Greg Muller is a passionate advocate for social good and innovative housing delivery. As Executive Director of Nestd—a social enterprise created by Kids Under Cover—Greg supports the creation of high-quality, affordable housing using modular construction and design-led approaches. Nestd’s profits support youth at risk of homelessness, demonstrating how development can deliver both financial and social returns. 

As someone deeply committed to social impact, what does “building better” mean to you in the context of mixed-use and mixed-tenure precincts? How do you ensure that social value is embedded—not just in the outcome—but throughout the development process?

To me, “Building better” means creating communities where housing is just the foundation for residents to flourish. For example, at our Greta Road precinct in Wangaratta, we’re not just delivering circa 200 homes – we’re incorporating considered placemaking design to integrate safe and secure affordable living with; spaces to connect, access to healthcare, in-precinct childcare and sustainability initiatives. Our philosophy is that we can have a positive impact on every person within the precinct – improving accessibility, connection, wellbeing and lowering costs of living.

At Nestd we believe that social value is one that needs to be embedded from day one. This ensures we have alignment at all levels – from placemaking, design and financing, to governance and operations.

To ensure it is embedded, this points to purpose and objectives. Social impact will be lost in the complexity if it’s not a core principle from the start. Section 173 agreements (or other like convenants such as a Section 88E in NSW) can also help lock in affordability commitments, and help landowners, in particular government owners, ensure that impact is realised.

Nestd has demonstrated how modular housing can be high-quality, fast, and design-led. What lessons can the broader sector learn from your work, and how do you see modular playing a greater role in urban precincts over the next decade?

The key lesson is that modular isn’t about compromise—it’s about just being thoughtful.

We have seen first hand how quality can be combined with architectural diversity and site-specific design responses. Increasingly, modular can deliver sophisticated design, very livable spaces and sustainable outcomes.

Modular is not necessarily cheaper, but it does offer tremendous benefits to a development project… such as less trades on site, safer sites, faster and more reliable construction timeframes, and reduced waste.

Reliability is crucial, especially when working to tight mandates.

Over the next decade, I see modular becoming essential for projects where speed and minimal site disruption matter, or space is a premium. As housing targets intensify, modular’s ability to deliver quality produce at scale while achieving ESD objectives will make it indispensable.

Technology is advancing rapidly which is making modular increasingly attractive, perhaps the go to soon. In my experience, the constraints to scaled adoption will be industry capacity and a supporting financing sector.

The intersection of planning reform and housing innovation is a major theme at the Living Sectors Summit 2025. From your perspective, what are the biggest planning roadblocks that still slow down the delivery of more diverse, affordable housing—and what would you change first?

Probably the biggest roadblock is the disconnect between planning policy intent and implementation reality. Without planning certainty, projects don’t get financed and can get delivered.

Currently we’re working in an environment that is highly fragmented, unpredictable, costly and time consuming. Uncertainty and costs kill project momentum. There would be many more houses being built, and lower cost housing, if a more evidence-based model were adopted.

So what I’d change first is creating dedicated fast-track pathways for compliant and well-considered and evidenced projects that meet specific criteria: compliance to the relevant planning scheme, NCC and requirements of key referral authorities, minimum affordability percentages, sustainability targets and community benefit thresholds.

Planning outcomes become slowed and subject to Referral Authorities (Dept of Transport, Essential Service Authorities and the like), some of whom have competing interests with the Responsible Authority and through a lack of shared agenda add significant time delays, bureaucracy and cost. Despite best narratives the dependency of the planning system on the approval of referral authorities is a point of high tension and friction.

We also need better integration between planning approvals and infrastructure funding. Our project in Wangaratta can move because there is some existing infrastructure, but many regional sites need coordinated infrastructure investment. Planning reform should include mechanisms that automatically trigger infrastructure assessments and funding pathways when housing targets are being met through private development.

As a moderator of this roundtable, what kinds of solutions or provocations are you hoping to surface in the discussion? What do you want developers, policymakers, and community advocates to leave thinking about?

I want to first challenge the false paradigm that there is a choice between speed and quality in housing delivery. Our Wangaratta project proves you can deliver quickly while achieving high design standards, stakeholder engagement and genuine affordability—but it requires new partnership models and risk-sharing approaches.

I’m hoping to surface discussions about how we value social infrastructure within developments. Childcare, healthcare, and community spaces aren’t just nice-to-haves – we see them as essential infrastructure that makes housing truly affordable by reducing household costs and improving quality of life.

The key provocation is this: what if we measured housing success not just by units delivered, but by community and economic outcomes delivered? I want developers thinking about long-term stewardship models, policymakers considering how planning frameworks can incentivise integration and flow rather than segregation, and community advocates seeing private development as a potential partner rather than an opponent. The housing crisis demands we move beyond traditional silos and create new collaborative models.

Nestd operates at the crossroads of design, social enterprise, and housing innovation. What partnerships or cross-sector models have you found most effective—and how might we scale them to help solve the housing crisis?

The most effective model we’ve developed involves what I call “mission-aligned risk sharing.” Our partnership with Rural City of Wangaratta shares development risk through a Section 173 agreement while enabling project feasibility and maintaining long-term affordability outcomes. Our community housing collaboration will bring professional housing management expertise while delivering our social mission.

The breakthrough has been engaging the local business community early in the precinct planning and design.

To scale this, we need policy frameworks that recognise and reward these integrated models, with more flexible financing models that can support mixed-tenure, mixed-use developments.

An element that is not always discussed is enabling “patient capital” partnerships where returns are measured over decades, not years. This requires superannuation funds, government, and philanthropic capital working together with clear social impact metrics alongside financial returns.

Greg is moderating a roundtable at the 2025 Living Sectors Summit on ‘How to Build Faster and Better Mixed-use/Mixed Tenure Housing Precincts’. View the brochure for details on his session and the full two-day agenda.