One problem is the small lots … but what about the six-pack equivalent?

The recent announcement of yet another set of small lot housing regulations, the third or fourth in this BCC administration’s period of office, exemplify the increasing problem of large bureaucratic organisations being unable to respond locally or if you like parochially. In the article “Raising the Roof” (C-M August 24, 2002), Council’s Cr Tim Quinn says these regulations are the third of a series of moves to preserve Brisbane’s residential flavour. The question is “Which flavour?” It is this question that the regional scale Council decisions cannot answer because the “answers” are different all over Brisbane. So while there are some benefits in a large regional local authority, responding to local differences is certainly not one of them.

Similarly, while it is argued and agreed that the issue is exacerbated by changing and more diverse “demographics”, it is a fact that the actual housing choice has been reduced. The major reduction is arguably the “effective abolition of ‘six-pack’ unit blocks”, a very popular market niche, banned for its popularity, which has not been replaced by an equivalent “product”. We always had the 16 perch, small lot house option.

The current housing problem therefore appears to be the reluctance of Council to allow local or parochial decisions and the failure to provide a market alternative to the ‘six-pack’ units. Everybody recognises the ‘six-packs’ were an extremely popular and equitable housing type. They were only a threat to existing “timber and tin” suburbs because of excessive previous “as-of-right” zoning and ineffective “development control” by Council. In a rare combination of support for solutions to this problem (by no means only a Brisbane problem), the three levels of government funded extensive research and product trials in the late 1980’s and into the early 1990’s. One outcome of this process was the “ ‘six-pack’ alternative”, a trial of which was built at Hassall Street, Corinda. However, in the typical politicisation of such important processes, support for protection of the “timber and tin” was used to justify the effective banning of the new alternative.

But no alternative housing product has ever been sought. Clearly two small lot houses on what was a 809 sq.m. site cost far more than the 5-6 units of a ‘six-pack’ and are far less suitable for the increasingly prevalent 1-2 person households for whom there is no other suitable product other than a small lot house. The problem then is one of effective land utilisation as well as location, amenity and character preservation.

As with the ‘six-packs’, a prescriptive envelope based on heights and minimum setbacks creates a maximum building “envelope”. Not surprisingly, each new set of prescriptions produces its own product. It is obvious this challenges owners and designers to come up with new concepts. For the building industry with its need to standardise, a set of prescriptions applied to small lots almost inevitably results in an almost identical product, at best decorated differently, hence the various descriptions “Tuscans”, new Queenslanders etc and a choice of decorative elements, colours and a tin or tile roof. To argue that this has preserved the “timber and tin” takes some imagination if not latitude. In many areas, the locals clearly do not accept this view!

The “new” regulations will not solve these problems. So we await another “iteration” of housing!

But what about higher density … the equivalent of the old “six-pack”? If the “boom” in demand for small lot housing is driven in part by people who really want cheap and convenient housing, what does BCC and other local authorities provide that is the equivalent of the “six-packs”? It appears the answer is nothing.

Yet in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, this was the density that was attracting attention … the 60 Hassall Street Corinda development being one example see Green Street “Better Housing Choices” Queensland A1. This development with 4, 5 or 6 units is in many ways less obtrusive on local amenity and character than many if not most developments currently receiving BCC approvals with extensive “relaxations” to boundary clearances and heights. Views from street.

This form of housing is closely aligned to the terrace house so popular and flexible in Europe for over 400 years and in Australia almost since first settlement. Have local authorities simply given in on this issue, preferring to describe small lot housing as “higher density”?

For those interested in this issue beyond simply trying to reject the higher density, one excellent book is “Designed for Urban Living: Recent Medium-Density Group Housing in Australia” (Bruce Judd, 1993, RAIA).

[ For further info contact Michael Yeates phone +61 7 3371 9355 or email michaelm@myoffice.net.au ]

Back to YeatesIT.biz and True Cases