Extraterrestrial ZZ

Extraterrestrial ZZ Información de contacto, mapa y direcciones, formulario de contacto, horario de apertura, servicios, puntuaciones, fotos, videos y anuncios de Extraterrestrial ZZ, Agencia de publicidad, Pudahuel, Región Metropolitana, Santiago.

Homes with higher energy ratings sell for more. Here’s how Australian owners could cash inEverybody wants an energy-effi...
11/02/2022

Homes with higher energy ratings sell for more. Here’s how Australian owners could cash in
Everybody wants an energy-efficient home. After all, an energy-efficient home is comfortable to live in, without large energy bills. These can be important factors for prospective home owners or renters. Our review of international research found energy-efficient homes typically fetch a higher price.

An energy performance rating is one way to show how “energy hungry” a home could be. In many countries, it is mandatory for the seller to obtain and disclose a home’s rating. For European Union countries, this has been the case for ten years.

But that’s not the case in most of Australia. Only one of the states and territories – the ACT – has a regulated scheme to disclose the energy-efficiency rating of housing to prospective buyers.

Read more: Australia's still building 4 in every 5 new houses to no more than the minimum energy standard

Disclosing energy ratings is standard practice in the commercial building sector in Australia. Previous research showed this increases the value of buildings with higher energy ratings (a price premium). Our recent review of international research looked to see if a similar effect exists in the residential sector.

What does the research show?
The majority (23) of the 27 relevant studies we reviewed found more energy-efficient homes fetch higher prices than less energy-efficient, but otherwise comparable, homes. So what sort of price premium do houses with a higher energy rating attract? It’s typically around 5% to 10%.

Price effects were considered in two ways. The first involved comparing rated versus unrated residences. The second compared higher-rated residences with lower-rated ones. In both cases, a price premium was found to exist.

The reported price premium varied substantially by study, country and real estate market. One study, in Belfast, found a 27% price premium for higher-rated buildings. Another in the Netherlands found a price premium of 2.7% for similarly higher-rated dwellings.

Only one study looked at Australia (the ACT scheme, which has operated since 2003). It found a 2.4% price premium for a six-star house and a 9.4% premium for a seven-star house compared to a 3 star home. For Australia, with a median house price of $773,635 in late 2019, the ACT results equate to potential price premiums of $18,500 and $72,721.

Obviously, it isn’t just the energy rating of a house that affects its price. Location, size, age and other relevant features of a property influence the final price. Researchers use a statistical method, called hedonic regression, to estimate the effects of all these factors. A home energy rating was included as one of these factors.

The studies we reviewed were published between 2011 and 2019, covering 14 countries and ten energy performance rating schemes. Most of the studies (18) considered the European Union’s Energy Performance Certificate (EPC). Although there are differences in how each EU country defines and manages these certificates, they are broadly comparable, in that they use a standard A (high) to G (low) grade.

Example of a displayed Energy Performance Certificate from the UK, with an A to G rating. The certificate include details on how to improve the rating and indicates the potential rating if all upgrades were completed.
How would this system benefit Australia?
This system would obviously be good for people trying to sell (or wanting to buy) energy-efficient homes, but it’s also good for our society. It has been estimated almost half the homes that will be in use in 2050 have already been built. If we are to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions from our cities and built environment, we need to tackle our existing building stock.

Read more: Making every building count in meeting Australia's emission targets

A scheme that allows owners to capitalise on the energy efficiency of their home would change the economics of retrofitting existing homes. Owners would have a clear incentive to improve energy performance without the need for large government subsidies.

Unfortunately, there is no agreed method to measure energy-efficiency for the majority of existing Australian homes (i.e. those outside the ACT). This means there is no simple way for prospective owners or renters to make an informed decision about the likely comfort and future energy bills for a home.

Read more: Greenwashing the property market: why 'green star' ratings don't guarantee more sustainable buildings

Other countries have already shown the path forward. Key steps include:

define a nationally consistent rating tool for existing homes. The Victorian government has developed the Victorian Residential Efficiency Scorecard. This voluntary tool provides owners with a star rating for the overall energy performance of their home. It also provides specific information on its performance during hot weather, as well as recommendations on how to improve that performance

provide a framework for owners to voluntarily disclose the certified energy performance of their home at the point of sale or lease. Only owners of higher-rating homes will be likely to do this voluntarily

legislate for mandatory disclosure of a home’s energy rating when it’s being sold or leased

introduce minimum standards of energy performance for rental properties. Once a property’s energy performance is rated and disclosed, the government has a powerful policy lever to drive improvement of the energy efficiency of the existing building stock. For instance, in the UK, owners are obligated to improve the energy performance of any property they wish to offer for rent to at least grade E (on an A-to-G scale).

Our review of international academic literature suggests home buyers typically value a more energy-efficient home. When presented with easily accessible information in the form of an energy performance rating, they are willing to pay more.

Hence, energy rating disclosure policies can help consumers make informed decisions that will result in lower energy bills and more comfortable homes. At the same time, by allowing sellers to capitalise on energy-efficiency improvements through a certified rating, government can support reducing carbon emissions from our existing building stock.

To ensure we realise these societal and environmental benefits, all levels of government should co-ordinate to enact appropriate nationally consistent legislation.

Why NSW is skewing its tax system toward build-to-rent apartments and away from mum and pop landlordsIn an apparent abou...
11/02/2022

Why NSW is skewing its tax system toward build-to-rent apartments and away from mum and pop landlords
In an apparent about face, the NSW government has halved land tax for developers of build-to-rent housing.

It came weeks after the the Treasurer Dominic Perrottet launched a report that called for a greater reliance on land tax as a replacement for stamp duty.

The greater reliance on land tax is a long-term goal. At the moment family homes are exempt, along with boarding houses, caravan parks, retirement villages and farms. Most other users pay land tax, including landlords and businesses.

The change will give developers who invest in build-to-rent schemes offering long tenancies a 50% discount on their land tax for 20 years.

Why build-to-rent?
Most Australian rental properties are owned by individuals, units in apartment blocks as well as free-standing houses. Half are owned by landlords with only one property; three quarters by landlords with only one or two properties.

If you want to rent from a corporation, or from someone with wide experience in owning and renting properties, you’ll find it hard.

It makes Australia unusual.

Nails in walls can cause problems for tenants.
In other countries corporations rent out housing, big time. America’s five largest corporate landlords own 420,000 properties. Germany’s largest landlord, Vonovia, owns more than 330,000.

Overseas experience suggests corporations provide more affordable housing, and in many ways they make better landlords.

Individuals who own just one property have put most of their eggs in one basket.

Because they can’t afford for anything to go wrong they check the condition of the property regularly.

They prohibit nails in walls and pets, and typically offer only short-term leases.

Corporations can play the law of averages.

Because they know most properties will be well maintained they are satisfied with less-frequent inspections. They allow modifications, and typically offer long-term leases.

They offer an experience pretty close to ownership, in return for rent.

It’s this that the NSW government wants to encourage.

To ensure it happens and to ensure built-to-rents don’t revert to the Australian pattern of individual investors owning individual units, it will specify that the apartments have at least 50 units and are managed under unified ownership.

Tax makes it hard
At the moment such developments are discriminated against when it comes to land tax. No tax is due if the land value is below a threshold.

Individual landlords are usually below the threshold (some spreading their portfolio between multiple states to ensure they don’t trigger each state’s threshold).

Wholly-owned apartment blocks are above the threshold and can’t escape it. University of Technology Sydney calculations suggest land tax on build-to-rent developments can consume up to 27% of the annual rent collected.

Read more: 'Build to rent' could be the missing piece of the affordable housing puzzle

And they are subject to goods and services tax. They can reclaim some of it but not all.

The announcement comes at a time when the COVID crisis has cut stamp duty receipts and created an oversupply of vacant apartments, particularly around universities.

The initiative appears to have been crafted before the crisis and to be more forward looking. Many of the build-to-rent projects will take years to complete.

It’s about changing the mix
That said, any extra building activity will support the construction industry and extra stock will reduce home prices and rents.

The initiative doesn’t spell the end of mum and dad landlords. They will still predominate for a long time.

It’s about providing options and security for tenants that isn’t widely available and will become more important as a greater proportion of Australians rent.

Other states will be taking note.

Read more: What Australia can learn from overseas about the future of rental housing

For a government that wants to eventually make land tax universal, the 50% cut is a step in the wrong direction. It might have been better to remove the threshold for small landlords.

But there’s no sign the NSW government has given up on its longer term goal. It’s unlikely to be the last time land tax rules are changed.

Public housing renewal can make tenants feel displaced in their home, even before any work beginsPublic housing estate r...
11/02/2022

Public housing renewal can make tenants feel displaced in their home, even before any work begins
Public housing estate redevelopments that displace residents to other suburbs are highly disruptive whereas projects that allow them to remain are suggested to be better.

We tested this assumption through two large, multi-year ethnographic studies with the residents of the Waterloo public housing estate in Sydney between 2010 and 2017.

Read more: Public housing 'renewal' likely to drive shift to private renters, not owners, in Sydney

Although they have not yet been physically moved from their homes, our research shows even the threat of being moved has already done significant damage to residents’ relationship with their homes and community.

One resident said this redevelopment:

[…] is slum clearance — we’re to be cleansed by living next to yuppies.

Waterloo urban renewal
The Waterloo estate is located 3km south of Sydney’s central business district. A redevelopment has been mooted since at least 2011.

In 2018, the estate was home to around 4,000 people in about 2,000 dwellings. A high proportion of residents were either elderly or spoke English as a second language.

The New South Wales government said in December 2015 the estate would be redeveloped to house 10,000 people, although the exact number is still to be determined.

Some housing will be affordable (5%) and social dwellings (30%). But the majority (65%) will be private market housing in keeping with the government’s controversial social mix redevelopment agenda.

The high land value of the area means the government can greatly increase the housing density on the site. This allows government to keep the existing public housing tenants in the suburb throughout and after the redevelopment.

Yet enormous upheaval will be required to transform the site.

The redeveloped site will be unrecognisable to existing residents as it will be dramatically altered to fit the extra buildings, people, businesses and a major transport hub.

One resident said:

[…] the Metro [station] and the redevelopment are not separate; this is just the beginning of a massive demolition.

Public housing tenants will be allocated a new dwelling on the site. But many suggest they will not be adequately compensated for the loss of their homes and community, which they see as distinct from a dwelling.

Another resident said:

[…] this is a unique place, there’s nowhere else like this […] We live together quite harmoniously compared to other places.

Public housing is still a home
The residents’ concerns about displacement are related to the radical transformation of their neighbourhood. Despite not being physically displaced to other areas, the physical, social and business landscape will be completely replaced.

As one resident said:

[…] the moment the first building is knocked down, this community will be nonexistent.

This experience of displacement is related not merely to the loss of a building that was home to them, but what the building stands for.

The symbolism of these public housing buildings is important for residents. The housing was purpose-built in a time of more government support for low-income workers or the more disadvantaged in society.

Many residents feel connected not just to the public housing buildings but to the more equitable society they represent. One resident said:

Matavai and Turanga [towers] are models of their kind; they embody a vision for society. We might lose their legacy [if they are demolished].

Density and social composition
The redevelopment will transform the urban design of the area too. Residents are concerned the neighbourhood will not be able to accommodate the higher density and larger population.

Many of the public open spaces that serve local residents will be reduced. This will radically change the social and recreational spaces that support many community activities and social networks.

These changes will transform the area’s social composition and economic dynamics. One resident said:

[…] there’s already little room enough. They’re going to squeeze thousands more in, there won’t be room for anything.

Commercial rent increases may drive out local businesses that currently serve local residents. Residents have already noted increases in food and drink prices in the new cafes that serve middle-class property owners, morgagees and private renters.

Some in the local Aboriginal community see the redevelopment as another step in the systematic dispossession of their land and violence against their people.

One Aboriginal resident said:

They are subsuming our community […] They’re bringing the ethnic cleansing down here to Waterloo […] Whatever happens in Redfern ripples across the country in other Aboriginal communities; this is so important as a place for all Aboriginal people.

Elderly residents are convinced they will not outlive the redevelopment. They fear they will live their final decades in tumultuous and uncertain circumstances.

From displacement to replacement
Public housing residents want government to renew their poorly maintained housing. But they want renewal without a complete restructuring of the social and economic fabric of their community and neighbourhood.

The influx of new residents will transform the existing community into a minority with little voice or influence in a neighbourhood dominated by private renters and home owners.

Read more: Public land is being sold exactly where thousands on the waiting list need housing

A different tenure mix is needed with a higher proportion of public, social and affordable housing.

By allowing public housing tenants to remain in place, the state government might hope to avoid the class conflicts inherent in state-led gentrification. Yet almost every facet of residents’ social and economic lives will be replaced through the redevelopment.

The upheaval of the low-income community and the subsuming of their space by middle- and upper-class households will be experienced as displacement by local residents, despite residents remaining in place.

Dirección

Pudahuel, Región Metropolitana
Santiago
2077

Notificaciones

Sé el primero en enterarse y déjanos enviarle un correo electrónico cuando Extraterrestrial ZZ publique noticias y promociones. Su dirección de correo electrónico no se utilizará para ningún otro fin, y puede darse de baja en cualquier momento.

Contacto La Empresa

Enviar un mensaje a Extraterrestrial ZZ:

Compartir