Alternative housing model: Nightingale Marrickville
Gabby Suhr, SJB Architecture

Nightingale Marrickville highlights the potential of partnerships between faith-based and not-for-profit organisations to address the housing crisis. It is part of the growing 'Yes in God’s Backyard' (YIGBY) movement and demonstrates innovation in the design, delivery and management of build-to-rent housing.

Our discussion with Gabby highlighted the importance of finding innovative solutions to increase affordable housing, the need to challenge expectations of boarding house and rental accommodation, and the value of prioritising community building within housing developments.

Sofia: As not-for-profit organisations, what were the key drivers of the partnership between Fresh Hope Communities and Nightingale Housing and how did they shape the project?

Gabby: Fresh Hope Communities and Nightingale Housing share an ethos around sustainability and community. Nightingale Marrickville was underpinned by a shared objective to develop a prototype for a financially sustainable model of affordable housing that could be replicated at other sites owned by church groups, not-for-profits or government. Key to the project's financial sustainability was provision of sufficient revenue streams to fund the operating and maintenance costs for the building’s life cycle.

As a community housing provider, Fresh Hope Communities have experience in delivering residential aged care. They clearly understood that Nightingale Housing's triple bottom line approach to sustainable housing and expertise in designing similar buildings would ensure that community building remained at the core of the project. Nightingale Housing has delivered many build-to-sell projects in Melbourne, but the cost of well-serviced land in Sydney made the Nightingale build-to-sell model unfeasible. Fresh Hope Communities became invaluable partners by providing the land, paying for the build, and committing to a long-term return on investment through the build-to-rent model.

How did responding to place, the specific context and the needs of the local community support the success of the project?

Fresh Hope Communities identified the under-utilised Marrickville Church of Christ site as an opportunity to serve the needs of the local community by providing affordable housing. The project team realised that the existing scale of the streetscape, eclectic character of Marrickville, and the change of typology this kind of development often brings, was going to require confidence that any redevelopment would be embedded in a sustainable approach to community building and not business-as-usual development. And part of that approach was to find a contextually specific response to the scale and character of the area that would be supported by Council and the local community. We also understood that wider support for affordable housing would play an important role in the success of the project.

How did you work with Fresh Hope Communities and Nightingale Housing to design a building that supports the development of community?

With Nightingale's experience in build-to-sell apartments in Victoria, they found that no more than 30 units was an ideal number for a community to thrive. This led to the design of the building as two separate but connected parts (as there are fifty-four rooms in total). The design was modified to allow for a lower side and upper side of the floor plate. There are two separate communal areas with replicated amenities to also encourage smaller and more effective number of gatherings within the building.

At a more granular level, we wanted to explore the balance between communal and private space. What is the smallest, most functional space a person needs to create a sense of identity and what communal spaces do people need in order to live a connected life? Unlike other Nightingale projects, the balloting process to select residents occurred after the building was completed. Fresh Hope Communities targeted predominantly single people with 50% of the rooms allocated to key workers, people with disabilities, First Nations people and single women over the age of 55-years. The Teilhaus model gave us an opportunity to test ideas around small-footprint living. Recognising the importance and value of all shared spaces to foster a sense of community, we worked very hard with Fresh Hope Communities and Nightingale Housing to create simple spaces of connection that provide people with a good quality of life in the most efficient way. Examples include lift lobby areas, laundry, terraces, and large communal spaces.

The project was classed as a boarding house. How did you challenge negative conceptions of boarding houses with homely spaces?

It is quite common for boarding houses to be regarded as substandard accommodation not worthy of good design and amenity, reinforced by the temporary or short term nature of this type of housing. With a lack of elements that contribute towards a person's identity such as an address, and limited opportunity to make internal changes to personal space beyond your furnishings, it was important for this project to not feel institutional and to challenge these negative perceptions.

To create more homely environments, we included flexible and customisable elements in the Teilhaus to provide opportunities for each resident to personalise their own space. One of the things we love are the incredibly flexible, marine ply pinboards and the warmth they bring. They’re a great representation of what the project is all about, providing flexible housing and flexible spaces with rooms that residents can decorate how they choose. The pinboards are made of plywood shelves held up with dowels that can be used as bookshelves or supporting a TV, as extra spaces for mugs or plates or hooks for jackets, or to hang artwork.

It was also important to create common rooms that are inviting spaces to be in — these types of spaces typically found in apartment buildings, such as indoor pools or gyms, are often unpleasant and not as beneficial to residents. Our approach was to keep the design simple and focus on creating intimate, warm and inviting communal areas. In our minds, the large communal spaces were big, shared kitchens and dining spaces with large islands in the kitchen big enough for three to four people to cook at any one time. The residents use the end of the bench to display unwanted household items (e.g. crockery, books etc.) that they want to offer to other residents in the same way that you would in communal living or share houses. This is an example of the little things you can do that don’t cost a lot of money but make beautiful spaces and encourage more connection between people.

How was the choice of materials influenced by the sustainable approach to building?

Nightingale Housing / Breathe brought their reductive approach to design and construction, including their expertise in sustainable product and material selection in the form of a design handbook. It was very challenging to work in this way as every material and product we specified was questioned, and the cost of sustainable materials and products was generally at a premium. Our primary aim was to create spaces that feel homely, while Fresh Hope Communities ensured there was a focus on the practicalities of cleaning and maintenance over the life cycle of the building. It was a lovely collaboration of different interests that led to a more considered and comprehensive approach. These measures reduced the cost to the budget, were important to Fresh Hope Communities as on-going managers and caretakers of the building, and always challenged us to find durable, where possible locally sourced, and aesthetically pleasing materials and products within budget.

How has the Housing SEPP facilitated the planning and design guidance for build-to-rent developments?

There were a number of planning instruments applicable to boarding houses creating a complex, and at times ambiguous, planning environment that ultimately limited innovative solutions. An example of this was the requirement in the Marrickville Development Control Plan (DCP) for smaller communal spaces on each level of a multi-storey boarding house. We chose instead to keep all of the communal amenities to the one level to maximise the opportunities for residents to connect. There was also a complexity in interpreting the standard of amenity required for boarding houses coupled with ambiguity around the role of the Apartment Design Guide to fill the gap in design standards for boarding houses.
In the absence of fit-for-purpose minimum design standards tailored to boarding houses, we were required to demonstrate the positive outcomes and benefit of the proposed communal spaces. Recognising the ambiguity and limitations in the different housing policies that existed at the time, the NSW Government has since developed a single Housing SEPP. This provides more certainty for build-to-rent housing with the addition of a new development stream, recognising the model’s potential to increase affordable rentals to the housing market. The new SEPP acknowledges the amenity provided by common spaces and shared facilities. It also provides greater clarity on how the Apartment Design Guide is applied to build-to-rent accommodation, identifying which design standards are more flexible and the conditions under which this flexibility applies.

What were some of the challenges and how did you overcome these?

Faith-based organisations may have significant land holdings with vacant buildings and underutilised sites that could provide affordable housing. However, they often contain churches or other buildings of local character or heritage significance. The proposed demolition of the church was a key challenge for the project and highlighted the tension between the preservation of church buildings and development.

Prior to the lodgement of the Development Application (DA), the site was subject to applications to list the church for local significance, which were adopted by Council. Lodgement of the DA was accompanied by a heritage report that concluded the church did not warrant inclusion on the local significance register. Council’s refusal of the DA led to the application for the matter to be heard at the NSW Local Environment Court (LEC). In addition, Council had applied for an Heritage Interim Order on the site to revisit its heritage value. In the end, following public consultation and consideration of opposing arguments for listing, Council narrowly voted against the motion to list the church as a Heritage item.

A key feature of the Nightingale model is to locate projects in walkable areas close to services and within 400m of a train station to provide access to public transport, reduce car parking and the expense associated with the excavation of a basement. We proposed fewer car spaces, arguing that car ownership in the area is very low and that the proximity to the train station, access to bicycle paths, car share and increased bicycle parking reduced the need for car parking. The DA that was initially rejected by Council on the basis of local heritage listing and a lack of on-site car parking, was eventually settled following the appeal in the LEC. Council have become advocates for the project, distributing leaflets to other churches to encourage similar developments.

What are you most proud of about the project and what are the key lessons for other affordable housing providers and designers?

There has been a lot of positive feedback — the residents we’ve met have told us that they love living there and are really proud of the building. The building brings together people from all walks of life and different segments of society, many from the local area, which was always the goal for Fresh Hope Communities.

One of the things that I’m most proud of, is that we could use our design sense to make the best of the cheaper materials we were able to use. This project was an opportunity to think harder about material selection and our interior designers did well to balance the colours and materials to create warm and inviting spaces, while satisfying the sustainability and maintenance criteria. As the accommodation needs to be managed by a housing provider, the product needs to provide benefits to the operators rather than liabilities of maintenance and replacement costs.

Communities need to advocate for affordable housing, and I think increasingly they are because they realise that it’s not just affecting one portion of society, it's affecting everyone. I think our perceptions of rental accommodation are also changing, particularly negative connotations around short-term rentals such as boarding house rooms. Australia hasn’t embraced the rental market in the past, and I think growing recognition that affordable housing is important to everyone, and not just one cohort of society, has significantly changed our attitudes towards housing models such as build-to-rent and renting as a long-term option.

We have a big opportunity with the Housing SEPP to explore other typologies, expand the idea of what is suitable housing and question if we are delivering the housing that people want. Our experience has been that we need to design and build different residential typologies for people to recognise what they want. And that testing is an important way for people to work out how they want to live and what spaces they want to live in.
One area that would support the design community to deliver more good quality affordable housing is keeping efficiencies in the floor plans by repeating floor plans and simplifying construction, so that landscaping, outlook and quality fixtures that you use everyday (e.g. taps and door handles) can be prioritised. In terms of scaling, the room types can be used as a type of pattern book for future sites, however, every site has development controls which will impact the nuances of the planning.

More innovation in planning and shared amenities comes down to promoting a sharing economy, and the benefits of sharing spaces with others. We’re already seeing this in Nightingale Marrickville — it feels like a big share household and that is something I didn’t expect. Promoting the sharing economy includes testing the limits of how we share space, and determining the balance of what elements promote community and what’s required for a sense of privacy and ownership. Standard build-to-rent isn’t necessarily affordable with many high-end projects including shared facilities as value adds. I think it’s important to focus on creating more common spaces that are nice spaces to be in and the simple things you can do to encourage social interaction. There are many segments of the community that don't just need housing, they need social connection.

Project team

Client: Fresh Hope Communities

Architects and Interior designers: SJB (Adam Haddow, Charles Peters, Charlotte Wilson, Darryl Santos, Gabrielle Suhr, Holly Jullian, Jack Osborn, James Southern, Jemima Frank, Juan Muñoz-Tamayo, Julia Prell, Mitchell Solomonson, Nadia Vidor, Nemanja Stanar, Sophie Swift, Tamara Kerr, Zhodi Tesfa)

Design Review: Breathe and Nightingale Housing

Developer: Fresh Hope Communities

Project Manager: ICON Constructions

Builder: CD Construction Group

Structural Engineer: M+G Consulting

Civic and Stormwater Engineer: M+G Consulting

Hydraulic Consultant: JN Consulting Engineers

Mechanical and Electrical Engineer: JN / Broadair

Fire Engineer: ELAB

ESD Consultant: Northrop

Planner: Ethos Urban

Landscape Design: Dangar Barin Smith

Traffic Consultant: STANTEC / OPTIMUS

Certification: City Plan

Fire Engineering: GHD

BASIX Consultant: ELAB

Kitchen Design: The Mack Group

Program

Residential:

54 Teilhaus small-footprint apartments

Commercial:

Affordable arts and cultural space

Social enterprise café

Communal spaces:

Outdoor terrace

Garden

Laundries / outdoor hanging areas

Recreation areas

Number of levels: 6 storeys

Produced with the assistance of the Alastair Swayn Foundation