Paying for affordable housing in different market contexts

Randolph, Bill; Troy, Laurence; Milligan, Vivienne; Nouwelant, Ryan van den

doi:10.18408/ahuri-7113301

Cited by 17 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We examined the best way to fund and finance this gap via multi-criteria financial analysis and financial modelling. Building on the Affordable Housing Assessment Tool (AHAT) developed for the AHURI Inquiry into increasing affordable housing supply (Randolph, Troy et al 2018), project-level costings of CHO-led development from across Australia have been used to test the impacts of different funding and financing scenarios.…”

Section: Direct Investment Pathway Is the Most Cost-effectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Starved of direct capital investment, state housing authorities serving those in urgent need of housing, have turned to extracting the accumulated value stored in existing public housing assets and attracting private investment in an effort to renew their deteriorating assets and create new ones. The outcome of this effort is often a range of 'affordable' products rather than targeted on increasing social housing stock (Randolph, Troy et al 2018 2 According to detailed AHURI research "Negatively geared investors who receive the highest tax savings are typically middle-aged fulltime employed males. On the other hand, the ones who benefit the least are females and older investors aged 55+ years who are not in the labour force.…”

Section: Policy Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AHWG 2017). Our research unpacks this carefully, using evidence and modelling to show how these factors affect project feasibility and the funding gap of affordable housing developments across Australia (Randolph, Troy et al 2018).…”

Section: Figure 7: Funding Gap Per Dwelling By Regionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The housing need analysis to 2036 (Lawson, Pawson et al 2018) established both a quantum of housing required and a tenant income profile by geography, generating a more geographically nuanced assessment of costs and potential rental revenues (summarised in Tables 4 and 5, above). This defined housing need was then input into a reconfigured version of the Affordable Housing Assessment Tool (AHAT) developed as part of previous research (see Randolph, Troy et al 2018), based on project-level costings of CHO-led developments from across Australia.…”

Section: Figure 7: Funding Gap Per Dwelling By Regionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the absence of public equity and operating subsidies, the core purpose of social housing provision has drifted 'upwards' to serve 'affordable' rental tenants and home purchasers (Randolph, Troy et al 2018). So called 'affordable' rents, set at 75% market value, are not affordable to low income households in most metropolitan markets.…”

Section: Capital Grant Operating Subsidymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Social housing as infrastructure: rationale, prioritisation and investment pathway

Lawson¹,

Denham²,

Dodson³

et al. 2019

AHURI Final Report

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alexandra WestConstruction Building Union Super AHURI Final Report No. 315 iv AHURI AHURI is a national independent research network with an expert not-for-profit research management company, AHURI Limited, at its centre.AHURI's mission is to deliver high quality research that influences policy development and practice change to improve the housing and urban environments of all Australians.Using high quality, independent evidence and through active, managed engagement, AHURI works to inform the policies and practices of governments and the housing and urban development industries, and stimulate debate in the broader Australian community.AHURI undertakes evidence-based policy development on a range of priority policy topics that are of interest to our audience groups, including housing and labour markets, urban growth and renewal, planning and infrastructure development, housing supply and affordability, homelessness, economic productivity, and social cohesion and wellbeing. AcknowledgementsThis material was produced with funding from the Australian Government and state and territory governments. AHURI Limited gratefully acknowledges the financial and other support it has received from these governments, without which this work would not have been possible.AHURI Limited also gratefully acknowledges the contributions, both financial and in-kind, of its university research partners who have helped make the completion of this material possible.The Research Team would like to acknowledge and thank all the members of the Inquiry Panel, as well as more than 50 international and national interviewees that gave their time and expertise for the Inquiry. Special thanks are due to the CFO team at NSWFHA, the CH investment appraisal team at CEFC, policy team at Housing Europe and the director of ARA (Finland) for sharing their valuable experience and providing detailed information. DisclaimerThe opinions in this report reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of AHURI Limited, its Board, its funding organisations or Inquiry panel members. No responsibility is accepted by AHURI Limited, its Board or funders for the accuracy or omission of any statement, opinion, advice or information in this publication. AHURI journalAHURI Final Report journal series is a refereed series presenting the results of original research to a diverse readership of policy-makers, researchers and practitioners. Peer review statementAn objective assessment of reports published in the AHURI journal series by carefully selected experts in the field ensures that material published is of the highest quality. The AHURI journal series employs a double-blind peer review of the full report, where anonymity is strictly observed between authors and referees.

show abstract

Section: Direct Investment Pathway Is the Most Cost-effectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Policy Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figure 7: Funding Gap Per Dwelling By Regionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figure 7: Funding Gap Per Dwelling By Regionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Capital Grant Operating Subsidymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations