Cohesion through Housing - Master of Architecture Thesis by Neuman Chow

housing as a catalyst for social cohesion Studio 14 New Middle Housing: Future Homes Student Competition

Neuman Chow • 718056

Melbourne School of Design

Neuman Chow Melbourne School of Design Studio Leader — Mark Ng Master of Architecture Design Thesis

Contents

01

02 03

Thesis

Research

Case Studies

04 05 06

Feasibility Study

Concept Design

Sketch Design

07 08 Final Design

Competition Appendix

4

5

01

Thesis

Architecture has always been intertwined in social and cultural dimensions. In light of the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the home is a place that is even more important than ever before. Statistics show that the mental health of individuals are deteriorating enduring the lockdown period, and is attributed to social isolation and lack of amenities thereof (Fisher et. al, 2020; Smith and Lim, 2020).

It is evident that the current multi-residential housing situation in Melbourne require design strategies and responses that offers more opportunities for social cohesion to occur within the neighbourhood building.

As the population of Melbourne is increasing rapidly, this issue opens an avenue for architecture to contribute as a vehicle for effective and sustainable placemaking in the realm of housing.

Statement

This thesis positions to investigate the role of architecture in improving social cohesion through strategies applied in the design of a multi-residential precinct in conjunction with the New Middle Housing: Future Homes Student Competition guidelines.

The thesis aims to explore how architecture and placemaking can contribute towards the increase of social interaction opportunities and healthier neighbourhood relationships through precinct planning and the design of effective amenities.

6

7

01

Thesis

Hypothesis

DE The problem with the current development model of multi-residential buildings are the lack of accessible or inclusive amenities, ill-planned circulation and layouts that do not promote interactions among neighbours.

CA : AD

The hypothesis would be that social interaction opportunities can increase through a greater ratio of communal amenities to apartment density.

AF DI

The densification of apartment precinct coupled with a variety of apartment layouts will attract a greater diversity of residents by improving the affordability of dwellings. This would lead to greater neighbourhood solidarity, healthier relationships and improved social

Social Cohesion

CA : AD DE AF DI

Communal amenities to Apartment Density Ratio Density of dwellings in precinct Affordability Residents Diversity

8

9

02

Research

Social Cohesion

Michalos (2014) define social cohesion as the “extent of connectedness and solidarity among groups in society”. It extends on into two key groups: the sense of belonging of a community and the relationships between them. It requires a democratic effort to achieve systems that demonstrate equity to circumvent social fractures (Manca, 2014).

The saying “charity begins at home” can be equally applied to social cohesion within the neighbourhood community.

Apartment dwellers in Melbourne are facing a sense of social isolation within their neighbourhood that inevitably leads to the weakening of solidarity of relationships in their community. This is even more true in the case of renters that are statistically more vulnerable to loneliness and social isolation (Franklin & Tranter, 2011). The anonymity of apartment dwellers in Melbourne is attributed to the design of apartments that has converted homes within a neighbourhood into “hotels” where there may be a thousand neighbours in your building, but you may not even get to know any of them throughout your stay (Warner and Andrews, 2019; Forest & Kearns, 2001).

The influx of student population in Melbourne in the recent years has also developed a new spike in private renters, raising the demand of housing availability (Fincher & Shaw, 2016). The hasty response was profit-driven developments to meet the demand causing the housing market and trend to prioritise the yield even more. Through an analysis of current apartment buildings in the Melbourne CBD and nearby suburbs, we see a growing trend of the minimization of communal amenities to increase the yield of apartment units.

Essentially, with the growing population of Melbourne it is vital to find alternative means of ethical housing development that promotes a healthier community while still being profitable and viable.

Buildings that build bonds Figure 1. Social cohesion gesture (Author, 2020)

10

11

02

Research

Cromley (1998) written a beautiful piece describing the evolution of New York’s Early Apartments where she coined the term “Alone Together�. This is jarringly already happening in Melbourne and does not look like it would stop unless there is a legitimate alternative that would encourage developers to hop on the ethical development bus. Milieu Property, Assemble, and Nightingale are the few key Victorian developers that are focusing on more ethical developments and typologies of apartment living that adds social capital to the urban fabric rather than diminishing it.

Social Cohesion

macro culture/values

Social connectedness (social capital) Emphasis on social processes

It is found that attributes of housing and placemaking are heavily related to the inequalities dimension of social cohesion (Stone & Hulse, 2007). The way people experience their house as well as their ownership towards homes play a huge role in social connectedness within an apartment neighbourhood. Renting has been negatively impacting neighbourhood attachment and also safety levels (Stone & Hulse, 2007).

As such, future homes can find opportunities in creating a sense of ownership and connection to the neighbourhood through apartment planning and the way they experience living in the precinct.

Inequalities (social exclusion) Emphasis on social processes

cultural norms and context micro

Figure 2. Dimensions of social cohesion, showing social, economic and cultural domains, (Stone & Hulse, 2007)

12

13

02

Research

The data collected is divided into the following categories to align more specifically with the topic of discussion in the thesis as below: • Survey on living in apartments • Population density in relation to age and distance from Melbourne CBD • Housing demand trend • Household types data • Housing prices, ownership and tenancy data • Median income and employment data

Demographics

75% 42% 45% 80% 60%

Lived in apartments

knows none of their neighbours

knows only 1-2 neighbours do not use communal areas in apartments

thinks kitchens and dining rooms are shareable spaces (non-essentials)

Results tabulated shows evidence of the poor outcomes of existing apartments in Melbourne in terms of social capital. On subjective questions, most of them described their communal areas to be unattractive and rather be at home. A large number of people are open to the idea of downsizing their apartments and share eating and cooking areas for increase affordability and better internal apartment spatial quality.

Pool 50 People Age Group 20-45 years old Nationality 20 Victorians, 30 Internationals Figure 3. Survey on Apartment Living Experience via SurveyMonkey (Author, 2020)

14

15

02

Research

Demographics

2006

160k

middle-ring

140k

Population

120k 100k

0 - 34 years

80k

35-54 years

60k

55 years and over

40k

The data is also studied in relation to the prediction of the demographic patterns that would shift with the population

20k 0 0

10

20

30

40

50

growth in Melbourne that comes from natural increase and international migration. The research would coincide with affordability, housing

60

distance from CBD (km)

demand and composition datas to develop a background understanding for a more holistic design approach to improving social cohesion in housing.

2020

160k

middle-ring

140k 120k

Population

Synthesizing the information from the demographics data collected, the target group can be identified to tailor the design strategies and responses to fit the lifestyle and needs of the community that would primarily inhabit the spaces.

100k

0 - 34 years

80k

35-54 years

60k

55 years and over

40k 20k 0 0

10

20

30

40

50

distance from CBD (km) Figure 4. Population Density, (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020)

60

The data shows that the population density of the younger age group has significantly increased in the middle-ring suburb with the ageing community having a higher increase in the inner-suburbs. There are also increases in the older age groups to the outer-suburbs.

16

17

02

Research

Demographics

6.0% Other households

160 25.2% Lone person households

s

ing

43.1% Families with children

ell Dw

150

u

Ho

2016

s

old

h se

Growth index

140

25.6% Couple-only households

ion

lat

pu Po

130

120

5.2% Other households

100 1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

Years 26.2% Lone person households

Figure 6. Housing demand trend. (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016)

41.1% Families with children

2056

27.6% Couple-only households

Figure 5. Household types (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016)

The trend shows that the population growth does not match the growth in number of dwellings over the years despite the household growth is growing at a similar rate as the dwellings. This is due to the overall decrease in household sizes over the years that can be attributed to the younger

2006

18

19

02

Research $0

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

Demographics $60,000

$70,000

19.5%

Independent Youth

15.0%

Established Couples & Families

14.2%

Maturing & Established Independence

13.1%

Maturing Couples & Families Older Couples & Families

11.5% 9.2%

Older Independence

8.3% 5.5% 2.3%

Annual Median income in Victoria – $73,788 Professionals Administrative Managers

50%

Technicians/Trade workers

40% 30%

Community service

20%

Sales workers

10%

Labourers Machine operators Coburg

Kensington

Maribyrnong

Moonee Ponds

Essendon

Figure 7. Income & Employment. (Gothe-Snape, Jackson & Macleod, 2017)

From the data above, the proportion of white-collar workers is significantly higher than blue-collar workers. During the COVID-19 lockdown period, it can be assumed that most individuals were working from home in the middle-ring suburbs as it majority of the white-collar jobs were not under the essential workers category. Also the average income in the middle-ring suburbs would in the range between $50,000-60,000.

1.3%

Elderly Singles Elderly Couples Young Families Elderly Families

Figure 8. Lifestyle influence. (Realestate.com.au, 2020)

The data above was extracted from Realestate.com.au sourced from Mosaic demographic data by Experian Australia Pty Ltd, as an average from the suburbs below: • Coburg North • Kensington • Maribyrnong Data shows that the a general trend of lifestyles in the middle-ring suburbs of Melbourne are currently most influenced by the independent youths, and established couples and families

18

19

03

Case Studies

Public housing towers

The case studies were carefully selected to exhibit typical multi-residential existing practices locally and internationally. The focus in the case studies are circulation areas, layout typology, amenities and level of social interaction opportunities. Below are the apartment typologies that were identified for the research: • Public housing towers, Melbourne • Studio 9, Bendigo Street, Richmond • Atherton Gardens Estate, Fitzroy • Oxford & Peel Apartments, Collingwood

Figure 9. Typical public housing towers in Melbourne. (Author, 2020)

21

03

Case Studies

Public housing towers dead inhabitable corridor

• inhumane replicity • lack of human scale • diminished social identity

corridor

20

• social stigma hotspots

elevated base (dark) undesireable

diagrammatic elevation

typical floor plan

22

23

03

Case Studies

Studio 9, Richmond Hayball Architects



Studio 9 was designed to meet the needs of the ageing community through adaptive reuse of the GTV9 site creating a housing precinct that encompasses high amenities, improved living conditions and thoughtful design responses towards supporting disability.

 

Through the analysis of the apartment layouts, it is found that: • living areas and all bedrooms have ample natural lighting and ventilation (outward facing). This allows passive surveillance creating a safer inner neighborhood.

• corridors are still deadspaces.

• private open spaces have areas mostly greater than 12m2



• chances for social interactions are limited to the open green spaces in the precinct that are too large in scale for purposeful conversations to occur.



Figure 10. Re-drawing of one of the blocks of Studio Nine Apartments (Author, 2020)

    





24

03

Case Studies

Studio 9, Richmond Hayball Architects

Figure 11. Studio Nine Masterplan (Hayball, 2020)

Figure 12. Studio Nine Common Park (Hayball, 2020)

26

03

Case Studies

Atherton Gardens Social Housing

Figure 12. Adapted from Review on Atherton Gardens Social Housing (Clark, 2013)

Similarly to Studio Nine, multi-residential developments during this period vastly use double-loaded corridors as shown in the floorplan above. It is a trend that is continuing even in 2020 rendering corridors as a highly underutilized space that can be repurposed and reimagined. The ground treatment of the apartment block is faced with an unwelcoming sight with the population of cars flooding the ground plane. The relationship between adjacent social housing block is met with a high fence that does not encourage permeability or linkages for urban revitalisation.

Figure 13. Adapted from Review on Atherton Gardens Social Housing (Clark, 2013)

28

03

Case Studies

Atherton Gardens Social Housing

Figure 14. Adapted from Review on Atherton Gardens Social Housing (Clark, 2013)

The seemingly smart idea of breaking up repetitiveness of facade treatment is then met with a counter-productive gesture of minimizing apartment openings towards streetfronts making the building mass look like a barricade rather than a place for residents to return to their havens. It resembles returning home to a solitude being cut-off from the world. The interiors of the apartments has a typical 2400mm ceiling height with the balcony balustrades being 1400mm high. This design makes the spatial experience tight, claustrophobic and unpleasant.

Figure 15. Adapted from Review on Atherton Gardens Social Housing (Clark, 2013)

30

03

Case Studies

Atherton Gardens Social Housing

The image shown on the right, definitely had an intention to create a beautiful open space for communal activities to occur within the apartment precinct. However, the planning of the foyer being a divider between apartment blocks to the green areas is not a great design response as it disconnects the relationship for direct the link between them.

What did not contribute further to the benefits of the open green space is the inward-facing facade treatments. It does not convey an idea of passive surveillance as the opaque colored balustrades covers up any form of interaction between apartments and the open space.

The tight balcony spaces with small awning windows at outlooking habitable rooms only shows how depressing it may be to live in an apartment like this.

This case study reveals the importance of the materiality in apartment buildings that creates a more pleasant

Figure 15. Adapted from Review on Atherton Gardens Social Housing (Clark, 2013)

32

33

03

Case Studies

Oxford & Peel Jackson Clement Burrows Architects 2125

2500

1340

3650

Oxford & Peel apartments is located in Collingwood, Victoria designed by Jackson Clement Burrows Architects.

This is an exemplar of a multi-residential apartment that encompasses a few key characteristics that makes it a successful apartment design typology.

25250

• Majority of the apartment units arecross-ventilated • The open double-loaded corridor creates opportunity for residents to have a balcony (front yard) and a shared backyard where social interactions between neighbors can occur as it is not only a circulation area, but a habitable space for residents • The clever idea of having storage spaces on the same level of apartment floors instead of being in storage cages in the carparks is much more practical.

280

1800

Figure 16. Redrawing of Oxford & Peel Apartments (Author, 2020)

• The open corridor also creates a beautiful environment on the ground plane where it can potentially be opened up to public as a typology for an additional street grain to the urban fabric, activating the public realm further.

34

35

03

Case Studies

Oxford & Peel Jackson Clement Burrows Architects Operable louvres for natural light and privacy control

Level 03

Level 03

Level 02

OPEN CORRIDOR

Level 02

Level 01

Figure 17. Oxford & Peel Overlooking Strategy Exercise (Author, 2020)

The overlooking issue was dealt with intelligently and also has an additional dimension of flexibility to the level of privacy an individual would require.

Natural lighting flooding the space encourages habitation of the corridor.

This allows social interactions to still occur as gossip cross-conversations can develop through the open corridor. The open corridor can be seen as an amenity of the apartment block.

Level 01 Figure 16. Oxford & Peel Overlooking Strategy Exercise (Author, 2020)

36

37

03

Case Studies

Oxford & Peel Jackson Clement Burrows Architects

The green overlays show a potential for a finer grain of streets to create a more permeable urban fabric in the event this apartment typology is replicated and scale on a multiple block of sites. This creates a greater neighbourhood environment, increasing social cohesion potential with the variety of public open spaces as internal amenities for residents.

Figure 18. Oxford & Peel Replicability Exercise (Author, 2020)

38

39

04

Feasibility

Study

A feasibility study has been conducted using the site of 4 typical blocks of land back to back running along the east-west orientation measuring 30.2m by 85.2m.

Subject area — COBURG NORTH Sites selected for study: Sites with house • 42 Shorts Road, Coburg North – $814,500 [471m2] • 9 Adler Grove, Coburg North – $850,000 [634m2] • 32 Ballard Avenue, Coburg North – $801,000 [451m2] • 182 Elizabeth Street, Coburg North – $990,000 [589m2] • 10 Gould Street, Coburg North – $920,000 [460m2] Apartments • 200 Sydney Road, Coburg – $430,000 [51m2] 1B1B • 1/25A Arthur Street, Coburg North – $362,500 [96m2] 2B1B • 3/10 Snapshot Drive, Coburg North – $460,000 [52m2] 2B2B • 761-771 Sydney Road, Coburg North – $428,000 [71m2] 2B1B • 4A/3 Wardens Walk, Coburg – $445,000 [69m2] 2B1B 1B1B • 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom 2B1B • 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom 2B2B • 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom

Average site value 1,705.3/sqm Average apartment value 6705.9/sqm

40

41

04

Study

Floor

Plan

5600

Feasibility

1200

1500

1200 2600

5600

32 BIKES

5600

600 0

BASEMENT 1413.2 m²

CORE 5.3 m²

CORE 5.3 m²

CORE 23.8 m²

Basement

CORE 22.4 m²

Total Carparks 32

42

43

04

Feasibility

Study

Floor

Plan

85200

4100

P.O.S 16.4 m²

7100

P.O.S 36.7 m²

P.O.S 36.7 m²

P.O.S 16.4 m²

1B1B 34.4 m²

COMMERCIAL 133.3 m²

1B1B 34.4 m² 2B1B 52.2 m²

COMMERCIAL 109.1 m²

P.O.S 10.5 m²

COMMERCIAL 109.1 m²

P.O.S 10.5 m²

30200

P.O.S 6.0 m²

2B1B 52.2 m²

COMMERCIAL 133.3 m²

P.O.S 6.0 m²

CIRCULATION 286.7 m²

P.O.S 16.2 m²

P.O.S 16.2 m²

500

P.O.S 16.2 m²

6000

CORE 5.3 m²

CORE 5.3 m²

COMMERCIAL 56.7 m²

22 BIKES 22 BIKES BICYCLE 21.8 m²

BICYCLE 21.8 m² CORE 23.8 m²

3B2B 73.4 m²

3B2B 73.4 m²

3B2B 73.4 m²

CORE 22.4 m²

1200

P.O.S 55.1 m²

P.O.S 55.1 m²

1500

1200

P.O.S 55.1 m²

GREEN AREA

Ground Floor

4-Block Site

Site Coverage 60% Total Bike Park 76

COMMERCIAL 1B1B 2B1B 3B2B PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

44

45

04

Feasibility

Study

Floor

Plan

4100

85200

P.O.S 12.6 m²

7100

P.O.S 12.6 m²

P.O.S 12.6 m²

3000

BED

2B1B 47.6 m²

BATH

3400

BED

3400

2B1B 61.2 m²

P.O.S 12.6 m²

P.O.S 12.6 m²

P.O.S 12.6 m²

P.O.S 12.6 m²

P.O.S 12.6 m²

P.O.S 12.6 m²

8100

P.O.S 12.6 m²

3000

4000

BED

BED

2B1B 47.6 m²

2B1B 47.6 m²

BED BATH

BED

BED

BED

2B1B 47.6 m²

BATH

BATH

2B1B 47.6 m²

BED

BED

BED

BED

2B1B 47.6 m²

BATH

2B1B 47.6 m²

BATH

BED

BED

BED

BED

2B1B 47.6 m²

BED

2B1B 61.2 m²

BATH

BATH

BATH

1200

BATH

BED

30200

BED

1200

BED

BED

BED

BATH

3B2B 77.6 m²

BED

BATH

CIRCULATION 172.4 m²

CORE 5.3 m²

CORE 23.8 m²

BATH

BATH

BED

1B1B 44.8 m²

1B1B 44.8 m²

BED

BATH

CORE 5.3 m²

BATH

BED

1B1B 44.8 m²

1B1B 44.8 m²

BED

CORE 23.8 m²

BATH

BATH

BED

3B2B 77.6 m²

P.O.S 13.4 m²

5100

P.O.S 13.4 m²

3400

2400

BED

GREEN AREA

First Floor

4-Block Site

Site Coverage 60% Total Bike Park 76

COMMERCIAL 1B1B 2B1B 3B2B PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

46

47

04

Feasibility

Study

Floor

Plan

85200

P.O.S 21.6 m²

P.O.S 12.6 m²

BED

BED

2B1B 47.6 m²

COMMUNAL TERRACE 77.4 m²

P.O.S 12.6 m²

BED

P.O.S 12.6 m²

2B1B 47.6 m²

2B1B 47.6 m²

P.O.S 12.6 m²

BED

BED

P.O.S 21.6 m²

2B1B 47.6 m²

COMMUNAL TERRACE 77.4 m²

BED

3B2B 105.4 m²

3B2B 105.4 m² BED BATH

BATH

BED

BED

BATH

BATH

BED

BATH

BATH

BATH

BATH

BED

BED

BED

BED

BED

BED

BED

30200

BED

BATH

P.O.S 13.4 m²

3B2B 77.6 m²

BED

BATH

CIRCULATION 165.2 m²

CORE 5.3 m²

CORE 23.8 m²

BATH

BATH

BED

1B1B 44.8 m²

1B1B 44.8 m²

BED

BATH

CORE 5.3 m²

BATH

BED

1B1B 44.8 m²

1B1B 44.8 m²

BED

CORE 23.8 m²

BATH

BATH

BED

3B2B 77.6 m²

P.O.S 13.4 m²

GREEN AREA

Second Floor

4-Block Site

Site Coverage 60% Total Bike Park 76

COMMERCIAL 1B1B 2B1B 3B2B PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

48

49

04

Feasibility

Study

Floor

Plan

COMMERCIAL

Southwest Aerial View

1B1B 2B1B 3B2B PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

50

51

04

Development Feasibility Template

Feasibility

SITE INFORMATION

Study

TOTAL m2

$ / metre

2573

$1,705

1. LAND / ACQUISITION

$4,437,805

Land Purchase

$4,387,805

Legal on Land Purchase

$50,000

Stamp Duty (Landholder to transfer title directly to residents

5.0%

2. CONSULTANTS

14.4% Cons. Cost

$4,437,805

Apartment NSA 1829

$1,667,770

Commercial NSA 542

$496,237

3. PERMITS / AUTHORITY / STATUTORY 4. HOLDING COSTS

$18,000

5. SELLING COSTS

$37,000

6. FINANCE

$68,802

7. INTEREST

$401,264

9. CONSTRUCTION

5% Contingency

Construction Budget 5.00%

10. TOTAL PROJECT COST

2.5% Contingency

Subtotal (Items 1 — 9) 2.50%

11. INCOME

GST (Margin Scheme/ Unit sales)

$459,855

Basement 1413 Landscape 1049

Residential Mix Count

$14,501,114

2 Bedroom 1 Bath

8

3 Bedroom 2 Bath

8

Area (sqm)

Unit

1829

$6,705.00

$12,263,445

542

$6,000.00

$3,249,000 $15,512,445 $1,011,331

GST (Management Rights Sale)

$0 $14,501,114

12. PROFIT Gross Costs

$18,854,073

Revenue Less GST

$14,501,114

Return on Cost

544

16

$0

Gross Profit

Private Open Space

1 Bedroom 1 Bath

Leasable Retail

Total Sales

Circ/BOH 624

$18,854,073

Total Project Cost

Subtotal

$18,854,073 $18,394,218

Development Contingency

Total Retail NSA Ground

$536,540 $11,267,340

Subtotal

Total Apartment NSA

$11,267,340 $10,730,800

Construction Contingency

Measured Area (m2)

$0

- no stampduty payable by Nightingale) Subtotal

Zone Category

$4,352,959

-23.7%

TOTAL 32

52

53

05

The concept design was envisioned based on the research findings in line with the aims of the thesis to create meaningful spaces for social interaction opportunities in apartment living to increase social cohesion. Key targets for the concept design to achieve are outlined below: • Maximizing social interaction opportunities • Densifying the neighbourhood to increase diversity in community groups • Affordability to attract a diverse neighbourhood of socio-economic background • Create small neighbourhood opportunities to ease assimilation into the larger apartment neighbourhood context • habitable, bright and airy communal spaces and corridors

• right mix of apartments and relevant layouts to fit the given demographic trends

• porosity of massing to allow visibility to activities

taking place by community living in the neighbourhood • adaptable model to make replicability have a sense of individuality in spatial distribution if developed on adjacent lots.

• better apartment orientations for environmental and cost-effective sustainability

Concept Design

54

55

05

LHA REQUIREMENTS - Gold L

Concept

DHHS 1B1B - LHA Gold

Design

DHHS 2B1B - LHA Gold

1. DWELLING ACCESS

PROVIDE A SAFE, CONTINUOUS STEP-FR PATHWAY, MIN. CLEAR WIDTH OF 1100mm

3000

NON-NEGOTIABLE PRIVATE COMPONENTS BALC 11.2 m2

3000 3450

BEDROOM

b.

2200

2100

BALC 8.1 m2

NOT PREFERRED SHAREABLE 2. DWELLING ENTRANCE COMPONENTS a.

ENTRANCE DOOR MIN. 850mm C

3. INTERNAL DOORS & CORR

3150

BATHROOM

a. b.

10 m2

a. b.

3000

3750

650

1000

SHAREABLE COMPONENTS LIVING

LAUNDRY

DINING

KITCHEN 650

3650 1200 850 650

1200

1200

b.

1200

2700

1200

1200

b.

a.

850

850

a.

MIN. CLEAR WIDTH OF 1200mm I APPLIANCES FLOOR FINISHES TO EXTEND UN ENABLE CUPBOARDS TO BE RE

10. ENTRY LEVEL BEDROOM a.

1200

MIN. CLEAR WIDTH OF 1200mm B APPLIANCES FLOOR FINISHES TO EXTEND UN ENABLE CUPBOARDS TO BE RE

9. LAUNDRY SPACE

850

1200

MIN. CLEAR WIDTH OF 1200mm B MINIMUM 1200mm CLEAR CIRCU TOILET PAN

8. KITCHEN SPACE

3700

2700

DOOR MIN. 850mm CLEAR MINIMUM CORRIDOR/PASSAGEW

4. TOILET

12 m2

1200

b.

AT LEAST 10 m2 CLEARANCE EX SKIRTINGS AND LININGS MINIMUM PATH OF TRAVEL OF 1 THE BED

Drawn by Author

Typical 1 Bedroom 1 Bathroom Apartment BADS compliant LHA Gold LIVING BEDROOM

DHHS 2B1B - DDA

3950

BATHROOM

100

3100

100

3100

ACCESSIBLE DWELLINGS REQUIREMENTS

SHARED

DINING

1020

1020

LAUNDRY 2380

1070

APARTMENT A

•

APARTMENT B

A MINIMUM OF 5% ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC HOUSING DWELLINGS ACCORDANCE WITH AS1428.1 ARE PROVIDED

“Student-accomodationesque” •apartment livingPATH OF TRAVEL HAS BEEN PROVIDED FRO AN ACCESSIBLE BOUNDARY AND ACCESSIBLE CAR PARKING SPACES TO ALL An opportunity for increased densification, DWELLINGS affordability, social interactions and creating small neighbourhood groups.

BALC 9.0 m2 1070

1000

4200

KITCHEN 1000

1400

A LEVEL LANDING AREA OF AT L

•

BATHROOM AND KITCHEN SPACES IN ACCESSIBLE DWELLING TO MEET THE ENHANCED REQUIREMENTS OF AS1428.2

•

STORAGE UNITS SUCH AS CUPBOARDS, WARDROBES, RODS

56

57

05

Concept

Design BEDROOM AND BATHROOM

DINING, KITCHEN AND LIVING

DINING

DEVELOPMENT MODEL 01 1 SHARED AMENITY AREA PER LEVEL (the new corridor)

DEVELOPMENT MODEL 02 MULTIPLE SHARED AMENITIES

Amplification of the student accomodation model in apartment living.

Introducing diversity in social interaction opportunities and smaller neighbourhood formations

Positives: • increased density = better affordability on per sqm cost.

• shared amenities = larger and more afforable essential private spaces • increased social interaction opportunities • great for couples or singles

Negatives: • may not be ideal for families • require higher maintenance cost on shared spaces • social tension (may be a positive towards social cohesion)

Positives: • smaller neighbourhood groups to ease interactions • smaller groups can assimilate to larger groups progressively • opportunity for multigenerational living • more manageable shared amenities

APARTMENT UNITS

APARTMENT UNITS

SHARED AMENITIES

SHARED AMENITIES

Negatives: • costing the usage of this shared spaces may be complicated • social tension (lesser degree)

58

59

05

Concept

Design

Mass model based on setback requirements.

Streetfront setback at a standard of 3 meters

Mass subtracted at boundaries to meet requirements.

Set as private open space for ground floor apartments.

Open corridor dissection through mass.

Creating finer additional street-grain.

Testing ground level interface A residential infrastructure that offers a part of the apartment being mixed used. Alley-frontages of apartment can be converted into lettable commercial space to create a bustling environment. Activates public realm on ground plane.

commercial

apartments

62

63

05

Concept

Design

Integrating development model 02.

Form defined by the shared amenities. Limitless interconnection between residents on the multiple pockets of shared amenities.

Integrating development model 02.

Opportunity for further formal definition through courtyard arrangements on Level 2

commercial

apartments

shared amenities

open corridor + amenities

balcony

communal terrace

64

65

05

Concept

Design

Adding more through-block links for an interesting ground-level interface and circulation. Corner commercial units will have more interfaces to liven up the public realm.

Adding apartment mix to the massing.

Further defines form of apartment through apartment sizing mix that varies in different developments responding to the local demand.

Differentiation in shared amenities depending on apartment size Introduction of loft apartment units, larger apartments and studios to bring diversity to the mix.

This concept model was based on the demographics research which shows about 60% are couples/singles and 40% are families which result in the larger proportion of smaller apartments.

commercial

apartments

shared amenities

open corridor + amenities

balcony

communal terrace

66

67

05

Concept

Perspective of through-block link An elimination of redundant closed corridors in multi-residential developments. Repurposing the corridors to be shared amenities or large shared dining area and communal kitchen. Bright and airy corridor encourages habitation and allows cross-ventilation to apartments.

Design

Porosity, differentiation and the human scale Breaking up the apartment units through the shared amenities allow a sense differentiation. This would contribute towards the replicability of this model as the different shared amenity requirements of larger/smaller apartments will alter the overall facade treatment of building.

The additional street porosity also allows interesting circulation to occur and improves accessibility through the apartment blocks.

commercial

apartments

shared amenities

open corridor + amenities

balcony

communal terrace

68

69

05

Concept

Design

Studio lofts

Studio lofts + tenancy

Combination of lofts with shared amenity Perspective of through-block link 02 Creating finer linkages improve neighbourhood quality of apartment precincts and provides opportunity for replicability on adjacent sites.

Back to back lofts Back to back apartments are now better as the shared living areas provide sufficient north-facing daylighting for residents.

commercial

apartments

shared amenities

open corridor + amenities

balcony

communal terrace

70

71

05

Concept

Public Realm – Ground Level

Design

Open Corridors

72

73

05

Concept

Design

Shared Amenities

Shared Amenities

74

75

05

Concept

Design

Loft Apartments

Loft Apartments

76

77

05

Concept

Densified Apartments

Design

Concept

Design

Site Model Render

Concept

Design

Site Model Render

Concept

Design

Site Model Render

Concept

Design

Site Model Render

86

87

06

The sketch design further refined the notion of highly liveable apartment spaces with respect to enhancing social interaction opportunities within the precinct.

All the apartments were planned to be northfacing, smaller neighborhood precincts were formulated for shared amenities and a breaking up of mass on an urban scale is derived to soften the impact of the development on a middle-suburban context.

Sketch Design

88

06 A

B

C

D

E

F

G

1

2

LEASEABLE/COMMUNAL DAY WORKSHOPS

LEASEABLE/COMMUNAL DAY WORKSHOPS

LEASEABLE/COMMUNAL DAY WORKSHOPS

3 LEASEABLE/COMMUNAL DAY WORKSHOPS

MURAL WALL/FLOOR ART AREA

4

5

KIDS PLAY AREA/ MULTI PURPOSE EXERCISE COURT

6

1:4

7

8

BASEMENT Basement

89

Sketch Design

1:200

H

I

90

06 A

B

91

Sketch Design C

D

E

F

G

H

I

42600 3000

2638

6463

7613

5888

6000

7960

1900

1760

1

4769

SHROUD/SEATING VOID TO BASEMENT P.O.S 7.3 m²

2

1B1B 46.6 m²

P.O.S 15.7 m²

3892

ADAPTABLE MIXED-USE SPACE 45.1 m² 2B1B 81.7 m²

KIDS PLAY AREA

3 MAILBOXES

1500 3939

CAFE 19.7 m²

BICYCLE 15.0 m²

ENTRY LOBBY 8.3 m²

CORE 20.8 m²

GYM 30.3 m²

H NC BE

ENTRY LOBBY 37.7 m²

4600

4940

30200

2000

4

VOID TO BASEMENT

VOID TO BASEMENT

5 2B1B LOFT 54.0 m²

CORE 20.4 m²

4985

BATH TUB

3B1B LOFT 74.4 m²

KIDS PLAY AREA

4675

6

7

1:4

1B1B LOFT 30.8 m²

COMMUNITY 59.2 m²

P.O.S 9.1 m²

3000

P.O.S 8.8 m²

8

Ground

1:200

3040

92

06 A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1

2 STUDIO LOFT 24.5 m²

COMMUNAL TERRACE 129.3 m²

STUDIO LOFT 24.9 m²

2B1B LOFT 45.1 m²

STUDIO LOFT 30.9 m²

STUDIO LOFT 30.5 m²

3660

3

COMMUNITY 35.8 m²

CORE 21.2 m²

4

3940

3000

2338

5 3B1B LOFT 58.9 m² COMMUNITY 23.3 m²

CORE 20.5 m²

2B1B LOFT 47.2 m²

BBQ

6 3B2B LOFT 50.3 m²

STUDIO LOFT 25.9 m²

7

8

Level 1

93

Sketch Design

1:200

STUDIO LOFT 28.5 m²

I

94

06 A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1

2 STUDIO LOFT 10.9 m²

STUDIO LOFT 10.7 m²

3

2B1B LOFT 22.5 m²

STUDIO LOFT 13.0 m²

STUDIO LOFT 14.3 m²

4

COMMUNITY 45.3 m²

1200

5

STUDIO LOFT 15.7 m²

2B1B LOFT 55.1 m²

STUDIO LOFT 12.7 m²

1B1B LOFT 43.5 m²

2B1B LOFT 64.3 m² BATH TUB

6

COMMUNAL TERRACE 49.4 m²

7

8

Level 2 LEVEL 1

95

Sketch Design

1:200

I

96

06 A

97

Sketch Design

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

42600 3000

2638

6463

7613

5888

6000

7960

3040

4769

1

3892

2

2B1B 65.1 m²

COMMUNAL TERRACE 41.9 m²

3939

BATH TUB

1B1B 55.1 m²

3

CORE 21.0 m²

LAUNDRY 17.4 m²

4940

30200

4

5

4985

CORE 17.5 m²

2B1B LOFT 40.1 m²

COMMUNITY 74.9 m² 2B1B LOFT 34.3 m² BBQ

6

1B1B LOFT 35.3 m²

4675

COMMUNAL TERRACE 33.4 m²

3000

7

8

Level 2-Mezzanine LEVEL 1 UPPER

1:200

LAUNDRY 18.2 m²

98

06

1

2

3

4769

4

3892

5

3939

6

4940

4985

7

4675

8

3000

AHD 11.000

3000

ROOF

99

Sketch Design

2500

LEVEL 1 UPPER AHD 8.000

AHD 5.500

UG

AHD 3.000

GROUND

AHD 0.000

BASEMENT

AHD -3.000

3000

3000

2500

LEVEL 1

Section 1

Project Title

Project Name Enter address here

Section

Drawing Title

Unnamed

1:200 Status

Project No

TENDER TOWN DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT ISSUE ISSUE CONSTRUCTION SKETCH DESIGN ISSUE XXXX

Drawing No

A00.16

Revision

Drawn By

Author

Checked By Date Printed

1/10/2020 3:21:46 PM

Scale

1 : 50@ A1

Checker

Rev 0

1

2

3

Date

Description

5 m

Builders/Contractors shall verify job dimensions before any job commences. Figured dimensions shall take precedence over scaled work. Work shall also conform to the specification, other drawings and job dimensions. All shop drawings shall be submitted to the Architect/Consultant and manufacture shall not commence prior to the return of inspected shop drawings signed by the Architect/Consultant. © Copyright 2008 All rights reserved

Melbourne :

4/135 Sturt Street Southbank,VIC 3006 T +61 3 9699 3644

Sydney

GroundFloor11-1 Buckingham Street,Surry Hills, NSW 2010T +61 2 9660 9329

:

Brisbane :

Level 12,324 Queen Street, Brisbane Qld 4000 T +61 7 3211 9821

ABN: 84006394261 NSW Nominated Architects:Tom Jordan 7521, Richard Leonard 7522, David Tordoff 8028

100

101

06

Sketch

Design

Apartment Unit Parti Diagram

Apartment Unit Parti Exploded

102

103

06

Sketch

Design

Apartment Unit Parti Combination

104

105

06

Sketch

Design

Massing Diagram On Site

106

107

06

Sketch

Design

Massing Diagram On Site

108

109

06

Sketch

Design

Massing Diagram On Site

110

111

06

Sketch

Design

Massing Diagram On Site

112

113

06

Sketch

Design

Massing Diagram On Site

114

115

06

Sketch

Design

Massing Diagram On Site

116

117

06

Sketch

Design

Vertical Aluminium White Fins Light Colored Recycled Bricks

Precedents — Materiality Exterior

118

119

06

Sketch

Design

Timber Finishes Rustic Pale Bricks

Precedents — Materiality Exterior

120

121

06

Sketch

Design

GLT CLT

Precedents — Materiality Interior

122

123

06

Sketch

Design

Precedents — Materiality Interior

124

125

06

Sketch

Design

terrazo stone

soft recycled plastic terrazo

Precedents — Materiality Interior

126

127

07

The final design was in conjunction with the New Middle Housing: Future Homes Victoria Student Competition.

This project drives the following point home for this thesis: • increase social interaction opportunities • mitigate social stigma on social housing through inclusive design but without inhumane repitition.

•diversifying apartment typologies to house a diverse neighbourhood • strategic placement and effective design of communal amenities that residents would want to use • using existing apartment parts (bicycle parking, kitchens and dining) to activate social connections • eliminate dead corridors by designing habitable open corridors • sustainable and affordable buildings through efficient siting orientation and ESD features.

Final Design

128

129

07

Final

Design

Proposed Development

130

131

07

Final

Design

Preliminary Setback Guideline Mass Rear block set to the ground to act as visual buffer from lengthy repetition of apartment block. Creates intimate pocket park to encourage social connectedness Challenging setback requirements and open opportunities to greater green areas in precinct (Minimum 3-metre setback from boundary)

Inner safelanes cut-through for passive surveillance and safer kids play area.

Breaking down apartment blocks to more humane scale Development Diagrams

Carve roof for natural lighting within precinct and angle them optimally for solar energy gain on PV panels

132

133

07

Final

Design

Linking households together not isolating them

Shared kitchen between two apartments

This project aims to link households together through a series of design strategies:

The shared kitchen creates the opportunity to build accountability within the community. Through the investigations, it is understood that tensions may arise from neighbours that cannot come to terms with the usage of this shared kitchen.

• shared kitchens • communal kitchens • habitable open corridors • translucent apartment entry doors (knowing that people do live here)

Development Diagrams

This tension may be also a positive. Social tensions are usually required to get the community out of their comfort zone to find a better norm. This shared kitchen notion is inspired by hunter-gatherers and the australian indigenous tribes that connects through food and eating over fire.

The shared kitchen could indeed be the hearth that connects the community on the micro scale.

134

135

07

Final

Design

VENT

OPERABLE VENT LEVER TIMBER DOOR FRAME FLUTED GLASS

Open Habitable Corridors

Translucent Apartment Entry Doors

“Hotel-style” dead corridors, or “Hallway of death” (Warner & Andrews, 2019) should be the thing of the past in the realm of multiresidential development. It is a liability to social capital and should be regulated upon.

Open habitable corridors is a key design strategy that aims to activate communal activities while having a more bright and airy circulation path that exuberates life.

The typical closed up apartment entry door is a gesture of safety and privacy. However, a translucent entry door invites visual connection to your neighbours knowing that the precinct is alive and still maintain a degree of sufficient privacy.

It also functions as a cross-ventilation mechanism.

136

137

07

Final

Design

Compulsory work area provision in bedrooms

Sustainable and natural materials

A healthy home with adequate space delivers a healthier community as a whole. The Better Apartments Design Standard (BADS) guideline of a minimum 3 meters by 3 meter s bedrooms should be increased to a minimum of 3.6 meters by 3.6 meters for the provision of work areas within bedrooms. With remote working a trend beckoning, it would be ideal for healthy future homes to have such provisions.

Treated cork is used for the flooring and wall lining of the apartments to improve acoustic and thermal performance while maintaining adequate carpet comfort alternative.

CLT and GLT are exposed to create a sense of warmth through the natural materiality promoting a healthy psychological and phenomological environment.

Locally sourced plywood are affordable and robust for joineries and wall linings.

The key design decision is to create close to a monotonous natural palette to disintegrate and form of social stigma towards affordable housing. Cheaper materials should not discount on beauty.

138

139

07

Final

Design

Developed to be positive to change Fully cross ventilated apartments Healthy homes = healthy community.

Sustainably good airflow and passive cooling eliminates the need for air-conditioning and mechanical vents.

This project scheme is designed to be highly replicable over multiple blocks of site. There is an increasing return of benefits to expanding similar masterplanning across a neighbourhood precinct.

Increased green areas and the “Communal Strip� promotes a socially active neighbourhood which encourages social connectedness with great amenities.

140

141

07

Final

Design

Development Feasibility Template

SITE INFORMATION

TOTAL m2

$ / metre

1286

$1,180

1. LAND / ACQUISITION

$1,721,800

Land Purchase

$1,671,800

Legal on Land Purchase

$50,000

Stamp Duty (Landholder to transfer title directly to residents

5.0%

$0

- no stampduty payable by Nightingale) Subtotal

$1,721,800

2. CONSULTANTS

14.4% Cons. Cost

4. HOLDING COSTS

$18,000

5. SELLING COSTS

$37,000

6. FINANCE

$46,579

7. INTEREST

$137,452

9. CONSTRUCTION

5% Contingency

Construction Budget 5.00%

10. TOTAL PROJECT COST

2.5% Contingency

Subtotal (Items 1 — 9) 2.50%

11. INCOME

GST (Margin Scheme/ Unit sales) Leasable Retail GST (Management Rights Sale) Total Sales

$168,230 $6,897,428

Total Project Cost

Subtotal

$6,897,428 $6,729,199

Development Contingency

Total Retail NSA Ground

$183,790 $3,859,590

Subtotal

Total Apartment NSA

$3,859,590 $3,675,800

Construction Contingency

Site Plan 1:200 @ A5

$606,647 $302,131

3. PERMITS / AUTHORITY / STATUTORY

$7,492,891 Area (sqm)

Unit

950

$8,500.00

0

$6,000.00

$8,075,000 $0 $8,075,000 $582,109 $0 $0 $7,492,891

12. PROFIT Gross Costs

$6,897,428

Revenue Less GST

$7,492,891

Gross Profit

Return on Cost

$595,462

8.8%

142

07

4

143

Final Design

3

6

2

1

5

Basement 1:200 @ A5 1

Electric Scooter/Bike Charging Pods

2

4 x Car Share Parking Lots

3

4 x Regular Parking Lots

4

1 x DDA Parking Lot

5

Bin room

6

Plant Room

144

07

145

Final Design

7 6 2

1

TYPE A – 2B1B + powder

3

TYPE B – 1B1B

5

TYPE C – 4B2B SOHO TYPE D – 3B2B SOHO

4

Communal Areas

Ground 1:200 @ A5

8

1

Neighbourhood

2

Lift Lobby

Street

3

Bicycle parking

4

Hilly Park Communal Area

5

Communal Kitchen

6

Adaptable Communal Room

7

Pocket Park

8

Outdoor BBQ

146

07

147

Final Design

Ground 1:200 @ A5 TYPE C – 4B2B SOHO TYPE D – 3B2B SOHO TYPE F – 3B1B + powder

TYPE G – 1B1B ACCESSIBLE Communal Areas GARDEN

148

07

149

Final Design

1

4

TYPE F – 3B1B + powder

2

TYPE H – Studio Loft Communal Areas Garden

3

Stone Pavers

Ground 1:200 @ A5 1

Communal Open Corridor

2

Vegetable Garden

3

Communal Laundry

4

Communal Living Room

07

Final Design

SHARED KITCHEN

150

OVEN F

F

“My immediate neighbour” The apartment types shown demonstrate the immediate neighbourly connections each apartment units possesses through the hearth of the homes — the shared kitchen.

“Affordable adaptability” This apartment type show the level of adaptability this can be. It can be a multigenerational 5 bed 3 baths, 4 bed 2 bath or broken up into 3 apartment units + SOHO.

151

152

07

Final Design

“SOHO”

“The kitchenless apartment”

Home offices are currently becoming an essential element for small business owners.

Owners have the option of subletting spaces or desks to neighbours to also work remotely creating a mini co-working environment within the precinct itself.

Going kitchenless would be a notion that encourages the community to cook, eat, share, grow and learn together. Communal kitchens increasingly becoming a popular option that is attractive as it allows residents to enjoy a full-sized kitchen rather than measly small kitchenettes in small apartments.

La Borda, Barcelona is a living prove of the success of communal kitchens and great amenities.

153

154

07

Final Design

Social Cohesion “Kitchenless Lofts�

Making affordable homes may be a hard tasks due to limitations of space. The property market however does not charge by volume.

This project aims to capitalise on the available height expansions to provide greater volume to these lofts at 30sqm to be a more vast, bright and airy cozy apartment for bachelors and young couples. This provides a great mix to the neighbourhood precinct, creating a more diverse and holistic community with a range of socioeconomic background

Visualized

155

156

07

Final Design

a place where they can proudly call “our home”

157

158

159

07

Final

Design

“Our home�

The entry sequence to the main communal strip gives a welcoming warmth with the lush natural landscapes that resembles the local indigenous natural environment.

The communal areas are strategically placed to sandwich the green strip running NorthSouth of the site, activating the area as a vibrant and healthy space.

160

161

07

Final

Design

“Eat, Cook and Grow Together�

With the provision of vegetable garden and chicken coops, this neighbourhood precinct is encouraging social connection through cooking, eating and sharing experiences and labor of love on the food they grow.

162

163

07

Final

Design

“Kids & Adults Recreate Alike�

A space designed well for kids, would be great for adults too. The communal strip imagines kids and adults playing and recreating together creating bonds over multiple generations.

164

165

07

Final

Design

“Activation through movement�

The hilly grounds capitalises on the bicycle parking to activate this space with the movement activities going around the area.

It is also a gesture of celebrating bicycles as the main mode of transportation for Victorian creating a bond in common through commute.

166

167

07

Final

Design

“Day-to-day is better together�

By eliminating private laundry provisions in apartments, the communal laundry coupled with the vegetable garden would be a great spot for a hangout while waiting for chores to be done and encourage social connectedness through common mundane tasks.

169

Final

Design

“Open Corridor Loop�

A space where residents can share a drink, enjoying each others company after a long day of work, coming home to community.

These communal corridors are accessible right at the doorstep of every apartment entries.

170

171

07

Final

Design

“The neighbourly apartments” Apartments now open up the opportunity for direct neighbourly relationship to be form.

Accountability through the shared “Party Kitchen” creates a new sense of communal bond and boosting confidence for households to interact in the larger community.

172

173

07

Final

Design

“Kitchenless apartments�

Kitchenless apartments makes more room for spaces that matter. For different individuals, the kitchen is not an essential part of their home. This space is then used to house more relevant

174

175

Final

Design

“Home Offices�

Home offices activate the ground plane with constant activity during the day creating a vibrant ground level activation and passive surveillance for increased safety of neighbourhood precinct.

176

177

Competition

Appendices

Competition Submission QR

178

179

Competition

“Built for Disassembly�

Future-proofing the apartment precinct is essential. Rapid changes and developments of technology means the needs of individuals are changing even quicker than ever before.

CLT and GLT with lock-in connections allows the apartments to be highly adaptable without affecting the structural frame, while being fully disassembled for redevelopment.

Appendices

180

181

Competition

1:200 @ A5

WEST ELEVATION – STREETSCAPE The architectural language of the streetscape facade intends to subtlely blend with its context whilst having its identity through the definition of “homes” using the material breakups and colored awnings to deliver the intention. Pickett fencing is drawn as inspiration and

Appendices

182

183

Competition

1:200 @ A5

EAST ELEVATION Fenestrations to the east is minimized to reduce overlooking into adjacent properties and the windows are also directed with a angled fold-out to get natural lighting from the North

Appendices

184

185

Competition

1:200 @ A5

NORTH ELEVATION Living room fenestrations are maximized at the north-facing facades with operable awnings and shadings to mitigate the summer sun.

Appendices

186

187

Competition

1:200 @ A5

SOUTHERN ELEVATION As a passive design principle, southern facing windows are minimized in size and limited to only ventilating the rooms. The mesh screen with timber bench blends the service cupboards

Appendices

188

189

Competition

1:200 @ A5

NORTH-SOUTH SECTION The section shows the generous floor-to-ceiling height in the apartment units at 3 meters.

Appendices

190

191

Competition

Appendices

1:200 @ A5

EAST-WEST SECTION The basement does not exceed the first two blocks on the site to allow the pocket park to have deep soil planting opportunities. The two sections show the through-block links that breaks up the site composition making it less heavy and more humanly scaled.

Bibliography Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2016. 2016 Census QuickStats, viewed 14 August 2020, https:// quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/ Baumgartner, M. 1988. The Moral Order of the Suburbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Borell, J., and Kate Shaw. 2016. “Design, allocations, management and social specifics: are there rules for stable arrangements in social housing?” New Community, local lives global matters 14, no.1, 59-66.

Castells, M. 1997. The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.

Clark, Justine. 2013. “Atherton Gardens Social Housing”. Architecture Australia July/August, 2013.

Cromley, C., E. 1998. Alone Together: A History of New York’s Early Apartments. Cornell: Cornell University Press Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. 2019. Victoria in Future 2019, viewed 26 August 2020, https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0032/332996/Victoria_in_ Future_2019.pdf Fincher, R. and Kate Shaw. 2006. “Transnational and temporary: place-making, students and community in central Melbourne.” Planning News Vol. 32, no.3, 12-13.

Fisher, R.W Jane, Thach Duc Tran, Karin Hammargerg, Jayagowri Sastry, Hau Nguyen, Heather Rowe, Sally Popplestone, Ruby Stocker, Claire Stubber and Maggie Kirkman. 2020. “Mental health of people in Australia in the first month of COVID-19 restrictions: a national survey.” Medical Journal of Australia. Pre-print, 10 June 2020.

Forrest, Ray, and Ade Kearns. 2001. “Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood.” Urban Studies 38, no.12, 2125-2143.

Franklin, A and Bruce Tranter. 2011. “Housing, loneliness and health.”

Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, no. 7 Gothe-Snape, Jackson, and Ken Macleod. 2017. Interactive map – Income Statistical Area Level 2, viewed 20 August 2020. http://www.sbs.co m.au/interactive/2017/income-sa2-201415/ Guest, A. and Wierzbicki S. 1999. “Social ties at the neighbourhood level: two decades of GSS evidence.” Urban Affairs Review 35, 92-111.

Jane Jacobs. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities.

Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Jama, Abdullahi, and Kate Shaw. 2017. “‘Why do we need social mix?’ Analysis of an Australian inner-city public housing redevelopment”. Submitted to Housing Studies.

Levin, Iris, Kathy Arthurson, Anna Ziersch. 2014. “Social mix and the role of design: Competing interests in the Carlton Public Housing Estate Redevelopment, Melbourne.” Cities: The international journal of urban policy and planning Vol. 40 Manca, R, A. 2014. “Social Cohesion” in Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research edited by Alex C. Michalos, 261 Morrow, V. 1999. “Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well-being of children and young people: a critical review.” Sociological Review 47, 745-765.

Pahl, R. 1991. “The search for social cohesion: from Durheim to the European Commission.” European Journal of Sociology 32, 345-360.

Perinotto, Tina. 2015. “Radical apartments: After The Commons, The Nightingale keeps ruffling feathers.” The Fifth State. 13 March 2015. https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/articles/radical-apartments-after-the-commons-the-nightingale-keeps-ruffling-feathers/ Raynor, Kate, Laura Panza, Camilo Ordonez, Mladen Adamovic, Melissa A. Wheeler. 2019. “Does social mix reduce stigma in public housing? A comparative analysis of two housing estates in Melbourne.” Cities: The international journal of urban policy and planning Vol. 96 doi: 10.1016/j. cities.2019.102458 Realestate.com.au. 2020. Neighbourhood statistics, viewed on 22 August 2020, https://www.realestate.com.au/neighbourhoods/ Smith, Ben J., and Lim MH. 2020. “How the COVID-19 pandemic is focusing attention on loneliness and social isolation”. Public Health Research & Practice 30, no.2 doi:10.17061/phrp3022008 Smith, Naomi, and Peter Walters. 2017. “Desire lines and defensive architecture in modern urban environments.” Urban Studies 55, no.13, 2980-2995. doi: 10.1177/0042098017732690 Shaw, Kate. 2013. “Social mix and the City: Challenging the Mixed Communities Consensus in Housing and Urban Planning Policies.” Housing Theory and Society 30, no.2.

Stone, W., and Kath Hulse. 2007. “Housing and social cohesion: an empirical exploration.” AHURI Final Report No. 100 Warner, E., and Fiona J. Andrews. 2019. “Surface Acquantainces: Parents’ experiences of social connectedness and social capital in Australian high-rise developments.” Health and Place, no.58, 7