{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014762165117550574, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002186987424822307, 'mean_word_length': 5.606498194945848, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Discretion versus prescription: Assessing the spatial impact of design regulations in apartments in Australia

The Victorian Government introduced the Better Apartment Design Guidelines in 2017. The introduction of these new regulations is a response to growing criticism over the quality of the large number of apartments recently constructed in Melbourne. This concern is shared in other Australian cities, but until now Victorian planning regulations have been the least prescriptive and most permissive in terms of apartment design parameters of any Australian jurisdiction. Reflecting on these concerns raises several questions in terms of the effectiveness of regulating for quality. Does regulating design in apartments improve quality or stifle innovation? Can the effect be measured, given the large number of exogenous factors involved in apartment production, and what might this tell us about the nature of ‘good-design’ and ‘quality-in-apartments’? This study explores the way in which different development control systems regulating apartment design impact the quality of internal apartment design. The two systems chosen, operating in Victoria and New South Wales, have been considered per Booth’s framework of regulatory and discretionary development control systems with the previous Victorian system seen as discretionary and the New South Wales approach a mix of regulatory-discretionary controls. Ten planning applications for high-rise residential developments were selected from Melbourne and Sydney. These were analysed against a set of good design principles defined by reviewing relevant literature and existing regulations. The results of the paper suggest the intuition of the Victorian Government that some form of intervention in the market is warranted to safeguard quality is likely to be correct.