A recent Productivity and Equality Commission report on the?New South Wales housing supply challenges and policy options argues we need a “pro-housing regulatory environment”. This, the report suggests, can be achieved by relaxing or removing certain apartment design standards, such as minimum sizes, sunlight requirements, minimum balcony sizes, storage requirements and conditions to include larger bedrooms in ‘family-sized’ units. The Productivity Commission suggest “Consumers are well-placed to decide which of these features they are willing to pay for, and which are worth forgoing to live in a more attractive location”.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
As we outline below, these recommendations are problematic for several reasons. Firstly, they could usher in a generation of small, cold and unappealing homes, at the exact same time we need to encourage more people to live in denser neighbourhoods and reduce suburban sprawl. What’s more they could also have a detrimental impact on residents’ health, wellbeing and energy bills.
Housing is more than a numbers game. How housing is experienced matters
In Australian housing markets, consumers and end users are often not the same. The dominance of investors as purchasers has led to a mismatch between the types of apartments produced and the needs of diverse households. There is a risk that that within the current policy discourse focused on “well-located supply”, not enough attention is being paid to how people manage everyday life within higher density homes. Housing is more than a numbers game. How housing is experienced matters.
As we look toward a future with more residents living in higher density housing, it is important that planning and policy is informed by an understanding of who is living in apartments, what is motivating them, what challenges they face and what features would help make apartment living more attractive in the longer term.
Research commissioned by the NSW government in 2021 on housing design and wellbeing, identified air, light and sound quality as “the most critical needs for future home design”. The findings also highlighted the importance of ample private outdoor space to encourage future NSW residents into apartments. In addition to these features, research on families in apartments has captured the importance of larger apartments and storage for accommodating changing needs across their life course.
There is strong evidence that sunlight plays an important part in resident health and wellbeing, influencing circadian rhythms, mental health and comfort. For instance, the brighter your daylight, the lower the risk of depression, self-harm and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Adequate and affordable housing is a right in and of itself, but also has important flow-on effects for society in terms of equity, productivity and health. This is why in NSW the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) provides minimum recommended performance in terms of apartment sizes, sunlight and ventilation – for instance requiring 70 per cent of all living rooms in any new development receive 2-3 hours of sunlight in mid-winter. There is strong evidence that sunlight plays an important part in resident health and wellbeing, influencing circadian rhythms, mental health and comfort. For instance, the brighter your daylight, the lower the risk of depression, self-harm and post-traumatic stress disorder. Access to sunlight can also provide “free” heating, reducing winter heating costs. Taking this away would seem particularly egregious when?1 in 4 Australians are struggling to pay their electricity and gas bills.
One thing is for certain, reduction in amenity and weakening of design standards would result in poor-quality, uncomfortable homes that would be detrimental to the future of our cities. There is evidence that without adequate regulation poor apartments get built.
Before minimum design standards were initiated in Victoria, the quality of new build apartments was described as ‘a race to the bottom’ with many homes suffering from windowless bedrooms, inadequate storage and poor access to light and ventilation.
Comparatively, research has found that the ADG in NSW achieves more health promoting design criteria than apartment policies in other states and has resulted in residents having a more positive perception of their apartments. The authors of this research suggest any weakening of the ADG — “through the removal of requirements could be detrimental to the wellbeing of apartment residents.”
Reduction in amenity and weakening of design standards would result in poor-quality, uncomfortable homes that would be detrimental to the future of our cities.
This is not to say that regulations should be frozen. The ADG is ten years old now and could be updated to streamline apartment feasibility while maintaining occupant health and wellbeing. For instance, it currently stipulates that living spaces should receive sunlight between 9am and 3pm. This timeframe could be easily expanded.
While the Productivity Commission report has missed the mark, a recent NSW parliamentary inquiry report into Transit Oriented Development, recommends that the NSW Government “maintain[s] design standards and building quality for apartments” and “investigate measures to encourage the delivery of family friendly apartments as part of its housing reforms”. These recommendations, awaiting response from the NSW Government, recognise that good strategic planning and regulation is required to ensure that a short term focus on supply does not compromise long term liveability for the generations who will inherit these homes in the future. This is essential if we are to avoid the Productivity Commissioner’s concern that Sydney could “become a city with no grandchildren”.
In the current rhetoric of housing crisis, there is a sense that we just need to “build more”. But we must remember what is built today will likely last into the next century, with many future generations of urban dwellers living there – for better or for worse! As one of the richest and most resource abundant countries in the world we should not accept normalisation of low quality housing as a solution to the housing crisis.
Without further incentive, it is unreasonable to expect that a for-profit development model will deliver on the challenge of providing well-located and well-designed higher density housing at affordable price points on its own. Greater government involvement in land ownership and development and support for non-market housing providers who face additional barriers when competing for access to land and finance are required. The award-winning Nightingale non-profit development model demonstrates what is possible when thoughtful design, affordability and sustainability are prioritised.