Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems
ThatPainter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More
Community housing can add genuinely affordable rental homes while making better use of existing public housing. Its strongest case is not that it replaces government housing, but that not-for-profit providers can combine public subsidy, private finance, development partnerships and purpose-built design. The 2018 case of Caggara House in Brisbane shows how a well-located, accessible apartment building for older, low-income residents can improve day-to-day living and potentially release larger homes for other households.
What community housing contributes
Community housing is rental housing managed by not-for-profit providers for people who cannot reliably afford market rents. Providers may develop, own or manage homes, usually in cooperation with government agencies, private developers, community organisations and lenders. The model is complementary: it can expand the supply of social and affordable housing, but it does not remove the need for public investment.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The central policy problem is a mismatch between household incomes, rents and the available housing stock. The 2018 feature by Peter Mares, republished by Architecture & Design on 24 September 2018, reported that more than half of low-income tenants in the private market were spending at least 30 percent of disposable income on rent. That figure belongs to the article’s reporting year and should not be treated as a current national estimate without a newer statistical source. It nevertheless illustrates why a rent set below ordinary market levels can be decisive for a household’s stability.
Community providers can also target a design and management gap. Public housing stock may include large, older houses occupied by one or two people after family circumstances change. A smaller, accessible apartment near services can fit the resident better while making the former dwelling available to a family that needs more bedrooms. This is an allocation strategy as much as a construction strategy.
#1 Best Overall
As David Cant, identified in the 2018 feature as Brisbane Housing Company’s chief executive for its first 15 years, put it: “Not-for-profits can take risks. They can work quicker and smarter.” The practical meaning is that a provider can assemble a site, negotiate a partnership and design a project around a defined group of residents, while government sets the affordability and regulatory conditions that make the project viable.
Caggara House: the Brisbane example
Who and what it was designed for
Caggara House is described in the 2018 feature as a Brisbane Housing Company development in Mount Gravatt. It contains 57 one-bedroom apartments in a five-storey building for low-income residents aged 55 and over. The project is a historical case study, not evidence of the provider’s current portfolio or of current Queensland housing policy.
The location was part of the affordability solution. The development was reported to be close to shops, a medical centre, cafés and public transport. For an older tenant, being able to reach a doctor, buy groceries or attend appointments without a long trip can reduce dependence on a car and make a modest apartment more workable.
What a resident’s apartment includes
The feature follows Jeannie, who moved from a larger public-housing property into a one-bedroom apartment at Caggara House. The apartment described has a separate bedroom, a compact bathroom, an open-plan kitchen, living and dining area, and a balcony. That arrangement keeps private space distinct while avoiding the cost and maintenance burden of an oversized home.
Accessibility details are integral rather than decorative. The building includes a lift, a security entrance, wide passages and wide doorways. Those features can matter to a resident with limited mobility, someone using a walking aid, or anyone planning to remain in the home as their needs change. They also reduce the likelihood that a tenant will have to move again solely because the building has become difficult to navigate.
Rank #2
Shared areas without sacrificing privacy
Caggara House consists of two buildings with a landscaped communal garden between them. The shared facilities described in the article include barbecue areas, a communal laundry and a common room used for gatherings, meetings and exercise classes. Residents can choose ordinary private apartment life while having somewhere to meet neighbours or take part in organised activities.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsThis balance is important for older residents. A building that offers only private units can leave people isolated; one that makes socialising compulsory can feel intrusive. The reported design separates the home as a private retreat from optional communal spaces. The article also says the development received energy-efficiency awards, but it does not identify the awards or provide performance figures, so no specific environmental rating can be inferred.
How moving to a smaller home can free public housing
The Caggara House argument depends on using the whole housing system more efficiently. Suppose an older public-housing tenant occupies a three-bedroom house after children have left. If that tenant chooses a suitable one-bedroom apartment, the larger house can be offered to a family that needs its bedrooms. The move is not a forced downsizing policy; it works only when the new home is attractive, affordable, accessible and located where the resident can still reach services and social connections.
The mechanism can also release value. A provider or government may be able to sell, refinance or repurpose an asset that is no longer the best fit, then direct the proceeds toward additional affordable homes. The 2018 feature reported that Caggara House represented an investment of A$15 million and that A$25 million in assets was freed for other uses. Those are figures reported in that article, not a current development budget, valuation or guaranteed return on a similar project today.
For residents, the benefit is a home designed around present needs rather than a nominally larger dwelling that is expensive to heat, maintain and secure. For the wider system, the benefit is a better match between bedroom supply and household size. The trade-off is that a one-bedroom apartment cannot replace a larger home for a family, so the approach must be part of a broader program that builds different dwelling types.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Why affordable rents still require subsidy
Operating income does not cover every cost
Low rents protect tenants from rental stress, but they also limit the income available for debt service, insurance, repairs, maintenance, staffing and future replacement of building components. A project can be well occupied and carefully managed yet still fail to cover its full capital and operating costs from rent alone.
David Cant stated the principle directly: “If you want to house people on lower incomes then you have to find a bit of a subsidy.” Piers Williamson, identified in the feature as chief executive of The Housing Finance Corporation at the time, expressed the same point: “Subsidised housing requires a subsidy.” Subsidy can take several forms: a government grant, land provided below market value, an operating payment, a tax or planning concession, or a financing arrangement that lowers the cost of borrowing. The exact mix changes by jurisdiction and program.
Borrowing and partnerships extend public money
Not-for-profit providers can borrow against predictable rental income and existing assets, allowing a public grant or land contribution to support more construction than a grant alone might achieve. Private developers may contribute land, development expertise or cross-subsidy from market-rate homes. Community organisations can help identify residents and provide services. Government remains essential because the affordability requirement usually makes an ordinary market development unviable.
Borrowing is not free money. Interest, refinancing risk and covenant requirements must be covered over the life of the building. A project that relies on optimistic rent growth or a short promotional funding window can become vulnerable when rates rise or a grant expires. Sound planning therefore tests the development against conservative rents, realistic maintenance reserves and several interest-rate scenarios.
Recommended Free Tools
The delivery model: providers, governments and developers
The 2018 feature presents community housing as a partnership model rather than a single institutional template. Brisbane Housing Company is named as the organisation behind Caggara House. The article also names Housing First in Melbourne, formerly Port Phillip Housing Association, and BlueCHP in Sydney. Those descriptions reflect the article’s 2018 reporting; they should not be read as current statements about each organisation’s leadership, size, programs or ownership.
A typical project has distinct responsibilities:
- Government: sets eligibility and rent rules, supplies capital or land, regulates providers and may fund support services.
- Community housing provider: defines the resident group, manages tenancies, oversees maintenance and often assembles the finance.
- Private developer or builder: controls site acquisition, construction delivery, cost management and, in some structures, market-sale components.
- Community or health organisations: connect residents with local services, activities and tenancy support where required.
- Lenders and investors: provide debt or other capital under conditions that reflect the project’s long-term, regulated income.
The arrangement must state who owns the land and building, who carries construction and refinancing risk, how rents are calculated, what happens when a tenant’s circumstances change, and which party funds major repairs. Without those terms, a headline number of apartments says little about the security or quality residents will receive.
Historical figures reported in the 2018 feature
The following figures are retained because they explain the argument made in the 2018 article. They are not current national statistics or forecasts.
| Figure | What it referred to | Qualification |
|---|---|---|
| 57 | One-bedroom apartments at Caggara House | Reported by Peter Mares in the 2018 feature; Mount Gravatt, Brisbane |
| A$15 million | Reported investment in Caggara House | 2018 article figure; not a verified current construction cost |
| A$25 million | Reported value of assets freed for other uses | 2018 article figure; not a current valuation or guaranteed future amount |
| More than 50 percent | Low-income private-market tenants reported as spending at least 30 percent of disposable income on rent | Claim reported in 2018; no underlying dataset is supplied in the article text |
| Less than 1 percent | Share of Australian dwellings attributed to community housing | Historical 2018 claim; current share requires an original statistical publication |
| 170 associations | UK housing associations said to own 2.49 million homes | Historical comparison reported in 2018, not a current UK sector profile |
| More than 10 percent | Share of all UK housing attributed to those homes | Historical 2018 claim; definition and current denominator require verification |
| £45 billion (A$75 billion) | Grant funding cited as underpinning Britain’s affordable-housing model | Attributed in 2018 to Piers Williamson; not a current funding total |
Australia and the United Kingdom: a limited historical comparison
The feature contrasts Australia’s smaller community-housing presence with the larger role it attributes to UK housing associations. Oona Goldsworthy, described at the time as chief executive of United Communities, said: “Housing associations in the United Kingdom grew out of an ideological and political push that the state is not necessarily the best provider of housing.” The historical comparison is useful for showing that non-government providers can become major long-term landlords, but it does not establish that the two countries now have equivalent rules, subsidies, planning systems or tenant protections.
The reported UK figures—170 associations owning 2.49 million homes, more than 10 percent of all UK housing, and £45 billion (A$75 billion) in grant funding—belong to the 2018 account. They should be read as evidence of the scale described then, not as a current benchmark for Australian policy. A contemporary comparison would need matching definitions of social housing, affordable rent, ownership, dwelling count and government support.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to assess a community-housing project
Apartment count alone cannot show whether a project addresses the affordable-housing crisis. Residents, funders and policymakers can test a proposal against the following questions.
Best Value
Eligibility and tenure
- Which households qualify, and how is income assessed?
- Is the tenancy ongoing, fixed-term or linked to a support program?
- How are rent increases calculated, and what happens if household income changes?
- Are residents protected from arbitrary termination and excessive additional charges?
Location and everyday access
- Can residents reach shops, medical care, public transport and social networks without unreasonable travel?
- Does the site have safe pedestrian routes, lighting and accessible entrances?
- Will transport and services remain available if the neighbourhood changes?
Design and amenity
- Are lifts, door widths, corridors, bathrooms and kitchens usable by people with limited mobility?
- Are private homes large enough for the intended household, with adequate storage and natural light?
- Are communal rooms and gardens genuinely optional, maintained and safe?
- What energy, cooling and heating features reduce bills and protect residents during extreme weather?
Financial durability
- What subsidy makes the rent affordable, and is it secured for the life of the building?
- Does the budget include routine maintenance, major renewals, insurance and accessibility upgrades?
- Who bears construction-cost overruns, vacancy risk and refinancing risk?
- If market-rate dwellings are included, how much net cross-subsidy reaches the affordable homes?
Partnership accountability
- Who owns the land and completed building?
- Who selects tenants, manages complaints and reports outcomes?
- Which government agency regulates the provider and publishes performance information?
- What happens to the homes if a provider merges, fails or withdraws?
Common pitfalls and better fixes
Treating a one-off project as a national solution
A successful building can demonstrate a model without supplying enough homes to change the market. The fix is a pipeline: multiple sites, predictable subsidy, trained providers and a range of dwelling sizes.
Counting units while ignoring suitability
Small apartments built far from services may be cheaper on paper but unsuitable for older tenants or people with disabilities. Specify location, accessibility and operating standards before counting delivery.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Assuming rent pays for everything
Affordability can be undermined when a project underfunds maintenance or relies on a grant that ends before major components need replacement. Long-term asset plans and ring-fenced reserves are as important as the opening-day budget.
Making downsizing coercive
Moving from a larger public-housing home should be a genuine choice supported by suitable alternatives, moving assistance and continuity of neighbourhood ties. Coercion can create hardship and undermine trust, defeating the allocation goal.
Copying the UK structure without adapting it
Institutional history, planning law, finance and welfare settings differ between countries. The useful lesson is the potential scale and professionalism of not-for-profit landlords, not a ready-made policy transplant.
What the Caggara House case ultimately demonstrates
Caggara House links three ideas that are often discussed separately: housing designed for the resident’s actual needs, a location that supports independent living, and a financing structure that uses public support to unlock additional homes. Its 57 one-bedroom apartments show how a project can serve older, low-income residents while potentially releasing larger public housing for families. The reported A$15 million investment and A$25 million in released assets illustrate the asset-management argument, but they remain historical figures from 2018.
The wider lesson is a boundary as well as an opportunity. Community housing providers can innovate, partner and manage homes, yet affordable rents cannot carry the full cost of land, construction and lifelong maintenance without subsidy. As Cant warned in the feature, “As a nation, we are sleepwalking into inequality. The settings we have got are dividing the community.” Community housing is one practical way to change those settings, provided governments fund it as essential infrastructure rather than expecting low-income tenants to finance the entire system through rent.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
