Search

The private rental market costs are placing a burden on household budgets, thus significant pressure is on governments and private housing organisations to supply more social and affordable housing solutions. This research evaluates the key elements of medium- and high-density liveable and accessible social and affordable urban housing precincts. Focusing on investigations into an Australian housing case study, the authors establish a liveability framework to improve understanding of whole-of-life needs. Through a comprehensive literature review, a case study and a series of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders from the housing sector five key elements were identified. These key elements include: (1) Liveability, (2) Accessibility, (3) Value equation, (4) Regulatory and policy environment, and (5) Adoption and overcoming barriers. The liveability framework will form the basis of a set of quality standards that can be used to guide precinct planning, design development and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Faced with fiscal pressure and concerns over bureaucratic inefficiency, policymakers at Australia’s state government level are evaluating instruments to improve social housing services. A public–private partnerships (PPPs) procurement approach is one such instrument for increasing housing supply to address housing affordability in Australia. To determine the value of pursuing a project through a PPP delivery versus a traditional procurement approach, public administrators need to determine discount rates for comparing different cash flows streams on a consistent basis. Additionally, they must estimate public sector comparator (PSC) to determine public sector’s risk exposure in social housing delivery and allocating constrained housing budgets. This research assesses the discount rates and estimates the risk profile of social housing delivery faced by public agencies. Three case studies were utilised to present project estimate probability distributions for gaining insight into risk exposure in social housing delivery and helping housing budget allocation at the state government level. The findings recommend the use of an estimated 30-year treasury bond rate (3.14%) as the PSC discount rate for social infrastructure. Additionally, the results suggest the use of a PPP discount rate for social housing of 6.01%, given a risk-free rate of 3.14% and a systematic risk premium of 2.87%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Urban Policy & Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)