Foreword
The story of Perth’s low-density real estate and development is well known. There is an increasing need to develop plug-in housing for a growing population, resulting in a more compact urban form, which has become an inevitable part of talking about density. This reasoning has been widely accepted over the past decade. However, understanding the problem is one thing. Exploring its potential solutions is another matter. Economic factors, stigma, inertia and legislative restrictions mean that Perth has largely failed to meet the state’s set target of 47% of new homes in the metropolitan area by 2031. The main mechanism used by local governments to implement a long-term vision for more filled houses from the top down is “upward”; that is, to identify and increase locations with high development potential. There are many consequences: the friction between market-driven speculators and supporters of affordable housing; the deep-rooted innocence; the built-in policy that prevents sites from exploiting their potential; and the question of the packing density is Improvement is still destroying the space and cultural quality of our suburbs.
Whether more or less regulations may help achieve the fill target is still controversial. On the one hand, further top-down regulations may be needed to enforce the goals. On the other hand, the bluntness of tools for housing delivery may prevent innovative approaches to density and development. Are there other options? Can you expect to be able to adequately address the complexity of how people should live with them through regulation? Can current regulation become a tool to support non-standard methods for achieving density? Can a single building be used as a prototype to provide various possibilities for planning legislation? Is it possible to negotiate rather than predetermine density conditions? And, if possible, what happens?
a new density
It is worth considering projects that will make these issues work. Fremantle’s Primaries warehouse was built in 1923 and was originally a wool and leather store that was used to store wool for 70 years until the wool was purchased to convert it into a residential unit. In 1993, 17 homes at the site were approved. This is in addition to the 23 houses that were approved three years ago and subsequently built. The resulting 40 grouped homes doubled the allowable density of the R35 site (the R35 code specifies a minimum site area of 220 square meters per home). This is achieved by granting a density bonus based on the terms of the “urban or scientifically significant places, buildings and objects” in the urban planning programme.
The Board may relax any of the provisions of the plan, including the density of the site, to preserve what is considered important in the existing building. In this case, it is recommended to retain the roof structure and exterior walls of the 6,070 square meter warehouse. As a result, site density varies widely, and the required retreat lines and private open spaces are also different. Brian Klopper is a local architect known for his ingenious and unique residential projects, where he participated in two phases of development. The second phase was sold in just eight weeks. Inside the boundary wall, Klopp inserted three rows of houses and two large open-air courses. The court acts as an internal street that is open to the inside. They allow pedestrians and cars to enter and exit, open parking, shared gardens and every residence to live in. The houses are arranged in rows, the party walls are at right angles to the surrounding walls, and are decorated with a full-height glass curtain wall at the end of the inner court. This is a townhouse type that expands vertically and is full of light. The two-and-a-half unit has versatility and a wide variety of spaces. Guests can use them for house or office or retail purposes with little or no modification.
The most striking aspect of the Primaries project is the ingenious balance of community and privacy, with the most enduring relevance. It is an outstanding example of medium-density development because it maintains the ideal of personal residence – privacy, comfort and customizability – in the compact size of a collective residential cluster. The main feature of the internal court is the public space. Enhances connectivity that is often suppressed in multi-cell development.
Flexible rules expand possibilities
This is a proposition project. It presents a way to live and approach density in the city. Density reward terms allow developers, architects, and planners to establish site rules and conditions without having to follow the rules. Due to the uniqueness of the warehouse, negotiating conditions are necessary. It is worth considering that if there is no warehouse on site, even if the same form is adopted, the scheme is unlikely to be approved. It is also worth rethinking the segmentation. We are used to subdividing land. Minimum site area and floor area ratio associated with the density code. Perhaps the density is more about people than buildings. About the profession, not the container.
We may need to consider new ways of subdividing buildings rather than land. And we may need to build something that can be broken down from the beginning. It is conceivable that other projects will initiate progressive planning conditions. It is conceivable that the height and setback terms will vary for projects that demonstrate superior solar access and ventilation. Density rewards can be imagined based on performance, adaptability, community or affordability. Through these extended parameters for density dividends, these specific and extensive project-initiated and tested parameters may present new forms of housing that will serve our more rapidly changing modern cities.
Housing type does not match today’s lifestyle
People under the age of 30 may not have much at all. Music is digitized and streamed (Sonos, Spotify), precious albums (Dropbox, iPhoto) stored in the cloud or app, Open Shed, vehicles and rides are shared (Flexicar, BlaBlaCar, Uber), There are no landline telephones or TV cables, food delivery services (Foodora, Deliveroo) and pets are all borrowed (DogVacay, BorrowMyDoggy).
Young people are also likely to rent a house. According to data from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Society, in 2014, only 50% of Australians lived in their own homes. If this trend continues, many of today’s young Australians will never own their own homes.
As digital technology changes and housing price pressures change lifestyles, people will not only have fewer tangible items in the future, but new apartment residents will be more likely to take up less space in later ages. The size of these private home spaces is shrinking to become more efficient, hopefully more affordable, and more promising for some restless millennials.
Co-sponsorship of a common life model
One of the patterns that emerged in the trend of shrinking private home space is the brand’s shared living space. For example, The Collective in London, Zoku in Amsterdam and Roam in Amsterdam (London, Madrid, Miami, San Francisco, Tokyo, Ubud). In the corporatized common life model, occupants rent private bedroom space on rolling contracts (some bedrooms are as small as 10 square meters) for months or months, but share living and working space. These collective spaces are often programmed through extracurricular activities such as yoga, business workshops, cooking classes, and guest speakers to promote social interaction between tenants.
Logistics systems such as applications and chat platforms help to share objects and spaces. If you are a member of a tribe (student, commune, family or businessman), you can enter the cohabitation space. China’s You + is one of the global market leaders in the common living arrangement. The company has established more than a dozen living spaces and claims to accommodate more than 10,000 people in 25 branches. Private bedrooms (with bathrooms) range in size from 20 to 50 square meters. Minimum stay for six months, with an average monthly rent of $470. In You +, people over the age of 45 are discouraged. Children or antisocial couples are not allowed. Technology entrepreneurs are often given priority.
Subscribing to a common living or dormitory arrangement such as You + may mean lower rental costs (relative to renting a one-bedroom apartment with above-average income), a large number of potential friends and flexible lease contracts. For some people, this may be a really desirable option. For others, this may be the only option in a highly competitive rental market when affordable housing options are few.
https://theconversation.com/reinventing-density-co-living-the-second-domestic-revolution-66410