‘The Commons’ is a new small apartment block next to a train line in Brunswick, inner Melbourne by Breathe Architecture. It is noteworthy for the cost of the apartments [pretty affordable for the area], its strong sustainability credentials and design features [especially the shared areas], its financial success as a development, but most of all because it is a concrete example of a great way forward for urban redevelopment. It ticks every box for accessibility, humanity, and public good. Here is how it was covered in last Thursday’s The Age. Be sure to watch the video.
It is such a success that another block is underway nearby but this time not funded by a traditional developer but sort of crowd sourced, mainly by the architectural community, and it will be marketed in a fresh way too.
The total absence of any onsite car parking and mechanical aircon along with clever use of communal services that enable the generous size of the living areas and the high build quality for the price point. This shows how the removal of anti-urban planning regulations that most western cities have inherited from last century can stimulate innovation by architects and developers.
It also shows that to really offer choice and increased affordability into urban housing markets cities need to make two coordinated moves: remove the straitjacket of Minimum Parking Regulations and other dispersal enforcing regs and upgrade its Transit and Active systems to as high quality, frequency, and permanency as possible. Together these moves enable the market to provide real TODs, Transport Oriented Developments, of all sorts of scales for all sorts of markets, on currently undervalued brownfields sites.
Once these conditions exist then change can occur on scales more attractive to a variety of players driving experimentation and innovation. After all, whatever government, Council, and the market is doing now in Auckland for dwelling supply isn’t working as well as we need. Significant improvement is coming to our transport systems, now lets get the dwelling regulatory environment fixed too. Then good things will follow. As one fix is nowhere as powerful without the other.
Below, the parking [from here:http://www.redshiftaa.com.au/portfolio/apartment-design-as-it-should-be/]:
Processing...
Nice and timely Patrick, especially considering the Demographia rubbish being thrown around today
While you say the Demographia report is rubbish, it is important to look at their findings – i.e. housing in Auckland is severely unaffordable and in my opinion, ONE factor causing the housing crisis is a lack of land supply. . It is likely that intensification, increase in land supply or a relaxation in regulations on their own are unlikely to make Auckland homes more affordable. Lets put ideology behind us, Auckland needs a multi pronged approach to make houses more affordable. We do need to sprawl out, although it should only be in areas which have decent, or is expected to get decent multi modal transport. We do need intensification as that too increases housing supply especially where land values are high. We also need to reduce the amount of stupid regulations that make houses less affordable. Things like having a minimum apartment size of 40m2 + an 8m2 balcony is just ridiculous – a family of 4 could live in it if designed well and 8m2 is the size than my bedroom. Even as a supporter of most (not P2W or Kapiti Expressway) of the RONS projects and a car enthusiast, I do not see why on earth we need a minimum of 2 off street carparks per dwelling. I think a having a minimum of one is a better idea and could reduce the cost of each apartment by around $50,000.
Oh yes it is clear that there is a dwelling supply problem now in Auckland, but that this is just not a land supply problem. The two are not synonymous. By drawing attention to this project I am not for a moment suggesting that this sort of building is the only solution, nor that it would suit every person searching for somewhere to live in Auckland. But equally nor do the currently available detached houses at the end of the motorway suit all buyers, clearly, or they would all be snapped up or over bid [whereas the over bid properties tend to be more central].
But, this sort of proximate, cheaper, urban typology is a currently untapped addition to the supply problem because of our immature, but improving, Transit and Active networks and, especially, restrictive planning regs that prevent such options.
There is a sprawl industry, those builders that want to simply keep building on greenfields sites because that is a market and process they know, and the land bankers who are betting on it big time and therefore a financial imperative to argue that this is the only possible source of supply. People like Phil McDermott are paid to say this stuff, to serve the interests of his clients, just as Demographia is in US:
‘economist Phil McDermott on behalf of various South Auckland development land owners,’
http://www.propbd.co.nz/up6-mcdermott-argues-better-ways-compact-city-accommodate-growth/
Demographia’s raison d’etre is to see the elimination of all development controls. Whether they do it coming in the back door or otherwise, they’re patient and happy to use any language necessary to make their case.
Lack of land? You have to be joking. There are over a thousand acres of land, in and around Auckland (not to mention Pokeno) under development as we sit here.
This looks just wonderful. Let’s have LOTS in Auckland, please!
The new electric trains suddenly make living next to a rail line a whole lot less noisy and smelly.
Exactly; this is a huge transformation, especially with the coming improved frequency and interconnectivity with bus network.
Even in the current situation, I’ll take an apartment on a diesel train line over an apartment along a motorway any time (all other things being equal). Despite diesel trains being pretty dirty if seen in isolation, the pollution level differences must be a factor of 10 or so…
If near a railway station it’s still noisy with the electric trains as they tend to use the horns more regularly when leaving the station. They are loud especially early in the morning and late at night. Then there is the PA on the platforms that can be heard for some distance.
In Auckland if living near a train station you will need AC as part of the soundproofing requirements.
Looks good. Does not seem that complicated in terms of construction?
Radio NZ had a decent overview of the housing situation recently:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/summernoelle/audio/20163805/morning-panel-the-economic-year-ahead
Looks good, looks smart, and sounds affordable. We should be looking more at this and some of our rules need to go as setup for failure.
More here: http://www.redshiftaa.com.au/portfolio/apartment-design-as-it-should-be/
So why is it that in Melbourne they can build a 4-5 storey apartment block, yet here in NZ we are being told by “experts” that you have to go to 8 or more storeys for it to be “economic”.
Yet, this building shows that in Australia 5 storeys is plenty for a successful development.
So what rules in our case do we need to review to make it possible to build lots of this sort of building in NZ?
This isn’t a mile different from the Orakei Point design as far as height and structure goes, so it is happening here, just hasn’t happened yet.
Part of that IS our parking regulations. At the costs of underground parking, a building becomes a lot more financially viable if you haven’t got to dig deep first. Also, minimum sizes, balcony sizes (or balcony requirements at all), excessively restrictive height limits etc… – deregulation isn’t the answer to everything, but we are severely lacking it in planning and transport rules for housing.
Melbourne has a whole lot more land where it is permissible to build 4 storeys and higher and as a result there is not as high a premium on this land. In Auckland there is so little land where mid rise buildings are permitted that the land price is bidded up to a point where only 8 storeys is economic.
Really Frank? Sounds incorrect and totally bogus.
We have apartments proposed on the Gt North road ridge, for which the land currently has no higher purpose, than acres of f**king car yards?
And now you tell me that land is *so* valuable it needs 8 storeys to break even?
Orakei Point development doesn’t have 8 storey towers anywhere, it has probably the most expensive real estate price for the land, yet they don’t need 8 storeys?
And the places are selling.
Is the real reason they “need” 8 is to cover all the marketing costs and profits of the developer too?
I note the apartment referred above in Melbourne not only did away with shared air-con they also did away with “show homes” and display apartments and real estate agency fees
– thus meaning a lower height building still returns a good return to the developer and a lower price to the purchaser.
And isn’t this the real reason why 8 storeys are supposedly needed “everywhere” – too many people clipping the same ticket in the building industry?
And perhaps, rather than “just” parking minimums, and red tape, we also look at that too as part of the problem here?
So how hot will those bedrooms be in Melbourne without air conditioning? Especially once the other half is built and the eastern apartments only get light and air from what will become an internal light well. (As the middle apartments already do).
I wonder what this place is like after four 30 degree-plus days in a row without aircon…
presumably its been designed along passivhaus/ passive solar design principles so that aircon presumably isnt that necessary?
Where I live the RECORD low temperature is 18 degrees, we have months where the temperature does not go below 28. The house that I live in has stood for over 60 years, for about 40 of those years it didn’t even have electricity never mind AC. Since the house has been designed properly it is passively cooled and in the middle of the day you don’t even need a fan for it to be cooler than the outside.
Current temperature 27 degrees at 9pm, I will be going to bed shortly sleeping under a duvet and a ceiling fan on its slowest setting.
It may be a nice little project but I can’t go along with no air conditioning for the purpose of reducing costs. It gets hot in Melbourne and even if current residents are OK with it for their own reasons, what happens when these units turn over a few times? If the answer to affordable housing is to eliminate building codes and standards, then we’re in far worse shape than we think.
I figure we can leave it to Australians to understand their own climate better than us. I have yet to visit the building at any time of the year so am not going to pass judgement, but great insulation, overhangs, and cross-draft can do a great deal to deal with this issue. I guess we’ll find out though, if retrofit units turn up on those balconies like old buildings then you guys will be proven right….
If you go to the Singapore section of the Demographia report http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf you will find it quite complimentary of Singapore’s public housing which has kept medium housing costs down to a 5.0 multiple of medium incomes compared to Auckland’s 8.2. Despite Singapore being more geographically constrained. Not exactly the right wing Neo-liberal it has to be sprawl that everyone portrays them…..
Right, building housing at a mass scale requires an interventionist government, which is the majority land-owner, using cheap funds by recycling citizens’ retirement savings. These aren’t features we’re likely to see in NZ anytime soon. Also, all public housing units in Singapore are sold on a 99-year lease (i.e. not freehold). Again, we’re not likely to have the majority of housing in NZ being leasehold anytime soon.
I don’t even know why we are still talking about housing affordability and such. Just go for a walk around the eastern suburbs (where I live ) and you will notice that the people living there have the best life in the developed world. Beautiful houses close to the sea with a stable government, sheepish population, good services, ridiculously low council rates, tax evasion friendly ird , steady immigration, just enough benefits paid to the poorest from keeping them from rioting, good wine production. Why would they want to change anything? This housing shit is here to stay
Nonsense – you are speaking as your name suggests. Yes, of course those in the eastern suburbs are enjoying their nice homes close to the sea with good wine production etc – that’s not the point. The point is, with another million people wanting to live in Auckland and expecting that same lifestyle and same wine / sea / democracy benefits, how is it going to work? Where are we gonna put them? How are they going to pay for it? That’s why we are talking about housing affordability.
You speak exactly like THEM: where are WE gonna put them, how are THEY gonna pay for it?
We decide they pay.
I live in Canberra, which according to Wikipedia has a Jan-Feb average high and record high (28/42 degrees) similar to Melbourne’s (26/46 degrees)
How does one survive in such a place without airconditioning? Easy: with lots of insulation and awnings – in our case, retrofitted to a bog-standard 1950s brick veneer house with a poor aspect.
It’s unpleasantly hot outside for a few weeks a year, and inside for a few days a year when the hot weather lasts for a week.
Melbourne is not the Sahara desert. I respectfully submit that a Melbourne house that ‘needs’ airconditioning has been badly designed.
However I acknowledge that –
– the issues and constraints might be different in apartment blocks (eg maybe less opportunity for cross-ventilation);
– people’s personal standards for how much non-ideal temperature they regard as acceptable will differ.
I don’t think this is an example of a well designed building at all.
The building appears to be situated on high value land being next to an inner-city train station. It is not optimal to build medium density housing on such land. This should be an area for high density housing, at an absolute minimum 8 stories to allow a large number of people to live here. The building should also have some level of car parking, for visitors if nothing else. Let the market decide if there is value in integrating car parking into the building not the car Nazi’s.
I’m also concerned at the lack of air conditioning. Our friend from Canberra above got me chuckling when he compared Canberra weather with Melbourne. The heat in Canberra is nothing like what you get in Melbourne.
The building has no aesthetic value whatsoever. Just last week people on here were ridiculing the Skycity convention centre. Where are they now? This building is a box with some dividers thrown in. It makes the Skycity thing look like the Taj Mahal.
The lack of detail on pricing also concerns me. Patrick tries to pass it off as “pretty affordable for the area”. Melbourne is one of the most unaffordable cities in the world so how much are these things? I’ll take an educated guess that they are the best part of $1mil AUD a pop. Close?
Inner city is a stretch, it’s as far from central Melbourne as Ellerslie is from central Auckland.
Erm, the market did decide on parking. The crowd sourced development didn’t buld any parking and the market bought them all quicksmart. Decision made quite clearly!
Mr Real
Starting price for a one bedroom apartment on release was AUD 375,000.
Mechanical aircon is a sign of poor dwelling design and construction; a blunt and expensive solution with ongoing opex costs and spatial and auditory disbenefits.
You don’t like the look of the building? On the basis of that one shot above? OK, good for you.
Jeez, a one bedroom apartment for $375,000 AU…that on par (or slightly more expensive) than Auckland…The apartments in my opinion looks okay. Its fairly simplistic, although it has a few design elements which makes it look slightly less like a box with dividers imo . However, as it is right next to an inner suburb train station, shouldn’t it be higher than four storeys?
give me a 1 bdr apartment for 375k in Auckland and I buy it tomorrow. No leashold no leaky no hobson st jails.
I am guessing it is the rail side elevation he found ugly, the end is the good part. But that is how you make a building affordable, you cut every corner that can be cut. As for the aircon well that is peoples personal choice. I wouldn’t live in Melbourne until they invent an air conditioned shirt but plenty of people choose to put up with it.
There is no secret what they cut to make it affordable for the location, size, and built quality, it’s all above and in the links; underground carparking, second bathrooms, individual laundries, and aircon. But especially the carparking.
But who cares what a bunch of Aucklanders think people in Melbourne need; it sold like hot cakes and they’re onto the next one.
I am impressed with that price
Explains why they sold so quickly
Don’t know if the appartments have ceiling fans but this link has lots of interesting data on their advantages over aircon: http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/09/circulating-fans-air-conditioning.html