Blog | Allan Spira

Nov

2019

Design Matters – Smart Rental Housing Choices for Canberra

Originally published by Canberra Times 27/10/2019

Allan Spira is a local architect, active member of the Institute of Architects and proponent for greater density and diversity as well as more affordable housing options for owners and renters in the ACT.

TT We’ve known each other a long time and I know you’ve always been very interested in community issues, cohousing and alternative models for living that are currently not permissible under the currently planning regime.

AS Our urban fabric is too regimented with most of the residential land devoted to single homes on separate blocks, with only pockets of medium density housing around some shopping centres and a more recent explosion of apartments; mainly clustered around town centres. I think as a City we are maturing and willing to look at alternative models for accommodation to address the lack of urban density and housing choice, particularly in the established inner suburbs close to the city’s amenities.

So why the focus on rental housing?

Because it’s becoming the only option for a lot of people (especially young would be home-owners), is over-priced and often in poor condition. At the same time, a growing number of us (often my generation of baby boomers) are living in large houses with underused space, large gardens, could do with a bit of extra income and might like some companionship.

What sort of model do you have in mind to allow this to happen?

The idea is to boost the availability of affordable (and compact) rental accommodation by extending the incentives, that are currently available to landlords, to ordinary householders.

There are enormous amounts of unused bedrooms in Canberra. In many large cities, population density is often achieved by adapting and infilling established areas rather than more development a long way from amenities and work. The model I have in mind could come about by incentivising existing home-owners (many of whom are asset rich but income poor) to segment a part of their properties (say a couple of adjoining bedrooms), and possibly add a new bathroom and kitchenette, to create a discrete self-contained apartment for affordable rental.

So, you’re thinking this initiative will deal with the issue of affordable housing. Do you have a funding model in mind?

This would likely require a capital outlay for the necessary alterations (for example to create a separate side entry, car space, add a bathroom, kitchenette or additional room, etc.). The building costs could be funded by low or zero interest loans (applicants could be means tested) provided the completed accommodation were made available for affordable housing (to eligible tenants at 75% of market rent). The properties could be managed by one of the ACT’s not-for-profit housing providers.

Could this be done through the tax system instead?

Land tax exemptions could apply as well (similar to the current scheme for landlords who make their properties available to older tenants).

Who do you think this system would benefit the most?

We are an ageing population so many people (often single women) are living in over-sized family homes but do not have the capacity to fund or borrow funds for such an initiative but who would benefit from having some ongoing rental income and may be less socially isolated as a consequence. The proposal could apply to either attached or detached (ie: studios) structures.

How would you ensure high quality design standards for such developments?

They would be subject to current design and building controls, including a minimum energy rating (ie: efficient to heat/cool) and a sufficient degree of acoustic separation. But, subject to maximum floor area controls, they would be treated as a single residence.

(image: alternative rental model example)

Jun

2018

The new plan to turn Canberra’s McMansions into mini unit complexes

Originally published by Han Nguyen – Canberra Times 28/05/18

It’s a common problem. The kids are all grown up and have moved out, and while the parents want to downsize, they also don’t want to leave the family home.

A Canberra architectural firm has come up with an innovative way to achieve both.

Architects James Gaughwin and Allan Spira discussing plans to transform a Farrer home. They are searching for people who want to convert their McMansions into two or three apartments under the same roof. Photo: Dion Georgopoulos

Allan Spira and graduate architect James Gaughwin of Allan Spira Architects want to “re-imagine existing housing stock”. Put simply, they want to turn some of Canberra’s big houses — often dubbed McMansions — effectively into mini unit complexes.

It’s their part in a government initiative designed to tackle Canberra’s affordable housing shortage.

“We thought that given new homes and infills are always going to be a very small contribution to changing the housing situation, we thought we should look at the existing housing stock,” Mr Spira said.

“There has been a tradition for building very large family homes for about 30 years and it seems things are slowly turning around and people are living in smaller and smarter homes and we thought we should look at the existing housing stock given the changing demographics of households.

“A large McMansion can be converted into two or three units and then people can downsize on their own block rather than having to find something in the neighborhood and then other people can buy in to middle or an inner suburb at a smaller price because they’re not having to pay for the land, so that’s the kind of thinking.”

While they have yet to convert any Canberra McMansions into multiple units, they gave an example of what they could do to a home by looking at one on the market.

They “re-imagined” the four-bedroom, three-bathroom and two-car space red-brick house at 38 Lambrigg Street in Farrer, into three units.

*BEFORE: As an example, the pair experimented with a property, 38 Lambrigg Street in Farrer, currently on the market.*

“We’ve looked at a couple of houses listed and started a concept plan,” he said.

“It’s not that difficult to convert homes if you can build an extra few kitchens, put in a bathroom here or there, you can create separate entries.”

In the Lambrigg Street house, they would separate the top floor of the house into two apartments, creating new entries off the existing front steps and porch. A new bathroom and kitchen are added to one. Each apartment has two bedrooms.

AFTER: The "re-imagined" McMansion transformed into three-units. — *AFTER: The “re-imagined” McMansion transformed into three-units.*

The ground level apartment would go from a rumpus room and laundry into a one-bedroom apartment with a kitchen, bathroom and laundry added. Additional car space is included.

But there remains one big catch to seeing their vision realised: Canberra’s planning laws.

The Farrer house is RZ2 zoned and sits on a less than 700 square metre block, which means units are not allowed.

“Three separate units as we are proposing would require a minimum block size of 1050 square metres, this block is 686 square metres,” he said.

“In any case, we’d like to see this type of development in all zones, including RZ1 standard residential zones, which includes over 80 per cent of the total residential area.”

Anyone who would like to assist should email Allan allan@allanspiraarchitects.com.au.

May

2018

Design Matters – Canberra Cohousing

Allan Spira says in Canberra the closest form of cohousing is Urambi Village in Kambah, developed in the 1970s.

Originally published by Tony Trobe – Canberra Times March 25, 2018

Allan Spira is a local architect, active member of the Institute of Architects and part of Canberra Cohousing; a group of residents who are seeking to facilitate the development of cohousing communities in our city.

Tony Trobe: What is Cohousing?

Allan Spira: It’s a rapidly emerging housing model that involves residents creating a community of self-contained homes with shared spaces such as a common house, guest room for visitors, garden and laundry. It offers an alternative approach to housing which is socially supportive, economically viable and environmentally sustainable.

TT: Is it for older people?

AS: No. There are several senior’s groups but our intention is to have a natural community of all ages, whether downsizers, first time owners or renters.

TT: How big?

AS: That depends on the size of the block – typically 20-30 separately-titled compact townhouses but can be any number, mainly determined by the size of the land.

TT: Has it been tried elsewhere?

AS: Cohousing originated in Denmark where it is now a mainstream form of housing (forms 10% of new residential buildings), Germany and other European countries and is popular in the USA. There are fewer developments in Australia; notably Christie Walk (Adelaide), Cascade (Hobart), Murundaka (Melbourne) and Pinakarri (Perth).

TT: What about Canberra?

AS: In Canberra the closest form of cohousing we have are Urambi Village in Kambah and Wybalena Grove in Cook, both developed in the 1970s.

Mr Steve Shann, a resident of Urambi Village assisted by other village members in the new village vegetable garden.

TT: How is it different from a town house estate?

AS: The major difference is that a cohousing community is initiated, designed and managed by its residents, and not initiated by a speculative developer who sells off the units for profit.

TT: Why is it less expensive?

AS: Because the residents are all selected before any money is outlaid on land or construction. This eliminates the developers risk and therefore reduces the margins. Typical margins are set at 15% of build costs.

TT: Are there other benefits?

AS: The design and construction quality are controlled by the residents, who also have a say in the scope and quality of what inclusions that they want and what they are prepared to do without. For example: ceiling fans and natural ventilation instead of airconditioning. The Social benefits shouldn’t be underrated either. In several countries, such as Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, governments have actively encouraged the development of senior cohousing communities because they keep people healthier and happier for longer and contribute to lower levels of demand on expensive health and social care services.

TT: Do they look different from other town house developments?

AS: One of the main differences is car parking (for fewer cars): which is clustered on the periphery with paths leading to each individual household. This allows for much more green space for deep rooted trees and provides an opportunity to socialise with neighbours.

TT: Any other environmental benefits?

AS: Typically, a greater emphasis on thermal building design, renewable energy, shared transport, cycling, water saving technologies, waste recycling and food harvesting as part of the integrated landscaping.

TT: Are there any issues with planning codes?

AS: Plenty! But the good news is that the ACT government is currently undertaking their Housing Choices consultation and looking for alternative housing models. We are seeking land close to public transport and car sharing services.

TT: What kinds of changes are you seeking?

AS: We would like cohousing to be an allowed in selected precincts within standard residential zones so existing residents could downsize and remain within their communities. Block amalgamations and unit titling need to be allowed in the RZ1 zone where cohousing is a suitable land use.

TT: How can you ensure developments are sympathetic with existing neighbourhoods?

AS: We believe all development applications for multi-unit projects should be submitted to the ACT Government’s proposed Design Review Panel to improve the overall quality of housing in the ACT. Creation of cohousing communities through amalgamating blocks and optimising development provide a much better approach to urban renewal than the spate of single block developments such as those currently being carried out on Mr Fluffy sites. Prior to self-government, the National Capital Development Authority oversaw some innovative compact housing developments that fit well into Canberra’s older suburbs. Many of those are documented in the Institute’s website: www.housingchoicecanberra.architecture.com.au

Dec

2017

Do all apartments blocks really need parking? Maybe not, say Canberra architects

Originally published by Katie Burgess – Canberra Times 27/11/2017

Canberra’s transport corridors should have separate planning rules to encourage higher density, the ACT’s peak body for architects has said.

The Australian Institute of Architects ACT chapter has released their vision for how Canberra’s zoning restrictions should be changed to revitalise the city.

It comes after the ACT government released a discussion paper suggesting the rules around dual occupancies in RZ1 could be relaxed to allow separate unit titling.

President Rob Henry said he saw more dual occupancies as a “viable” option.

“We don’t have a shortfall of housing in Canberra, we’re producing more houses than the population growth requires right now but we’re not producing the right kinds of housing,” Mr Henry said.

“You’ve got single houses and apartment buildings and the community wants something different.

“You’ve got people wanting to live in the suburbs they’ve grown up in but they want a more compact housing solution in that suburb.”

Mr Henry said there were opportunities to deploy a more strategic and “fine-grained” approach to zoning to make the most of existing municipal services.

“We’d like to see some mapping happening through various suburbs to look at transport routes and how we can densify along those routes,” Mr Henry said.

“We can do some increase in density in RZ1 if dual occupancies are allowed but we need to map the city better to see if we can increase RZ2 zones to allow larger developments.

“We should be looking around suburban shopping centres, and route from those that lead to major roads.

“These routes already have bus lines on them and some of them may have light rail lines in future. We want to be doing it where we know light rail will be running through in close proximity.”

Mr Henry said the government should also reconsider whether new developments near transport corridors need on-site parking.

ACT planning rules dictate one-bedroom apartment should have at least one car spot; two bedroom apartments should have at least 1.5; and apartments of three bedrooms or more need two car spaces.

There also needs to be one visitor space for every four homes in a complex.

“Plenty of people don’t have cars, don’t want cars, and if going to strengthen our public transport network we can reduce space for car parking requirements,” Mr Henry said.

“You’re not going to put no car parking out in suburbs but right in the heart of the city centre there’s a reason for doing it.

“Some people out there will be happy to buy an apartment without car parking.”

Another Canberra architect Allan Spira said building new apartment blocks without parking was a good way to make housing more affordable”.

He cited the Nightingale project in Melbourne, where the architecturally-designed homes came without parking and other frills, and without the exorbitant price tag.

“Basement car parking is incredibly expensive to build,” Mr Spira said.

“The current zoning system is too much of a blunt tool for allowing innovative provisions of these sorts of things. We need a much more strategic approach.”

A spokesman for Housing Minister Yvette Berry said in June the government was looking closely at the Nightingale model and how it could be applied to Canberra.

Mr Spira said they had been able to gain concessions in Melbourne to build under the Nightingale model.

Mr Henry called for a demonstration precinct to be established, where planning rules could be bent to shape future policies.

A demonstration precinct was planned for the Molonglo Valley, but that fell through.

“It could be done through government or private investment but the idea is there’s some flexibility within the territory plan rules, so some of the mandatory rules would be wavered to allow us to experiment on how to create the right density, the right community and the right amount of green space,” Mr Henry said.

“There could be several architects involved, designing together so all the buildings are expecting each other, getting the right plot ratio, green space, car parking.”

Oct

2016

ACT Architecture Awards 2016 – MWT RENOVATION Award 2016

2016 ACT Architecture Awards – BCA Certifiers Mervyn Willoughby Thomas Renovation Award

Sunny Room Additions

Skillion Roof

Set in an established suburb, this is a minor extension that gains the benefit from this street corner location.
Cleverly etching a position into the corner, the addition retains the low and unassuming scale of the existing ex-govie
streetscape with two new skillion front forms.
By clearly redefining the entry, transition into and through appears seamless, yet ordered with the ‘foyer’ space
sensitively altered but maintained to subtly separate private and living spaces as well as inside as out.
Internally, a thoughtful resolution is made of scaled elements of overhead light shelves and angulated corners
reaching out for northern sunlight. This demonstrates how considered design strategies can achieve a spatial
generosity that exceeds its modest budget.
Here, at every internal turn, the garden beckons and is strongly integrated into the experience of where one is within
the house, with private views that offer colour, sanctuary and light.
No wonder the children have found their new ‘sunny room’!

Oct

2016

Canberra Transition Housing as published in The Canberra Times and Sydney Morning Herald.

Canberra needs to embrace Transition Town, Transition Street initiative by Tony Trobe

TT: Allan you have always been interested different housing types (largely missing in Canberra). What is transition housing?

AS: Generally it involves two or more households co-locating on one block of land and building small smart homes with some shared facilities (workshop, gardens, laundry, car space, studio, guests accommodation, etc). The intention is to maintain separate housing but live more co-operatively than suburban housing typically allows. The model can include: co-housing, townhouse developments, granny flats, dividing an existing home into separate occupancies, clever additions with two kitchens, etc.

TT: What big-picture issues drive this notion of transition housing?

AS: “Transition”: identifies with the Transition movement (Transition Town, Transition Street); a grassroots community initiative that seeks to build a more environmentally friendly, low-carbon, socially just, healthier and happier future, which is more enriching and more gentle on the earth than the way most of us live today.

TT: Why would people be interested in this form of housing?

AS: Households are getting smaller but houses have got bigger; hence costlier and more time-consuming to maintain. Downsizing within our existing neighbourhoods is often not an option due to the limited number of alternative housing choices (apartments or apartments). There are also financial disincentives (stamp duty, agent’s fees, moving costs) to relocating.

TT: How would the ownership arrangements be resolved?

AS: Ideally the property is unit titled but planning restrictions currently exclude this in RZ1 zones which constitute most of our suburbs. The Fluffy blocks have recently been designated a special status to allow unit titling. We are lobbying for an extension of this provision to most suburban blocks. In the interim some form of company title could be formed to provide security and shared benefit of ownership.

TT: What financial benefits would this model bring?

AS: The biggest is the shared land costs. Two households merging onto one block of land in a middle suburb could release around $700,000 which would go towards building more compact, much better quality energy-efficient homes with much lower running costs. Sharing resources like cars, lawnmowers, workshop equipment, solar panels, etc also reduces living costs.

TT: Are there less tangible benefits?

AS: Yes, social benefits are one: Companionship, particularly valued as we grow older, reduces reliance on immediate family and enriches our lives. Of course, choice is the key, hence good design provides opportunities to socialise but also for privacy.

TT: Does the model tick any other boxes?

AS: One obvious one is the environmental benefits: increasing density, particularly near transport corridors and shops reduces car travel and the need for more infrastructure and development ever further from city centres, thereby reducing our carbon footprint. Also there is the multi-generational aspect; the social and financial benefits of transition housing are attractive to both the young who are increasingly excluded from home ownership and their parents who are often under-funded for their retirement.

TT: What about improvements in neighbourhood cohesion?

AS: People don’t need to live together – Transition Street initiatives can achieve similar benefits while maintaining current or adapted housing arrangements. There are also examples of households removing separating fencing or joining yards with gates to foster sharing of productive garden space. The few examples of similar models in Canberra have proven to be very desirable places to live.

Jul

2015

ACT Architecture Awards 2015 – MWT RENOVATION Award 2015

2015 ACT Architecture Awards – BCA Certifiers Mervyn Willoughby Thomas Renovation Award

Kaleen Conversion – Project Description

This single level 1980’s courtyard style project home was typical of its era: small rooms, low ceilings, walk through living spaces, difficult to furnish, dark surfaces and lights on all day!

Due to the house siting on this cul-de-sac block, and the extensive landscaping, extension opportunities were limited. The response was a small push out into the courtyard and considerable re-working of spaces within the current building envelope, coupled with high lined ceiling to the raised roof over the central open planned living area (all centred around the kitchen) which creates a sense of space and brings the established landscape into the house.

The new hard-waxed spotted gum floor unifies all the living spaces. White walls and ceilings reflect the abundant amount of light provided curtesy of a bank of electrically operated shafted skylights, wide north facing stacking sliding doors with highlights, and (at night) concealed and dimmable LED up-lighting.

Careful detailing and fixture selection include illuminated niches for art objects, built in wood fireplace integrated with an entertainment unit, retractable disappearing insect screens, full height cavity sliding doorways, square set wall and ceiling junctions and flush-fit skirtings.

The overall result has been to maintain a reasonably compact footprint but with an overwhelming transformation in the sense of space and connection to the garden; a delightful home conversion!

May

2015

Canberra Times “By Design” column

“By Design” column published in the Canberra Times on Sunday 19th and 26th April 2015

Why are you concerned about housing for older Canberrans?

It’s as though we’ve overlooked a whole chunk of our lifecycle – from the time when our kids leave home to the time we’re ready for institutionalised living: be it a retirement village or aged care facility. Far too many people remain in their oversized family home, unable to maintain their garden or keep up the maintenance because of the lack of affordable and attractive alternatives.

Isn’t the market responding adequately?

Not everyone wants to, or can afford to, live in an apartment. There are very few town houses being developed, secondary residences can’t be separately sold and dual occupancies are (thanks to Mr Fluffy) only just back on the radar. But these are largely speculative developments, built for profit and mostly unsuited to those of us still living active lives and requiring space for gardening, crafts, bicycles, trailer storage or space for a myriad of other hobbies or activities.

So how do we get more appropriate development?

We need to think more creatively about housing in general. Our planning policies, which are based on a rigid zoning system, do not create enough diversity of housing types within any particular district. Hence as our housing needs change we are forced to move away from our familiar neighbourhood and support networks. “Ageing in place” is a good policy but that “place” is not only our four walls but also our local community.

Have you got any suggestions for more innovative development?

Cohousing, which started in Scandinavia, is now burgeoning in the USA and becoming more popular in Australia, offers an alternative model. It’s typically multigenerational, although can be just for seniors. The closest we have in Canberra is the Urambi Village and Wybalena Grove communities in Kambah and Cook. A key to the success of cohousing is clustered carparking. They typically share productive gardens, laundries and drying areas, workshops and craft spaces. The larger schemes offer shared dining and communal kitchens. But everyone retains their own compact unit as well. Choice is the key to more communal living. A recent benchmark development for Canberra is Common Ground in Gungahlin, a government supported cohousing apartment complex for homeless and low-income tenants.

Are there smaller scale options?

Why not collaborate with a few friends and co-develop a suburban block for compact attached housing, or adapt an existing McMansion into two or three compact apartments with existing garden, garaging, studio and storage space shared by the residents. But we need the capacity to buy in and out of such developments.

So what needs to change to allow such development?

A review of the current zone-based planning system to allow for a more sophisticated and fine grained approach which recognises local topography, demographics, infrastructure, support facilities, proximity to public transport, etc. This should be part of an overall long term planning strategy to increase density and diversity across the city. At the moment we seem to have disparate development proposals such as that currently proposed for Yarralumla which are predictably opposed by resident action groups. We need a long term comprehensive strategy which has wider consensus across the whole Canberra community.

How is cohousing different from normal townhouse developments?

The main difference is that some space is shared: this could include vegetable gardens, laundries, drying areas and workshops. But everyone owns their own self-contained unit as well.

Is it exclusively for older Canberrans?

No, it is multigenerational and suits anyone interested in a more social way of living, which makes better use of land, and who want to spend less on their housing. Although, I think it is a particularly attractive option to older people wanting to downsize and remain in their community.

What’s wrong with the alternative on offer?

Many of us don’t want or can’t afford to live in an apartment. There are very few town houses being developed, secondary residences can’t be separately sold and dual occupancies are (thanks to Mr Fluffy) only just back on the radar. But these are largely speculative developments, and mostly unsuited to those of us still living active lives and requiring space for gardening, crafts, bicycles, trailer storage or space for a myriad of other hobbies or activities.

So what’s the key to a well-designed cohousing community?

Shared carparking to allow more efficient use of land and careful design of pathways and siting of shared facilities to encourage interaction and yet afford privacy to each unit. Each resident needs to be able to buy and sell their unit like any other strata -titled development.

Is there an optimal size for cohousing?

Yes and no. A larger development of say 30 units allows for more elaborate shared facilities such as communal kitchens and dining areas, tennis court, etc. but finding sufficient land means they’re not often where people want to live. More boutique developments of say two to five units could be built on adjoining blocks within existing neighbourhoods.

Are there any good examples in Canberra?

Yes, on the smaller scale there are quite a few examples of two homes on the one block with shared outdoor and workshop space. On the larger scale, the closest we have in Canberra is the Urambi Village and Wybalena Grove communities in Kambah and Cook. They are characterised by compact attached houses, clustered carparks and large useable open spaces, in a bushland setting. They hold their value very well.

So why don’t we see more of this kind of development?

Many reasons: Mainly it’s the rigid planning system which prohibits this kind of development in established residential zones, which therefore lack a diversity of housing types. It’s also the banks and their valuers who are reluctant to lend to anything moderately innovative. Thirdly, it’s all the bad press that higher density attracts because so much of it has been so badly done in the past.

Anything positive?

The secondary residence policy has been a great initiative which allows for more adaptable use of existing blocks to support a range of social and/or economic objectives. The drawback is that separate titling is not permitted which dissuades many people from this pursuing this option.

So any suggestions for the future?

We need to think more creatively about housing in general. A review of the current zone-based planning system to allow for a more sophisticated and fine grained approach which recognises local topography, demographics, infrastructure, support facilities, proximity to public transport, etc. This should be part of an overall long term planning strategy to create a more compact, sustainable city. At the moment we seem to have disparate development proposals such as that currently proposed for Yarralumla which are predictably opposed by resident action groups. We need a long term comprehensive strategy which has wider consensus across the whole Canberra community.

Jan

2015

2014 NEAT competition – cohousing model submission

In late 2014, The NEAT (New Experimental Architectural Typologies) competition invited architects to demonstrate how Canberra can continue to develop as an exemplary, sustainable, innovative and affordable city. Over the past years, planning rules and regulations have been incrementally suppressing the options available for alternative housing typologies. Competitors were invited to be innovative, exciting and challenge the status quo.

Our submission proposed a cohousing model of clustered town houses, perimeter parking and shared open spaces with strategically placed pathways to allow community interaction. The cohousing model is a unique blend of private/communal living that is both more sustainable (socially and environmentally) and affordable than comparative town house and apartment developments.

Ideas generated through the competition may now provide a tangible basis for the ACT Planning Authority to consider in the drafting of future planning regulations. The ACT government and the Defence Housing Authority are considering building some demonstration homes, utilising the best ideas coming out of the competition.

Dec

2014

Is your old timber deck safe?

What Deck Alert is about

Deck Mate article by Allan Spira Architect

Deck Alert is about alerting home owners to the potential safety risks associated with old Oregon decks.
Oregon (broad grained softwood, pinkish colour) very susceptible to moisture penetration and subsequent rot (ironically termed “dry rot” in the trade.

Until fairly recently Oregon has been used for decks and pergolas but even when painted they can significantly deteriorate in less than 10 years. Oregon should not be used in external structures.

Tragically, there have been incidences of elevated decks collapsing, causing serious injuries and even deaths.

Potential for legal action against homeowners!

Home owners should regularly inspect their decks, particularly around junctions of timbers where end grain has been exposed such as where beams meet posts, timbers are fixed to walls, handrails and balustrades.

Don’t be deceived by appearances. Paintwork can look fine but the timber beneath may have perished. Feel for spongy, deformed surfaces and test by poking with a screwdriver.

Our History

Allan Spira is an architect with over 25 years’ experience in residential design, documentation and project management. He was alerted to his own potential deck collapse, just prior to his daughters 18th birthday party when he fortunately noted and replaced rotten Oregon posts which subsequently had to support about 40 bouncing teenagers!
Ted Moxon is a builder with too many years of experience and knowledge as a cottage builder to retire and is now “back on deck” with plenty of energy and interest in smaller building projects.

Benefits to consumer

We do not just rebuild or repair decks but also review the design and detailing of the deck. This may be an opportunity to improve utility of the deck by consideration of: improved access from house living spaces to the deck, option to roof and/or inspect screen the deck, solar access and wind protection, provision of al fresco dining, BBQ facilities, etc.
DeckMates can inspect, offer options and costs for residents to consider, then construct in durable steel, hardwood and treated timber and arrange all approvals.

COVID-19 Update: We remain actively working. All ASA staff are working from home and can be contacted by phone and email. Our office premises have temporarily closed and we will be holding all meetings remotely. Stay healthy!

2016 ACT Architecture Awards – BCA Certifiers Mervyn Willoughby Thomas Renovation Award

Sunny Room Additions

Skillion Roof

2015 ACT Architecture Awards – BCA Certifiers Mervyn Willoughby Thomas Renovation Award

Kaleen Conversion – Project Description

What Deck Alert is about

Our History

Benefits to consumer

COVID-19 Update: We remain actively working. All ASA staff are working from home and can be contacted by phone and email.
Our office premises have temporarily closed and we will be holding all meetings remotely. Stay healthy!