tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/nimbyism-12932/articlesNIMBYism – The Conversation2023-07-18T03:32:29Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2072042023-07-18T03:32:29Z2023-07-18T03:32:29ZNIMBYism in Sydney is leading to racist outcomes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537217/original/file-20230713-19-oqfqum.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3904%2C2581&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Inner Sydney has near-zero population growth.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Residents of the affluent east and north of Greater Sydney <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/the-suburbs-that-are-home-to-sydney-s-biggest-nimbys-20230308-p5cqam">have strongly resisted</a> housing development in their suburbs. This NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) resistance has led to urban sprawl in areas of Western Sydney with a well-documented lack of <a href="https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/content/dam/digital/images/centre-for-western-sydney/WesternSydneyProgressandProspects.pdf">services</a>, <a href="https://mckellinstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/McKell_Super-Funding-Infrastructure.pdf">infrastructure</a> and <a href="https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1782931/where-are-the-jobs-report-part-2.pdf">jobs</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0197397523000115">Recent research</a> showed affluent Sydney communities closer to the city centre are highly influential and organised in resisting development in their neighbourhoods. The result has been a socioeconomically divided city. </p>
<p>Ethnic segregation is a less-talked-about aspect of this divide. Most population growth in Sydney is from non-white new migrants. Dumping them all in the city’s west, when many are suited for and employed in professional jobs, is not only economically unproductive, it also leads to an ethnically segregated city. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/jobs-deficit-drives-army-of-daily-commuters-out-of-western-sydney-139384">Jobs deficit drives army of daily commuters out of Western Sydney</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The ethnic divide is growing</h2>
<p>A recent NSW Productivity Commission <a href="https://www.productivity.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-06/202305_01-building-more-homes-where-people-want-to-live.pdf">report</a> shows less than 20% of new dwellings were built within 10 kilometres of the CBD between 2016 and 2021. Unmet demand is greatest in the inner city. As the chart below shows, most residential development has been in the outer suburbs, 30-40km from the city centre. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537190/original/file-20230713-22-axlryx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537190/original/file-20230713-22-axlryx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537190/original/file-20230713-22-axlryx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537190/original/file-20230713-22-axlryx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537190/original/file-20230713-22-axlryx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537190/original/file-20230713-22-axlryx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537190/original/file-20230713-22-axlryx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537190/original/file-20230713-22-axlryx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Net dwelling completions from 2016-17 to 2020-21.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.productivity.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-06/202305_01-building-more-homes-where-people-want-to-live.pdf">Chart: NSW Productivity Commission. Data: DPE; Greater Cities Commission; NSW Productivity Commission</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>NSW Department of Planning and Environment <a href="https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/research-and-demography/population-projections/explore-the-data">population projections</a> for 2021-2041 suggest the vast majority of population growth is going to be in these outer areas. The projections are based on analysis of historical trends, announced policies and local intelligence. </p>
<p>The map below shows inner local council areas will grow much more slowly than the outer ones. These outer areas also have much higher base populations, so their additional people and residential development are going to be large in absolute numbers.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537192/original/file-20230713-17-t3oxmp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Map showing forecast population growth for local government areas across Greater Sydney" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537192/original/file-20230713-17-t3oxmp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537192/original/file-20230713-17-t3oxmp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537192/original/file-20230713-17-t3oxmp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537192/original/file-20230713-17-t3oxmp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537192/original/file-20230713-17-t3oxmp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537192/original/file-20230713-17-t3oxmp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537192/original/file-20230713-17-t3oxmp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Population growth forecasts for local government areas across Greater Sydney.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Map created by authors using NSW Department of Planning population projection (2021-41)</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Inner-city councils areas, such as Mosman (0.06%), Inner West (0.3%), Woollahra (0.24%) and Waverly (0.17%), are forecast to grow by much less than 1% a year. Most outer council areas are forecast to grow by at least 1-2%.</p>
<p>Inner-city areas also have a much higher percentage of white residents. The map below, constructed using 2021 census data for place of birth, shows this disparity. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537193/original/file-20230713-30-lp5zxq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Map showing percentages of non-white residents for each local government area across Greater Sydney" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537193/original/file-20230713-30-lp5zxq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537193/original/file-20230713-30-lp5zxq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537193/original/file-20230713-30-lp5zxq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537193/original/file-20230713-30-lp5zxq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537193/original/file-20230713-30-lp5zxq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537193/original/file-20230713-30-lp5zxq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537193/original/file-20230713-30-lp5zxq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Percentages of non-white population by local government area across Greater Sydney.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Map created by authors using ABS 2021 Census data</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While place of birth is not a perfect indicator of ethnicity, it is commonly used for and serves the purposes of this sort of analysis. The map clearly shows the outer areas of Sydney have a higher proportion of non-white residents. The wealthier inner areas have a much higher concentration of white residents. </p>
<p>These inner areas also tend to have a higher level of NIMBYism and lower population growth projections. </p>
<p>As the map below shows, the concentration of the non-white population in outer areas is also increasing at a much faster rate.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537195/original/file-20230713-15-wi8ptg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Map showing increases in percentage of non-white resident population from 2016 to 2021 for local government areas across Sydney." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537195/original/file-20230713-15-wi8ptg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537195/original/file-20230713-15-wi8ptg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537195/original/file-20230713-15-wi8ptg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537195/original/file-20230713-15-wi8ptg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537195/original/file-20230713-15-wi8ptg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537195/original/file-20230713-15-wi8ptg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/537195/original/file-20230713-15-wi8ptg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Increase in percentage of non-white resident population from 2016 to 2021 for local government areas across Sydney.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Map created by authors using 2016 and 2021 census data</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/another-tale-of-two-cities-access-to-jobs-divides-sydney-along-the-latte-line-96907">Another tale of two cities: access to jobs divides Sydney along the 'latte line'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>And the trend is set to continue</h2>
<p>The national <a href="https://population.gov.au/publications/statements/2022-population-statement">2022 Population Statement</a> shows Australia’s net overseas migration is estimated to be 235,000 per year until 2032-33. That’s about two-thirds of the nation’s total population growth. The report forecasts about 27% (64,000 a year) of the international migrants will settle in Greater Sydney.</p>
<p>Natural population increase (births minus deaths) for Greater Sydney is estimated to be around 36,000 a year. The net effect of internal migration adds up to around 33,000 people leaving Sydney. So most of the city’s population growth is going to be from international migration.</p>
<p>The Commonwealth’s <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/report-migration-program-2021-22.pdf">2021-22 Migration Program Report</a> shows more than 80% of international migration is from non-white countries (when we consider the top ten countries of origin). Migration data from recent years also indicate this trend is likely to continue or even grow.</p>
<p>Based on the housing growth and immigration projections, we can conclude population growth will continue to be concentrated in outer Western Sydney, and non-white international migrants will account for most of this growth. This will intensify the concentration of the non-white population in these areas, increasing the ethnic divide between the city’s east and west.</p>
<p>It can be argued, then, that limiting housing options for new immigrants to the outer areas of Sydney could be considered systemic racism. System racism occurs “when racially unequal opportunities and outcomes are inbuilt or intrinsic to the operation of a society’s structures”, as one <a href="https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-021-00349-3">study</a> explained. And it “can emerge with or without intention to harm and with or without awareness of its existence”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bold-and-innovative-planning-is-delivering-australias-newest-city-but-it-will-be-hot-and-can-we-ditch-the-colonial-name-203932">Bold and innovative planning is delivering Australia’s newest city. But it will be hot – and can we ditch the colonial name?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>By reducing the ethnic divide, Sydney will be better off</h2>
<p>The NSW Productivity Commission’s recent <a href="https://www.productivity.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-06/202305_01-building-more-homes-where-people-want-to-live.pdf">report</a>, “Building more homes where people want to live”, argues that the focus on growth areas in Western Sydney is coming at a high cost to both social wellbeing and government budgets. He recommends the government shift its focus to higher-density housing in the CBD and inner suburbs. </p>
<p>Soon after NSW elected a new Labor government in March, Premier Chris Minns <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/sydney-nsw/nsw-premier-chris-minns-puts-sydney-nimbys-on-notice/news-story/aef04c273a0b04c81531bd5cf989eaae">stressed the need</a> to counter NIMBYism and build such housing closer to amenities and jobs. </p>
<p>Areas closer to the city centre are where people most want to live. Developing more housing in these areas will make housing there more affordable. It will also reduce the environmental impacts of urban growth. </p>
<p>Continued urban sprawl on <a href="https://theconversation.com/half-of-western-sydney-foodbowl-land-may-have-been-lost-to-development-in-just-10-years-190148">former farmlands</a> and natural woodlands in outer Western Sydney is leading to poorer <a href="https://theconversation.com/another-tale-of-two-cities-access-to-jobs-divides-sydney-along-the-latte-line-96907">economic</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-western-sydney-residents-grapple-with-climate-change-they-want-political-action-200917">sustainability</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-hits-low-income-earners-harder-and-poor-housing-in-hotter-cities-is-a-disastrous-combination-180960">climate</a> outcomes. New developments are occurring in areas that are <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-western-sydney-is-feeling-the-heat-from-climate-change-more-than-the-rest-of-the-city-201477">extremely hot</a> in summer and <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-western-sydney-residents-grapple-with-climate-change-they-want-political-action-200917">prone to bushfires and floods</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/half-of-western-sydney-foodbowl-land-may-have-been-lost-to-development-in-just-10-years-190148">Half of Western Sydney foodbowl land may have been lost to development in just 10 years</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>At the same time, the population in many affluent areas of Sydney has been <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/from-bondi-to-byron-wealthy-suburbs-with-shrinking-populations-20221125-p5c1a2.html">decreasing</a> and these areas are reported to have <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/leichhardt-s-rundown-italian-forum-sold-to-mystery-developer-20230404-p5cy09.html">lost vitality</a>. They also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/08/essential-workers-priced-out-of-housing-near-sydney-workplaces-and-face-even-longer-commutes">lack housing</a> for their essential workers.</p>
<p>There is a need for further research on the relationship between ethnic segregation and our decisions on what to build and where. We need to better understand NIMBYs’ motivations for opposing all development in their areas and the systemic racism resulting from this resistance.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207204/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Greiss is Mayor of Campbelltown City Council, Chairperson of The Parks Mayoral Forum, a non-executive director of Local Government NSW and a member of the Liberal Party. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Awais Piracha does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Inner-city resistance to higher-density housing has diverted most of Sydney’s population growth, driven largely by non-white migrants, to the outer suburbs. The result is a racially divided city.Awais Piracha, Associate Professor of Urban Planning, Director Academic Programs, Geography Tourism and Urban Planning, Western Sydney UniversityGeorge Greiss, Adjunct Associate Professor in Urban Planning, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2067652023-07-05T01:26:04Z2023-07-05T01:26:04ZYIMBYs and NIMBYs unite! You can have both heritage protection and more housing<p>Heritage conservation <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/victoria-s-heritage-conundrum-20230630-p5dkuy.html">has been blamed</a> for making the housing crisis worse by standing in the way of new, higher-density housing. But protecting heritage and increasing housing should be complementary objectives. Heritage suffers when not enjoyed by our growing communities. Housing suffers when not shaped by our communal heritage.</p>
<p><a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691200224/yes-to-the-city">YIMBYs</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/30-minute-city-not-in-my-backyard-smart-cities-plan-must-let-people-have-their-say-59161">NIMBYs</a> are usually on opposing sides of this debate. Yet what they agree on is the desirability of heritage areas. People in both the Not In My Back Yard and Yes In My Back Yard camps want to live in established suburbs, often in the inner city, with attractive <a href="https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1026">historic urban landscapes</a>.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, NIMBYs have exploited heritage loopholes to prevent development. There is a problem with how overly cautious practitioners and <a href="https://heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/2020/12/the-state-of-heritage-review-local-heritage/">under-resourced authorities</a> are <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429352713-10/changing-cities-evolving-values-1980s%E2%80%9390s-james-lesh?context=ubx&refId=1b4f749d-521c-4aec-b0d6-d1723b731852">applying heritage protections</a>. So, YIMBYs wrongly blame heritage itself for housing issues. </p>
<p>Empirical evidence that heritage is a barrier to housing supply is practically non-existent. It’s not a talking point among housing experts. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/4-ways-to-bring-down-rent-and-build-homes-faster-than-labors-10billion-housing-fund-205643">real issues</a> are urban policy, the tax system and housing supply.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1671080837410947072"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-heritage-protection-is-about-how-people-use-places-not-just-their-architecture-and-history-138128">Why heritage protection is about how people use places, not just their architecture and history</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>In support of both heritage and housing</h2>
<p>Heritage should be seen as part of the housing solution. Advocates for both heritage and housing can and have been allies. </p>
<p>In Victoria, for example, architect and politician <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/former-labor-planning-minister-evan-walker-remembered-20150217-13gvr5.html">Evan Walker</a> introduced the first comprehensive local protections in the mid-1980s. He was ably supported by <a href="https://architectureau.com/articles/david-yencken-a-modern-day-polymath/">David Yencken</a>, who had been the first chairman of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1475406">Australian Heritage Commission</a> and a developer of <a href="https://architectureau.com/articles/vermont-park/">innovative suburban housing</a>. These city visionaries recognised that we could keep the best of the past and complement it with new, higher-density builds.</p>
<p>Heritage protections were <a href="http://values.heritage.city/">created</a> at a time when our historic neighbourhoods were at risk of widespread demolitions for inferior new buildings. High-rise towers threatened areas like The Rocks in Sydney and Carlton in Melbourne. A surge in ad-hoc redevelopment put valued homes at risk in suburbs such as Brisbane’s New Farm, North Adelaide and Perth’s Subiaco.</p>
<p>Our heritage suburbs were not desirable like today. We only have our fabulous cities of villages because people fought hard for heritage protections. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534959/original/file-20230630-15-e2we55.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white photo of residents protesting against the development of their suburb" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534959/original/file-20230630-15-e2we55.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534959/original/file-20230630-15-e2we55.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534959/original/file-20230630-15-e2we55.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534959/original/file-20230630-15-e2we55.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534959/original/file-20230630-15-e2we55.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534959/original/file-20230630-15-e2we55.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534959/original/file-20230630-15-e2we55.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A residents’ group protests against redevelopment in Woolloomooloo, Sydney, ca. 1973.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">City of Sydney Archives</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/our-cities-owe-much-of-their-surviving-heritage-to-jack-mundey-138293">Our cities owe much of their surviving heritage to Jack Mundey</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Heritage is about <a href="https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/books/values_heritage_management.html">what we find significant</a>. Eroding protections risks the social, physical and historic fabric of heritage neighbourhoods, the very reasons so many of us – including both YIMBYs and NIMBYs – want to live in them. These areas have vibrant high streets, excellent services such as schools and hospitals, and many transport options.</p>
<p>It’s notable, too, that the smaller block sizes in older suburbs already produce <a href="https://thefifthestate.com.au/columns/treading-the-line-between-densifying-housing-and-preserving-our-built-heritage/">high levels of density by Australian standards</a>. Their walkability and infrastructure also make them more liveable. This heritage of urban vitality is worth conserving and replicating.</p>
<h2>We can build more housing in heritage areas</h2>
<p>A more palatable and sustainable solution is to build well-designed homes, hapartments and townhouses in and around heritage areas. There are architects and developers <a href="https://architectureau.com/articles/2023-houses-awards-shortlist-house-in-a-heritage-context/">who do this</a>. It may be a case of adapting obsolete historical buildings or constructing new buildings on appropriate sites. </p>
<p>When done well, new builds and incremental change improve our historic urban landscapes. Good examples include Perth’s Northbridge, Melbourne’s <a href="https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/scholarlywork/1566289-adaptive-histories--the-role-of-architectural-historians-in-urban-redevelopment-outcomes">Collingwood</a> and Sydney’s Chippendale.</p>
<p>Importantly, the best-designed new homes respect local history, prevailing design forms and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2009.10753406">neighbourhood character</a>. That is a great strength of heritage: it allows us to embrace the most significant and beautiful aspects of our existing built forms and social lives.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A new development rises behind a street of heritage building facades." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534962/original/file-20230630-17-kpnylj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534962/original/file-20230630-17-kpnylj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534962/original/file-20230630-17-kpnylj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534962/original/file-20230630-17-kpnylj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534962/original/file-20230630-17-kpnylj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534962/original/file-20230630-17-kpnylj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534962/original/file-20230630-17-kpnylj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In Northbridge, Perth, new builds and incremental change have enhanced a heritage neighbourhood.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Northbridge_Sign_and_The_Rechabite.jpg">The Logical Positivist/Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/preserving-cities-how-trendies-shaped-australias-urban-heritage-66515">Preserving cities: how 'trendies' shaped Australia's urban heritage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Heritage is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/07/our-cities-are-not-museums-we-must-stop-nimbys-weaponising-heritage-laws-to-block-affordable-housing">not just about</a> protecting grand monuments along Spring or Macquarie streets. It is also about everyday aspects of our suburbs: the sturdy stone street kerb, the intricate iron and lacework terrace, the worker’s timber cottage, the subdivided Federation home, the industrial warehouse turned apartment block and, of course, uplifting gardens, parks and trees.</p>
<p>The precincts, places and features that are heritage-protected reflect decades of community efforts. Today, residents still must have a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/08/how-gentrified-is-your-postcode-search-our-map-of-australias-capital-cities">right to have a say in planning</a> and to see their heritage protected. Conservation is enshrined in planning and heritage legislation and widely supported by the community.</p>
<h2>Overcoming barriers to densifying heritage areas</h2>
<p>Authorities too often say “no” to appropriate housing in heritage areas. It happens for many reasons, though so-called NIMBYism is a factor.</p>
<p>Many local councils have also had <a href="https://heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/research-projects/the-state-of-heritage-review-local-heritage/">funding for conservation cut</a>, while federal and state leadership in urban heritage is minimal. </p>
<p>Some traditional approaches to conservation do tend to prevent rather than promote reasonable change to heritage places. This is also unsustainable: adapting existing buildings is good for the environment.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1311218423284727808"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/frozen-in-time-weve-become-blind-to-ways-to-build-sustainability-into-our-urban-heritage-187284">Frozen in time, we've become blind to ways to build sustainability into our urban heritage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Many authorities lack the knowledge and resources to ensure new housing is consistent with heritage. We need to equip them with the innovative heritage approaches and creative design outlook they need to make better decisions. Planning and design panels with wide-ranging skills, including heritage, could work with communities to increase housing supply and choice where people want to live.</p>
<p>It’s essential to address the housing crisisc. More people should be able to enter the housing market and enjoy living in established suburbs. We have the heritage, planning and design tools to achieve both objectives. </p>
<p>Heritage strategies for increasing housing supply can include subdivision, adaptive reuse and infill development in and around heritage areas. It’s about designing the best housing for the specific context. Heritage policies should be reviewed and updated across Australia to support these kinds of outcomes.</p>
<p>The urban heritage of Australia’s cities is what makes them among the world’s most liveable. Heritage should not be about blocking housing, but rather about asking “how can we build housing better?”. Let’s embrace our urban past to shape our urban future. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/war-on-the-demolishers-probably-not-and-timing-of-nsw-heritage-review-is-curious-159525">War on the demolishers? Probably not, and timing of NSW heritage review is curious</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206765/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Lesh has consulted in the area of heritage conservation.</span></em></p>YIMBYs and NIMBYs agree on one thing – they both want to live in desirable heritage neighbourhoods. And despite heritage being blamed for lack of new housing in these areas, it’s not the real issue.James Lesh, Lecturer in Cultural Heritage and Museum Studies, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1830092022-10-25T12:28:44Z2022-10-25T12:28:44ZBuilding subsidized low-income housing actually lifts property values in a neighborhood, contradicting NIMBY concerns<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490439/original/file-20221018-18-wz0tkv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=57%2C139%2C5406%2C3497&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Today's low-income housing developments, like this one in St. Louis, are of a much higher quality than those of the past. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/TrumpInfrastructure/fa82e8e2392a48ec96740b431dba44f3/photo?Query=Low-Income%20Housing%20Tax%20Credit&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=10&currentItemNo=2">AP Photo/Jeff Roberson</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em> </p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>Building multiple publicly subsidized low-income housing developments in a neighborhood doesn’t lower the value of other homes in the area – and in fact can even increase their worth, according to a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2022.101838">new peer-reviewed study I co-authored</a>. </p>
<p>For the study, we looked at 508 developments financed through the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program and built in the Chicago area from 1997 to 2016. We then examined their influence on more than 600,000 nearby residential sales, using data from local property assessments and tax records. We chose Chicago because of its size, well-established neighborhoods, substantial amount of subsidized housing developments, well-documented <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Great-American-City-Enduring-Neighborhood/dp/022605568X">racial and ethnic segregation</a>, pockets of persistent and concentrated poverty and excellent data coverage. While some readers may have pictures of dilapidated buildings in their minds, the projects we looked at were generally well built and well maintained.</p>
<p>We found that, relative to comparable homes in other neighborhoods, average home prices jumped by 10% within a quarter-mile of the first affordable housing development that was built in a neighborhood and 2% within a quarter-mile over a 15-year period or through 2016. To ensure we were isolating the effect of the low-income housing program, we also looked at preexisting market trends to make sure neighborhoods that showed the faster price growth weren’t already growing at a faster rate before the low-income housing.</p>
<p>What was more striking to us, however, is that additional developments in the same area generally further increased housing prices. Building two more developments increased prices by a total of 3 additional percentage points, on average, within a quarter-mile and 4 percentage points over the next quarter-mile. In other words, a neighborhood within a quarter-mile of all three developments saw gains of 13% on average over the period.</p>
<p>These additional effects are important because low-income housing projects are disproportionately concentrated geographically, <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Keeping-Races-in-Their-Places-The-Dividing-Lines-That-Shaped-the-American/Orlando/p/book/9780367680374">especially in lower-income areas</a>. </p>
<p>We also found that these effects occurred regardless of whether it was a low- or high-income neighborhood and no matter its racial composition. </p>
<p>While <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.20247">other studies</a> have previously shown Low-Income Housing Tax Credit developments typically have positive effects on surrounding property values, ours was the first to look at the impact of several projects in one neighborhood. </p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>Homeowners are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/us/affordable-housing-suburbs.html">often worried</a> that the development of publicly subsidized housing in their neighborhoods will lower the value of their homes.</p>
<p>The primary concerns seem to be that such housing developments <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087412469341">will lead to higher levels</a> of crime and poverty, as well as requiring wealthier residents to pay higher costs for services and education, according to a 2012 study of “not in my back yard,” or NYMBY, opposition. These concerns are particularly acute when multiple projects are clustered closely together, reminding many Americans of public housing projects that <a href="https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-commentary/2014-economic-commentaries/ec-201419-public-housing-concentrated-poverty-and-crime.aspx">concentrated poverty and crime</a> in the mid-20th century.</p>
<p>But today’s affordable housing developments are different than those of the past, which were often <a href="https://homesnow.org/short-history-of-public-housing-in-the-us-1930s-present/">cheaply built and poorly maintained</a>. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program supports private developers who have an incentive to build high-quality buildings and implement good property management. </p>
<p>Although local homeowners <a href="https://shelterforce.org/2014/04/23/who_why_and_how_communities_oppose_affordable_housing/">often oppose</a> these buildings, our results show that they are less cause for concern than people may think.</p>
<h2>What still isn’t known</h2>
<p>We didn’t measure the effects of the new developments on area rental prices, so we don’t know how the subsidized rental units affected rents in unsubsidized properties nearby. That is a subject for future research. Similarly, while we demonstrated statistically that the developments themselves catalyzed the positive changes in values, we did not examine which particular aspects of the developments were the primary drivers of that change.</p>
<h2>What’s next</h2>
<p>We’re currently finishing up our follow-up study in Los Angeles – another large city but with very different dynamics from Chicago’s. Our findings, which are currently undergoing peer review, show markedly similar effects, though we found the biggest gains in property values after multiple projects in a neighborhood.</p>
<p>We also are examining whether the observed property value effects differ when factoring in the size of the building, the presence of market-rate units and the type of developer.</p>
<p><em><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=4506231">Sean Zielenbach</a>, president of SZ Consulting and a co-author of the study, contributed to this article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183009/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research was funded in part by a generous grant from the JPMorgan Chase Foundation to Enterprise Community Partners, and we gratefully acknowledge their support, as well as the University of Southern California’s Bedrosian Center on Governance and the Public Enterprise. The funders played no role in the research itself.</span></em></p>The concentration of subsidized low-income housing developments isn’t as bad as residents fear: It actually increases property values – at a faster rate than other neighborhoods.Anthony W. Orlando, Assistant Professor of Finance, Real Estate and Law, California State Polytechnic University, PomonaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1640522021-08-11T12:30:16Z2021-08-11T12:30:16ZWill NIMBYs sink new clean energy projects? The evidence says no – if developers listen to local concerns<p>As Congress debates billions of dollars in new infrastructure investments, advocates are touting the <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2021/08/05/the-senate-infrastructure-bill-puts-america-closer-to-another-new-deal/">social and economic benefits</a> of building new high-voltage transmission lines, clean energy plants and electric vehicle charging stations, along with fixing aging roads and bridges. But when it’s time to break ground, will people accept these new projects in their communities? </p>
<p>Local public acceptance is critically important for siting and developing energy infrastructure. Strong opposition can delay project siting approval and permits. Sometimes it can <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-17/nimbys-shoot-down-green-projects-next-door-while-planet-burns">sink projects altogether</a>.</p>
<p>When communities oppose projects, some people are quick to point to NIMBY, or not-in-my-backyard, sentiments as a formidable and pernicious obstacle. While there’s no official definition of NIMBYism, a traditional definition frames it as someone saying that something is fine in the abstract, but not near me or my home.</p>
<p>But our close examination of opposition has not yielded much <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab875d/pdf">evidence</a> of such NIMBYism. First, when someone is generally supportive of an energy infrastructure project, we find no evidence that they are opposed to the same type of project near their home. Second, we find that opposing energy projects generally is not an irrational or knee-jerk response.</p>
<p>Rather, we find that public opposition to energy infrastructure projects tends to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa025">quite rational and understandable</a>. While there is local opposition to some projects, typically people oppose projects when they affect their property value or sense of place, when they are concerned about their local environment, and when they do not trust the energy company. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zkpPIzCakno?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Jane Kleeb, executive director of the advocacy group Bold Nebraska, testifies at a U.S. State Dept. hearing on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in Grand Island, Nebraska, on April 18, 2013.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The public gets a voice</h2>
<p>Giving the public a voice in decisions about new energy projects has been official U.S. policy since the 1970s. Laws such as the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act">National Environmental Policy Act</a> and state equivalents provide for public involvement in decisions about many major projects. For example, utilities that want to build or expand a power plant often have to <a href="https://queenseagle.com/all/nrg-astoria-power-plant-moves-forward-with-public-comment-period">invite and consider public comments</a> in order to obtain their permits.</p>
<p>Environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act also can affect energy-related projects. <a href="http://www.pollutionissues.com/Br-Co/Citizen-Suits.html">Opponents may sue</a> to block new projects that they argue will violate the relevant laws.</p>
<p>People and groups also often mobilize outside formal channels to oppose major developments. Recent examples include the proposed <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004908006/developer-abandons-keystone-xl-pipeline-project-ending-decade-long-battle">Keystone XL oil pipeline</a> from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast, and the <a href="https://www.concordmonitor.com/northern-pass-eversource-hydroquebec-27284387">Northern Pass high-voltage transmission line</a> from Canada to southern New England, both of which were ultimately canceled. </p>
<p>Opponents argued that both projects threatened local resources – <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/keystone-xl-pipeline-may-threaten-aquifer-that-irrigates-much-of-the-central-us/2012/08/06/7bf0215c-d4db-11e1-a9e3-c5249ea531ca_story.html">water supplies</a> in the case of the pipeline, and <a href="https://www.clf.org/making-an-impact/stopping-northern-pass/">scenic views</a> in the case of the transmissions lines. They also argued that there were better energy choices than the oil the pipeline would carry or the electricity from large-scale Canadian hydropower projects that the transmission line would deliver.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"468435136405831680"}"></div></p>
<h2>Why do people oppose energy projects?</h2>
<p>When news reports, project supporters and others assert that local resistance to energy infrastructure is due to NIMBY sentiments, the underlying assumption is that these residents are either irrational or selfish. </p>
<p>Yet, in surveys of over 16,000 people, including large numbers living near power plants, pipelines and transmission lines, we found no statistical evidence of NIMBYism. People who support energy infrastructure projects in general are likely also to support specific projects, regardless of whether they are nearby or farther away.</p>
<p>Projects like offshore and onshore wind turbines, pipelines and waste-to-energy facilities often meet significant local resistance. But often that resistance reflects a rational reaction to how a new infrastructure project affects residents’ property values or disrupts their <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101396">attachment to their local landscape</a> or community. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415524/original/file-20210810-15-1jutww7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Large metal blade being transported on highway." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415524/original/file-20210810-15-1jutww7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415524/original/file-20210810-15-1jutww7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=141&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415524/original/file-20210810-15-1jutww7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=141&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415524/original/file-20210810-15-1jutww7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=141&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415524/original/file-20210810-15-1jutww7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=177&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415524/original/file-20210810-15-1jutww7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=177&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415524/original/file-20210810-15-1jutww7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=177&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A truck carries a wind turbine blade in southern California.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/66TTQS">Chuck Coker/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our research shows that people are more favorable toward cleaner energy technology infrastructure, such as solar or wind farms, than they are toward fossil fuel-based infrastructure, such as natural gas power plants or oil and natural gas pipelines. This is true when people think about such technologies in the abstract and when they think about specific local projects. </p>
<p>These views are rooted in people’s perceptions of various energy sources’ <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/cheap-and-clean">economic costs and environmental impacts</a>. Simply put: Americans are more receptive in general to energy sources they perceive as cheap and clean.</p>
<p>It’s easier to apply these categories to renewable and fossil fuel energy sources, since they have distinctive carbon and cost attributes, than to delivery systems, such as electric transmission lines or pipelines. We have found that on average, people are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219066">fairly neutral toward power lines and pipelines</a>, but that acceptance grows significantly when the infrastructure is associated with a clean energy project and shrinks when connected to a fossil fuel power plant.</p>
<p>Our research and a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab875d">comprehensive review</a> we conducted of 30 years of studies show that people oppose energy projects due to specific factors, such as concern that the projects will alter their local environments, landscapes and economies. We also find that people who have higher levels of trust in energy companies are more likely to support all types of energy projects. Others who are concerned about climate change are generally more supportive of renewable energy projects and less supportive of fossil fuel projects. </p>
<p>Creating a 100% clean-energy economy and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050, as <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/">President Joe Biden has proposed</a> to slow climate change, will require massive deployment of cleaner energy sources, plus upgraded and expanded distribution and storage systems. Some of these projects will spark local opposition. </p>
<p>In our view, it is imperative for government agencies and energy companies to work with communities to build trust and open dialogue. The most effective way to address opposition is through genuinely addressing concerns about how energy projects affect the places where they are built.</p>
<p>[<em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164052/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sanya Carley has received funding for related research from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Konisky has received funding for related research from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.</span></em></p>Most Americans support clean energy in principle, but what will they do when wind turbines or high-voltage transmission lines come to town?Sanya Carley, Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana UniversityDavid Konisky, Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1478122020-10-12T13:59:26Z2020-10-12T13:59:26ZOnshore wind farm restrictions continue to stifle Britain’s renewable energy potential<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362937/original/file-20201012-13-wp7k99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3992%2C2241&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-turbine-wind-aerial-view-sustainable-1237248130">StayArt media/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Boris Johnson seems to have had a change of heart. Despite once <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/10154424/Wind-farms-couldnt-pull-the-skin-off-a-rice-pudding-says-Boris-Johnson.html">saying</a> that wind turbines couldn’t “pull the skin off a rice pudding”, the prime minister recently announced his intention to turn the UK into “the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54285497">Saudi Arabia of wind power</a>”, increasing the government’s offshore wind target to 40 gigawatts of energy by 2030.</p>
<p>But he and his party remain less enthused about onshore wind. In Johnson’s speech there was no mention of the planning barriers that restrict onshore wind developments to areas designated by local authorities and require clear local support. These restrictions, which are almost impossible to meet, were introduced due to pressure from <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/9061554/Full-letter-from-MPs-to-David-Cameron-on-wind-power-subsidies.html">Conservative MPs</a> in 2015. This was at the same time as subsidies for building onshore wind farms – including a fixed price guarantee for the energy they generate – were scrapped.</p>
<p>When <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-on-ending-subsidies-for-onshore-wind">announcing the changes</a>, then Energy Secretary Amber Rudd claimed that there were enough projects in the pipeline and that they were “reaching the limits of what is affordable, and what the public is prepared to accept”.</p>
<p>Despite this, onshore wind has an important role to play in the UK’s renewable energy mix. Between April and June 2020, renewables generated nearly 45% of the UK’s electricity – and <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/920621/Renewables_September_2020.pdf">onshore wind generated 20%</a> of that. If every home in the country is to be powered by wind in ten years <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/05/boris-johnson-to-unveil-plan-to-power-all-uk-homes-with-wind-by-2030">as Johnson promises</a>, current government policy needs to change. With a different approach to planning, onshore wind can be developed quickly and cheaply, providing benefits to communities that offshore wind farms often can’t.</p>
<h2>The onshore block</h2>
<p>Subsidies for onshore wind are expected to be restored in 2021 as the government has <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/contracts-for-difference-cfd-proposed-amendments-to-the-scheme-2020">proposed</a> reopening the contract auction scheme. But there’s currently no plan to lift English planning <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150618/wmstext/150618m0001.htm">restrictions</a>, which mean councils can only grant permission for a new wind farm if they meet two requirements. </p>
<p>First, it must be located somewhere that’s identified as suitable for wind farms in a local or neighbourhood plan. Updating these plans is a laborious process and many local authorities lack the staff or resources to do it. Second, all planning impacts identified by local people must have been addressed and there must be community backing.</p>
<p>These planning conditions are unique to onshore wind and there is no guidance on how community support should be demonstrated. The effect of this is significant – developers will not risk the huge expense of preparing and submitting a planning application if it can be blocked by a small number of opponents.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/tories-are-backing-the-wrong-horses-when-it-comes-to-energy-43746">Tories are backing the wrong horses when it comes to energy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Government <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/renewable-energy-planning-database-monthly-extract">data</a> reveals the impact of these restrictions. Only eight onshore wind farm applications for new or extended sites were submitted in England between 2016 and 2020. In comparison, 237 applications were submitted between 2011 and 2015 – a 96% decrease. </p>
<p>Just 16 new turbines were granted planning permission between 2016 and 2020, in seven separate locations. Between 2011 and 2015, 435 turbines were permitted to be built on 108 sites – another 96% fall.</p>
<p>Despite the glacial pace of onshore wind development since 2015, the UK industry continues to pioneer developments in <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/greater-manchester-to-house-to-worlds-largest-liquid-air-battery">battery storage</a> and <a href="https://businesscornwall.co.uk/news-by-industry/public-sector-news-categories/2020/01/council-smart-on-new-wind-turbine/">smart grids</a>, and onshore wind remains <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-solar-are-30-50-cheaper-than-thought-admits-uk-government">one of the cheapest</a> forms of energy generation. It is also popular, with <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/articles-reports/2019/10/22/shale-gas-even-less-popular-uk-coal">76%</a> of people polled in a recent survey supportive. Inevitably, wind farms on land are also easier to build and maintain.</p>
<p>Onshore wind also provides opportunities for community ownership, offering a revenue stream for local towns and villages, something that’s not currently an option for UK offshore wind due to the higher costs of development.</p>
<h2>Why we need new onshore wind</h2>
<p>Most UK onshore wind farms have time-limited planning consent. Permission is often granted for 25 years, after which the turbines must be removed. Many of the UK’s onshore sites are beginning to reach this deadline. While there is a potential for sites to repower, through removing old turbines and replacing them with new ones, not all sites will. There are barriers to repowering in some places, including local opposition, a site not performing as expected, or encroachment by new developments nearby.</p>
<p>Many existing wind farms have performed well but not all are in the best locations. As technology has developed, new, more viable, sites have been found. If existing sites don’t repower, there is a risk that our supply of onshore wind energy will slowly fall over time. That’s why it’s increasingly important for the UK government and industries to develop new sites.</p>
<p>We need to lift the restrictive planning policy in England and allow new developments where suitable. Applications for onshore wind should not face more restrictions than other renewable energy projects. The Scottish <a href="https://www.gov.scot/publications/onshore-wind-policy-statement-9781788515283/">approach</a>, which requires developers to work with communities to achieve a balance between local support, environmental impact, and likely energy yield, could work in England. This would also ensure developments are compatible with the landscape and encourage community ownership, which helps nurture local support.</p>
<p>While the UK government revises national planning policy, the draft <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-future">white paper</a> offers no mention of onshore wind. There’s an urgent need to address this gap, but will Johnson grasp the opportunity?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147812/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Windemer receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p>Despite Boris Johnson’s newfound enthusiasm for offshore wind farms, the UK risks going backwards on wind power capacity.Rebecca Windemer, Postdoctoral Fellow in Planning and Energy, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1444672020-08-18T11:35:49Z2020-08-18T11:35:49ZEngland planning reforms: the truth about local opposition to housebuilding<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353360/original/file-20200818-24-3n75iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C0%2C3988%2C2994&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New housing in Wimborne, England.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/new-housing-being-built-on-edge-1640965216">mr chris kemp/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The government has announced plans for radical <a href="https://theconversation.com/england-planning-proposals-aim-to-tackle-housing-crisis-but-overlook-key-issues-144099">planning reforms</a> in England which would remove local councillors and citizens from decisions on individual planning applications. </p>
<p>More central policy direction and streamlined local plans that directly zone land for development will, <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907956/Planning_for_the_Future_web_accessible_version.pdf">the proposals argue</a>, significantly increase housebuilding – in part by removing local people’s power to get in the way.</p>
<p>The image of residents and local authorities delaying or blocking new development through the planning system is well established. This opposition to development has often been invoked as a major contributor to the housing crisis. The suggestion is that existing homeowners are selfishly preventing development, exacerbating the supply shortages that lead to inflated house prices. </p>
<p>However, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399654420902149">our research</a> shows that the truth may be somewhat different. Although opposition to development may sometimes slow things down as politicians try to avoid unpopular decisions, its effects on housebuilding are far from clear.</p>
<h2>Strong feelings</h2>
<p>Opposition to housebuilding can be passionate. During a meeting of Wokingham Borough Council on July 23, Conservative council leader John Halsall reportedly suggested <a href="https://www.wokinghampaper.co.uk/council-leader-threatens-to-protest-naked-over-wokinghams-housing-numbers/">protesting naked</a> against the levels of new housing development they are being required to approve. Wokingham, located in the wealthy commuter belt to the west of London, is an area whose <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c11156">local politics</a> has long been marked by strong local opposition to housebuilding.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Aerial view of estate of new houses next to river" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353361/original/file-20200818-20-15opun5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353361/original/file-20200818-20-15opun5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353361/original/file-20200818-20-15opun5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353361/original/file-20200818-20-15opun5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353361/original/file-20200818-20-15opun5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353361/original/file-20200818-20-15opun5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353361/original/file-20200818-20-15opun5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New homes in Wokingham.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/wokingham-borough-council-england-new-build-1490829740">Drone Motion Stock/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At first glance, Cllr. Halsall’s gesture seems a stark illustration of unbending local obstruction. On closer examination, however, the elected leader of a local authority threatening to bare all to protest against new housebuilding doesn’t fit the narrative of all powerful objectors blocking development. Rather, it suggests a feeling of real powerlessness.</p>
<p>Our <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399654420902149">investigation</a> of an abandoned proposal to pay residents to reduce objections to new housing found something similar. Neither planners, councillors or local communities felt local opposition made much difference to decisions about housebuilding. Rather, they believed the planning system was set up to override objections. Applications were approved irrespective of local views or the (often negative) impacts development would have on local infrastructure and services.</p>
<p>One reason for this is national rules that require local authorities to maintain a <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0042098020907278">five-year supply of housing land</a> in local plans. Where councils can’t show this supply, there is a presumption in government policy that developments will be allowed, leading to a loss of local control over what gets built where. The emotive politics of opposition to housebuilding needs to be carefully assessed to see whether and how it is actually impacting on planning and housebuilding.</p>
<h2>Other issues</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.local.gov.uk/housing-backlog-more-million-homes-planning-permission-not-yet-built">Local Government Association</a> highlights that up to a million more houses have been granted planning permission than have been built over the past decade. While housebuilders require a pipeline of sites with permission to build on, this figure suggests that attempts to resolve housing shortages by targeting local opposition to development are <a href="https://www.tcpa.org.uk/blog/blog-the-wrong-answers-to-the-wrong-questions">missing the point</a>. In fact, they may distract from other more important factors, including the structure and practices of the <a href="https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/the-property-lobby">housebuilding industry</a>, and the ways land and property markets work.</p>
<p>It is even more improbable that the private sector will build enough new housing to affect affordability, as the new planning proposals imply. New housing has relatively little impact on house prices, which are largely set by demand for second-hand homes. It is <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/boris-johnsons-plan-build-back-better-attack-democracy/">estimated</a> that meeting the government’s target to build 300,000 homes a year would reduce prices by around 0.8%: considerably less than rates of increase over recent decades. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="New residential houses" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353359/original/file-20200818-20-28z27h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/353359/original/file-20200818-20-28z27h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353359/original/file-20200818-20-28z27h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353359/original/file-20200818-20-28z27h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353359/original/file-20200818-20-28z27h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353359/original/file-20200818-20-28z27h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/353359/original/file-20200818-20-28z27h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Newly-built houses in England.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/newly-built-homes-residential-estate-england-403894609">Duncan Andison/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In fact, the only time in the last hundred years when the private sector has achieved the levels of housebuilding the government now wants to see was in the 1930s. Then, sprawling ribbon development created a public backlash that led to the foundation of the conservation movement and the introduction of more comprehensive planning controls.</p>
<p>Despite this, the current reform proposals aim to reduce prices by ensuring even more land is released in areas of high demand, whilst at the same time potentially <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/06/affordable-housing-will-diminish-due-to-uk-planning-changes">reducing developers’ contributions</a> to social housing. This will <a href="http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/97055/9/Putting%20Localism%20in%20Place%20Conservative%20Images%20of%20the%20Good%20Community%20and%20the%20Contradictions%20of%20Planning%20Reform%20in%20England.pdf">once again</a> put the Conservative government on a collision course with many of its own voters in areas like Wokingham, without necessarily producing more affordable housing. </p>
<p>Indeed, research by planning consultancy <a href="https://lichfields.uk/grow-renew-protect-planning-for-the-future/how-many-homes-the-new-standard-method/">Lichfields</a> suggests a revised national formula will require Wokingham to find space for 1635 rather than the current 789 houses annually. Needless to say, this is unlikely to please Halsall. And if people are denied opportunities to participate they, too, will likely resort to other forms of protest.</p>
<p>Governments need to ensure much needed, affordable housing gets built to high environmental standards in sustainable locations. They also need to manage the considerable opposition and political fallout this generates. It’s not an easy task, but the approach taken in the new planning proposals looks unlikely to succeed on either count.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144467/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andy Inch has previously received funding from the the Department for Communities and Local Government for research on opposition to housebuilding. He is a member of the Town and Country Planning Association. The views expressed here are personal. </span></em></p>We found that planners, councillors and local communities felt local opposition made little difference to decisions about housebuilding.Andy Inch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies and Planning, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/937442018-04-05T06:11:12Z2018-04-05T06:11:12ZSpeaking with: Cameron McAuliffe on NIMBYs, urban planning and making community consultation work<p>One of the most common complaints about community involvement in the urban planning process is “NIMBYism” – the “not in my backyard” cry from local residents, which developers and potential residents of medium-to-high-density apartments see as an impediment to healthy urban development and affordable housing.</p>
<p>At the same time, local residents often see the planning process as freezing them out of having any real say in development that can affect local amenities, transport and neighbourhood character.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy-and-Legislation/Environmental-Planning-and-Assessment-Act-updated/Guide-to-the-updated-Environmental-Planning-and-Assessment-Act-1979/Part-2-Community-Participation-Plans">Recent changes to planning legislation in New South Wales</a> make community participation plans a mandatory part of the process, in an effort to put consultation at the centre of urban planning. </p>
<p>But how do you balance these two competing, seemingly antagonistic groups?</p>
<p>Dallas Rogers speaks with Cameron McAuliffe, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography and Urban Studies at Western Sydney University, about how urban planning can leverage the natural conflict between groups with very different demands to reach better solutions, why the NIMBY slur is often misplaced and how local resident action groups are working beyond the current urban planning system to achieve their goals.</p>
<hr>
<p>This podcast reports on data in the research paper “Tracing resident antagonisms in urban development: agonistic pluralism and participatory planning”, to be published in <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/17455871">Geographical Research</a>.</p>
<p><em><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/speaking-with.../id934267338">Subscribe</a> to The Conversation’s Speaking With podcasts on Apple Podcasts, or <a href="http://tunein.com/radio/Speaking-with---The-Conversation-Podcast-p671452/">follow</a> on Tunein Radio.</em></p>
<p><strong>Music</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ketsa/5th_Cycle/Catching_Feathers">Free Music Archive: Ketsa - Catching feathers</a></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93744/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dallas Rogers recently received funding from Western Sydney University, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), Urban Growth NSW, University of Sydney, and Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. The Henry Halloran Trust funded the research reported on in this podcast.</span></em></p>Dallas Rogers speaks with Western Sydney University's Cameron McAuliffe about leveraging conflict and informal processes in the urban planning process.Dallas Rogers, Program Director, Master of Urbanism. School of Architecture, Design and Planning, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/692912016-12-04T19:09:57Z2016-12-04T19:09:57ZNeighbours’ fears about affordable housing are worse than any impacts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/148532/original/image-20161204-25667-z85zbf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">These units in suburban Parramatta were built as part of the 2009-12 national Social Housing Initiative.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gethin Davison</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Housing affordability is a hot topic in Australia. Governments are increasingly recognising that more needs to be done to provide a greater range of affordable housing options, especially in the <a href="http://www.greatersydneycommission.nsw.gov.au/towards-our-greater-sydney-2056">major cities</a>. It is <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/211">well documented</a>, however, that proposals for affordable housing development often encounter opposition from host community members. </p>
<p>These <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08111146.2015.1118377">community concerns</a> tend to focus on the potentially damaging effects of such projects on property values and quality of life for existing residents. This is despite the public being generally <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02673037.2012.725831">supportive</a> of affordable housing in principle. They would just prefer it wasn’t sited in their local area.</p>
<p>In reality, though, do the concerns that people have about affordable housing development materialise? Do property values go down? Does neighbours’ quality of life suffer?</p>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/211">case studies</a> in Brisbane and Sydney provide evidence that, in most cases, they do not.</p>
<h2>Testing for local property impacts</h2>
<p>How did we test for the impacts of affordable housing projects? With thanks to <a href="https://www.apm.com.au/">Australian Property Monitors</a>, we had access to property sales data throughout the Brisbane local government area (LGA), going back to 1999. </p>
<p>Using this data, we tested the impacts of 17 affordable housing developments on property sale prices through two different <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10901-016-9538-x">hedonic pricing models</a>. The models were designed to test whether:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The announcement and eventual construction of affordable housing projects had any impacts (positive or negative) on local property sale prices. Project announcement date was used to capture any “<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944369908976032">panic sales</a>” that may have happened as a response to the announcements.</p></li>
<li><p>The extent of such impacts depended on proximity to the development (by direct distance in 100-metre intervals, up to 500 metres away from the affordable housing project).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The two models were used to test these outcomes collectively for 17 affordable housing projects that were developed across Brisbane LGA between 2000 and 2009, and also on an individual project basis.</p>
<p>Collectively across the 17 projects, these had no significant negative impacts on local property prices. There were mild impacts on properties within 100 metres of affordable housing projects, but not at any statistically significant level. </p>
<p>We found that the characteristics of the individual properties sold (such as number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms) consistently had much greater influence on sale prices than proximity to affordable housing developments.</p>
<p>When looked at individually, the impacts of each project on local property prices were mixed. Some affordable housing projects had positive impacts and others negative. </p>
<p>Only a handful of the measured impacts were statistically significant, however. Even in these cases the impacts of proximity to affordable housing had much to do with other features of the neighbourhood (such as proximity to public transport hubs, water frontages and so on).</p>
<p>These two tests clearly showed that the impacts of affordable housing development on local property sales prices had been minimal. The impacts that were experienced were not universally negative (or positive).</p>
<h2>Impacts on the quality of life of neighbours</h2>
<p>What then of the impacts on neighbours’ overall quality of life? How does an affordable housing development affect things like traffic, crime, an area’s visual appearance, or sense of community? </p>
<p>To understand this, we conducted doorstep surveys with 141 residents who lived close to (within about 60 metres) eight affordable housing projects in Parramatta local government area. </p>
<p>These projects had been locally opposed but still completed. We selected the most-controversial projects and were able to achieve participation by between one-fifth and one-third of the 60 or so residents likely to have been most affected by those developments. </p>
<p>We wanted to know whether people’s fears at the planning stage had materialised once the developments were complete and occupied.</p>
<p>Across the eight projects, 78% of respondents had experienced no negative impacts as a result of affordable housing development. At only two of our eight sites had a significant number of neighbours experienced negative impacts. These impacts were mostly associated with the behaviours of a small number of individual residents. </p>
<p>At the other sites, the negative impacts were dispersed. Mostly, these related to minor issues such as parking and traffic. </p>
<h2>Fears are an obstacle in themselves</h2>
<p>Overall, our findings indicate that the feared impacts of planned affordable housing developments tend to be much greater than the impacts neighbouring residents actually experience once those developments are complete and occupied. </p>
<p>In other words, the perception of affordable housing is the key problem, not the affordable housing developments themselves. These are by and large unproblematic once completed. </p>
<p>These findings suggest that governments and developers need to devote much more attention to tackling negative public perceptions of affordable housing and its residents.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69291/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gethin Davison receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Edgar Liu receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living, New South Wales' Department of Family and Community Services, PAYCE Communities, SGCH Ltd, South Australia's Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, and Strata Community Australia (NSW chapter).</span></em></p>Do affordable housing projects drive down property values? Does neighbours’ quality of life suffer? Case studies in Brisbane and Sydney suggest such fears aren’t justified.Gethin Davison, Lecturer in City Planning and Design, UNSW SydneyEdgar Liu, Research Fellow at City Futures Research Centre, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/622772016-07-15T01:13:30Z2016-07-15T01:13:30ZUrban hacktivism: getting creative about involving citizens in city planning<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130619/original/image-20160714-23350-1sr9mbx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Billboard hacktivism in Toronto, Canada.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.blogto.com/city/2012/07/guerrilla_art_group_hacks_dozens_of_astral_info_pillars/">blogTO</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Urban and regional planning, as an institutional practice, is increasingly criticised for failing to meet ordinary citizens’ needs. Enter “<a href="https://au.pinterest.com/murmuracc/urban-intervention/">hacktivism</a>”. </p>
<p>Fusing hacking and activism, the term has previously referred to using information technology to achieve political goals. While “hacking” often entails malicious attacks on websites, it has another meaning. Hacking also means innovative problem-solving by combining new ideas with readily available materials. </p>
<p>Examples include taking an old DVD and using it as a drink coaster, bending a paperclip to reset a digital device, or twisting a coat hanger to unblock a drain. These are do-it-yourself “hacks” like those of the television character <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088559/">MacGyver</a>.</p>
<p>Essentially, hacking is creative problem-solving. “Hackathons” are a case in point. <a href="http://bit.ly/inov8hack">Hackathons</a> involve the “brainstorming, designing and testing of ideas with change-makers”.</p>
<p>Hacktivism in this sense refers to grassroots problem-solving by like-minded people who are willing to “go round the back” of established institutions to achieve social objectives. Hacktivism reflects a growing disenchantment with mainstream institutions, pervasive <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-neoliberalisms-moral-order-feeds-fraud-and-corruption-60946">neoliberalism</a>, and cultures of consumption.</p>
<p>Hacktivism is different to “<a href="http://www.placehacking.co.uk">place-hacking</a>” by urban explorers. Recent examples of this include <a href="https://theconversation.com/look-out-behind-the-bus-stop-here-come-guerrilla-gardeners-digging-up-an-urban-revolution-29225">guerrilla gardens</a>, pop-up libraries, <a href="http://weburbanist.com/2014/03/12/city-hacktivism-12-fun-diy-urbanism-interventions/2/">repurposing</a> infrastructure and even disco traffic lights and <a href="http://www.smart-magazine.com/en/urban-hacks/">street pong</a>.</p>
<h2>What’s driving hacktivism?</h2>
<p>Hacktivism can challenge the trend among governing bodies to embrace neoliberal rhetoric about fast-tracking development. Cutting “red” and “green” tape disenfranchises residents. </p>
<p>Debates about <a href="https://theconversation.com/media-picture-of-urban-consolidation-focuses-more-on-a-good-scare-story-than-the-facts-58044">urban consolidation</a> are an example. Big developers seem to be able to bulldoze communities into accepting projects, which some residents feel will destroy the places they love, overshadow backyards, reduce privacy, increase congestion and noise, or even ruin neighbourhood character.</p>
<p>These concerns are often <a href="https://theconversation.com/calling-people-nimbys-wont-stop-development-arguments-25715">dismissed as “NIMBYism”</a> and self-interest. </p>
<p>But streamlined development assessment processes and “consultation” typically limit citizen engagement. Who can blame residents for getting angry?</p>
<p>Citizen groups, civic-minded planners, environmentalists and others are beginning to resist the <a href="https://theconversation.com/sydney-risks-becoming-a-dumb-disposable-city-for-the-rich-38172">privatisation of public spaces</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/public-spaces-are-going-private-and-our-cities-will-suffer-60460">erosion of public functions</a> by offering alternatives. These range from interventions such as the <a href="https://betterbeaufort.com.au/parklets/">parklets</a> and pop-up venues of so-called “<a href="https://issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative/docs/tactical_urbanism_vol_2_final?backgroundColor=">tactical urbanism</a>” to more “activist”-oriented responses such as a <a href="http://www.planetizen.com/node/57714">Toronto group’s</a> subversive use of advertising billboards.</p>
<h2>Case studies in Australia</h2>
<p>In Australia, a small but growing cadre of residents is experimenting with hacktivism in planning. Two recent examples are instructive:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Gold Coast Hinterland and Environment Council’s (<a href="http://gecko.org.au/">GECKO</a>) initiative to “hack planning” by producing a community-led climate change action plan; and</p></li>
<li><p>organised community resistance to the “West Village” development in West End, Brisbane, where residents have developed their own collaborative planning processes to create an alternative vision for the site.</p></li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129977/original/image-20160711-24087-fkb14u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129977/original/image-20160711-24087-fkb14u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129977/original/image-20160711-24087-fkb14u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129977/original/image-20160711-24087-fkb14u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129977/original/image-20160711-24087-fkb14u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129977/original/image-20160711-24087-fkb14u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129977/original/image-20160711-24087-fkb14u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/129977/original/image-20160711-24087-fkb14u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Challenging the developer’s model at a community picnic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>West End has a history of community-based resistance to evictions and inappropriate or undesirable development. It also has a history of challenging developers and governments to engage in a more sophisticated debate around <a href="http://westendcommunity.org/about-weca/">best practice in planning and development</a>. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://brisbanedevelopment.com/west-village-proposal-unveiled/">West Village</a> development proposes seven 15-storey apartment towers and a large supermarket on an inner-city lot. This project highlights the ongoing struggle for social justice in inner Brisbane in the face of rapid development. </p>
<p>Stage 1 of West Village was deemed code-assessable, meaning no provision for public notification and no appeal rights. The full masterplan for the site is, however, impact-assessable.</p>
<p>Many residents saw the development proposal as flawed and creating many serious problems. Building on existing social ties and strengths, a group of residents and interested parties have begun to create an alternative vision (“Instead of West Village”) for the site. The aim is to pressure both the developer and government to engage with their concerns and aspirations. </p>
<p>Residents are using an open, collaborative, community-based planning process, similar to earlier grassroots engagements in the suburb. Community-led draft masterplans have been developed and discussed <a href="http://jonathansri.com/absoe/">at various events</a>. These plans are contrasted against community-generated models and images of the proposed development. Public meetings and workshops have enabled input from diverse quarters. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130497/original/image-20160714-12372-vdib7f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130497/original/image-20160714-12372-vdib7f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130497/original/image-20160714-12372-vdib7f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130497/original/image-20160714-12372-vdib7f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130497/original/image-20160714-12372-vdib7f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130497/original/image-20160714-12372-vdib7f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130497/original/image-20160714-12372-vdib7f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/130497/original/image-20160714-12372-vdib7f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An alternative plan (right) is presented alongside the developer’s model (left) at the community picnic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The alternative vision is still being finalised, but the collaboration and spirit of hacktivism underpinning it transcend the importance of the alternative master plan. </p>
<p>This hacktivism asserts a <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/10/mexico-city-df-right-to-the-city-harvey-gentrification-real-estate-corruption/">right to the city</a>. It demands that planning be better: more just, more sustainable, more inclusive. In doing so, communities are beginning to “hack” planning itself.</p>
<p>GECKO’s recent <a href="http://climatechangeforgood.com.au">Climate Change For Good Conference</a> is a second example. This local non-profit organisation has partnered with the Queensland government to pioneer a new model of local climate-change adaptation. </p>
<p>The process began with a weekend of presentations by a range of experts and practitioners. These were accompanied by community-based problem-solving workshops. The forum closed with an innovative proposal to “hack planning”.</p>
<p>The intent is to devise a living document that crowdsources innovative adaptation ideas from the community to meet challenges such as health, food and water security, emergent business opportunities and place-making. This offers an alternative to Gold Coast City Council’s climate change <a href="http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/documents/bf/climate_strategy.pdf">adaptation plan</a>, which has been shelved. </p>
<p>The community-led plan will enable engagement with diverse groups that are often marginalised in the planning process, such as Aboriginal groups, caravan park dwellers, migrants, youth and homeless citizens. </p>
<p>By giving a voice to real people living in everyday places, and by drawing on citizen knowledge and ingenuity, hacktivism promises action on issues beyond the remit of traditional planning. So, how could you “hack” your city?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62277/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Byrne is a member of the Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council (GECKO) and works with GECKO on community-led climate change action projects. He also receives funding from the Australian Research Council on climate change adaptation and urban green-space and health. Jason provides consultancy services to the Gold Coast City Council. He is affiliated with the Queensland Greens and cares deeply about issues of environmental justice, citizen wellbeing, and urban ecologies. Jason is a member of Griffith University's Environmental Futures Research Institute.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natalie Osborne is affiliated with a number of grassroots activist groups in Brisbane working for social and environmental justice, including the group campaigning against the West Village development and a broader movement on the Right To The City - Brisbane. She is also affiliated with the Greens, and is a member of Griffith University's Cities Research Centre.
</span></em></p>In Australia, a small but growing cadre of residents is experimenting with hacktivism in planning. Giving a voice to real people living in everyday places can help ensure planning meets public needs.Jason Byrne, Professor of Human Geography and Planning, University of TasmaniaNatalie Osborne, Lecturer, School of Environment, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/591612016-05-24T00:54:35Z2016-05-24T00:54:35Z‘30-minute city’? Not in my backyard! Smart Cities Plan must let people have their say<p>The federal government’s <a href="https://cities.dpmc.gov.au/smart-cities-plan">Smart Cities Plan</a> is framed around the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-30-minute-city-how-do-we-put-the-political-rhetoric-into-practice-56136">30-minute city</a>”. In this city, journeys will <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/malcolm-turnbull-to-borrow-big-in-multibilliondollar-smart-cities-plan-20160428-gohbym.html">take no more than half an hour</a>, regardless of your location.</p>
<p>The recently released plan has significant implications for population, transport provision and land-use intensity in neighbourhoods – the places where people live and how they get around. The realisation of its goals will require ongoing densification of Australian suburbs.</p>
<h2>Cities with more houses, more people, more NIMBYs</h2>
<p>The doubling of the population in some Australian cities by 2045 is likely to generate fierce opposition to housing and transport projects.</p>
<p>Many medium-density housing projects prompt residents <a href="http://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/2238/AHURI_Final_Report_No197_Resident_third_party_objections_and_appeals_against_planning_applications.pdf">to act strategically to protect their neighbourhoods</a>, even when these projects improve housing affordability and access to jobs and services.</p>
<p>Resistance is also directed at major infrastructure. Fierce campaigns are being (or have been) waged against Melbourne’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-sky-rail-saga-can-big-new-transport-projects-ever-run-smoothly-54383">“sky rail” project</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/east-west-link-shows-miserable-failure-of-planning-process-40232">East West Link</a>, Sydney’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/trees-versus-light-rail-we-need-to-rethink-skewed-urban-planning-values-57206">ANZAC Parade light rail</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/opposition-to-westconnex-grows-as-council-blocks-contractors-from-streets-20160407-go0j3i.html">Westconnex</a> projects, and the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-23/shorten-to-commit-to-1bn-metronet-rail-in-wa-if-elected/7436062">Perth Freight Link</a>.</p>
<p>Such opposition is not only felt through the planning system. Residents also <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08111146.2015.1081845">use political channels</a> to stop projects, <a href="http://usj.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/08/27/0042098015602649.abstract">as with the East West Link</a>.</p>
<h2>How should government respond to community resistance?</h2>
<p>Contestation over city planning should not be shut down. Rather, we need to think about citizen opposition as a constructive process for working through difference. Here are five points to consider when including people in the delivery of the 30-minute city.</p>
<p><strong>Point 1: We need active governments and active citizens</strong></p>
<p>Private-sector lobbyists argue government is poorly placed to deliver small- and large-scale infrastructure. But think about a city with no roads, sewers, hospitals or schools. Without government-led planning, our cities would be dysfunctional places to live.</p>
<p>However, governments are not benevolent institutions. Active citizenries have long scrutinised the efficacy of government decisions. </p>
<p>The introduction of private and non-government infrastructure providers <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-uneasy-marriage-planners-public-and-the-market-struggle-to-work-well-together-54405">further complicates</a> the relationship between citizens and governments. Whose interests does urban development then serve – a local community, regional community, or developers?</p>
<p>Governments need to be ready to answer questions about the role of the private sector and to change their plans following <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07293682.2015.1135816">community input</a>. </p>
<p><strong>Point 2: More than finding better participation tools</strong></p>
<p>Urban planning systems play important roles in engaging residents. However, community consultation has been sporadic. Neighbourhood meetings and letterbox notifications often fail to ignite engagement. </p>
<p>Then there is the question of representation. Community consultations attract the “usual suspects”. Time-poor working-age households and young professionals find it difficult to fit engagement with planning into their busy lives. Even more rarely does planning engage with youth and children about their visions and hopes for cities.</p>
<p>Local and state governments are aware of the need for new ways to bring citizens into decision-making. Infrastructure Victoria’s <a href="http://yoursay.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/citizen-jury">citizen jury panels</a> are meeting mid-2016. Social media is also being considered as a way to <a href="http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/future">engage a broader public about city futures</a>. </p>
<p>However, when planning departments use social media the uptake by communities is poor. Our research suggests <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07293682.2015.1019755">opponents to planned projects</a>, rather than planning departments, are more likely to use social media.</p>
<p>The problem with current participation tools is their failure to account for conversations, debates and protests that <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08111146.2015.1077804">take place outside</a> the formal planning process. We need ways to include these discussions.</p>
<p><strong>Point 3: Moving beyond NIMBYism</strong></p>
<p>Not all community campaigns are the same. The dominant narrative around community participation in urban planning centres on the pejorative idea of “the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2012.00751.x/abstract">NIMBY</a>” (not in my backyard). </p>
<p>The term NIMBY is frequently used to delegitimise the claims of citizens opposing planned developments. They are characterised as self-interested residents who resist the inclusion of new social groups in their neighbourhoods, or any change to the built or natural environment.</p>
<p>Deliberately labelling these residents as self-interested fails to recognise the positive roles they can play. Local resident campaigns can focus on city-wide or local issues. They can range from <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07293682.2013.776982">unwavering opposition to more flexible and reflexive engagement</a> in an urban discussion. </p>
<p>Some community campaigns might be viewed as vital forms of urban citizenship. Others are seen as “protecting their patch” against the best interests of the broader citizenry. Both views should be part of our discussion about city planning.</p>
<p><strong>Point 4: The conversation never stops</strong></p>
<p>An active citizenry is involved in short-term “one-off” planning and long-term strategic planning. Too often, public participation roles are confined to one end of this spectrum. For example, the NSW government recently attempted to <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07293682.2014.889183">limit public participation</a> to high-level strategic planning documents, reducing community input into individual developments.</p>
<p>Most people have little knowledge of the urban planning system. A <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837714000301">recent study</a> found only 24% of Sydney residents surveyed were aware of the <a href="http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans-for-Your-Area/Sydney/A-Plan-for-Growing-Sydney">Sydney metropolitan plan</a>. Confining participation to upfront strategic consultation limits community involvement.</p>
<p>For most people, engagement with planning and development issues will be reactionary. People engage with the planning system when a development is proposed for their area.</p>
<p>However, a recent national survey revealed that 65% of responses believed urban residents should be involved in each stage of the strategy-making process. Most will not be involved, but options for participation should not be confined to upfront consultation.</p>
<p>By engaging the community in an ongoing discussion we can listen and respond to local interests without compromising the broader strategic and long-term vision for our cities.</p>
<p><strong>Point 5: Metropolitan-wide but locally situated debate</strong></p>
<p>There will be winners and losers in the 30-minute city. Houses will be acquired, buildings will be demolished and sections of the natural environment will make way for new infrastructure.</p>
<p>Over the last decade, the idea of consensus has dominated participatory approaches. However, consensus-seeking is not always the best way to work through community disagreement. In some cases, consensus can be manipulative, or useful for mobilising resident opposition. </p>
<p>We need to recognise that cities are home to many different people who hold diverse views and values, and who will not always agree. Rather than aiming for consensus, we should set our sights on metropolitan-wide, locally situated debate, which supports an active citizenry. </p>
<p>In the end, the difference between no action and implementation may be in “agreeing to disagree” through open discussion about the planning of the city.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article draws on research by the authors and recent discussions about a possible crisis of participation in Australian cities at a <a href="http://cur.org.au/events/urban-theory-symposium-series/">symposium in Sydney in April 2016</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59161/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Crystal Legacy receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dallas Rogers receives funding from the Henry Halloran Trust.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kristian Ruming receives funding from the Australian Research Council and UrbanGrowth NSW.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Cook does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Cities are home to many different people who will not always agree. We need to learn to embrace public debate as an ongoing, constructive process for working through diverse views and values.Crystal Legacy, Australian Research Council (DECRA) Fellow and Vice Chancellor's Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT UniversityDallas Rogers, Lecturer in Urban Studies, Western Sydney UniversityKristian Ruming, Associate Professor in Urban Geography, Macquarie UniversityNicole Cook, Researcher, School of Geography, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.