Key takeaways
While Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) aim to solve urban issues like traffic, affordability, and suburban sprawl, the concept doesn’t always fit market realities. Australians often still prefer the flexibility of car ownership and spacious homes, particularly for families.
TODs primarily appeal to single professionals and couples without children, not families who typically want more space and access to parks. This disconnect often results in limited demand, potentially leading to slower sales and higher vacancy rates.
Though TODs intend to promote affordability, high land costs around transit hubs and expenses of mixed-use features typically push prices up, making these developments more exclusive without significant government support or subsidies.
Successfully integrating residential, commercial, and public spaces in TODs is complex. Insufficient foot traffic can discourage commercial tenants, leaving storefronts empty and reducing community appeal, thereby undermining the liveliness that TODs promise.
While governments endorse TODs, developers face extensive bureaucratic hurdles, zoning challenges, and often costly requirements like public spaces and sustainable features, which can limit project profitability and viability.
Australia’s cultural preference for low-density, suburban homes with car access presents a barrier. The TOD lifestyle may appeal more to younger generations, but shifting the wider population’s mindset may be a longer process than anticipated.
While TODs hold promise, they’re not a complete solution to Australia’s urban issues. For TODs to succeed, there must be a better alignment between their design and real market demand. Achieving this balance will require government, planners, and developers to rethink TOD approaches to create genuinely livable and sustainable urban spaces.
Politicians are raving about Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) as the future of our cities—but in my mind, they are just another political pipe dream.
Build higher-density housing, commercial spaces, and amenities around public transport hubs to encourage sustainable living, reduce car dependence, and create vibrant urban communities.
Sounds good, doesn’t it?
Recently Victorian Premier Jacinta Allen unveiled plans to overhaul planning rules for 50 locations to clear the way for taller buildings and increased housing density around train and tram stations.
Similarly, the New South Wales government will allow developers to build taller and denser buildings – and have approvals fast-tracked – under sweeping changes to planning rules that will also curtail the power of councils to decide on major housing projects.
Yet, while TODs are a favourite talking point among politicians looking to solve our housing affordability issues, there seems to be a significant gap between the enthusiasm in planning circles and the reality in the property market.
1. The idealism vs. reality gap
In theory, TODs are an urban planner’s dream, promising to tackle a number of urban challenges at once: traffic congestion, housing affordability, and suburban sprawl.
However, what looks great on paper doesn’t always translate well into real-world execution.
In the actual property market, buyers and tenants often have different priorities.
While TODs are designed to attract people who prefer a car-free lifestyle, the reality is that many Australians still value the flexibility and convenience that comes with owning a car.
Despite increasing public transport usage, the cultural preference for spacious homes with garages remains strong, particularly among families.
2. TODs are often mismatched with market demand
One of the biggest challenges TODs face is that they often fail to align with the demands of the property market.
Planners may focus on building apartments near train stations, assuming that proximity to public transport will attract buyers or renters.
However, the target demographic that planners envision—young professionals, downsizers, or eco-conscious millennials—may not be as eager to commit to these developments as expected.
For one, families with children, who make up a significant portion of the property market, usually prefer homes with more space, access to parks, and safe streets over the convenience of a nearby train station.
TODs tend to attract single professionals or couples without children, which limits their market appeal.
This mismatch between what planners envision and what the market desires will likely result in sluggish sales and high vacancy rates.
3. Pricing and affordability issues
Another factor that hampers the popularity of TODs is pricing.
Ironically, developments built with the aim of enhancing affordability often end up being priced at a premium.
If you think about it, the cost of land around transit hubs is typically high, and the added expenses associated with creating mixed-use developments, green spaces, and public amenities need to be paid by somebody – usually the eventual purchaser.
Without meaningful government subsidies or incentives, TODs will not be able to deliver affordable housing and risk becoming another form of exclusive, high-end housing.
4. The complexity of mixed-use development
Transit-Oriented Developments are more than just residential complexes; they are supposed to be vibrant, mixed-use communities that include shops, offices, and public spaces.
However, integrating these different elements is easier said than done. Developers face numerous challenges in coordinating zoning approvals, managing construction costs, and ensuring a balanced mix of uses.
For instance, creating the right mix of retail and commercial spaces can be tricky.
Without a critical mass of residents and foot traffic, commercial tenants may be reluctant to lease spaces, which can result in vacant storefronts and a lack of vibrancy.
This, in turn, can make the development less appealing to prospective residents, creating a vicious cycle.
5. Inflexible planning regulations and red tape
While there is no shortage of enthusiasm from local councils and state governments for TODs, turning these plans into reality often involves navigating a maze of bureaucratic red tape.
Stringent zoning laws, protracted approval processes, and community opposition can delay projects for years, making them costly and time-consuming to bring to market.
Developers may also be deterred by the additional requirements that often come with TOD projects, such as incorporating public spaces, affordable housing components, and sustainable design features.
These requirements, while noble in intent, can add significant costs and complexity, making these projects less appealing from a profitability standpoint.
6. Are Australians ready to embrace high-density living?
Finally, there’s the question of whether Australians are truly ready to embrace the high-density, car-free lifestyle that TODs promote.
Culturally, Australia has long been associated with the “Great Australian Dream” of owning a spacious home with a backyard.
While younger generations and new immigrants are more open to apartment living, there’s still a strong cultural preference for low-density, suburban homes.
This cultural inertia poses a challenge for TODs, especially in markets like Sydney and Melbourne, where high-density developments are already perceived as overcrowded or lacking in community spirit.
Convincing Australians to give up their cars and embrace a denser, more compact way of living may take longer than planners anticipate.
So, what’s the solution?
While TODs are undoubtedly part of the solution to Australia’s urban challenges, they are not a one-size-fits-all answer.
For TODs to gain broader acceptance in the market, several adjustments are necessary:
- Government Incentives: Authorities could consider offering incentives for developers to include affordable housing or more family-friendly units within TODs. Tax breaks, grants, or reduced approval timelines could help offset the higher costs associated with these projects. They are already doing this for Build To Rent complexes.
- Flexibility in Zoning: To make TODs more viable for developers, governments need to streamline approval processes and allow greater flexibility in zoning regulations. This includes relaxing height restrictions, reducing parking requirements, and allowing mixed-use developments to evolve organically.
The bottom line
Transit-Oriented Developments will continue to be a hot topic in planning circles for years to come.
However, unless they can better align with the actual needs and preferences of the property market, they may remain more of a political talking point than a real solution to Australia’s housing and urban planning challenges.
To bridge the gap between the ideal and the real, governments, planners, and developers need to rethink how TODs are designed, priced, and integrated into the broader urban fabric.
Only then can we truly unlock the potential of TODs to create more sustainable, livable cities for future generations.
