to investors in new affordable housing projects, and a higher CGT discount on sale of an affordable unit. The NRAS could be revived for a new decade of investment, or made permanent – it could be better to target it to institutional investors or funds, and permit individuals to invest in such intermediaries.

Tax reform can support housing affordability and supply

The interaction between the tax system and housing is complex. It is difficult to work out the overall effect of the various taxes and subsidies on housing tenures of ownership or renting, on overall housing supply and on prices and affordability. It is often not clear whether taxes (or subsidies) are borne by the owner, purchaser, or tenant of housing through prices or rents, as these depend on what economists call the ‘elasticity’ of the housing market.

Tax reform for housing is also highly political and contested. Elected governments seek to achieve two contradictory goals: reducing house prices to improve affordability, and increasing prices to support voters with a mortgage. States rely heavily on revenue from inefficient taxes, but the Commonwealth is reluctant to step in. Existing investors in homes or rental properties are understandably worried about protecting their position.

And, tax reform cannot solve all housing supply or affordability challenges. We also need changes in landlord and tenant laws to support long-term tenancies, reforms to planning and zoning law and new corporate and financial regulation.

Despite the challenges, tax reform for housing is important. The current system contributes to making housing markets less efficient and less fair and it inhibits the affordability and supply of housing. This short article proposes reforms to State stamp duty and land tax, and to Commonwealth income and capital gains tax, to protect the Australian dream and security of housing for all.

Miranda Stewart is Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne and currently the Visiting Professor of Tax Law and Director of the International Tax Program at New York University School of Law. Miranda researches and teaches taxation law and policy, and publications such as Tax and Government (2022) and Housing and Tax Policy (2010) evidence her passion for the resilience, legitimacy and fairness of tax systems. Miranda’s current research explores how tax systems can respond to population ageing and increasing wealth inequality, including in housing.

Notes

Cigdem-Bayram, M, Stewart, M, Whelan, S, Wood, G (2024) ‘Decomposing wealth inequality in Australia 2006-2018’ Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research Working Paper 13/24 https:// melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/working-papers/search/result?paper=5169784

Freebairn, J, Stewart, M and Peixuan, L (2015), Reforming State Taxes in Australia: Rationale and Options https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30671527.pdf

Figure 1

Figures show percentage of occupied private dwellings. Household age group according to age of household referene person. Excludes households with tenure type not stated.

Sources: Daley, Coates et al. (2018) with original data from Yates (2015) and ABS (2016); updated to 2021 from ABS census by Dr Ryan van den Nouwelant.

Planning Reform

Words by Leanne Hodyl

Planning reforms are sweeping through Australian cities. They are part of a longer-term pattern of major revisions to planning systems in response to broader crises and political headwinds. In this instance, in 2026, it is the current and real housing crisis.

Planning has been targeted by some as the main culprit stifling housing supply with high-profiled analyses of the extent of our cities that are ‘under-zoned’ gaining media attention. It is also, however, recognised by many as only one part of the problem, with other major challenges including the escalation of construction costs, skills shortages, and interest rate rises undermining development feasibility.

A narrow goal of rapidly increasing housing supply through faster and denser permit approvals, risks overlooking the foundational question that any planning reform should ask: ’How can our planning system best facilitate coherent and fair changes in our urban environments towards the creation of more sustainable, healthier and prosperous communities and places?’.

The shared aspiration of Federal and State governments to locate more housing in well-serviced areas is easy to support. The benefits of building more homes where residents can access what they need in a short walk, cycle or trip on public transport are clear. Maximising the use of existing infrastructure also makes good financial and environmental sense.

For architects in Victoria, the primary interface with the planning scheme is via Victoria’s planning provisions. The recent reforms to these include the introduction of new zone and overlay tools largely focused on facilitating housing supply around train stations and tram corridors and faster permit assessments. Strengths of these new provisions include the support for greater densities in walking catchments of activity centres, the introduction of floor area ratios in some locations, potential for value capture, and master planning requirements on large sites.

There are, however, three persistent weaknesses in the planning system that will continue to frustrate government objectives: a poverty mindset around delivering for the public interest remains; development controls continue to be centred on atomised individual site assessments and not what it takes to make great neighbourhoods; and speculative developers continue to be rewarded which in the longer term will diminish housing quality and supply.

The ‘poverty mindset’ around the public interest in planning is reflected by a compliance-focused permit assessment system. This approach is only as good as the minimum standards, or the strength of the policy in requiring those standards to be met. The recent Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into the Better Apartment Design Standards, for example, identified the need for better daylight standards to apartments flagging ambiguous or insufficient consideration of minimum daylight levels required for healthy living.

A ‘prosperity mindset’ starts with a different approach. It asks, ‘How can we ensure that through the billions of dollars of private investment in our cities we are cumulatively creating good homes and neighbourhoods to live in for this and future generations?’. Making higher density living more desirable will support an accelerated cultural shift towards apartment living. This is not about being idealistic, it is about being realistic that the quality of our cities matters to the health outcomes, productivity and global competitiveness of Australia. A focus on compliance will not yield liveable places and diminishes the potential to harness the talents and skills of designers in delivering them.

To avoid the atomised focus on individual permit assessments, more sophisticated approaches to crafting development controls that consider how individual developments come together collectively to shape great places are essential. A place-led articulation of the public realm improvements that can support greater residential densities – for example new parks, streets and enhanced urban greening - is an important first step, complemented by sophisticated planning

controls that enable this to be delivered through cumulative development. The recent introduction of a master planning requirement for large sites is a good step forward towards this approach.

An over-reliance on codified ‘deemed-to-comply’ planning approaches is an example of the poverty mindset and atomised site assessment weaknesses compounding. If a development meets the codified standard then it is deemed to meet that planning objective. They can play a useful role, for example, the codification of an overshadowing control where a metric can be easily defined and assessed. In complex urban settings such as activity centres that include diverse heritage places, a range of lot sizes and orientations, mixed land uses and places with sensitive interfaces they have their limitations. In these settings, place-based controls paired with a qualitative design review process will add more value. Codified controls that bake-in poor performance outcomes such as insufficient building separation distances that compromise daylight to apartments should be avoided.

In areas with high market demand, discretionary controls encourage and reward development speculation. Whether the homes are built or not, the higher yields approved in permits will contribute to escalating land values. As land values go up, development feasibility in an area goes down. Future developers have to chase rising land values by accommodating more and more yield on their sites to make their developments feasible which can further exacerbate design issues and compromise the development potential of adjacent sites. If additional yield isn’t achievable, then future developments simply won’t proceed hindering housing supply. A development control targeted on stabilising land values is needed to arrest this cycle. The most universally used tool across Australia is a mandatory Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Expanding its application beyond the discrete locations where they operate in Melbourne would be a positive evolution of the current planning reforms to date. A FAR enables flexibility around height, massing and site coverage outcomes, while avoiding overdevelopment.

This empowers the designer to optimise both internal and neighbourhood amenity outcomes and supports more constructive and qualitative design review discussions in permit negotiations. It ensures that space for broader neighbourhood benefits – including laneways and landscaped areas – are not squeezed out by overdevelopment. Stable land values will facilitate more housing supply in the longer term and also make it more feasible for Councils to acquire the land needed for public infrastructure to support the increased local population.

While many architects see planning as a hindrance, I would argue that their experience largely reflects these persistent weaknesses in our planning system. The development of well-designed regulation connected to a well-governed qualitative design review process can facilitate the delivery of both housing supply and the creation of great places to live, that delivers generational benefits for our cities.

Leanne Hodyl is director of the urban strategy and design consultancy Hodyl. She works for the city we all share, driving outcomes that are in the public interest. Leanne provides urban strategy and design advice to those shaping our citiespolicymakers, developers, not-for-profit organisations, designers and planners.

Nightingale communities along the Upfield rail and bike trail, Brunswick. Drawing by Simon O'Brien, Six Degrees

More Than Housing: Re-Centering the Neighbourhood in Urban Liveability

Words by Andy Fergus

"How do we convince Australians to embrace denser living?" We face this question at industry events, community consultation and family gatherings across the country. The answer often quickly narrows to apartment standards, building quality and the trauma of defects, but the truth is we're focusing on the wrong scale. In Government’s rush to facilitate housing supply through the broad brushstroke of city-wide upzoning, we're neglecting the fundamentals of what makes good dense cities liveable.

Housing supply and liveable density are not the same thing We are creating exactly the kind of density that reinforces every negative stereotype; discordant individual apartment projects, increased vehicle congestion, loss of urban character and greenery and a lack of co-ordinated public improvements. We shouldn't be surprised when communities resist, or when apartment dwellers themselves remain unconvinced, still aspiring to the house and garden.

The case for density remains strong, however it is being actively undermined by how we are building it. Until we demonstrate density that successfully delivers on its purported benefits at the scale of the neighbourhood, we will struggle to change perceptions.

This disconnect was highlighted in a recent conversation with a senior politician who spoke confidently of how the benefits of density only occur after homes are built, when disappointed residents begin to demand for public investment to patch the holes in community infrastructure. This naive and narrow belief that planning’s role is to facilitate dense housing alone has become a default assumption in Australian policy, yet it stands in stark contrast to the reality of how liveable dense neighbourhoods are created.

So what are the benefits of urban density?

Reframing the discussion away from the reductive focus on ‘housing supply’, let’s take the time to step through the benefits of urban

density, considering the social, environmental and economic factors. What are the factors that can make dense environments a compelling choice?

From a social perspective, people living physically closer together have more frequent interactions that allow for bonds to form, whether weak or strong. These bonds enhance community resilience in the face of extreme weather events, pandemic or economic crises, ensuring communities can self-organise rather than depending entirely on government. Reduced dependency on commuting and car-based travel means more time spent locally, resulting in enhanced place attachment. Reduced commute times when employment opportunities are nearby results in more discretionary time spent socialising, engaging in hobbies or participating in civic life, and enhanced mental wellbeing, key factors observed in global ‘blue zones’ where residents consistently live longer. Notably, few of these benefits occur within the dwelling itself, but rather depend on the quality of public or third places which exist outside of the home, where residents are brought together both by necessity and choice. These spaces must be accessible on foot or by bike, close to the home, anchored by public or commercial facilities, away from busy roads and have a good microclimate to be attractive. If employment remains distant, transport remains car based, and local amenity isn’t planned, then the density of the dwelling itself has very little bearing on social outcomes.

Environmentally, the benefits of density are directly connected to the efficiency of materials and use of resources, along with the diversion of construction away from environmentally sensitive and food producing landscapes at the urban fringe. More compact multidwelling envelopes benefit from improved thermal performance and the economy of scale associated with higher quality heating, cooling and ventilation systems. Where alternatives to car-based transport exist, reduced emissions result from reduced car trip volumes as well as reduced congestion. The primary conflict here is that our cities are also biodiversity hot spots, providing refuge for many native species

with declining habitat outside of cities. Both public and private realm contribute greatly to urban biodiversity and require careful protection through densification. This simple binary of protecting the fringe through the intensification of the core becomes more complex.

At an economic level the case is most clear cut. James Howard Kunstler famously described suburbia as ‘the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world’, a reality paralleled in all Australian cities, where municipalities are burdened by an exceptional large surface area of public infrastructure to maintain off a low dwelling density and struggle to keep up with the needs of the community. Melbourne is now considered to be one of the lowest density cities in the world for its size, when measured at a metropolitan scale, and research by Infrastructure Victoria in 2023 has neatly projected the perilous budget implications of continuing with a dispersed suburban form.

Increased dwelling density results in a lesser infrastructure spend per dwelling, supports healthier municipal budget through the collection of a greater volume of property rates, while well located new infrastructure can be enjoyed by a larger community. Greater densities support more local economic activity, and support specialisation and complexity in the local economy, with a greater pool of potential workers for employees, and job prospects for workers. Residents in dense environments spend considerably more time in the public realm and less time in their private homes, resulting in greater local activity and expenditure in retail and hospitality environments. In turn their needs from and demands of the urban environment are much higher compared to their suburban counterparts.

So many of the examples drawn upon to inform research into the benefits of density come from urban areas which were substantially built in a pre-car era. The principal challenge in Australia that we face is how to transition a primarily post-war suburban fabric and infrastructure into high functioning, liveable dense environments. In truth, there are very limited local or international examples of transformation of suburban areas at the rate and scale proposed in Australian cities that have been able to deliver the public and urban amenity required to support liveability.

The difference between ‘place-based’ and ‘zone-based’ transformation.

So where do we look for case studies? Casting the net wide I have sought out comparable examples in California, Toronto, Auckland and Sydney, along with Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Athens, Amsterdam and Paris. What quickly emerges is a comparability challenge, in terms of both the existing urban condition, and the planning and development culture that predominates.

A clear binary emerges between ‘place-based’ and ‘zonebased’ planning cultures. Place-based implies the co-ordinated transformation of a place through masterplans, urban frameworks and partnerships between public and private actors. In contrast, zone-based typically refers to the incremental transformation of existing fabric on a plot-by-plot basis, as an overlay over an existing, earlier and deemed obsolete phase of urban development, whether residential or industrial.

The zone-based tradition has its origins in the USA and can be observed in cities with a dominantly suburban character, with a significant proportion of development in the 20th century. This is often associated with a reduced or small central government, and a higher dependency on a market-led development paradigm. Onesize-fits-all rules are established and applied top-down over large urban areas. Rules focus on efficiency, uniformity and compliance, sometimes with limited local variations. The market determines when or where development occurs based on suitability of lots and local economic conditions.

In contrast a place-based approach to transformation is more synonymous with urban areas with a stronger tradition of density, where conservation areas are more extensive, opportunities are more scarce and supported by a stronger government more active in urban transformation processes. Planning frameworks tend to bifurcate between managing existing areas where only incremental change is anticipated, and transformation areas where careful masterplanning occurs to guide new development, supported by timely public investment.

Cautionary tales from zone-based urban transformation. To understand this zone-based approach locally, we can look to the post-war suburban transformation of suburbs such as Randwick, Lakemba, St.Kilda East and West Footscray to see the effects of plot by plot transformation from single homes into the now iconic ‘six pack’ flats.

Guided by simple building codes relating to construction standards, height, envelope, ventilation and car parking a carpet of these blocks spread out where allowed, offering limited co-ordinated transformation of suburban streets, local amenities, open spaces, schools and health facilities. While lauded for their simplicity, robustness and amenity, the net effect in most urban areas is many more cars on the roads, limited tree planting, broad areas of impervious tarmac around buildings with limited communal or public amenity and no forward planning of new open space assets, bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure to support mobility transition.

From the international examples, Athens offers one of the most extraordinary examples of plot-by-plot transformation during its recovery after the 1946-1949 civil war. While only 1000 buildings over 5 levels were recorded in the city pre 1950s, this was expanded by the construction of 35,000 apartment houses known as Polykatoikia (multi residence) by 1980, corresponding with a population that doubled during this time. The method of reconstruction comprised a legal framework for existing owners of degraded buildings to exchange title for dwellings in the new apartment building, which were built by a plentiful supply of rural migrant skilled builders and labourers, with small scale builder developers who specialised in the 5-7 storey apartment typology. A simple, codified envelope, combined with a pro-forma legal framework for joint venture development created the conditions for an extraordinary boom. In an environment where scarce public funds were directed to rebuilding major regional infrastructure such as roads, rail, ports and airport, Athens was transformed in less than two generations by these prolific plot by plot projects.

While an extraordinary case in numerical terms, the cautionary tale lies in the inability to co-ordinate precinct-scale public improvements to support this rapid densification. Athens exhibits some of the lowest rates of green space per capita in Europe, at between 3.9-5sqm per person, well less than the World Health Organisation recommendation of 9sqm per person, while the impact of limited green space and urban tree planting means that Athens may reach temperatures up to 15 degrees hotter than nearby rural areas by 2050. This exacerbated urban heat poses a disproportionate risk to the ageing population with cardiovascular and respiratory mortality risk reaching from 20-35% in people over 65. This remarkable unplanned form of urban intensification has left Athens with a significant challenge and cost burden in retrofitting urban quality and climate safety.

Neighbourhoods shape liveability

Post occupancy evaluation in urban transformation projects is remarkably scarce, which reflects the drawn-out timescale of these projects and lack of any singular responsible agency at a local scale. Much closer to home - a 2019 Auckland study entitled Living at Density offers a rare insight into resident perceptions in a master planned development at Hobsonville Point. Extensive surveys were undertaken of residents living in compact townhouse and apartment dwellings as to their choices and implications for future planning. Despite the breadth of questions, residents spoke very little of their dwellings

themselves, while speaking effusively of the convenience and richness of their lives spent in the public realm. This was tied to wellplanned and co-ordinated transport, public infrastructure such as schools and parks, extensive waterfront walking and bicycle trails and local hospitality and retail hubs. The carefully planned neighbourhood turned the residents into advocates for urbanity, in a city with an exceptionally limited culture of urban density.

Despite the evidence pointing to the critical role of the neighbourhood in living dense, the private dwelling or apartment building remains the primary focus of government upzoning policy in Australian cities. The significant social, environmental and economic benefits of density only occur through co-ordinated neighbourhood scale transformation with increased access to employment, public and third spaces for socialising, mobility transition and more efficient use of resources. Without this, increased density just means bigger buildings surrounded by isolated strangers, more cars congesting the road network, and a form of living that remains subordinate to the amenity and benefits of the private house and garden. The type of environment that means your family still asks you at Christmas parties when you plan to buy a real home.

If we want to win the debate for density over the single dwelling, we are going to have to become far more sophisticated in demonstrating the total living environment benefits of dense areas, rather than focusing solely on the quality of the dwelling. To do this we need a heightened focus on careful place-based planning, more timely planning, funding and delivery of public investment alongside private investment and case studies which allow us to demonstrate what dense living can offer as our preferred habitat.

Andy Fergus is an urban designer and design strategist working across all scales of the city from the urban plan to the individual building or interface, often acting as a translator between disciplines and scales. His strategic design practice is informed by the relationship between urban economics, good governance, planning frameworks and spatial design. In addition to his consultancy work, Andy is heavily engaged in public advocacy and is the advocacy lead for the Urban Design Forum of Australia.

Urban canyon in the Gyzi neighbourhood, Lomvardou Street, Athens

Photography

credit:

Stavros Alifragkis

Exemplar Projects

Selected Case Studies from the Density Done Well Exhibition

Jewell Station BKK Architects

Inkerman and Nelson Townhouses MA+Co

Wilam Ngarrang Kennedy Nolan

Nightingale Ballarat Breathe Architecture

St Albans Housing NMBW

Project Overview

Project Name: 17 Union Street

Brunswick

Location: Jewell Station Precinct, Brunswick

Traditional Owners: Wurundjeri

Local Council: Merri-bek City Council

Distance to CBD: 4.5km

Project Team

Lead Architect/Urban Design: BKK

Architects

Collaborator: MA Architects

Interiors: Clare Cousins Architects

Client: Neometro

Initiated By: VicTrack (via a competitive bid process)

Planner: Contour

Landscape: Glas Landscape

Development Statistics

Building Type: 8 Storeys + 3 levels of Basement

Total Dwellings: 38 apartments

Mix of Dwellings:

-13 One Bedroom

-23 Two Bedroom

-2 Three Bedroom

Site Area: 578m2

Site Density: 657 Dw/Ha

Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 7.1

Sustainability: 7.1-star NatHERS

Site Features & Community Benefit

Structure: Robust concrete frame designed for long-term adaptability and to prevent future demolition

Communal Spaces: Communal BBQ and rooftop garden

Public Realm: Ground level commercial tenancies and a reimagined public square/station forecourt, managing both pedestrians and up to 1000 cyclists per hour

Transport: Adjacent to Jewell Station, and Upfield bike path. 4 mins from trams

Development Model: Transit-adjacent development on a constrained, well located urban site

Jewell Station

CLIENT STATEMENT

The need for design-led density has never been more urgent as Melbourne grapples with the intertwined pressures of population growth, constrained land supply and an escalating cost of living. We have long believed that good density should be shaped by how people want to live, and how cities can support that aspiration. Our Jewell Station project in Brunswick reflects this belief. The building is a mixed-use, medium-density neighbourhood stitched into an existing transport hub. It is a piece of civic infrastructure as much as it is housing.

Jewell Station shows what happens when higher density is approached as a public benefit. The project supports connectivity by activating the ground plane with retail, cycling links and pedestrian walkways. Internally, the apartments are designed to wear in, not wear out, and are intentionally simple, highly functional and adaptable, acknowledging that people’s needs evolve over time.

The new reforms unfolding in Victoria are generally positive. Streamlining approvals for townhouses and medium-density apartments can ease some of our housing pressures. Greater public investment in social and affordable housing, along with incentives for sustainable, durable and adaptable medium-density development, can also benefit our cities, but it is vital that good design remains at the heart of planning discussions. We see design as the most reliable mechanism for creating housing that is sustainable, desirable and built to last.

Neometro

Photography Credit: Henry Lam

ARCHITECT STATEMENT

The urban design vision was to transform the neglected Jewell Station Precinct into a coherent and animated urban village. Initiated by VicTrack, the 17 Union Street Brunswick project establishes a high quality, replicable model for transit-adjacent development on constrained urban sites — a challenge of increasing relevance as scarce inner-city land intensifies.

The building augments and reinforces the distinctive character of the locale. Its robust concrete frame is conceived for long-term adaptability, resisting obsolescence and precluding the need for future demolition.

Central to the design proposition is the Upfield Shared Path, one of Melbourne's most heavily trafficked cycling corridors, accommodating up to 1,000 cyclists per hour at peak. Rather than treating this infrastructure as a constraint, we embraced this as a structuring element for the design with zigzag columns articulating a contemporary loggia as a transition between the animated public edge and the quieter domestic realm within.

BKK Architects

RESIDENT STATEMENT

I like the materials and textures like the concrete ceiling, the wooden floors and the fact that it isn’t a massive high rise. It has a very nice community feeling, including the garden and barbecue spot on the rooftop. I also really love the open corridors, compared to typical apartments in Melbourne with closed off corridors. Being open air, this brings much more open air into the space.

Alan

Architect Victoria