'Boulevard of Broken Dreams': Planning, Housing Supply and Aff ordability in Urban Australia

Gurran, Nicole; Phibbs, Peter

doi:10.2148/benv.42.1.55

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This loss of lowercost rentals is exacerbated by the presence of higher-income households occupying the once more affordable dwellings, further reducing the limited availability of affordable rental stock for low-income people (Hulse et al, 2014). These findings challenge centralarguments of filtering in that higher-income households are not necessarily choosing to occupy newer, higher-quality housing despite a construction boom (Gurran and Phibbs, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Examining building age, rental housing and price filtering for affordability in Melbourne, Australia

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governments worldwide have responded to housing affordability challenges with supply-side solutions. Proponents of these approaches often draw on the notion of ‘filtering effects’ to argue that new supply naturally trickles down to lower-income households over time, improving affordability. This study examines the characteristics of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing in Melbourne, Australia, analysing how dwelling age impacts rental cost. We specify a non-linear relationship between building age and rents through hedonic rent modelling, reflecting a premium for historic properties in inner Melbourne. We also conduct a cluster analysis of rental listings and measure affordability by cluster. Our results problematise the notion of filtering, finding that most contemporary affordable housing was initially built in the 1960s and 1970s as social housing or targeted at low-income households. We argue that filtering in this instance is not natural but is instead a reflection of historic government expenditure and past construction choices, or ‘filter up’.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Examining building age, rental housing and price filtering for affordability in Melbourne, Australia

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This includes further investigation of the intersection of the financialisation of housing, for which there is a substantial body of work (e.g. Aalbers, 2017; Gurran and Phibbs, 2016; Searle and Smith 2010), and insurance as located within the processes of financialisation. As we observe, housing financialisation is ‘growing’ an a financialised pattern of underinsurance; property underinsurance is co-produced rather than ameliorated through financialisation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The factors driving the growth in the rental sector in Australia, and in countries such as the UK and the USA (Bate, 2018), are complex and spatially variegated (Martin et al., 2018). The financialisation of housing – investment in housing assets as privatised welfare and a form of financial security (Aalbers, 2017) – is one significant contributor, with ‘middle-Australia’ now possessing an asset base dominated by housing, that is, investment properties in the rental market (Bryan and Rafferty, 2018; Gurran and Phibbs, 2016). However, the imagined security has not been forthcoming.…”

Section: Underinsurance As Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Underinsurance as adaptation: Household agency in places of marketisation and financialisation

Booth

Kendal

2019

Environ Plan A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The underinsurance of property is pervasively and persuasively promoted as an indicator of risk and riskiness and, in Western nations, is assumed to be aligned with socio-economic disadvantage. Yet, the solution – in its most simple form, buying more insurance – lacks critical interrogation of what the problem actually is. To understand underinsurance better, we map house and contents underinsurance across two municipalities in Australia’s island state of Tasmania, and observe that the existing delineation of disadvantage and advantage between these two places is muted in relation to insurance – underinsurance does not straightforwardly map onto disadvantage. We provide an alternative explanation: that underinsurance is not a risk for households per se and does not represent riskiness on behalf of these households. Rather, it is indicative of household agency that produces place-specified responses within the processes of financialisation and marketisation. We observe that the growth in renting, driven in part by housing financialisation, is associated with property underinsurance. The history of renting as temporary and marginal informs renter decision making not to insure, and thus current financialised changes in housing co-produce rather than ameliorate underinsurance. We also conclude that in negating or resisting insurance marketisation, households garner everyday financial and material adaptative capacity by underinsuring.

show abstract

“…This growing inequality directly threatens the 'great Australian dream' of homeownership-a widely held aspiration amongst Australians dating back to the midtwentieth century (Gurran and Phibbs 2016). Colic-Peisker and Johnson (2010: 352) suggest that 'the importance of homeownership in Australia is closely associated with a perception of an egalitarian society where everyone can become a homeowner'.…”

Section: The Australian Housing Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Land of the ‘Fair Go’? Mapping Income Inequality and Socioeconomic Segregation Across Melbourne Neighbourhoods

Sydes

Wickes

2021

The Urban Book Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite enduring political rhetoric that promotes Australia as ‘the lucky country’ and ‘the land of the fair go’, recent decades have seen a noticeable increase in levels of income inequality. This growing economic divide has driven housing prices up and left lower-income families unable to access the housing market in inner-city locations. In contrast to other countries, Australia’s socioeconomic segregation does not overlap with ethnic segregation. Australia’s highly regulated immigration program has resulted in a relatively well-educated and employable foreign-born population who largely reside in middle-income neighbourhoods. These particularities make Australia an interesting context to explore patterns of socioeconomic segregation over time. In this chapter, we will utilise both traditional measures of segregation (such as the dissimilarity index) as well more spatialised measures (such as location quotients and Local Morans I) to assess socioeconomic segregation at the local level. Drawing on four waves of census data (2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016), we explore how socioeconomic segregation has changed over time across nearly 500 neighbourhoods in Melbourne. We further examine the degree to which socioeconomic segregation aligns with ethnic segregation patterns and levels in this city. We find patterns of socioeconomic segregation remain relatively unchanging over time in Melbourne. Additionally, our findings highlight important differences in patterns and levels of socioeconomic and ethnic segregation in the Australian context.

show abstract

'Boulevard of Broken Dreams': Planning, Housing Supply and Aff ordability in Urban Australia

Cited by 18 publications

References 43 publications

Examining building age, rental housing and price filtering for affordability in Melbourne, Australia

Examining building age, rental housing and price filtering for affordability in Melbourne, Australia

Underinsurance as adaptation: Household agency in places of marketisation and financialisation

The Land of the ‘Fair Go’? Mapping Income Inequality and Socioeconomic Segregation Across Melbourne Neighbourhoods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About