housing as a catalyst for social cohesion Studio 14 New Middle Housing: Future Homes Student Competition
Neuman Chow • 718056
Melbourne School of Design
Neuman Chow Melbourne School of Design Studio Leader — Mark Ng Master of Architecture Design Thesis
Contents
01
02 03
Thesis
Research
Case Studies
04 05 06
Feasibility Study
Concept Design
Sketch Design
07 08 Final Design
Competition Appendix
4
5
01
Thesis
Architecture has always been intertwined in social and cultural dimensions. In light of the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the home is a place that is even more important than ever before. Statistics show that the mental health of individuals are deteriorating enduring the lockdown period, and is attributed to social isolation and lack of amenities thereof (Fisher et. al, 2020; Smith and Lim, 2020). It is evident that the current multi-residential housing situation in Melbourne require design strategies and responses that offers more opportunities for social cohesion to occur within the neighbourhood building. As the population of Melbourne is increasing rapidly, this issue opens an avenue for architecture to contribute as a vehicle for effective and sustainable placemaking in the realm of housing.
Statement
This thesis positions to investigate the role of architecture in improving social cohesion through strategies applied in the design of a multi-residential precinct in conjunction with the New Middle Housing: Future Homes Student Competition guidelines. The thesis aims to explore how architecture and placemaking can contribute towards the increase of social interaction opportunities and healthier neighbourhood relationships through precinct planning and the design of effective amenities.
6
7
01
Thesis
Hypothesis
DE The problem with the current development model of multi-residential buildings are the lack of accessible or inclusive amenities, ill-planned circulation and layouts that do not promote interactions among neighbours.
CA : AD
The hypothesis would be that social interaction opportunities can increase through a greater ratio of communal amenities to apartment density.
AF DI
The densification of apartment precinct coupled with a variety of apartment layouts will attract a greater diversity of residents by improving the affordability of dwellings. This would lead to greater neighbourhood solidarity, healthier relationships and improved social
Social Cohesion
CA : AD DE AF DI
Communal amenities to Apartment Density Ratio Density of dwellings in precinct Affordability Residents Diversity
8
9
02
Research
Social Cohesion
Michalos (2014) define social cohesion as the “extent of connectedness and solidarity among groups in society”. It extends on into two key groups: the sense of belonging of a community and the relationships between them. It requires a democratic effort to achieve systems that demonstrate equity to circumvent social fractures (Manca, 2014). The saying “charity begins at home” can be equally applied to social cohesion within the neighbourhood community. Apartment dwellers in Melbourne are facing a sense of social isolation within their neighbourhood that inevitably leads to the weakening of solidarity of relationships in their community. This is even more true in the case of renters that are statistically more vulnerable to loneliness and social isolation (Franklin & Tranter, 2011). The anonymity of apartment dwellers in Melbourne is attributed to the design of apartments that has converted homes within a neighbourhood into “hotels” where there may be a thousand neighbours in your building, but you may not even get to know any of them throughout your stay (Warner and Andrews, 2019; Forest & Kearns, 2001). The influx of student population in Melbourne in the recent years has also developed a new spike in private renters, raising the demand of housing availability (Fincher & Shaw, 2016). The hasty response was profit-driven developments to meet the demand causing the housing market and trend to prioritise the yield even more. Through an analysis of current apartment buildings in the Melbourne CBD and nearby suburbs, we see a growing trend of the minimization of communal amenities to increase the yield of apartment units. Essentially, with the growing population of Melbourne it is vital to find alternative means of ethical housing development that promotes a healthier community while still being profitable and viable.
Buildings that build bonds Figure 1. Social cohesion gesture (Author, 2020)
10
11
02
Research
Cromley (1998) written a beautiful piece describing the evolution of New York’s Early Apartments where she coined the term “Alone Together�. This is jarringly already happening in Melbourne and does not look like it would stop unless there is a legitimate alternative that would encourage developers to hop on the ethical development bus. Milieu Property, Assemble, and Nightingale are the few key Victorian developers that are focusing on more ethical developments and typologies of apartment living that adds social capital to the urban fabric rather than diminishing it.
Social Cohesion
macro culture/values
Social connectedness (social capital) Emphasis on social processes
It is found that attributes of housing and placemaking are heavily related to the inequalities dimension of social cohesion (Stone & Hulse, 2007). The way people experience their house as well as their ownership towards homes play a huge role in social connectedness within an apartment neighbourhood. Renting has been negatively impacting neighbourhood attachment and also safety levels (Stone & Hulse, 2007). As such, future homes can find opportunities in creating a sense of ownership and connection to the neighbourhood through apartment planning and the way they experience living in the precinct.
Inequalities (social exclusion) Emphasis on social processes
cultural norms and context micro
Figure 2. Dimensions of social cohesion, showing social, economic and cultural domains, (Stone & Hulse, 2007)
12
13
02
Research
The data collected is divided into the following categories to align more specifically with the topic of discussion in the thesis as below: • Survey on living in apartments • Population density in relation to age and distance from Melbourne CBD • Housing demand trend • Household types data • Housing prices, ownership and tenancy data • Median income and employment data
Demographics
75% 42% 45% 80% 60%
Lived in apartments
knows none of their neighbours
knows only 1-2 neighbours do not use communal areas in apartments
thinks kitchens and dining rooms are shareable spaces (non-essentials)
Results tabulated shows evidence of the poor outcomes of existing apartments in Melbourne in terms of social capital. On subjective questions, most of them described their communal areas to be unattractive and rather be at home. A large number of people are open to the idea of downsizing their apartments and share eating and cooking areas for increase affordability and better internal apartment spatial quality.
Pool 50 People Age Group 20-45 years old Nationality 20 Victorians, 30 Internationals Figure 3. Survey on Apartment Living Experience via SurveyMonkey (Author, 2020)
14
15
02
Research
Demographics
2006
160k
middle-ring
140k
Population
120k 100k
0 - 34 years
80k
35-54 years
60k
55 years and over
40k
The data is also studied in relation to the prediction of the demographic patterns that would shift with the population
20k 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
growth in Melbourne that comes from natural increase and international migration. The research would coincide with affordability, housing
60
distance from CBD (km)
demand and composition datas to develop a background understanding for a more holistic design approach to improving social cohesion in housing.
2020
160k
middle-ring
140k 120k
Population
Synthesizing the information from the demographics data collected, the target group can be identified to tailor the design strategies and responses to fit the lifestyle and needs of the community that would primarily inhabit the spaces.
100k
0 - 34 years
80k
35-54 years
60k
55 years and over
40k 20k 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
distance from CBD (km) Figure 4. Population Density, (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020)
60
The data shows that the population density of the younger age group has significantly increased in the middle-ring suburb with the ageing community having a higher increase in the inner-suburbs. There are also increases in the older age groups to the outer-suburbs.
16
17
02
Research
Demographics
6.0% Other households
160 25.2% Lone person households
s
ing
43.1% Families with children
ell Dw
150
u
Ho
2016
s
old
h se
Growth index
140
25.6% Couple-only households
ion
lat
pu Po
130
120
5.2% Other households
100 1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Years 26.2% Lone person households
Figure 6. Housing demand trend. (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016)
41.1% Families with children
2056
27.6% Couple-only households
Figure 5. Household types (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016)
The trend shows that the population growth does not match the growth in number of dwellings over the years despite the household growth is growing at a similar rate as the dwellings. This is due to the overall decrease in household sizes over the years that can be attributed to the younger
2006
18
19
02
Research $0
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
Demographics $60,000
$70,000
19.5%
Independent Youth
15.0%
Established Couples & Families
14.2%
Maturing & Established Independence
13.1%
Maturing Couples & Families Older Couples & Families
11.5% 9.2%
Older Independence
8.3% 5.5% 2.3%
Annual Median income in Victoria – $73,788 Professionals Administrative Managers
50%
Technicians/Trade workers
40% 30%
Community service
20%
Sales workers
10%
Labourers Machine operators Coburg
Kensington
Maribyrnong
Moonee Ponds
Essendon
Figure 7. Income & Employment. (Gothe-Snape, Jackson & Macleod, 2017)
From the data above, the proportion of white-collar workers is significantly higher than blue-collar workers. During the COVID-19 lockdown period, it can be assumed that most individuals were working from home in the middle-ring suburbs as it majority of the white-collar jobs were not under the essential workers category. Also the average income in the middle-ring suburbs would in the range between $50,000-60,000.
1.3%
Elderly Singles Elderly Couples Young Families Elderly Families
Figure 8. Lifestyle influence. (Realestate.com.au, 2020)
The data above was extracted from Realestate.com.au sourced from Mosaic demographic data by Experian Australia Pty Ltd, as an average from the suburbs below: • Coburg North • Kensington • Maribyrnong Data shows that the a general trend of lifestyles in the middle-ring suburbs of Melbourne are currently most influenced by the independent youths, and established couples and families
18
19
03
Case Studies
Public housing towers
The case studies were carefully selected to exhibit typical multi-residential existing practices locally and internationally. The focus in the case studies are circulation areas, layout typology, amenities and level of social interaction opportunities. Below are the apartment typologies that were identified for the research: • Public housing towers, Melbourne • Studio 9, Bendigo Street, Richmond • Atherton Gardens Estate, Fitzroy • Oxford & Peel Apartments, Collingwood
Figure 9. Typical public housing towers in Melbourne. (Author, 2020)
21
03
Case Studies
Public housing towers dead inhabitable corridor
• inhumane replicity • lack of human scale • diminished social identity
corridor
20
• social stigma hotspots
elevated base (dark) undesireable
diagrammatic elevation
typical floor plan
22
23
03
Case Studies
Studio 9, Richmond Hayball Architects
Studio 9 was designed to meet the needs of the ageing community through adaptive reuse of the GTV9 site creating a housing precinct that encompasses high amenities, improved living conditions and thoughtful design responses towards supporting disability.
Through the analysis of the apartment layouts, it is found that: • living areas and all bedrooms have ample natural lighting and ventilation (outward facing). This allows passive surveillance creating a safer inner neighborhood. • corridors are still deadspaces. • private open spaces have areas mostly greater than 12m2
• chances for social interactions are limited to the open green spaces in the precinct that are too large in scale for purposeful conversations to occur.
Figure 10. Re-drawing of one of the blocks of Studio Nine Apartments (Author, 2020)
24
03
Case Studies
Studio 9, Richmond Hayball Architects
Figure 11. Studio Nine Masterplan (Hayball, 2020)
Figure 12. Studio Nine Common Park (Hayball, 2020)
26
03
Case Studies
Atherton Gardens Social Housing
Figure 12. Adapted from Review on Atherton Gardens Social Housing (Clark, 2013)
Similarly to Studio Nine, multi-residential developments during this period vastly use double-loaded corridors as shown in the floorplan above. It is a trend that is continuing even in 2020 rendering corridors as a highly underutilized space that can be repurposed and reimagined. The ground treatment of the apartment block is faced with an unwelcoming sight with the population of cars flooding the ground plane. The relationship between adjacent social housing block is met with a high fence that does not encourage permeability or linkages for urban revitalisation.
Figure 13. Adapted from Review on Atherton Gardens Social Housing (Clark, 2013)
28
03
Case Studies
Atherton Gardens Social Housing
Figure 14. Adapted from Review on Atherton Gardens Social Housing (Clark, 2013)
The seemingly smart idea of breaking up repetitiveness of facade treatment is then met with a counter-productive gesture of minimizing apartment openings towards streetfronts making the building mass look like a barricade rather than a place for residents to return to their havens. It resembles returning home to a solitude being cut-off from the world. The interiors of the apartments has a typical 2400mm ceiling height with the balcony balustrades being 1400mm high. This design makes the spatial experience tight, claustrophobic and unpleasant.
Figure 15. Adapted from Review on Atherton Gardens Social Housing (Clark, 2013)
30
03
Case Studies
Atherton Gardens Social Housing
The image shown on the right, definitely had an intention to create a beautiful open space for communal activities to occur within the apartment precinct. However, the planning of the foyer being a divider between apartment blocks to the green areas is not a great design response as it disconnects the relationship for direct the link between them. What did not contribute further to the benefits of the open green space is the inward-facing facade treatments. It does not convey an idea of passive surveillance as the opaque colored balustrades covers up any form of interaction between apartments and the open space. The tight balcony spaces with small awning windows at outlooking habitable rooms only shows how depressing it may be to live in an apartment like this. This case study reveals the importance of the materiality in apartment buildings that creates a more pleasant
Figure 15. Adapted from Review on Atherton Gardens Social Housing (Clark, 2013)
32
33
03
Case Studies
Oxford & Peel Jackson Clement Burrows Architects 2125
2500
1340
3650
Oxford & Peel apartments is located in Collingwood, Victoria designed by Jackson Clement Burrows Architects. This is an exemplar of a multi-residential apartment that encompasses a few key characteristics that makes it a successful apartment design typology.
25250
• Majority of the apartment units arecross-ventilated • The open double-loaded corridor creates opportunity for residents to have a balcony (front yard) and a shared backyard where social interactions between neighbors can occur as it is not only a circulation area, but a habitable space for residents • The clever idea of having storage spaces on the same level of apartment floors instead of being in storage cages in the carparks is much more practical.
280
1800
Figure 16. Redrawing of Oxford & Peel Apartments (Author, 2020)
• The open corridor also creates a beautiful environment on the ground plane where it can potentially be opened up to public as a typology for an additional street grain to the urban fabric, activating the public realm further.
34
35
03
Case Studies
Oxford & Peel Jackson Clement Burrows Architects Operable louvres for natural light and privacy control
Level 03
Level 03
Level 02
OPEN CORRIDOR
Level 02
Level 01
Figure 17. Oxford & Peel Overlooking Strategy Exercise (Author, 2020)
The overlooking issue was dealt with intelligently and also has an additional dimension of flexibility to the level of privacy an individual would require. Natural lighting flooding the space encourages habitation of the corridor. This allows social interactions to still occur as gossip cross-conversations can develop through the open corridor. The open corridor can be seen as an amenity of the apartment block.
Level 01 Figure 16. Oxford & Peel Overlooking Strategy Exercise (Author, 2020)
36
37
03
Case Studies
Oxford & Peel Jackson Clement Burrows Architects
The green overlays show a potential for a finer grain of streets to create a more permeable urban fabric in the event this apartment typology is replicated and scale on a multiple block of sites. This creates a greater neighbourhood environment, increasing social cohesion potential with the variety of public open spaces as internal amenities for residents.
Figure 18. Oxford & Peel Replicability Exercise (Author, 2020)
38
39
04
Feasibility
Study
A feasibility study has been conducted using the site of 4 typical blocks of land back to back running along the east-west orientation measuring 30.2m by 85.2m. Subject area — COBURG NORTH Sites selected for study: Sites with house • 42 Shorts Road, Coburg North – $814,500 [471m2] • 9 Adler Grove, Coburg North – $850,000 [634m2] • 32 Ballard Avenue, Coburg North – $801,000 [451m2] • 182 Elizabeth Street, Coburg North – $990,000 [589m2] • 10 Gould Street, Coburg North – $920,000 [460m2] Apartments • 200 Sydney Road, Coburg – $430,000 [51m2] 1B1B • 1/25A Arthur Street, Coburg North – $362,500 [96m2] 2B1B • 3/10 Snapshot Drive, Coburg North – $460,000 [52m2] 2B2B • 761-771 Sydney Road, Coburg North – $428,000 [71m2] 2B1B • 4A/3 Wardens Walk, Coburg – $445,000 [69m2] 2B1B 1B1B • 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom 2B1B • 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom 2B2B • 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom
Average site value 1,705.3/sqm Average apartment value 6705.9/sqm
40
41
04
Study
Floor
Plan
5600
Feasibility
1200
1500
1200 2600
5600
32 BIKES
5600
600 0
BASEMENT 1413.2 m²
CORE 5.3 m²
CORE 5.3 m²
CORE 23.8 m²
Basement
CORE 22.4 m²
Total Carparks 32
42
43
04
Feasibility
Study
Floor
Plan
85200
4100
P.O.S 16.4 m²
7100
P.O.S 36.7 m²
P.O.S 36.7 m²
P.O.S 16.4 m²
1B1B 34.4 m²
COMMERCIAL 133.3 m²
1B1B 34.4 m² 2B1B 52.2 m²
COMMERCIAL 109.1 m²
P.O.S 10.5 m²
COMMERCIAL 109.1 m²
P.O.S 10.5 m²
30200
P.O.S 6.0 m²
2B1B 52.2 m²
COMMERCIAL 133.3 m²
P.O.S 6.0 m²
CIRCULATION 286.7 m²
P.O.S 16.2 m²
P.O.S 16.2 m²
500
P.O.S 16.2 m²
6000
CORE 5.3 m²
CORE 5.3 m²
COMMERCIAL 56.7 m²
22 BIKES 22 BIKES BICYCLE 21.8 m²
BICYCLE 21.8 m² CORE 23.8 m²
3B2B 73.4 m²
3B2B 73.4 m²
3B2B 73.4 m²
CORE 22.4 m²
1200
P.O.S 55.1 m²
P.O.S 55.1 m²
1500
1200
P.O.S 55.1 m²
GREEN AREA
Ground Floor
4-Block Site
Site Coverage 60% Total Bike Park 76
COMMERCIAL 1B1B 2B1B 3B2B PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
44
45
04
Feasibility
Study
Floor
Plan
4100
85200
P.O.S 12.6 m²
7100
P.O.S 12.6 m²
P.O.S 12.6 m²
3000
BED
2B1B 47.6 m²
BATH
3400
BED
3400
2B1B 61.2 m²
P.O.S 12.6 m²
P.O.S 12.6 m²
P.O.S 12.6 m²
P.O.S 12.6 m²
P.O.S 12.6 m²
P.O.S 12.6 m²
8100
P.O.S 12.6 m²
3000
4000
BED
BED
2B1B 47.6 m²
2B1B 47.6 m²
BED BATH
BED
BED
BED
2B1B 47.6 m²
BATH
BATH
2B1B 47.6 m²
BED
BED
BED
BED
2B1B 47.6 m²
BATH
2B1B 47.6 m²
BATH
BED
BED
BED
BED
2B1B 47.6 m²
BED
2B1B 61.2 m²
BATH
BATH
BATH
1200
BATH
BED
30200
BED
1200
BED
BED
BED
BATH
3B2B 77.6 m²
BED
BATH
CIRCULATION 172.4 m²
CORE 5.3 m²
CORE 23.8 m²
BATH
BATH
BED
1B1B 44.8 m²
1B1B 44.8 m²
BED
BATH
CORE 5.3 m²
BATH
BED
1B1B 44.8 m²
1B1B 44.8 m²
BED
CORE 23.8 m²
BATH
BATH
BED
3B2B 77.6 m²
P.O.S 13.4 m²
5100
P.O.S 13.4 m²
3400
2400
BED
GREEN AREA
First Floor
4-Block Site
Site Coverage 60% Total Bike Park 76
COMMERCIAL 1B1B 2B1B 3B2B PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
46
47
04
Feasibility
Study
Floor
Plan
85200
P.O.S 21.6 m²
P.O.S 12.6 m²
BED
BED
2B1B 47.6 m²
COMMUNAL TERRACE 77.4 m²
P.O.S 12.6 m²
BED
P.O.S 12.6 m²
2B1B 47.6 m²
2B1B 47.6 m²
P.O.S 12.6 m²
BED
BED
P.O.S 21.6 m²
2B1B 47.6 m²
COMMUNAL TERRACE 77.4 m²
BED
3B2B 105.4 m²
3B2B 105.4 m² BED BATH
BATH
BED
BED
BATH
BATH
BED
BATH
BATH
BATH
BATH
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
BED
30200
BED
BATH
P.O.S 13.4 m²
3B2B 77.6 m²
BED
BATH
CIRCULATION 165.2 m²
CORE 5.3 m²
CORE 23.8 m²
BATH
BATH
BED
1B1B 44.8 m²
1B1B 44.8 m²
BED
BATH
CORE 5.3 m²
BATH
BED
1B1B 44.8 m²
1B1B 44.8 m²
BED
CORE 23.8 m²
BATH
BATH
BED
3B2B 77.6 m²
P.O.S 13.4 m²
GREEN AREA
Second Floor
4-Block Site
Site Coverage 60% Total Bike Park 76
COMMERCIAL 1B1B 2B1B 3B2B PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
48
49
04
Feasibility
Study
Floor
Plan
COMMERCIAL
Southwest Aerial View
1B1B 2B1B 3B2B PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
50
51
04
Development Feasibility Template
Feasibility
SITE INFORMATION
Study
TOTAL m2
$ / metre
2573
$1,705
1. LAND / ACQUISITION
$4,437,805
Land Purchase
$4,387,805
Legal on Land Purchase
$50,000
Stamp Duty (Landholder to transfer title directly to residents
5.0%
2. CONSULTANTS
14.4% Cons. Cost
$4,437,805
Apartment NSA 1829
$1,667,770
Commercial NSA 542
$496,237
3. PERMITS / AUTHORITY / STATUTORY 4. HOLDING COSTS
$18,000
5. SELLING COSTS
$37,000
6. FINANCE
$68,802
7. INTEREST
$401,264
9. CONSTRUCTION
5% Contingency
Construction Budget 5.00%
10. TOTAL PROJECT COST
2.5% Contingency
Subtotal (Items 1 — 9) 2.50%
11. INCOME
GST (Margin Scheme/ Unit sales)
$459,855
Basement 1413 Landscape 1049
Residential Mix Count
$14,501,114
2 Bedroom 1 Bath
8
3 Bedroom 2 Bath
8
Area (sqm)
Unit
1829
$6,705.00
$12,263,445
542
$6,000.00
$3,249,000 $15,512,445 $1,011,331
GST (Management Rights Sale)
$0 $14,501,114
12. PROFIT Gross Costs
$18,854,073
Revenue Less GST
$14,501,114
Return on Cost
544
16
$0
Gross Profit
Private Open Space
1 Bedroom 1 Bath
Leasable Retail
Total Sales
Circ/BOH 624
$18,854,073
Total Project Cost
Subtotal
$18,854,073 $18,394,218
Development Contingency
Total Retail NSA Ground
$536,540 $11,267,340
Subtotal
Total Apartment NSA
$11,267,340 $10,730,800
Construction Contingency
Measured Area (m2)
$0
- no stampduty payable by Nightingale) Subtotal
Zone Category
$4,352,959
-23.7%
TOTAL 32
52
53
05
The concept design was envisioned based on the research findings in line with the aims of the thesis to create meaningful spaces for social interaction opportunities in apartment living to increase social cohesion. Key targets for the concept design to achieve are outlined below: • Maximizing social interaction opportunities • Densifying the neighbourhood to increase diversity in community groups • Affordability to attract a diverse neighbourhood of socio-economic background • Create small neighbourhood opportunities to ease assimilation into the larger apartment neighbourhood context • habitable, bright and airy communal spaces and corridors
• right mix of apartments and relevant layouts to fit the given demographic trends
• porosity of massing to allow visibility to activities taking place by community living in the neighbourhood • adaptable model to make replicability have a sense of individuality in spatial distribution if developed on adjacent lots. • better apartment orientations for environmental and cost-effective sustainability
Concept Design
54
55
05
LHA REQUIREMENTS - Gold L
Concept
DHHS 1B1B - LHA Gold
Design
DHHS 2B1B - LHA Gold
1. DWELLING ACCESS
PROVIDE A SAFE, CONTINUOUS STEP-FR PATHWAY, MIN. CLEAR WIDTH OF 1100mm
3000
NON-NEGOTIABLE PRIVATE COMPONENTS BALC 11.2 m2
3000 3450
BEDROOM
b.
2200
2100
BALC 8.1 m2
NOT PREFERRED SHAREABLE 2. DWELLING ENTRANCE COMPONENTS a. ENTRANCE DOOR MIN. 850mm C
3. INTERNAL DOORS & CORR
3150
BATHROOM
a. b.
10 m2
a. b.
3000
3750
650
1000
SHAREABLE COMPONENTS LIVING
LAUNDRY
DINING
KITCHEN 650
3650 1200 850 650
1200
1200
b.
1200
2700
1200
1200
b.
a.
850
850
a.
MIN. CLEAR WIDTH OF 1200mm I APPLIANCES FLOOR FINISHES TO EXTEND UN ENABLE CUPBOARDS TO BE RE
10. ENTRY LEVEL BEDROOM a.
1200
MIN. CLEAR WIDTH OF 1200mm B APPLIANCES FLOOR FINISHES TO EXTEND UN ENABLE CUPBOARDS TO BE RE
9. LAUNDRY SPACE
850
1200
MIN. CLEAR WIDTH OF 1200mm B MINIMUM 1200mm CLEAR CIRCU TOILET PAN
8. KITCHEN SPACE
3700
2700
DOOR MIN. 850mm CLEAR MINIMUM CORRIDOR/PASSAGEW
4. TOILET
12 m2
1200
b.
AT LEAST 10 m2 CLEARANCE EX SKIRTINGS AND LININGS MINIMUM PATH OF TRAVEL OF 1 THE BED
Drawn by Author
Typical 1 Bedroom 1 Bathroom Apartment BADS compliant LHA Gold LIVING BEDROOM
DHHS 2B1B - DDA
3950
BATHROOM
100
3100
100
3100
ACCESSIBLE DWELLINGS REQUIREMENTS
SHARED
DINING
1020
1020
LAUNDRY 2380
1070
APARTMENT A
•
APARTMENT B
A MINIMUM OF 5% ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC HOUSING DWELLINGS ACCORDANCE WITH AS1428.1 ARE PROVIDED
“Student-accomodationesque” •apartment livingPATH OF TRAVEL HAS BEEN PROVIDED FRO AN ACCESSIBLE BOUNDARY AND ACCESSIBLE CAR PARKING SPACES TO ALL An opportunity for increased densification, DWELLINGS affordability, social interactions and creating small neighbourhood groups.
BALC 9.0 m2 1070
1000
4200
KITCHEN 1000
1400
A LEVEL LANDING AREA OF AT L
•
BATHROOM AND KITCHEN SPACES IN ACCESSIBLE DWELLING TO MEET THE ENHANCED REQUIREMENTS OF AS1428.2
•
STORAGE UNITS SUCH AS CUPBOARDS, WARDROBES, RODS
56
57
05
Concept
Design BEDROOM AND BATHROOM
DINING, KITCHEN AND LIVING
DINING
DEVELOPMENT MODEL 01 1 SHARED AMENITY AREA PER LEVEL (the new corridor)
DEVELOPMENT MODEL 02 MULTIPLE SHARED AMENITIES
Amplification of the student accomodation model in apartment living.
Introducing diversity in social interaction opportunities and smaller neighbourhood formations
Positives: • increased density = better affordability on per sqm cost. • shared amenities = larger and more afforable essential private spaces • increased social interaction opportunities • great for couples or singles
Negatives: • may not be ideal for families • require higher maintenance cost on shared spaces • social tension (may be a positive towards social cohesion)
Positives: • smaller neighbourhood groups to ease interactions • smaller groups can assimilate to larger groups progressively • opportunity for multigenerational living • more manageable shared amenities
APARTMENT UNITS
APARTMENT UNITS
SHARED AMENITIES
SHARED AMENITIES
Negatives: • costing the usage of this shared spaces may be complicated • social tension (lesser degree)
58
59
05
Concept
Design
Mass model based on setback requirements. Streetfront setback at a standard of 3 meters
Mass subtracted at boundaries to meet requirements. Set as private open space for ground floor apartments.
Open corridor dissection through mass. Creating finer additional street-grain.
Testing ground level interface A residential infrastructure that offers a part of the apartment being mixed used. Alley-frontages of apartment can be converted into lettable commercial space to create a bustling environment. Activates public realm on ground plane.
commercial
apartments
62
63
05
Concept
Design
Integrating development model 02. Form defined by the shared amenities. Limitless interconnection between residents on the multiple pockets of shared amenities.
Integrating development model 02. Opportunity for further formal definition through courtyard arrangements on Level 2
commercial
apartments
shared amenities
open corridor + amenities
balcony
communal terrace
64
65
05
Concept
Design
Adding more through-block links for an interesting ground-level interface and circulation. Corner commercial units will have more interfaces to liven up the public realm.
Adding apartment mix to the massing. Further defines form of apartment through apartment sizing mix that varies in different developments responding to the local demand.
Differentiation in shared amenities depending on apartment size Introduction of loft apartment units, larger apartments and studios to bring diversity to the mix. This concept model was based on the demographics research which shows about 60% are couples/singles and 40% are families which result in the larger proportion of smaller apartments.
commercial
apartments
shared amenities
open corridor + amenities
balcony
communal terrace
66
67
05
Concept
Perspective of through-block link An elimination of redundant closed corridors in multi-residential developments. Repurposing the corridors to be shared amenities or large shared dining area and communal kitchen. Bright and airy corridor encourages habitation and allows cross-ventilation to apartments.
Design
Porosity, differentiation and the human scale Breaking up the apartment units through the shared amenities allow a sense differentiation. This would contribute towards the replicability of this model as the different shared amenity requirements of larger/smaller apartments will alter the overall facade treatment of building. The additional street porosity also allows interesting circulation to occur and improves accessibility through the apartment blocks.
commercial
apartments
shared amenities
open corridor + amenities
balcony
communal terrace
68
69
05
Concept
Design
Studio lofts
Studio lofts + tenancy
Combination of lofts with shared amenity Perspective of through-block link 02 Creating finer linkages improve neighbourhood quality of apartment precincts and provides opportunity for replicability on adjacent sites.
Back to back lofts Back to back apartments are now better as the shared living areas provide sufficient north-facing daylighting for residents.
commercial
apartments
shared amenities
open corridor + amenities
balcony
communal terrace
70
71
05
Concept
Public Realm – Ground Level
Design
Open Corridors
72
73
05
Concept
Design
Shared Amenities
Shared Amenities
74
75
05
Concept
Design
Loft Apartments
Loft Apartments
76
77
05
Concept
Densified Apartments
Design
Concept
Design
Site Model Render
Concept
Design
Site Model Render
Concept
Design
Site Model Render
Concept
Design
Site Model Render
86
87
06
The sketch design further refined the notion of highly liveable apartment spaces with respect to enhancing social interaction opportunities within the precinct. All the apartments were planned to be northfacing, smaller neighborhood precincts were formulated for shared amenities and a breaking up of mass on an urban scale is derived to soften the impact of the development on a middle-suburban context.
Sketch Design
88
06 A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1
2
LEASEABLE/COMMUNAL DAY WORKSHOPS
LEASEABLE/COMMUNAL DAY WORKSHOPS
LEASEABLE/COMMUNAL DAY WORKSHOPS
3 LEASEABLE/COMMUNAL DAY WORKSHOPS
MURAL WALL/FLOOR ART AREA
4
5
KIDS PLAY AREA/ MULTI PURPOSE EXERCISE COURT
6
1:4
7
8
BASEMENT Basement
89
Sketch Design
1:200
H
I
90
06 A
B
91
Sketch Design C
D
E
F
G
H
I
42600 3000
2638
6463
7613
5888
6000
7960
1900
1760
1
4769
SHROUD/SEATING VOID TO BASEMENT P.O.S 7.3 m²
2
1B1B 46.6 m²
P.O.S 15.7 m²
3892
ADAPTABLE MIXED-USE SPACE 45.1 m² 2B1B 81.7 m²
KIDS PLAY AREA
3 MAILBOXES
1500 3939
CAFE 19.7 m²
BICYCLE 15.0 m²
ENTRY LOBBY 8.3 m²
CORE 20.8 m²
GYM 30.3 m²
H NC BE
ENTRY LOBBY 37.7 m²
4600
4940
30200
2000
4
VOID TO BASEMENT
VOID TO BASEMENT
5 2B1B LOFT 54.0 m²
CORE 20.4 m²
4985
BATH TUB
3B1B LOFT 74.4 m²
KIDS PLAY AREA
4675
6
7
1:4
1B1B LOFT 30.8 m²
COMMUNITY 59.2 m²
P.O.S 9.1 m²
3000
P.O.S 8.8 m²
8
Ground
1:200
3040
92
06 A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
2 STUDIO LOFT 24.5 m²
COMMUNAL TERRACE 129.3 m²
STUDIO LOFT 24.9 m²
2B1B LOFT 45.1 m²
STUDIO LOFT 30.9 m²
STUDIO LOFT 30.5 m²
3660
3
COMMUNITY 35.8 m²
CORE 21.2 m²
4
3940
3000
2338
5 3B1B LOFT 58.9 m² COMMUNITY 23.3 m²
CORE 20.5 m²
2B1B LOFT 47.2 m²
BBQ
6 3B2B LOFT 50.3 m²
STUDIO LOFT 25.9 m²
7
8
Level 1
93
Sketch Design
1:200
STUDIO LOFT 28.5 m²
I
94
06 A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
2 STUDIO LOFT 10.9 m²
STUDIO LOFT 10.7 m²
3
2B1B LOFT 22.5 m²
STUDIO LOFT 13.0 m²
STUDIO LOFT 14.3 m²
4
COMMUNITY 45.3 m²
1200
5
STUDIO LOFT 15.7 m²
2B1B LOFT 55.1 m²
STUDIO LOFT 12.7 m²
1B1B LOFT 43.5 m²
2B1B LOFT 64.3 m² BATH TUB
6
COMMUNAL TERRACE 49.4 m²
7
8
Level 2 LEVEL 1
95
Sketch Design
1:200
I
96
06 A
97
Sketch Design
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
42600 3000
2638
6463
7613
5888
6000
7960
3040
4769
1
3892
2
2B1B 65.1 m²
COMMUNAL TERRACE 41.9 m²
3939
BATH TUB
1B1B 55.1 m²
3
CORE 21.0 m²
LAUNDRY 17.4 m²
4940
30200
4
5
4985
CORE 17.5 m²
2B1B LOFT 40.1 m²
COMMUNITY 74.9 m² 2B1B LOFT 34.3 m² BBQ
6
1B1B LOFT 35.3 m²
4675
COMMUNAL TERRACE 33.4 m²
3000
7
8
Level 2-Mezzanine LEVEL 1 UPPER
1:200
LAUNDRY 18.2 m²
98
06
1
2
3
4769
4
3892
5
3939
6
4940
4985
7
4675
8
3000
AHD 11.000
3000
ROOF
99
Sketch Design
2500
LEVEL 1 UPPER AHD 8.000
AHD 5.500
UG
AHD 3.000
GROUND
AHD 0.000
BASEMENT
AHD -3.000
3000
3000
2500
LEVEL 1
Section 1
Project Title
Project Name Enter address here
Section
Drawing Title
Unnamed
1:200 Status
Project No
TENDER TOWN DESIGN PRELIMINARY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT ISSUE ISSUE CONSTRUCTION SKETCH DESIGN ISSUE XXXX
Drawing No
A00.16
Revision
Drawn By
Author
Checked By Date Printed
1/10/2020 3:21:46 PM
Scale
1 : 50@ A1
Checker
Rev 0
1
2
3
Date
Description
5 m
Builders/Contractors shall verify job dimensions before any job commences. Figured dimensions shall take precedence over scaled work. Work shall also conform to the specification, other drawings and job dimensions. All shop drawings shall be submitted to the Architect/Consultant and manufacture shall not commence prior to the return of inspected shop drawings signed by the Architect/Consultant. © Copyright 2008 All rights reserved
Melbourne :
4/135 Sturt Street Southbank,VIC 3006 T +61 3 9699 3644
Sydney
GroundFloor11-1 Buckingham Street,Surry Hills, NSW 2010T +61 2 9660 9329
:
Brisbane :
Level 12,324 Queen Street, Brisbane Qld 4000 T +61 7 3211 9821
ABN: 84006394261 NSW Nominated Architects:Tom Jordan 7521, Richard Leonard 7522, David Tordoff 8028
100
101
06
Sketch
Design
Apartment Unit Parti Diagram
Apartment Unit Parti Exploded
102
103
06
Sketch
Design
Apartment Unit Parti Combination
104
105
06
Sketch
Design
Massing Diagram On Site
106
107
06
Sketch
Design
Massing Diagram On Site
108
109
06
Sketch
Design
Massing Diagram On Site
110
111
06
Sketch
Design
Massing Diagram On Site
112
113
06
Sketch
Design
Massing Diagram On Site
114
115
06
Sketch
Design
Massing Diagram On Site
116
117
06
Sketch
Design
Vertical Aluminium White Fins Light Colored Recycled Bricks
Precedents — Materiality Exterior
118
119
06
Sketch
Design
Timber Finishes Rustic Pale Bricks
Precedents — Materiality Exterior
120
121
06
Sketch
Design
GLT CLT
Precedents — Materiality Interior
122
123
06
Sketch
Design
Precedents — Materiality Interior
124
125
06
Sketch
Design
terrazo stone
soft recycled plastic terrazo
Precedents — Materiality Interior
126
127
07
The final design was in conjunction with the New Middle Housing: Future Homes Victoria Student Competition. This project drives the following point home for this thesis: • increase social interaction opportunities • mitigate social stigma on social housing through inclusive design but without inhumane repitition. •diversifying apartment typologies to house a diverse neighbourhood • strategic placement and effective design of communal amenities that residents would want to use • using existing apartment parts (bicycle parking, kitchens and dining) to activate social connections • eliminate dead corridors by designing habitable open corridors • sustainable and affordable buildings through efficient siting orientation and ESD features.
Final Design
128
129
07
Final
Design
Proposed Development
130
131
07
Final
Design
Preliminary Setback Guideline Mass Rear block set to the ground to act as visual buffer from lengthy repetition of apartment block. Creates intimate pocket park to encourage social connectedness Challenging setback requirements and open opportunities to greater green areas in precinct (Minimum 3-metre setback from boundary)
Inner safelanes cut-through for passive surveillance and safer kids play area. Breaking down apartment blocks to more humane scale Development Diagrams
Carve roof for natural lighting within precinct and angle them optimally for solar energy gain on PV panels
132
133
07
Final
Design
Linking households together not isolating them
Shared kitchen between two apartments
This project aims to link households together through a series of design strategies:
The shared kitchen creates the opportunity to build accountability within the community. Through the investigations, it is understood that tensions may arise from neighbours that cannot come to terms with the usage of this shared kitchen.
• shared kitchens • communal kitchens • habitable open corridors • translucent apartment entry doors (knowing that people do live here)
Development Diagrams
This tension may be also a positive. Social tensions are usually required to get the community out of their comfort zone to find a better norm. This shared kitchen notion is inspired by hunter-gatherers and the australian indigenous tribes that connects through food and eating over fire. The shared kitchen could indeed be the hearth that connects the community on the micro scale.
134
135
07
Final
Design
VENT
OPERABLE VENT LEVER TIMBER DOOR FRAME FLUTED GLASS
Open Habitable Corridors
Translucent Apartment Entry Doors
“Hotel-style” dead corridors, or “Hallway of death” (Warner & Andrews, 2019) should be the thing of the past in the realm of multiresidential development. It is a liability to social capital and should be regulated upon. Open habitable corridors is a key design strategy that aims to activate communal activities while having a more bright and airy circulation path that exuberates life.
The typical closed up apartment entry door is a gesture of safety and privacy. However, a translucent entry door invites visual connection to your neighbours knowing that the precinct is alive and still maintain a degree of sufficient privacy. It also functions as a cross-ventilation mechanism.
136
137
07
Final
Design
Compulsory work area provision in bedrooms
Sustainable and natural materials
A healthy home with adequate space delivers a healthier community as a whole. The Better Apartments Design Standard (BADS) guideline of a minimum 3 meters by 3 meter s bedrooms should be increased to a minimum of 3.6 meters by 3.6 meters for the provision of work areas within bedrooms. With remote working a trend beckoning, it would be ideal for healthy future homes to have such provisions.
Treated cork is used for the flooring and wall lining of the apartments to improve acoustic and thermal performance while maintaining adequate carpet comfort alternative. CLT and GLT are exposed to create a sense of warmth through the natural materiality promoting a healthy psychological and phenomological environment. Locally sourced plywood are affordable and robust for joineries and wall linings. The key design decision is to create close to a monotonous natural palette to disintegrate and form of social stigma towards affordable housing. Cheaper materials should not discount on beauty.
138
139
07
Final
Design
Developed to be positive to change Fully cross ventilated apartments Healthy homes = healthy community. Sustainably good airflow and passive cooling eliminates the need for air-conditioning and mechanical vents.
This project scheme is designed to be highly replicable over multiple blocks of site. There is an increasing return of benefits to expanding similar masterplanning across a neighbourhood precinct. Increased green areas and the “Communal Strip� promotes a socially active neighbourhood which encourages social connectedness with great amenities.
140
141
07
Final
Design
Development Feasibility Template
SITE INFORMATION
TOTAL m2
$ / metre
1286
$1,180
1. LAND / ACQUISITION
$1,721,800
Land Purchase
$1,671,800
Legal on Land Purchase
$50,000
Stamp Duty (Landholder to transfer title directly to residents
5.0%
$0
- no stampduty payable by Nightingale) Subtotal
$1,721,800
2. CONSULTANTS
14.4% Cons. Cost
4. HOLDING COSTS
$18,000
5. SELLING COSTS
$37,000
6. FINANCE
$46,579
7. INTEREST
$137,452
9. CONSTRUCTION
5% Contingency
Construction Budget 5.00%
10. TOTAL PROJECT COST
2.5% Contingency
Subtotal (Items 1 — 9) 2.50%
11. INCOME
GST (Margin Scheme/ Unit sales) Leasable Retail GST (Management Rights Sale) Total Sales
$168,230 $6,897,428
Total Project Cost
Subtotal
$6,897,428 $6,729,199
Development Contingency
Total Retail NSA Ground
$183,790 $3,859,590
Subtotal
Total Apartment NSA
$3,859,590 $3,675,800
Construction Contingency
Site Plan 1:200 @ A5
$606,647 $302,131
3. PERMITS / AUTHORITY / STATUTORY
$7,492,891 Area (sqm)
Unit
950
$8,500.00
0
$6,000.00
$8,075,000 $0 $8,075,000 $582,109 $0 $0 $7,492,891
12. PROFIT Gross Costs
$6,897,428
Revenue Less GST
$7,492,891
Gross Profit
Return on Cost
$595,462
8.8%
142
07
4
143
Final Design
3
6
2
1
5
Basement 1:200 @ A5 1
Electric Scooter/Bike Charging Pods
2
4 x Car Share Parking Lots
3
4 x Regular Parking Lots
4
1 x DDA Parking Lot
5
Bin room
6
Plant Room
144
07
145
Final Design
7 6 2
1
TYPE A – 2B1B + powder
3
TYPE B – 1B1B
5
TYPE C – 4B2B SOHO TYPE D – 3B2B SOHO
4
Communal Areas
Ground 1:200 @ A5
8
1
Neighbourhood
2
Lift Lobby
Street
3
Bicycle parking
4
Hilly Park Communal Area
5
Communal Kitchen
6
Adaptable Communal Room
7
Pocket Park
8
Outdoor BBQ
146
07
147
Final Design
Ground 1:200 @ A5 TYPE C – 4B2B SOHO TYPE D – 3B2B SOHO TYPE F – 3B1B + powder
TYPE G – 1B1B ACCESSIBLE Communal Areas GARDEN
148
07
149
Final Design
1
4
TYPE F – 3B1B + powder
2
TYPE H – Studio Loft Communal Areas Garden
3
Stone Pavers
Ground 1:200 @ A5 1
Communal Open Corridor
2
Vegetable Garden
3
Communal Laundry
4
Communal Living Room
07
Final Design
SHARED KITCHEN
150
OVEN F
F
“My immediate neighbour” The apartment types shown demonstrate the immediate neighbourly connections each apartment units possesses through the hearth of the homes — the shared kitchen.
“Affordable adaptability” This apartment type show the level of adaptability this can be. It can be a multigenerational 5 bed 3 baths, 4 bed 2 bath or broken up into 3 apartment units + SOHO.
151
152
07
Final Design
“SOHO”
“The kitchenless apartment”
Home offices are currently becoming an essential element for small business owners. Owners have the option of subletting spaces or desks to neighbours to also work remotely creating a mini co-working environment within the precinct itself.
Going kitchenless would be a notion that encourages the community to cook, eat, share, grow and learn together. Communal kitchens increasingly becoming a popular option that is attractive as it allows residents to enjoy a full-sized kitchen rather than measly small kitchenettes in small apartments. La Borda, Barcelona is a living prove of the success of communal kitchens and great amenities.
153
154
07
Final Design
Social Cohesion “Kitchenless Lofts� Making affordable homes may be a hard tasks due to limitations of space. The property market however does not charge by volume. This project aims to capitalise on the available height expansions to provide greater volume to these lofts at 30sqm to be a more vast, bright and airy cozy apartment for bachelors and young couples. This provides a great mix to the neighbourhood precinct, creating a more diverse and holistic community with a range of socioeconomic background
Visualized
155
156
07
Final Design
a place where they can proudly call “our home”
157
158
159
07
Final
Design
“Our home� The entry sequence to the main communal strip gives a welcoming warmth with the lush natural landscapes that resembles the local indigenous natural environment. The communal areas are strategically placed to sandwich the green strip running NorthSouth of the site, activating the area as a vibrant and healthy space.
160
161
07
Final
Design
“Eat, Cook and Grow Together� With the provision of vegetable garden and chicken coops, this neighbourhood precinct is encouraging social connection through cooking, eating and sharing experiences and labor of love on the food they grow.
162
163
07
Final
Design
“Kids & Adults Recreate Alike� A space designed well for kids, would be great for adults too. The communal strip imagines kids and adults playing and recreating together creating bonds over multiple generations.
164
165
07
Final
Design
“Activation through movement� The hilly grounds capitalises on the bicycle parking to activate this space with the movement activities going around the area. It is also a gesture of celebrating bicycles as the main mode of transportation for Victorian creating a bond in common through commute.
166
167
07
Final
Design
“Day-to-day is better together� By eliminating private laundry provisions in apartments, the communal laundry coupled with the vegetable garden would be a great spot for a hangout while waiting for chores to be done and encourage social connectedness through common mundane tasks.
169
Final
Design
“Open Corridor Loop� A space where residents can share a drink, enjoying each others company after a long day of work, coming home to community. These communal corridors are accessible right at the doorstep of every apartment entries.
170
171
07
Final
Design
“The neighbourly apartments” Apartments now open up the opportunity for direct neighbourly relationship to be form. Accountability through the shared “Party Kitchen” creates a new sense of communal bond and boosting confidence for households to interact in the larger community.
172
173
07
Final
Design
“Kitchenless apartments� Kitchenless apartments makes more room for spaces that matter. For different individuals, the kitchen is not an essential part of their home. This space is then used to house more relevant
174
175
Final
Design
“Home Offices� Home offices activate the ground plane with constant activity during the day creating a vibrant ground level activation and passive surveillance for increased safety of neighbourhood precinct.
176
177
Competition
Appendices
Competition Submission QR
178
179
Competition
“Built for Disassembly� Future-proofing the apartment precinct is essential. Rapid changes and developments of technology means the needs of individuals are changing even quicker than ever before. CLT and GLT with lock-in connections allows the apartments to be highly adaptable without affecting the structural frame, while being fully disassembled for redevelopment.
Appendices
180
181
Competition
1:200 @ A5
WEST ELEVATION – STREETSCAPE The architectural language of the streetscape facade intends to subtlely blend with its context whilst having its identity through the definition of “homes” using the material breakups and colored awnings to deliver the intention. Pickett fencing is drawn as inspiration and
Appendices
182
183
Competition
1:200 @ A5
EAST ELEVATION Fenestrations to the east is minimized to reduce overlooking into adjacent properties and the windows are also directed with a angled fold-out to get natural lighting from the North
Appendices
184
185
Competition
1:200 @ A5
NORTH ELEVATION Living room fenestrations are maximized at the north-facing facades with operable awnings and shadings to mitigate the summer sun.
Appendices
186
187
Competition
1:200 @ A5
SOUTHERN ELEVATION As a passive design principle, southern facing windows are minimized in size and limited to only ventilating the rooms. The mesh screen with timber bench blends the service cupboards
Appendices
188
189
Competition
1:200 @ A5
NORTH-SOUTH SECTION The section shows the generous floor-to-ceiling height in the apartment units at 3 meters.
Appendices
190
191
Competition
Appendices
1:200 @ A5
EAST-WEST SECTION The basement does not exceed the first two blocks on the site to allow the pocket park to have deep soil planting opportunities. The two sections show the through-block links that breaks up the site composition making it less heavy and more humanly scaled.
Bibliography Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2016. 2016 Census QuickStats, viewed 14 August 2020, https:// quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/ Baumgartner, M. 1988. The Moral Order of the Suburbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borell, J., and Kate Shaw. 2016. “Design, allocations, management and social specifics: are there rules for stable arrangements in social housing?” New Community, local lives global matters 14, no.1, 59-66. Castells, M. 1997. The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Clark, Justine. 2013. “Atherton Gardens Social Housing”. Architecture Australia July/August, 2013. Cromley, C., E. 1998. Alone Together: A History of New York’s Early Apartments. Cornell: Cornell University Press Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. 2019. Victoria in Future 2019, viewed 26 August 2020, https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0032/332996/Victoria_in_ Future_2019.pdf Fincher, R. and Kate Shaw. 2006. “Transnational and temporary: place-making, students and community in central Melbourne.” Planning News Vol. 32, no.3, 12-13. Fisher, R.W Jane, Thach Duc Tran, Karin Hammargerg, Jayagowri Sastry, Hau Nguyen, Heather Rowe, Sally Popplestone, Ruby Stocker, Claire Stubber and Maggie Kirkman. 2020. “Mental health of people in Australia in the first month of COVID-19 restrictions: a national survey.” Medical Journal of Australia. Pre-print, 10 June 2020. Forrest, Ray, and Ade Kearns. 2001. “Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood.” Urban Studies 38, no.12, 2125-2143. Franklin, A and Bruce Tranter. 2011. “Housing, loneliness and health.” Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, no. 7 Gothe-Snape, Jackson, and Ken Macleod. 2017. Interactive map – Income Statistical Area Level 2, viewed 20 August 2020. http://www.sbs.co m.au/interactive/2017/income-sa2-201415/ Guest, A. and Wierzbicki S. 1999. “Social ties at the neighbourhood level: two decades of GSS evidence.” Urban Affairs Review 35, 92-111. Jane Jacobs. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Jama, Abdullahi, and Kate Shaw. 2017. “‘Why do we need social mix?’ Analysis of an Australian inner-city public housing redevelopment”. Submitted to Housing Studies.
Levin, Iris, Kathy Arthurson, Anna Ziersch. 2014. “Social mix and the role of design: Competing interests in the Carlton Public Housing Estate Redevelopment, Melbourne.” Cities: The international journal of urban policy and planning Vol. 40 Manca, R, A. 2014. “Social Cohesion” in Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research edited by Alex C. Michalos, 261 Morrow, V. 1999. “Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well-being of children and young people: a critical review.” Sociological Review 47, 745-765. Pahl, R. 1991. “The search for social cohesion: from Durheim to the European Commission.” European Journal of Sociology 32, 345-360. Perinotto, Tina. 2015. “Radical apartments: After The Commons, The Nightingale keeps ruffling feathers.” The Fifth State. 13 March 2015. https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/articles/radical-apartments-after-the-commons-the-nightingale-keeps-ruffling-feathers/ Raynor, Kate, Laura Panza, Camilo Ordonez, Mladen Adamovic, Melissa A. Wheeler. 2019. “Does social mix reduce stigma in public housing? A comparative analysis of two housing estates in Melbourne.” Cities: The international journal of urban policy and planning Vol. 96 doi: 10.1016/j. cities.2019.102458 Realestate.com.au. 2020. Neighbourhood statistics, viewed on 22 August 2020, https://www.realestate.com.au/neighbourhoods/ Smith, Ben J., and Lim MH. 2020. “How the COVID-19 pandemic is focusing attention on loneliness and social isolation”. Public Health Research & Practice 30, no.2 doi:10.17061/phrp3022008 Smith, Naomi, and Peter Walters. 2017. “Desire lines and defensive architecture in modern urban environments.” Urban Studies 55, no.13, 2980-2995. doi: 10.1177/0042098017732690 Shaw, Kate. 2013. “Social mix and the City: Challenging the Mixed Communities Consensus in Housing and Urban Planning Policies.” Housing Theory and Society 30, no.2. Stone, W., and Kath Hulse. 2007. “Housing and social cohesion: an empirical exploration.” AHURI Final Report No. 100 Warner, E., and Fiona J. Andrews. 2019. “Surface Acquantainces: Parents’ experiences of social connectedness and social capital in Australian high-rise developments.” Health and Place, no.58, 7