Posts Tagged ‘sustainability’


Sustainability: A high stakes game

There is risk involved in any new development, but it’s a matter of how much risk we are prepared to take.

Pracsys has done a lot of financial analysis to determine whether various sustainable technologies, such as recycled water, are viable compared with current methods, such as traditional scheme water, in the developments of the future.

There is no doubt we need to embrace alternative technology; the problem is the capital costs associated with these technologies are often very high.  Add the fact that current technology is so heavily subsidised and the comparative cost really starts to add up – and the stakes get higher.

In making investment decision does the developer risk short and medium returns in the knowledge that cashflows will be positive in the future? Alternatively do we sit on our hands, watch and wait and hope that such technologies become relatively more affordable once others pave the way and economies of scale are achieved?

No-one wants to be the first to jump, the one to pay a premium for taking that leap of faith. Particularly given that we’re talking about the basics that everyone should have access to – water, power, transport. If the end user doesnt percieve the full value of these technologies then the developer will need to subsidise the price to make it attractive to market.

If Government, for example, were to embrace sustainable alternatives, who would pay for it? Would it put the basics beyond the reach of lower income residents?

There are some advantages in being the first to take the leap, to set benchmarks for others to follow. Water is a scare resource in Perth; it’s a fact that we need a more sustainable method of water supply.

recycled water

The trick is to strike the right balance between the  risk and the benefits, both economic and environmental, of such action. And this means Governments making some hard decisions, working to sway public opinion on issues such as recycled water, and ultimately being convinced that they should take a chance, even if the figures don’t stack up in the here and now.


Future jobs: What your kids will be doing

As cities have evolved, so have the jobs that go with them. Think for a minute about the sort of work your grandparents did. Now imagine what industry your son or daughter might be working in. Chances are it will be as foreign to you as it would be to your grandparents.

Your grandmother, if she worked outside the home at all, might have been in the typing pool or an old-fashioned secretary who made the tea and took shorthand for her male boss; your grandfather a loans clerk at a bank or a worker at a manufacturing plant.

They might have had six children, but certainly not fewer than four so they never wasted a thing; clothes were handed down; meals made out of the very basics.

Service, they will tell you, was more personal in their day. They knew their bank manager by name, their doctor regularly did house calls; if they needed anything fixed – from the radio to a car engine or office equipment – there would be a guy down the road who’d have it done in a jiffy; rare holidays would be planned with maps, brochures and trusted travel agents.

You, on the other hand, are likely to be working in mining, in IT, or be self-employed. The secretary is more likely to be a personal assistant who also has a degree and multi-skills in computers, office management and accounting.

You probably only have two children and they already have a plethora of “stuff” that you don’t understand and they certainly don’t need. If you want a loan, you apply online and hear back within a few days without ever having a conversation with anyone, let alone going into a bank; if something’s broken you’re far more likely to throw it away than have it fixed; and if you want to go on holidays you probably book the whole thing online.

So many jobs have either gone completely, are on the way out, or will undergo a complete transformation to adapt to a changing society.

In the past we bought more of life’s essentials; now we spend a lot more on things that are not necessary. With rising living standards comes increased consumption and more pressure on finite resources.

Sustainability, then, will be a big player in the workforce of your children’s future. As will the likes of genetic medicine and innovations in technology for the care of an ageing population.

Some of their job titles may sound like science fiction to you (and certainly to your grandparents) but as society’s priorities change so will the nature of their employment. Future jobs will include the likes of:

Telemedicine technician. Forget the traditional GP. These guys will act as support assistants who can diagnose conditions using state-of-the-art GPS medical systems; they won’t even need you to be in the same room.

Chief innovation officer. Someone paid to move the ideas along, to organise innovation efforts and find ways to commercialise them, to maximise entrepreneurial outcomes.

Corporate alumni director. If networks are knowledge capital, then places (ie cities) with a lot of knowledgeable alumni are very valuable resources indeed, resources that need fostering and careful managing.

Eco-relations manager. With a growing focus on green energy and sustainability there will be more and more green collar jobs, such as selling carbon credits or managing carbon allocation.

Retirement consultants. With an ageing population, jobs will change to provide greater services to cater for their needs. A wealthier, “younger” aged population will demand better services.

Whatever their jobs, your children will be adapting to changes in society, just as you, your parents and grandparents did before them. As always, developments will be about increasing efficiency, getting more output from the same input, no matter the science and technology behind those job changes.



Sustainability: What it means for our cities

If Australia wants to be a prosperous nation in the future, it needs to pull together to ensure economically sustainable growth. With more than 75 percent of us tipped to live in cities by 2050, our urban environment in particular needs a huge renovation.

Below is Michael Chappell’s Sustainability: What it means for our cities presentation which he has presented at various workshops over the last month.

sustainabilty-what-it-means-for-our-cities


Getting the mix right

It is not enough to mandate an area “mixed use” and hope that the market will follow. A successful mixed use urban development requires more active planning and consideration than simple re-zoning.

Traditionally, it was quite common for people to have a business downstairs and live above the shopfront, but with the rapid industrialisation of the 20th Century and the proliferation of private vehicles came low density living and an increasing segregation of uses.

Now, with the growing concern about the width and breadth of urban sprawl, and the associated problems with transport and sustainability, there has been renewed interest in mixed use developments.

But while “mixed use” is a planning buzz term, there needs to be greater appreciation of what is required to prevent lost opportunities and ensure a development’s success. 

There would be little benefit, for example, of zoning an area “mixed use” in a suburb such as Woodvale and expecting commercial and residential markets to follow. There is no train station within walkable distance, very little nightlife, few restaurants… what is there to persuade people to give up a quarter acre block elsewhere to come to live in a much smaller apartment in the area? And why would commercial operators move in without the critical mass of residents?

We have seen with the likes of the development of Clarkson train station that there needs to be better planning. It was intended that the area around the precinct would be mixed use. But because the development was still in the early stages it wasn’t viable for commercial operators to locate there. They needed the population to support the activity and this required time. Ultimately the developer wanted to sell the land to maximise return and it reverted to the old model of single-use residential. 

There are certain prerequisites for a successful mixed use urban development:

  • Proximity to reliable, efficient, public transport. When mixed use works, one of the big benefits is the reduction in travel demands, bringing the commuter’s origin and destination closer together -  one of the key features of a sustainable urban development;
  • Proximity to employment, retail and commercial activity;
  • An awareness of what the key clientele wants;
  • A mix of uses that will complement and support each other, so they reinforce the development. Retail is a good example of a land use that is highly compatible with residential activity; light industrial, on the other hand, causes a number of negative externallities such as pollution and noise and is unlikely to complement or support residential activity;
  • The general amenity of the area needs to appeal to residents because they are ultimately sacrificing their private space. There needs to be trade-offs such as cafes, restaurants, public open spaces and parks to make it worthwhile surrendering the quarter acre block;
  • Provide the right context for commercial activity – ie the provide a critical mass of residential population to support viable trade or in the short term provide incentives from business to locate in the area

If the mixed use development is not well planned and implemented short-term goals will invariably take precedence over long-term strategies, as was the case with Clarkson. Rather than helping combat the problems of urban sprawl, the result is the reverse and all we end up with is yet another dormitory suburb.


On the outer: The real cost of fringe dwelling

It’s time to challenge the notion of what constitutes affordable housing.

We need to look beyond the quick fix, short term solution of releasing more land further out on the urban fringe, to the long term implications of such a myopic development strategy.

It may seem cheaper to build on greenfield sites on the outskirts of the city than in the inner suburbs, but it is simply a false economy.

When you consider, for example, that 75 percent of people who live in Perth’s sprawling North-West corridor have to commute to work outside of the corridor – their weekly fuel bill soon casts a greater shadow than their mortgage. How is this affordable?

There are also big social ramifications. With longer commutes, there is less time for family or for building a sense of community; with rising transport costs, there is little disposable income to go around. People in outer suburbs become increasingly marginalised.

In a recent address to councils, planners and transport experts in Melbourne, Curtin University’s Professor Peter Newman argued that governments needed to look at the real costs of building on the fringes, including the burden of commuting and associated emissions of greenhouse gases.

“The old economy based around cars and extending further out has been a proven failure,” he said, maintaining that governments could save up to $85,000 per new housing lot over 50 years if they instead built in existing suburbs close to public transport.

We need a paradigm shift in our attitude to housing. Governments need to start articulating the benefits of higher density living – lower transport costs, access to better amenities, proximity to knowledge generating employment, greater sense of community – at the same time as generating the means by which all socio-economic groups can access it.

Some people choose to live further out because they want a certain kind of lifestyle, but many are simply forced out into the boondocks because they see it as the only way they can enter the housing market.

We need to give people options and this means making high density attractive and affordable. It means creating good public space that meets the demands of all members of society. In a sense, we need to give them the same sense of security that comes with a backyard – a safe, clean space to walk their dog, go for a run or take the kids to the park.

The redevelopment in Stirling is a great example of forward thinking in urban regeneration. It’s based around urban density and a train station and Stirling itself is becoming a fairly major employment zone.

However, given the way the area has evolved, with industrial and higher density concentrations, it has significant advantages over other inner ring centres. It will take a fair amount of political willpower to enable similar developments in the western suburbs where ratepayers have a vested interest in preventing high density.

High density is not going to please everyone. There will always be a demand for land, for a backyard, for a place to park the boat. It’s part of who we are. But there needs to be a strong understanding by the powers that be that if they continue to release land on the outskirts of town it is only a  part of the overall equation.

Any development must also factor in the other key driving factors of any economy – labour, capital and enterprise. This means transport networks, as well as investment in significant infrastructure that encourages strategic industries and generates knowledge intensive employment.

The onus is on our leaders to drive the market and to provide attractive, affordable options. The majority of the population may still be thinking short term, but we need the political will to make decisions that are sustainable for the long term.