Urban Policy

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Development Assessment Best Practice Guide issued by NSW Planning Minister, Anthony Roberts, is a positive move to speed up housing approvals but it should also apply to government agencies.
The government’s guide to improve development assessment in NSW Councils says all the right things about speeding up the process.
Words like ‘faster, streamlined and fast tracked’ are used throughout the document and this indicates a genuine move to improve performance.
The adoption of a ‘Fast Track Application’ in the ‘Practice Guide’ for certain projects is a positive approach.
The NSW planning system is generally seen as one of the most complex and slow in Australia and if we want to boost housing supply then this must be streamlined.
The NSW Premier’s target of 90 percent of housing approvals to be determined within 40 days is not the best measure of performance as the other 10 per cent could be the large multi-unit housing projects that include around half the homes.
The measure should really be 90% of dwellings should be determined within 90 days. It is these large housing projects that are the slowest in the approval process.
While the new guide is likely to improve assessment in councils, the Urban Taskforce is concerned that larger projects are often referred to government agencies like Roads and Maritime Services and this often delays the assessment process.
The Queensland Government has established the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) as a one stop shop to efficiently process government agency referrals.
The Urban Taskforce believes there are many requirements for development applications that are excessive and that the number of specialist reports now required is adding to costs and creating delays.
We are keen to sit down with the NSW Government to input our approach to streamlining the process.
The current guide has only come from discussion with councils and not with applicants.
Chris Johnson is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Faster planning approval guide for NSW councils is positive: Chris Johnson

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Significant urban policy and planning efforts have been directed at the problem of rising heat in cities.
“Smart” cities create new relationships and interdependencies between people, technology and urban environments. The concept rests on the efficient, responsive and adaptive capacities of urban infrastructure. But how well does the smart city respond to the devastating scale and impact of urban heat threats such as bushfires and heatwaves?
The Australian Medical Association has warned heat is a “silent killer”. It notes that more Australians die each year due to heat than on the roads. Heatwaves have contributed to more deaths in Australia than any other natural disaster.
Bushfires are also expected to increase, with significant impacts on Australian cities and urban communities such as the greater Melbourne region.
This is a pressing issue for Australian cities and urban regions, at a time when Australian climatologists are warning of the increasing frequency, severity and duration of heatwaves and bushfires.
Smart urban infrastructure
New digital technology is entering cities, homes and workplaces. These are performing complex tasks. Self-driving cars and cashless payment systems are examples of significant change. But they also increase a city’s vulnerability in the event of a system breakdown or failure.
The ways that these dependencies make cities highly vulnerable during a crisis are poorly understood. For example, smartphone-enabled bushfire and heatwave warning systems are one of the key policy responses proposed and trialled as part of the smart city. But, the benefits and challenges of such responses are still largely unknown.
While the invisibility of smart city technology and infrastructure may rise to the surface and become exposed in the face of urban heat-related threats and crises, an array of important considerations lurk in the shadows.
These include financial arrangements, decision-making processes and discussions about security that are often imbued with statutory power, force and intent that work to inform and structure the experience of everyday urban life.
System resilience or collapse?
Smart systems are far from resilient. Outside their design range they are prone to sudden collapse. Any failure in energy or IT systems can lead to cascading crisis in the capacity for smart city responses to heat threats and disasters.
In a heatwave, as demand increases for cooling mechanisms such as air conditioning and refrigeration, an overloaded system may break down.
The rapid expansion of mobile and computer warning and alert systems could keep people more aware of risks. But, it also creates dependencies and a reliance on external agents for tasks we currently manage. The relationship between emergency communication processes and protocols is a key area whereby vertical, authorised and often-slow communications must interact with horizontal, real-time, networked and participatory processes.
The royal commission into Victoria’s Black Saturday bushfires recommended that more efficient and effective use of technology was needed in key areas such as fire risk assessment, tracking and monitoring – particularly when different, incompatible systems were in use.
The commission highlighted widespread problems with communication technology, use and access due to system incompatibility, poor coverage, radio black spots and channel congestion. Under-investment in new technology was exacerbated when fire damaged or destroyed critical radio and telecommunications infrastructure.
An urgent cities agenda
Urban heat threats and disasters have an impact on the critical infrastructure that undergird the smart city response to such disasters and their associated technology, infrastructures and networked systems – namely in the areas of energy, water, ICT and transport.
The impacts are felt predominantly by those most vulnerable in the community: children, the elderly, the poor and people with existing health conditions.
Understanding the dynamism and tension of new technologies, networks and infrastructure is critical, particularly when urban systems are threatened or break down. Despite recognition of the complexity in smart city debates, policy and industry commentary places clear demarcations between the social and the technical.
There is an urgent need to develop new understandings and ways of implementing the potentials and possibilities the smart city presents in order to better tackle urban heat threats and disasters in Australia.
 
Wendy Steele is associate professor (urban policy and planning), RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wendy-steele-4698" target="_blank">here</a>.
Ian McShane, senior research fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-mcshane-101456" target="_blank">here</a>.
John Handmer is leader, Centre for Risk and Community Safety, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-handmer-116367" target="_blank">here</a>.
Sarah Pink is professor of Social Sciences, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sarah-pink-109198" target="_blank">here</a>.
Yolande Strengers is senior research fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yolande-strengers-15350" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Hot cities: the ‘smart’ response to urban heat threats

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/80082/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Liveability is an increasingly important goal of Australian planning policy. And creating cities where residents can get to most of the services they need within 20 to 30 minutes has been proposed, at both federaland state level, as a key liveability-related mechanism. 
The previous federal government’s 2010 National Urban Policy stated:
"Liveable cities are socially inclusive, affordable, accessible, healthy, safe and resilient to the impacts of climate change … Liveable cities provide choice and opportunity for people to live their lives, and raise their families, to their fullest potential."
In Victoria, keeping Melbourne “attractive and liveable” is the cornerstone of the state government’s newly updated Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 strategy. Liveability is seen as a way to stay globally competitive, attracting more business and more international students, Victoria’s most profitable service export.
Our summary of research on liveability indicators also points to strong links with general population health and environmental sustainability. 
Plan Melbourne’s vision of liveability involves:
"… a city of 20-minute neighbourhoods … where people can access most of their needs within a 20-minute walk, cycle or public transport trip."
The plan discusses people’s need for access to a long list of local services – shopping centres, health facilities, schools and lifelong learning opportunities, playgrounds and parks (including community gardens, green spaces and recreation facilities), affordable housing (including the ability to age in place) and “local public transport”. 
It also values attributes such as “safe”, “walkable” and “attractive”. Specifically excluded is a 20-minute commute to most employment, although the plan mentions local work opportunities. 
To create a city of 20-minute neighbourhoods over Plan Melbourne’s 30-year time frame, at least three strategic planning challenges must be overcome. 
<h2>How do we define and measure success?</h2>
First, the plan fails to specify what access means and how it is measured, as well as what local needs are key. For instance, the average speed of a leisurely walk by a healthy adult along a relatively flat footpath is five kilometres per hour. Older and younger pedestrians may be slower. 
Including the time lost to stopping at intersections and meandering footpaths, a “pedshed” analysis often equates a 20-minute walk with a distance of 800 metres. 
Plan Melbourne does not list the essential social infrastructure or distance measurement methods that will be used to create the 20-minute radius for each neighbourhood. This poses problems for the important task of tracking progress. 
In contrast, the US city of Portland’s strategic plan for a 20-minute city requires four key pieces of social infrastructure located close to affordable residential housing. These are: public primary schools, grocery stores, green parks, and public transport stops with minimum travel frequency standards. 
 
In Australia, given our growing elderly population, bulk-billing health services might also be required infrastructure in each 20-minute neighbourhood. 
<h2>Infrastructure deficit is daunting</h2>
In 1995, homes selling for A$100,000 or less were well within the means of median-income households in areas with good public transport access, like Maribyrnong, Dandenong and Heidelberg. 
By 2015, homes selling for $415,000 (the new 25th percentile) were in areas like Gippsland, Sunbury and Bacchus Marsh. That’s well beyond the reach of metropolitan public transport. 
Plan Melbourne does talk of “two cities” – the well-serviced, unaffordable central city, and underserviced middle and outer suburbs. But the plan does not adequately recognise the city’s severe and unfairly distributed infrastructure deficit. 
The words “liveable” and “liveability” appear 40 times in 152 pages (with prefixes such as “protect”, “improve” and “world-renowned”); “equitable” and “equity” only five times. 
This infrastructure deficit casts a daunting shadow over Plan Melbourne. To provide adequate transport and health services to Melbourne’s outer suburbs, SGS Economics and Planning, working with the National Growth Areas Authority, estimated funding of $5 billion a year will be needed over the next 15 years. 
The Grattan Institute has calculated that Victoria will need around 220 new schools, mostly in outer suburbs, over the next ten years. Each primary school costs an average of $15 million to build, and high schools more than twice that. 
In May, the state auditor highlighted the chronic underfunding of 1,500 existing primary schools as a concern. The report also emphasised the need to greatly improve strategic planning for new schools. 
Social housing, recognised as a vital priority in Infrastructure Victoria’s recent 30-year strategy, is a critical shortfall across Melbourne. The shortfall is particularly acute in areas with adequate infrastructure. The strategy estimates 75,000 to 100,000 low-income households’ needs are unmet. 
To keep pace with population growth, 50,000 dwellings a year must be built. At least half would need to be accessible to households in the bottom half of the income scale. 
A Commonwealth advisory report on housing affordability found almost half of Australian renters are in housing stress, as median home ownership costs have risen from the recommended 2.5 times annual household income to well over six times. 
The well-serviced central cities have the highest housing prices, with Sydney and Melbourne the worst. 
Plan Melbourne talks about housing affordability in general terms. What it lacks is specific affordable housing targets for inner and middle suburbs with adequate infrastructure to overcome inequalities in delivering the 20-minute city.
<h2>Tax system hinders funding</h2>
The state is responsible for strategic planning and most infrastructure provision, but the Commonwealth controls most of Australia’s tax revenue. The result is that, despite being home to one in four Australians, Victoria gets only about 8% of federal infrastructure spending.
And the federal government is one of the main contributors to the affordable housing crisis by subsidising housing speculation through negative gearing and capital gains tax exemption. 
The Grattan Institute estimates these measures cost the budget almost $11.7 billion per year. That’s enough to fund essential infrastructure improvements across Australia. 
<h2>Possible pathways to improvement</h2>
So what is the prognosis for 20-minute cities? What could be done to increase the chances of achieving this important goal? 
The state government could clarify its definition of key access indicators, and begin mapping 20-minute access by neighbourhood to monitor progress, as Portland does.
Vancouver, Canada, has included access indicators in its planning for family-friendly, high-density housing since 1992. The indicators include a maximum distance of 800 metres to a community centre, a grocery store, a public primary school and associated play area, daycare centre and after-school care; and 400 metres to a playground and a frequently serviced public transport stop.
An evaluation of the 50,000 residents in the central Vancouver community of False Creek North showed high levels of satisfaction among households that settled there.
Victoria could also follow Portland’s example of giving priority to improving infrastructure in under-serviced areas and to providing affordable housing in well-serviced areas. Plan Melbourne still lacks mechanisms to achieve this.
The 20-minute city is a worthy goal. As difficult as it may be to imagine at the moment, federal, state and local governments must collaborate, along with private developers and investors, if the access needs of all city residents are to be met.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carolyn-whitzman-9944" target="_blank">Carolyn Whitzman</a> is Professor of Urban Planning, University of Melbourne and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

A 20-minute city sounds good, but becoming one is a huge challenge

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The appointment of a federal minister for cities and the built environment is a signal moment in urban policy in Australia. It is a much-needed portfolio for an overwhelmingly urban nation but will need new policy capacity if the government’s urban goals are to be realised.
Australian cities are among the fastest-growing in the developed world. They face problems of poor housing affordability, growing inequality, inadequate and inefficient infrastructure, unsustainable environmental demand and uneven employment distribution and productivity.
Long neglected federally, urban affairs is the gaping void in 21st-century public policy. Not since 1972 has Australia seen both the Labor and the Liberal parties commit to a cities portfolio within the Commonwealth ministry. That this has now occurred under a Coalition government is especially unusual.
Labor governments have been most engaged with urban questions. Curtin initiated a federal housing program and spurred states to better urban planning. Whitlam sewered neglected suburbs and stabilised fringe land markets, while Keating stimulated inner-city urban renewal. The Rudd-Gillard government boosted infrastructure and set national principles for metropolitan planning.
The short-lived McMahon government’s 1972 National Urban and Regional Development Authority is the only previous Coalition urban foray of note.
<h2>Creating the capacity to do urban policy</h2>
As the new minister, Jamie Briggs’s agenda is not yet detailed, although it looks set to focus on integration, infrastructure and greening. What could a new urban program look like, and what are the urban reform imperatives facing the Turnbull government?
The first task must surely be to develop permanent urban analytical and policy capacity in the federal public service. The Department of Environment, where the cities minister will be hosted, has almost no urban policy capability. The strongest federal urban capacity is in the Planning Analysis Branch of the Department of Infrastructure. The Turnbull government must build rapidly off this small but competent base.
A second task is to create federal capacity for cross-portfolio policy coordination. A cities agenda requires federal arrangements that can link across transport, infrastructure, environment, housing, finance, education, health and social services to build a multi-dimensional policy perspective on cities.
The third capacity-building task is to re-establish national coordination arrangements for urban policy. The federation gives almost all hands-on urban responsibility to the states but the Commonwealth has the revenue. The previous Labor government worked through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to establish consensus principles for major city planning and investment in a largely bipartisan way. That process could be revived and improved with relative ease.
A robust evidence base exists on which to ground policy directions but it is not well linked with policy. Capability development should thus also extend to Australia’s high-quality but under-resourced university research sector. The extensive network of scholars within the State of Australian Cities Research Network could assist with this task, as could the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
The final capacity need is for federal policy to establish its own analytical framework. The urban sector abounds with rent-seekers. A federal urban perspective must stand above such rent-seeking to develop a sophisticated conceptual stance on how our cities work and the levers of policy.
<h2>Directions for policy</h2>
The overturning of Tony Abbott’s aversion to public transport funding is a welcome sign of progress. Public transport is vital for future urban productivity and sustainability.
New arrangements are needed to make transparent the external urban costs of private car use, whether through road and parking user pricing or via enhanced environmental emissions charging. Such measures need to be progressive, however, so the burden does not fall unfairly on low-income, car-dependent households with the fewest alternatives.
Building infrastructure alone is unlikely to improve how our cities function. We need to make better use of existing assets. This includes dedicated multi-modal network coordination in public transport, as the 2009 Senate inquiry into public transport advocated, accompanied by optimisation of existing road space via conversion to high-frequency transit routes. 
Further areas in urgent need of intervention are Australia’s inflated and exclusionary urban housing markets. Negative gearing should be reformed as a tax credit scheme with transparency to ensure the value of the concession is targeted to the most needy urban renters.
We need an urban taxation regime that captures the value gains from federal investment. Land value uplift from infrastructure investment should not accrue to private interests but be recycled into the federal funding pool.
A national approach to replace stamp duty with broad-based land taxes is also needed. This would improve the flexibility and efficiency of urban housing markets while retaining a financing stream for urban investment. Land tax should be progressive, so it targets land value and housing wealth, not housing consumption.
A progressive capital gains tax on owner-occupied housing could also be applied to dampen price inflation and raise new public revenue. Similarly, a national approach to inclusionary zoning mechanisms for affordable housing would also help to ensure urban redevelopment creates new social housing supply.
As a suburban nation Australia faces serious gaps in how it plans new suburbs and renews existing areas. A national suburban policy is needed to improve the quality of fringe development and facilitate the renewal of ageing middle suburbs for new housing.
Employment distribution in Australian cities is highly uneven. Ready access to high-quality jobs is increasingly the preserve of inner-urban households. Federal support for expansion of suburban employment nodes linked to public transport could ensure more higher-quality jobs are closer to the places households live. Ensuring land-use zoning does not exclude workers from job-rich middle suburbs is a further task.
Reform of the planning arrangements for our cities is desperately needed. National principles for metropolitan planning, as COAG established in 2009, are not unhelpful. But we need governing entities that can plan and manage cities at the metropolitan level while providing a democratic accompaniment to the current dominance of state planning ministers.
Prime Minister Turnbull has previously argued that density is the solution to our urban woes but that poorly done density reduces amenity. High-amenity densification is possible but the urban science on very-high-density development shows its environmental performance is often poor.
Density can help to improve our cities but only as part of carefully crafted wider changes to spatial structure via infrastructure, housing and governance reform. Density is a means, not an end in itself. Plans to expand green space and provide for biodiversity in cities must be part of any densification strategy.
<h2>Putting policy to work</h2>
A sense of urgency is needed. The urban sphere is dominated by what Nicole Gurran and Peter Phibbs have called busy work in which policy discussion and review defer substantial change.
Moreover urban policy is often captive to property, infrastructure and financial interests that put their private gain over the public interest. The Turnbull urban agenda needs to be more than a talking point or vehicle for shoddy deals.
Urban policy is the key policy discipline of the 21st century. It needs to be placed at the core of Australia’s federal policy arrangements.
Jago Dodson is professor of Urban Policy and director, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University .
He is an author for The Conversation and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jago-dodson-2359" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Could the federal government finally ‘get’ cities?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Urban greening projects in Melbourne’s west are contributing to making the region cooler, more pleasant and healthier to live in and travel through. The key to this success is the Greening the West initiative. Since 2011 this has brought together 23 organisations that, by the end of 2018, will have collectively planted more than 1 million trees in Melbourne’s west.
The program’s efforts not only offer clear health and economic benefits for the region’s residents, but are also welcome news in the face of reports that tree canopy cover in Australian cities is generally declining.
Our recent report on Greening the West has found that, while it is a great success, much more work is needed – particularly from the Victorian government.
What is Greening the West?
Urban greening provides a variety of economic, mental and physical health benefits to the public. Greening an area can increase house prices, encourage walking and cycling, and make people feel happier.
Measures of socioeconomic and health status are generally poorer in Melbourne’s west. Compounding this disadvantage, the region has less quality green space than metropolitan averages. Melbourne’s western suburbs have tree canopy coverage of only 5% to 10%, compared to between 10% and 30% in the rest of the city’s suburbs.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189906/original/file-20171012-9839-jfsglk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Comparative levels of tree canopy cover (% of total area) in Melbourne’s local government areas. Where are all the trees?, Author provided
City West Water began the Greening the West initiative in 2011. The focus was on the local government areas of Brimbank, Hobsons Bay, Maribyrnong, Melton, Moonee Valley and Wyndham. As well as local councils, the steering committee includes community groups, water utilities, state government agencies and a variety of other actors.
An urban greening success story
Planted trees have made a clear difference to Melbourne’s west, where many of the trees can be seen from roads, train lines and houses. This visible difference, and its associated benefits, will become more apparent as trees grow to maturity.
The group obtained A$5 million in funding from the federal government’s 20 Million Trees Program. Trees were then planted in parks, waterway corridors, drainage reserves and peri-urban land.
The Greening the West group supports two other important ongoing liveability projects in Melbourne’s west:
<ul>
<li>
transforming a 1.2 kilometre section of Upper Stony Creek back from a concreted channel into a green waterway
</li>
<li>
transforming 27 kilometres of the heritage-listed main outfall sewer into a linear park and bike track connecting Werribee to the CBD, known as Greening the Pipeline.
</li>
</ul>
As part of the latter project, a 100-metre pilot at Williams Landing was finished in April 2017. Melbourne Water delivered the project in partnership with Wyndham City Council, City West Water and VicRoads, with funding from the Victorian government.
A final Greening the West success is the way it has shifted priorities and cultures, with local government and other stakeholders increasingly recognising the benefits of greening.
The program shows the power of a collaborative model for solving complex urban problems. Such models could not only be rolled out for greening similar regions, like western Sydney, but are also applicable to other complex urban issues such as homelessness.
Planting and greening projects on public land are not enough
It isn’t all good news, however. We found that current efforts to achieve urban greening in Melbourne’s west are unlikely to be enough to reach desirable greening levels.
Most of these efforts are focused on greening public or semi-public land. However, in many areas, the majority of existing trees and tree canopy cover is on private land. As urban densification occurs, these tree numbers are declining.
This is why, despite urban greening efforts, canopy cover has decreased in most areas of Australia between 2013 and 2016. To protect and enhance urban greening, the Victorian government should investigate ways to strengthen policies and planning regulations. This should be done as part of Plan Melbourne’s urban greening actions.
For instance, regulations could require large-scale developers to include trees in new housing lots, parks and streets. Regulations could also be used to ensure small-scale subdividers and renovators include trees on lots.
Current Victorian planning regulations require a certain proportion of public open space in new suburbs, and for housing lots in certain zones to include 25-35% garden area. There is also some guidance on retaining existing trees on lots.
However, there are no state or citywide regulations requiring the planting of new trees and vegetation. This creates a significant risk in new developments that the lots, streets and public open space will have very low tree cover.
A small number of councils, such as Brimbank City Council, have led the way by creating local planning controls that require housing lots to have two trees in the front garden and one in the back garden. This is done through the planning permit process. But statewide or citywide regulations supported by the Victorian government are needed to ensure the protection and enhancement of urban greenery across Melbourne.
In addition, more community education and engagement are required to increase awareness of the many benefits of urban greening.
Casey Furlong is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University; Jago Dodson is professor of urban policy and director at the Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University; and Kath Phelan is research fellow at the Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-melbournes-west-was-greened-84700" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

How Melbourne's west was greened: RMIT

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The announcement by Transport Minister, Andrew Constance, of the preferred route for Parramatta’s light rail must be complemented by increased density along the route.
The two stages for the Parramatta light rail are well located to stimulate significant development along the routes.
The connections to the Westmead Hospital precinct, to Carlingford and the second stage through Melrose Park and across the Parramatta River to Sydney Olympic Park can stimulate significant development particularly on the north side of the river.
The Urban Taskforce believes that when transport infrastructure projects are announced there should be a related announcement about the number of new homes to be developed.
Communities often complain about the lack of infrastructure related to new development so when the government is committing to new infrastructure local communities must understand that increased development density will come with this.
Along with the proposed Metro West rail link between Parramatta and the Sydney CBD the light rail now gives a very significant public transport network for this important part of metropolitan Sydney.
Sydney’s early development linked Parramatta and Sydney Cove closely with the first toll road.
There was a Government House in both cities symbolising their equal importance.
The public transport commitments by the NSW Government two hundred years after the first public transport links between the two cities carries on the importance of this region for development.
The possible alternative through Camellia could be a boost to development in this precinct although this needs to be balanced with the potential for a station on the Metro West line.
With the Parramatta light rail now substantially determined, the NSW Government needs to decide the locations for the Metro West stations so there can be good connections between the two transport modes.
Chris Johnson is CEO of Urban Taskforce.
</body></html>

Parramatta light rail to stimulate development along the route: Urban Taskforce's Chris Johnson

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Where we live can play a big part in ageing well, largely because of the links between physical activity and wellbeing.
Research shows that two-thirds of Australians prefer to age in place. That is, we want to live independently in our homes for as long as we can. Our neighbourhoods and their design can then improve or hinder our ability to get out of the house and be physically active.
The rapid ageing of Australia’s population only adds to the importance of neighbourhood design. In 2016, 15% of Australians were aged 65 or older. That proportion is projected to double by 2056.
These trends present several social and economic challenges, particularly for the health sector. Designing neighbourhoods in ways that promote physical activity can help overcome these challenges.
Eight simple steps
The following is a short list of evidence-based steps local and state governments can take to assist older people to be physically active. These involve minor but effective changes to neighbourhood design.
<ol>
<li>Improve footpaths: Research indicates that older people have a higher risk of falls. Ensuring footpaths are level and crack-free, and free from obstructions, will encourage walking among older people – especially those with a disability. 
</li>
<li>Connected pedestrian networks: Introducing footpaths at the end of no-through-roads and across long street blocks reduces walking distances to destinations. This makes walking a more viable option. 
</li>
<li>Slowing traffic in high-pedestrian areas: Slowing traffic improves safety by reducing the risk of a collision. It also reduces the risk of death and serious injury in the event of a collision. 
</li>
<li>Age-friendly street crossings: Installing longer pedestrian crossing light sequences gives older pedestrians more time to cross, and installing refuge islands means those who walk more slowly can cross the street in two stages. 
</li>
<li>Disabled access at public transport: Although a form of motorised transport, public transport users undertake more incidental physical activity compared with car users. This is because they walk between transit stops and their origins and destinations. Improving disabled access helps make public transport a viable option for more older people. 
</li>
<li>Places to rest: Providing rest spots such as benches enables older people to break up their walk and rest when needed. 
</li>
<li>Planting trees: Planting trees creates more pleasant scenery to enjoy on a walk. It also provides shade on hot days. 
</li>
<li>Improving safety: Ensuring that streets are well-lit and reducing graffiti and signs of decay are likely to improve perceptions of safety among older people.</li>
</ol>
Why physical activity matters
Physical function – the ability to undertake everyday activities such as walking, bathing and climbing stairs – often declines as people age. The reason for this is that ageing is often accompanied by a reduction in muscle strength, flexibility and cardiorespiratory reserves.
Regular physical activity can prevent or slow the decline in physical function, even among those with existing health conditions.
Middle-to-older aged adults can reduce their risk of physical function decline by 30% with regular physical activity (at least 150 minutes per week). This includes recreational physical activity, like walking the dog, or incidental physical activity, such as walking to the shops or to visit friends.
By making minor changes as outlined above, the health and longevity of our elderly population can be extended. Such changes will help our elderly age well in place.
Jerome N Rachele, Research Fellow in Social Epidemiology, Institute for Health and Ageing, Australian Catholic University; Jim Sallis, Professorial Fellow, Institute for Health and Ageing, Australian Catholic University, and Emeritus Professor, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, and Venurs Loh, PhD Candidate, Institute for Health and Ageing, Australian Catholic University
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/eight-simple-changes-to-our-neighbourhoods-can-help-us-age-well-83962" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Eight simple changes to our neighbourhoods can help us age well

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Cities policy in Australia has historically had a clear focus on the largest state capitals, but there are signs this is changing. Recent City Deals and smart cities funding shows that five of the six City Deals now in place are regional, and 55% of Smart Cities and Suburbs Program funding also went to regional cities. On the evidence so far, regional cities appear to be in the spotlight for the Australian government’s cities policy agenda.
Big and small cities matter to Australia. They are the concentrations of population, economic output, trade, commerce, cultural and social life. They are also the sites where most of the nation’s future growth, both population and economic, is forecast to occur. Australia’s economic future is closely linked to that of its cities.
In 2015, there was much excitement when the Turnbull government first announced a cities agenda, which (after a rocky start) delivered the Smart Cities Plan.
This was followed by two City Deal announcements and in 2017 much “busy work” behind the scenes; for many watching the City Deals space it was very quiet. By early 2018, when the most recent deals were signed, things had started to move in city policy, and recognition of the important role of regional cities became quite clear.
Regional cities now in the picture
Regional cities have been largely absent in past urban policy programs and debates. Most programs have focused on big city challenges: congestion, pollution, affordable housing, public transport and urban sprawl. The advent of the Smart Cities Plan has changed this with its focus on innovative policy mechanisms that require collaborative investment to drive national economic outcomes.
Many regional cities were waiting to see how the new agenda would roll out in reality. Recent interest has highlighted the role and importance of the smaller, regional cities’ economic performance. Still, too little discussion has occurred on their role in national policy.
Australian cities come in all shapes and sizes, from 50,000 to 5 million. Big metropolitan cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide) as well as Australia’s smaller regional cities (Cairns to Hobart, Shepparton to Mandurah – 31 in total) are part of a growing national network of cities.
Internationally, the role of stimulating the economies of regional or second cities to lift overall national performance has been much more closely considered and acted on in the form of policy and programs. With the emerging emphasis on regional City Deals and Smart Cities funding, perhaps Australia is beginning to act on the lessons from overseas.
Regional cities benefit from funding shift
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203728/original/file-20180129-100905-1u6ev2w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
 Author provided
When we look at the City Deals announcements made and agreements reached, we see that these still involve only an elite group of six cities (see timeline of agreements). Five of the six are regional cities: Launceston, Townsville, Darwin, Hobart and Geelong.
Of course another way of looking at this is that half the City Deals involve capital cities. Either way, this is a higher proportion of investment in regional cities than programs from decades ago, such as Building Better Cities (1991-96).
The regional focus is also very evident in the first round of funding released under the Smart Suburbs and Cities Program, a pillar of the Smart Cities Plan. Initial funding in 2017 was directed to delivering innovative projects to improve the liveability, productivity and sustainability of cities and towns across Australia.
Half of the first-round grants under the program (see table below) went to regional towns and cities. Two decades earlier, they received just over a third under the Building Better Cities program.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203727/original/file-20180129-100912-19g68qd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
 ‘Other’ category indicates a project that involves both metropolitan and regional cities. Author provided
A breakdown of the 2017 funding round shows regional cities received 55% of the grant funds. The metropolitan “big five” received only 34%.
Future directions for regional cities
The City Deals policy and Smart Suburbs and Cities Program are pillars of the Smart Cities Plan. And both have had stronger regional city representation. Why?
First, European evidence is pointing to potentially stronger economic output per person where there are many cities, as opposed to only one or two big cities, driving a nation’s growth. Hence, investing in regional cities could be a reflection of the development opportunities for small cities to contribute to national economic growth – rather than focusing all policy effort on fixing big city problems like congestion. This multi-city investment might then stimulate stronger national economic growth, compared to a purely two-city investment strategy.
Second, it could be because both City Deals and the Smart Cities Plan are trials of new policy mechanisms. City Deals is a partnership requiring cross-jurisdictional and issues-based negotiations with local, state and federal government agencies for success. The Smart Cities and Suburbs Program is essentially a technology funding program based on collaboration with private enterprises to deliver local solutions on the ground.
Regional cities are ideal test beds for these policy mechanisms. They are contained entities, where engagement is clear and vertical, transaction costs are low, and learnings are transferable to other (bigger) cities. This ensures a clear role for experimenting with policy mechanisms.
But what about the longer term? Is it just convenient to work in smaller cities with proof of concepts? Will the real innovation be centralised back into the metropolitan areas? And will the nation spread the economic growth load across the nation or concentrate it among the few big cities? Only time will tell.
In 2015 Jago Dodson asked: “Could the federal government finally ‘get’ cities?” Recent progress looks promising. We are starting to see a national cities policy, rather than just a big cities policy.
Leonie Pearson, Adjunct Associate, University of Canberra
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cities-policy-goes-regional-90856" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Cities policy goes regional: Leonie Pearson

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Only in a few active travel strongholds, typically in the inner city, do Australian cycling and walking rates get close to those in Europe. 
Australian city planners are seeking ways to make cities better for walking and cycling.
Walkability and cyclability are attractive and “green” urban amenities. They reduce pollution and improve health. They are also economic assets.
In developing countries, active transport is key to improving accessibility for the urban poor. In developed countries, the walkable and cyclable city can be a magnet for attracting and retaining the “creative class”.
In Australia, plans and projects are being developed to extend pedestrian malls and cycling paths, restrict car traffic, remove street parking and install more lighting.
Have these efforts paid off?
Yes and no. Recently released 2016 Census data reveal some disappointing commuting patterns in Australian cities.
Across metropolitan areas, typically plagued by sprawl and segregated land uses, cars still dominate. Car-based commuting rates have decreased by only 1-2%.
Public transport use remains relatively low. Even in Sydney, it captures only about one-quarter of commute trips.
Since 2011, Sydney, Melbourne and Darwin have made modest gains (2-4%) in public transport use. Brisbane has had an incremental decline. Public transport use is stagnant in Perth, Adelaide, Hobart and Canberra.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203650/original/file-20180128-100893-12cw2vf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Meanwhile, rates of walking and cycling remain constant and low – even in smaller centres such as Hobart, Darwin and Canberra. Even in the most “cycling-oriented” places (Darwin and Canberra), only about 3% of commuters cycle.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203651/original/file-20180128-100929-e5r516.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
City-level data tell a different story. Here, walking is more popular than at the wider metro level. This reflects the mono-centric nature of Australian cities, where most jobs are located in the CBD.
In larger cities, between a quarter and a third of the population walks to work. Similar proportions of commuters use public transport. Brisbane is an exception, with less walking, lower public transport use and much more driving than Sydney, Melbourne or Perth. Hobart and Darwin have low walking rates and are very car-dependent, which is surprising considering their small size.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203733/original/file-20180129-100899-4wj80w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Average cycling rates are low everywhere – only 2-5%. This is true in both large and small cities, tropical (Queensland and Northern Territory) and oceanic (southeastern Australia) climates, flat and hilly topographies.
However, averages are deceptive. In Melbourne’s “top cycling suburbs” (Fitzroy North and Carlton North/Princes Hill) cycling rates are as high as 15%. Similarly, in Brisbane’s “top cycling suburbs” (West End and Highgate Hill), about 8% of people cycle to work. Sydney’s cycling rates are only 5% even in its “top cycling suburbs” (Erskineville/Alexandria and Newtown/Camperdown/Darlington).
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203734/original/file-20180129-100905-1433pkw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
To compare, cities in Northern and Western Europe have average active transport rates at least twice as high as those in Australia. Over half of Copenhagen’s commute trips are via cycling or walking.
However, while Australian cities as a whole fall much behind international best practice, some suburbs are comparable. In Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, the “top active-travel suburbs” – the CBDs and their immediate surroundings – have walking and cycling rates in the 40-50% range.
Overall, improvements in walking and cycling rates have been minimal since the 2011 Census. For most cities, this undermines urban prestige and competitiveness – not to mention the health and environmental implications. Conversely, Melbourne’s higher active travel rates might provide part of the explanation for it topping “most liveable city” lists.
Why isn’t Australia an active travel mecca?
In theory, Australian cities are ideal for walking and cycling. They have mild climates, stable and wealthy governments, as well as sporty, outdoorsy and increasingly health-conscious residents. Despite this, the data show that overall active travel (especially cycling) is still marginal.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203617/original/file-20180127-100929-8c2duh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Barriers to active travel, grouped into ‘ideas’, ‘interests’ and ‘institutions’ – a popular theoretical framework in public policy studies. Pojani &amp; Stead, 2014, Author provided
Academic research has unequivocally demonstrated that substantive changes can occur only through a combination of high-quality infrastructure, pricing policies and education programs. In Australia, as elsewhere, myriad barriers conspire against such an integrated approach.
What needs to be done?
Three main areas require intervention.
<ul>
<li>
Ideas: Active travel must become normalised as an integral part of transport planning. Footpaths, crosswalks and bicycle lanes must be standard elements of street templates and guidelines, just like telephone lines and fire hydrants.</li>
<li>
Interest: Councils must secure strong political support for walking and cycling, as well as unity and collaboration within the active travel community. Solid evidence is needed on the benefits of high-quality walking and cycling environments and on the impacts on businesses and households of removing traffic and parking lanes to accommodate footpaths, bike paths and pedestrian malls.</li>
</ul>
Persistence and consistency in messages to the public, and a non-antagonistic stance, are also important. To embrace active travel, people must feel positive about creating a more just, fun, safe and healthy world through their informed travel choices.
<ul>
<li>
Institutions: More government funding for active transport – independent of political cycles – must be provided, while at the same time allowing more local planning autonomy. The most recent United Nations’ recommendation is that 20% of transport funding go to non-motorised modes.</li>
</ul>
Australia falls short of this target, but finding out exactly how far off is a challenge. The Australian government makes no mention of active travel in its 2017-2018 infrastructure budget allocation. Each local and state government reports on it differently.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87331/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">In 2016, the combined state and territory investments in cycling infrastructure totalled only A$121.8 million. That’s a small fraction of road funding (A$20.2 billion in 2011-12). Data on walking infrastructure spending are unavailable.
Dorina Pojani, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, The University of Queensland
Elizabeth Butterworth,The University of Queensland
Jim Cooper, Senior Research Fellow, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland
Jonathan Corcoran, Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland
Neil Sipe, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, The University of Queensland
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-cities-are-far-from-being-meccas-for-walking-and-cycling-87331" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Australian cities far from mecca's for walking and cycling

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Urban experts gathered at the ninth World Urban Forum in Kuala Lumpur over the past week to discuss progress on a global commitment to sustainable urban development. UN member states adopted the New Urban Agenda 15 months ago to guide the implementation in cities of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. And health is central to the New Urban Agenda – health is its “pulse”, as the World Health Organisation puts it.
Health must be at the heart of decisions about how to equitably house, feed, mobilise and economically support growing urban populations. Health is not just a desirable outcome but a fundamental driver of sustainable development.
Sustainable development and health are linked
Many sustainable development actions also have health benefits. The New Urban Agenda recognises that decent housing and access to health care, water and sanitation are the basic building blocks of health.
To add to the challenges of achieving these goals, the world’s cities are expected to gain 2.5 billion inhabitants by 2050. This reinforces the urgent need to provide equitable access to infrastructure and to upgrade informal settlements worldwide.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205632/original/file-20180209-180836-o0co5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
 There is an urgent need to reduce inequities in access to decent housing, health care, water and sanitation worldwide. Hesam Kamalipour. Author provided.
The agenda has a focus on social inclusion and civic engagement in city planning. Such participation can improve mental well-being and empower communities to overcome urban health inequities. This is important for all urban residents, but particularly for disadvantaged communities.
The agenda proposes compact urban development which prioritises walking and cycling over private car use. Multiple health benefits flow from more physical activity and less air pollution.
Walking and cycling can also help mitigate climate change, which is predicted to contribute to an extra 250,000 deaths between 2030 and 2050 alone. Cycling, for example, can reduce an individual’s transportation carbon footprint by 58% compared to driving a car.
The natural environment is a vital health determinant, as it underpins all human life. The agenda promotes reducing cities’ environmental impact, building resilience to natural disasters, and preserving nature within cities.
Again, this has many implications for health. Greenery can reduce urban heat islands to protect against heat stress. Contact with nature improves mental health. Attractive green spaces encourage recreational physical activity.
The agenda emphasises the need to provide decent and productive work, end poverty and reduce income inequalities. This could minimise the social gradient in health – people with less income have poorer health.
Uncontrolled growth is unhealthy
Attaining these sustainability and health benefits will depend on how the New Urban Agenda is implemented. The World Urban Forum showcased many sustainable development achievements by governments and civil society. But we still have a long way to go to realise the NUA vision.
As the world urbanises and cities promote development and innovation, we must take care to balance economic growth with environmental preservation. Only then will we achieve truly sustainable health improvements.
Most countries have a bad track record of pursuing social and economic development at the expense of the natural environment. While the New Urban Agenda does recognise the need to balance environmental and health goals with economic development, it does not acknowledge the ecological limits to growth.
Currently, the top-ranked nations on the Sustainable Development Goal Index and the Human Development Index, such as Sweden and Denmark, have high ecological footprints per person. If everyone in the world lived like them, we would need more than three planets. This is clearly unsustainable.
As research by Wilkinson and Pickett shows, after a certain point, continued natural resource depletion for economic growth is not necessary to achieve good population health.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206114/original/file-20180213-44654-g0k0sd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
After a certain point, higher emissions do not increase life expectancy, as Wilkinson and Pickett demonstrated. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, R. Wilkinson and K. Pickett
Agenda relies on inclusive, integrated planning
While the New Urban Agenda encourages consideration of health in urban policies, it does not detail the specific actions required.
Urban planning interventions must be consistent with the evidence on how to create healthy and less resource-intensive cities. A recent Australian study found that many urban policies are not evidence-based and are often not fully implemented.
Countries across the globe are looking at indicators to help monitor policy implementation. This includes spatial indicators that highlight inequities in access to infrastructure and amenities within and between cities.
It is widely recognised that implementing the New Urban Agenda will require the involvement of many sectors, including housing, transport, urban design, energy, employment and open space. National governments adopted the agenda, but city planning is often a responsibility of sub-national governments. The private sector and communities also have important contributions to make. 
In all cities, there is a need to clarify responsibilities and balance national government leadership with local government and community action. Integration between policy areas requires supportive legislative frameworks, political commitment, leadership, strong governance arrangements and personnel trained in collaboration.
Low- and middle-income countries are further behind on urban health, so have much to gain from implementing the agenda. Nevertheless, all countries, including Australia, have room for improvement. Australian cities continue to face issues with car dependence and inequities in access to public transport, jobs, services and amenities.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91009/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">All urban actors have a role to play in pursuing the New Urban Agenda’s vision of a sustainable and healthy urban future. As we hurtle towards doubling our population with rapid city growth, now is the time for action.
Melanie Lowe, Lecturer in Public Health, Australian Catholic University 
Alexei Trundle, PhD Candidate, Australian-German Climate &amp; Energy College, University of Melbourne 
André Stephan, Lecturer in Architectural Engineering, University of Melbourne 
Billie Giles-Corti, Director, Urban Futures Enabling Capability Platform and Director, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, RMIT University 
Hayley Henderson, PhD Candidate in Urban Planning, University of Melbourne 
Hesam Kamalipour, Research Fellow at Monash Art, Design and Architecture, Monash University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-why-health-has-to-be-at-the-heart-of-the-new-urban-agenda-91009" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Urban Policy

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Urban Policy

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News