A housing target is also a social infrastructure target

In my LinkedIn writing, I have been considering housing growth alongside the infrastructure people need to live well. Victoria’s activity-centre programme provides one context for that question: additional homes are planned around transport, jobs and services.

Housing supply is an essential part of the response. It also changes the demands placed on libraries, community facilities, schools, health services, parks and places where people can spend time together.

A neighbourhood may have a facility on a map without that facility being accessible to everyone who needs it. Opening hours, capacity, cost, language, physical access and the range of activities all shape its practical value.

Planning needs to understand both existing provision and the needs of people who may arrive over time. Demographic information, service data, local knowledge and an assessment of infrastructure condition each contribute a different part of that picture.

An infrastructure funding mechanism creates a way to resource some of the response. Decisions about what to fund, where and when still need evidence and judgement.

I am interested in the connection between a spatial proposal and a service plan: which needs are being prioritised, what assumptions sit behind those priorities, and how communities can influence the decisions that affect their daily life.

Soft Infrastructure can help organisations examine local needs, map services, review policy and bring community and practitioner knowledge into a planning question.

The useful output is a clear basis for a decision, with attention to the timing, responsibilities and resources needed to put it into practice. My housing and community-wellbeing project accounts show how this approach has informed my work.