Calculating the cost of the new Better Apartments Draft Design guidelines

Calculating the cost of the new Better Apartments Draft Design guidelines
Calculating the cost of the new Better Apartments Draft Design guidelines

The proposed apartment standards will add $62,500 to the construction cost of each apartment. The attached document below illustrates our calculations for each of the standards.

The cost of each standard is calculated by multiplying the construction rate with the increased area of each item. None of the standards are for free. They all come at a cost. The yield of each site will also decrease by 20% to 40% as a result, with the impact on potential development sites, profound.

Supply will reduce and if potential developments are to be unlocked, then the land component of each apartment will increase by $20,000 to $40,000. There are two indisputable requirements for property development: one, the land component of the development must be worth more than the existing building; and two, the development must make a profit otherwise the banks won't fund it.

Calculating the cost of the new Better Apartments Draft Design guidelines
Industry impact of the design standards

If a site is vacant, the land value will simply be reduced – bad for the land owners, yes, but for developers, this will have no impact. However, in Melbourne where the majority of developable sites require the demolition of a pre-existing building, (think every high street within a 5km radius of the CBD), then it is a completely different and far less positive story for the developer.

The proposed apartment standards call for enormous building separation, the extent of which makes many sites un-developable. This means that whatever type of building currently exists on the site, it will remain – no matter how under-utilised it is.
The overall result? Less supply.

Think of it this way, if every site yields on average, a third less apartments, then there will obviously be a third less apartments on the market and therefore a far lesser supply in established areas. The by-product of this? The population will be pushed further and further out until it reaches the urban growth boundary where prices will increase due to the extra demand.

Calculating the cost of the new Better Apartments Draft Design guidelines
Supply and demand fluctuations

Of course, developers won't develop only to lose money. They will instead hold their land until such a time as demand becomes so high that the public is forced to pay the additional apartment price, at which point making the development profitable again. We saw this happen in Sydney, where many developers put their projects on hold for some years until the prices reached $15,000 a square metre and then were developed in a frenzy.

This means that as the apartment industry supply slows, prices will rise. Only once the public are willing to pay that extra $100,000 per apartment, will development take off again. It’s a scary truth, but a truth nonetheless.

The government is fully aware that their apartment standards come at a significant cost, but whether they decide to communicate this to the public is an entirely different matter – what do you think they will do?

Click here to see our calculations.

Above are images taken from Craig Yelland's/Plus Architecture's response to the Better Apartments Draft Standards as of 15th August, 2016.

This piece was written by Craig Yelland, Director of Plus Architecture – a firm with vast experience in the multi-residential sector, Craig Yelland is an advocate of apartment living and innovative design.

Lead image: Andrew Curtis Photography

Tags: 
Better Apartments

Comments (10)

Help contribute to the Urban community by leaving your comments about this article
What would you like to say about this project?
Ian Woodcock
Whether or not someone can make whatever profit the banks want on a development is related to a range of factors: value of the location, proximity to good mass transit, planning scheme controls, etc. The last of these, when it comes to Victoria, are the most contestable and it is here that developers can make the ambit claims that have driven Melbourne's history of speculation as much as the outcomes that actually get built. It's well-known that if a developer wants to push the envelope, then they can by putting in a DA for something that is way over the height limits (say, 16 storeys in a 3-5 storey area) and come out of VCAT with say, 10 storeys - that's well-over twice the planning scheme height, so they're making a lot more than they would have bargained for when they bought the land with a residual land valuation based on the planning scheme. But, even though the approved scheme is less than 2/3 of what they applied for, it's still viable, or should be, because the price they paid should have been based on 3-5 storeys.

So, this kind of thing goes on all over town, all of the time, and people on-sell, without having to build, but making huge profits from just raising the height limits by obtaining permits by gaming the system.

What does this have to do with the discussion about apartment standards? Well, it's the same issue - developers will calculate the price they're prepared to pay on the basis of what they think they can get away with versus what the planning scheme says they can do. So, all it will do is change the dynamics of those equations a bit - and mainly in those parts of town where there is a market for teeny-weeny, dark, unventilated dwelling units without balconies. In the nice parts of town, where no-one would dream of trying to sell something like that, nothing will change, and the sky won't fall in. It didn't in Sydney after SEPP65 came in, and it hasn't anywhere else in the world where apartment design standards exist. After all, it is only an extension of the already existing set of regulations on what it is acceptable to sell as a habitable space. It is not as though this is something totally un-precedented, it's been under discussion for a long time, and prudent people would have factored that into their calculations when buying real estate.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
theboynoodle's picture
[quote]So yes, it's a competitive industry, and we compete on margin blah blah
Here's the thing .... and wait for it ... ALL YOUR COMPETITORS ARE SUBJECT TO EXACTLY THE SAME REGULATION. ALL OF THEM.[/quote]

I'm not sure what the shouting point is, there. I don't think anyone suggested otherwise.. and so what? If all developers are subject to a rule that elevators had to be gold-plated then that would increase costs for everyone.. and if they were capital constrained and forced to choose between projects then they'd all choose to allocate their capital to projects in cities that did not require gold-plated elevators.

[quote]There will be some more pressure on everyone's bottom line, sure, but only notionally. Developers will continue to cost projects individually and reconfigure those projects to maximise their profit. So the hypothetical 2020 tower will still arise, it will just look slightly different than what it would have before the regulations.
Meaning all of that bulldust about reduced supply side forcing up the overall price of developments is rubbish too. That's just one giant assumption turned into prophecy.[/quote]

Not really. If that 2020 tower has 100 apartments in it, whereas the 2015 tower would have had 110, then that plot has yielded 10 fewer dwellings and unless there is more development elsewhere that's a reduction in supply. The link between supply and price isn't the direct and obvious link that some would have you believe, but it is a thing. However, this can be avoided if planners and developers can work together to make sure that the regulations don't mean fewer dwellings are delivered.. so it's an entirely avoidable consequence.

[quote]The actual factors in determining what a specific parcel of land sells for are SO weakly correlated to "supply" as a headline concept that they can and SHOULD be ignored here.[/quote]

Can you explain what point you're making here? Are you talking about the supply of apartments or the supply of development plots?
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
bilby
... there will be fewer sites available overall? Perhaps. But the scale of reduction relative to the number of suitable sites available and the rate of population growth are the important considerations.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
nwharr
The standards will reduce site yields. A reduction in site yields means that there will be less sites suitable for development and that a smaller number of apartments will be built on the sites that remain. In other words the supply of apartments in established areas will be reduced by the proposed standards.

A reduction in the supply of apartments in established areas will have an overall impact on the availability and affordability of dwellings in these areas.

Developers will not simply recue their margins, they will look for opportunities in other cities or other countries or go back to developing detached dwellings on the urban fringes of Melbourne where there are low costs, low standards and a massive supply of land.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?
Adam Ford's picture
TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS RUBBISH.
These numbers would only mean ANYTHING if they were applied to a SPECIFIC project that straddled the new regulations.
Otherwise you CANNOT erect a tower in 2020 under the new regulations and say "that cost me $X more than it would have". You can only do that if you were forced back to an ACTUAL drawing board by the design standards.
So yes, it's a competitive industry, and we compete on margin blah blah
Here's the thing .... and wait for it ... ALL YOUR COMPETITORS ARE SUBJECT TO EXACTLY THE SAME REGULATION. ALL OF THEM.
There will be some more pressure on everyone's bottom line, sure, but only notionally. Developers will continue to cost projects individually and reconfigure those projects to maximise their profit. So the hypothetical 2020 tower will still arise, it will just look slightly different than what it would have before the regulations.
Meaning all of that bulldust about reduced supply side forcing up the overall price of developments is rubbish too. That's just one giant assumption turned into prophecy.

The actual factors in determining what a specific parcel of land sells for are SO weakly correlated to "supply" as a headline concept that they can and SHOULD be ignored here. And anybody who claims to be "industry" and peddles an article of this length containing that sort of sophistry is just asking for bulldust to be called on them.
Helpful
(0)
Not helpful
(0)
Reply

Reply to this comment

What would you like to respond to this comment?

Pages