Delivering medium-density infill development through promoting the benefits and limiting background infill

Abstract

Australian cities rarely meet their targets for infill development and experience a 'missing middle' in terms of urban density. This paper surveys the barriers to medium-density projects on infill sites in the Western Australian city of Perth and subsequently ventures strategies to alleviate these impediments. The findings indicate that the principal barriers to medium-density infill derive from poor quality low-density infill development, which alienates communities and dissipates the impetus developers require to deliver medium-density projects. The paper concludes that spatial planners should improve strategies for promoting the benefits of density, as well as set minimum residential densities, and site areas, for infill development. Figure 2. Background infill comprises small scale projects yielding fewer than five group dwellings. Aerial photo courtesy of Nearmaps.

Building buy-in for missing middle housing: best practices for municipal planners in North America

“…In the analysis of community resistance to land use change, several authors note the importance of visually conveying to communities what the changes will look like on the ground utilizing computer renderings, photography, walking tours, and pilot projects (Rasmasubramanian & Albrecht, 2018;Swan et al, 2019;Bolleter et al, 2020). Swann et al, (2019) conducted interviews with planners in four Colorado cities and found that visual communication was a crucial factor in communicating land use change.…”

“…106). Bolleter et al (2020), found that it was important to provide tangible examples of what the proposed changes would look like in a neighbourhood. Conducting semi-structured interviews with Australian professionals involved in the delivery of medium density infill, they found that "one of the most effective strategies was the construction of demonstration projects to help alleviate community resistance to infill" (Bolleter et al, 2020, p. 16).…”

Land policy conflict profiles for different densification types: A literature-based approach

“…Asymmetric power distribution relates closely to several factors under the umbrella term of ownership constraints, such as divided ownership rights, owner's unwillingness to sell, and the need to assemble land under multiple ownership (e.g., Adams et al, 2001Adams et al, , 2002Farris, 2001;Gallagher et al, 2019;. Another effectiveness challenge arises from the lack of a strategic planning framework (or the exclusion of certain types of development from planning) or the lack of a systematic approach, affecting the quality and quantity of densification, and possibly generating unwanted effects of incremental, ad hoc developments (e.g., Newton, 2010;Dunnning et al, 2020;Gallagher et al, 2020a;Bibby et al, 2020Bibby et al, , 2021Bolleter, 2021;Idt and Pellegrino, 2021).…”

“…Although it accounts for a considerable share of the total amount of densification, type 4 densification often occurs below the radar of public authorities (Bibby et al, 2020), informally, and in some cases even illegally (Idt and Pellegrino, 2021). In some cases, the lack of a strategic planning framework has resulted in sporadic, ad hoc development without proper coherence with existing residential morphologies, infrastructure provision, character, and design (e.g., Newton, 2010;Dunnning et al, 2020;Gallagher et al, 2020a;Bolleter et al, 2021;Idt and Pellegrino, 2021), as well as challenges in managing public spaces and environmental quality (Idt and Pellegrino, 2021).…”

“…The effectiveness conflict is further amplified by the lack of a strategic planning framework. The lack of top-level coordination and a systematic approach may lessen the effectiveness of densification as potentially better redevelopment opportunities elsewhere are ignored (Landis et al, 2006), the quality and quantity of densification are reduced, and unwanted effects of incremental, ad hoc development are created (e.g., Newton, 2010;Dunnning et al, 2020;Gallagher et al, 2020a;Bolleter, 2021;Idt and Pellegrino, 2021). The question of how the costs and benefits should be shared between the landowner and the municipality has similar repercussions to type 3 in strategically important areas, contributing to distributive justice conflict.…”