Development

The Andrews Labor Government is getting on with transforming central Dandenong into a vibrant new residential, retail, and commercial hub.

Minister for Transport Infrastructure Jacinta Allan today announced the Revitali​sing Central Dandenong project has taken another step forward, with the project&rsquo;s next phase draft masterplan released by Melbourne developer Capital Alliance for community feedback, along with design renders to give locals a glimpse of what it will look like.

&ldquo;We encourage locals to have their say on the draft masterplan and will continue to work with them on progressing this project &ndash; which will transform Dandenong and create thousands of jobs at a time our community needs them most,&rdquo; said Minister Allan.

The draft masterplan showcases the proposal for Dandenong and includes creating at least 470 new dwellings, a hotel and conference centre, offices and community spaces. An urban brewery entertainment district will also be built, as well as an education facility, retail, a medical facility, a cinema and dining.

&ldquo;We&rsquo;re proud to share this draft master plan with the community to rejuvenate central Dandenong &ndash; with the project to benefit generations to come,&rdquo; said Capital Alliance Founder and Chief Executive Mohan Du.

To maintain the site&rsquo;s strong cultural identity, the project will also deliver a brand-new Little India precinct. The new Little India will provide more modern facilities and services, as well as better spaces for tenants, and will be built as part of the development&rsquo;s first stage to minimise disruptions to traders.

Construction on the development&rsquo;s first stage is expected to commence in 2023 &ndash; which also includes delivering a supermarket, food market hall and residential building. Capital Alliance will invest $600 million to develop the area next to the Dandenong transport hub &ndash; creating more than 2,600 jobs during construction and close to 5,000 ongoing positions once complete.

The project will complement the Labor Government&rsquo;s transport investments in the south-east, better connecting locals with $15 billion to upgrade the Cranbourne/Pakenham line &ndash; slashing travel times, delivering bigger trains and creating a direct link to Melbourne Airport through the Metro Tunnel.

&ldquo;We&rsquo;re not only delivering more trains, more often to Dandenong &ndash; we&rsquo;re delivering more housing, and jobs for this local area,&rdquo; Du added. &nbsp;

The Government is delivering the Revital​ising Central Dandenong project through Development Victoria, with support from Greater Dand​enong Council.

The Government is delivering the Revitalising Central Dandenong project through Development Victoria, with support from Greater Dand​enong Council.

alisonwarters@gmail.com

Central Dandenong revitalization planned

Developers Tribeca and Jayland Group have teamed up to deliver the suburb of Plumpton, near the well-established suburb Caroline Springs, fixed-price&nbsp;house and land packages at Majesty Estate.

It&#39;s just $607,000 to secure a house and land package, which includes the one-level, four-bedroom home.

Majesty has been a popular choice for new home buyers thanks to its affordability, easy access to the CBD, and growing amenities within easy reach.

As the newest estate in Plumpton, it offers sustainability, connectivity and established amenities designed for modern living.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=28198 project_image_fid=155419]

Surrounded by quality educational institutions and various shopping centres, you will be right in the heart of a vibrant location so that the whole family&rsquo;s needs are met.

Each home features one ensuite and one family bathroom as a minimum, while some floorplans feature an extra toilet and refreshment room for added comfort.

Single-storey, four-bedroom, two-bathroom homes are currently available, offering alfresco space that blends your indoor and outdoor spaces, flexibility, and full turnkey inclusions.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=28198 project_image_fid=155421]

High-quality finishes include window furnishing, quality appliances, manufactured stone benches, air-conditioning and quality joinery.

The developers are committed to continuous improvement in their designs, with a six-star rated energy efficiency rating and seven-year structural warranty upgrade options.

Plumpton has&nbsp;convenient public transport options and accessible roads makes thanks to the M8 motorway and the newly upgraded Rockbank Train Station.

The house and land packages on offer are ready to move into straight away, with no hidden or extra costs.

[smartcode_project_cta: project_id=28198]

Situated in Plumpton, Majesty Estate is a popular choice for new home buyers thanks to its affordability, easy access to the CBD and growing amenities within easy reach

max.kwok_55688

Majesty Estate offering affordable house and land packages in Plumpton 

<html><body>
Luxury apartment developer Fridcorp, and its partner Wingate, have sold a Sydney apartment site adjoining the EVE development in Erskineville.
Set in inner city Sydney's Erskinville, it sold for more than double the purchase paid less than a year ago.
<div class="article__content">
<div class="parsys parsys-article-content-top">
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
The offshore-backed B1 Group has paid just under $70 million to secure the 1.2 hectare site which could accommodate around 230 units. 
Despite the sale, the Melbourne-based Fridcorp says it is "no site-flipper" with fresh plans held by Sydney managing director Paul Fridman.
It is only the second project site Fridcorp has sold in its two decades. Its Melbourne projects often saw joint partners with previous alignments including Trafalgar Corporate and the Crawford Group. 
 "We are committed to our growth in the Sydney market and together with Wingate have seen great success from the launch of Eve in Erskineville and will continue to explore more opportunities here," he said. 
</div>
<div class="cq-article-content-media section">Fridcorp bought the two parcels of land in October last year. </div>
<div class="cq-article-content-media section"> </div>
<div class="cq-article-content-media section">Together with the site where EVE is being built it paid $56 million, with the recently sold unbuilt EVE site accounting for nearly half of that sales figure. </div>
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
<a href="/expert-insights/buying/31708-eve-in-erskineville-secures-100-million-in-sale" target="_blank">EVE was Fridcorp's first Sydney development</a>, a sell-out success with all 197 apartments sold off the plan.
The $145 million development is due for completion next year. 
The Sydney-based B1 Group, headed by Anne Bi, already has a number of existing Sydney residential projects but was keen for an inner-city site. 
The deal was brokered by McGrath Projects agents Steven Chen and Michael Chen who negotiated the sale for their buyer within a 48-hour period.  
Paul Ephron, who heads the sites &amp; acquisitions within McGrath Projects, had the off-book listing.
The northern part of the site has approval for 112 apartments and 17 townhouses and the section at the rear comes with an approval pending for 93 apartments. 
</div>
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
Fridcorp’s first Sydney project, Eve, included one, two and three bedroom apartments, situated on the corner of Eve and Macdonald Streets.
</div>
</div>
<div class="parsys-article-content-bottom parsys">
With interiors from Hecker Guthrie and dKO Architects, <a href="https://www.evebyfridcorp.com.au/" target="_blank">Eve</a> is 250 metres from the train station and 10 minutes to the CBD.
It includes views of Sydney Park to the CBD, wide frontages and balconies, storage space and a communal rooftop leisure deck with private central courtyard.
One bedroom, one bathroom apartments were priced from $525,000; two bedroom, one bathroom apartments from $750,000; two bedroom, two bathroom from $780,000; three bedroom, two bathroom from $1.1 million. 
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Fridcorp sells empty half of Eve, Erskineville project site

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Community groups upset that The Hills Shire Council propose to lower development heights around stations in the North West Rail Corridor have every right to protest. 
It is rare that we see community groups angry that a council has reduced heights for new development in their area but this is what has been achieved by the Hills Shire Council. 
Days after the State Government has announced the Greater Sydney Commission to better co- ordinate planning across Sydney we see an individual council preparing their own plans, in an attempt to usurp the State Government plans that will shortly go on public exhibition.
The North West Rail Corridor Plans developed by the Department of Planning and Environment are in direct response to the state government’s new railway line through the North West. 
Clearly robust development is needed around these stations to ensure taxpayers gain the most benefit from this piece of infrastructure and the Department’s plans would achieve this. It seems bizarre to now have a competing plan produced by the local council on the basis that their plan reflects ‘the values and lifestyle of local residents’. Certainly those residents who own land which is now worth considerably less due to reduced development potential will feel that their values have been reduced.
The Council has increased uncertainty and confusion for both the local community and the development industry by exhibiting plans for these precincts when the Department of Planning &amp; Environment has made it clear that they are developing detailed plans for these areas.
The Hills Shire Council proposes an incentive system to ensure that ‘The Hills Shire values’ are achieved. This means extra floor space will be available if proposals for new apartments have Shire apartment sizes and mix.
The Greater Sydney Commission will need to manage the local rules to reflect local values that could lead to multiple planning standards across Metropolitan Sydney.
The Urban Taskforce is keen to work with local community groups that are battling their council’s attempts to reduce development potential on their land.
Chris Johnson is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

The Hills are alive with the sound of speculator home seller protest: Urban Taskforce

<html><body>
The development of Parramatta is on serious turbocharge right, prompting its rating it on John McGrath's top suburb picks in last year’s annual McGrath Report.
He indicated there were two key reasons:
• Commercial and infrastructure activities in and around Parramatta are leaving much of Sydney in their wake with many smart companies choosing to relocate closer to their employees 
• The activation of the river which has for many years been a forgotten waterway
McGrath recent advised he considered Parramatta among Sydney’s next major hot spots for property price rises. 
"When we talk about property hot spots, most people think of small, unknown, undeveloped pockets of a city; or perhaps areas on the outskirts set to benefit from something new, like a road upgrade or new train line.
"We don’t often think about major established centres but Parramatta is different.
"While it’s been Sydney’s second CBD for a long time, it’s now becoming Sydney’s new heart," he blogged on Switzer noting about $8 billion in construction projects are on the way along with further billions in new public infrastructure both in and around Parramatta CBD. 
"We’re talking new commercial centres, luxury residential apartments, recreational spaces, educational facilities, modernised streetscapes and major new transport."
He noted the population was changing in both size and character.
"It’s going from blue collar to white collar with more tertiary-educated locals working in higher paid jobs. 
"All of this will have a major and direct impact on property prices over the next 5-10 years."
He noted the median price for a three bedroom house in Parramatta was around $788,000 and a two bedroom apartment $586,000.
"Compare this to an inner city suburb close to Sydney’s CBD like Surry Hills, where a three bedroom house is $1.616 million and a two bedroom apartment is $950,000.
"Value, value, value!," he said.  
The most exciting development underway is the $2 billion Parramatta Square project, a three hectare site in the middle of the CBD that will comprise several new commercial and civic buildings, apartments, retailers, eateries and recreational facilities.
It will be home to a new University of Western Sydney Campus (completion due early 2017) as well as the Aspire residential tower, which will be the tallest residential building in NSW (completion due late 2019). 
In terms of public transport, Parramatta is being touted as Sydney’s ‘new Central’ with major projects to benefit the area including plans for a light rail network; the WestConnex road project; the North-West Rail Link project; and a new airport at Badgerys Creek. 
Australian and foreign developers are also recognising the enormous scope Parramatta has for new residential and commercial buildings – certainly far greater than the CBD. 
According to RP Data, Parramatta house prices rose by 27.3% in 2015 while Sydney as a whole grew by 11.5%.
"The rise of Parramatta – and its home values, is well underway!"
</body></html>

Parramatta is on turbocharge to be property hotspot: John McGrath

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Andrews Labor Government has decided to reward big-end-of-town developers Leighton Holdings and the money grubbing bean counters at the Uniting Church, by approving the demolition of the historic Princess Mary Club to make way for a 34 level office tower.
Now we know that high profile developers can simply click their fingers and get what they want out of the Andrews Labor Government. Damn the heritage consequences and damn the historical and architectural significance it seems. Planning Minister Richard Wynne’s decision to allow Leighton Holdings and the Uniting Church develop the Princess Mary Club site is a disgrace.
If you donate enough, it seems you get the Premier and Minister’s ear – and in this case their approval.
I have lobbied to save the Princess Mary Club since coming to parliament at the end of 2014.  
The site has been at the centre of a heated heritage discussion for some time. 
Minister for Women Fiona Richardson said earlier this year that the site had “historical and social significance” and would relate development concerns to the Planning Minister saying that it was a “valuable service to women…at a time when there were very few safe places available to them.”
The Princess Mary Club was known as a safe-haven for women.
At a time when this government has committed hundreds of millions of dollars to address the issue of family violence following the recommendations of the Royal Commission, you would have thought that keeping this building as a testament to our commitment to helping women fleeing violence and indeed using the building to help women, not big party donors, would have been a huge statement. It’s just so very, very disappointing.
The Uniting Church should be held to account.
The Uniting Church, which was gifted this building to help the vulnerable in the first place and receive massive tax breaks from the state and federal governments, is in the development game, not the religion game. They are feathering their own nest at the expense of the Victorian taxpayer.
This just goes to prove that the church is more interested in cash flow than helping the vulnerable. Ordinary Victorians, whether of faith or not, should demand that the government make the church pay their fair share of tax – especially when it comes to their number one priority of property development not spiritual development.
Fiona Patten MP, Member for Northern Metropolitan and can be contacted <a href="https://fionapatten.com" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Property development not spiritual development: MP Fiona Patten

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
This May, urbanists around the world have been celebrating the 100th anniversary of the birth of Jane Jacobs.
The American-Canadian author and activist’s spirited defence of inner-city neighbourhoods inspired a generation of urban activists and place-makers. So what might Jacobs have to teach a new generation of urbanists and planners?
Much of Jacobs' legacy stems from the successful “David and Goliath” campaigns she led in the late 1950s and 1960s against the development plans of Manhattan’s “master builder” Robert Moses.
Her first battle, to prevent an extension of Fifth Avenue that would have torn apart her beloved Washington Square Park, was followed by a series of protracted community campaigns. These ultimately saved some of Manhattan’s most iconic neighbourhoods – Greenwich Village, SoHo, Little Italy – from “slum clearance” and demolition. 
At this time, many Americans were retreating to the suburbs, and city planners – epitomised by Moses, then head of the powerful Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, which managed vast tracts of land in New York City – imposed their “comprehensive city plans” on neighbourhoods, with scant input from local communities.
Working under the spell of Le Corbusier’s vision of the “Radiant City” (Ville Radieuse), planners like Moses saw themselves playing the heroic role of a city’s surgeon. They justified their radical urban plans through appeals to natural or scientific principle. For Le Corbusier, automobiles were machines of circulation, the “lifeblood of the 20th century”; cities needed them to avoid stagnation.
<h2>In love with the ‘sidewalk ballet’</h2>
Jacobs resisted this vision. In her first and most influential book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs attacked planners for ruining the cultures of cities. She saw the modernist vision of cities as:
"the dishonest mask of pretended order, achieved by ignoring or suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and to be served."
Jacobs wrote:
When city designers try to find a design device that will express, in a clear and easy fashion, the ‘skeleton’ of city structure (expressways and promenades are current favourites for this purposes) they are on fundamentally the wrong track. A city’s very structure consists of a mixture of uses … We get close to its structural secrets when we deal with the conditions that generate diversity.
Instead of city spines and clean lines, she asked her readers to look more closely at what makes a street really work. She loved the “intricate sidewalk ballet”, a complex order that helped to maintain public safety and wellbeing through a “constant succession of eyes”.
The complexity of a place made it impossible to replicate.
The ballet of the good city never repeats itself from place to place, and in any one place it is always replete with new observations.
Jacobs’ polemic against urban planning would become its orthodoxy. Death and Life has been required reading for students of urban planning for decades. Today they learn of the failed spaces created by modernist planners and the geographies of single-use enclaves and far-flung highways they spawned.
Jacobs' campaigning inspired urban activists around the world to stage protests in their own cities. This helped usher in a new era of citizen-centric planning frameworks.
As Saskia Sassen wrote recently, it was Jacobs who first urged the need to recognise the value of “place” when considering the implementation of urban policies.
<h2>Is Jane Jacobs still relevant or useful?</h2>
Although Jacobs is a profoundly influential figure in 20th-century urbanism, in many respects her radicalism can feel like it belongs to another era.
The Manhattan districts she fought to preserve represent some of the most expensive real estate in the world, so it’s hard to disagree that a city’s dense, historic core might be worth preserving. Economist Edward Glaeser talks about “Jacobs Spillovers” – the transfers of knowledge and activity that help to explain the generation of wealth in cities like New York and London.
Some might even ask: was Jacobs simply one of the first to fly the NIMBY flag against any developments taking place within the prized neighbourhoods they helped to gentrify?
But if we take a closer look at what Jacobs had to say – and how she said it– it becomes clear her ideas remain as radical and important as they were in the 1960s.
This is perhaps no more so than in relation to rise of the “smart city”.
<h2>Smart cities and the rise of a new urban science</h2>
Today’s smart cities are big business, powered by the potential for big data and the internet of things to improve the efficiencies of urban systems. Smart cities offer solutions to improve transport management, make better investment decisions, improve accountability and promote transparent decision-making.
The premise is that with so much data (big data) being produced, planners, governments and researchers can better understand cities as complex systems, and make better decisions about how they are planned and managed. 
This explosion of data in cities – from traffic data, through mobile communications data to sensor data capturing the behaviour of natural systems and the everyday uses of infrastructure assets – is giving rise to a new “urban science”.
This incorporates machine learning, predictive analytics and complexity science. Its champions – such as Mike Batty and Luis Bettencourt – argue that we are starting to see the emergence of Jacobs' “sidewalk ballet” in data-driven form.
But while the rise of big data and smart cities opens up possibilities for cities that were previously unthinkable, we should also be wary of the limitations.
<h2>The fine arts of urban observation</h2>
Jacobs wasn’t simply claiming that cities should be understood as complex systems.
At a perhaps deeper level, Jacobs was arguing against visions of the city over-determined by the technologies that produce them: for LeCorbusier, as for Moses, the view of the city enabled by the innovation of flight helped give rise to new urban utopias like the Radiant City.
In writing Death and Life, Jacobs was also resisting the dominance of expert knowledge about a city, in favour of a democracy of lived experiences and everyday insights. She once reflected that:
"learning and thinking about city streets and the trickiness of city parks launched me into an unexpected treasure hunt."
As a new generation of planners are taught of the possibilities of a data-driven urban science, we need to remember that Jacobs' love of the sidewalk ballet also gave voice to the multiple languages, meanings, experiences and knowledge systems that underpin a vibrant urban culture.
Not all of these can be rendered by data-driven systems. Hopefully, the best insights into a city’s infinite complexity won’t only be produced by those trained with the skills to generate insights from big data.
The “data exhaust” of our daily lives will increasingly shape the way cities are understood. Much work remains to be done to ensure a cities data infrastructure is valued as a fundamental public asset.
But I can hear Jacobs issuing a word of warning: don’t forget to keep taking unexpected treasure hunts through city parks and keep your eyes on the street (not on your phones!). And keep listening out for different lived experiences and ways of knowing a place – not only those that can be rendered real-time as the data flows of complex systems. 
Sarah Barns is Urban Studies Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sarah-barns-110278" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

What might Jane Jacobs say about smart cities?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The new assistant minister for cities and digital transformation, Angus Taylor, spoke last week of his enthusiasm for a “new vehicle” for creating partnerships between all three levels of government to drive the sustainable growth of our cities.
This “tried and tested” vehicle is based on the UK government’s City Deals model, which has been running in England since 2012.
In a nutshell, this model encourages city councils or groupings of councils to work together more effectively in identifying local economic development opportunities. They then strike a deal with the central government to secure the funding necessary to realise these opportunities.
Part of the UK government’s so-called “localism agenda”, this approach was designed to give more power and freedom to localities so they could do what they thought best to achieve growth in their area.
This approach has been heavily spruiked in Australia by KPMG and by the Property Council of Australia to Taylor and his ministerial predecessor, Jamie Briggs. The Property Council’s Ken Morrison and KPMG’s Paul Low helpfully set out in their joint pamphlet nine reasons why this approach provides a model for Australian urban policy.
How do the City Deals stack up?
So let’s look at each of these reasons. How do they stand up to scrutiny? That includes the scrutiny of the UK National Audit Office (NAO), which in July 2015 published a progress review of the first wave of English City Deals.
<ol>
<li>It’s a contract – the deal is a deal! In Australia the deals will be more complicated if the partners have to come from each of the three levels of government. And, as we know, federal and state governments have been known to tear up deals struck by their predecessors.</li>
<li>The focus is on productivity and growth. The NAO review found that deal partners can struggle to agree on measures of growth and productivity. The Treasury and the Greater Manchester partnership took two years to agree the terms of their “earn back” deal.</li>
<li>They encourage local leadership and good governance. While it is a sensible move for some local councils to come together in combined authorities, some of these now look remarkably similar to the English Metropolitan Country Councils abolished in 1986 by a previous Conservative government. Creating a more efficient profile of local governments in Australia is a challenge many state and territory governments shy away from.</li>
<li>They use smarter tools for making infrastructure investment decisions. There is certainly scope for making infrastructure decisions on the basis of more comprehensive and rigorous criteria. It is somewhat incongruous, though, to prosecute a localism agenda while at the same time insisting on assessment by a central unit located within the Treasury.</li>
<li>They unlock innovative financing. The NAO review found that ministers often quickly published high-level ambitions, sometimes before departmental officials had agreed to specific funding packages. Haven’t we learnt to be cautious of policy rhetoric outstripping careful implementation planning?</li>
<li>They help join up economic, social and sustainability goals. While the goals might be joined up – an excellent ambition – it has proved extremely difficult to set up evaluation frameworks that can demonstrate with any rigour what the long-term impacts are and what would have happened without the deals.</li>
<li>They promote powerful political leadership. Directly elected mayors are already common in some parts of Australia and local councils are typically much smaller than in the UK. Whether a formal partnership of local councils in Australia would find it easy to allow one mayor to be first among equals is a moot point.</li>
<li>They promote financial literacy skills at the local level. City Deals did not provide any extra funding to build local management capacity. Local partners were expected to pool their resources to achieve this. The NAO concluded that this approach was not sustainable in the context of continuing reductions in central funding to local government.</li>
<li>They rely less on inefficient taxes. Without specifying what these inefficient taxes might be, we can safely assume this approach won’t involve any reform of negative gearing or capital gains tax on property holdings.</li>
</ol>
New titles, same old song
City Deals have been sold in the UK as a significantly new approach to urban policy, but they look remarkably similar to measures that have been promoted over the last 40 years.
Every UK urban policy initiative introduced since the mid-1970s has spoken of the importance of partnerships, cross-departmental co-ordination, multi-sectoral intervention and local leadership. While the titles of these initiatives may have changed, the song has remained the same.
And here lies the biggest challenge. We know that:
<ul>
<li>the problems are inter-related and the all levels of government need to work productively together and with other sectors;</li>
<li>departmental silos within government get in the way of strategic planning; and</li>
<li>scarce public resources need to be invested wisely.</li>
</ul>
And we know that to overcome these problems we need a much greater degree of policy stability and long-term, bipartisan commitment. What we do not need is to jump on yet another urban policy bandwagon from overseas – one that is already being tinkered with in its country of origin.
 
Paul Burton is professor of Urban Management and Planning &amp; Director, Urban Research Program, Griffith University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-burton-5155" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

City Deals: nine reasons this imported model of urban development demands due diligence

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/64595/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Australia will join the 71st United Nations General Assembly in New York this week.
Some of the discussion will focus on progressing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as agreed at the UN last year.
Australia is a signatory to the goals, but it is difficult to know where to begin, as the goals are further broken down into 169 targets. These range from eradicating extreme poverty to developing measurements of progress on sustainable development.
But new research from the University of Queensland reveals that actions on climate change (SDG 13) and global partnerships (SDG 17) are likely to influence all other efforts by Australia to achieve the other SDGs.
<h2>Australia’s role in sustainable development</h2>
The SDGs form part of the UN development agenda, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, released in September 2015.
Unlike the preceding UN Millennium Development Goals, which ran until 2015, the SDGs apply to all countries and citizens to create a common outlook, irrespective of the country’s level of development. The new goals are to be achieved by 2030.
The Australian government has emphasised the role of the SDGs in reinforcing economic growth, development and investment in the Indo-Pacific region, and has assigned the SDGs to the portfolios of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), and Environment.
Australia’s support for the SDGs is laudable. But the focus on international trade and investment, with responsibilities placed in only two portfolios, limits Australia’s potential for significant social, economic and environmental improvement on the SDGs at home and abroad.
<h2>But where do we start?</h2>
Part of the challenge of the SDGs is their complexity and the way they link together. This may explain Australia’s limited approach to date.
To help navigate this web of goals, we mapped the most influential goals. We found the goals that affect all the others are climate action (SDG 13) and global partnerships (SDG 17). Without these, the other goals are very difficult to attain. 
For example, the increased intensity of extreme weather events due to climate change will likely make it harder to achieve clean drinking water under SDG 6. In droughts, less water is available, and in floods, the water is often contaminated. Both events result in the proliferation of diseases.
These findings also identified that the goal for health and wellbeing (SDG 3) is the ultimate goal: every other SDG contributes towards this outcome. For example, a woman who has given birth to a daughter cannot achieve optimal physical, social and mental wellbeing for herself and her child without proper nutrition (SDG 2), access to clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), gender equality (SDG 5) and adequate financial resources (SDG 1).
We also found that within SDG 6, implementing the integrated water resources management target (6.5) enables the other SDG 6 targets to be met. Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin is a good example of this type of approach. There, states negotiated across borders to reduce salinity, minimise extractions and improve water quality.
<h2>Can we do it?</h2>
Linking together these goals will require high-level government co-ordination beyond merely the DFAT and environment portfolios.
Our policy analysis found that no single portfolio can take responsibility for the entire set of 17 SDGs – and that all 21 government departmentshave more than one SDG relevant to their responsibilities.
Australia’s ability to progress the SDGs in Australia and overseas is likely to be more attainable with the involvement and cross-collaboration of other portfolios.
The UN SDGs are an opportunity for Australia’s efforts towards sustainable development to be recognised on a global stage. To achieve progress on this complex agenda we have to understand that climate action and global partnerships are crucial to sustainable development and ultimately to health and wellbeing.
Nina Lansbury Hall is sustainable Water Program Manager, Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nina-lansbury-hall-211334" target="_blank">here</a>.
Dani J. Barrington is lecturer, Global Change Institute, Honorary Fellow, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dani-j-barrington-104657" target="_blank">here.</a>
Russell Richards is ecosystem modeller at the University of Queensland and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/russell-richards-296266" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Climate action is the key to Australia achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

<html><body>
<h4> </h4>
GUEST OBSERVER
The internet has reached our cities. A smart city is optimised for efficiency, productivity and comfort.
The smart city uses intelligent transport systems. It is administered by integrated urban command centres, which analyse the omnipresent raw material of the digital era: big data. As citizens go about their everyday lives, they leave data traces everywhere, even in the sewers.
Many technology companies and city governments celebrate the new enfant terrible of smart city research: the urban scientist who finally imposes a rigorous scientific (that is, positivistic) mindset on city governance. However, Jeremy Kun confirms that:
… being quantitative doesn’t protect against bias.
Commentators such as Cat Matson, Charles Landry and Paul Masonadvocate a people-centred approach to city design. In our own work, we warn that ignoring decades of research by architects, geographers, urban planners, designers and sociologists could lead to a dystopian future where humans lose agency if we mindlessly pursue convenience and efficiency.   Big data requires analysis by algorithms, and they in turn create filter bubbles. Corporations such as Facebook and Google deploy sophisticated algorithms to help us navigate the otherwise bloated social mediascape. The content displayed on Facebook’s news feed is selected based on a user’s profile, location, interests, online habits – what they post, share, recommend and “like”.
The popularity of social media stems from its power to create personalised spaces, walled gardens, which are tailored to individual preferences and favour content relevant to each user. Proprietary algorithms determine what is deemed relevant.
Without ethics, it is these algorithms that determine the make-up of the Facebook news feed, Google’s top search results and the recommendations on whom to follow on Twitter and what to buy on Amazon. They are optimised to prioritise content that generates more business. As Gilad Lotan has observed:
We’re not seeing different viewpoints, but rather more of the same. A healthy democracy is contingent on having a healthy media ecosystem. As builders of these online networked spaces, how do we make sure we are optimising not only for traffic and engagement, but also an informed public? … The underlying algorithmics powering this recommendation engine help reinforce our values and bake more of the same voices into our information streams.
The diversity advantage of cities
As more and more social media platforms embrace urban environments as their playground, this algorithmic culture has important implications for cities. People come together in cities not just for the infrastructure and convenience they provide, but for offering choice. Cities are fundamentally about possibilities, opportunities and diversity.
Jane Jacobs notes: Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.
Ethan Zuckerman thinks of cities as serendipity engines:
By putting a diverse set of people and things together in a confined place, we increase the chances that we’re going to stumble onto the unexpected.
However, Zuckerman also asks:
… do cities actually work this way?
It’s a timely question for smart cities governed by big data and algorithmic analysis. How can a smart city become a serendipity engine? Can we design smart cities for getting lost?
Here are some examples of why that may not be such a bad idea.
Getting lost and getting to know strangers
Public transport journey planners are usually optimised for two factors: the fastest speed and shortest distance to get you from A to B. Yet there are opportunities beyond telematics.
Why don’t we offer the choice to go slow, to take the least polluted route to work, or the scenic way home?
Experimental prototypes such as Martin Traunmueller’s Likeways and Mark Shepard’s Serendipitor allow you to lose yourself and rediscover your city. The Likeways app lets users choose routes that wander past restaurants, pubs, shops, museums or art galleries. Screenshot, courtesy Martin Traunmueller   In addition to a diversity of places, cities also offer a diversity of people. However, all too often we stay within our existing social networks of friendship and convenience. Eric Paulos’s Familiar Stranger Project investigated anxiety, comfort and play in public places.
Yet our ability to unlock the advantage of a city’s social diversity is still in its infancy. Early examples include co-working spaces and meet-up groups that bring diverse people together, airlines offering social seating, and design interventions such as Jokebox that foster playfulness and curiosity. 
Saskia Sassen warns that the privatisation of public spaces in the city:
… has deep and significant implications for equity, democracy and rights.
This also stifles innovation, as people are lacking the kinds of “skunkworks” that foster creativity and diversity.
Deliberative democracy and the city
Besides the nascent opportunities vested in people and places, what may well be the final frontier of a truly smart (as in intelligent) city is content and discourse. Seeking to burst the filter bubbles, Eli Pariser created Upworthy:
… on a mission to change what the world pays attention to.
It curates news you should read rather than just “the news you want” to read.
Another illustrative example is Rebecca Ross’s project London is Changing. Large digital displays visualise local community voices and juxtapose diverse opinions about the impact of gentrification in London.
To uphold a citizen’s right to the digital city and strengthen the role of cities in a deliberative democracy, cities should empower citizens to be smart. Smart cities should allow us to get lost and find new places, to meet strangers who may become new friends, and to engage in discussions with diverse others so we may form new opinions.
Alexandros Washburn observes:
In talking about the anticipational Smart wonders of ‘our city’, we really mean ‘my city’. We confuse the collective with the personal. If collective, that is, civic intelligence is what makes cities smart, we need more serendipity engines. 
Smart cities should be open and agile and employ what Bob Dick calls “dialectical processes” and what Anna Cox calls “design friction”. That way we may change algorithmic filters for the sagacious discovery of diversity in the city. Diversity fuels innovation, and innovation is what we need to be sustainable.
Marcus Foth is professor, urban informatics, Queensland University of Technology and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marcus-foth-199317" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Development

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Development

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News