This research investigates a range of short-term rental accommodation (STRA) models across Australia and their impacts on housing markets and communities. It identifies the policy responses most likely to resolve the competing demands for short- and long-term rental housing. Many communities are concerned about the housing market and neighbourhood impacts of STRA. Platforms like Airbnb have increased demand for residential property and enabled owners to finance housing investment in new ways. Understanding the range of STRA models, provider motivations, and impacts in different metropolitan and regional settings is key to effective policy development and regulation.

Housing that is in poor physical condition has direct negative health impacts for occupants, is more expensive to run and reduces Australia’s ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change. This research investigates what is needed to lift the quality of Australian housing to align with international standards so as to address problems associated with aged and ill-performing housing stock in both the owned and rented sectors.The research explores different strategies for improving housing through voluntary programs and mandatory legislation, and found:a national strategy to improve residential building quality should be developedmandatory disclosure of dwelling energy performance could improve how markets consider the performance of houses offered for sale or lease more appropriate accounting methods of the benefits provided by improved housing standards are needed.To improve the building quality of Australian housing stock, it is important to investigate how and why governments make policy about the quality of Australian housing stock. Change is difficult because of both the challenges of getting government attention and pressure from strong property industry lobbyists, but it is not impossible. One of the sharp lessons from the case studies is that having research evidence is not enough; change needs key elements such as building a convincing narrative to tell a plausible story of a social problem (including coverage of the evidence in the popular media) together with a ‘coalition of support’.A national strategy to improve residential building quality should be developed and include the following regulatory mechanisms: improved performance standards for new houses; mandatory disclosure of dwelling energy performance; and minimum housing standards for the rental sector.

This article was published open access under a CC BY licence: https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0 .

The physical design of New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation’s (LAHC) proposed redevelopment of Sydney’s Waterloo Estate has been reviewed and reworked by various stakeholders to reimagine a better urban design outcome.This report does a similar exercise for the economic and financial designs of this project, and public housing generally. Are there economic designs that can improve the long-term public housing outcomes from redeveloping the Waterloo estate?To date, investment in new public housing has been considered as a cost only. But housing (even public housing) is an asset that generates a return over time in the form of rental income and capital gains. This is a key economic issue with the LAHC self-fund model. Indeed, applying this model while ignoring asset returns is self- limiting; it privatises long-term returns on real estate assets, which are the source of value funding public housing redevelopment.If the New South Wales government wishes to maximise long-term public housing provision, they should consider more elegant economic and financial designs. This would include mimicking private sector behaviour, such as using leverage during redevelopment periods, retaining market risk and return during the development process, and retaining long-term ownership of as much of the real estate asset base as possible. Doing so would also provide the flexibility to vary future redevelopment stages to accommodate changing housing policy needs.One alternative we explore is where 50% of new dwellings are public housing, 25% are retained by LAHC as build-to-rent housing at market prices, and 25% are sold by LAHC to the private market. This scenario uses low-cost leverage, generates positive cashflow, and maximises exposure to long-term capital gains for LAHC.

Abstract Increased time spent at home during COVID-19 exposed inequities in Australian housing quality and availability. Many Australians lack sufficient space to carry out activities shifted to their homes and the financial downturn rapidly increased stress around housing affordability. Research demonstrates living in unaffordable or poor-quality housing can negatively impact residents’ mental health. This study explores the mechanisms through which housing moderates COVID-19’s impact on mental health by analysing 2,065 Australians surveyed in mid-to-late 2020. Hierarchical linear regressions were used to examine associations between housing circumstances, neighbourhood belonging and mental-health outcomes (loneliness, depression, and anxiety), adjusted for demographics. Open-ended responses were analysed using thematic analysis and critical-realist epistemology. Feeling ‘trapped’ and ‘helpless’ because of insecure tenure or lack of money to improve housing conditions reduced participants’ sense of control. Inadequate space and noise adversely impacted participants’ well-being. Participants’ housing context – including amenities, natural spaces, and social connections – strongly impacted their emotional experiences. Safe, secure, and suitable housing is a known determinant of safety and physical health; this study suggests it is also a critical factor for Australians’ mental health. To improve mental health among the vulnerably-housed, future housing policy should not compromise on housing affordability, quality, space and access to nearby amenities.

Greater Sydney is spatially divided in terms of socio-economic conditions and access to employment and urban amenities. Community engagement, urban planning policy implementation, and outcomes also vary in its planning system. It is argued that the urban divide in Sydney is underpinned by making exceptions for advantaged areas in the urban policy related to the provision of more housing. This paper analyses three cases of different community participation and urban policy practice in different areas in Greater Sydney through the theoretical prism of post-politics. It explores why the techno-managerial process causes suppression of community input into planning matters only in socio-economically disadvantaged areas and how the formal planning process could be contributing to gaps between different parts of Greater Sydney.

Recent crises have underscored the importance that housing has in sustaining good health and, equally, its potential to harm health. Considering this and building on Howden-Chapman's early glossary of housing and health and the WHO Housing and Health Guidelines, this paper introduces a range of housing and health-related terms, reflecting almost 20 years of development in the field. It defines key concepts currently used in research, policy and practice to describe housing in relation to health and health inequalities. Definitions are organised by three overarching aspects of housing: affordability (including housing affordability stress (HAS) and fuel poverty), suitability (including condition, accessibility and sustainable housing) and security (including precarious housing and homelessness). Each of these inter-related aspects of housing can be either protective of, or detrimental to, health. This glossary broadens our understanding of the relationship between housing and health to further promote interdisciplinarity and strengthen the nexus between these fields.

This research explores what is required for sustainable Indigenous housing in remote Australia to deliver positive health outcomes, so that housing stock is maintained at high levels and is designed with climate change in mind.

On the world stage, Australian cities have been punching above their weight in global indexes of housing prices, sparking heated debates about the causes of and remedies for, sustained house price inflation. This paper examines the evidence base underpinning such debates, and the policy claims made by key commentators and stakeholders. With reference to the wider context of Australia’s housing market over a 20 year period, as well as an in depth analysis of a research paper by Australia’s central Reserve Bank, we show how economic theories commonly position land use planning as a primary driver of new supply constraints but overlook other explanations for housing market behavior. In doing so, we offer an alternative understanding of urban housing markets and land use planning interventions as a basis for more effective policy intervention in Australian and other world cities.

Supporters of short-term rental (STR) platforms state that STRs represent a small fraction of the housing market of major cities and therefore have little impact on rents. However, there is emerging evidence that suggests that STRs have highly localised impacts. In this article, we use the natural experiment of the pause in tourism caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to highlight the impact of a decrease in STR listings on rental markets in the case study city of Hobart, Australia. We find that rental affordability has improved in Hobart’s STR-dense suburbs with the increased vacancies from the underutilised STR properties. These results provide evidence of the impact of STRs on local housing markets when analysed on a finer scale than the whole-of-city approach. The focus on local housing markets helps local communities and city governments build an argument for the impact of STRs on tight housing markets.

Key points • Overcrowded, marginal housing and informal housing tenures may increase health risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, because of the difficulties of physical distancing and potential for the virus to spread • Reflecting the chronic shortage of affordable rental supply in Sydney, demand for, and supply of, share and informal accommodation has continued during the pandemic There were 402 advertisements for rooms or granny flats via ‘Gumtree com au’ in May 2020 and 4,731 share accommodation listings on the platform ‘Flatmates com au’ in April 2020 A further 2,923 people placed advertisements seeking accommodation via the Flatmates platform • People living in these informal tenures may face additional risks of contracting the virus because of the inability to social distance They experience additional precarity because negotiated rental arrangements leave people more vulnerable to eviction and displacement, despite wider government efforts to protect tenants in the private rental market • Of people renting in share households during the 2016 Census, 8,476 were healthcare workers, and 12,743 included occupants working in food or accommodation sectors There were 1,514 workers in healthcare or social assistance sectors living in crowded or severely overcrowded accommodation needing three or more additional bedrooms • There is evidence of a link between falling demand for Airbnb style short-term rental accommodation during the pandemic, and an increase in long-term private rental housing availability in case study housing markets of Sydney and Hobart This suggests that the loss of residential units to Airbnb-style platforms affected private rental housing supply and affordability pre-pandemic • Some lower income earners have reportedly been able to use additional income support during the pandemic period to move out of marginal or substandard rental accommodation © 2020 Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute All rights reserved

This study examines how local and international funding interventions focused on specific regions, such as City Deals, deliver affordable rental housing for low income households to enhance urban productivity.

Many renters have struggled to make ends meet during COVID-19 7 Low-income renters pushed further into rental stress 9 Retrenched renters vulnerable to long-term inequality COPING WITH LOW INCOME 11 The imbalance of power between tenants and landlords 13 Loss of rental affordability linked to raids on super 15 The private rental market-a COVID-19 inequality accelerator HOUSEHOLDS UNDER STRAIN 17 Housing conditions and security for renters during lockdown: worse for households with children 19 Tenants with a disability at risk during COVID-19 21 Low-income older renters are lonely and struggling financially ISOLATION AND MENTAL HEALTH 23 Lockdown and mental health: who has been most affected?25 Renters experienced loneliness working from home during the pandemic UNHEALTHY HOUSING 27 1/4 Australian renters live in housing that makes them sick 29 Children and young people are growing up in poor quality rental homes 31 Children's health threatened by cold rental homes 33 Renovating substandard rental housing TENANT SATISFACTION 35 Poor quality, unaffordable housing: a dangerous trap 37 Perceptions of PRS affordability in Melbourne and Sydney ASPIRING HOME OWNERS 39 Most renters would prefer to own their own home 41 Are aspiring home owners in a pandemic being realistic?HOUSING POLICY 43 Doing fast housing policy in a pandemic 45 New knowledge and a new housing agenda for a 'new normal'

There is a lot to like about the two Viewpoints by Wegmann (this issue) and Manville, Monkkonen, and Lens (this issue). The U.S. zoning system does need to be shaken up. To two Australian planning academics, the proportion of U.S. cities devoted to single-family housing, as well as the tight regulation surrounding the R1 zoning rules, seems extraordinary. For example, in the city/state we are writing from (Sydney, New South Wales), secondary dwellings are allowed on all lots greater than about 4,800 ft (0.11 acre) and changing planning rules to promote the “missing middle” has been the part of recent planning reforms in New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia (New South Wales Department of Planning, 2018). But going from 80% R1 to no R1 in one single change as advocated by the authors is likely not a smart or appropriate implementation strategy. There are a number of significant problems. First, some parts of the city might not be very well suited to changes to R1 zoning, which would lead to additional population. Examples include areas with small lots, heritage housing, very constrained drainage and sewerage systems, or little open space, as well as parts of the city fringe where promoting more housing might lead to even greater private car usage. Moreover, thinking of how you would like your city to function in 10 years’ time might mean that putting four houses on a large lot might be the last thing you want to do in lots near a train station because it might sterilize future attempts to build higher density housing such as multistory apartments. Moreover, if R1 zones outside walkable distance of good-quality transit are changed to allow denser housing, there will be intensified auto use. This brings potential problems. In terms of local planning rules, off-street parking codes will probably need to be changed to keep allowable off-street parking at existing levels for each densified lot to avoid remaining open spaces on each lot becoming full of parked automobiles. The other problem with intensified auto use is the extra pressure on nearby highways, which may already be congested in peak hours. A further issue is that despite the call for planners to fight the good fight over density, removing all R1 zones from planning schemes would be a very difficult exercise. Planning has been seen as public enemy number one by die-hard neoliberal commentators in Australia, and the only reason planning has been able to hold the line against some pretty crazy developer-led planning reforms has been through the support of the middle class, who are happy sitting in their R1 zones, albeit reluctantly accepting secondary dwellings on large lots. Getting through a mass change to R1 zoning in the United States without blowing up middle class support for planning might be very difficult. Surely a better implementation strategy is to have a modified set of rules in current R1 areas that are suitable for more density (let’s call it “R1.5”) and monitor the impacts. This would also visualize what the demand looked like for the missing middle and the developer/builder interest. You might also give potential purchasers some warning that you are going to adopt R1.5 zoning at a particular point in time. Our two final comments are concerning infrastructure funding and the likely impacts on housing prices. In regard to infrastructure, when an R1.5 zoning scheme is adopted, it is important to tax the planning uplift to allow cash-strapped local governments to provide some additional resources, especially open space, for new residents. However, the difficulty of creating new open space in existing residential areas will still constrain the extent to which density can be increased unless there is existing spare open space capacity. In terms of housing affordability, the improvements in affordability with these zoning reforms are likely to be modest. The impacts of zoning on house prices have always been overcooked in the economics literature. Australia had far more restrictive planning systems in the early 1990s than today, but real house price increases in the 1990s were modest. It was only when interest rates began falling toward the end of that decade that house price inflation accelerated. If you want to do something about rising house prices, zoning improvements will help, but other measures such as taxation changes and regulating housing finance would be much more significant. The simple supply and demand argument used to explain house prices by property lobbyists is not well suited to a good where the new housing stock produced every year is a very small fraction of the total housing supply and where demand is so mediated by access to housing finance (Ryan-Collins, 2019).

Developing a scientific understanding of cities in a fast urbanizing world is essential for planning sustainable urban systems. Recently, it was shown that income and wealth creation follow increasing returns, scaling superlinearly with city size. We study scaling of per capita incomes for separate census defined income categories against population size for the whole of Australia. Across several urban area definitions, we find that lowest incomes grow just linearly or sublinearly (β = 0.94 to 1.00), whereas highest incomes grow superlinearly (β = 1.00 to 1.21), with total income just superlinear (β = 1.03 to 1.05). These findings show that as long as total or aggregate income scaling is considered, the earlier finding is supported: the bigger the city, the richer the city, although the scaling exponents for Australia are lower than those previously reported for other countries. But, we find an emergent scaling behavior with regard to variation in income distribution that sheds light on socio-economic inequality: the larger the population size and densities of a city, while lower incomes grow proportionately or less than proportionately, higher incomes grow more quickly, suggesting a disproportionate agglomeration of incomes in the highest income categories in big cities. Because there are many more people on lower incomes that scale sublinearly as compared to the highest that scale superlinearly, these findings suggest an empirical observation on inequality: the larger the population, the greater the income agglomeration in the highest income categories. The implications of these findings are qualitatively discussed for various income categories, with respect to living costs and access to opportunities and services that big cities provide.