Search

This paper explores two key themes that have enjoyed increasing attention in geography research in the last twenty years: geographies of care and experiences of precarity. It focuses on the perspectives of residents living in share houses during a strict COVID-19 lockdown in the city of Melbourne, Australia, drawing on 20 interviews conducted in mid-2020. In so doing, it contributes to understandings of care practices in 'non-traditional' households, providing a glimpse into the spectrum of care-full to care-less relations enacted in households responding to deep uncertainty and shifting connections to home brought on by a global pandemic. Within the day-to-day actions of occupants we highlight the networks of small acts of care-giving and resource sharing. We illuminate the spatial, emotional and relational micro-geographies of share houses to identify how precarity is negotiated amongst co-residents and draw attention to the implications of care-less policies and real estate practices. Our research answers the call for a greater emphasis on embodied home-making practices among group households by paying attention to the contingent relationships of care that they house. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New legislation was introduced in 2018 in Victoria, Australia to encourage the negotiation of affordable housing agreements. This change resulted in the expansion of formal and informal mechanisms for cross-sectoral affordable housing delivery. In this paper we draw on 20 interviews with housing stakeholders, focusing on the process of negotiation. We propose a novel theoretical framework to interpret capacity for collective action in a loosely regulated policy area, combining insights from negotiation theory and Institutional Capacity Development (ICD) literature. We find widespread concerns about the opaque, inefficient and potentially exploitative nature of outcomes. We also find that agreements varied across projects based on levels of trust; access to information; political capital; capacity for mutual gain; and the presence of shared rules for interacting. We conclude that competition-based negotiations may lead to increased institutional capacity while also highlighting the challenges of housing delivery in the context of institutional uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Affordable housing policy is increasingly formulated and delivered through complex policy networks comprised of state, not-for-profit and for-profit actors. While these arrangements may generate new ideas and create space for more democratic decision-making, international case studies have shown that the devolution of policy responsibility has resulted in increasingly marketised housing solutions and reduced support for low income households. Policy network literature presents a valuable lens for analysing the degree to which state and non-state actors are capable of and willing to shape policy discourses and outcomes. This paper presents a new conceptual framework and typology for interpreting policy networks, identifying integrated vertical governance, advocacy coalitions and agenda setting and shared understandings as central to housing policy and outcomes. Drawing on 54 interviews conducted with members of affordable housing policy networks in Melbourne, Toronto, Vancouver, and Portland, the paper also provides a longitudinal, comparative analysis of policy networks in these cities. We provide insights into the implications of 'hollowed out' governance structures characterised by limited internal capacity and steering power. We also comment on the relative success of each city's network in advocating for increased affordable housing outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a report on urban regulation and diverse housing supply in the U.S. It mentions the barriers to diverse housing supply and the role of government in supporting change and innovation in housing supply. It discusses that regulatory reforms and programs to support diverse housing models in Canada and the Great Britain.

In Australia, echoing trends in the UK, US and Canada, provision of social housing has transitioned from government-led mechanisms to an increasing focus on partnerships between private developers, government and the not-for-profit sector. In this context, social housing is often achieved via the 'cobbling together' of necessary resources over time. This article focuses on an innovative social housing project in the inner west of Melbourne, Australia, that involves the modular construction of 57 transportable dwellings located on government-owned land. I apply a theoretical framework that combines insights from social innovation literature and assemblage to understand the process of assembling a pilot project and to chart how the project may be scaled up or scaled out to challenge the system in which homelessness occurs. The research highlights the role of community housing providers as 'pivot points' in the social housing sector and acknowledges the importance of credibility, funding, legislative change and construction innovation in scaling housing social innovations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]