It is not easy to integrate the standard of affordability into the urban planning and development system. So when developing a new project, affordability becomes a tricky thing. So this article will discuss several points of knowledge, whom to refer to to solve this burden problem, the status of affordable housing and the valuable reference points learned are not just the responsibility of the government, but what strategies will developers have? Deal with this topic.
Who can we learn from?
There are three cities-Vancouver, Portland and Toronto, which can be used as references, whether they are under development or planning. Due to the strong economy and the largely unregulated speculative housing for 30 years, these countries have the problem of housing affordability. The lack of federal government involvement exacerbates these problems.
However, these four cities have recently developed very different methods for housing system planning, and the results have become increasingly different. Vancouver and Portland are benefiting from good metropolitan policies, and we have learned ten lessons about Melbourne.
Before discussing these contents, let us first take a look at the situation of affordable housing in Melbourne.
Who needs affordable housing?
In recent years, the Victorian government has defined the economy for low-income families (0-50% of middle-income), low-income (50-80%) and moderate (80-120%) families in Greater Melbourne and Victoria Applicable housing income and price point income. It clearly stipulates the goal of “economically affordable housing” in the “Planning and Environmental Law”. It also provides better protection for renters.
According to estimates by the Australian Government, in 2015-16, 142,685 low-income rental families in Victoria faced housing pressure. More than 30% of their income (more than 50% in many cases) will be used for rent or mortgages.
Our research team at Transforming Housing recently estimated that there is a shortage of 164,000 affordable housing. More than 90% of the fiscal deficit occurs in Greater Melbourne.
In order to avoid household pressure, prices must be adjusted to a certain extent (not including household size and additional costs, and the risk of poor housing locations in urban fringe areas):
Affordable home ownership is similar to the current market, where the median unit price far exceeds $700,000. Many middle-income families can afford the median rent, about $420 per week. Another question is whether there are houses with a vacancy rate of less than 1%, especially for low-income families.
The Victorian Government has formulated a metropolitan planning strategy, which stipulates that 1.6 million new housing units are required between 2017 and 2050. There are approximately 50,000 new housing units every year. Using the new definition, we can calculate the ideal ten-year new housing supply target to meet the needs of all residents in the greater Melbourne area.
Six districts are defined in the Melbourne plan, and each district has four to eight local governments. The overall goal of Victorian housing is to build or renovate 4,700 social housing units in the five years from 2017-22.
What can we learn from Vancouver and Portland?
Although Vancouver is facing huge housing affordability issues, it has been able to expand housing delivery for very low-income families. In the past three years, the number of social and affordable housing is about 15 times that of Melbourne.
Both Vancouver and Portland have developed ambitious private-sector rent-to-let plans, and there are thousands of new affordable rental housing near transportation lines.
Both cities have influenced high-level governments. Canada will invest 40 billion Canadian dollars (A$4.26 billion) in its national housing strategy over the next ten years.
Ten knowledge points
From the two cities in Canada, on the topic of affordability, there are 10 knowledge points that the Victorian government should refer to for developers:
Establish a clear and shared definition of “affordable housing”.
Calculate housing needs.
Set housing goals.
Set local goals. The state government in charge of large city planning should determine the housing goals of the local government based on the capacity of the infrastructure, and then help achieve these goals (and improve the infrastructure in the areas where housing is added).
Determine available sites.
Create more markets for rental housing.
The partition is mandatory.
Curb speculation in the high-end market.
Have an agency to promote these changes.
A systematic approach is essential to build capacity. For local governments to achieve their goals, non-profit housing providers to expand the delivery and management of social housing, private developers and investors to take advantage of affordable opportunities, and state governments to plan affordable housing, it will take time, coordination and political will.
