This episode was recorded on the land of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation. We pay our respects to their elders past, present and future.
Richard: Hello, and welcome to another episode of Precisely Property. I’m your host, Richard Temlett. I’m excited to have you with us today. If you’re here for the first time, thank you for joining us. I encourage you to listen to our previous episodes. We discuss all things property with a focus on dynamic discussions with industry leaders. In this episode, we’ll be discussing the world of property, construction and design through the lens of an architect with Domenic Cerantonio. So sit back, relax, and let’s get started.
As cofounder and managing principal of Cera Stribley, Domenic has specific expertise in concept design and the development of design solutions. Respected for his sensitivity toward local culture and project context, Domenic’s concise understanding of property is vital to achieving architectural integrity and maintaining commercially viable project outcomes. Welcome, Dom.
Domenic: Good morning, Richard. Thanks for having me.
Richard: Dom, as we discussed offline in today’s episode, we’re going to talk about the housing crisis gripping Australia at present and the role that planning and design can play to address the crisis. We’re then going to dive into what’s happening on the ground from a design perspective in the apartment and townhouse space. Dom, before we get into the session though, with all guests this season, I’d like to kick off with an icebreaker question. And the question is, what’s a recent project you’ve worked on that really excites you right now?
Domenic: We have recently finished a project in Brighton called Boxshall. It’s comprises of around 17 apartments that are certainly catered towards the higher end of the market. It was a collaboration with a Dutch interior design firm called Piet Boon, who are globally renowned. We completed that project at the end of last year, and it’s something that we’re very, very proud of as a firm. As a collective project team, we really push the boundaries in terms of design, and I think the outcome is certainly something that is different, unique, and architecturally quite beautiful. So, it’s something that we’re really proud of as an office.
Richard: Well, congratulations. And as I said to you offline, we actually do work with a lot of mutual clients, and you are extremely well regarded. Your work and the product that you deliver certainly speaks for itself. So, congratulations again, and it’s fantastic watching you climb through the ranks of how well you’re succeeding in your career.
Before we get into the session, I am keen for you to explain to our listeners who specifically Cera Stribley is and your role within it.
Domenic: Myself and Chris Stribley founded the firm around 11, 12 years ago now. We started off as a small practice that did a lot of residential houses and renovations. And, through the early part of our years, we quickly developed our practice into looking into more of that multi residential space and whether that was a townhouse development or small apartment projects. And then over time what we tried to do was blend our knowledge of single private residences into that multi resident space and try and bridge that gap between medium to high end housing or single housing into a more multi residential area. And as a result, I think that the firm really started to jump through some of that more high end multi residential work. And now, I think 10 years on, we’ve got 80 people, and we’re working across a range of different sectors, including multi residents, single residents, hotels, hospitality, retail, master planning, and commercial office. So it’s certainly been a wild ride for the last 12 years, but certainly something that’s been really enjoyable.
Richard: Well, I can’t wait to get into the second part of the session, which we’ll be talking about design in both apartments and townhouses. But, given that you’re across different sectors of the market, I’m interested to see what you might be considering bringing into that space from, for example, hotels, and that will be a large segment of today. But before we get into that, I’m keen to talk to you about the housing crisis.
Our listeners, just to bring them up to speed, we met, I think it was through…I’d certainly known of you before, but we officially met at one of the JLL lunches. I was presenting that day, and we were around the table talking about some of the issues that needed to be resolved, and it was mainly applicable to Melbourne. And it was really good. We got into good debates, and I could see how passionate you were about this element. The fact that we’re not building enough dwellings, the fact that there’s major issues with planning or design that could be avoided. And we subsequently called for coffee and had a fantastic discussion, and I shared my views, you shared your views. And I thought when I set up the podcast, you were one of the people that I had in mind to come on because you were highly educated with your views on the markets, and you weren’t afraid to speak your mind, which I thought was absolutely fantastic. And so, it’s in the spirit of those chats that we’ve had and then building on that. I’m keen for the first part of the session to talk about the housing crisis.
I’m aware now that you do a lot of work in Melbourne and Victoria, but you also do it interstate. So, for this, given that it is a housing crisis, it’s a national housing crisis, we can talk about what’s happening in the different states and what’s going well or what’s not going so well. Let’s start off, though, given we’re in Melbourne right now and there’s been significant planning reforms pushed through. When we were connecting for this podcast, you said, “oh, Richard, some of those planning reforms that we were talking about 12, 18 months ago now, some of them have actually come through.” I suppose the question is, what are your views on some of them how are you seeing them start to play out?
Domenic: When we caught up 18 months ago, I was talking a lot about removing the politics out of the approval process for multiunit development. Unfortunately, when I say politics, there is this fear of doing the wrong thing by people and the community as opposed to potentially approving a project that is by all means, quite right and suitable for that particular area. Some of the more recent reforms are allowing developers to run a process through the state government that removes that ability for third parties to appeal, which is certainly a great step in removing the political side of approving developments. So, from that perspective, I think it’s been really positive. There’s two key elements to that that can provide to the development community, and that is certainty around approvals, which is really important from for a number of reasons. Obviously, it gives developers the confidence to run the project but also gives investors the confidence to invest in that particular project and client.
The second part of it is time. We’ve worked on projects in the past that can take over three years to get approval. And the stress that puts on a particular client or project is quite immense for a few reasons. Obviously, the time cost of money, but also the way the market moves in that period and what might have been a really suitable project three years ago. You fast forward three years down the track, and the product mix might be all wrong. The design might be outdated or not suitable for that particular market at that given time. So, the time element is critical. The process that the state government has set up really does create certainty and brings down that time element, which obviously, when we’ve got a housing crisis and we’re trying to get dwellings built, these two elements are really critical to ensuring that we’ve got a pipeline of dwellings.
Richard: Great. I’m keen to build on that a little bit more. When we were in our, I think it was the JLL session you made a comment about and I 100% agree with you because you’re talking about submarkets within submarkets, and you went, it’s not great to have certain almost boilerplate or blanket designs that don’t respect the site or the location of a project. Each project is often very different, whether it’s site slope or views and so forth. I’m keen for you to please build on that a little bit more. But in light of the some of those planning announcements that the government has made for supply and approvals of low rise apartments and then townhouses in certain areas, what are your views on some of those, and how do you think they’re going to work practically in the industry?
Domenic: Sure. Well, I think I was referring to at that time was the state government in conjunction with the office of the Victorian Government Architect released a set of predesigned buildings, if you like, or designs that could be rolled out across the state in a very quick manner. And those designs were intended to sit on a particular site anywhere in the state, obviously ensuring that it met the criteria. Now from an architectural perspective, that is absolutely the wrong way to go about dealing with new buildings. We are quite passionate in our office that every site is different, and the design should really respond to each site differently and uniquely to ensure you get the best outcome. I suppose that probably leads into the next part of what I’m about to say, and that’s probably around if you look through the planning controls of Victoria, there are a lot of key controls or rules, if you like, that are quite specific. And, obviously, there are some that are mandatory and there’s some that are discretionary. In our experience, it’s very difficult to bend a discretionary control especially in an environment where you’ve got objectives and key stakeholders that want to ensure that everything’s done perfectly. But we firmly believe that there are multiple solutions to deal with any provision in the planning scheme.
And sometimes the one that ticks the box isn’t necessarily the best outcome. And we feel that as a designer, there’s sometimes a lack of freedom within our industry where architects and great designers can come up with really unique solutions that may be absolutely suitable and practical for that particular site problem or apartment. And, in some ways, as a result, you tend to get a lot of buildings that look and feel the same or products or outcomes or apartments. You don’t get that diversity in the markets, which I think potentially creates problems down the track and may be a significant contributor to the housing problem we have now.
One of the key things, and perhaps I’m jumping ahead here, Richard, but I’ll get into it, is about six years ago the state government released the Better Apartment Design Standards, what we call as BADS. And what that did was created minimum sizes for one, two-bedroom apartments, minimum room sizes, and it became quickly very difficult to design small apartments. Beyond that, since then there’s been also changes to the NCC, which is the National Construction Code, and a lot of changes around accessibility, which again, has further made it quite difficult to design small apartments. Now why does that have a big impact on our affordability issues? Well, when we first started this practice, we used to be able to do 65, 70 square metre, two-bedroom apartments. When you apply a sales rate to that number, it equates to a value. Now it’s very difficult to do two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartments below 75 square metres in today’s day. So almost overnight, we saw an increase in the value of an apartment, which when you combine that with construction pricing going up, it pushes the numbers up on everything. And what it’s done is it’s homogenised apartment design to a point where we can’t try and make smaller apartments. We can’t try and make cheaper apartments. The only way to make cheaper apartments is to build poorer quality apartments, which no one wants to do. One of the big things around planning and design for me is to provide more flexibility around the better apartment design standards, give architects and designers the ability to design great small apartments, which would then bring down the cost of those new apartments, which I think is absolutely critical in addressing the housing crisis that’s in front of us today.
Richard: Dom, I 100 % agree with you, and I did have a question, but I’m glad you’ve jumped into it about BADS and is that one of your solutions moving forward to provide an element of flexibility in BADS? Because from my end of the world, when I study the buyer market, certain people have certain incomes and they can afford a certain price point. Are you basically saying, was your view that if there was more flexibility in the BADS, we could still get livable but smaller apartments, which by their very nature are actually more affordable and could help with the housing crisis?
Domenic: Absolutely. It’s important to say that the introduction of BADS came from a good place. There were certainly, I think, a time in particular, a lot of the buildings in the central city that were built quite poorly and apartments that probably didn’t meet the market standard. And those apartment standards were brought in to try and curb that current trend that was occurring at that time. So, I understand why they’re there.
I suppose from my perspective, there shouldn’t be a blanket enforcement on everybody. There are a number of really talented designers in this state that have the ability to still design really quality small apartments. And I think they are site dependent, coming back to my comment earlier about site. There are certain sites that will enable you to design those quality smaller apartments. I’ve always been a big believer in letting the market either accept them or not accept them. And the site will enable you to either design them smaller or not. A good architect and a good designer and a good development team will be able to determine that.
So, I think flexibility is the key. I don’t think they should be wiped out altogether. I just think that there needs to be more discretion and genuine flexibility as opposed to the one intent that you might be able to get through a certain authority. One of the issues we’ve seen is that anytime a project goes to the tribunal, VCAT, we often have to get experts, and the experts come along and they will review your proposal. And if it’s not meeting everything perfectly, then there’s a requirement to change. And that’s where the flexibility part is removed. If that flexibility could be bought into the BADS provisions, then I think we would start to see more diversity of apartment dwelling design, and as a result, potentially more affordable new apartments, which I think is what we’re all crying out for.
Richard: I 100% agree with you, and I realise that that affordability issue and the BADS they were well intentioned, but with that element of flexibility will then come that diversity of product type, and that is then responding to what market demand and what market wants. And I certainly agree with you, and I know we believe in the same thing in terms of being market led. Because I think sometimes the government have forgotten that developers are not idiots, and so they will understand their target market, what they want, what they can afford, because they’re basically taking on significant risk to do these developments. And so, the point about being market led, let the market decide, it’s absolutely critical. And, unfortunately, I sometimes have felt or observed when I study these projects that sometimes these planning guidelines and so forth can actually act as barriers that distort or impact the buyer marker and then ultimately the end delivery of supply.
Can I ask, you’re obviously active, particularly in Brisbane and then in New South Wales. There’s been a lot of planning reforms in New South Wales. What do the state governments or even the federal governments, from your view of the world, need to be aware of to start to assist with the housing crisis? What else could be done?
Domenic: As I mentioned a bit earlier, I think the system up in Brisbane is actually quite positive. Their system and certainly, it would seem like Melbourne is heading in that direction with the recent announcements. If you’ve got a site that has a set of rules and you put forward a proposal that meets those rules perfectly, then there really needs to be the ability for that project to be fast tracked and approved quite quickly. If you’ve got a site where you believe as a developer or architect or team that those rules can be pushed, you should be well within your rights to be able to do that, but you might find that you go through a process that’s a little bit more long winded and more heavily scrutinised, and that’s also perfectly fine.
I think in Victoria, we haven’t had the ability to have that code assessment in planning and the approvals process. We’re just recently starting to see that. There’s still some limitations to that. However, I think, again, coming back to that idea of time and certainty, those are the two critical elements in development. And if we can really improve on that as a community, then I think we’ll really speed up a lot of projects, which is critical.
I think coming back to the question around what do governments need to be aware of, I think time is something that seems to be not in the forefront of any politician’s mind. But the time cost of money and the impact that has on developers is quite significant, and the time cost it takes for a project to get to market. And then the lag and the compounding lag that has on having the delivery of these projects.
Obviously, taxation is a big one at the moment, particularly here in Victoria. The amount of levies and taxes that are being imposed on developers, in my opinion, is quite unfair. There seems to be a view that developers make a lot more money than everybody else in the community. I think a lot of people probably don’t understand the type of risks and pressure that these people and groups take on. My view, it’s they deserve the rewards, because a lot of them don’t actually… you know not everyone wins, so to speak.
And then the third thing from a government perspective is product and diversity of product and giving architects and designers the freedom to design in a way that can positively contribute to the community. I think a lot of architects at their core want to create really good outcomes. We’re passionate about design. It’s the only reason we stay in this industry. And most of us, I think, are really passionate about creating great buildings and great houses and great offices and great hotels. And, sometimes you can get forced into a corner as a designer, and it forces you to create an outcome that you might not be proud of. There’s project fatigue, coming back to the time component where if you get pushed around or the project drags on a lot longer than you think it should have, it can wear any designer and development team down. So, I think freedom of design is critical. I think acknowledging the time cost of development, ensuring that things can be fast tracked as quickly as possible, which I’ve seen, this the Victorian government in particular has paid quite close attention to this as they have in New South Wales as well. And then the cost and the taxation side, I think, is critical.
The fourth thing that governments can look at, I think, is we’ve seen inflation in construction over the last three years grow at a rate that I certainly haven’t seen in my career. And the cost of construction now is making a lot of projects very difficult to stack up. I think from a planning perspective, flexibility in controls that allow additional height or upside within a project, I think, would be great to see more consistently throughout the planning scheme to facilitate some of these things. I’ve often talked about, particularly here in Victoria where we’ve got capped three level buildings or four level buildings in particular zones. We’ve got design and development overlays that restrict buildings to five levels, six levels, seven levels, which is fine. I understand that there’s an urban design argument around all these things, but there are a number of sites that sit within these controls that can handle more height. And so rather than having blanket rules that that sit over particular areas, a little bit more flexibility and height where sites can handle that height and that upside, I think, would give development teams the opportunities to see these projects through as opposed to being stagnated on because they can’t make it work financially. I think this is one of the great things that we’ve seen in Sydney, and I can’t remember the name of the program, for example, if you provide x amount of affordable housing, you can see a 15%, 20%, 30% uplift in your FSR (floor space ratio). And I think these things are really good. It’s enabling the government to get what they want out of a project, but at the same time, the developer gets something out of it as well. So you get a win-win, and I’d like to see that more in Victoria. We’re certainly starting to see that through the department and their fast track or their facilitation program. It is only really relevant for projects that are a value of $50 million and above. It would be great if we could see that number drop, and we could bring more projects into that system. But, obviously, there’s probably a resourcing issue around the state government being able to do that. As I know, they’ve been inundated with applications, which, again, has been a really positive thing in the last 6-12 months.
Advertisement: Quickly interrupting this episode to tell you about Charter Keck Cramer. Charter Keck Cramer is an independent property advisory firm with offices in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Through our collaboration with Andersen Global, we connect with over 18,000 professionals around the world. We provide strategic property advisory services spanning multiple market sectors. Our advisory team provides specialist advice across transaction management, tenant representation and lease negotiation, strategic portfolio reviews, development advisory and more.
Complementing this, the capital division advises on structured property partnerships connecting property owners and tier one developers. Our extensive valuations coverage includes prestige residential and greenfield development markets, together with all commercial asset classes. Quantity surveying is at the core of the projects team, ensuring cost control from planning through to post construction. And our research team delivers property data and analytics across the residential living sector, along with expertise in strategic land use planning and urban economics. With specialists across a diversity of sectors, Charter Keck Cramer is your trusted property advisor.
Now let’s get back into the episode.
Richard: Let’s shift gear. And speaking of good design, I am keen to talk to you a little bit about what you’re seeing both in the apartment and the townhouse space in terms of good design. I’m a big believer in being design-led and designing for your target market. And there’s a number of our listeners who are our mutual clients, and they have been very complimentary of the designs and the outside of the box thinking that you’ve done more recently. So, let’s start with apartments. What is happening in this sector, and what also needs to be done to educate the buyer market about apartment living?
Domenic: It’s a great question, Richard. We’ve often talked about in our medium to more high-end design work about bridging the gap between established housing and apartment living. And we have a baby boomer… we’ve got a population that are coming out of that era that have a lot of money and are selling their established homes that they’ve been in for 10, 15, 30, 40 years, and will most likely be moving into apartments. For a lot of people, that’s a difficult jump. There’s also I think, you might have mentioned it earlier in this interview that I think there is a shift in particular, in Victoria or in Australia towards apartment living as a preference. Certainly, I had a conversation with somebody yesterday, a client, about, in particular, we’ve got a crime issue, and a lot of people are saying, “you know what? I don’t want a house in a street anymore because I’m afraid, and I want to move into an apartment.”
I think we’ve seen that shift in the community in a greater preference towards apartment living. And for us, what we’ve really tried to do ever since the inception of Cera Stribley is how can we bridge that gap? What are those things to us? The obvious one is size and trying to create bigger apartments that give people that impression that they’re not in a shoebox. Two, we try and create larger balconies than what the BADs force us to do. And the minimum requirements are 8sqm for a one- and two-bedroom apartment, and the 12 sqm for a three-bedroom apartment. A lot of our projects more recently, we won’t do a three-bedroom with less than 20sqm. And it’s really about creating that opportunity for people to have genuine outdoor living within their apartments. So I think having that outdoor space is really critical.
We have just launched a landscape component to our business. We’re trying to integrate landscaping more into apartments. So have balconies that have in-built planter boxes and can really promote greenery that is actually great for the human experience and creates positivity. And, again, it’s about drawing that link to the garden. You might not have that big garden and grass, but you’ve got a beautiful landscaped balcony. And so that’s one of the key components in drawing that connection.
One of the other really big things, and it’s probably one of our key focuses in design, and that is access to light. I’ve got a bit to say on this, some good, some bad. I think from a first principles perspective, we will always try and maximise the amount of apartments that have got a northern outlook and then, obviously, try and reduce the amount of south facing apartments in any project. What we’ve done on a number of projects, we’ve got one that’s just about to launch in Balwyn where there is not one apartment that is sole south facing in the entire development. And we’ve done that by creating breaks in the building, giving those more southern apartments multiple aspects, whether that’s south and east or south and west. We think this is really important to ensuring that you’re not feeling like you’re in an apartment with three walls. I think that’s one of the critical things. Having apartments that have multiple aspects to daylight is really important. We’ve also looked at light courts and light voids through projects, which again, promotes light through deeper apartment buildings. And then we often incorporate two lift cores, which again, enables us to get more opportunities to bring light in in different directions.
One really good example was Rondure House in Kew where the client was quite specific in their brief to us that they wanted as many apartments facing north as possible. And if you think of a standard floor plate and a core in the middle and you pinwheel the apartments around, there’s obviously going to be one side that faces north and one side that faces south. But by creating two cores, it enables you to get more product on the northern side. And I think it’s a really good example of thinking outside the box in terms of how we plan apartment floor plates. And so I think that was one of our early examples of where we’ve done that quite successfully, and it’s certainly something that we’ve taken on onboard through a number of new projects that we’re working on today.
On the topic of light, and I probably should have mentioned this earlier, one of the biggest issues in our industry at the moment is the daylight requirements that are being enforced upon us. And there’s some key metrics that are pushing a certain standard from a daylighting perspective, and I’m sure every architect will agree with me when I say this, but it’s creating some very poor outcomes from a planning sense. We’ve seen apartment design almost go backwards in the last two years due to daylighting alone. And we can have apartments that are facing north with huge windows, great outlook, and they still don’t meet the test because of a day lighting system that, to be honest, is not really that comprehensible when you see some of the results. This is something that is shared by a number of my peers and I think it really does need a review, because some of the outcomes we’re seeing are just honestly, quite ridiculous.
Richard: Very interesting to hear. Thank you for that. Before we jump onto townhouses, what are your views or what are you seeing on the ground with respect to storage space? Are we building enough of it? Is it undervalued? What are you seeing there?
Domenic: It depends on the project. It depends on the market. I think when we’re talking about downsizers and that market, they’re certainly coming along from an established house where they’ve probably got a lot of stuff. So having that additional storage space is actually really important. And going over and above, I think, will never hurt a developer or a project, subject to having the available space to do so.
The next part of that is – what does that space look like? Is it usable? Is it functional? Is there opportunities to use it in different ways? Again, on some of our projects, we’ve gone over and above with our storage space and given people the flexibility to use it in a number of different ways. In some of our…I know you’re about to get to townhouses, but I’ll probably jump ahead again. In some of our more recent townhouse developments, we have basement parking. And rather than just providing the garage and then access up into the townhouse, we’ve been creating more space within that basement, which is clearly accessible from the townhouse above. And given our clients or the future purchasers, the flexibility of what do you want with this space? Do you want it as overflow storage? Do you want to use it as a small gym? Do you want it as a cinema room? And trying to give people the flexibility around if you do want storage, you can have it. It’s a trade off as everything is, but we certainly can provide it.
And I think storage is a really critical thing. It’s how can you create value out of storage space, and can you sell that for a number? Whether you can or not, it probably depends on the project. But, certainly, without a doubt, it would create a more attractive product. Therefore, the apartments become more saleable.
Richard: Great. Well, let’s jump into townhouses. The first question I had for you, what are your views on three-level and four-level townhouses? Are you doing much in that space? Do you like them? Do you not like them?
Domenic: When you say three- and four-level, are you including the basement?
Richard: No. Basically, three living areas with sets of either stairs or a lift.
Domenic: We have never done a four-level townhouse. I must admit that sounds a little ridiculous, but I suppose it depends on the context, the markets, the location. I remember a project in Collingwood that was done by another architecture firm, and I believe it was their own development. And I think it had four or five levels.
Richard: Wow. Ok.
Domenic: And I remember seeing it thinking I loved it. I thought it was fantastic. I thought it was really appropriate for the area. And I remember hearing this particular architect talk about the project, and he was laughed out the door by a number of different sales agents because they just thought it would never sell. And he went on to say that they sold really well and it ended up being a fantastic project. Good on them for having the courage to be able to do that. I don’t think another developer would have done that project. I think you could say that an architect had done it and had a vision for it. But coming back to the question, so four-level townhouses, I think anywhere in the outer ring you would struggle. I think there’s probably a place for them in the inner more gritty suburbs. So somewhere like Fitzroy, Abbotsford, Richmond. If you’ve got an ability to create a product like that, I think you certainly could. We’ve done a number of three-level townhouses, so three plus a basement with lifts. We often design them in a way where the lift is an optional upgrade. And to be honest, I would say 89% of the case that option is taken up.
Richard: Out of interest to why?
Domenic: Well, one is there’s definitely a mobility and accessibility component to it, but I think it’s also about future proofing the townhouse. If someone’s buying that to live in it for 5-10 years and then sell it, they want the ability for anyone that they wouldn’t want to put that product into a position that would need to impact their ability to sell it in the future. So, the cost of some of these small residential lifts aren’t anywhere near as expensive as they used to be, and I think it certainly makes a lot of sense for them to go in.
You’ve also got to remember that there’s a basement as well. So there are actually four levels. And if your master bedroom’s on the top floor and you’ve left something in your car, you’ve got to walk down four levels and go back up. I do think having that lift is a really positive thing, and I think the development in that space over the last 10 years has enabled us to create smaller, more efficient, and more sustainable lifts that are actually quite suitable for those townhouses.
I think, again, a lot of the townhouse development that we’ve seen has changed quite a lot over the last five years, and a lot of that’s got to do with a policy that we colloquially call, the garden area reforms. And it really prevented developers, well really moved development away from having on grade car parking and forced a lot of people to create basements for townhouse developments to be able to get the yields up. And so, I think that question around multi three-, four-, five-level townhouses has changed over that period. I think a two-level plus basement townhouse is the perfect product. I certainly think there’s a space for three-level townhouses plus basement, so long as they’re designed quite carefully and there’s an ability to move throughout that townhouse in a really smooth way. I think four-level plus basement townhouses are difficult and probably only suitable for a really inner-city context, but who knows?
Richard: Great. What about what are you seeing with multigenerational living in terms of, and so for our listeners, when I spoke with some of the developers, they’re investigating multigenerational living, which is maybe a three- or four-bedroom townhouse, often with a bedroom and an ensuite bathroom on the ground floor for the parents or the grandparents who are less mobile to live. And what they’ve observed is that that seems to be allowing certain families to live together. Perhaps that’s also how they’re actually financing it. But from a design perspective, are you seeing that as a trend? Is it quite common amongst certain ethnicities, or what are you seeing in that space?
Domenic: So we’ve worked on a few projects that have catered to those needs or requirements for living. One was a project we worked on with PACE in Sunshine, where we developed, I can’t remember how many townhouses, but there were a number of townhouses, and they were larger. So, they were your three- and four-bedrooms, typically sizes anywhere between 180-240 square metres. And they are multilevel. They’ve got multiple different living spaces and typically, almost have two master wings, and that it certainly is catering for those communities that want to live in that way. I think a lot of the more central city or that 5-10km ring type of work doesn’t really look at that. I think a lot of the townhouse developments that we’ve been working on recently are really catering towards rightsizers, downsizers, and even young families in many ways. We would rarely do a force four-bedroom townhouse. I can’t recall working on one in the inner ring. I’m trying to think of one, I actually can’t. I think it’s certainly something for some of the outer suburbs. And, again, some of the…I suppose even Greenfield as housing estate work and some of the townhouses or homes that you see in those areas is where you’re starting to see a lot of that that product. But we haven’t seen a lot of it in the city.
Richard: Great. Well, Dom, I know we’ve got through a lot today. Did you want to have any other final points that you’d like either government or the listeners to leave today’s session thinking about?
Domenic: I’ve mentioned a few things, but I think we’ve got a great opportunity right now to really shape our city the way we want. We’ve got demand for housing there, which is only growing by the way. I mean, the migration data I just saw recently was quite astonishing. We’ve got a fantastic opportunity to create new buildings and new dwellings and reprioritise some of our activity centers in a way that can promote a way of life that we’re really proud of. I think the way to do that is to provide a platform or a framework for the market, private development, architects and designers, and all the other consultants that are involved in our industry give us the freedom to do that because I know that there is an ability and a want and a desire to do that. I think we’ve just felt quite hamstrung from a planning policy, from a taxation perspective over the last 5, 10 years.
It’s been great to see the Victorian government lift some of the stamp duty costs associated with off the plan sales. I believe that’s a one-year thing to date. Whether that gets extended or not, I don’t know. But I think it would be really good to see that extended, if not something more permanent because I think that was one of the pivotal moments in our industry where off the plan sales changed. And we need to bring back investors into the market. We need to encourage the off the plan sales, and we need to incentivise people to do that.
So, some of the policies around development, I think could move from a position of how can we make money from people, from client, from developers to how can we incentivise development within the community and allow our own community to do the heavy lifting for us. I think that will be able to move us quicker towards addressing the housing issues as well as creating better buildings that are better for the community, and will ensure a better life for all Victorians and Australians.
Richard: Great. Well, Dom, let’s close off today’s session. Thank you so much for taking time out of your very busy day to come and share your thoughts. I will certainly post all the links to your website and any relevant articles and things like that just so that the audience can get in contact with you. So, thanks very much again.
Domenic: Thank you very much for having me, Richard. It’s been great.
Richard: Hi, everyone. I hope you really enjoyed the session with Dom talking about elements of design and architecture in the market. I found it absolutely fantastic and very insightful, and I hope that you learned the volume of information that you can gain from having someone who’s an expert in the industry, in the sector to help with your projects.
The three things that I would like you to take away from today and again, have a think about and how you can apply across your various projects when your investment and your development decisions are as follows.
He made some very well-made points and have made a lot recently about planning, providing certainty with respect to time and to costs. I don’t really need to go over that anymore because it has been rehearsed to death by now. But, it’s so important to have both a lot more certainty with respect to time, with cost, and that’s a huge role and an easy win that the planning system can create.
The second point that I thought was very telling, and I can’t help thinking that this is going to be a really good discussion piece that’s going to evolve in the next decade is looking at the BADs, the Better Apartment Design Standards and the National Construction Code and also coming up with a more flexible scheme to allow the delivery of diverse and more affordable types of dwellings. I thought it was fascinating to hear Dom’s comments about pre-BADs, the ability to do two-bedroom dwellings at a smaller size and then ultimately a smaller price point. I’m absolutely convinced that there needs to be a greater level of flexibility in the planning scheme to allow designs for both medium and high density dwellings over different levels to respond to the location that they’re in, and there is a huge opportunity for governments to facilitate the supply of more affordable dwellings through allowing flexibility in the BADS designs, which ultimately then can flow through into more compact forms of dwellings, which are still very well designed and are still very livable. And I think right now that’s another easy win that the planning system can facilitate rather than hinder the delivery of dwellings right now.
Dom also made a passing comment that really stuck in my mind that I’m actually going to be stealing this idea and using it using it into the future, although I’ll always give credit back to the people that come up with these ideas. I think that there’s a mindset shift that needs to occur across the industry at federal, state, and local government level. Rather than looking at taxing the industry, why don’t we consider incentivising the industry? It’s almost like the other side of the same coin. I think maybe in sources like that carrot and stick approach, and I feel that incentivising the industry, how can government incentivise the industry to deliver more dwellings, better design dwellings, and more affordable dwellings that ultimately will allow the governments to achieve some of their targets, not just with housing, but also with raising revenue. I just think that having that mindset approach may well actually start to transform the industry in a very positive way.
Those are the three points. The final point that we didn’t get on to, but as Dom was leaving, he raised it with me, and I wanted to plant the seed with everyone, and please do reach out to him or myself if you’d like to discuss this further, is the opportunity with loft apartments. We’re seeing that more and more, and I’ve seen it in certain developments. And it’s causing a bit of debate in the industry about who will accept the loft apartments. I’ve seen some very good designs of them both in Melbourne and Sydney and I’m convinced that that’s another evolution of the apartment market. It certainly is quite prominent that I’ve seen overseas, for example, in New York with different levels of living in an apartment over different floors or mezzanine levels. And I’m convinced that there’s also a very clever use of both space, size, and then light in the apartment. And moving forward, I again, I feel that there’s an opportunity for certain areas or certain projects to have loft apartments to respond to market demand. I hope that again plants a seed.
Please reach out to either of us if you’d like to discuss this further. And, again, I hope that you really enjoyed the session with Dom. Thanks very much. Bye.
Thank you very much for listening to this podcast. If you enjoyed the episode, please make sure to subscribe to our podcast so you never miss an episode as we’ve got more exciting content coming. We’d love to hear your thoughts. Please leave us a review on either Spotify or Apple Podcasts as it really helps us to grow. Also, follow us on Instagram at Precisely Property for updates and join the conversation. If you’d like to get in touch with us subscribe to our newsletter via our website, charterkc.com.au, or write to us at podcast@charterkc.com.au.
Lastly, if you found this episode interesting, please share it with your friends and family. Thank you again for listening and stay tuned for our next episode dropping in two weeks’ time, plus bonus content also on the horizon.
Disclaimer: Precisely Property is a podcast presented by Charter Keck Cramer and is for educational purposes only. Nothing in this podcast should be taken as investment or financial advice. Please engage the services of an appropriate professional adviser to provide advice suitable to your personal circumstances. The views expressed by our podcast guests may not represent those of Charter Keck Cramer.
