A GIS based planning support system for assessing financial feasibility of urban redevelopment

Abstract

Urban densification trends combined with redevelopment increasingly moving away from large former industrial and transport sites toward existing town centres and corridors indicate redevelopment is becoming increasingly complex, difficult to plan for and undertake. The interplay between land and property markets and planning frameworks suggest city planners and urban researchers need new tools and methodologies to gain insights into ways to deliver effective responses. Despite the need, there is a limited availability of comprehensive models to fulfil the task. This paper describes a GIS-based tool to assess parcel-level financial feasibility and housing supply associated with urban redevelopment within a precinct. The tool incorporates existing and potential built form and parameters associated with the planning framework and land and property markets. Using a real case study in a workshop, tool performance was evaluated by professional urban planners in terms of its capacity to produce metrics and visualisations of potential scenarios of redevelopment. Results indicate the usefulness of the tool for emulating land market conditions and testing scenarios of planning regulation and market changes for strategic planning purposes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Arciniegas, G., & Janssen, R. (2012). Spatial decision support for collaborative land use planning workshops. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107, 332–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. ASBEC, Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (2010) Cities for the Future: Baseline Report and Key Issues.

  3. Boulange, C., Pettit, C., & Giles-Corti, B. (2017). The walkability planning support system: An evidence-based tool to design healthy communities. In Geertman, S., Allan, A., Pettit, C. & Stillwell, J. (Eds), Planning support science for smarter urban futures (pp. 153–165). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brueckner, J. K., & Sridhar, K. S. (2012). Measuring welfare gains from relaxation of land-use restrictions: The case of India’s building-height limits. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42, 1061–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Butler-Bowden, C., & Pickett, C. (2007). Homes in the sky: Apartment living in Australia. Melbourne: The Miegunyah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cardew, R. (1980). Flats in Sydney: The thirty percent solution? In J. Roe (Ed.), Twentieth century Sydney: Studies in urban and social history (pp. 69–88). Sydney: Hale & Iremonger.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cheshire, P., & Sheppard, S. (2002). The welfare economics of land use planning. Journal of Urban Economics, 52, 242–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. DPE, Department of Planning and Environment of New South Wales (2015) SEPP 65: State environmental planning policy no 65-design quality of residential apartment development. Sydney, NSW, Australia.

  9. DPE, Department of Planning and Environment of New South Wales, Australia (2016) 2016 NSW population and households’ projection, http://www.planning.org.au/Research-and-Demography/Demography/Population-projections. Accessed 20 November 2016.

  10. ESRI 2017. What is modelbuilder? http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/analyze/modelbuilder/what-is-modelbuilder.htm Accessed 12 December 2017.

  11. Forster, C. (2006). The challenge of change: Australian cities and urban planning in the new millennium. Geographical Research, 44(2), 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Geertman, S., Allan, A., Pettit, C., & Stillwell, J. (2017). Introduction to ‘planning support science for smarter urban futures’. In Geertman, S., Allan, A., Pettit, C. & Stillwell, J. (Eds), Planning support science for smarter urban futures (pp. 1–19). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Geshkov, M. V., & DeSalvo, J. S. (2012). The effect of land-use controls on the spatial size of U.S. urbanized areas. Journal of Regional Science, 52(4), 648–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Habitat, U. N. (2013). Planning and design for sustainable urban mobility: Global report on human settlements. New York: United Nations.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Harvard, T. (2014). financial feasibility studies for property development: theory and practice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Housing Industry Association (2017). Building approval. HIA research note February 2017.

  17. Ihlanfeldt, K. R. (2007). The effect of land use regulation on housing and land prices. Journal of Urban Economics, 61, 420–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Leao, S. Z., Huynh, N., Taylor, A., Pettit, C., & Perez, P. (In press, Accepted in Feb 2017). Evolution of a synthetic population and its daily mobility patterns under spatial strategies for urban growth. In Geertman, S., Allan, A., Stillwell, J., & Pettit, C. (Eds.), Planning support science for smarter urban futures (pp. 399–417) Berlin: Springer.

  19. Lieske, S. N., McLeod, D. M., & Coupal, R. H. (2015). Infrastructure development, residential growth and impacts on public service expenditure. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 8(2), 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Major Cities Unit. (2012). State of Australian cities 2011. Canberra: Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Australian Government.

    Google Scholar 

  21. OECD. (2012). Compact city policies: A comparative assessment. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Pinnegar, S., Randolph, B., & Freestone, R. (2015). Incremental urbanism: characteristics and implications of residential redevelopment through owner-driven demolition and rebuilding. Town Planning Review, 86(3), 279–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Randolph, B. (2006). Delivering the compact city in Australia: Current trends and future implications. Urban Policy and Research, 24(4), 473–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rawlinsons (2016) Australian construction handbook Rivervale: Rawlinsons Publishing.

  25. Ruming, K. (2014). Urban consolidation, strategic planning and community position in Sydney, Australia: unpacking policy knowledge and public perceptions. Land Use Policy, 39, 254–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tajani, F., & Morano, P. (2015). An evaluation model of the financial feasibility of social housing in urban redevelopment. Property Management, 33(2), 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Troy, L., Easthope, H., Randolph, B., & Pinnegar, S. (2015a). Renewing the compact city: Interim report. Sydney, Australia: City Futures Research Centre, UNSW.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Troy, L., Randolph, B., Pinnegar, S., & Easthope, H. (2015b). Planning the end of the compact city?, In Proceedings of the state of Australian cities Conference 2015 (pp. 9–11). Gold Coast: QLD, Australia.

  29. Troy, L., Easthope, H., Randolph, B., & Pinnegar, S. (2017). ‘It depends what you mean by the term rights’: strata termination and housing rights. Housing Studies, 32(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. van den Nouwelant, R., Davison, G., Gurran, N., Pinnegar, S., & Randolph, B. (2015). Delivering affordable housing through the planning system in urban redevelopment contexts: converging government roles in Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales. Australian Planner, 52(2), 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the City of Randwick, Australia, in 2016. The workshop and questionnaires used in the project were approved by the UNSW Human Research Ethics Committee on 16 May 2016 (HC16333). The authors would like to thank the urban planners who participated in the workshop testing the URFF PSS tool presented in this paper in a real-world case study, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable revision of the text, comments and contributions to the improvement of this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Z. Leao.

Additional information

If the manuscript is published, the “Financial Feasibility of Urban Redevelopment GIS Toolbox” and a “sample data” will be available to any interested user for download at the “CityData” https://citydata.be.unsw.edu.au/) link at the website of the City Futures Research Centre/University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leao, S.Z., Troy, L., Lieske, S.N. et al. A GIS based planning support system for assessing financial feasibility of urban redevelopment. GeoJournal 83, 1373–1392 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-017-9843-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Modelling
  • Visualisation
  • Scenario
  • Urban consolidation