How Can We Deliver Housing Diversity?

Kate Burke – Associate Director at PSA Consulting

Delivering housing diversity continues to be a challenge for state and local governments. According to the 2021 Census, housing in Australia was comprised of:

However, there is a need to provide a more diverse range of housing types – not only to cater to a growing population, but also to meet the housing needs of everybody, depending on their circumstances and stage of life.

In 2022, the OECD also found that Australia has fewer dwellings per 1,000 people than the OECD average, and is lower than comparable countries like Canada, the USA and the UK.

As a Registered Planner with over 20 years in the public and private sectors, I wanted to put forward my thoughts about some potential solutions to this problem.

Why do we need housing diversity?

There’s widespread recognition that we need to provide smaller and more compact typologies in suburban locations across Australia to better meet housing needs.

Changing demographics have seen increased barriers to home ownership, alongside a growth in long-term private renting. Diversifying housing stock has become a priority for planners, because it:

‘Gentle diversity’ as a potential solution

One planning approach is to strive for ‘gentle density’, specifically targeting the delivery of low-rise housing, which comprises: 

Terrace
housing

Triplexes and
quadruplexes

The Queensland’s Department of State Development describes ‘gentle density’ as: “Slightly increasing the number and variety of homes in existing single detached-home neighbourhoods […] to optimise land use and offer a variety of housing typologies without changing the neighbourhood’s character and feel.”

Benefits of ‘gentle density’ include:

Helping to keep communities together, with more options in their neighbourhood, even as people’s needs change.

Reducing ‘urban sprawl’ from new developments on the outskirts of cities, which lack desirable infrastructure.

Challenges and recommendations

1. Planning and policy

Local governments often prepare housing and/or growth management strategies, but these can vary in complexity, effectiveness and application.

There has also been a strong cultural preference in Australia to live in single homes – making it more difficult to encourage uptake of smaller semi-detached or attached housing types.

Re-evaluate zoning, use rights, densities, building envelope, height and basement regulations.

2. Market conditions, feasibility and constructability

Construction costs can make developing higher-density housing uneconomical and less commercially desirable.

However, ‘gentle density’ can be more viable by delivering dwellings on a single vertical plane – e.g., not three-storey apartments, but three-storey terrace houses.

Create volume and involve mass builders to achieve economies of scale.

3. Community acceptance

While The McKinnon Poll finds that younger generations are more open to higher-density housing being built in their local areas, opposition to proposed developments continues to be common.

It is typically driven by fears that higher-density housing will reduce existing property values and affect neighbourhood liveability.

Test alternative typologies in premium suburbs to demonstrate their viability and benefits.

Address excessive car parking rates and impose sensible parking requirements.

4. Land tenure and fragmentation

Complicated tenure and titling arrangements for ownership and management often deter potential stakeholders from pursuing attached freehold housing options, such as townhouses.

Implement legislative changes to resolve current ambiguities.

See how our work at PSA Consulting has supported effective strategies and action plans that aim to boost housing diversity across Australia.