Hobart City aldermen and councillors email exchange over building heights

Hobart City aldermen and councillors have exchanged heated emails as a debate over building heights limits looms.

Lord Mayor Anna Reynolds sent the first email in what developed into a heated exchange between aldermen and councillors. Picture: EDDIE SAFARIK

Hobart City aldermen and councillors have exchanged heated emails as a debate over building heights limits looms.

From Cr Anna Reynolds, December 16 14.17:

Hello everyone,

I am replying in this thread, but I want to note for the record that Mr Villanueva’s email is the only email received at the AldermanicContactsPublic email address that advocates against the City Planning Committee’s recommendation on height limits.

On the other hand, at this stage, all of us have also received 190+ emails to the same AldermanicContactsPublic address urging us to endorse the Planning Committee’s recommendations.

These emails are from architects and urban planners, but they are mainly from residents of the Hobart Council area. Many of them raise very thoughtful points about the economic and social value of Hobart retaining its strong heritage character and brand.

I do not agree with the arguments trying to link height limits with housing affordability as they are simplistic, absurd and unsubstantiated. My reasoning for stating this is as follows:

• Increasing density and building more apartments in Hobart certainly forms one part of the answer for tackling our current housing squeeze, but that is not achieved simply through increasing height limits and creating taller and taller buildings.
• Medium-rise, medium-density developments (3-7 storeys) can also achieve greater housing supply and choice, while at the same time providing access to open space, the benefits of an urban lifestyle, reduced dependency on private vehicles, more energy efficiency and the retention of existing neighbourhood character.
• Cities such as Paris, Vienna, Washington DC, London, Barcelona and many others demonstrate that high densities are possible, while still achieving people and place friendly design, yet without the need for high-rise towers on every corner.
• Medium-density housing is often called the “missing middle” because it is currently the most desirable form of housing but many cities are not providing adequate stock. Indeed the RBA article quoted by Mr Villanueva makes this very point.
• The Grattan Institute studies into affordable housing have shown that people tend to favour medium-density development as their preferred housing option and note that there is: “Not enough medium-density housing, such as mid-rise and low-rise apartments, townhouses and terraces, has been built in the established suburbs of our major cities closest to most new jobs and existing infrastructure.” Grattan Institute, 2018, https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/901-Housing-affordability.pdf
• It is the perfect time for Hobart to encourage graduated or ‘gentle density’ that is responsive to our city character and provides for a variety of housing development types in appropriate locations.
• Imagine if Hobart can fill this niche by actively working to encourage greater development of medium-density housing in the commercial zone and midtown areas, as well as along the rail corridor? Having height limits will help us to actively encourage this kind of development.
• The CBD (zone 1) is unlikely to be a place for the provision of affordable or even medium cost housing. It is far more useful for us to focus on the areas identified in the (yet to be released) study we have all been provided from UTAS which shows the under-utilised areas in the commercial zone, where there is potential for 20,000 or more people to be housed at relatively low height limits.
• We know from recent experience in other capital cities that when inner-city areas are redeveloped (like Pyrmont or Docklands), they usually become high-rise apartments designed for high-end buyers, as these offer developers the greatest returns.
• These higher-density, high-rise dwellings (9 storeys / 30 metres or more) are largely off-limits to poorer households. The only way that cities ensure affordable housing in high-rise development is via inclusionary zoning – which is a legal requirement that developers include a percentage of affordable units in their developments.
• If we set our height rules to encourage more of the high-end high-rise, rather than the “missing middle” medium density, it will impact on our city’s social and economic fabric, and not necessarily in a positive way.
• The provision of affordable housing and the policy levers to achieve this is a huge area of research and policy discussion in Australia. While increasing density is one of the tools identified it is certainly not the only one, and increasing heights doesn’t really appear in Australian housing policy research at all!
• Bodies such as the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and Shelter have investigated the causes of and solutions to housing affordability in Australia and height limits are not on the list. What is includes:
• The provision of public/social housing has not kept pace with population growth. The stock of social housing – currently around 400,000 dwellings – has barely grown in 20 years, while the population has increased by 33 per cent.
• Negative gearing has creating an unfair and inflated housing market that penalises first home buyers.
• In places like central Hobart, visitor accommodation platforms have emerged to meet the changing demands of the tourism sector, but inadequate regulation has led to this being more attractive for many property owners than the long term rental market.

There are many other solutions, some of which local government can assist in implementing, including encouraging and incentivising strategic medium-density development and sensitive urban infill.

Urban infill across the entire central Hobart area can occur with the height limits proposed by the City Planning Committee. The area covered is more than 60 blocks and allows for maximum heights of 5–15 storeys.

The proposed changes can allow for a lot of the new housing needed for a growing population, without damaging the quality of the streets and public spaces below by blocking sunlight, increasing wind strength, and obstructing sky views.

We can encourage medium-density residential development with the proposed height rules without damaging our brand as Australia’s best-kept heritage capital city. These qualities are of enormous economic, social and cultural value.

Regards, Anna

Anna Reynolds

Lord Mayor of Hobart

From Cr Mike Dutta, December 16 16.52:

Hi Anna

Thank you for your email.

Have noted your points. Will continue to keep an open mind and listen to all the facts, arguments from different perspectives and evidence and then decide.

Cheers

Mike

From Ald Marti Zucco, December 16 19.33:

Dear Lord Mayor

Based on your assumptions we should NOT support dark MOFO as we received far more emails not to support Dark Mofo than on this issue?? That is not how I make decisions nor should any local Government elected representative.

Decision making is NOT based on which group or groups get together to send bulk emails to elected members or how many turn up at meetings.

Decision making is about proper evaluation of reports of fact.

My observations of your email suggests that elected members should make decisions based on how many emails they receive or which group lobbies the most?? That is NOT how good decisions are made and nor what the Local Government Act refers to how elected members base their decision making on.

A very poor analysis all because YOU may have only received one email regarding the Planning committee decision if Alderman/Councillors must give weight to that in decision making and based on your evaluation, the HCC may as well not have a planning department or a general Manager as the we as elected representatives may as well make decision based on “emails” received! Well then we also may as well through the science out on any climate change decision making as well and the list can go on.

I will not be making decisions on your suggested approach and nor should any elected representative.

I totally respect and agree with the comments made by Councilor Dutta as that is what good decision making should be based on.

Yours sincerely

Alderman Zucco

From Ald Simon Behrakis, December 16 21.11

Dear Lord Mayor,

With all due respect, I am unsure how the assertion could be made that any suggestion of correlation between building restrictions and housing prices have no merit, given the wealth of information that is available in academia to the contrary.

The Reserve Bank of Australia (who could hardly be thought to be fearmongering on behalf of vested interests) reports an observable and measurable correlation between building restrictions and housing prices in Melbourne and Sydney, with the regulatory burden of building restrictions contributing up to 40% of current housing prices. I would hardly call research by our Nation’s central bank as “simplistic, absurd and unsubstantiated”.

A research paper published by Urban Economist Alain Bertaud from NYU and Jan K. Brueckner, Professor of Economics at the University of Illinois suggests;

“If housing demand continues to grow, as seems likely, then existing zoning restrictions will bind more tightly and place continuing upward pressure on housing prices. Policy changes that make zoning restrictions less binding, whether directly (e.g. increasing building height limits) or indirectly, via reducing underlying demand for land in areas where restrictions are binding (e.g. improving transport infrastructure), could reduce this upward pressure on housing prices.”

It also suggests that depending on the geography and other economic and cultural variables, the effect of lowering building heights could either improve travel around the city and reduce infrastructure or travel costs, or conversely have the opposite effect and place a higher cost of living on residents (up to 6%) due to increased commuting, and place a high burden on governments because of a greater requirement for infrastructure investment.

This leads into my next point; One of the most important things I was taught whilst earning my Economics Degree is that it is a folly to attempt to infer correlation or causation with anecdotal information, or even empirical information that was gathered from a different subject (in this case, City). It would be as silly for me to suggest that building heights will add 40% to the cost of housing because of the results gathered by the RBA in Melbourne and Sydney, as saying that there will be no impact because “France seems to do a good enough job with low buildings so why not us?”. The analogy about comparing apples and pears comes to mind.

Rather than suggesting as statement of fact that the economic results of these height changes will be either this or that, good or bad, it is absolutely crucial that research is performed as to how changes to our city’s building height rules will effect Hobart specifically. The only way we can make an informed decision is to investigate, whilst taking into considerations the variables that describe the economic nature of our city, what potential impacts will result out of the proposed limits.

Rather than making assertions that these reforms will either lead us to Utopia or Dystopia, we owe it to the taxpayer to conduct this research and make an informed decision on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Alderman Simon Behrakis

From Cr Mike Dutta, December 16 21.28:

Simeon

Thank you for your email. You have pointed out few valid points.

Cheers

Mike

From Cr Anna Reynolds, December 17 07.01:

Dear Simon,

This RBA article talks generically about the impact of zoning and building restrictions. We all know that planning tools probably have an impact on the housing market, but there are 3 problems with conflating this with our heights debate...

- given the Australian community’s expectation for reasonable city planning and building controls, some of these costs are simply part of the cost of doing business in the development sector. I don’t think many residents of Hobart would accept the whole scale removal of planning and building controls,

- the article talks generically about zoning and building controls, whereas you are trying to focus simply on height limits in a specific part of our CBD,

- rather than focusing on one article, if we look at the many, many articles by housing economists and housing policy experts we would find them pointing to a range of other factors that push up housing prices. Most articles point to other factors being more significant and other levers able to be pulled to tackle these issues.

On the question of doing research - the potential range of economic, social and urban planning issues that may need to be considered as part of the proposed amendments will be well and truly investigated as part of the Tasmanian Planning Commission process we are about to embark upon.

A range of experts and interest groups can make submissions, the Tas Planning Commission then holds public hearings and all of the issues you want to see investigated can be examined. This is the broadest, most transparent and thorough process for looking at the issues associated with proposed amendments.

Regards, Anna

From Cr Anna Reynolds, December 17 07.20:

Dear Marti,

No I simply pointed out, for the record, that we have only received 1 email (using that common email address) against the Planning Committee’s recommendations. But you will note that my long email then goes on to present a range of other information and research that I think is relevant and factual for my decision-making.

I think we are all drawing on research and facts, and this is positive.

While there is clearly different points of view on the level of height limits, I also see a lot of common interest and concern for tackling housing supply in Hobart. This is also positive.

Cheers, Anna

From Ald Marti Zucco, December 17 08.58:

Dear Lord Mayor

Sorry you fail to understand that restrictions will see more rental stress and less affordable housing the commercial sector is providing more affordable housing in English through increased Density through bonus plot ratios and heights

My notice if motion was all about that the only way to get more affordable housing and reduce rental stress is provide these extra benefits to ANY size developer whether it’s someone who wants to add two apartments to their back yard or medium to large Developments there is no need to throw money at them just allow them to build more restrictions as you are proposing WITHOUT any report to justify it is is not scientific nor a solution

The utas accommodation in Melville street is a prime example of providing more height and more accommodation

You fail to grasp that if you want more affordable housing and revitalize property then you need to allow the private sector to work with local government as it does overseas or restrict because you are lobbied

This is one of the biggest mistakes that this council will ever make if it gets through tonight

ALL Alderman Councilors who seek more housing should not support the pluck a duck hight limit it must be done in a proper process and that has NOT occurred

Simple as that ......you are not a professional in this domain so maybe it’s time to listen to those who have far more expertise in this domain than any of us elected members ...Leigh wolley is one that had that expertise and out planning department another

Sincerely

Ald Zucco

From Cr Holly Ewin, December 17 09.47:

I’ve been reading stacks of reports and research about height limits to help me make my decision at tonight’s meeting. Here are my current thoughts:

1. There hasn’t been any proper consideration of social, economic or environmental impacts of restricting height to 45m.

2. Imposing an arbitrary height limit such as this seems just that: arbitrary.

3. There are similar cities across the world (such as Wellington in NZ) which have retained their character AND have buildings up to 115ish metres tall

4. If we’d had this height restriction a few months ago, the new uni accommodation would be well over- and there already isn’t enough space for current students, let alone next semester’s intake

5. It’s true that building costs grow exponentially after you reach a certain height; but those are like Melbourne and Sydney level skyscrapers. Nobody here wants those. But the cost of land in Hobart being what it is, going up is the only socially, economically and environmentally sound thing to do. Not up as in 500m, but up as in 70-80m.

6. Hobart has so many heritage listed buildings. That means that we are quite limited in the scope of development in and around the CBD; even more so if we were to restrict all new developments to 45m.

In summary; I do not want to impose height limits without proper studies being done into its implications. There is a very vocal group of people lobbying for 45m limit. However they have the education, time, space and knowledge to lobby for what they want. We haven’t asked what other groups think, for example young people, homeless people and the working poor, who may not have that level of knowledge or skills, and they need to be heard too.

I want to ensure council is doing all it can to prevent worsening the housing crisis, and to make Hobart liveable, sustainable and friendly; because that is so much more important than arbitrarily preventing any sort of change, at any cost.

From Cr Mike Dutta, December 17 11.33:

Holly

Some good points.

Kind regards

Mike