Retain, Repair, Reinvest
In Conversation with Steve Mintern of OFFICE
31.07.25

Book Club is an opportunity for design discourse – news, views and reviews from the world of publishing in conversation with our favourite design authors, commentators and provocateurs.

OFFICE is a not-for-profit multidisciplinary design and research practice based in Melbourne. Its projects span the intersections of built form, research, discourse and education. As a registered charity, the studio’s operations, processes, and outputs are bound by a constitution to make projects for the public good.

The practice’s latest book—Retain, Repair, Reinvest—is essential reading for all who care about equitable housing provision. Using Ascot Vale Estate as a case study, the book champions a ‘tenants first’ approach—advocating for the retention and renewal of public housing over demolition, while highlighting its social, environmental, and economic value. It suggests that a sustainable future requires us to rethink development by, as architect, scholar and urban designer Charlotte Malterre-Barthes succinctly suggests, “not demolishing, not building new, building less, building with what exists, building differently, and caring for it.”

NHO Writer and Producer, Hayley Tillett, recently sat down with OFFICE’s Steve Mintern to discuss Retain, Repair, Reinvest. This is their conversation.

Photograph by Ben Hosking.

Retain, Repair, Reinvest is available to purchase via Bookshop by Uro and other select bookshops.

–

HT: Hi Steve, thanks for joining me to discuss Retain, Repair, Reinvest. In the book’s foreword, planning activist and academic, Kate Shaw, outlines the premise of a ‘false choice binary,’ “where people renting in rundown dwellings in rundown neighbourhoods are faced with further decay or reinvestment requiring their displacement.” Retain, Repair, Reinvest presents a compelling alternative for working with what already exists. What prompted you and the OFFICE team to tackle this subject?

SM: Kate Shaw did a lecture for our previous book, The Politics of Public Space, at the Carlton Public Housing Estate, which has gone through Victoria’s Public Housing Renewal Program. Large sections have been demolished with land sold off and redeveloped by private developers. Kate talks about the ‘false binary’ created by managed neglect – how public housing, over the past 40 years, hasn’t been properly cared for or maintained by the government. It’s a deliberate act, where buildings are allowed to deteriorate to the point that demolition and redevelopment starts to feel like the only option.

The estates in disrepair increase the stigma that the general population might have of public housing residents – that they don’t care for their communities. In reality, it’s the government’s job to maintain those buildings as the owner and landlord. The residents, communities, support networks and mutual aid that occurs in public housing are remarkable, despite how the buildings are cared for. We’re interested in looking at alternative ways to consider refurbishment, redevelopment, and infill rather than razing estates to the ground, selling sites to the private market, and expecting developers to provide housing that—in a wealthy country like Australia—should be provided by the government to people in need.

HT: How was Ascot Vale Estate identified as a feasibility study?

SM: We were working with people in the Save Public Housing Collective – a group of volunteers, residents, housing activists, and community members concerned about the future of public housing. Through them, we connected with the residents at Ascot Vale, including Clare Hanson, who invited us to visit the estate, which was slated for demolition at the time. The buildings are incredible – designed by Best Overend, the architect behind the much-loved Cairo Flats. If they were in Fitzroy, they’d be million-dollar apartments, but because they’re public housing, they’re dismissed as ‘not fit for purpose’ and marked for demolition.

HT: That seems so counterintuitive. How did you begin collaborating with the residents in Save Ascot Vale Estate (S.A.V.E.) to develop the Retain, Repair, Reinvest (RRR) model?

SM: We spent a lot of time at the estate. Clare’s clear with her opinions, but there were plenty of strong advocates in the community who we connected with. A part of Ascot Vale had already been demolished and sold off, so there was mounting fear that would happen to the entire estate – which is huge, 57 buildings. We set up a range of different sessions—drop-in workshops and gatherings around the picnic table—to reach people in different ways and meet them where they are.

HT: The book states that an estimated 20 percent of Ascot Vale Estate is vacant due to lack of maintenance and repair – “a huge government failure to leave dwellings empty during a housing crisis,” particularly given the 70,000+ people on the public housing waitlist. This includes the book’s pilot site at 42 Ascot Street. What led to this building being left unused for so long, and what does it say about the broader approach to public housing in Victoria?

SM: There was a fire in the 42 Ascot Street building maybe three or four years before we started doing work there, and it was vacant until the building was renovated in 2022. So, that’s a full block of flats empty because the roof needs to be replaced. That’s not a huge amount of work, and it would mean that all these dwellings are now homes for people. It’s a perfect case study of why public housing has vacancy rates, which is deeply concerning as the waitlist is so long.

Public housing is the most important element in solving the housing crisis. You house the people who need housing – it’s not complicated, right? Making luxury apartments does not fix the housing crisis because housing doesn’t trickle down. The intentional neglect of public housing is an excuse for demolition, and the amount of public housing being built is sharply in decline.

We are barely building any new public housing in Victoria, and we’re demolishing the stuff we do have in favour of privatisation. We’re in a neoliberal country and neoliberal state. Australian governments typically sell off services and infrastructure—water, power, Telstra in the 90s—and public housing is much the same. It’s another type of community infrastructure – a necessity and basic human right that people need to live.

HT: Absolutely. I love economist and public policy commentator Richard Denniss’ emphatic analysis of this in the book: “The economics suggest the public sector should be the optimal developer of housing in Australia… Does the government own lots of land? Yes. Are they in charge of rezoning land? Yes. Can they borrow cheaper than any property developer? Yes. Can they go to the same market for builders and say, ‘Can you construct this building?’ Yes. Can they put tenants in it? Yes. Where’s the magic? What skills do developers have over governments?” Why is this simple equation being overcomplicated and overlooked?

SM: I think that it comes down to will. It is possible. It is cheaper. It is better for the residents. It is better for the environment. So, then it comes down to why the government doesn’t want to do it. That’s the big question here in Victoria: why is the government so hell-bent on doing something that is a bad outcome by every single metric except for what the private property sector wants?

HT: Meanwhile, community housing seems to be growing. What is the difference between community and public housing and what are your concerns with this trend?

SM: Some community housing providers are great and some, we hear from residents, aren’t. Firstly, residents pay more in community housing—30% of their household income, as opposed to 25% in public housing—which can significantly affect affordability, especially for people on low incomes. Residents can also be evicted from community housing without much notice, whereas public housing offers more security of tenure.

Because community housing is not government owned, residents’ recourse for maintenance or safety issues is a lot less. There’s generally far less oversight, which, for vulnerable people, is particularly concerning. That might be fine if public housing was growing at the same rate to support this demographic, but it’s not. The government tends to use the word ‘social housing’ as a catchall for public, community and affordable housing and people assume it’s all government public housing, which it’s not.

HT: The book rightly calls out the problematic concept of ‘deconcentrating disadvantage.’ Why is this such an ineffective—and even harmful, strategy in your view?

SM: The idea of ‘social mix’ is misleading and completely unproven, particularly in Australia. The term originates from the US, where big public housing estates have big issues. The idea is that if you put some middle-class people near the poor people, they suddenly realise: ‘Wow, I wish I wasn’t poor. Maybe I’ll be middle-class now.’ It’s incredibly patronising.

The most effective way to de-concentrate disadvantage in public housing is to build more public housing to expand the demographic of those who live in it. In parts of Europe, where 20–30 percent of the population lives in public housing, the stigma simply doesn’t exist. It’s the lack of public housing that creates the greater problem.

HT: Tenant displacement is identified as a primary concern with renewal programs, with ‘right to return’ agreements not guaranteed, and new developments providing less amenity ie. fewer bedrooms for returning residents. In what ways is displacing public housing communities harmful?

SM: One in 100 public housing residents will die from being forcibly displaced – that’s startling and, sadly, in line with what we’ve witnessed through this project. There’s a huge amount of mutual aid that happens in these communities. People care for each other and know how to access the services and infrastructure they need. Some residents have lived in their homes for 20 years, so displacing them has a devastating effect on their sense of self, health and wellbeing. There’s also a cost to the education system by forcibly displacing kids out of schools.

It’s a traumatic experience for a lot of people, especially with a lack of knowledge of where they’re going, how long they’re away for, or whether they’ll be returning at all. A lot of residents are recent migrants, people living with disabilities, people that have escaped domestic violence. In many cases, these people have just felt a sense of security and community, which is now being pulled away from them. When the demolition of 44 public housing towers across Melbourne was announced, residents found out on the news. It was unfathomable. Keeping residents on site during maintenance and redevelopment is better for them – and, in a gross way, better for the economy.

HT: I imagine the administrative load of relocating residents would be incredibly onerous.

SM: Absolutely. And, if you demolish all the public housing, residents have to go somewhere else. So, the government is either filling up vacant public housing with existing residents, rather than those on the waitlist, or they’re renting or purchasing properties off the private market, driving up the cost of housing for everyone. It makes no economic sense in terms of our housing crisis. Imagine bidding against the state government at a private house auction.

HT: Given 42 Ascot Street’s logical planning, original build quality and appropriate scale, what are some of the key design measures proposed for the revitalisation of the building?

SM: We made minimal changes to respect the original architecture. The dwellings work well as they are, so we minimised demolition and prioritised simple upgrades to improve thermal performance – replacing windows with double-glazing, improving sun-shading to windows, and investing in mechanical upgrades. We widened a few doorways to make them SDA compliant and installed a new lift core to make most of the apartments accessible by people with mobility issues. It’s a light set of works to bring the architecture up to contemporary standards.

HT: UK-based architect Paul Karakusevic suggests balancing “radical refurbishment and radical infill” is essential to maximise the potential of existing, well-situated housing on large blocks. How could this strategy improve the Victorian Public Housing Renewal Program (PHRP)?

SM: The vast majority of Victoria’s public housing are modernist estates surrounded by huge areas of grass, which isn’t particularly ecologically valuable or useful to people. There’s lots of opportunities for infill to increase density, upgrade the landscape to improve amenity for residents, and deal with some of the urban design issues that some of these estates are facing. Given we need more public housing and existing estates are already on government land, it’s a great place to start housing more people.

HT: It seems to make sense for sequencing too – new dwellings can be built on site, and existing residents can be relocated to a new apartment in the same estate, while their original dwelling is being upgraded. In what other ways do you feel that prioritising retention over demolition elevates the role of design?

SM: Sequencing is a big advantage. Internationally, a lot of award-winning projects are refurbishments and retrofits. In 2021, The Pritzker Architecture Prize was awarded to Anne Lacaton and Jean-Philippe Vassal, who are known for their humane approach to public and social housing, and their emphasis on refurbishment over demolition.

Australia is a bit of a way behind, as we are often with these things. We need to understand the subtlety of reuse, where we are as a society, where we are in a climate crisis, and that we can’t demolish buildings that are good just because we want to put up something new and shiny that might be easier than dealing with an existing building or an existing community. Seeing the value of working with existing buildings that have good bones to bring them up to contemporary standards is an interesting challenge and should be a standard practice in the 21st century.

HT: It’s heartening to see public housing projects being acknowledged on the world stage. How does OFFICE hope to evolve its practice and pursue further reparative projects in the future?

SM: We’re currently working on another Retain, Repair, Reinvest project in Sydney at the Waterloo Public Housing Estate – an enormous estate with an interesting community to engage with. We’re finding Sydney to be much more progressive with their housing policies compared to Melbourne – they build new public housing and are much more open to retrofits and refurbishment projects.

Ultimately, we’d love to design these projects as an architecture and landscape practice. We want to enact the research work we’ve done and work with communities to achieve built outcomes that prove what we’re saying is possible. There’s only so long we can release reports – the evidence is there, so bringing these principles into the real world is the real aim.

HT: Steve, thank you for your time. It’s been a pleasure.

SM: Thank you.

–

Retain, Repair, Reinvest is available to purchase via Bookshop by Uro and other select bookshops.