Let’s build communities, not houses

Our world is full of experts in housing, design, urban planning and social equity. But our cities are built according to rules laid down by banks.

I love my little flat near the Maribyrnong River in Melbourne, but it is not my dream home. My dream home would be a little two-bedroom cottage in a small village of about 50 dwellings, townhouses and flats. By having some smaller and some larger, this village would appeal to diverse groups of people, older, younger.

I’d have a small private garden, like I do now, but we would share common gardens and spaces. I’d love to have some studios, live in or not, to encourage artists into my orbit -- the people with whom I feel most at home. I can see it now, feel the fresh air as I stand at the front door and listen to the children playing on the swings not far away.

This kind of development is perfectly possible. In fact, it has already been done. Architects Graham Gunn and Rob White, and developer Merchant Builders, built a flagship project in the early 1970s called Winter Park in the Melbourne suburb of Doncaster. It was 50 houses in a cluster around common gardens. (Gunn has spent 50 years trying to get some sanity into our housing design. Watch out for my profile of him in the early issues of January.)

Such ideas were ahead of their time. In the 1970s it seemed as if we would never run out of land in our cities and we did not suffer the lifestyle diseases we do today. Obesity was rare. The health of the environment was not the imperative it is today.

Meanwhile, Professor Shane Murray, dean of art, design and architecture at Monash University, has a variation on Gunn’s idea. He suggests cluster developments are possible across disparate suburban blocks that are within walking range of one another, say, 800 metres to one kilometre.

Developing a project across pooled but disparate land is more efficient: all the cars could park on one block, and residents walk to a variety of blocks with a variety of dwellings on them. Some blocks could be dedicated wholly to recreation, or vegetable gardens or perhaps to energy generation and water management. Building 50 homes at once means more money can be spent on design, and savings made on materials and construction costs.

This kind of development would make compelling, inspirational homes with long- and short-term savings that can be shared by buyers and developers.

It’s a marvellous vision. But banks will not fund it.

Look, the fact is that banks don’t do this kind of thing. Banks are about reducing risk. They do not fund innovation. Banks fund enormous shopping centres, and they are the ones that insist all the shops are the same as they are in every other shopping centre. No risk. Banks fund the type of housing they know, not the type of housing we need.

And so we go on building the wrong kind of homes. We have the answers, but we cannot expect the banks to fund them.

Gunn is designing a new cluster housing project for the government agency, Places Victoria. I bet it will be a huge success. Now is the time.

There is an opportunity here for a smart investor to start backing innovation in housing. The chance of getting government support is high, which would help mitigate the risk. For an early mover, the opportunity to provide premium housing without the premium price, and social good, is an attractive proposition. Not only can we solve our housing affordability problems, but we can improve our social connections, and make our cities healthier and happier places to live.

Do you agree? Write and tell me your views.

BRW

Comments (0)