Page 3364 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
considered and so on. The energy performance, the use of materials, the liveability goals, the relationship to nearby public housing and to the arts centre would need to be specified.
The K2 competition specified approximately 100 medium-density public housing units, with a high proportion suitable for people with disability, with an overarching environmental goal of minimising detrimental effects and maximising positive effects throughout design, construction, operation and eventual decommissioning. Performance targets include zero CO2 emission in use, no external energy source for heating and on-site energy generation, water supply and sewage disposal.
More specifically, the three ESD criteria were no non-renewable energy needed for building operation, a building designed for a life of at least 200 years, water demand reduced by 50 per cent. Entrants were also encouraged to consider other aspects of sustainable design in their submission and to explain the strategy they used to achieve them. This quote from the Department of Housing’s technical information kit makes that clear:
True sustainability takes into account far more than energy and water savings.
The approach taken with the K2 apartments was to combine the notion of a healthy building and environment. The project considered the social and economic aspects of sustainability to be as important as the natural environmental aspects.
Access to landscape, indoor air quality, natural ventilation and the provision of a variety of communal spaces were considerations in achieving a socially responsible development.
Of course, things have moved forward a long way since K2 was first designed; so we do not want to set our goals too low. Nonetheless, even if we only achieve what has been achieved by the Victorian Office of Housing on that site, we will be a long way further down the path. This is another element in what the motion describes as a well-organised competition. Similarly, it is important to have an expert panel, including architects, adequate funding to encourage serious participation and so on. I think the summary of the two housing developments has flagged some of the underlying issues.
I would like to come back to the interlinking questions of affordability, social sustainability and community development. For many people, buying a home is out of the question. Private rental puts them in housing stress, and even the 75 per cent market rent arrangement available through providers such as CHC Affordable Housing creates difficulties.
For people on the outskirts of Canberra, where high-frequency public transport is not available, travel to work, services, shops and entertainment is a necessity. The cost of travel in time and dollars can be substantial; so that is an affordability issue but it is also of course an issue of social inclusion—not just the social inclusion that comes from being able to go shopping but the inclusion that comes with connectedness.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .