On the banks of the Port Adelaide River, a new $34 million cultural centre is taking shape. When it opens later this year, Yitpi Yartapuultiku will be a place to celebrate First Nations history and an important hub for Australians of all backgrounds.
Yitpi Yartapuultiku — meaning ‘Soul of Port Adelaide’ in the language of the Kaurna people — will embody the people it represents. Traditional Owners were invited to model their vision with kinetic sand, leading to a design slung low on the landscape, which curves with the river and echoes the earthy colours of ochre.
The centre is seeking Green Star certification, which would confirm that the building is healthy for people and the planet. But how do we measure the cultural and community value that is stitched into its fabric?
At the core of this question is an urgent challenge for Australia.
The built environment — the heartbeat of our communities — has an important role to play in creating value far beyond the financial. The term “social value” allows us to account for the cultural value in centres like Yitpi Yartapuultiku, as well as the ability of buildings to create healthier, safer and more socially cohesive communities.
But, while extensive work has been undertaken on the development and delivery of social value in Australia and overseas, there is still no consistent way to measure the outcomes.
Property development companies are experimenting with social value on projects across Australia, which is admirable, but it’s also leading to a mishmash of exclusive methodologies that are being used by just a few. That means we aren’t fully capitalising on our investment in our built environment and risk leaving people, and communities, behind.
We need a shared language to communicate the value of great design, replicate lessons learnt and hold ourselves accountable to the long-term impacts of our developments.
The need to invest in social value has never been more apparent. Last year, the Australian government launched the first wellbeing framework, Measuring What Matters, which assesses 50 indicators across the five themes of health, security, sustainability, cohesion and prosperity.
The framework was launched not a moment too soon. A survey by The Scanlon Foundation last year found Australia’s social cohesion is “under pressure”. Nearly half of us feel isolated from others, often or some of the time, and our general sense of social cohesion, trust and neighbourhood belonging is trending downwards.
The built environment holds a key to social cohesion. Well-designed precincts, infrastructure and buildings can enhance our quality of life, and improve our health and happiness.
However, while more than 90% of S&P500 companies now publish sustainability reports on an annual basis, according to the World Green Building Council, there remains a notable deficit in prioritising the social aspect of sustainability (the S in ESG).
One of the reasons for this is simple: trying to calculate and then articulate the value of intangibles, like social cohesion and inclusion, cultural connection, or psychological safety is hard. But it’s not impossible.
And the data so far shows the huge benefit of getting it right.
One of the first attempts to measure the social value in Australia’s property industry was by Stockland in 2013. The developer asked EY to put a dollar figure on the social connections, programs, activities and sense of safety and security in its retirement living estates. It was found that every dollar invested delivered $1.66 in social value and that state governments saved $162 million a year from avoided health and care costs.
Recently, Sustainability Victoria’s assessment of the Victorian Healthy Homes Program, published in 2022, found upgrading the energy efficiency and thermal comfort of homes improved residents’ health and quality of life, as well as the costs and carbon savings.
The research was emphatic: for every $1 saved in energy, more than $10 is saved in health care costs.
The true value, of course, goes far beyond the dollar figure we can quantify. To each of the people whose lives are improved, uncosted benefits reach into every aspect of their lives.
In the case of Yitpi Yartapuultiku, it’s no easy challenge to put a dollar figure on its social value. How do we go about quantifying the value of celebrating and preserving culture, connecting communities and educating the next generation? This is a question we’ll be tackling head-on with the property industry in the months ahead.
Some in the sector say we must find a dollar figure for social value to give governments a clearer picture of how their investments translate into positive outcomes for communities. Others have warned that trying to monetise intangibles is inherently risky. In doing so, we may ignore things that can’t — or shouldn’t — be monetised, like cultural identity. And that, as the community behind Yitpi Yartapuultiku know, is priceless.
The Green Building Council of Australia and leading international design practice Hassell have just released a new discussion paper, Social Value in the Built Environment. They will now be consulting stakeholders as they work towards creating a common industry framework with which to measure social value.
READ MORE:
Any feedback or news tips? Here’s where to contact the relevant team.