PHILIP MARLOWE: RAYMOND CHANDLER’S ENDURING LITE- LITE-RARY CHARACTER

Access to and Availability of Technology and Innovation

Developers were generally viewed as practical people, and thus wanted practical, implementable solutions rather than theoretical and untested ideals. This finding was not unexpected, given that many respondents had engineering or construction backgrounds. They also felt that any adaptive measures had to be flexible.

It was widely agreed that if property developers were taking on the climate change challenge, they were “badging” it as ESD.

“I suppose that it previously have been environmentally sustainable development. I have never had a conversation with developers about climate change per se. It is more about their response to the challenges of what the market is looking for in respect of climate change, so in my experience it has always even attached to the ESD principles”

(CS1, Consultant).

Some participants did not specifically mention climate change (particularly in the context of sea level rise) but they did couch the response to the risk in terms of ESD and energy efficiency. Further, some business communities were viewed as “highly engaged” in climate change response through ESD principles. Moreover, ESD features were commonly included in commercial and retail buildings, as well as many residential buildings:

“The project has to get a minimum score in the scorecard so it is up to the project to select what sort of initiatives in achieving the minimum sustainability requirements” (LD1, Large Developer).

Often, the underlying rationale for implementing ESD features in a development was not for overt environmental reasons, but to improve convenience and comfort of the buyers. Promoting developments as sustainable was used primarily as a marketing tool to get more sales, rather than from any actual concern about the environment.

However, even if developers were personally concerned about ESD, the consumers were not requesting it and nor were they prepared to pay extra for it.

The capacities of private developers in urban climate change adaptation 103 However, if ESD features are well designed, these can be affordable. Thus, if sustainable developments are branded as affordable, these might be viewed by the market as desirable. Further, if certain sectors of the market (i.e. the retirement sector) demand features such as self-sufficiency for energy, then developers were likely to respond to that market driver; and this may filter to the rest of the residential market.

“People don’t really care so much for the environment. Especially with the carbon tax on the nose as well. Why pay extra for this if you are going to get the same sort of house next door in the same community for 20 grand less, is it worth it, not too sure” (MD3, Medium Developer.

Change Use and/or Location of Development

The ability to change the use and/or location of development combines three of

Burton’s (1996) adaptive measures; Bear the Loss, Change Use and Change Location.

These might involve converting vulnerable areas from development to greenspace, transferable development rights, choosing alternate sites on which to develop, or even planned retreat.

Very few participants mentioned any of these options, except for planned retreat, which was viewed extremely negatively.

“Council at one stage was actively seeking to prevent those people seeking to protect their houses. Thankfully that was overturned in court, but to me that was just an unacceptable condition that people clearly have a right to defend their houses” (CS8, Consultant).

Most felt that if governments tried to force people to move to less risky areas, they would resist, partly because “Australians have a love affair with the coast” (AR1, Architect). In addition, such policies needed to give people options; to what alternative (and equally desirable) areas could they move? Even the sustainability consultants felt that planned retreat was not a viable policy.

However, some respondents did change the locations of their future projects, to LGAs that were seen as more proactive and accepting of development. If possible,

developers also chose sites that had fewer risks, and were more profitable to develop.

A small developer said it was unlikely they would develop on flood-prone land because all the locals would know about it, and it would cost too much to fill.

Further, subsequent to the Brisbane floods of 2010/2011, some commercial or mixed developers were moving essential infrastructure from basements to higher levels. They were also using the lower floors for retail and offices and higher floors for residences.

Time & Scale of Development

A major finding of the research was that the temporal and spatial scale of a given development was integral to whether climate change was considered a risk (particularly direct, physical risk) (Figure 24). For example, “it is all about time. Do you get in and get out, or are you there for the long term?” (SD2, Small Developer) or “timing is integral to risk perception” (SC1, Sustainability Consultant).

104 The capacities of private developers in urban climate change adaptation Figure 22 Coding References to Time

Many developers were only concerned with getting in and out as quickly as possible, and paying off bank loans. As the timeframes of their developments were so short, many smaller developers were not concerned about climate change. Moreover, this was exacerbated by the funders; bankers stated that the maximum period for which they would lend money for property development was two years.

The majority of participants considered that the time frames in which they worked were too short to worry about climate change, which they saw as happening far in the future.

In the words of one developer, “That adaptation thing is not really at the forefront of developer’s minds. Especially with the current impacts of the GFC and that, we have much more important things, in the short term, to worry about things that may happen in 90 years’ time, or over a period of time” (MD3, Medium Developer).

On the other hand, institutional investors, such as superannuation funds, took a longer term view, and factored climate change into their projects. However, these mostly funded large scale, commercial projects. Indeed, climate change was seen as a potential risk to bigger developers with lengthy and large projects. Further, bigger developers were seen as wanting to leave a legacy, as their brand was associated with their developments in the long term.

“Some who have projects with a really long time frame, 20 to 25 years, under which they will be developed, have it within their thinking at some stage, in their planning at some stage knowing that they will most probably need to respond in different ways over a number of strategies.

The smaller six pack developers mums and dads who want to develop and get out are driven largely by what markets will do and the codes and energy efficiency” (CS5, Consultant).

This was the major difference between residential and commercial developers.

Residential developers sought to finish and sell all development projects as quickly as possible, whereas commercial developers built projects to hold and rent to tenants. Of note, many developers built both residential and commercial buildings; and they used the income from commercial buildings to help fund the riskier residential developments (or pay holding costs, such as land taxes and rates) before and during development.

The capacities of private developers in urban climate change adaptation 105

As commercial developers generally did not generally sell their buildings, they wished to reduce their long term maintenance costs, so ensured that the buildings had energy efficient fixtures and fittings. Further, more sustainable commercial buildings (i.e. high Green Star or NABERS ratings) attracted more desirable tenants, such as government agencies, or large corporations.

However, all developers felt that the time taken by governments to approve developments was excessively protracted. Some wished to undertake short term developments, and the approvals process had resulted in lengthy delays, of a decade or more. This was considered a significant risk, as land had been bought for a good price, with the expectations of making a profit when selling development projects.

However, most agreed that, “time is money, and the longer it takes, the more it will cost” (SC1, Sustainability Consultant) Therefore, the cost of holding land for long periods was extremely onerous, due to land taxes, rates, interest payments, etc., and the eventual profit, if any, could be significantly less than initial projections.

Type of development

The type of development product also had an impact on willingness to implement adaptive measures, and thus adaptive capacity. Type of development is, of course, interrelated with the spatial and temporal scale of development (discussed above) and bank’s lending criteria. Large master planned developments, or CBD high-rises take much longer to develop and build, than do a small block of townhouses, or a small subdivision.

The major dichotomy apparent in the research was between commercial (and retail) development and residential development. Developers of commercial buildings were actively implanting adaptive measures, such as passive ventilation, solar panels, recirculated water, water sensitive urban design, and white painted roofs. They were also “competing” to achieve higher Green Star and NABERS sustainability ratings.

There were a number of reasons for this; commercial developers were responding to demands from quality tenants; they were granted government subsidies for doing so;

and they tended not to sell their buildings, but keep them and rent them out. Because they did not sell their buildings, they also wished to reduce operations and

maintenance costs.

However, with the exception of very large developers, most residential developers were not actively marketing their products as sustainable. This was due to an almost total lack of market demand; desire to sell the development products as quickly as possible;

and no incentives from government. Further, some developers reported that the

inflexible planning approvals process of many LGAs and the State Government actually prevented them from trying innovative developments.

7.3.4 Economic and Market Characteristics