Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
Place making
in estate renewal:
Reflections from the past 20 years
Bernie Coates
Research Fellow
City Futures Research Centre
UNSW
Four places:
Claymore
 East Fairfield
 Minto
 Dubbo

Social investment
Exit
Redevelopment
Exit
All highly disadvantaged social housing
estates
1
Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
Seminar themes:

Place making: great places for all





Great places for social housing tenants:







Good physical design of spaces
Great public spaces and community facilities
How people use spaces/places
The access to services good places give
Places that are outward looking
Places where social mixing can happen
Tenants feel comfortable/accepted in the street/neighbourhood
Housing is indistinguishable
Access to services, without a car
Social networks, informal support, social capital
Place making partnerships:




Who leads: Housing or wider Government
How are tenants involved
A role for Community Housing
How partnerships are formed and managed
4 Key Issues: over last 20 years
1. What’s the problem?








Layout of estates (Radburn)
Inappropriate housing (Townhouses)
Deteriorating stock and high maintenance costs
Disadvantage/concentrated disadvantage
Crime and ASB, social problems
Tenancy management
Disempowered communities/social capital
Structural – poverty and individual disadvantage
2. What works?






Community development (HCAP)
Fix the housing stock and layout (NIP)
Improve tenancy/estate management (ITM, Place projects, Waterloo
concierge)
Better services addressing disadvantage (BSC)
Social mix (Sales, Living communities, Redevelopment)
Over 20 years, we’ve tried everything
2
Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
4 Key Issues: over last 20 years
3. Who, how?



LAHC, FACS, Housing NSW, Urban Growth, wider Government
Community housing need to skill up
Tenants need a stake by being involved and sharing in the benefits
4. What is the size and cost?


One answer is huge (95 estates) and $ (billions) over 40 years
Is there a better answer?
Claymore:
“Dreams turn to dust”
3
Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
Claymore:
“Dreams turn to dust”




960 houses, Radburn, 4 level townhouses, 1980s
Highly disadvantaged, crime/ASB problem,
stigmatised, recurring focus of media attention.
1995 fire in Proctor way – 5 people died
Catalyst for significant change (1995 – 2003)



Transfer to community housing – allocations, community
development , engage other agencies
Claymore Integration Project
But not much physical work (No NIP)
4
Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
Claymore

Phase 2 (2003 – 2011)


The “Claymore Miracle” (social entrepreneurship)
Intensive Tenancy Management (ITM)
Building Stronger Communities (BSC)

Phase 3 (2011 - Current)

HAF funded masterplan
Redevelopment in stages 1 & 2
Claymore Improvement Program



Claymore:







what did we learn?
Evidence: no evaluations
Community development, service improvement and
tenancy management interventions can make some
difference, but don’t produce lasting change.
Whole of community partnerships can work
Townhouses are very difficult to make work
Agencies can work differently and together in right
circumstances
Community housing can play a role (and possibly lead)
Until you change the core issue – concentrations of
disadvantage – you are not starting to solve the problem
5
Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
Claymore

Place making


None to date. Remains very poor environment.
But masterplan holds promise

Great place for tenants


Tenants not strongly involved, disenchanted
Still a highly disadvantaged and troubled community (4 corners)

Partnerships

LAHC/ Urban Growth
Council not a partner
No community housing
No real stake for tenants
FACS District is taking leadership role




Fairfield East
“No time for dreaming, this is serious”





Small estate - 235 houses. Award winning housing
design, radburn & townhouses. Built early 1980s.
Crime prone neighbourhood, drugs and gangs, highly
disadvantaged, high turnover, became a political
problem. “Riots’ (recurring theme) in early 1996.
After some minor interventions did not make much
difference, in 1997, Minister decided to rehouse all
tenants and bulldoze.
Tenants not engaged - just moved out.
Vacant land sold to Landcom. New private housing
estate built. First estate exit.
6
Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
Fairfield East:

Auditor general (1998)


Substantial problems, but not convinced they are much different
Not convinced demolition was the best option. Treasury cost benefit
analysis said it was not the best option
Unrealistic for Housing Dept to solve the problem on its own. It was a
housing solution to a wider set of social, economic and environmental
problems. Other agencies need to commit.
Project cost too much and impacted the wait list for Farifield

Dept Housing response

Estate was in crisis. Auditor general could not say what the better solution
was. Not reasonable to wait while alternative solutions worked out.
The concentration of low income people in estates has not worked
Estates consume disproportionate level of Govt services
The design of estates contributes to the social problems
The stigma has jeopardised residents employment prospects
A whole of Govt response is essential







Fairfield East:






what did we learn?
Evidence: Auditor general’s report
Need for a whole of Govt approach. Never realised
Need for a suitable economic cost benefit methodology.
If crime becomes entrenched, exit may be the only
option.
Need to invest earlier to prevent reaching point of no
return.
Simple ‘demolition and sale’ is not a cost effective
option.
7
Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
Fairfield East:

Place making


Great place for tenants



Good place created
Tenants did not get the benefit
Anecdotally and based on research in other places, many tenants
ended up in better places, with better life opportunities
Partnerships




Landcom development. No partnership.
Council not a partner (As they were in Bonnyrigg)
No community housing
No stake for tenants
Dubbo
“We’ve tried everything else”
8
Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
Dubbo







About 300 properties in Gordon estate. High Aboriginal pop,
highly disadvantaged, serious crime problems, stigma,
became significant political problem
‘Riots’ on NY day 2006
Range of social/tenancy interventions made no real difference
Decided to exit. Recognised as a ‘radical’, ‘courageous and
innovative’ response. Minister said “we’ve tried everything
we can.” Supported by town leaders and Govt agencies.
Tenants rehoused into the township. Some purchases.
Houses and land sold off.
Some problems with dislocation and resettlement. But most
tenants settled well. Diligence of local HNSW staff and local
agencies.
Sense that this has been very good result for Dubbo, as a
whole.
Dubbo:






what did we learn?
Evidence: An ‘evaluation’ was done. Local feedback is
very positive. Tenants have not been surveyed.
Exit is the best solution, in some situations.
No use tinkering or ameliorating. Address the
fundamental issues, head on.
Tenants will resettle in mixed tenure areas, if given
support to do so, even if they didn’t want to move. And
they have improved opportunities.
Solving this entrenched problem benefited the whole
town.
Crime dropped dramatically, but over time was displaced
to the other (Apollo) estate.
9
Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
Dubbo:

Place making


Great place for tenants


No real place making. Land sold so place was normalised
Evaluation and local feedback shows most tenants settled (in
time) and feel better off
Partnerships




Whole of Government strategy, with strong local support from agencies
and council and local MP.
No partnership with Aboriginal community.
No community housing
Tenants not involved in the process.
Minto
“tell ‘em they’re dreamin ”
10
Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
Minto






1000 houses. Possibly the worst of the Campbelltown estates.
Radburn at it’s worst. Crime – NYE fireworks was famous.
But had been significant investment in Community building ITM
First of the major redevelopment project in NSW. Project to
redevelop all the 800 townhouses. Upgrade the 200 cottages
and reduce concentration of social housing to 30%.
Council was/is a full partner in the project.
Had none of the approaches worked out. Alienated the
community at the get go. Project lived with a disaffected
community for a long time, prior to WTIM.
Working Together in Minto (WTIM) provided a breakthrough
with the community, over time.
11
Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
Minto:
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
what did we learn?
Evidence:
 Two surveys of tenants rehoused. Evaluation of WTIM.
Learning
 The critical importance (and ways) of engaging the community, of
ensuring community has a stake
 Good rehousing principles and practice. Rehousing assessment tool
 People will pay good money to buy in a housing estate, and with
30% social housing tenants.
 Research: Tenants who move out of a troubled estate often feel
better off, even if the move was difficult at the time
 Some think it cost a lot, when alternative less expensive solutions
would do. Cost benefit to be assessed.
12
Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
Minto:

Place making
A really good place has been created
This has attracted better services and facilities



Great place for tenants
Evaluation and local feedback shows most tenants settled (in
time) and feel better off


Partnerships
Partnership with Council valuable
WTIM was vehicle for whole of community approach
No community housing
Tenants not involved in the process at fist, but community ownership
model (WTIM) solved that.




Outcomes:
the 4 places now and into the future

Claymore





Fairfield East



A good place has been created
But it benefited Landcom and the new private people, not the tenants displaced or the social
housing system
Dubbo




Not a good place
Is even more disadvantaged. Housing is in worse condition.
Community is disenchanted and abandoned
The approved masterplan holds the only real hope for the future
The whole town of Dubbo is a better place
Tenants are settled as part of that better place
Crime and disadvantage has shifted to Apollo estate
Minto



A really great place has been created
All sectors are pleased with outcomes
Most tenants say their lives are better
13
Australasian Housing Institute
Creating People Places
17 June 2014
Sydney NSW
What do we know now,
after 20 years
1. What’s the problem?



It’s a ‘wicked’ problem
Core problem is concentrated disadvantage
Housing and layout that is different
2. What works?







Community, social and tenancy interventions can make a difference, but
its small
Sales/some redevelopment (changing the social mix to be like the areas
around it) works
Whole estate redevelopment (creating great places for tenants and
others) is best, but often expensive
Social housing exit (removing stigma, benefiting the whole area)
Integrated (social and physical) renewal works best
Tenants will get involved and will get behind the change
Sensitive rehousing with support and choice for tenants
What do we know now,
after 20 years
3. Who, how?

LAHC, FACS, Housing NSW, Urban Growth, wider Government,
private sector all need to be involved
Community housing needs to skill up
Tenants need a stake by being involved and sharing in the benefits

4. What is the size and cost?

One answer is huge (95 estates) and $ (billions) over 40 years
Is there a better answer?



14