Melbourne 2030 related stuff [Archive]

tayser

June 3rd, 2004, 04:44 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/03/1086203564959.html

Councils, costs 'weigh on 2030'
By Royce Millar
City Reporter
June 4, 2004

The State Government must take over control of major development precincts from councils and tackle building unions over labor costs if its planning blueprint, Melbourne 2030, is to work.

That is the recommendation in a confidential report by a committee advising the Government on its 2030 strategy.

The report says Planning Minister Mary Delahunty should be granted authority over the city's 25 largest "activity centres" - the precincts earmarked by the Government for multi-level housing and commercial development.

They include retail hubs at Box Hill, Footscray, Frankston, Prahran, South Yarra and Moonee Ponds.

Under the 2030 plan, the Government wants to curb urban sprawl and concentrate new housing within existing city boundaries. It hopes to locate about 40 per cent of new housing in 100 activity centres.

The committee, appointed to advise the Government on activity-centre development, includes diverse groups such as the Housing Industry Association, the Urban Development Institute, Save Our Suburbs and council representatives.

Sources say the committee is split over the draft report and especially proposals - favoured by sectors of the housing and development industry - to curb council planning authority. Councils and groups such as Save Our Suburbs are resisting.

Among the report's recommendations are for Victoria to consider adopting a federal scheme that removes councils' planning decision-making.

The report warns that 2030 "will falter unless protracted disputes are removed from approval processes".

Save Our Suburbs president Nigel Kirby said he would not comment on details of the committee's recommendations while sensitive negotiations were under way. "But any diminution of local democracy or local councils' rights under the planning system, will be resisted," he said. shut up NIMBY! :D

The draft report also says that high building costs for large apartment projects - up to 28 per cent above the cost for the traditional housing sector where unions are not strong - threaten the success of 2030.

"This raises industrial relations issues that need to be taken up by both state and federal government," says the report.

Victorian secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Martin Kingham, said council restrictions on working hours due to noise, traffic congestion and access was a major pressure on building costs in activity centres .

"You could save a hell of a lot more by working with government and councils to resolve these issues, instead of shaving a dollar an hour off wages," Mr Kingham said.

A second confidential report confirms that the Government is considering scrapping objector and appeal rights in activity centres through a new Priority Development Zone aimed at fast-tracking development.

The committee's report will be finalised next week and then submitted to the Government.

A spokesman for Ms Delahunty said the minister did not want to comment and referred questions to the committee itself.

noir attitcus

June 3rd, 2004, 04:48 PM

rest assured I wont be travelling 60k (from my place to city and back out on the Hurstbridge line :D) just to see the Greensborough Plaza or any other suburban hell type infrastructure... I could just go to the local, Fountain Gate for "that" kind of entertainment lol ;)

I will be looking for skyline views though, and as you've described the hilly parts seem to have a few good photo opps ;)

cheers

two places i recommend:

- Mt. Cooper: Highest point in immediate metropolitan Melbourne. Just off Plenty Road, Bundoora.
- Further west, down Bell Street, between Gilbert Road and before you get to Merri Creek has an outstanding view to your left!! (driving from Heidelberg). drive down one of the suburban side streets and it looks unbelievable.
- Cnr. Thompsons and Manningham Roads in Bulleen is a whopping view too (this bit reminds me of those views of the LA skyline from the hollywood hills) abit further along from here is Doncaster Hill (self explanatory..)
- also not really in the area but GREAT too is the view from the corner of Westgarth street and high street, in westgarth. there is a big retaining wall which elevates the road above the streets immediately below and WOW..

their just places ive thought are neat.

dynamoultraclean

June 3rd, 2004, 04:58 PM

There's also a massive round about near Greensborough and you get a great view of the city. I've forgotten which roads they are, but I tihnk one is the bypass. Someone's bound to know.

Grollo

June 3rd, 2004, 05:14 PM

noir attitcus

June 5th, 2004, 01:31 PM

If you want one of the best long distance views of the Melbourne skyline there is a lookout tower on the Eltham-Yarra Glen Road in Kangaroo Ground with stunning views down the Yarra Valley to the city.

I know where you are talking about. It's just a fair way to get to (about 1hr from the city) and the view is good (down the valley) but the skyline is tiny. Looks unreal at night with the glow above the tree's and hills.

dynamoultraclean,
I think the round-a-bout in Greensborough Bypass your talking about is on the intersection of Civic Drive and Diamond Creek Road.

tayser

October 19th, 2004, 02:16 AM

DSE have published their 'Victoria in the Future' series, primarily outlining population & growth forecasts.

www.dse.vic.gov.au/victoriainfuture

In Short:

Victoria 2006: 5,077,000, in 2031: 6,225,000
Melbourne 2006: 3,681,000, in 2031: 4,538,000
Greater Geelong 2006: 208,000, in 2031: 270,000
Greater Bendigo 2006: 96,000, in 2031: 127,000
Ballarat 2006: 88,000, in 2031: 111,000

Breakdown of Melbourne:

Inner Melbourne (MCC, YCC, CoPP) 2006: 270,000 population density: 2,854 ppsqk
--- 2031: 405,000 population density: 4,709 ppsqk
Eastern Melbourne 2006: 1,036,000 population density: 341 ppsqk
--- 2031: 1,127,000 population density: 378 ppsqk
Southern Melbourne 2006: 1,021,000 population density: 334 ppsqk
--- 2031: 1,298,000 population density: 448 ppsqk
Northern Melbourne 2006: 728,000 population density: 438 ppsqk
--- 2031: 856,000 population density: 537 ppsqk
Western Melbourne 2006: 628,000 population density: 422 ppsqk
--- 2031: 850,000 population density: 638 ppsqk

Metro population density change, 2006: 391 ppsqk, 2031: 513 ppsqk

All the suburban areas have a significantly smaller pop density as it includes massive slabs of open land inside each of the fringe LGAs.

ppsqk = people per square kilometre

:eek2: @ Inner Melbourne's change!

tayser

October 28th, 2004, 11:43 AM

well, existing residential areas can now have a 9m / 3L height limit imposed if the council applies to Queen Mary for it., considering activity centre hard height limits have been ruled out and shopping strips will become case by case basis, it's a fair compromise. What was the likelihood of a 10 level building going ahead on a suburban street anyhow, not to mention the utter stupidity of doing something like that.

3 levels is a good height in existing residential areas, specifically in the Eastern Burbs, where, remarkably, the only vocal opposition hase come from, IMO. I automatically think of terrace housing, or similar projects to the one next to Hughesdale Station - could easily triple or quadruple the density of a block with 9m height limits - far more human in scale.

All hope is not lost, just look at the pro-densifitcation / development councils like Greater Dandenong, Manningham, Banyule and Moonee Valley - I also think this height limit for residential areas is good in the sense that it will concentrate bigger developments in areas that want them, see list of councils in previous sentence. Go Dandy! [/fanboy] :D

proudmelbourneguy

October 28th, 2004, 12:01 PM

Damn you beat me to it Tays.. lol I was disappointed to you put it the way you did.. But i wanted to see big buildings in Boronia :((

zion

October 28th, 2004, 08:29 PM

I reckon this a good move. Imagine if someone built a 4-5 storey house next to yours? However the commerical areas and built up areas, we should encouragee 10-15 storey apartments or office space.

Three-storey height limit for suburbs

By Misha Ketchell
October 29, 2004

The Bracks Government has moved to quell widespread community anger over high-rise development in Melbourne's suburbs by introducing a three-storey limit for new buildings in residential areas.

The decision will effectively give councils extra power to block high-rise developments, while making it harder for developers to have such decisions overturned in Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Under the new system, announced yesterday by Premier Steve Bracks, councils will be given the option of applying a uniform nine-metre (three-storey) height limit across residential areas.

Councils will also have the option of introducing interim height controls in more than 900 neighbourhood centres, such as small shopping strips, although these limits will expire in 2007.

By that time, Mr Bracks said, councils would be expected to have implemented their own plans to accommodate the city's fast-growing population as part of the Government's Melbourne 2030 planning blueprint.

Mr Bracks said the new controls would "give councils the tools they need to control inappropriate development".

His announcement was seen as a response to anger and confusion over the Government's handling of Melbourne 2030, which aims to encourage higher-density development across the metropolitan area.

Planning Minister Mary Delahunty has been under persistent pressure in Parliament over her performance, particularly after her failure to halt a controversial multi-level apartment project in the low-rise eastern suburb of Mitcham.

Yesterday's move prompted the powerful Save Our Suburbs (SOS) lobby group to resume relations with the Government barely a month after walking out on talks in frustration at what it said was Labor's failure to protect neighbourhood amenity.

Resident groups hailed the new height limits as a major win against inappropriate development, while councils vowed to move swiftly to apply the nine-metre height limit.

Mr Bracks said that while the new controls would empower councils to restrict high-rise developments, the changes would not affect the Mitcham towers as they had already been approved. "This is ensures decisions can be made by councils to prevent that happening in the future," he said.

Save Our Suburbs president Nigel Kirby said the new height limits should have been introduced two years ago but they would give councils breathing space to put in place proper plans.

The interim planning controls in more than 900 neighbourhood centres such as shopping strips would most likely mean a height limit of four storeys in most of these areas, he said. "This is a major step forward in planning in this state."

The chief executive of Urban Development Institute of Australia, Tony DeDomenico, said the new rules provided a greater degree of certainty, but they appeared to be knee-jerk reaction to outrage at the Mitcham development.

"It is not compulsory for councils to impose these limits, which is good. It is not retrospective, which is good," Mr DeDomenico said.

"We want to encourage the Government to facilitate developments in major activity centres and they need to do that if they're fair dinkum about 2030. They say there has to be 700,000 extra homes in Melbourne by 2030 and they've got to be built somewhere."

The president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, Geoff Lake, said councils would use the new powers to limit development in low-rise residential areas.

"This provides certainty for councils and their communities and recognises that local government is best placed to determine those areas where local amenity should be protected," he said.

The president of the Planning Institute of Australia, Trevor Budge, said the changes would take pressure off councils that wanted to fight high-rise development.

Opposition planning spokesman Ted Baillieu said the Melbourne 2030 blueprint remained flawed and full of gobbledegook.

"Instead of doing these patch-up jobs the Government should remove 2030 and have a review of the document," he said.

barneybuck

October 28th, 2004, 11:56 PM

Should make it easier for high rise to be built in the transport hubs which btw SOS agree with.

joed

October 29th, 2004, 02:14 AM

Well, working in urban design I'm a bit concerned by this.

Does this mean we're going to get 3 story boxes with 2.4m high ceilings all over the place now? Everything's going to have flat roofs cause of this 9m limit?

And only 4 stories for activity centres (ie strips etc)? The whole thing doesn't seem very well thought out personally. I'm not saying that a 10 story apartment building should be built next to a single story home. But why not instead impose density limits in areas maybe - so apartment buildings can't be built in low residential areas. I think that's the real issue here! And if the council imposed solar access and energy saving requirements, then overshadowing shouldn't be an issue either. Lets look at the real problem, these community groups seem naive and just see height as the only issue.

Grollo

October 29th, 2004, 02:53 AM

If they are going to have a 9 metre limit it should be to the ceiling of the highest floor, or just have a 3 storey limit so that you can still have a pitched roof or some other roof feature. A straight 9 metre height limit is a pretty blunt tool.

Blabbyboy

October 29th, 2004, 05:17 AM

MG2

October 29th, 2004, 06:32 AM

So what does this height level mean for the already approved suburban scrapers like the ones in Mitcham? Does it not apply to this area because that is an activity centre? And for areas like Knox and FDandenong and Box Hill... these areas will be treated on a case by case basis because they are activity centres? If this is the case I don't see any harm with this law. As Tayser has suggested it prevents ten story buildings being built in highly residential suburban streets which is not the aim of 2030 anyways. As long as high rises can continue to be developed in the activity centres and large shopping and commercial areas then I think this is a positive move. It could have been worse.

MG2

tayser

November 15th, 2004, 09:00 AM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Concern-on-islands-in-the-sun/2004/11/14/1100384430524.html

Concern on 'islands in the sun'
By Melissa Fyfe
Environment Reporter
November 15, 2004

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/11/15/wbcbdfinal_narrowweb__200x288.jpg

Melbourne CBD.
Photo: Craig Abraham

Melbourne's planned "activity centres" will become unpleasant during summer if action is not taken to reduce the city's urban heat island effect.

A Monash University study on high and low-density areas of Melbourne has shown that suburban activity centres - a key plank of the planning blueprint Melbourne 2030 - will be hotter than other areas as they gradually build up.

This is a concentration of the urban heat island effect. Cities, with their warmth-absorbing concrete and lack of vegetation, produce and hold heat more than country areas.

Depending on conditions, Melbourne is usually between two and three degrees hotter than regional areas. The central business district can be seven degrees hotter on extreme days.

During summer, the urban heat island can exacerbate heat waves and affect vulnerable people such as the elderly.

Monash University PhD student Andrew Coutts studied several types of suburbs and areas across Melbourne, from high density to the rural fringe. "As you develop these activity centres they will have unpleasant conditions for longer periods of the year. At the end of summer all around Melbourne it is dry and warm, but in the period leading up to summer and spring, the differences will be seen," he said.

The urban heat island effect would be intensified with global warming, Mr Coutts said.

To plan for this, Mr Coutts, from Monash's School of Geography and Environmental Science, suggested activity centres get more vegetation - which has a cooling effect - and that different building materials are used: less asphalt and different roof surfaces that reflect heat instead of absorbing it.

Fellow Monash student Cheryl Walker is also studying Melbourne's heat island effect. She found that the island has recently moved west. Using satellite data, Mrs Walker showed that grasslands to the north and west have dried off and instead of being a cooling agent, have acted like concrete during the city's prolonged drought.

"Generally the heat island sits over the CBD and you'll see a temperature drop about five kilometres out. But with my study, it extended further, about 25 to 35 kilometres to the west, and the island was a lot bigger than you would normally see," she said.

While the urban heat island is likely to shift back towards the south-east in winter, it is likely it will again move to the north and west in summer, Mrs Walker said.

"This will happen especially if it is dry, and might be a more common pattern in the future if we get less rainfall and temperatures increase," she said.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxmedia/2004/11/14/heat_x1511.jpg

tayser

December 8th, 2004, 11:30 AM

Guidelines for Higher Density Housing

New design guidelines released in November 2004 will help ensure higher standards for higher density housing developments in Victoria.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment's new Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development will help ensure good design as more Victorians choose to live in apartments and units.

As part of the Melbourne 2030 package, the guidelines will provide advice to developers, councils and communities about what constitutes best-practice in higher density housing.

The guidelines apply to buildings of four storeys and more and cover aspects including height, neighbourhood character, street setback, open space, overlooking and overshadowing.

Where planning controls allow higher density housing, the guidelines will assist designers prepare development applications that respond to the local urban context and which meet the design objectives, and will also help council planners in assessing development applications.

The guidelines are structured under six elements of design consideration:
# Urban Context
# Building Envelope
# Street Pattern & Street Edge Quality
# Circulation & Services
# Building Layout & Design
# Open Space & Landscape Design

Under each element is a series of design objectives.

Councils will need to have regard to the guidelines when assessing an application. Applicants will need to now provide an urban context report with any proposal for this type of development. This will ensure that councils receive well considered and documented applications, and complements the existing requirement for a site context report for smaller developments under ResCode.

Well-designed housing in the right locations helps ensure people have housing choices that suit them – an important part of preserving our liveability now and for the future.

PDF #1 800k (http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/nrenpl.nsf/fid/-AF55D6A8619594EFCA256F4700788EC9/$file/HD1.pdf)
PDF #2 1.5meg (http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/nrenpl.nsf/fid/-AF55D6A8619594EFCA256F4700788EC9/$file/HD2.pdf)
PDF #3 2meg (http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/nrenpl.nsf/fid/-AF55D6A8619594EFCA256F4700788EC9/$file/HD3.pdf)

Even if you don't want to read about what's in store for our 'burbs, look at the pretty pictures, a mindf**k of Urban Melbourne (with a few thrown in examples from other cities).

:)

Favco750

December 8th, 2004, 11:44 AM

What gives with the hot spot at Hastings???

Drunkill

December 8th, 2004, 11:55 AM

HMAS Cerebus, the RAN Flinders base... must be some super weapon thingy they are making, or some cool ship. heh.

Looked at the book one thing, kinda cool, will look at the others later.

PORSCHE 911 TURBO

December 8th, 2004, 12:16 PM

today on channel 9 nines it showed Victoria reaching 5.000.000 population what a achievment

Favco750

December 8th, 2004, 12:22 PM

No wonder I can never find a f*!#img parking spot

PORSCHE 911 TURBO

December 8th, 2004, 12:27 PM

By the time it reaches 6 million its going to be another 20years or so lol

realmakoym8

December 16th, 2004, 09:09 PM

Not if you ban abortion, ban contraception, permit 5 AM licences to Publicans, bring back the Doors and legalise marajuana.

:jk: :cheers:

plotstyle

December 16th, 2004, 11:19 PM

No wonder I can never find a f*!#img parking spot

HAHAHA i only drive 50% of the time now

tayser

January 27th, 2005, 05:34 AM

Tough job for state's Mr Fix-it
Nicole Lindsay
25 January 2005
Fin. Review.

Many in the property industry are breathing a sigh of relief that the responsibility for the Melbourne 2030 blueprint has changed hands, writes Nicole Lindsay.

Victoria's new Planning Minister Attorney-General, Industrial Relations Minister and chief head kicker Rob Hulls faces a huge job fixing the state's troubled planning system.

Mary Delahunty, who was finally dumped by Premier Steve Bracks yesterday after at least a year of speculation, has left the roll-out of the state's planning blueprint, Melbourne 2030, in a mess.

You could almost hear the sigh of relief around the property industry yesterday when Hulls took the broken baton.

Rob Pradolin, who heads listed developer Australand's Victorian operations, would not comment directly on Delahunty's performance but he is enthusiastic about having Hulls in the planning job, especially as his portfolio is combined with industrial relations and the top law job.

"It will also give Melbourne 2030 a fresh look, a new fresh set of eyes," he says.

"We all support the principles of Melbourne 2030. But the problem has been implementation, which has been rocky. The only concern is is it too much work. However, knowing the minister's work ethic, we look forward to an interesting time."

This year will be critical for the Victorian building industry as the unions start negotiating a new enterprise bargaining agreement with builders.

Hulls is prepared to confront and stare down trouble-makers and squabbling parties.

Delahunty loathed confrontation. She also took a long time to understand the portfolio.

Melbourne 2030 seeks to restrict urban sprawl by encouraging medium- to high-density growth in established, busy areas of the city.

Melbourne 2030 has been in deep trouble, bogged down in the minutiae of the urban growth boundary while lacking political direction.

The move to prevent urban sprawl and channel development into particular areas with an urban growth boundary has destroyed the retirement plans of some landowners and made multimillionaires out of others.

The most recent debacle centred on a new zoning scheme for rural areas which would have prevented farmers from building on sub-divisions smaller than 40-hectare lots.

Windfarms, student accommodation, railway station land, high-rise in the inner-city, loss of public open space, the urban growth boundary the list is long and raises a stink with both the metropolitan and rural communities that once looked upon the Bracks government as a saviour from the autocratic decision-making of the Kennett government.

Almost everyone in the industry was unhappy with Delahunty's performance.

There has been widespread disquiet over plans to build over Camberwell Railway Station in the eastern suburbs and to erect towers on the fringe of the CBD.

Developers were full of angst. The head of one major developer even described the government's key planning blueprint Melbourne 2030 as "dead in the water".

Developers say they can't get certainty on direction, the price of land has skyrocketed and they're doubtful about the future supply of new land.

Meanwhile, councils are not properly resourced to process the backlog of planning applications, let alone do the work needed to implement the complex requirements of Melbourne 2030.

A recent report by the Melbourne 2030 Implementation Reference Group criticised the lack of financial and political will the government had devoted to its key planning document

tayser

January 29th, 2005, 02:51 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Hulls-confident-all-will-go-according-to-plan/2005/01/29/1106850158097.html

Hulls confident all will go according to plan
By Jason Dowling
January 30, 2005

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/01/29/rob_hulls_wideweb__430x267.jpg

Rob Hulls intends to deliver "expeditious, fair and predictable planning processes".
Photo: Craig Sillitoe

New Planning Minister Rob Hulls wants clarity, fair play and expedience. But is he too busy to achieve these aims?

When Attorney-General Rob Hulls answered a telephone call from Premier Steve Bracks at his Essendon home a week ago today, he thought the Premier was calling to wish him a happy 48th birthday - instead, he handed him the planning portfolio.

Mr Hulls knows he has been given a difficult job.

In his first big interview 48 hours after being sworn in as the new minister, Mr Hulls told The Sunday Age that he read local newspapers and understood there was consternation from community groups and developers about the way the State Government had handled planning.

Some community groups are troubled by what they argue are "character-altering", high-rise, high-density residential developments. Developers "want a simplification of the planning process", he said. "People want expeditious, fair and predictable processes."

Many of the people's concerns, Mr Hulls recognised, centred on the State Government's controversial blueprint for urban development, titled Melbourne 2030.

And that is the first area that Mr Hulls, a senior and well-respected minister of the Bracks Government, who has political clout, intends to review.

"Melbourne 2030 is a very good document, it provides a very sound framework for planning in this state . . . but I think it is important we take stock of Melbourne 2030, to look where we are at and ensure the rest of Melbourne 2030 is implemented," he said.

Mr Hulls said he needed to get advice about "any tweaking that needed to be done concerning Melbourne 2030's "implementation" and ensure it met his vision for a fair process.

Mr Hulls said he also would be looking at anything that helped make planning decisions faster and said he would meet Stuart Morris, president of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, soon.

Local, democratically elected councils, Mr Hulls said, also had an important role to play in the planning process but added that if they refused to make a decision "the decision-making process is then put in the hands of VCAT".

The minister said he wanted to speed up the planning process, bring more clarity to government policy and make planning decisions more transparent and predictable.

"I would hope in 12 months' time, all stakeholders will agree there is clarity in the process, there is certainty in the process and there is speed in our planning system," he said.

"In my view from a planning perspective, if something comes across my desk that the minister is going to say no to, the minister is better to say no straight away than wait two years before the minister says no."

Mr Hulls said he was yet to be properly briefed on the portfolio and said he would not yet be commenting on the contentious wind-farms issue or whether he would consider a rewriting of the Planning and Environment Act.

The minister said he understood many people were disappointed by long delays in obtaining basic planning permits for house renovations and said he would work on speeding up the process.

Mr Hulls, aware of the problems that dogged former planning minister Mary Delahunty, said he would deliver "expeditious, fair and predictable planning processes".

And he has promised a much more consultative approach to the contentious policy area. "Stakeholders won't be lining up to meet with me, I will be lining up to meet with them," he promised.

His style meant that no one would be left in doubt about his intentions, he said.

"I am very keen to be responsive to views put by stakeholders. That does not mean all stakeholders will agree with decisions that I make, but I will make them clearly and make them timely," he said.

"I don't think any stakeholders will be left wondering what my views are after they have met with me."

Save our Suburbs president Nigel Kirby welcomed Mr Hulls' appointment.

He said Mr Hulls was someone in touch with community concerns, noting the recent decision by the Attorney-General to throw out the provocation defence in murder trials.

Mr Kirby said it was important that planning and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal were now under the control of the one minister so there could be no buck-passing.

He said VCAT was too interventionist in the planning process. He wanted the new minister to ensure the tribunal gave greater consideration to the policies of local communities in planning decisions.

"He shall stand or fall as a planning minister on whether he can synchronise the role of VCAT with local policy," he said.

Jennifer Cunich, executive director of the Property Council in Victoria, said Mr Hulls' first job would be to "address the implementation of Melbourne 2030 and get it back on track".

"It needs to be clear where we are heading with Melbourne 2030. That is the first thing that needs to be done," she said.

Ms Cunich said the Government had not communicated well enough what its intentions for Melbourne 2030 were and why it was important.

She added that the planning department within the Department of Sustainability and Environment needed further resourcing and could even be taken out of DSE to elevate its status.

Opposition planning spokesman Ted Baillieu said planning in Victoria was in crisis.

He called for a public review of Melbourne 2030 and said the Government had failed planning again by handing the portfolio to Mr Hulls, who was already busy as Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations.

Mr Hulls said he did not expect to be overloaded by taking on Planning, arguing instead he would be adopting a partnership approach with stakeholders.

plotstyle

January 29th, 2005, 11:19 PM

To plan for this, Mr Coutts, from Monash's School of Geography and Environmental Science, suggested activity centres get more vegetation - which has a cooling effect - and that different building materials are used: less asphalt and different roof surfaces that reflect heat instead of absorbing it...

:speech:

plant a few trees and everything will be fixed!!!

:nono:

the fact that cars are like mini furnaces X2000000 might not help... ;)

or he could suggest bigger scrapers to block out the sun :) at all times of the day

tayser

February 20th, 2005, 02:24 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Grim-future-for-transport/2005/02/20/1108834659703.html

Grim future for transport
By Royce Millar
City Editor
February 21, 2005

A leaked report has called on the State Government to invest in public transport.

The State Government needs to drop its debt-shy approach to public finance and borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to improve public transport and roads if it is to salvage its troubled planning blueprint, Melbourne 2030.

In a confidential draft report on Government transport policy, a high-level advisory group has warned that without a dramatic increase in transport spending, Melbourne 2030 is doomed.

The leaked report by the Melbourne 2030 Implementation Reference Group says the Government has failed to commit funds to, or even acknowledge the need for, the major transport improvements necessary under the planning blueprint.

"Without serious attention and substantial investment in transport, Melbourne faces some very serious threats to its economic competitiveness and liveability," it said.

The highly critical report is the first major assessment of the Government's Metropolitan Transport Plan, released in December.

The Government-appointed reference group is a large committee of disparate organisations, ranging from the Housing Industry Association and the Property Council, to local government bodies and residents' lobby group, Save Our Suburbs.

Members, including the Victorian Local Governance Association, are threatening to end their involvement without greater Government commitment on transport.

"We now need some strong evidence that the transport plan will be funded," said Victorian Local Governance Association chief executive Andrew Rowe. "If we don't get it, we will have to review our commitment to ongoing participation."

Melbourne 2030 aims to contain urban sprawl while accommodating an additional 1 million Melburnians over the next 25 years. Central to the vision is that most of the population increase will be accommodated in higher density "activity centres" served by a sophisticated public transport system. Melbourne 2030 also envisages that five growth corridors will be well serviced by public transport.

The Government has vowed that by 2020, 20 per cent of all trips made in Victoria would be by public transport. The current rate is about 9 per cent.

Melbourne 2030 has been widely supported in principle but the Government has struggled with implementation since its launch in October 2002. Last month Premier Steve Bracks all but conceded this by stripping beleaguered Mary Delahunty of her planning portfolio.

In The Age on Saturday new Planning Minister Rob Hulls acknowledged that the Government had failed to "sell" its 2030 vision to Victorians.

The leaked report says the transport plan should have been a long-term strategy to "breathe life" into Melbourne 2030, a plan in need of "serious refreshment".

But it concludes that the transport plan falls short of the 2030 rhetoric and is "without specific details, timing or funding commitments".

It says the transport plan is based on squeezing more out of the existing transport system and not extending it.

While there is a hint of some major transport projects - such as a third track on the Dandenong line - "the document lacks a broader vision outlining Melbourne's long-term transport infrastructure. The IRG (reference group) is concerned at this lack of long-term vision and the apparent unwillingness of the Government to acknowledge, much less commit to, major transport infrastructure projects," the report said.

It cites research by Allen Consulting for the Property Council of Australia, which found that Victoria could borrow an extra $1 billion a year for five years without threatening its AAA credit rating.

It also calls for the issuing of government bonds to boost infrastructure spending.

The 2030 reference group has joined a growing chorus of business leaders including billionaire Richard Pratt, former Competition Council chairman Allan Fels, calling for the Government to borrow for infrastructure.

Last month Mr Pratt implored governments to drop their "narrow obsession" with debt avoidance. He said Australia lagged "way behind" other countries on infrastructure spending and he warned of an looming breakdown. Last year Mr Fels pointed out that the average government debt in the OECD was 40 per cent of gross domestic product. Victoria's public debt is 1.1 per cent and is on track to be extinguished within the next few years.

Opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder said the leaked report showed that Transport Minister Peter Batchelor had failed.

"His own hand-picked group have bagged the Metropolitan Transport Plan and this simply highlights what most Victorians think about this Government: it lacks vision and it's not prepared to match its promises with dollars," he said.

Asked whether the Liberals supported increased public borrowing for infrastructure, Mr Mulder said it was not necessary. He said the Government had wasted hundreds of millions on unnecessary projects such as regional fast rail and the Spencer Street Station redevelopment.

Last night a Government spokeswoman said Mr Batchelor would not comment without seeing the reference group report.

WHAT NEEDS DOING

- Public transport extensions in growth areas - Epping, South Morang and Rowville
- A third track on the Dandenong rail line
- Rail line to Doncaster
- Elimination of level crossing
- A road link between the Eastern and Tullamarine freeways

________________

A billion p/a over 5 years could basically fix all the major problems with the PT network AND THEN SOME!

but no we have dickheads GALORE in this state: the Liberal party would continue to do sweet fuck all as they're too worried about how very little impact they're going to have as the offer absolutely no alternative to the current government (think about - they're just as useless!) whilst bitching that the ALP aren't doing anything (which they aren't and this article highlights that very nicely WAKEY WAKEY Vic.Gov) meanwhile fucking RACV / VicRoads have managed to stir the Tullamarine - Eastern Freeway link up again - fark's sake!

'scuse French :devil:

tayser

February 21st, 2005, 02:20 PM

Give up Doyley.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Doyles-vow-on-tolls-suffers-new-blow/2005/02/21/1108834729890.html

Doyle's vow on tolls suffers new blow
By Darren Gray
State editor
February 22, 2005

State Opposition leader Robert Doyle's pledge to scrap tolls on the Mitcham-Frankston tollway if he wins government suffered another blow yesterday when Nationals leader Peter Ryan said he opposed the proposal.

Questioned about the impact of such a buy-out on Government spending on country Victoria projects, Mr Ryan stomped on Mr Doyle's plan. "We will never support the use of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to buy out that contract," he said.

"We're very concerned about the situation at Scoresby in as much as it involves tearing up a contract. Contracts cannot be torn up. I understand the Liberal Party to be saying they want to renegotiate it and they're welcome to try that. But I do say that if this is supposed in the end to involve the use of billions of dollars to buy out that contract, country Victorians will never ever agree to that stance. Never," he said.

While the Nationals and Liberals are not in a coalition arrangement, the two parties are conservative allies and co-operate on some fronts.

Mr Doyle surprised some of his colleagues when he declared on the day ConnectEast was announced as the tollway builder last October that a Liberal government would seek to renegotiate the contract in a bid to remove tolls.

Two weeks later the financial advice to the tollway authority - saying the cost to taxpayers of scrapping tolls on the Mitcham-Frankston road was at least $7 billion - was leaked.

Mr Doyle dismissed the advice from accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers as "flimsy".

The Liberal leader has stuck to his guns on the pledge, saying on November 1 last year: "I will have the Scoresby toll-free. We will get the best deal for Victorian taxpayers. There will be no tolls on the Scoresby."

The Liberals are now awaiting their own financial advice on the cost of abolishing tolls.

When asked about the Liberal-commissioned research yesterday, Mr Doyle said: "We will release our modelling when it is complete."

The tollway, also known as the Scoresby Freeway, has been arguably the hottest topic in state politics this parliamentary term.

In April 2003 the State Government breached a key election promise when it announced that motorists would have to pay tolls to use the road.

Yesterday The Age reported that ConnectEast had received approval to make changes to three interchanges along the road to lessen disruption to traffic on main roads, slash truck movements, quicken construction time and cut building costs.

The changes also increase the prospects that the road will open ahead of its November 2008 schedule.

tayser

February 25th, 2005, 08:58 AM

AFR.

Man with a certain plan for Victoria
25 February 2005
Nicole Lindsay and Karina Barrymore

Karina Barrymore is a party to a planning hearing before VCAT.

Victoria's planning and development industry has high hopes for its new minister, write Nicole Lindsay and Karina Barrymore.

Rob Hulls, Victoria's new planning minister, is looking slightly embarrassed. Surrounded by yellow and cream chintz sofas, plumped cushions and a faux French cabriole-style coffee table, he's clearly not in his element.

The Bracks government "headkicker" is unpacking boxes and setting up photos in former planning minister Mary Delahunty's freshly abandoned feminine decor.

The contrast to his previous office couldn't be sharper. His former Justice Department bunker, where he has been presiding as the state's Attorney-General and Industrial Relations Minister, is stained woodwork, big partner-style lawyer's desk and walls lined with books.

Victoria's battered and bruised planning and development industry is hoping the contrast between Delahunty's and Hulls' ministerial style is equally as sharp.

Expectations, however, may be premature.

"If, at the end of 12 months [in the job], people say they haven't always agreed with [my] decisions but they know why [I] made those decisions, and [I] was able to make those decisions pretty quickly, I'd be happy with that," he says.

"They want certainty, they want consistency, they want transparency," he says. Speak to the developers and they want some "heads kicked". Speak to the resident lobby groups and they too wouldn't mind a few "heads kicked". Almost everyone has had enough of the existing system.

Victoria's planning system has been dysfunctional for the past 10 years as a surge in medium-density developments, high-rise apartments and home renovations have overloaded the system, leading to delays and additional costs.

The industry has had anything but certainty since the Bracks government came to power in 1999.

With the Kennett government's planning minister Rob Maclellan, decisions were often described as black and white and dictatorial and caused ructions across the state.

During the past five years of the Bracks government, however, the industry has had to suffer continued uncertainty and upheaval.

Deputy premier John Thwaites applied a populist hand to overhaul the Good Design Guide, coming up with an equally problematic set of rules called ResCode, only to be succeeded by the passive and remote Arts Minister Mary Delahunty and the launch of the even more contentious overarching planning blueprint, Melbourne 2030.

Handballing the controversial planning portfolio, from "the golden haired" Thwaites to Delahunty, has been described by industry players as a way the Bracks government could avoid one of its favourite ministers being tarred by the ongoing poor management of the planning system.

The closest Hulls comes to admitting the Bracks government has stuffed up planning is his constant mantra that things can always be done better.

Chief among the complaints from development and community players has been the botched implementation of the new government policy, Melbourne 2030.

However, the devil was in the detail of this apparently benign policy that was sold to the public as a document to target public transport issues and create green wedges throughout the city.

In reality, the new policy has been used in a broad-brush method by developers and a more targeted way by Victoria's planning court, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to cite as a reason to overrule local planning schemes and decisions.

VCAT's use of Melbourne 2030 has resulted in an avalanche of controversial planning decisions and its shock approval of a 10-storey and 17-storey twin-tower apartment project in Melbourne's sleepy outer eastern suburbs, drew disbelief from all quarters. The decision, however, was quietly described in sectors of the planning community as VCAT deliberately exposing the flaws in Melbourne 2030.

"VCAT is an independent umpire and wearing my attorney-general's hat, decisions made in an independent court are exactly that," Hulls says in response. "I've met with [VCAT president] Stuart Morris and I have had discussions with him about planning issues generally.

But relations with Melbourne's suburban councils may not be so close.

"It appears that councils are refusing to make decisions," Hulls says.

The remarks stem from the failure of many elected councillors to make tough planning decisions on planning permits for fear of a voter backlash.

In Victoria, local councils have 60 days to make a decision on a planning permit or else the project can be sent to VCAT to rule on, leaving the councillors' hands tied and untainted.

However, councils say it's not all political jockeying. They just don't have enough staff to process the deluge of applications.

In response, and drawing from recent planning industry briefings, Hulls suggests not everything should need a planning permit. From his experience with the justice system, the new planning minister who is also a lawyer is keen on alternative dispute resolution before permit applications get to VCAT.

But as planning minister, "you're the minister for saying no", he said.

"It's a balancing act. If you can get 45 per cent to agree with your decisions, you're doing a pretty good job."

And unlike the remote Delahunty, Hulls already appears to be more hands-on in the planning portfolio.

The day of the interview, Mr Hulls had just returned to the office after a secret walkabout of East Melbourne streets. "To just have a squizz for myself" of the Hilton Hotel, where the owners are proposing a controversial redevelopment, he said.

It's a sharp contrast to his predecessor.

tayser

March 22nd, 2005, 01:09 AM

Morons.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/2030-rail-planning-attacked/2005/03/21/1111253956146.html

2030 rail planning attacked
By Martin Boulton and Royce Millar
March 22, 2005

The State Government would be wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money if it followed its long-term metropolitan plan, Melbourne 2030, and built new rail lines to outer suburbs.

Bob Birrell, a Monash University demographer and co-author of a new book on 2030, said the blueprint, which envisages a growing proportion of Melburnians living in apartments and using public transport, would not work because people preferred detached houses and cars.

"If the Government was cajoled by planners and other supporters of 2030 into spending a fortune on fixed rail, it would be a sad waste of money," Dr Birrell said yesterday.

He was commenting before the launch today of the book, which is the first detailed assessment of Melbourne 2030 and was written with Melbourne University geographer Kevin O'Connor and Monash colleagues Ernest Healy and Virginia Rapson.

In Melbourne 2030: Planning Rhetoric Versus Urban Reality, Dr Birrell and his co-authors argue Melbourne's character as a low-rise city of big backyards is threatened because the planning blueprint misreads the housing market and the economy.

Melbourne 2030 is the Government's strategy for accommodating 1 million additional Melburnians while making the city more compact. The Government has drawn an urban growth boundary around the city to contain urban sprawl and envisages many additional residents will live in higher density housing in areas known as activity centres.

But Dr Birrell and his co-authors say there is not the demand for apartment living necessary to transform Melbourne into a more European-style city.

They say 2030 assumes older Melburnians and "empty-nesters" will want to ' move from large houses to apartments near shops, services and transport.

Dr Birrell said this was fantasy: "Its highly unlikely people will dip into their pockets for an extra $100,000 or so (on top of the value of their house) for the dubious privilege of being cooped up in an apartment."

The book says Melbourne 2030 expects apartment demand to continue at 1990s boom levels but that this is unrealistic.

Asked what the authors' alternative was to 2030, Dr Birrell said it was not the intention of the book to outline a substitute scheme. But he said a preferable strategy would be a more flexible urban growth boundary.

Last night the Government's manager of demographic research, Jeremy Reynolds, said the book "appears to lament the passing of the 1950s and failed to recognise that 2030 was a strategy for the future.

"We have to recognise that people are now thinking in different ways, behaving in different ways and have different relationships with their city," Mr Reynolds said.

Cathy Wilkinson, the Government's executive director of metropolitan development, slammed the book as an "inaccurate commentary about the past".

__________

this guy's turning out to be Australia's version of Howard Stern (sp?).

tayser

March 22nd, 2005, 01:09 AM

LOL.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/2030-a-space-fallacy/2005/03/21/1111253950988.html

2030: a space fallacy
March 22, 2005

Plans to end the urban sprawl will destroy the character of Melbourne, write Bob Birrell and Kevin O'Connor.

The Melbourne 2030 planning blueprint is intended to transform Melbourne from its predominant low-density suburban form to that of a compact city. This is to be accomplished by the imposition of an urban growth boundary and by local structure plans to encourage the building of medium to high-rise apartments in more than 100 large activity centres.

The objective is that some 40 per cent of the 600,000 projected growth in households between now and 2030 will be housed in these centres.

Planning Minister Rob Hulls told a radio audience last week that he had not heard any criticism of Melbourne 2030. This says a lot about the extent to which ministers and bureaucrats are cocooned within their own rhetorical world.

If Rob Hulls had consulted developers, he would have discovered that they are sceptical whether they can supply apartments on this scale at a price the market will accept. If he had consulted representatives of resident groups, alarmed about what the proposed developments will do to their neighbourhoods, he would also have encountered plenty of criticism.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Melbourne 2030 is founded on the presumption that the apartment boom of the 1990s is an augur of things to come. During that decade, the share of flats and apartments, particularly in inner-city areas, increased significantly. But most of the demand came from what was a large cohort of 20 to 30-year-olds.There will be no further growth of this age group.

Projections of households by age and family type indicate that most of the growth will be among households headed by people now aged in their 30s and by baby boomers. When the latter reach their retirement ages, they will be replacing a much smaller crop of retirees.

The 30s group will not be as interested in apartment living because they are entering the family-building stage. In the case of the retirees, Melbourne 2030 assumes that many will want to downsize from their detached house and garden and move into apartment living. This is a fantasy. Older households show the lowest propensity to move from their existing dwelling.

Melbourne 2030 also hopes to locate an increased share of employment in activity centres. This is expected to facilitate a better match between residence and employment, and generate greater use of public transport by workers. The new jobs will be achieved in part by preventing enterprises from locating "out-of centre" and by rezoning large chunks of land within each activity centre for commercial and industrial purposes (which will reduce space for housing and add to costs).

This aspiration conflicts with the realities of job location in Melbourne. Enterprises in manufacturing, research, warehouse, transport and related activities prefer a land-extensive location where they can link into road transport to the docks, airport or interstate. Successive state governments have facilitated this process by their investment in the freeway system and now the Mitcham-Frankston freeway. If enterprises have no choice but activity centres, they may well locate outside Melbourne.

So many important aspects of Melbourne 2030 will be difficult to achieve. This is especially so as there is little by way of financial incentives or help in the development process, such as by facilitating land aggregation in centres.

Melbourne 2030 exists in a kind of planning limbo at present. The State Government is requiring municipalities to prepare structure plans consistent with its planning template.

The reaction to the projects that have surfaced - including the apartments atop Camberwell station, the redevelopment of the historic Smith Street precinct in Collingwood and the 17-storey tower next to Mitcham railway station - indicates what is to come. Residents have been up in arms, and in response the Bracks Government has begun bypassing the planning appeals tribunal for fear that it will take Melbourne 2030 too literally.

If the Melbourne 2030 aspirations for activity centres will not work, where will the extra 600,000 households go? Some will go to the frontier, though fewer than in the past because the State Government's urban growth boundary reduces supply. Most will end up in infill dwellings - that is units and apartments on blocks formerly occupied by detached houses.

Melbourne 2030 says not a word about infill, except to claim that neighbourhood character will be protected by the controls over such development (ResCode) that were introduced by the Bracks Government in 2001. Given the scale of activity, this is patently not working. Around 35 per cent of new housing supply is infill - higher than it was in the Kennett era.

The hallmark of Melbourne suburbia, much loved by its residents, is the combination of low-slung houses and canopy shrubs and trees. Look down the standard street and all one sees is greenery. This streetscape does not survive infill. The green canopy goes, to be replaced by huge - usually boxlike - units or apartments.

The Bracks Government likes to assert that Melbourne can accommodate an extra 1 million people and retain its liveability. Tell that to residents across Melbourne whose quiet neighbourhoods have been changed forever by infill.

The outlook is disturbing. The planning fraternity, whose commitments have shaped the plan, responds to any evidence that it is not working by insisting on more draconic top-down imposition of their vision. What is needed instead is frank acknowledgement that it is time to go back to the drawing board.

___________

I've heard it all!

GoGoGadget Monash! Uni of the SE burbs! :puke:

plotstyle

March 22nd, 2005, 02:58 AM

we must end the spawl.......................

Wilko

March 22nd, 2005, 04:43 AM

Then the big question is, how do we accomodate an extra million people and still retain our liveability? It appears that we are doomed if we compact and we are doomed if we spread. What if Dandenong can go up in height, there is not a great deal to save there. Frankston being dubbed the new Brighton of the future is ideal for apartments above the street level shops within it's CBD.

Malt

March 22nd, 2005, 04:48 AM

lol @ that tays.

lovely quote there:P
Plans to end the urban sprawl will destroy the character of Melbourne

lenicrombie

March 22nd, 2005, 07:15 AM

they should spread all the people to moe and ballarat and enhance those areas :)

The Collector

March 22nd, 2005, 07:17 AM

Plans to end the urban sprawl will destroy the character of Melbourne, write Bob Birrell and Kevin O'Connor.
DICKHEADS!!
I can't believe that they actually put their names to that incredibly stupid statement. :hilarious

Dean

March 22nd, 2005, 07:49 AM

DICKHEADS!!
I can't believe that they actually put their names to that incredibly stupid statement. :hilarious

Agreed...

i get the feeling that they've just missed the point. or they could just be dumbasses. same thing i guess

what really gets to me is that an apartment complex in mitcham was rejected after residents were 'up in arms' that the complex would destroy the fabric and the character of mitcham.

i mean FFS, mitcham does not equal character. it's just a place full of non descript detached housing with even less inspiring retail and commercial building's. it has about as much charcter as a comunist russian town from the 1960's.

these people are those who scream for govts to improve services and their quality of life then bitch when it's done in their back yard.

an absolute true description of a NIMBY if i ever saw one.

May they all burn in hell

Dean - Melbourne

Malt

March 22nd, 2005, 07:59 AM

that quote is worthy of the topic in #ozscrapers

nikko

March 22nd, 2005, 08:08 AM

Wow, I wonder if Mr. Birrel won his Doctorine at a raffle?

I can't believe the stupidity of some people.

and as for the " Plans to end the urban sprawl will destroy the character of Melbourne" :wallbash:

I hope they get hit by a train.

plotstyle

March 22nd, 2005, 08:18 AM

planning is political lets just leave it at that ;)

wowsim

March 22nd, 2005, 08:36 AM

I just saw a brief clip of this Birrel character on Seven news, with his circa 1970s thick black rimmed glasses and thick beard, i'm sure his idea of heaven is endless flat burbs with thousands of little fibro houses on tiny blocks of land.....he sounded as stupid as he looked.

PalmerEldritch

March 22nd, 2005, 10:10 AM

The State Government would be wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money if it followed its long-term metropolitan plan, Melbourne 2030, and built new rail lines to outer suburbs.

I'd much rather the government "wasted' millions of dollars building railway lines to Doncaster, Rowville, the Airport, Whittlesea, Epping North etc. instead of wasting it on:

Hallam Bypass, Pakenham bypass, Cragieburn Bypass, Geelong Bypass, Deer Park Bypass, Dandenong Southern Bypass, Ringwood Bypass, Frankston Bypass etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

Funny how this so-called "expert" Bob Birell resides at the Monash Drive-thru McUniversity:

"Can I take your order please?"
"Yes I'd like a supersized carpark"
"Would you like freeways with that?"

doctorjbeam

March 22nd, 2005, 10:23 AM

I can see a car park similar to The Italian Job arising in the future...

Randwicked

March 22nd, 2005, 01:07 PM

Wow, so much stupid in those two articles they are in danger of collapsing under the weight of their own dumbfuckery and creating a black hole.

SECRET INTERNET PICTURE OF DR BIRRELL UNCOVERED:

http://wasta.bravehost.com/4925918_m.gif
helo my degree fel of the back of a truk

Q-TIP

March 22nd, 2005, 01:54 PM

Since Sydney has been trying hard to create a similiar metropolitan plan as Melbourne, whatya say, give us Melbourne 2030 report,...just to save the NSW government in doing some work! So then we can at last have one........ :banana: :hahaha:

Favco750

March 22nd, 2005, 02:16 PM

Hit by train.................. Not very funny this week down here Nikko, 2 people in two days flattened by trains at level crossings......but not to be known up your end of the world.

I for one am not taken by the idea of cramming 1000000 more people into an area never designed for it. The infrastructure such as sewarage, power and water into our older areas ( >50yrs) was never designed for such a massive increase. 2 adults and 2.2 kids on 1/4 acre was as far sighted as our forefathers imagined.....and who can blame them.

Unfortunately, modern society is leaning away from all the values that allowed close 1/4's living to work. Everyone hates everyone else, nobody drives with manners, Fuck you Jack is alive and well.

We have a few dual occ. blocks around here and it is so far a Kingston C.C. nightmare unless you are the one collecting the rates.

OzAsian

March 22nd, 2005, 10:33 PM

Ive always though Birrell was a negative wanker now he has proved it.
He should go and have a look an the looming planning disaster of the sububurn dream on the back roads between Hoppers Crossing and Deer Park.
Massive boring "estates" full of Mc Mansions and fake Palm trees stuck literaly in the middle of nowhere no schools no shopping centres no nothing with a two carriage road already carrying too much traffic.
A disaster just waiting to happen over the next 3-5 years if not stopped now.
Birrell should get out of the Uni a bit more and see what he is advocating.

Erektion

March 23rd, 2005, 12:46 AM

I believe that there is some relevance in both sides of the argument.
You're not about to get some uni-student or graduate purchasing a home out in caroline springs and you're just as less likely to find a young family with kids buying an apartment on Bourke Street.
I work in land development and I think everyone would be shocked to find out just how many people are purchasing blocks in "mundane land" out in the burbs! It's definitely not my thing but there are plenty out there who dream of suburbs full of mock edwardians. Then again, believe it or not there are some estates that are actually VERY well done. Not many, but some nonetheless.
A lot of new estates have extreme planning/design restrictions to minimise the bad 80's and 90's "same same but different" looks.
In terms of what's good for the cities...well that's the million dollar question. There are developers pushing for both types of housing and it doesn't look like either will stop. Not while there's millions to be made. The government is not always in total control here...

Blabbyboy

March 23rd, 2005, 02:08 AM

The quality of scornful insults poured on Mr Birrell is top quality! In form, guys! Just for old times sake, let's recap some of my favourite soundbytes:

Dean: i mean FFS, mitcham does not equal character...May they (NIMBYs) all burn in hell

Nikko: Wow, I wonder if Mr. Birrel won his Doctorine (sic) at a raffle?

Palmer Eldritch: Funny how this so-called "expert" Bob Birell resides at the Monash Drive-thru McUniversity:

"Can I take your order please?"
"Yes I'd like a supersized carpark"
"Would you like freeways with that?"

Wowsim: I just saw a brief clip of this Birrel character on Seven news, with his circa 1970s thick black rimmed glasses and thick beard, i'm sure his idea of heaven is endless flat burbs with thousands of little fibro houses on tiny blocks of land.....he sounded as stupid as he looked.

Randwicked: Wow, so much stupid in those two articles they are in danger of collapsing under the weight of their own dumbfuckery and creating a black hole.

OzAsianl: Ive always though Birrell was a negative wanker now he has proved it.

The Collector: DICKHEADS!!
I can't believe that they actually put their names to that incredibly stupid statement.

:bow: :applause: :nocrook: :rofl: :hahaha: :cheers1: :lol: :drunk:

ahem. of course this is all true now. Birrell doesn't (CAN'T) give any alternative suggestions. Love your work, Mr Birrell. Not. "wasting millions on public transport". WTF? Where is Paul Mees when you need a crusader?

Ayn Rand

March 23rd, 2005, 02:12 AM

The contempt shown for suburban living, private cars, and urban sprawl by many forumers amazes me. Australia is a country in which the vast majority live in a single or 2-storey house in the suburbs. Probably most of the people contributing to this forum live in the suburbs or grew up in the suburbs.

From the beginning of every Ausralian city there has been an ever increasing urban sprawl to cater for an increasing population. A population of people who wanted space, the freedom and convenience of the car (unknown only several generations ago), backyards for the kids to play in, shopping centres that were a 5-10 minute drive from home, local schools, etc. Much better than high density European living. All of a sudden, now this is wrong.

I suspect most forumers are young and don't have kids. City apartment living suits them well. They have access to work, restaurants, etc close by. When you're married with 3 kids, things are a little different. Most people don't want to raise kids on the 20th floor of an apartment building. In addition, most forumers are not old enough to have arthritis or suffered a stroke. My mother has had a stroke. Walking out to the car, then from a shopping centre car park into the shops is about as much as she can handle. Public transport and the additional walking required when using public transport isn't viable.

I have nothing against inner city living, and tall apartment buildings being built in designated areas, like Docklands and Southbank. In fact, being a skyscraper fan, the taller the better. And I have nothing against people choosing to live in apartment buildings. Just don't criticisize my choice - to drive a car and live in the suburbs. And don't dictate to me that I should use public transport and live in a high density environment. Thats not the way I want to live.

Australia is very different to Europe. Eurocentric answers are not necessarily the best for Australia. European cities were well formed before the advent of the car. American and Australian cities have seen enormous growth since the advent of the car. This is why they are different and more sprawling than European cities. Interestingly, new suburbs in cities such as frankfurt are as carcentric as ours.

I've noticed a complete intolerance at this forum for views that differ from the consensus. Forumers even going so far as to suggest deletion of posts that have an opinion that differs from the majority's.

While I respect Tayser's hard work as moderator, I often find him to be the least tolerant of any opinions that differ from his own.

mic

March 23rd, 2005, 02:14 AM

^^^^^^^^

Yes true but demographic trends have changed. I mean most of my friends including myself would love to live in the inner city in an apartment, so therefore before getting married, an apartment is a great option for a single life. We all want to live an inner city lifestyle at least once in out life, so why not when your a young professional, when you really dont have anytime for gardening, or the such, an apartment is a great option. On top of that buying a terrace in inner Melbourne has priced out many young professionals, but renting an apartment is a great way to live the inner city life. Also leading off from that there will be a hell of a lot more empty nesters in the future, so housing stock must change to suit that. What single or couple with no childern who work in the CBD wants a cookie cutter home on a flat block out near Pakeneham, and would want the 2 hour commute to the city. In saying that, if I worked in Dandenong in one of the large multinationals out that way, I would want to live and innercity lifestyle, but the CBD is too far, well Frankston, beachside and Dandenong are great options for an innercity life, the housing stock is shocking in both suburbs but apartments would be a viable option. You will see next cycle and as the current youth reaches adulthood and moves into professional careers that apartment construction will remain strong and continue to attract tenants and owners.

Blabbyboy

March 23rd, 2005, 02:14 AM

and now let us all pause to reflect on Randwicked's (rand)wicked immortal words:
"Wow, so much stupid in those two articles they are in danger of collapsing under the weight of their own dumbfuckery and creating a black hole." :hahaha:

wicked lester

March 23rd, 2005, 02:59 AM

I must say I'm rather stunned at the ignorant criticism shown on this forum of the Birrel/OÇonnor report.

Other than to have read a couple of headlines and one line grabs from newspapers has anyone actually read the report (120 odd pages) in detail.

Ponder this: while the newspapers have reported the Birrel/Oconnor book as a book of ábsolutes'it appears to me to be far from that.

What the authors have effectively done is to challenge the extent to which many of the goals and aspirations of Melbourne 2030 are likely to occur. They do not support uncontrolled sprawl, but nor do they think 2030 is likely to roll out as planned.

Some of the key issues they raise include:

1. They challenge the assumption that the elderly will want to move en masse into apartment and units. Their research suggests there is little evidence - to date - of this trend occurring in anything like the numbers contemplated in Melbourne 2030.

2. They note that developers cannot put medium and higher density housing stock on the market in many of the Activity Centres at a viable price therefore undermining many of the assumptions contained in the policy.

3. They raise concerns aboutthe effect of the Urban growth Boundary on the raw price of land and the effect on the home buyer - particularly the first home buyer.

I don't agree with everything they say, BUT to dismiss their research in the manner done on this tread demonstrates a strain of ignorance I'd thought impossible on this site.

Randwicked

March 23rd, 2005, 03:40 AM

Wow, two new posters in the space of an hour have come to tell us what's what!

COULD IT BE THE GOOD DOCTOR HIMSELF???

wicked lester

March 23rd, 2005, 03:53 AM

COULD IT BE THE GOOD DOCTOR HIMSELF???

No, it could not.

A long time reader of this site, motivated by ignorance, to finally register.

I look forward to contributing regularly.

Dean

March 23rd, 2005, 04:02 AM

A long time reader of this site, motivated by ignorance, to finally register.

Oh really.

I do get the feeling though that the 'good doctor' got his degree from the Monash Uni engineering toilets.

Just above the toilet paper rolls it says 'Arts Degree: please take one'

The only ignorance here, is from those quoted in the artcles. they're nothing more than acedemic's who wouldnt know the real world if came out and bit them on the arse.

Dean

March 23rd, 2005, 04:09 AM

'Bob Birrell, a Monash University demographer and co-author of a new book on 2030, said the blueprint, which envisages a growing proportion of Melburnians living in apartments and using public transport, would not work because people preferred detached houses and cars'

honestly this guys a moron.

the reason people prefer detached housing and cars is because until recently there have been no alternatives available to them.

spend some money and drastically improve PT in the burbs so its cheap and easy to use and close to everyone and encourage a mixture of low/medium/high density housing and you'll see people change their attitudes quick smart.

Geeez this guy has either been freeze dried for the past 40 years or been doin hard time.

Cheers

Dean - Melbourne

wicked lester

March 23rd, 2005, 04:16 AM

Oh really.

Just above the toilet paper rolls it says 'Arts Degree: please take one'

The only ignorance here, is from those quoted in the artcles. they're nothing more than acedemic's who wouldnt know the real world if came out and bit them on the arse.

Yes, an oldie but still a goody! My sides are splitting.

Your reliance on a couple of quick quotes from the rag still suggest you've not done any in depth reading on what Birrel and O Connor are arguing.

In any case who is it that fails to undersand the real world?

Academics such as Birrell and O'Connor OR the policy boffins holed up in the DSE ivory towers in the city who crafted the metropolitan strategy?

Maybe a bit of both. But one things certain Melbourne 2030 is collapsing under its own weight. Blind freddy can see its not going to happen as the policy documents foresaw. To make 2030 happen to the letter would require some very 'brave' (thankyou Sir Humphrey) action from government. And lets face it, they're not that sort of government.

Hence 2030 is half baked. Birrell and OÇonnor realise this, even if you don't.

AdelaideSkytraveller

March 23rd, 2005, 04:43 AM

we must end the spawl.......................

There was a good program on the ABC on either sunday night or
monday about the effects of global warming and about the people
doing the modelling saying their prediction models were wrong and
that it would most likely get 2 twice the increase they predicted
over the next 25-30 years

What does that mean, the scientists believed that polar ice sheets
would mealt and sea levels rise about 7-8 meters. They noted that
many of the worlds cities bordering the coast would be under threat.
They attributed the problems to burning coal, gas etc to create electricity
but the same would go for carbon monoxide cause by car/truck pollution.

Ending urban sprawl and making people catch public transport may
be inevitable if we are not going to destroy our own home by destroying
our environment...

What is the dream of the NIMBY to live in a house on a quater acre block
and own 4-5 V8 gas guzzling cars per household.... The fact that their house in future may lie a few meters beneath the sea surface doesnt enter their greedy selfish little minds...

tayser

March 23rd, 2005, 05:14 AM

Hence 2030 is half baked. Birrell and OÇonnor realise this, even if you don't.

The policy itself is half baked or the government's implementation of it is half-baked - there's an important distinction to be made there.

Dr. Birrell should jump on the 1.5 hourly Berwick to Clayton campus bus and have a little chat to Dr. Kazakevitch about the economic implications if something like Melbourne2030 (specifically its transportation and high(er)-density dwelling sections).

Consider the following scenario (paraphrased from a convo in an introductory Macroeconomics lecture):

In 20 years time, the bulk of the baby boomers will be approaching their 70s, an age when people generally start to use cars less and less. Now considering that Melbourne is an L.A. style sprawler once you go about 10k out from the CBD, where the majority of these baby boomers live, what's going to happen when their usage of cars delcines?

- You're going to see less business being conducted, specifically in the retail area (major employer and business generator in the 'burbs) as a significant portion of the population won't be able to go very far as the only reliable transportation source is cars, of which people will use less and less of when they're older.
- You'll see an increase in unemployment as there's less business to be carried out.
- Communities will become segmented, there'll be the 'haves' and the 'have nots' of the 'burbs: the haves will have services within walking distance, or, shock horror, within reach by some half-baked public transport option and the have-nots will be the bulk of the burbs which must depend on a car to get to any services.
- That segmentation will lead to an increased burden on government (and us the younger, more mobile & of which there will be fewer to support the greater amount of elderly people) to meet the needs of the aging population in these isolated environments.
... and the snowball effect continues on and on.

His argument is one similar to that of the pension: in the good old days you'd retire and get your pension. Well governments woke up to the fact that they will have less people paying taxes to support a larger amount of people requiring pensions in the future, so they brought in superannuation schemes (which encourage people to do more now for their future - and that concept can be applied to Public Transport & increased & closely mixed densities & uses). This aging of the population problem is the same, just in a different context, except there's been a solution to the pension / retirement funding issue: superannuation, increased densities and better PT options are the solutions to this problem, but no-one wants to put their money where their mouth is.

does Dr. Birrell address that issue in his damning of Melbourne 2030?

I'd agree with them if they explicitly hinted at the implementation of the policy as being botched by the government, but I'd completely disagree with them in what it actually calls for, and the last sentence of the Age Editorial on the subject today highlights this perfectly:

http://theage.com.au/news/Editorial/2030-vision-for-city-is-blurred/2005/03/22/1111254022923.html

2030 vision for city is blurred
March 23, 2005

A far-sighted plan is at risk for want of clarity and decisiveness.

Melbourne is a liveable city as much by accident as by design, but the pressures of growth - of the city's area and population - call for better planning than ever before. Melbourne 2030 was hailed as a visionary plan upon its release in 2002, with a crucial caveat: the devil would be in the detail of its implementation. Since then, the slow and confused unfolding of this strategy has cast doubt on the Bracks Government's willingness to commit the financial and political capital needed to make it work.

One original dissenter, Bob Birrell, has co-written a Monash University critique that concludes Melburnians' love of traditional housing and cars more or less dooms it to failure. The plan relies on an urban growth boundary, higher-density living and greater use of public transport, so 1 million more people can be accommodated by 2030 without surrendering to urban sprawl and endless congested roads. Greater Melbourne's population of 3.5 million already occupies a vast area - four times the combined areas of Hong Kong and Singapore, which house 11.3 million people - but Dr Birrell offered no alternative other than a more flexible urban boundary.

The Age's view is that Melbourne 2030 remains sound in principle, but its initial execution has been poor. In-fill dwellings, the block-by-block replacement of houses by units and apartments, are all too often an ugly default option. A big-picture policy is subject to confused, piecemeal interpretations. The Government has not done a good job of communicating its policy to councils, nor in laying the practical foundations for its plan to concentrate growth in activity centres served by public transport. It has hardly begun to develop the infrastructure needed to turn this vision into a functional reality. Treasurer John Brumby has hinted at budget initiatives, but will these be as bold as the plan requires? And can we expect the joint commitment from the three tiers of government that such a plan demands? We have also not seen enough federal and state work on decentralisation to help ease the pressure on state capitals.

Dr Birrell correctly identifies attitudes as a make-or-break issue and Planning Minister Rob Hulls concedes the plan hasn't been "sold" to the public. But attitudes to living in Melbourne largely reflect a city form shaped by past circumstances - to modify L. P. Hartley's insight: the past is another city; they do things differently there. Melbourne in 2030 will be another city again; for it to be liveable, we will have to do things differently.

wicked lester

March 23rd, 2005, 05:37 AM

[QUOTE=tayser]The policy itself is half baked or the government's implementation of it is half-baked - there's an important distinction to be made there.

Well, in my view both.

But particulalry the implementation. The Age in their editorial sum up the situation quite well early on in the editorial.

Melbourne 2030 is a visionary policy. It's big picture stuff with a series of goals and objectives based on curtailing sprawl.

But as The Age notes the government has neither the dollars, nor the political will power to implement their strategy.

If this is the case, then ulitmately you've got to say the strategy is flawed. If it stands little to no chance of being implementated as written, then lets start again or at least revisit some of the parameters set out in the original document.

tayser

March 23rd, 2005, 05:48 AM

I don't hear Greater Dandenong calling the strategy flawed & for the strategy to have parameters revisited - if anything they're embracing it.

wicked lester

March 23rd, 2005, 06:04 AM

I don't hear Greater Dandenong calling the strategy flawed & for the strategy to have parameters revisited - if anything they're embracing it.

You're kidding aren't you?? :) :)

wowsim

March 23rd, 2005, 02:28 PM

Birrel's report is the one that doesnt take into account long term demographic changes. Part of his premise is that the baby boomers wont want to move out of their houses and shift closer to the city into apartments or another form of higher denisty housing. Well Mr Birrel this may be true, but guess what? you and the rest of the baby boomers are going to be mostly dead by 2030.
As that largest demographic group in history passes we are left with the gen Xers Yers and whatever is after them. They are less likely to be married, if they are, are less likely to have children, and if they do are more likely to have fewer children than previous generations.
Melboure 2030 doesnt say everyone has to be in apartments by 2030, but it does want to accomodate more people in higher density. Now arguably the demographics of melbourne by this time will mean there is a greater overall proportion of the population that is receptive to the idea of medium or high density housing for their entire lives.
Suburbia will always endure, Melbourne at its current boundries will never be so big (population wise) that more than a small proportion of the city will need to be medium density or higher, as the population of Australia stabilises or begins to fall by the end of this century.
There is a massive amount of suburban property that is on the cusp of being inherited by Gen Xers, not all of them want a life in suburbia, i think you could argue that demand will not outstrip supply of low density housing....

silvermb

March 23rd, 2005, 10:03 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Melbournes-population-booms/2005/03/23/1111525222758.html

>>>Melbourne's population booms
By Melissa Marina, Tim Colebatch
March 24, 2005

It's not exactly a challenge to Sydney's number one city title - not yet, anyway - but it is a trend. For the third year running, Melbourne has significantly outgrown the harbour city, recording the highest population increase of any capital in Australia.

After decades of watching its power and population share drift northwards, Melbourne in the last financial year grew by a healthy 1.3 per cent, adding almost 45,000 people to more than 3.6 million.

In percentage terms, Melbourne's growth almost doubled that of Sydney, which lagged behind the national average with a modest 0.8 per cent rise, according to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures.

Despite the Bracks Government's controversial 2030 policy push for consolidation in existing developed areas, much of Melbourne's population increase continues to occur in outer suburban areas including Casey, Wyndham and Melton.

While Melbourne added the most people in 2003-04, Brisbane continued to be the fastest-growing city in percentage terms, adding 39,700 people, or 2.3 per cent.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

It is the third year in a row that Sydney has trailed the population growth of both Melbourne and Brisbane. Melbourne led the way in 2001-02 with a population increase of 41,426, followed by Brisbane and Sydney.

In Victoria, the City of Casey recorded the highest population growth of any local government area in 2003-04, with 8700 new residents.

Mayor Neil Lucas said news that the area had topped the list was "very passe out here". Casey, he said, had led population growth for several years.

Mr Lucas said the growth in the municipality was being driven by the "juggernaut" of young people wanting to own their own homes on their own block of land.

The figures coincide with renewed debate this week over the merits of 2030, the State Government's planning blueprint that was criticised by planning experts Bob Birrell and Kevin O'Connor as being too focused on high-density living around activity centres in urban areas.

Mr Birrell said the figures showed that unlike Sydney, Melbourne still had a strong demand for frontier land. That demand, he said, did not come just from new home owners, but from older generations wanting to upgrade from outer suburbs to estates with features such as lakes and gates. "In Melbourne about two-thirds of all dwellings are still new detached dwellings whereas in Sydney it's more like a third," he said.

A State Government spokesman said growth in Casey, as well as Wyndham in the west and Melton in the north, was expected because they were three of the five growth corridors identified under 2030.

"This should not be a surprise that we're seeing growth picking up in these areas and we will continue to make sure land is available but in a planned way," he said.

The spokesman said the 2030 plan was needed to stop "this Los Angeles-style" of growth and to ensure planning was effective, that services and transport were available and that "precious open space," known in the blueprint as green wedges were maintained.

The bureau figures show that since 2001, Melbourne has added almost 25,000 more people to its population than Sydney. Over the three years its population has grown by 128,455 or 3.7 per cent, while Sydney's has grown by 103,806 or 2.5 per cent.

The population rates reflect other trends that show NSW trailing on key economic indicators. In three years to June 2004, gross domestic product (GDP) grew in NSW by 7.6 per cent, compared with 19.1 per cent in WA, 17.5 per cent in Queensland, 11.2 per cent in Victoria, 10.3 per cent in Tasmania and 9.3 per cent in SA.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Urban-brawl/2005/03/23/1111525226089.html

>>>Urban brawl
March 24, 2005

The State Government's 2030 blueprint for Melbourne's growth is under assault. Does it reflect how people want to live - or is it an attempt at social engineering? Royce Millar examines the evidence.

In 1954 the Metropolitan Board of Works - the city's town planners at the time - declared that Melbourne's die had been cast. "It must be accepted,'' the board concluded, that with 50 per cent of Melburnians owning their own homes and 90 per cent living in detached housing, suburban living was "the general desire here''. It went on: "Any attempt to impose some other form of living upon people, however good the intentions and however sound the reasons, will certainly meet with failure.''

Fifty years on, the argument that Melburnians are somehow rusted on to their lawnmowers and Holdens has returned to dog the Bracks Government in its attempt to reshape the city.

A scathing new critique of the Bracks planning strategy, Melbourne 2030, cites the Board of Works circa 1954 on its front page.

(Melbourne 2030 is the Government's plan to cope with a million more residents by making the city more compact through boosting the number of people living and working in higher-density housing near public transport.)
AdvertisementAdvertisement

In essence, the authors of the critique of Melbourne 2030, including Monash University demographer Bob Birrell, hold the old Board of Works dictate to be true: Melburnians love their quarter-acre block and love driving to work, and nothing will change that. If they're right, Bracks and his ambitious 2030 plan are in trouble.

Melbourne is now a battleground and the conflict is over a vision for the city's future.

Planning Minister Rob Hulls dismisses the book's claims. "It's a nonsense to be trying to recreate the Melbourne of the 1950s where every house had a white-picket fence around the quarter-acre block," he says. The Bracks Government and much of the planning fraternity are keen to slow urban sprawl and reduce the economic and environmental costs they say come with it.

With support of the likes of the Planning Institute of Australia, the Government has drawn an urban growth boundary around the city and envisages that many of the additional residents will live, work and play in shopping and transport hubs known as activity centres.

It has vowed to more than double the proportion of trips made by public transport by 2020.

But Birrell says the 2030 strategy is all wrong and won't work.

In Melbourne 2030: Planning Rhetoric Versus Urban Reality, which was launched this week, Dr Birrell and his co-authors, University of Melbourne geographer Kevin O'Connor and Monash colleagues Dr Ernest Healy and Virginia Rapson, warn that Melbourne's acclaimed liveability as a lowrise city of tree-lined streets is under threat because 2030 misreads Melbourne's social and economic history.

Like the Board of Works, Birrell believes the suburbs are set on an outward trajectory. It is better, he says, to accept the fact and focus on better planning for urban frontiers; to accept that car-based development on the fringe as Melbourne's ordained future.

Central to the Birrell thesis is that Melburnians just don't want to live in apartments. Both sides of the planning debate agree that Melbourne is ageing and therefore that future housing choices, especially of baby boomers, are crucial to 2030.

Birrell says that 2030 demographic forecasts are largely based on the growth in inner-city apartment living through the 1990s. He argues that despite the oft-cited empty-nester syndrome - a real estate agent marketing theme - statistics show that ageing Melburnians played a negligible role in the apartment boom.

While 2030 assumes that many emptynesters will want to downsize their housing, moving from large, detached homes to apartments near shops, services and transport, Birrell says this is a "fantasy''.

The book highlights that much of the '90s demand was from younger single people and childless couples in their 20s. But in the 1990s there was a population "bulge'' in this age group, resulting from the high level of baby boomers having children in the early 1970s.

Birrell points out that the 20s age group will now diminish as a proportion of the population and, therefore, apartment demand will diminish with it.

The Government's leading demographer, Jeremy Reynolds, agrees that "the existing generation of people over 60 have shown a low propensity to move out of the family home into other dwellings''.

But, says Reynolds, this generation did not have options. "The point here is that we want to offer more choice than they had in the past.''

He says the Birrell thesis does not account for intergenerational change. "It has always been that the next generation will act differently to their parents.''

Planning Institute of Australia president Marcus Spiller agrees. "Why should past housing preferences, shaped by entirely different social and economic conditions and the virtual absence of reasonable alternatives - simply roll on?''

Reynolds agrees that the large 20s age group of the 1990s will diminish as a proportion of the population. But he stresses that their absolute number will increase a little; the core demand for apartments, therefore, will be sustained.

Reynolds says the Birrell view is based on the 1950s dream of Melbourne as a metropolis of WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) and white bread homogenity. He stresses that we now live in "turbulent'' times in which the proportion of single-person households is rising quickly, in which people are not having children or delaying them until they are into their 30s and 40s, and in which the biggest growth in single-person households is among people in their 40s.Not surprisingly, developers and builders have been heavily involved in the 2030 debate and their reading of demand for different housing styles is fundamental to the success of the Government's vision.

Prominent developer Becton regularly researches potential buyers and is in no doubt there is a big market for apartment living in the inner city.

Becton marketing director Barry Shepherd says his market research shows many Melburnians would move to medium-density housing, but not into high-rises, in activity centres if they could be close to family, friends and familiar services.

He says centres such as Box Hill and Ringwood will work if housing can be made affordable. "Our research shows people don't want to stay in a house and large block and get caught up with the maintenance.''

Maroondah Council commissioned a study on apartment demand as part of its research on the proposed Ringwood activity centre. That report - released exclusively to The Age - concludes that there is a "growing latent demand for apartment and mediumdensity housing in the Ringwood Transit City''.

RMIT associate professor Michael Buxton dismisses the book's claim that the apartment market is about to run out of steam. He says his own research shows the growth in multi-unit dwellings "is not temporary but a massive change in housing preferences''.

He notes that between 1990 and 2003 multi-unit dwelling construction rose by more than 600 per cent, from 1735 to 12,362, in Melbourne, and now accounts for nearly 35 per cent of all new dwellings. "The statement by Birrell and O'Connor that this will not continue is just an expression of hope. There is no evidence for their claim.''

Birrell says that another big problem for 2030 is cost. The book cites estimates by building services firm Ryder Hunt that the current cost for a new two-bedroom apartment in Melbourne's middle suburbs is between $401,500 and $479,500. He says 2030 assumes Melburnians will not move out of detached housing and pay so much for an apartment.

"It's highly unlikely people will dip into their pockets for an extra $100,000 or so (on top of the value of their detached house) for the dubious privilege of being cooped up in an apartment,'' he says.

It is on the point of housing cost that Birrell and his critics share major concerns. Says Marcus Spiller: "The main problem is not that people reject higher-density housing, as implied by the authors of this book, but rather the construction cost penalty associated with suburban apartments in Victoria - a penalty which seems to be significantly higher than in other states.''

Birrell also questions the 2030 premise that, as Melburnians work and play close to home, activity centres will attract an increased share of Melbourne's jobs. The book says this is at odds with the reality of employment in Melbourne. It says that beyond the central city, most jobs are in suburban locations close to major roads, not in "centres''. Successive governments, including the Bracks Government, have further encouraged this by building new freeways.

Spiller says the Birrell view is dated and fails to recognise the huge expansion in professionals working from small offices and from home.

"This has set up a large latent demand for smaller office spaces and home offices. Melbourne 2030 hopes to attract these lifestyle offices into activity centres".

On the crucial issue of transport, Birrell and his co-authors highlight that a minuscule 9 per cent of trips in Melbourne are taken on public transport.

And as jobs are predominantly located away from activity centres, and most workers drive between outer and middle suburbs and across town, there is little point improving and extending rail services to activity centres.

The Victorian Council of Social Service is campaigning to improve Melbourne's public transport, including new rail lines to poorly services suburbs. Senior policy officer Kate Colvin points out that during consultation over 2030, public transport was rated as the top priority by the Melbourne public.

"I think the fact that the trains are packed to the rafters every day shows that people will use public transport and that we need desperately to do something about transport in Melbourne, including extending services,'' she says.

One indication of where Melbourne may be headed is provided by a city to our north. By Sydney standards, Melbourne's rate of apartment growth is low. Where about one-third of Melbourne' residential construction is multi-unit, the proportion in Sydney is about two-thirds. Sydney's figures reflect the fact that natural borders - the harbour and the mountains - have put a halt to urban sprawl and the only direction for housing construction is up.

The Sydney experience raises an interesting question for Birrell and his colleagues. With no land for suburban expansion, Sydneysiders have quickly moved to higher-density living, fuelling a thriving industry in multi-unit development.

It seems highly unlikely that Sydney's equivalent of the Board of Works would have tipped that 50 years ago.

wicked lester

March 23rd, 2005, 10:47 PM

How has the myth arisen that Birrell and OÇonnor's report doesn't take into account changing demographics?

It does, to a very considerable degree. The principle difference in outcomes is that Birrell and O'Connor assert the behavioural patterns of Melbournains will be different to the way DSE believe we'll behave.

Oh, and Tayser, you'll be delighted to know the City of Greater Dandenong receive an acknowledgement on page two of Birrell's book for their contribution.

Grollo

March 23rd, 2005, 11:14 PM

Melbourne 2030 is about providing choice, not taking it away. Melbourne 2030 aims to have at least 40%, and if it all all works up to 50%, of new dwellings in apartments and units up from the 25% it is currently. That still means that even if it all works 50% of all new dwellings will still be detached houses, plus the hunders of thousands of traditional detached dwellings already available in Melbourne. The area of housing where Melburnians have not had sufficient choice in the past is apartments and higher density dwellings. Apart from a short period in the 1960's and 70's up until very recently apartment buildings were virtually banned from the suburbs, meaning that if you wanted to live in an apartment outside the inner city you couldn't even if you wanted to. Even today many councils are working as hard as they can to ban this style of living from their neighbourhoods.

It usually costs so much to build these apartments because it is such a long and difficult process to get them approved, often fighting for years gainast ignorant local councils and NIMBY groups. Often by the time you get approval the market conditions have changed and the opportunity has been missed.

So at the Moment Melbourninans don't have the choice that the Birrel/OÇonnor report presumes that Melbourinans have had.

Also Melbourne 2030, if correctly implimented, is supposed to stop the development of units in residential streets outside of activity centres and away from public transport. The Melbourne 2030 trade off was to protect the 'leafy' suburban character in areas away from public transport by increasing density in activity centres.

Even Brisbane now, that bastion of laid-back, sub-tropical, suburban-sprawl, is building a higher percentage of new apartments and units than Melbourne even though only ten years ago the opposite was true.

Grollo

March 23rd, 2005, 11:35 PM

Oh, and Tayser, you'll be delighted to know the City of Greater Dandenong receive an acknowledgement on page two of Birrell's book for their contribution.

City of Greater Dandenong has been one of the strongest supporters of Melbourne 2030 and has been very happy with the outcome except for the fact that they wanted Dandenong to be the official second CBD for Melbourne, but you can't win them all :-)

Unlike those living in the privileged 'leafy' inner and middle ring eastern suburbs the City of Greater Dandenong has a much better understanding of the negative aspects of sprawl and how difficult it can be for people who can hardly afford to run one car let alone have two Toorak Tractors in the driveway to live in sprawl, let alone the many people living in Dandenong who are severely disadvantaged because they can't even afford a car or can't drive because they are too young, too old or disabled.

Does this sound like City of Greater Dandenong does not support the goals of Melbourne 2030?

Greater Dandenong Council has released a vision for the future of Central Dandenong, which will see it become a vibrant, active residential city with new medium-density living options and attractive open spaces.

The vision also focuses on high quality retail, business and investment opportunities, extensive leisure options and improved access to public transport with a dedicated Central Area Transit (CAT) bus system. Capitalising on the state government's identification of Dandenong as a 'Transit City' for growth and urban renewal as part of its Melbourne 2030 planning guide, the city is set to showcase significant projects and initiatives.

Central Dandenong is the largest ‘transit city’ in
the State Government implementation program and
a key element in the State Government’s metropolitan
development strategy Melbourne 2030.

City of Dandenong will be a SHOWCASE of Melbourne 2030 principles if all goes to plan.

http://www.greaterdandenong.com/Documents.asp?ID=782&Title=Destination+Dandenong

mic

March 24th, 2005, 01:05 AM

Arguing about it on here isn't going to change the fact that it is going to happen, and happen fast, watch next property cycle arpartments poping up around suburban Melbourne, and I for one and happy, its time we look more like a city and less like a country town.

There is stirring already, Moonee Ponds with Mondo, which has added to the great street life down there on Puckle Street as more people live in the vacinity, increasing mass=more business for the shop owners and really had no impact on the leafy surrounding streets and housing stock as you cant see it.

A few small projects on lygon street Brunswick, St Georges RD Thornbury and Preston, 3-5 floors. Along with that Darebin has a plan to redevelop Preston Market, renovating the market it's self, adding a coles as a flagship, major tenant, and 3 towers above the market surface parking ( now who can argue with that, surface parking is ugly and attracts foul behaviour especially near a station) the housing stock is a distance away and is not affected by this proposed devlopment as it is located in the centre of a commercial district.

Darebin also has plans for the Junction ( High Street and Plenty Roads) and M1 urban is located there, enterprize apartments 5 floors nearing completion-it was a warehouse conversion, and a proposal for a 6-10 story tower opposite Dundas street-( at present the area is full of derelect warehouses and rundown businesses which are closing down-so again this is urban renewal-A GOOD THING) Northcote central has a warehouse conversion into 4 floor apartment building directly on High Street, and there are calls for experession of interest upon a rundown cinema complex on High Street, stating that zoning for medium to high density residential development is in place and desired.

Footscray central has a few proposals and currently one 9 floor building underconstruction I believe. So it's slowly starting.

Ayn Rand

March 24th, 2005, 01:23 AM

As low-rise suburbs get older, they tend to become more attractive as trees and other shrubs grow. The oldest suburbs are usually the leafiest.

From the point of view of aesthetics, the problem with building apartment buildings all over the suburbs is that they tend to look like crap in a couple of decades, becoming a permanent blot on the landscape. Can anyone at this forum point out an attractive highrise apartment building in the suburbs that was built more than 20 years ago?

What looks cool when it's new and shiny and conforms with current architectural styles, may not look so hot 20-30 years from now. This is fine for the city, Southbank, and Docklands, but do people really want apartment buildings spread throughout the suburbs. I guess if they are confined to certain 'centres' it's not so bad and giving people choice is always good, but I can see why some people in the suburbs have concerns.

mic

March 24th, 2005, 01:33 AM

They become more attractive LOL OK, most urban areas in the outer suburbs look like holes as the developer moves out after their 15 year contract expires, meaning that the once plush median strip and the laterns for street lights are handed over to council control. This in turn leads to sprinkeler removal, the changing of street lanterns to normal street lighting and people begin moving out to newer areas as they become dissatisfied with the estate they once thought was a stunning utopia-Do you really think Caroline Springs is going to look as good as it does now in 5 or 10 years, no, it will blend in with it's surrounds. It is a myth that they look better as time passes, explain St Albans, I'm sure that looked better in the 1960's that it does today, and Thomastown and Lalor, its simply not true.

Grollo

March 24th, 2005, 01:48 AM

You don't think all these shitty looking, boxy, neo-georgian neo-federation, neo-whatever, cheap looking, boxes in the burb's look good now let alone in ten or twenty years time?

At least in the older 'leafy' suburbs actually had some style and quaility construction and finishes. The federation style, calfiornina bungalow, art deco, 50's modern suburbs... all had charatcer. A vast majortity of the crap they build today is a mish mash of cheapo neo-whatever style facades stuck onto bland boxes.

People don't want a nice house with some character any more they just want a house that is as big as they can possibly afford and its appearance or character is way down the list of priorities.

Melbourne 2030 is against increasing densities or aprtment buildings in average suburban streets. It calls for an end to two or three unit developments in the middle of nowhere that just increase car dependency. Melbourne 2030 is about high density development in activity centres! It's about saving the cherished charcter of 'leafy' streets and improving the largely unattractive activty centres in suburban Melbourne which are dominated by wasted land and surface car parks.

mic

March 24th, 2005, 01:52 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^

THANKYOU so much sense was just spoken above.

How can building dual occupancies and 2 story townhouse amongst the urban fabric be considered retaining the character of an area, dual occupancy isnt the character of the area, single detatched dwellings are, so leave these streets unharmed and cover up those ugly surface carparks.

The Collector

March 24th, 2005, 04:30 AM

Extracts from The Age today.

One indication of where Melbourne may be headed is provided by a city to our north. By Sydney standards, Melbourne's rate of apartment growth is low. Where about one-third of Melbourne' residential construction is multi-unit, the proportion in Sydney is about two-thirds. Sydney's figures reflect the fact that natural borders - the harbour and the mountains - have put a halt to urban sprawl and the only direction for housing construction is up.

The Sydney experience raises an interesting question for Birrell and his colleagues. With no land for suburban expansion, Sydneysiders have quickly moved to higher-density living, fuelling a thriving industry in multi-unit development.

It seems highly unlikely that Sydney's equivalent of the Board of Works would have tipped that 50 years ago.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Urban-brawl/2005/03/23/1111525226089.html
________________________________________________________________

Since the current state government has legislated to put a halt to Melbourne’s growth outwards, that will have the same affect as the natural borders have in Sydney. :)

Wilko

March 24th, 2005, 04:43 AM

On this subject initated by the news articles posted by 'Tays' Claiming to Stop the urban sprawl will effect Melbourne's livability, I think we are heading for an urban crisis if such evidence is heavily supported for and against.

"Melbourne 2030 is against increasing densities or aprtment buildings in average suburban streets". Grollo! Dandenong is a fine example.

Have a look at Dandenong, some streets are landscaped but that's it. Most of the streets that surround Central Dandenong though are full of old horrid big blocks of flats (2 or 3 level dwellings) that are run down, negleted by tight arse landlords or useless body corporates. Buildings that have not had a lot of attention since being constructed years ago. The population in central Dandenong is close to medium density in some places but not very good access to public transport causing congestion, Dandenong during the rush is shocking and unacceptable. Except for the Plaza the CBD is awful, unattractive and dead. I agree with Grollo, to what I have learnt about the Melbourne 2030 plan, it is not inteded to creates more Dandenongs. Urban consolidation within our central activity center's is a good concept. But I do agree that some of our residential areas within the inner and middle suburbs must also be left alone.

The Collector! Yes we should look to Sydney and we are probably in a position to improve on anything Sydney may have not done right.

Mic is also spot on!! What are places like Pakenham's lakeside and the west's Caroline Springs going to look like in say 20 or more years time? will there be cars? Are our cities facing a CRISIS or CHALLENGE?

Ayn Rand

March 24th, 2005, 06:55 AM

Grollo

March 24th, 2005, 07:16 AM

Can anybody point out ANY highrise apartment building in the suburbs (not inner city) that was built more than 20 years ago?

Also 90% of the apartment buildings that were built in the inner city more than 20 years ago were housing commision, so of course they look like crap just like the housing commision housing estates built around that time look crap as well. Take a look at Westpark estate in Hastings and tell me that it looks better than the housing commision high rise estates in Collingwood and Richmond. Westpark is still an urban disaster zone 35 years later whereas most of the housing commission apartments in the inner city are now (relatively) highly sought after.

Blabbyboy

March 24th, 2005, 08:12 AM

ON another note, it was reported in today's Age that Melbourne's population growth was the highest of any capital city (3 years running). I can still recall the echo of some people claiming that SEQ will overtake Melbourne's population in XXX years!!! :tongue:

tayser

March 24th, 2005, 02:03 PM

I think there will be cars in 20 years. But there will be far more hybrids/electric/hydrogen cars on the road. There is going to be a gradual move away from petrol powered vehicles. So, over time that should sort out the 'cars destroy the environment' argument.

But it'll still do nothing for the other side of the less car more PT argument: if the status quo remained we'd still have every tom dick and harry clogging up the local road and local freeway network to go to school, work or leisure, all the while business investment & economic growth [in the burbs - primarily logistics & manufacturing industries] would dwindle as we'd still have chronic traffic problems. Building more freeways would only exponentially grow the problem out of control when directly addressing the problem by giving people an incentive (investment in PT services) to make non-essential car trips (does every mum have to jump in their commodore to drive their two kids to school?) on an alternative mode, which would free up the road network (the high-quality one that exists already) for business and the 'essential' road trips.

realmakoym8

March 24th, 2005, 04:02 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/2030-rail-planning-attacked/2005/03/21/1111253956146.html

2030 rail planning attacked
By Martin Boulton and Royce Millar
March 22, 2005

OMG I found A planning degree in my Weatbix this morning....From Monash with love............ :bash:

:eek2:

Ayn Rand

March 26th, 2005, 05:35 AM

Point taken, Tays. I'm all for more public transport. It'll free up the roads for me to get where I'm going faster in my car. Hell, maybe I'll even use public transport sometimes.

realmakoym8

March 26th, 2005, 01:56 PM

Daffy

March 29th, 2005, 01:19 AM

I use it when I can. Often though I find it serves those going only to the city and not across town, which is where most of us seem to be going………….

I will move house again soon just so I can ride a bike to work on the better days…

I wish the 57 Tram had the new C trams; I can take a bike on them without fear of getting stuck and ride the rest of the way to work when I am buggered.

If you're on the 57 route (West Maribyrnong) you can't be any more than 10 or 12ks from your destination. Ride your bike more often and trips of 10ks (even allowing for stopping at lights etc.) will take less than the tram journey time.

doctorjbeam

March 29th, 2005, 08:53 AM

I think there will be cars in 20 years. But there will be far more hybrids/electric/hydrogen cars on the road. There is going to be a gradual move away from petrol powered vehicles. So, over time that should sort out the 'cars destroy the environment' argument.
How does that work? More cars = more, wider roads = more gridlock = destroying more environment.

In any case, hybrid/electric/hydrogen cars still have to deposit their used fuel sources somewhere - either into the atmosphere or into the earth as landfill (ala fuel cells, as these have a limited lifespan).

In any case, what harm could possibly be done to the environment or any other aspect of the world around us, by developing more PT? I can think of at least a dozen pros for developing PT - can you think of a dozen cons? :)

-- edit -- I see this has allready been answered...bollocks

redstar

March 29th, 2005, 10:08 AM

i actually belive by 2030 there will be LESS cars, which are all dominatley hybrid hydrogen fuelled cars, however a good introduction would be the release of NASA's hoverboards which are VERY convienent for inner-city use as they cruise around up to 70KPH and are small and compact and can easily be locked away in locker stations around the town for your security. trunk space would be big enough for a briefcase or two so really is a hovering skateboard for mid 20's business dudes in the town..

BigVman

March 29th, 2005, 11:01 AM

Ploise Explain!

Wilko

March 30th, 2005, 04:54 AM

My concern is: we have a mass of suburbs so spread out, what if oil prices rise so high people can't afford to run their cars! there all stuck out in the sprawl miles from the city or their local lame arse stand alone shopping mall!

1/4 acre blocks! people have been living on these blocks for more than 100 years. They all grew along the railway tracks.

Aussie Steve

April 22nd, 2005, 02:51 AM

Great plan for the Ringwood Transit City (http://www.maroondah.vic.gov.au/CA256B7C0004FE87/Lookup/RingwoodTransit/$file/21%20key%20initiatives%20-%20Aug%202004.pdf) undertaken by the City of Maroondah. Worth looking into.

Urban Design Master Plan (http://www.maroondah.vic.gov.au/CA256B7C0004FE87/Lookup/RingwoodTransit/$file/town%20centre%20UDM.pdf)

Aussie Steve

April 22nd, 2005, 02:57 AM

Excellent report on the Assessment of development opportunities and constraints - Doncaster Hill Precinct (http://www.doncasterhill.com/Key_Documents/folder3/DHillAssessmentDevelopmentOpportunities_Macroplan.pdf)

It was prepared for the Manningham City Council in February 2004

Aussie Steve

April 22nd, 2005, 03:11 AM

I never knew how much open space there was around Broadmeadows (http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/nrenpl.nsf/646e9b4bba1afb2bca256c420053b5ce/86c2aa99d5c9f76dca256ecb002d0a9e/$FILE/ATT25MZA/Broadmeadows%20Aerial.pdf). There is so much open space waiting for redevelopment of highrise offices, apartments etc... It could become a major centre.

Aussie Steve

April 22nd, 2005, 03:24 AM

Some really great concept plans etc. for Frankston (http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/nrenpl.nsf/646e9b4bba1afb2bca256c420053b5ce/f70f7ff9a5151717ca256ed00018934a/$FILE/Frankston-Pg-7-15.pdf)

Frankston also have heaps of open space that could be redeveloped too.

Aussie Steve

April 22nd, 2005, 05:01 AM

I would like to encourage you all to read the "Making Melbourne More Liveable (Draft) IMAP For Public Release (http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/attachments/o14393.pdf) that has been realeased for public comment by the Cities of Melbourne, Yarra, Port Philiip and Stonnington. There are a number of good initiatives but there may be some that were left out. Enjoy the read!

tayser

April 30th, 2005, 01:18 AM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Having-our-cake-and-eating-it-too/2005/04/29/1114635744774.html

Having our cake, and eating it too
By Melissa Fyfe
April 30, 2005

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxmedia/2005/04/29/vic_greed.jpg

At this rate it would take four planets to sustain our hungry lifestyle.
Photo: File
Related

If Victoria's eco-status were a bank account we would be in the red.

Life is good in Victoria. In fact, if all the world lived as ravenously, four planet Earths would be needed to supply the resources.

For the first time, the Environment Protection Authority has calculated what Victorians demand of nature to sustain la dolce vita. And the news is sort of embarrassing. Each Victorian has a global "footprint" bigger than the average Australian. Only the United States, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates tax the planet more.

An ecological footprint is the land and water area needed to produce a society's resources and absorb its wastes. Divide the world's resources into its population and each person gets 1.8 hectares of productive land and sea. Each Victorian, however, uses 8.1 hectares (the Australian average is 7.7).

So if the state's dependence on nature is like a bank account, we are in overdraft. Scientists call it "ecological overshoot" - munching resources faster than they regenerate.

The EPA report comes as the State Government vows to tackle environment woes with a new authority, Sustainability Victoria, and a framework that, says Environment Minister John Thwaites, will underpin "everything we do as a state".

The biggest contributor to the Victorian footprint is food, particularly red meat and dairy. Victorians also eat more seafood, drive further and use more energy in homes.

But our wealth is at the core of our elephant-sized footprint. The more we earn, the more we consume.

The EPA is asking Victorians to peel back their profligate ways: eat one meal fewer of red meat each week, catch public transport, set up a teleconference meeting instead of flying to Sydney, buy green power and stop wasting food (last month an Australia Institute report found the nation wasted $5.3 billion on all forms of unused food in 2004).

"We are not asking people to reduce the wealth we have," says Terry A'Hearn, the EPA's director of sustainable development. "It's about working out the things we want and applying our human cleverness to come up with ways that use less of the planet and create less waste."

The State Government has also released a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation analysis on Victoria's sustainability, which rings alarm bells.

Victorian landscapes, says the CSIRO, are "probably the most stressed in the country", a legacy of clearing 70 per cent of the state, and intensive agriculture.

About 35 per cent of the state's major rivers are in poor or very poor condition, and 44 per cent of native plants are thought to be extinct or threatened.

Meanwhile, our water use has spiralled: between 1984 and 1997, the use of groundwater has increased by 202 per cent.

One of the report's authors, Barry Fordham, said the CSIRO team found Victoria's situation surprising. "You have this subjective impression that Victoria is a green state, but when you look at the indicators in an objective way, you notice it is a very highly impacted state," he said.

The CSIRO's most startling finding was that more than 3 million hectares could lose productivity - due to erosion, soil salinity and acidity - by 2050. In future, less water will flow to Victoria's dams and in its rivers, says the CSIRO, because of climate change, reforestation and other factors.

These are the predictions that will drive sustainability. The CSIRO predicts farmers will squeeze more from their crops with each litre of water, waste less of their liquid gold, move into different products, and revive land by reserving some for native vegetation.

To avoid degrading the land, Victoria must switch some farming to high rainfall areas and irrigate less, says the CSIRO. Sustainability - living well within the earth's capacity in a way that does not the deplete resources - is still a concern of the minority in Victoria, but is slowly catching on in some of the biggest board rooms.

BP's green office program in Melbourne has cut waste to landfill by 84 per cent since 1997, and saved more than a $1 million in paper and power costs. Lend Lease's retail group is using the ecological footprint calculation to reduce the impact across its shopping centres, including Melbourne Central.

The Australian Conservation Foundation's vice-president, Peter Christoff, said the ecological footprint and the Government's sustainability framework focused on the behaviour of individuals and businesses. But he said a few government decisions - such as extending the life of Australia's most polluting power station, Hazelwood, and building a new freeway - could lock people into "patterns of consumption that we would rather not pursue".
WHAT MAKES UP OUR FOOTPRINT

An analysis of Victoria's Footprint results shows that the largest contributor to the total Footprint is food, followed by goods, and then housing. On the basis of their contribution to the total Victorian Footprint, the Footprint activity categories are ranked in the following order:

1 FOOD
The consumption of plantbased and animal-based food products, including the Footprint associated with food production, processing, packaging, storage and transport.

2 GOODS
The consumption of products and materials and their associated end-of-life disposal.

3 HOUSING
The consumption of land and resources for the construction and maintenance of housing, and the residential consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels.

4 SERVICES
The consumption of services, such as water, sewerage, medical and telephone, and their associated resource costs.

5 MOBILITY
The consumption of fuel for personal transport and associated energy, and the transport infrastructure, such as roads, rail and air, needed for transportation.

LINK
www.epa.vic.gov.au/Eco-footprint

_____________

too f**king suburban! :lol:

tayser

April 30th, 2005, 01:27 AM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/A-planner-who-plans-to-stay-public/2005/04/29/1114635748453.html

A planner who plans to stay public
My Big Break
April 30, 2005

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/04/29/pt_overell_3004_ent-lead__200x282,0.jpg

Property lawyer Genevieve Overell.
Photo: Estelle Grunberg

Victoria's head planner has had a warm welcome, but she faces industry unease and has a tarnished policy to polish, writes Helen Westerman.

When Melbourne property lawyer Genevieve Overell walked into a building of the Victorian Government in East Melbourne two months ago, it was almost as if the cavalry had arrived.

Overell's appointment to the state's most senior planning role - deputy secretary of the built environment - came just a week after Rob Hulls took over the increasingly controversial planning portfolio from Mary Delahunty.

If Hulls is the white knight riding into battle to salvage a beleaguered planning strategy - Melbourne 2030 - Overell is his new standard-bearer.

Critics complain the sprawl-limiting policy, while well meaning, has been poorly handled, has caused delays, and has discouraged investment in Victoria. The most extreme of those critics has called for it to be scrapped.

Overell, a property lawyer and lobbyist of 20 years' experience, is warmly regarded in business and property circles.

She was approached for the state's top planning job to replace the influential Paul Jerome, who died suddenly on November 3, aged 55.

Appointing her has been a coup for the Government as Hulls seeks to win over an increasingly querulous property and construction industry.

But her move from acting partner at legal firm Sparke Helmore into the bosom of bureaucracy did raise some industry eyebrows.

"Numbers of people have said to me that they were bemused about why one would want to halve one's income - not that I would want to be quoted saying that, although it's stating the obvious, isn't it?" Overell says.

But after years on the outside, Overell was drawn "into the tent", as she refers to it, by the chance to bring some of the "private-sector imperative closer to the planning coalface".

"The opportunity to actually get in and voice those particular perspectives was something I found irresistible," she says.

The high-profile Overell was an early female trailblazer in the male-dominated field of law and commercial property, a specialty that grew from the 1980s property boom.

It was the era of big deals, big bucks and celebrity developers. Overell remembers loving it.

"The personalities of the big clients at the time . . . they were very colourful people, very extravagant. They had big visions," she says.

When she first made partner at Gadens Ridgeway (now Deacons) in 1995, there were few other examples of such highly credentialled young female lawyers.

She then went on to Clayton Utz, KPMG Legal and, finally, Sparke Helmore.

She says law firms are now palpably different to the early 1990s, when she says she was harassed for being pregnant. She has a daughter, Alexandra, aged 7, and a son, Thomas, 11.

"It was common that it happened, so it was no big deal what happened to me; it was just what happened," she says.

As chairman of the Building Advisory Council established by the Victorian Government, Overell advised on Melbourne Docklands and CityLink.

She was an early defender of Federation Square against detractors who claimed it would be a white elephant.

On "a lot" of boards until her new position - "I'm a committee person, I'm into boards" - she has now stepped down from most of them, except for the Victorian Interpreters and Translators Service language link board and the International Diabetes Institute of Australia.

Industry sources describe her as highly professional, ethical and dynamic.

And some feel she will really need to draw on all those attributes.

The head of the developers' peak body, Urban Development Institute of Australia, Tony De Domenico, says the danger for Overell is being caught up in long-running internal battles between the planning and environment agendas within the bureaucracy she has joined.

"It's a huge-sized department and it would be easy for her to find herself concentrating on winning internal battles between planning and environmental sides," he says.

Overell is aware of the challenges of the public sector.

"I spent a few sleepless nights before taking the plunge, because for me it was a never-to-be-returned-from plunge," she says.

"Yes, of course, people move between the private and public sector a lot and many people have been in government and gone back, and it becomes more fluid at this level. However, for me, it is a permanent career change, towards policy, management and implementation of projects."

Does she see it as make-or-break time for Melbourne 2030? Overell doesn't respond directly, but talks about how a small number of "difficult" development projects have dominated the headlines, edging out the success stories.

"It did seem to me . . . that there had been a very serious communication breakdown, and that messages that had been disseminated in 2002 had been lost in the last two years and there had been ranges of reasons why that had occurred," she says carefully.

She believes the community is united behind the single tenet of 2030 - urban consolidation.

"That is, not to allow Victoria's farmlands and natural resources around the city fringe to be consumed endlessly," she says. "No one wants to live along a 50-kilometre line of suburbia." - I like her already!

OzAsian

April 30th, 2005, 04:37 AM

Is all good.

Grollo

May 24th, 2005, 03:16 AM

Rush joins in as station gets a reprieve

Geraldine Mitchell, urban affairs reporter
24may05 THE AGE

ACTOR Geoffrey Rush joined in raucous applause and cheers from the public gallery last night when Camberwell railway station was granted a reprieve.

It was a far cry from the night Rush strolled on to the stage in Los Angeles to accept his Oscar eight years ago, but this victory was just as sweet.

Rush could hardly contain his excitement when Boroondara City Council voted 8-2 in favour of a low-scale development on the site and further talks with the State Government to protect the historic landmark.

The actor took a break from filming in the Caribbean and arrived home yesterday to attend the meeting. "I'm thrilled," he told the Herald Sun last night. "This deepens the debate and puts us high on the agenda.

"Camberwell has become a reference point for the planning dramas in Melbourne and this raises the stakes enormously.

"The Government has said they want to hear what people and residents are saying, and we've been able to articulate that with great passion.

"Now it's about small-rise, it's about a community-oriented symbolic showpiece."

The council will now seek a meeting with Transport Minister Peter Batchelor to discuss possible movement to the site of community support services and the Camberwell library.

The council was expected to consider two Urban Design Framework options based on community and mixed-use developments after extensive consultation with the State Government and community representatives.

But Cr Phillip Healey announced his amendment and called for the council to show its commitment to the community building aspects of Melbourne 2030.

"Council believes this is an opportunity for the State Government, in partnership with council, to demonstrate its commitment to the building aspects of Melbourne 2030 in showcasing a low-scale, community-focused, open-space outcome, which will assist communities across Melbourne to recognised that Melbourne 2030 is not only about multi-storey development," he said in the motion.

Rush, a member of the Boroondara Residents Action Group, admitted that the 18-month battle had been long and arduous but said he remained committed to the campaign to save the site from a large-scale development.

"It's taken time to alert the community to the complexity of the issue," he said.

"When they see my mug or Barry Humphries' mug on the television they could easily say 'oh, they're still banging on about the Camberwell railway station'.

"But the Government have been saying 'let us know and we will protect what you love about your neighbourhood'.

"Sixty per cent supported the community option and 80 per cent of councillors voted in favour tonight. The figures can't be wrong."

What a joke, hopefully the state government will not support this decision.

Only 696 people responded to the council survey that was sent out and about 417 of these supported the Rush-Humphries NIMBY group (which is about the same number of member they have).

Since 6900 surveys were sent out to residents within 1 kilometre of the station only 6% of those who received the surveys supported the NIBMY option . 90% of the population did not care enough to even send the survey back!!!

Can anybody tell me why a development which preserves the station in it's entirety and replaces a gravel car park with a 5 storey building (same height as the building across the road) which is well setback from Bourke Road is inappropriate???

Why should the state government pay millions to relocate a local library from one location in an activity centre to another location where there is no need for a new library? Also why would Council want a big gap in the streetscape along one of the most important STRIP shopping centres in Melbourne, the local traders are dead against the NIMBY proposal and want an appropriate commercial development including active street frontages to Bourke Road.

Council should listen to the advice form its own strategic planning officers and not a bunch of self appointed unrepresentative NIMBYS.

tayser

May 24th, 2005, 08:52 AM

Go Boroondara! Champions!

Look at this, Cr. Phillip Healey, Studley Ward
http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/yourcouncil/yourcouncil.asp?PageId=415

Vision for Boroondara

[snip of stuff that any councillor would say]

* Stop the implementation of Melbourne’s 2030 and bring logic and common sense back to the planning process.

Champions!!!!!

tayser

September 5th, 2005, 01:18 PM

AFR

Melbourne's urban sprawl not going very far
Mathew Dunckley
5 September 2005

The Victorian government has made it clear boundary shifts are not on the agenda, writes Mathew Dunckley.

The Victorian government appears set to brush aside industry warnings of house price increases fuelled by land shortages and reject any substantial changes to Melbourne's controversial urban growth boundary.

The boundary acts as a zoning wall to greenfields development and was set up three years ago as a key part of the government's Melbourne 2030 strategy to prevent urban sprawl.

Industry representatives on smart growth committees established to assess the boundary in the city's five growth corridors said their government counterparts had made it clear major changes to the boundary were not on the agenda.

The committees have submitted their recommendations to Planning Minister Rob Hulls who is expected to make his decision on potential boundary changes by the end of the year.

A rumoured committee recommendation to introduce a $30,000 per lot infrastructure levy prompted howls of protest from developers.

Committee members were made to sign confidentiality agreements they can not even speak to the organisations they represent about the reports. They spoke to The Australian Financial Review on the condition of anonymity.

One industry representative described the process as a "debacle" and claimed the government committee members were disinterested in boundary shifts.

"It was clear from the outset that the government had a pre-conceived idea," he said.

Another committee member said he agreed it was unlikely there would be any wholesale changes to the urban growth boundary but suggested industry participants had "unrealistic expectations".

One development source said leaving the boundary in its current location would place Melbourne in a "time warp" because of lag times in development.

Urban Development Institute of Australia chief executive Tony Di Domenico said he was not hopeful changes would be recommended to Mr Hulls.

"There seems to be an attitude within certain areas of [the government] that the boundary should not move," he said.

Mr Di Domenico said if little change was made to the boundary it made the smart growth committee process a "charade".

The government had to decide what level of price increase it would accept due to its constraint of land supply, he said.

"They can't have it both ways."

Housing Industry Association Victorian executive director Graham Wolfe said sticking with the status quo could substantially affect housing affordability.

"The minister's response will be extremely important. If the minister responds by leaving it [the boundary] as it is, then we are on the pathway towards significant increases in land prices," he said.

Mr Wolfe said affordability on the fringe might be a political problem but was not necessarily a problem for the government's planning vision.

"To make Melbourne 2030 work you have got to change people's mindset to not want a backyard with a dog," he said.

"To do that one of two things has to happen: the cost of an apartment has to come down or the cost of houses has to go up."

Mr Hulls said any changes to the boundary would be made by the end of the year and would ensure "at least a 15-year supply of developable land".

"Within that broader objective of wanting a more compact city, the government wants to secure a realistic future land supply so that affordability can be maintained," he said.

Mr Hulls attacked the development industry for running a "fear campaign" following the suggestion of the new levy.

"Groups like the HIA and the UDIA have been way too hasty to go public on what is essentially nothing more than rumour."

The process will be closely watched in other states that are examining constraints on fringe development.

______________________________

What about a scheme whereby a percentage of apartments in towers (say 20% for argument's sake) have their cost significantly reduced with a state government contribution?

for instance, how much would it -actually- cost government (local/state) to supply land & services to the sprawl belt on a per-house basis as compared to a financial contribution to 20% of units in a tower?

is there any accurate data out there to show the true cost of building 200 houses in the sprawlbelt as opposed to 200 units in a tower?

Jimmy James

October 22nd, 2005, 06:33 AM

This article raises the spectre of a small town about to go big and poses the question as to the pros and cons.

From today's Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/pushing-the-boundaries/2005/10/21/1129775959218.html)

Pushing the boundaries
October 22, 2005

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/10/21/pushing_boundaries_wideweb__430x282.jpg
Horses roam a paddock on the border of Caroline Springs as the CBD looms over the outer- suburban fringe.
Photo: John Donegan

Three years ago, the State Government trumpeted a bold plan. Melbourne 2030 would stop the dreaded sprawl, house more people in apartments near public transport and keep the city "marvellous". So what's happened? Developers keep pushing to build on the city's outskirts, the Government's gone "wobbly", according to some, and many Melburnians still want their big backyard. In the first of a three-part series, Royce Millar reports on a plan under strain.

JUDIE Sobotnicki speaks with a Strine twang that wouldn't be out of place in Australia's bush frontier. Not surprising really, given that her family has farmed for generations and that she, too, spent her childhood riding on the back of tractors and helping in shearing sheds. Now Judie runs the local store with husband Mark. Inside and out, the store is a country classic: more than 100 years old and providing customers with everything from pies, stubbies and stockfeed to a chat about the issues of the day.

A common topic for these folk is a frontier of a different sort: the urban frontier. Rockbank, population 1300, is in limbo. Caught halfway between the swelling suburbs of Melbourne and Melton on the city's western fringe, its days as a rural outpost could be numbered. While some locals rub their hands in anticipation of the riches to flow as rural land turns residential, Judie Sobotnicki prefers the old way. She owns a farmlet and is hoping to build her dream home on it.

"I'm a country girl myself, born and bred. If it happens, Rockbank won't be a little town any more."

The "it" she refers to is not your average suburban subdivision. It's a confidential $4 billion scheme to turn Rockbank's sheep and crop paddocks into a state-of-the-art, 35,000-resident suburb promoted by its champions as a new benchmark in Australian urban development.

The only problem is that Rockbank is not available for development; not yet anyway.

Tucked inside one of Melbourne's 12 "green wedges" — the green belt land around the city set aside for rural uses and natural landscapes under the Government's planning blueprint Melbourne 2030 — Rockbank is meant to remain a semi-rural hamlet. The Shire of Melton, which takes in Rockbank, envisages the town's population growing to just 1500 in the next 10 years.

Instead, Rockbank looks set to become the site of a battle not only about the future of one town but over the future direction of the city's growth. At stake are not only Judie Sobotnicki's dreams, but a vision of Melbourne. This vision, articulated in the Government's 2030 blueprint, is of a city that can contain its sprawl within a self-imposed boundary while preserving its green oases; that can provide services and space for its projected 4.5 million inhabitants by persuading them to live on smaller blocks, closer together.

But three years after the strategy's launch, there are growing doubts about the Government's capacity — or will — to impose its vision on a population still deeply attached to the quarter-acre dream. The Jayaland proposal for Rockbank is one of many being peddled by developers for the green spaces beyond the current growth boundary. And the Government is coming under increasing pressure, not just from developers but from planners, to adjust its thinking.

Among those gambling on the Government changing its mind is Jayaland, a Malaysian corporation, and local firm Peet and Company, which have bought a large swathe of defence land across the highway from Sobotnicki's store.

Their sales pitch to politicians is designed to appeal to environmentalists and economic dries. They say their Rockbank scheme will raise the bar in sustainable development, centred as it is on the Rockbank rail station and boasting higher than usual housing density, local jobs including a Victoria University campus, cutting edge water recycling in houses, and a major new water treatment plant. And, crucially, having picked up Government land at bargain basement prices, Jayaland is promising affordable housing prices while volunteering to pay upfront for much of the project's innovative infrastructure.

But planning experts say that, with at least 18 years supply of land within the existing city limits, settlements such as Rockbank should simply not be on the Government's radar. RMIT University's Dr Michael Buxton is especially anxious. Regarded by many as the father of Labor's green wedge legislation, he fears the Government may be losing its nerve on 2030.

Buxton is concerned that the Government's estimates for land supply are based on the low housing-density requirements on Melbourne's new estates — about 10 housing lots per hectare. The Government has an "aspirational" figure of 15 lots per hectare but has not required that developers meet it — a fatal mistake Buxton says. He says a guaranteed 15-year land supply contradicts the key 2030 goal of making Melbourne more compact.

"This immediately removed the incentive for developers to do things differently," he says.

Buxton now warns that without firm action on housing density, Melbourne will continue to sprawl at an alarming rate, making Melbourne's Growth Boundary a boundary in name alone.

From an opposing camp hostile to Melbourne 2030, Monash University's Bob Birrell agrees. In the first major academic assessment of 2030 published this year, Birrell and co-authors conclude that the Government's guarantee to developers of an ongoing 15-year supply of land for housing exposes the Urban Growth Boundary as "just a symbol which declares the Government's desire to limit the expansion of Melbourne".

Launched three years ago, 2030 is Labor's grand vision for coping with an estimated 1 million new residents in the next 25 years while also protecting the city's green hinterland and established residential neighbourhoods. The strategy is about urban consolidation: minimising sprawl to protect farmland and to cut the burgeoning public costs of providing services such as transport and schools to Melbourne's far-flung and spreading suburbs.

To do that the Government has drawn an Urban Growth Boundary around Melbourne to define metropolitan limits and vowed to reverse the pattern of growth by increasing the proportion of new housing within existing boundaries, rather than on the city fringe, and encouraging housing to go up rather than out. Currently, about 45 per cent of new housing is on "greenfield", or previously undeveloped, sites, Labor wants to cut that proportion to 30 per cent.

But there is growing doubt in property and planning circles about whether 2030 will be able to deliver on its promise to rein in Melbourne's bolting burbs. And if so, at what cost?

Whereas some growth boundaries — especially in Europe — are hard and fast, Melbourne's boundary is permeable, allowing for growth in Casey (south-east) Whittlesea (north ) Hume (north-west) Melton and Wyndham (west). Land supply will be reviewed in these corridors every five years, in line with the Government's 15-year guarantee.

The first confidential review is now complete and Planning Minister Rob Hulls is due to decide next month if, and if so where, the boundary will move in the five growth areas.

In the Melton corridor the boundary follows the existing perimeter of the sparkling new fringe housing project at Caroline Springs. Sixteen kilometres west is Melton, a satellite of Melbourne enclosed in its own boundary. Rockbank is in green wedge territory in between Caroline Springs and Melton.

In line with Government policy, any extension of the boundary and release of land should be orderly and "sequential", pointing to a possible small expansion of either Caroline Springs or Melton. Under this scenario Rockbank could remain a village more in keeping with Blue Heelers' Mount Thomas, than Kath and Kim's Fountain Lakes.

Approval of the Jayaland project, however, would involve development leapfrogging to Rockbank, making it almost inevitable that the Government and developers will then fill the green wedge gaps between Melbourne and Rockbank and Rockbank and Melton. For its part, the Shire of Melton backs growth but preferably around the existing Melton township. But while the council and Jayaland have differing views about the order of development, they are in total agreement that it should, and will, happen — lots of it.

Jayaland insiders argue that 2030 is great in principle. But they say that high housing prices in established suburbs, lack of development sites and complexity of planning and building in existing centres, are working against the strategy; better therefore to accept ongoing housing demand on the fringe and insist on 2030-style projects in uncomplicated, open paddocks where land is cheap.

Melton, Whittlesea, Hume and Wyndham councils have produced combined population projections for 2030 of 877,000 in the north and west — a massive 172,000 more than the Government's figures anticipate and a difference equal to a city almost the size of Geelong. If the councils are right, Melbourne 2030 is in trouble.

In a separate, confidential report, Hume Council says the Government's population estimates are plain wrong, and warns that this will lead to an undersupply of land, a hike in housing prices, and a shortfall of Government funding for services because much Government funding is determined by population estimates.

Among the councillors and officers sitting around a table at the Melton shire offices, there is no doubt about the ongoing popularity of broadacre homes, nor the community anxiety about 2030's plan to increase apartment-style housing in established centres like Melton. When The Age mentions sprawl Mayor Sophie Ramsey and senior officers grimace. "Sprawl is offensive," says senior planner Sue Becker. "We don't have development for development's sake. And we do a lot good work trying to get community facilities and build good estates."

Ramsey supports 2030's principles. None the less, she says the inner-city focused Government underestimates attachment to low-rise housing in places like Melton, and the apprehension about housing above one to two levels. "So we can see 2030 being rolled out here, but it might be more like in 2040.

"Each community has its own character. This community has fought for a lifestyle choice. They are going to start getting quite angry, particularly about infill housing."

Meanwhile, demand for frontier housing is as strong as ever. Developers follow the boundary review process like a form guide, searching the area for land and offering lucrative options to current owners. Melton shire chief executive Neville Smith likens the pressure to telemarketing. "They (landowners) are annoyed nearly as much as I am at home by telemarketers wanting me to take up some special deal."

Planning Minister Rob Hulls urges caution when it comes to the councils' population figures. "Most councils are naturally very optimistic about their population levels and growth as they talk their areas up." Hulls notes that the council figures are also distorted by the recent development boom, which is now "at its tail end".

Prominent 2030 supporter and Planning Institute national president Marcus Spiller agrees, arguing that the fringe councils, developers and critics are assessing 2030 based on current, not future, conditions.

He points to two likely changes. First the key 2030 assumption of dramatic increases in the number of single and two-person households, which the Government expects to drive demand for smaller, easily managed housing close to transport and shops.

Second, homebuyers are likely to be discouraged from the fringe by likely new Government charges imposed on developers to pay for infrastructure and services on new estates.

For decades, and especially through the 1950s, '60s and '70s, taxpayers funded infrastructure on new estates — a subsidy both to new homebuyers and developers. More often than not that infrastructure came long after the new estates were marked out, built, sold and occupied. "Now we are seeing a dramatic and continuing shift to upfront payment for infrastructure in these greenfield areas which will invariably have an impact on peoples' housing choices," Spiller says.

In short, large detached houses on the fringe will become too expensive and homebuyers will be forced into more humble abodes, reducing the outward pressure on the frontier.

The Government is now considering additional levies but has met stiff opposition from the development industry. Housing Industry Association chief Graham Wolfe came to the Victorian HIA from Sydney and is well versed in the harbour city's "diabolical" housing market.

The NSW Government has introduced new charges that take total developer levies to about $100,000 per block of land. By comparison developer contributions are about $10,000 per block in Melbourne. If Labor in Victoria opts for new charges it is not yet clear how much they will be.

Wolfe says development charges are inevitably passed on to homebuyers and, on the fringe, that often means young families. He says infrastructure on new estates has traditionally been financed out of general revenue and to cease that tradition now is arbitrary and unfair.

Spiller counters that Melbourne homebuyers have had it too good for too long. "If you offer people something for free they will want more. We now recognise that the subsidised provision of infrastructure in greenfields area directly promoted outward sprawl of the city."

Both publicly and behind the scenes there is intense lobbying and jockeying over new developer charges.

The Planning Minister has flagged his support for change, stressing that property speculators make massive windfalls when land is rezoned from rural to residential on the fringe. But such a proposal must get the approval of ever-cautious cabinet bosses Premier Steve Bracks, and Treasurer John Brumby.

"There is always tension between on the one hand affordability, which is obviously a key issue for Government and organisations like the HIA, and on the other the aspirations of people who live in outer areas for quality of life and infrastructure, in particular transport and health and education," Brumby says. "So it's a matter of getting that balance right."

And that balancing act is not just an economic one. With council elections looming next month and a state poll next year, local and state politicians are being careful about how hard they push controversial policies such as 2030. Some in the Government are concerned they may have been too optimistic in their targets for new households in established centres. Some believe a rethink is necessary.

Under the Jayaland model, the logic goes, the sprawl would continue but at least it would be greenish, and cheap to service. Melbourne 2030 would still sort of work — minus a couple of key components such as a more compact city and less sprawl.

tayser

October 22nd, 2005, 06:39 AM

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=109057

CULWULLA

October 22nd, 2005, 06:42 AM

gee,that photo is amazing. how far is caroline springs from the city? not sure how far you would have to go to get same view from sydney.50km?

tayser

October 22nd, 2005, 04:45 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/suburb-vision-goes-off-the-rails/2005/10/22/1129775997117.html

Suburb vision goes off the rails
By Royce Millar
October 23, 2005

BLAND, car-dominated new retail centres in Melbourne's growth suburbs are falling short of the State Government's vision of them as vibrant, diverse villages around public transport.

An RMIT University study says many outer Melbourne centres fail Government standards for "activity centres" under the planning strategy Melbourne 2030.

In a blunt assessment of outer-suburban planning, retail expert Robin Goodman, who helped write the 2030 policy, says stand-alone shopping centres continue to dominate.

"We are currently creating places that many of us would not want to live in," she said. "In some of the outer suburbs … there are few places to walk to, nowhere to catch up with friends over coffee or go browsing amongst shops."

Under Melbourne 2030, the Government wants to concentrate people, workplaces and entertainment around rail, tram and bus services, and double public transport patronage.

It has earmarked more than 100 activity centres and about 900 smaller neighbourhood centres for higher-density housing to ease pressure on the urban fringe and older residential streets.

Dr Goodman looked at 21 hubs in growth suburbs and found that most, even those being planned, failed to meet Government criteria for activity centres. Only eight had any public transport, and this was mostly buses that ran hourly.

Dr Goodman said most centres were designed around car parks, with the expectation customers would arrive by car.

She said a problem for councils and developers was the Government's lack of commitment to its own plan. "With so little transport provision, the task of locating activity centres close to existing public transport is hard to achieve," she said.

The report highlights South Morang — in Melbourne's north — a major activity centre developed in the expectation of a train line that now looks unlikely. But the study also found that where rail services existed, some councils lacked the resolve to insist that centres be built around them.

In the City of Casey, the East Cranbourne shopping centre will be built 1.5 kilometres from Cranbourne station and the proposed East Cranbourne station, the report says.

Dr Goodman said large developers, used to "dictating terms", also influenced the location of centres. She has called for tougher, European-style regulations requiring retail centres to be serviced by public transport and to be within walking distance of housing.

Property Council executive director Jennifer Cunich said the 2030 strategy was good but needed more Government financial commitment, especially for transport.

________________________

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/retirees-arent-ready-for-the-high-life/2005/10/22/1129775997173.html

Retirees aren't ready for the high life
October 23, 2005

Melburnians are hardly rushing to embrace high-density living. Royce Millar, Aileen Keenan and Cameron Houston report.

RITA NEILSON moved to Ringwood in 1963, charmed by the sweeping blocks of land and semi-rural feel. Now, 40 years later, the 67-year-old lives in nearby Mooroolbark and is beginning to think the upkeep of her three-bedroom house will become a burden. It may soon be time for a change.

"I'd like a smallish two-bedroom unit, with a garden or courtyard, which is extremely important to people my age, and it would need to be on its own title," she says.

Ms Neilson's thinking is both good and bad news for the State Government. Good in that the Government needs people like Ms Neilson — one of a burgeoning population of ageing Melburnians — to embrace life in higher-density housing in order to make a go of its planning blueprint, Melbourne 2030.

Bad in that Ms Neilson does not want to move where the Government wants her to — an apartment in the proposed Ringwood activity centre, a key commercial and residential hub identified in the Melbourne 2030 planning "road map".

Central to the strategy is a reversal of Melbourne's traditional housing pattern of low-rise, low-density sprawl.

In Ringwood, and more than 100 centres like it in established suburbs, the Government wants development to go up, not out.

Released three years ago this month, Melbourne 2030's bid to make the city more compact is receiving mixed reports.

Where more than 40 per cent of new housing is now built on greenfield sites on the city's fringe, 2030 proposes that 40 per cent of the 620,000 anticipated new households should be located in activity centres. Typically, these are in existing shopping centres that often include a train station; Ringwood, Dandenong or Footscray, for example.

The Government predicts enough people will want to live in apartments and townhouses in these centres in return for access to public transport and a more urban-based lifestyle. Melbourne's population can then grow with minimum sprawl and without high-density housing scarring its established neighbourhoods.

So the theory goes. But it will be an uphill battle for planners.

A new report for the Government by consultants ACIL Consulting and Macroplan has revealed that, as they now stand, the designated activity centres are heavily under-populated.

They house just 8.5 people and three dwellings per hectare, which is about half that of greater lower-density Melbourne.

The report also showed that only 10.5 per cent of the people who lived in these centres used public transport to get to work — slightly higher than the Melbourne average.

But with Ringwood, the Government, local Maroondah City Council and developers are confident of success. "All roads will lead to Ringwood," says Maroondah City Council major projects director Phil Turner.

He has a point. One of 13 transit cities (or super activity centres) designated under 2030, Ringwood is set to become the nexus between the Eastern Freeway, EastLink, Maroondah Highway and the Ringwood bypass by 2008.

The Queensland Investment Corporation plans to invest $150 million to expand the Eastland shopping centre, which will be integrated with the new Ringwood town centre. Government development agency VicUrban will develop the Ringwood train and bus interchange.

But will the people come? No question, said Turner, who admitted the council had embraced the "build it and they will come" approach. He anticipates 5000 new apartments within the Ringwood centre within a decade. "As we create the amenity and the infrastructure, the residential demand will follow."

There are already some signs of interest in higher-density housing in the area, with the Maroondah Council approving a nine-storey apartment tower and two eight-storey projects.

Turner's optimism is supported by planning consultants SGS Economics and Planning. They discovered that while the inner-city apartment boom of the past 10 years was predominantly fuelled by young professionals, it was a different story in the suburbs, with many apartment dwellers being retirees or empty-nesters.

SGS found that about 3 per cent of owner-occupiers and 16 per cent of renters in a typical outer suburb would be interested in apartment-living in the future.

Economic forecaster BIS Shrapnel this week reported a shift in housing preference in Melbourne from detached to higher-density homes. The report showed that apartments were increasing as a proportion of overall dwelling approvals, rising from 13 per cent in 1991-92 to 30 per cent in 2004-05.

Report author Angie Zigomanis found that the inner-city apartment boom of the past 10 or 12 years was driven by the 20-to-34-year age group. But growing demand in the middle suburbs for medium density housing was coming from ageing baby boomers wishing to downsize from detached houses but wanting to stay in familiar surroundings near family and friends.

He notes that this group preferred townhouses over higher-density apartments and, possibly, preferred such housing to be in residential streets rather than activity centres.

Such a trend gives some support to 2030 critics such as Monash University sociologist Bob Birrell who dismisses as a "fantasy" the idea that empty-nesters will move from large, detached homes to apartments near shops, services and transport.

Property consultants Savills also doubt Ringwood's bright new future as a booming residential centre.

Research associate director Marc Pallisco worked as a consultant for the City of Maroondah around the time 2030 was released. He says those talking up an apartment boom in Ringwood were not realistic about the needs of local residents. "There is absolutely no incentive for someone to pay $300,000 for a two-bedroom apartment when they can only get $250,000 for their four-bedroom family home nearby," he says. Mr Pallisco says many planning approvals had been granted for medium and high-density housing since 2030 was released three years ago, "but not one stone has been turned in some suburbs".

He says more than 30 medium and high-density apartment projects worth almost $470 million have been abandoned in the past 2½ years in Melbourne's middle and outer suburbs. One was a major development in Dandenong, where the Government has wagered $93 million on turning the heart of Melbourne's run-down "second city" into a thriving metropolis.

In a bold move to kickstart Melbourne 2030, the Government assumed planning authority for the 180-hectare Dandenong central city area. Major Projects Minister John Lenders says it will "breathe new life into Dandenong, generating thousands of new jobs".

But the revival plans have had to be heavily reworked, following market research for VicUrban, which raised doubts about an earlier plan to develop high-rise apartments at the abandoned Dandenong saleyards.

The new plan anticipates the construction of 1000 mixed-style dwellings over a number of years, but no high rise.

Greater Dandenong chief executive Carl Wulff admits an earlier plan for towers of eight and 10 levels was scrapped. "When we tested it we found there wasn't a market that would actually buy into that product … The mega-Docklands stuff won't sell out here." But he is sure the State Government investment will help attract other investors and jobs. He said that for the sake of Melbourne and 2030, the Dandenong activity centre must succeed. The pressure from the burgeoning south-east population travelling into the city to work and play is already stretching roads and rail, he says.

Footscray may be a different story. Tipped by many as a hot property spot, it is seen as ideal for the Government to realise its activity-centre vision.

Local developer Michael Dib describes the suburb as a "sleeping giant" and claims it has the most potential of all the inner-city areas. Dib already has a 10-storey Allegra residential tower under construction in Barkly Street, the heart of Footscray.

He says the housing market is quiet, partly due to high building costs, but investors are just waiting for rents to rise before plunging into the apartment market.

Footscray station is used by 12,000 passengers each weekday and is the second-busiest station outside the CBD, according to Maribyrnong City Council's John Luppino.

Footscray is six kilometres from the CBD and has views over Docklands to the city, ideal territory for high-rise apartments, say local developers.

But the high life is not for everyone. Rita Neilson's friend, Jill Brunnen, won't be helping the Government achieve its goals. She has lived in the outer-eastern suburbs for 42 years and recently moved to a freestanding townhouse in Vermont after an unsuccessful experiment with high-density living in Blackburn South.

"The bedrooms backed onto each other and we could hear the couple next door and knew they could probably hear us, which was a bit uncomfortable."

Ms Brunnen says she and husband Gary would prefer to retire in a gated community that combined parkland with a mixture of houses, townhouses and apartments.

And back in Ringwood, Ms Neilson is also not ready for the high life. "I could never imagine living in one of those large towers; they seem like housing commission flats and the noise would be unbearable."

Not quite what the Government wants to hear, but it can take some comfort from the knowledge that it still has 25 years to go.

______

too much waiting for the market to do something (when it won't do much other than what it already knows: build suburban shitholes for all the suburban nightmares) and not enough government intervention.

Liberal-style small public sector involvement and large private sector involvement is going to kill cities in the long-run. Wake up Bracks.

:gaah: :gaah: :gaah: :gaah: :gaah: :gaah: :gaah: :gaah: :gaah:

Jimmy James

October 22nd, 2005, 05:26 PM

Yeah sorry never saw that thread - oh well feel free to close this one and move it to that one!

(just so as not to confuse readers - I started a new thread for the above article not even seeing this thread - so here we are) As you were...

jarf

October 23rd, 2005, 06:11 AM

Well, it's good to see that Footscray is the second-busiest station outside the CBD; it offers more of an incentive to redevelop the area, particularly the retail sector. Perhaps Footscray will one day (probably sooner than I think ;)) become Melbourne's third city after Dandenong, or maybe even an extension to the CBD. There's already a whole bunch of high-rises stretching from the CBD as far as the Maribyrnong River in the west, which is only a few hundred metres from Footscray station.

Maybe one day Footscray will get a metro-like train service too. ;)

Jimmy James

October 23rd, 2005, 01:26 PM

What do you mean by 'metro-like' do you mean underground - like the City Loop!

tayser

October 23rd, 2005, 01:29 PM

metro-like = high-frequency and used for transit (local transport) rather than commuting (long-distance transport).

Jimmy James

October 23rd, 2005, 02:05 PM

Ahhh - cool thanks!

tayser

October 26th, 2005, 04:40 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/embarrassing-hole-as-labor-backtracks/2005/10/26/1130302839858.html

Embarrassing 'hole' as Labor backtracks

By Royce Millar
City Editor
October 27, 2005

A SPARKLING new town centre in Melbourne's far north will be left with a gaping hole in its heart as a reminder of a rail service promised but not delivered by the State Government.

On Tuesday night Whittlesea Shire Council approved a $140 million Westfield shopping centre, the centrepiece of the South Morang shopping and residential centre. In time the centre is to become a $600 million retail, commercial and residential hub to serve 100,000 people in the Plenty Valley growth corridor.

Labor promised a South Morang railway station in its 1999 election campaign and in 2002 named South Morang a major centre under its public transport-based Metropolitan strategy, Melbourne 2030.

But as The Age revealed on Monday, the Government has shelved plans for all suburban rail extensions, including South Morang, possibly for decades. It now plans to focus instead on what it says is the lack of capacity on the rail system.

In what could become an embarrassment for the Government in years to come, the council has confirmed that the station site will be left empty, indefinitely.

"It's like the hole in the doughnut," said shire chief executive David Turnball. "We can't afford to assume the station won't be there. If you don't plan for it, it just gives people an excuse not to put it in."

Mr Turnball said the transport interchange was intended to be the "heart of the total precinct".

"If it doesn't happen you've got a void, virtually a blank area separating the two halves of the centre."

Opposition planning spokesman Ted Baillieu said the new centre would have "a phantom station for a phantom train".

Aussie Steve

October 27th, 2005, 02:26 AM

Toorak Village Structure Plan

Built Form (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/gui/files/Drawing%204_1%20Built%20Form.pdf)

Parking / Development Potential Aerial (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/gui/files/Drawing%204_3%20Options%20For%20Additional%20Parking.pdf)

Parking / Development Potential 2 (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/gui/files/Drawing%204_4%20Options%20For%20Additional%20Car%20Parking.pdf)

tayser

November 1st, 2005, 03:54 AM

^ remarkably restrained...

what's happening down the other end of Stonnington - Waverley road / Malvern East and the likes?

cheers.

Aussie Steve

November 1st, 2005, 06:24 AM

9.5 meter height limit along Waverley Rd near Burke Rd and 15 meter hight limit on the triangular piece of land north of Monash Caulfield bounded by Waverley/Burke/Dandenong Rds.

Aussie Steve

November 4th, 2005, 12:03 AM

Forest Hill, South Yarra - Draft Strcuture Plan, Section A (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/gui/files/Draft%20Structure%20Plan%20Part%20A_434f3e81bcb94.pdf)

Chapel Street
New development along the western side of Chapel St, between Toorak Rd and the River, will create a high quality pedestrian environment at street level to support its retail function. The gateway significance of Chapel St should be enhanced from the north while also expressing the importance of the street in the broader movement network. However, as Melbourne High School is a significant site within the precinct, new development is to respect the height of the main school building. Aside from this constraint, this area has the potential to accommodate building heights up to 13 storeys.

Toorak Road
New development along the northern side of Toorak Rd between South Yarra Station and Chapel St will create a high quality pedestrian environment at street level to support its retail function. Some improvements in street level activity, shelter and connectivity are anticipated. Whilst development should optimise the potential to contribute to urban consolidation, it must also be respectful of existing heritage buildings. This area has the potential to accommodate building heights up to or above 7 storeys, subject to appropriate setbacks.

Yarra Street
New development along the eastern side of Yarra St will take advantage of the proximity of the South Yarra Station and the core of the activity centre to accommodate taller buildings, thus contributing to urban consolidation. This area has the potential to accommodate building heights in the order of 20 storeys, subject to meeting various performance measures. There will be a strong street wall along Yarra St, creating a safe, well defined pedestrian environment which is intersected by a safe east-west linkage through the built form. In the southern section of Yarra St a high level of street activity is expected and active frontages are an essential defining element.

Claremont Street
New development along Claremont St will take advantage of the proximity of the South Yarra Station and the core of the activity centre to accommodate building heights in the order of 8 storeys, subject to meeting various performance measures, thus contributing to urban consolidation. Building design, including creating a street wall, with some variety though setbacks, will ensure a pedestrian friendly character is created. Particular emphasis is placed on connectivity at a mid block point with a feeling of ìenclosureî and well designed human scale. In the southern section of Claremont St a high level of street activity is expected and active frontages are an essential defining element.

Daly Street
New development along Daly St will take advantage of the proximity to the South Yarra station and Chapel St, including the core of the activity centre, to accommodate building heights up to 8 storeys, thus contributing to urban consolidation. Development should be respectful of buildings with heritage significance on Daly St. Development will have active street frontages and assist in defining a safe pedestrian connection through to car parking and Claremont St.

tayser

November 4th, 2005, 12:12 AM

I don't understand why Claremont Street is only 8 levels - anything building along there will back onto the properties on Yarra Street wouldn't it??

But 20 on Yarra Street is definitely good. No mention of Fun Factory site & any other possibilities should the current design / proposal etc lapse?

Aussie Steve

November 4th, 2005, 02:26 AM

If the current permit for I think 25 - 30 stories is not extended, it may never get that high again.

MelbEuropa

November 4th, 2005, 07:45 AM

The Sydenham propsals seem to be getting watered down with every passing month. This area has great potential, yet all it seems to be is a car park/plaza and no other life.

If taller buildings weree built it would create a visual landmark for the area (such as a Chatswood in Sydney does). So far though, in all the revised concepts, it does not seem to create the atmosphere the area needs.

Also, the amount of estates that follow the highway to Melton are getting longer. The effect of such projects is very negative on creating a centralised region, and the further out it goes, the further from the transit hub life gets..

Another thing, just off the Wetern Ring Road in Ardeer is a huge development site (bordering a rail line and the new Sunshine Golf Club (under development). This is a great site but it appears to be another Industrial site (Paramount Business Park). This site is perfect for residential development, as the golf course creates a barrier with the industrial areas and therefore Brimbank gardens and the adjacent new estate would have more residentail area next to them. A train station could be built for the development also next to the ICI site.

Any other sites that people feel are incorrectly zoned, and have become wasted opportunities?

Aussie Steve

November 12th, 2005, 11:03 PM

Council polls a 'planning spoiler' (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/council-polls-a-planning-spoiler/2005/11/12/1131578275957.html)
The Age (www.theage.com.au)
By Julia Medew
13 November 2005

VICTORIA'S peak building industry body has warned that the results of Melbourne's upcoming council elections could disrupt the State Government's Melbourne 2030 development plan.

The executive director of Master Builders Australia, Brian Welch, said 42 per cent of candidates in eastern suburbs council elections either opposed the Melbourne 2030 plan or key components of the planning policy.

"It would seem the eastern suburbs is littered with council candidates who are taking a populist position with residential development, practising a form of 'nimbyism' ", he said.

A key aim of the Melbourne 2030 strategy is to limit urban sprawl by housing people more densely in inner-city areas.

Mr Welch said he was concerned residents could make uninformed choices.

"How are people supposed to make an important decision when all the information they get is junk-mail brochures written by the candidates in amongst retail catalogues," he said.

cowface

November 13th, 2005, 05:29 AM

People who oppose Melbourne 2030 is just selfish. They put their wants (eg. big backyards) over the environment.

Aussie Steve

November 15th, 2005, 09:28 PM

Bracks to reveal fringe housing tax (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bracks-to-reveal-fringe-housing-tax/2005/11/15/1132016797382.html)
The Age (www.theage.com.au)
By Royce Millar, City Editor
16 November 2005

PREMIER Steve Bracks will today announce a tax on fringe housing development to help pay for infrastructure and services on new estates.

Expected to be less than $10,000 for each housing lot, the controversial tax will be part of a new planning package aimed at bolstering the Government's metropolitan strategy, Melbourne 2030.

In a mixed bag likely to upset some in the property industry and some environmentalists, the Government will also extend Melbourne's urban growth boundary in key growth areas, boosting the amount of land promised to developers beyond the present 15-year supply.

But sources have confirmed that in the Melton growth corridor the boundary will not extend to Rockbank where, as The Age revealed last month, developer Jayaland has proposed a major new suburb with the backing of senior Labor figures.

The Government was tight-lipped yesterday and worked hard to silence insiders before this morning's announcement by Mr Bracks and Planning Minister Rob Hulls.

But sources have confirmed that the tax, likely to be tagged a development "contribution", will be introduced after months of speculation. Today's package is also expected to include a new body to implement boundary changes in the future.

The likelihood of a new development tax was flagged by The Age in August. At the time, the figure mooted was $30,000 for each lot. Angry developers warned then that the tax would be passed on to home owners, driving prices up.

At an average of less than $10,000 a lot, property industry protest will be muted. Many developers will feel relief, mindful that the new tax will be well below similar charges in Sydney.

Last month Deputy Premier John Thwaites reportedly told a developers' conference that the Government did not intend to introduce a new levy.

Yesterday the Urban Development Institute of Australia's chief executive, Tony de Domenic, said the institute had taken Mr Thwaites at his word and if a tax were now introduced, it would prove that the Government could not be trusted. Other groups, including the Planning Institute of Australia, have welcomed the tax, saying it is necessary to help pay for desperately needed services in fringe suburbs.

Opposition planning spokesman Ted Baillieu said the Government had hidden the detail of the proposed boundary change to avoid scrutiny during municipal elections. He expected the boundary changes to be rammed through in the dying hours of this year's Parliament this week.

The Government is likely to come under fire from green groups over its decision to extend the urban growth boundary. Green Wedges Coalition co-ordinator Rosemary West said there was already ample land supply within the present boundaries.
_____________________________________________________

The tax is a great idea, but I am not too certain about extending the urban growth boundary. There is plenty of infill land already in Melbourne that hasn't yet been developed.

tayser

November 15th, 2005, 10:52 PM

my bets on Casey/Cardinia wanting to eat into the forested area north of the Princes HWY - gah, the suburbs will be creeping closer to me! :)

jarf

November 16th, 2005, 01:28 AM

If it were even say 5000 bucks, in a new suburb of say 10000 houses (similar size to Caroline Springs), that would mean the government gets 50 million, which would be enough to fund at least half of a new train line, or if it's already near a line, a brand new station and a whole heap of buses. So I'm going to say go for it. :D

tayser

November 16th, 2005, 01:45 AM

but only about 5% of those funds will probably go to PT - the current bureaucratic arrangement would see to that in no time at all ;)

if there were a PT agency who got say 50% of the tax collected, then hell yeah, tax the bastards 4 times as much.

cowface

November 16th, 2005, 09:14 AM

why the hell does the government need to release more land?

can't they just explain to everyone the 'Australian' way of life needs a reality check and that we going forward need to live more closely? It's not a choice of weather people want to live in high density areas anymore. Something has to be done.

plotstyle

November 16th, 2005, 07:00 PM

the tax has come to late the damage has been done for 30 years...
just drive from melbourne to the rye

once you get to about 10 km past chaddy till rye on the freeway you will see development after development i cant really even tell the difference in most the housing estates they all look the same and you are not even allowed to paint your mailbox a different colour hows that for planning...

and dont get me started on golf course developments down the coast...

their is also normally only one entrance to these things with a fountain or some thing else stupid you everything looks the same the streets are all curved any one who is unfamiliar can easily get lost and it can be a k or so until you reach the house imaging having to walk 1km just to get to a main street outside your house its nutts these places are not designed to intergrate with public transport and if anyone could put a figure on how many of these similair things have been built in the last 10 years it would have to be in the 100,000 range???? X how ever many people live their thats one big planning ********

i have nothing against the burbs but they are not done right they are currently designed for the individual not the state.

every word road needs to be replaced train & tram its that simple...

they need to put their money where their mouth is and get everybody making roads making public transport

Aussie Steve

November 17th, 2005, 02:22 AM

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxmedia/2005/11/16/bound_gfx.jpg

tayser

November 17th, 2005, 02:25 AM

snort, upper beaconsfield is on that map :lol: and yep, as I predicted, Casey/Cardinia want to sprawl northward as well.

jarf

November 17th, 2005, 02:44 AM

Gah shouldn't Sydenham sprawl towards Diggers Rest instead of towards Melton, considering there's an effing train line there already?? That's not to say that it shouldn't sprawl out to Melton, but priority should be given to extending suburbia towards Sunbury. I definitely don't think that Melton should be sprawling further west yet, but it might be good in the future to include Bacchus Marsh in endless suburbia because then there will be a case for electrification. :lol:

plotstyle

November 22nd, 2005, 09:11 PM

that map almost looks like an out of control fire ;)

Stu

November 23rd, 2005, 01:59 AM

that map almost looks like an out of control fire ;)

Exactly!!

Thanks god for the mountains in the east. How far out would it have spread by now if they didn't exist?? And who said Melbourne was flat!! ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/Stucey/Stu/Sprawl2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/Stucey/Stu/Sprawl1.jpg

Wilko

November 23rd, 2005, 05:22 AM

^^ Wow, with those hills we could create another Beverley Hills and be like LA! NOT!!

Stu

November 23rd, 2005, 06:58 AM

^^ Wow, with those hills we could create another Beverley Hills and be like LA! NOT!!
Yes?/No? ;) Should we start pressuring the council?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/Stucey/Melbourne.jpg

Wilko

November 23rd, 2005, 07:02 AM

^^ Lol, a Melbourne sign was suggested by some very ambitious person a while ago! Yeah lets create a new Beverley Hills! Imagine the property prices with views similar to that of Los Angeles!! Just add a few more freeways too!

shrewd.user

November 23rd, 2005, 08:03 AM

BobDaBuilder

November 23rd, 2005, 11:05 AM

^^^^^

LOL, all class!

However isn't the "Hollywood" sign in LA an advert for Hollywoodland Real Estate agents?

Thats what they said on the star-tour anyhow......

entity119

November 23rd, 2005, 12:51 PM

^^^^^

LOL, all class!

However isn't the "Hollywood" sign in LA an advert for Hollywoodland Real Estate agents?

Thats what they said on the star-tour anyhow......

No, it was originally constructed as a big advertisement for a housing development in the twenties, and after twenty years or so, the "land" letters were dropped, and the Chamber of Commerce stepped up to the plate and took over maintenence of the sign as a tourist attraction.

edit: That is to say, not any more.

Aussie Steve

November 23rd, 2005, 11:54 PM

Look at this Major Activity Centre. The scope for redevelopment is endless!
http://www.grosswaddell.com.au/pages/brochures/burgundy1192Bro/brochure.jpg

Aussie Steve

November 23rd, 2005, 11:57 PM

http://www.heidelbergcentral.com.au/images/map.gif

http://www.heidelbergcentral.com.au/images/green_map.jpg

Grollo

December 15th, 2005, 07:00 AM

Price of living on the edge
Geraldine Mitchell
15dec05
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17571079%255E2862,00.html

MORE people are struggling to pay off their mortgages, jobs are harder to find, more women suffer from post-natal depression and public transport is almost non-existent, a damning snapshot of outer-city living reveals.

Local councils fear an acute lack of services will lead to mounting social problems for families and youths living on Melbourne's fringe.
Eight councils have joined forces with a leading welfare group and today will call on the State Government to provide more funding.

The Victorian Council of Social Service said improved public transport and better resources for child and family services were top priorities.

It found babies born in outer suburbs were more likely to have a low birth weight and were less likely to be breastfed than their inner-city counterparts.

Young people were more likely to have dropped out of high school and were also more likely to be unemployed.

Poor public transport had reached a critical stage, leaving locals unable to get to services, jobs and schools.

VCOSS deputy director Carolyn Atkins said the lack of public transport was the biggest problem facing the city's outer suburbs.

"Increased costs in petrol have added to the problem and families are going to be really stretched to make household budgets," she said.

She said VCOSS would call on the Government to invest at least $95 million a year in new bus services, consider building new rail lines and stations in growth suburbs, and increase bus and train services.

Ms Atkins said Hume, Wyndham, Whittlesea, Melton and Cardinia were among the six fastest-growing municipalities in the state.

Hume was Australia's fourth fastest-growing municipality while Whittlesea was expected to become the fastest-growing municipality in Victoria within the next two years.

Ms Atkins said while housing was affordable, many families were unaware of the acute lack of services in the outer suburbs.

"It comes as a rude shock that there isn't family health services, there isn't mental health services, and there's only limited public transport to get to work, educational training or even the local football club," she said.

Aussie Steve

December 21st, 2005, 10:15 AM

Chadstone Shopping Centre has been granted their permit for expansion by the Minister without having to do any public transport planning for a train or tram extension but they have to built 1414 additional car parking spaces taking the total to just under 9,500!

tayser

December 21st, 2005, 10:55 AM

fucking twats.

'scuse French.

cowface

December 21st, 2005, 10:58 AM

Grollo

December 21st, 2005, 11:46 AM

Well big box retail at chadstone must be needed for the Commonweath Games, just like the Hilton Hotel apartments :-)

I wonder how much Gandel have donated to the Labor party lately?

Aussie Steve

December 21st, 2005, 08:47 PM

Chaddy about to get a whole lot bigger (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/chaddy-about-to-get-a-whole-lot-bigger/2005/12/21/1135032080207.html)
The Age (www.theage.com.au)
By Royce Millar
December 22, 2005

AUSTRALIA'S largest shopping centre is about to get a lot larger with a State Government decision to allow a $200 million expansion of Chadstone.

In a contentious pre-Christmas move, Planning Minister Rob Hulls will today formalise approval for a 40,500-square-metre increase of the Gandel-owned centre — almost half the existing shopping space.

The proposed expansion will rile some residents, traders in nearby shopping centres and planning experts who believe growth of the car-based shopping centres is at odds with pro-public transport policies.

Last night, Mr Hulls defended the decision, which he said he made just 48 hours after receiving advice from officers.

He said the expansion was in line with the Government's metropolitan planning blueprint Melbourne 2030, in which Chadstone was identified as as principal activity centre where growth should be concentrated.

"It will also provide a further economic boost for Melbourne's south-east, with the potential to create 2500 construction jobs and 1100 full and part-time jobs at the centre."

In approving the expansion, Mr Hulls dropped a condition sought by the local Stonnington Council under which the council called for the Government and Gandel to study transport to Chadstone, including the possible construction of a rail link.

Last night, ward councillor Steve Stefanopoulos said he was disappointed by the Government's failure to consider rail links to the centre.

Melbourne University transport and planning lecturer Paul Mees criticised the Chadstone decision, which he said was contradictory to the Government's claims that it wanted to encourage Melburnians to use public transport.

Dr Mees said Chadstone was counter to government district centre policy when it opened and every expansion since then had been at odds with government policy.

"By encouraging car-based shopping malls to expand, it makes a mockery of all the statements in Melbourne 2030 about encouraging people to use public transport more," he said.

Mr Hulls stressed that the expanded Chadstone would include a public transport interchange for buses, including an "airport-style" waiting lounge, with cafe, lockers and showers.

Under the scheme, known as Chadstone Place, the centre will extend to the south-east in an area occupied by a former Catholic University, involving major changes to Warrigal and Middle roads.

Surrounding traders in centres such as Glenferrie, Carnegie and Oakleigh are likely to be upset by the Government's decision to allow Gandel flexibility in how it uses the new shopping area.

Under a scheme backed by the Stonnington Council, Gandel would been required to devote half the new retail area to bulky goods or homemaker shopping. Mr Hulls has reduced that requirement to about one-quarter of the space for bulky goods and allowing the Gandel to extend existing smaller-scale retail.

Residents in surrounding streets had opposed the proposed expansion and held community protests two years ago about the potential loss of homes and the expected dramatic increase in traffic. Gandel has since bought homes to make way for the expan- sion.

Mr Hulls described Chadstone as a "shopping icon".

"This expansion will see it continue as a frontrunner through a range of improve- ments such as access for pedestrians from surrounding neighbourhoods and promotion of environmental performance," he said.

Memorable Christmas decisions

DECEMBER 2005 Planning Minister Rob Hulls approves massive expansion of car-based Chadstone shopping centre despite pro-public transport policies.
DECEMBER 2004 Transport Minister Peter Batchelor releases proposed regional fast rail timetable revealing train services not so fast after all.

DECEMBER 2002 Planning Minister Mary Delahunty approves developer Becton's College Square on Swanston project, more than twice council-supported height. Later rejected as ugly by planning appeals tribunal.

DECEMBER 2002 Delahunty approves 80-metre Fender Katsalidis apartment and commercial tower at 420 Spencer Street, West Melbourne, three times council-backed height. Rejected by tribunal.

DECEMBER 1998 Kennett government fast-tracks approval of University Square/Melbourne University Private.

DECEMBER 1997 Acting local government minister Robin Cooper launches investigation into Nillumbik Shire Council.

DECEMBER 1996 Planning minister Rob Maclellan launches inquiry into ALP-controlled Darebin Council.

DECEMBER 1996 Maclellan approves controversial Parkville apartment block 20 metres above height limit.

DECEMBER 1995 Maclellan exhibits contentious new Docklands planning rules for public comment, a move described by planning academic Leonie Sandercock as a "calculated and cynical" move to avoid debate.

sakor1

December 21st, 2005, 09:57 PM

Grrrrr, an expansion by more that half of the current? Where are they gonna build this, it's enough of a trek as it is. It should have been conditional with the public transport links and being built in top of the existing structure perhaps (third level), rather than sprawling out so much more...

Stu

tayser

December 21st, 2005, 11:07 PM

Where to next A. Steve?

Grollo

December 22nd, 2005, 04:31 AM

I think we are all disappointed.

Aussie Steve

December 22nd, 2005, 04:50 AM

Watch the news tonight, I think the ABC, 7 & 10 will run the story. There was plenty of discussion about the project on the radio this morning - ABC & 3AW.

Drunkill

December 22nd, 2005, 05:36 AM

They have been getitng ready to build over the old school for years now, that schooled closed a long time ago and the grounds turned into carparks.
I think the carparking should not increase, rail link is a must if the expansion is happening, and yeah third level in places where avalible not spreading out more.
Bah anyway, that will make christmas eve shopping in a few years even more crowded.

comingsoon

December 22nd, 2005, 05:52 AM

So what new shops will be built there? It has everything doesn't it short of a Melbourne arm of Harrods or Marks and Spencers?

entity119

December 22nd, 2005, 09:26 AM

The Leftorium is about the only godamnned shop they don't have there.

I swear that place is like a hole in the space/time continuum or something, I've walked in there before and come out with bags of stuff, and no recollection of buying any of it.

shrewd.user

December 22nd, 2005, 09:28 AM

i think another important question, is will they be attempting to make it even more of a landmark shopping district than it already is? and how will they be trying to achieve this?

entity119

December 22nd, 2005, 09:31 AM

Maybe they'd be planning on doing what Bluewater and Edmonton did and adding more entertainment stuff?

Is it Chadstone or Doncaster that has the nightclub?

Drunkill

December 22nd, 2005, 09:34 AM

Doncaster.

They should add in some buildings for the core of the centre. Have the admin in some mid rise offices ect, and maybe (who'd want to live there) apartments or a hotel.

sakor1

December 22nd, 2005, 02:29 PM

As far as major retailers go they don't have any woolworths companies... we could see a Safeway & Big W perhaps? Lots of specialty retailers I'm sure they can charge an arm and a leg for space...

Stu

Grollo

December 22nd, 2005, 02:57 PM

It will have a new supermarket, fake cafe strip/main street, a discount department store and big box retail. So probably Safeway, Big W and stuff like Supercheap Auto, Good Guys, Guests...

The main probalem with Chadstone is that it will never have the potential to become a real activity centre because unlike centres like Doncaster, Southland and Fountain Gate it is surrounded by houses and there are no significant adjoining commerical sites.

Gandel have indicated that they do not want to build apartments, stand alone offices or anything like that because it is not in their interests to fragment ownership of the centre. So it will always remain a car based shopping centre.

comingsoon

December 22nd, 2005, 09:14 PM

Yeah, the major new shop is to be a BIG W apparently. :eek2: :eek2:

Bluestar

December 29th, 2005, 03:51 AM

My significant other and I attempted to park at Chadstone to see the Narnia flick and it was like the road laws had all been suspended! People were parking on white-out strips, traffic islands; in some places it was difficult to manuver the car through what should've been wide thoroughfares. This was on Boxing Day of course, but even so, it is clear the parking facilities are not really coping as it is. The access/egress for cars is totally insufficient.
I really don't think this government and Gandel either by the looks of it, is interested in anything other than debt-based revenue raising, with a veneer of giving a fat rat's rip about the future, or the people who live nearby.

Blue

sakor1

December 29th, 2005, 04:57 AM

Well the expansion does cater for more carparking... and to be fair there is only a few days a year where it gets really bad to find a park, most of the rest of the time it is fairly easy. It still would have been better to leave the parking as is for the expansion and connect via heavy rail and tram IMHO.

Stu

Icanseeformiles

December 29th, 2005, 06:59 AM

didn't you guys know that Chadstone wants to be the first shopping center visible from earth orbit.

By the way - not wanting to insult the intelligence of any forum members but that saying about the great wall being visible from the moon is utter nonsence. it is visible from low earth orbit - not the bloody moon. Don't know why I felt I had to throw that in but I feel better now.
Thanks :runaway:

Icanseeformiles

December 29th, 2005, 07:01 AM

oh yeah - anyone remember that urban myth about the proposed 'terrorist attack' on Chaddy?

i think every major city had the same lame story in different variants at the same time. lol

invincible

December 29th, 2005, 01:11 PM

By the way - not wanting to insult the intelligence of any forum members but that saying about the great wall being visible from the moon is utter nonsence. it is visible from low earth orbit - not the bloody moon. Don't know why I felt I had to throw that in but I feel better now.
Thanks :runaway:

You'd struggle to see the Great Wall from anywhere in space - keep in mind it's not the widest structure - it's a lot easier to recognise a freeway from above than something that's only a few metres wide, and with most of the structure crumbling away (much of it is/was a basic stone wall and not the fortified structure you see in the photos)

EDIT: To stay on topic, I'll add that more people might actually drive to places like Chadstone on Boxing Day if public transport services actually ran on something other than a massively watered down timetable. On trying to get to/from the beach on Tuesday, I had to make sure I didn't miss the bus (888-9 Smartbus, which has a decent 15 minute frequency on weekdays) which came only once every 40 minutes with the last service departing 7:48pm.

Wait, some bus routes are worse than that on weekdays. Doesn't change the fact that it makes PT unattractive to many though.

Grollo

May 4th, 2006, 05:11 AM

What a pathetic turnout. messge to the liberal party, you have backed another loser with your policy to get rid of Melbourne 2030. Most people at least sort of support it or don't care, only a vocal NIMBY minority are opposed to it and most of them live in safe liberal seats anyways.

Planning activists activate battle plan
By Rachel Kleinman
May 4, 2006
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/planning-activists-activate-battle-plan/2006/05/03/1146335804808.html

THE battle cries were varied and colourful yesterday as community action groups took their gripes with State Government planning policies to the steps of Parliament House.

About 70 residents from various suburbs merged at Spring Street to demand an immediate review of the Melbourne 2030 planning blueprint.

They also called on the Government to rein in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal's powers and abolish the Priority Development Panel, an independent advisory group of government-appointed experts.

Protest organiser Mary Drost, from the Boroondara Resident Action Group, said Victoria was being transformed "from the garden state to the concrete state".

And Kew Cottages Coalition president Brian Walsh labelled Melbourne 2030 "mumbo jumbo".

State Opposition planning spokesman Ted Baillieu, Greens Northern Metro candidate Greg Barber and Save Our Suburbs president Ian Quick joined the protesters.

State Planning Minister Rob Hulls has this week defended the Government's planning record.

He told The Age that the Bracks Government had intervened far fewer times than the Kennett government in council planning matters.

He said Melbourne 2030 would be reviewed next year.

"All stakeholders will be encouraged to participate in fine-tuning the policy," Mr Hulls said.

"As for VCAT, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it plays an important role as the independent umpire."

The Master Builders Association yesterday added its backing to Melbourne 2030. Executive director Brian Welch said some resident groups and councils were fuelling a "not in my backyard" attitude.

"Many of the residents in inner-eastern establishment suburbs would prefer their homes not change for the next 50 years, but that is not realistic," Mr Welch said.

Aussie Steve

May 4th, 2006, 05:32 AM

Well said Mr G :D

mameenoodles

May 4th, 2006, 12:38 PM

Just curious, what will Melbournes freeway network look like in 2030?

Favco750

May 4th, 2006, 12:42 PM

shit

mameenoodles

May 4th, 2006, 12:43 PM

:|
I was thinking more along the lines of.... extensive?
is there any visual drawings.... i cant seem to find any

tayser

September 5th, 2006, 01:34 AM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/2030-how-to-make-a-city-bland/2006/09/04/1157222065621.html

2030: How to make a city bland

By Gabriella Coslovich
September 5, 2006

In principle, it is easy to agree with the Bracks Government's Melbourne 2030 planning policy. At the heart of the policy is a desire to contain urban sprawl and protect green wedges on the city's fringe. Notwithstanding the criticism by Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu, who has vowed to abandon the planning blueprint, these are laudable objectives - areas of environmental significance should be protected from a further expansion of vast tracts of terracotta roofs.

But 2030 has a flipside - the city's population is increasing and if urban sprawl is to be contained, new housing must be accommodated somewhere. Melbourne 2030 has designated that that "somewhere" will be in so-called "activity centres".

As the consequences of 2030 start to be felt in these "activity centres", the State Government and some councils are facing a community backlash. Resident groups are protesting against the onslaught of profit-driven developers cashing in on the buoyant property market, now with the added imprimatur of Melbourne 2030.

Gentrification preceded Melbourne 2030, but is the policy unwittingly speeding up the process, giving developers a rubber stamp to reshape/misshape/deform local communities?

While some of the resident groups protesting against the high-density developments encouraged by 2030 may well be prompted simply by a desire to protect their own patch, it is wrong to dismiss them all as whingers who are averse to change - many have legitimate grievances and concerns.

"Activity centre" is a typically bland and dehumanising bureaucratic label. What this abstract label refers to are established shopping strips and suburbs populated by people with an attachment to their community and strong views about how they would like to see their areas develop.

Melbourne 2030 has identified more than 100 "activity centres" where high-density housing is to be encouraged.

These areas have been chosen for further development because they have ready-made infrastructure, community facilities, popular shopping strips, jobs, local economies. Consumers want to be where the action is and, consequently, so do developers.

However, as we have seen time and again in Melbourne, some of our most culturally diverse streets and areas fall prey to development and are stripped precisely of what made them interesting in the first place. Small local businesses are forced out as rents double and triple, making way for insipid franchises, and affordable spaces for creative and community centres are also lost and redeveloped into "lifestyle" apartments. Neighbourhood character makes way for cultural homogeneity.

It is telling, for example, that last week a new marketing campaign was launched, promoting "St Kilda Village" - the very fact that the marketing gurus had to be called in suggests that St Kilda is not quite the vibrant, culturally diverse village it used to be. In the recently released book subUrban Fantasies, Melbourne Unmasked, University of Melbourne academic Kate Shaw examines the gentrification of St Kilda and beyond in the chapter "Gentrification and the inner city blues".

Shaw notes that gentrification has its positives and negatives - on the plus side, it brings new investment, improves buildings and local infrastructure and helps to preserve heritage buildings. It also increases land values, displaces low-income tenant households and businesses and, if left to proceed unabated, results in social homogenisation or polarisation.

"Local and international experience shows that gentrification is no more inevitable than any other market process, and that strategic policy interventions can allow community benefit from the positives while minimising the negatives," Shaw writes.

While 2030 protects the city's green wedges from inappropriate development, there is little protecting the designated "activity centres", that is, local communities, from inappropriate development or overdevelopment.

The Bracks Government's Melbourne 2030 document says activity centres will be developed as "centres for business, shopping, working and leisure. Most will also contain community facilities related to public administration, education, health and emergency services. They will also be important locations for the development of different types of housing, including forms of higher-density housing."

So far, what we have seen is a skewing of Melbourne 2030 to one side of the equation, mainly to the creation of high-density, premium-priced housing, sometimes at the expense of the very community facilities, cultural diversity and small businesses that make some "activity centres" so appealing.

As would be expected, developers have flocked to areas where there's money to made. And there's the rub. When it comes to the fine details of how "activity centres" will be developed and what kind of development goes, Melbourne 2030 is so vague as to be meaningless. Where are the safeguards? Where is the onus on developers to put into communities as much as they take out?

It would be a pity to abandon entirely the principles of Melbourne 2030, but when it comes to the growth of "activity centres", the blueprint is in dire need of clearer guidelines.

DECLARATION: Gabriella Coslovich, senior arts writer, was one of the objectors to a high-density, car park-free development in Carlisle Street, St Kilda East, which will displace several local businesses including a popular yoga school.

__________

I'd like to know more about this car-park free development, I wonder if one of the primary was the objections to no car parks? Balaclava / St. Kilda East is probably one of the most well connected burbs PT-wise, the 3, 16 and Sandy line provide frequent links in all directions (City direct, City via St. Kilda itself, Malvern/Glenferrie, Malvern East/Caulfield, Brighton/SAndringham, Prahran/South Yarra) if you were buying in that development and still working somewhere in the boonies you'd have to be flipping mad.

tayser

September 8th, 2006, 02:34 AM

Councils receive growth guide
Mathew Dunckley
4 September 2006
Australian Financial Review

Higher densities, better access to public transport and more open public space are key features of new rules on the way for subdivisions on Melbourne's fringe.

The state government has released draft precinct structure planning guidelines in an important step for the development of the Growth Areas Authority.

Councils will now be expected to work with the GAA to create precinct structure plans using the guidelines as templates for developments in their municipalities.

The councils will work with government agencies and their plans need to include an assessment of transport, open space, community infrastructure and water strategies.

The plans will then be submitted to the minister for approval with advice from the GAA.

According to the guidelines, the plans will have to cater for average net densities "significantly higher than 10 dwellings per hectare".

They will also have to prove "at least 95 per cent of all housing in the precinct is located within 400 metres of safe, convenient and well-lit walking distance of a bus stop". what use is that if the bus only comes once an hour?

The guidelines will operate in draft form for one year to allow further consultation and fine-tuning.

The six growth-area councils that will complete plans are Casey, Cardinia, Hume, Melton, Wyndham and Whittlesea.

GAA chair Chris Banks said the guidelines would be used as its benchmark when considering council structure plans, which in turn would have a key role in informing development decisions.

"They are the springboard that will help us," he said. "They are not design-specific guidelines that say where the streets go.

" You could liken them to the design principles I had at Delfin, where we would design a community.

"What has been lacking in the past in some growth areas is these plans haven't been done on a large enough scale."

Victoria's Planning Minister, Rob Hulls, said the GAA's involvement in development would put an end to piecemeal and isolated estates.

"The GAA will advise on releasing and servicing new land within the 25-year supply within the legislated urban growth boundaries, to ensure that prices remain affordable and Melbourne retains its competitive edge over Brisbane and Sydney," he said.

The guidelines were cautiously welcomed by the development industry, which hopes it will bring greater consistency across local government areas.

The Urban Development Institute of Australia's Victorian chief executive, Tony De Domenico, welcomed the 12-month trial of the guidelines.

"They appear to be OK but in all these sorts of things the devil is in the detail," he said.

The guidelines would have a positive impact on the industry if they produced greater consistency in decision making and timeliness at a council level, he said.

Mr De Domenico said the industry was still waiting for detail on the government's controversial development contribution levy, to be administered by the GAA.

"It will be interesting to see what they will collect, from where and when and how they will spend it down the track," he said.

A spokeswoman for Mr Hulls declined to comment on whether the new regime would be announced before the November 25 election.

Sources said the final shape of the levy was causing ructions between government departments and agreement was proving elusive.

The Property Council of Australia's Victorian executive director, Jennifer Cunich, also said a trial period was a good thing and that increased certainty from detailed plans would be welcomed.

"What is frustrating to the developers is when they think they know what is required of them and they get three-quarters of the way down the path and there are requirements they didn't know about," she said.

The government has also announced the composition of the GAA's board.

The board will hold its first meeting this month and the development contribution levy will probably be discussed.

tayser

November 4th, 2006, 01:58 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/unlock-the-city-say-developers/2006/11/03/1162340050950.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Unlock the city, say developers

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/11/03/knDOCKLANDS_wideweb__470x309,0.jpg

Melbourne's New Quay.
Photo: Craig Abraham

Royce Millar
November 4, 2006

MELBOURNE'S biggest developers have backed a bold initiative to boost Melbourne's dwindling stock of affordable homes and to reopen the inner city to a generation locked out by escalating house prices.

The move will test the Bracks Government's pre-election commitment to housing affordability, with developers endorsing a scheme known as inclusionary zoning that would require them to provide cheap rental housing in new projects.

Properties would be managed by a community housing association and rented to low and moderate-income earners for less than market rents.

Some of Melbourne's big developers have swung behind the idea. "As long as it's clear what the objective is, then we can cope with it," said Lend Lease Communities chief executive Rod Fehring. "I'm actually keen on ensuring that a component (of affordable housing) is incorporated within all our projects."

The Age revealed this week that 50 social housing apartments will be built as part of the $1.8 billion Victoria Harbour at Docklands. In a significant shift, the body representing developers, the Urban Development Institute, said it could work with the scheme provided the Government made concessions, including freeing surplus public land for housing. "The industry itself will handle it, like it has in other states and like it has internationally," said chief executive Tony De Domenico.

"But the Government must come to the table as well with some sort of incentive, whether it be land, or taxation or anything else that will help."

The Property Council supports this view, adding the proviso that the scheme should not increase costs for others buying into projects involved. The Housing Industry Association and the Victorian Liberal Party oppose the scheme, which is widely used in Britain and the United States.

Last year Planning Minister Rob Hulls and Housing Minister Candy Broad flagged their intention to pursue inclusionary zoning. But Labor's housing policy, released last week, did not mention it. Possibly fearing pre-election controversy, Ms Broad and Mr Hulls would not comment on the subject this week.

So nervous is Labor, according to property industry sources, that the Government cancelled a recent meeting with developers that was organised to discuss how the scheme might be implemented.

Planners, academics and now even developers are increasingly concerned about the growing social polarisation in Melbourne, with the inner city fast becoming the exclusive playground of the well-to-do.

As recently as 1981, areas such as Port Melbourne, Fitzroy and Richmond were home to above-average numbers of low-income earners. The reverse is now the case.

Melbourne house prices and rents have risen dramatically, while public housing expenditure has fallen, leaving what some experts describe as a "sandwich class" — working households unable to afford home ownership but not poor enough to be eligible for the limited public housing available.

Many of the people who now work in the shops and bars in the CBD, Docklands, St Kilda and Carlton have to travel long distances to work and spend a lot on petrol.

Under a scheme proposed by planning consultant Marcus Spiller, the inclusionary zone would apply only to the inner city, creating housing opportunities for service industry employees, low-paid workers and students with part-time jobs.

Lend Lease this week called for more action on housing affordability, including inclusionary zoning, shared equity housing and redevelopment of traditional public housing, to boost social diversity.

Mr Fehring said it was important for the Government to be "up-front and clear about how it (inclusionary zoning) is going to be managed".

Stockland, one of Australia's biggest residential developers, said it was comfortable with the "inevitable" arrival of inclusionary zoning, but national manager Hugh Martin said governments should also contribute more money and land for affordable housing.

The Victorian Council of Social Service has pushed hard for inclusionary zoning, and other ways to improve housing affordability.

But chief executive Cath Smith said she was concerned about Labor's silence on the subject and called for it to speak up. "It is really important that the Government makes a commitment to this issue so that if re-elected the relevant ministers will be committed to deliver," she said.

The Housing Industry Association has warned that inclusionary zoning would add to developers' costs, which would in turn be passed on to buyers.

But RMIT housing specialist Professor Tony Dalton said that if all developers were faced with the same requirement to provide such housing, the cost of land would be driven down and the impact cost passed back to the vendor, not to home buyers.
HOUSING HEADACHE

■Melbourne median house price rose from $153,700 in 1996 to $377,000 in September

■Median price for a house in the City of Yarra (Richmond, Collingwood, Fitzroy, North Carlton) rose from $74,000 in 1985 to $490,000 in 2006

■Areas such as Yarra and Port Phillip had higher than average shares of low-income earners in 1981 but by 2001 had lower than average shares

■Less than 3 per cent of jobs are accessible within 40 minutes by public transport for much of Melbourne

■The proportion of homes that are public or social housing is declining steadily

____________

do it.

tayser

December 2nd, 2006, 01:33 AM

Bumps on the road to 2030
Duncan Hughes
1 December 2006
Australian Financial Review

The Victorian government has flagged another major change in the direction of its controversial urban blueprint with the replacement of both the minister and inaugural head of department who conceived the plan.

It comes as the government finalises a review of the scheme intended to tackle urban sprawl and improve liveability while Melbourne's population grows by 1 million people through to 2030.

The shake-up is also expected to reflect sustainability policies being developed by the new super-ministry headed by Deputy Premier John Thwaites covering water, environment and climate change.

Premier Steve Bracks has announced that the inaugural head of the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Lyndsay Neilson, will be replaced by Peter Harris, formerly of the Department of Primary Industry.

The department will become the sole responsibility of former Commonwealth Games minister Justin Madden, who replaces Rob Hulls to become its fourth minister in as many years.

The 2030 plan, released in 2002, bans new detached housing outside a green line on the city's outer edge and encourages medium-density infill housing in retail and commercial "activity centres".

But it has triggered a storm of opposition, particularly in the leafy inner-suburban areas threatened by high-density development, with claims that the developer-driven reality is blighting suburbs and doing nothing to prevent urban sprawl.

Mr Neilson said the department was finalising an audit to resolve planning conflicts, improve consistency across metropolitan Melbourne and give better resources to councils attempting to implement the schemes.

"The most important achievement of 2030 has been continuing the process of urban renewal in strategic sites, such as former defence land in Maribyrnong (in Melbourne's western suburbs," he said.

Co-ordination of management decisions on the city's urban fringes had improved and the development agenda had been centralised.

But critics of the scheme, who are constantly demonstrating in a bid to retain the character of their suburbs, are calling for 2030 to be halted until the implementation issues have been resolved.

Save our Suburbs president Ian Quick said: "They should pull it to prevent blanket high-density development without specific criteria about how or where it should be done."

Jason Black, president of the Australian Planning Institute which represents town planners, said planners were finalising a range of proposals to coincide with the government's review.

Meanwhile, counting from Saturday's election continues with Health Minister Bronwyn Pike extending her lead in the hotly contested seat of Melbourne and the Liberals increasing their lead in Kilsyth but dropping behind Labor in Ferntree Gully. Labor has small leads in south-east suburban Mount Waverley, Forest Hill and Gembrook.

KEY POINTS

* The 2030 urban development plan is under review.

* A new minister and departmental head will take over as critics call for the process to be halted.

tayser

December 4th, 2006, 09:40 PM

Melbourne's not listening
Mathew Dunckley
5 December 2006
Australian Financial Review

Five years after its release, the Victorian government's strategy for high-density residential development around Melbourne's existing shopping centres has made little impact on the city's building patterns, according to research by Charter Keck Cramer.

The government's Melbourne 2030 strategy aims to funnel 41 per cent of the forecast 620,000 households formed in the city over the next 25 years into existing activity centres centred on public transport nodes.

But the Charter Keck Cramer report found that since 2000 just under half of the estimated 16,500 apartments built or under construction across suburban Melbourne were in or near an activity centre.

Only 2100 (about 13 per cent) were located within principal and major activity centres. These were focused on the CBD fringe and inner suburbs of Prahran, South Yarra, Richmond, St Kilda and Fitzroy.

A further 6000 (36 per cent) apartments were located within 400 metres of activity centre boundaries.

That left 8400 (51 per cent) outside designated activity centres.

The figures do not include the apartment-heavy Docklands, St Kilda Road or Southbank precincts.

The report's author, property analyst Sarah Emmerton, said the pattern suggested the desired effect of Melbourne 2030 was not being achieved.

"The question is raised as to whether it is Melbourne 2030 or property market realities that are influencing the location of suburban apartment projects," she said.

Ms Emmerton said it was significant that the number of apartments within 400 metres of activity centre boundaries greatly exceeded those actually within those boundaries.

"This analysis demonstrates that half of Melbourne's new apartments are still widely dispersed and many do not adhere to the principles of Melbourne 2030 in that they are not reliant upon proximity to public transport or activity nodes," she said.

"These apartments have developed organically in response to market forces, rather than because of planning policies or structure plans."

Ms Emmerton said delivery costs and site availability would remain key barriers to the development of apartments within activity centres.

"Accordingly, apartment projects will continue to be developed outside activity centres where the cost of purchasing land is lower and sites are generally bigger," she said.

"It is also relevant that most of the best, or less constrained, sites within activity centres have already been redeveloped, which implies that future development within activity centres will become increasingly difficult to achieve.

"For that reason, these activity centres are likely to maintain their current function, primarily as suburban retail nodes, rather than becoming mixed-use precincts incorporating substantial residential development."

Ms Emmerton said the government needed to acknowledge property market realities and investigate possible mechanisms to ensure the objectives of its strategy could be realised.

A spokeswoman for the new Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, declined to comment.

KEY POINTS

* A strategic development plan is going largely unheeded.

* Critics say it is impractical and defies market realities.

* Land cost remains a barrier.

Grollo

December 18th, 2006, 12:40 PM

Just had a quick read of the draft Springvale Activity Centre Structure Plan and damn it's a depressing read.

Some key points:

The railway over Springvale Road, which splits the centre into two, will not be grade separated even when the third track to Dandenong is built because Eastlink means that there will be less traffic on Springvale road.
Building heights will be limited to five or six storeys because why would nobody want to build higher in Springvale.
There is no demand for medium or high density housing in Springvale and it will remain a car based centre for the foreseeable future
New at grade parking should be provided at the edge of the center by buying up houses and demolishing them because Springvale is a car dependent centre and multi deck car parks are too expensive.
demolish existing buildings in the urban core to provide for open space.

The general response to Melbourne 2030 seems to be fuck off, it won't work here so leave us alone.

There is no doubt that the structure planning process will reduce the development potential in most activity centre by introducing restrictive controls in areas that currently have no controls like Springvale.

Aussie Steve

December 18th, 2006, 09:47 PM

Grollo, please tell me your joking?

This can't be right. More open air car parks where houses stood? No removal of the level crossing? No medium density housing?

What is wrong with the City of Dandenong? Are they concentrating on Dandenong too much and neglecting Springvale?

invincible

December 19th, 2006, 04:33 AM

Being a Springvale resident, I can tell you that a lot of people don't want anything to change, as evident by the massive uproar over a proposal to sell the library (which is crap) and council offices and possibly the city hall.

And the amount of car dependence is insane. The only people you ever see on the buses are students and retirees. The mentality here is that as soon as you turn 18, you get your licence and never use PT (or walk) again. It's a stupid mindset that belongs in a place like Narre Warren and it puts the good planning and decent PT services to waste. Central Springvale is just a huge mess of cars and most of them would be too stubborn to get out of their cars and walk to the shops instead.

The end result is that younger people like me (who are most likely to want to live in medium-high density developments) can't wait to move out of the area.

On a related note, I've been looking at the development at Westall from the train every time I pass and I really like how someone's finally built a development where the garages do not face the street but are instead accessed from a laneway at the back of the terraces. It's not the best location in the world (just a small strip of shops and a high school) but it beats the other townhouses dominated by massive garages.

The Collector

December 19th, 2006, 06:03 AM

^^I hear you invincible, I remember in my youth how it was cars, cars, cars except me, but boy did that change ten years later.:yes:

PalmerEldritch

December 19th, 2006, 08:47 AM

Before you get all depressed about the Springvale Structure Plan, have a read of this:

From the Dandenong Leader, Monday December 18, 2006, p.33 (Classifieds)

Greater Dandenong
Notice of an application for a planning permit

The land affected by the application is located at:
8 Balmoral Avenue, Springvale.

The application is for a permit to:
Construct a mixed-use development on this site comprising twenty-five (25) dwellings, retail premises and car parking, with reduced car parking requirements pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme.

The applicant for the permit is:
GLG Developments

The application reference number is:
PLN06/0472

[snip]

Date of notice:
11 December 2006
The site is currently a large open air car park.

You all may recall that this was an application initially for 35 dwellings spread across three buildings, with three storey buildings fronting the Balmoral and Buckingham Avenue sides of the site (ground floor retail with two floors of residential above) and a six storey car park behind.

Pictures of the development can be seen in the Greater Dandenong thread.

Grollo

January 2nd, 2007, 06:42 AM

The farther out, the more in

The Australian Financial Review
1 August 2006

By Mathew Dunckley

Forget the rule book: Melbourne's commercial property market is steadfastly ignoring the planners and is building office space outside suburban centres as fast as it can. An analysis by Charter Keck Cramer of building patters over the past four decades reveals that the supply of new space in the suburbs has rapidly sprung up in business parks and away from the suburban activity centres. The pedal has really been pushed to the floor in the past six years at the same time as the Victorian government, under its Melbourne 2030 blue print, has actively been trying to encourage development at those centres.

“Our analysis highlights that whilst Melbourne 2030 aims to attract greater office development to activity centres, larger corporate users are avoiding them due to greater traffic congestion, higher parking costs and the typical prevalence of secondary grade buildings,” senior research analyst Frank Sorgiovanni said. “More importantly, new commercial developments in activity centres are failing to materialise due to the higher acquisition costs of site consolidation and resultant higher required development rents to make them feasible.”

Mr Sorgiovanni said outer suburban business parks were successfully competing with higher-density office locations, such as the city fringe and inner east, in attracting stronger white-collar employment, despite being located within the traditional blue-collar locations. “This movement into business park environments provides an interesting insight into the disparity of employment growth and the potential to emerge as future activity centres in their own right,” he said. “As such, one of the future challenges may be for public transport to adapt and meet the requirements of these growing employment zones.”

The study found that since 2000, 19 office developments had been built in activity centres, yielding 61,000 square metres of new space. In the same period, 68 new facilities had been built in out-of-centre business parks providing 292,000 sq.m. to the market. Also telling was that 89 standalone offices – that is, not in an activity centre of a business park – were also built, stumping up 290,000 sq.m. That represents a major change from the 1990's, when about 225,000 sq.m. was built in activity centres, 347,000 in stand-alone developments, and just 188,000 in business parks.

Activity centre development was now focused on smaller, strata-style developments, Mr Sorgiovanni said. “Between 2006 and 2010, around three-quarters of new activity centre supply is expected to be related to office suite projects rather than corporate office space,” he said.

The shift to business parks has been a boon for builders. One group focused on business park development is the Pellicano Group, which has just begun work on a speculative six-building project worth about $21 million in the city's south-eastern suburb of Clayton. Joint managing director Nando Pellicano said the 3.5 hectare site was located in an area that lacked quality office/warehouse accommodation. The development consists of six office/warehouse buildings ranging in size from 2300 sq.m. to 6600 sq.m., providing a total building area of 16,700 sq.m. “We saw this site as a great opportunity to develop a quality business park with buildings available for both sale or lease,” Mr Pellicano said. The project is due for completion early next year. Developers are also trying to inject a bit of soul into business parks through provision of retail and services such as child care.

Grollo

January 2nd, 2007, 06:48 AM

Grollo

May 4th, 2007, 04:43 PM

GreenEdge development, Greensborough:

http://web.aanet.com.au/nmharrison/green%20edge%201.jpg

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Assets/Images/V02_060815%20WEB1.jpg

http://web.aanet.com.au/nmharrison/green%20edge%202.jpg

http://web.aanet.com.au/nmharrison/green%20edge%203.jpg

This is a fantastic project developed by ARM and what Melbourne 2030 is all about.

Leon...

May 5th, 2007, 02:48 AM

I'm a little sketchy on the details of 2030. Are they thinking of extending the CBD (esp. in terms of height limits/skyscrapers) further north or east? The layout of streets there seems similar to the CBD, and apart from the docklands, they seem like good areas to potentially develop...

invincible

May 5th, 2007, 06:19 AM

Melbourne 2030 basically sets a border restricting further sprawl, only allowing expansion in certain corridors and identifies various activity centres, generally around railway stations where higher density development should be encouraged.

Edward

May 5th, 2007, 12:03 PM

My mum is teaching about all this shizzle at the moment

cowface

May 5th, 2007, 01:11 PM

My mum is teaching about all this shizzle at the moment

Uni or Secondary School?

Edward

May 5th, 2007, 01:15 PM

secondary. just stopped teaching tourism at RMIT uni last year (or the year before)

Mr. Maciek

May 5th, 2007, 02:48 PM

That greensborough development is fantastic, it also looks like the ageing greensborough plaza gets a facelift aswell? is there any other info that i may have missed?

mic

May 6th, 2007, 05:29 AM

Great renders, but weren't these activity centres meant to be slightly more high rise? or is that only with other centers such as Preston etc? Anyhoo, should be a good start to Greensy, hopefully this should entice other urban centres to start developing and meet the Melb 2030 plan, as its already 1/3 of the way through.

weetbix

May 6th, 2007, 05:44 AM

the train station should have incorporated ala Box Hill

BleakCity

May 6th, 2007, 06:25 AM

It is a bit difficult given the station's positioning.

But they have made an effort to integrate the station with the shopping centre (as much as I hate those twisting things).

What happens to the pool - is it enclosed?

crawf

May 6th, 2007, 07:31 PM

Suburban Bracks-lash
John Masanauskas

May 07, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Herald-Sun

THE Bracks Government faces a massive backlash from the suburbs as a growing army of residents battles rising congestion and the loss of neighbourhood character caused by over-development.
Residents in established areas are furious that planning laws are ruining Melbourne's liveability by allowing the proliferation of multi-dwelling developments on what were single house blocks.

With the city's population expected to grow by at least one million over the next 20 years, the Government estimates an extra 620,000 dwellings will be needed to cope with the human surge driven significantly by overseas migration.

Growth limits have been imposed on new housing on Melbourne's outer fringe, so many of the extra people will have to crowd into established leafy suburbs, adding to congestion and reducing traditional amenity.

Official figures obtained by the Herald Sun show the City of Port Phillip will need at least an extra 15,000 houses and flats up to 2017.

Mornington Peninsula will need an extra 14,000 dwellings in established areas, 12,300 properties must be built in Monash, 11,600 in Whitehorse and 10,900 in Manningham.

The figures, from a 2003 Department of Sustainability and Environment report, are not included in public documents outlining the Government's controversial Melbourne 2030 planning strategy.

Mary Drost, convenor of lobby group Planning Backlash, said the 2030 plan and a booming population was slowly strangling the suburbs.

"We are gradually losing our green canopy through over-development, and there's increasing road congestion because of the extra population," she said. "We're dead short of water . . . and we're all starting to resent having to cut our showers down when there's a thousand more people a week coming into the city."

Planning Backlash, a loose coalition of up to 90 suburban protest groups, held a strategy meeting in Malvern yesterday.

Planning Minister Justin Madden will meet a delegation on Thursday.

Bob Birrell, from Monash University's Centre for Population and Urban Research, said the Bracks Government's planning policies and its drive for more migrants were helping to destroy the city's liveability.

Dr Birrell said while federal authorities had set the migrant intake, the Victorian Government was luring thousands of extra people to Melbourne each year through special visa programs.

"The Bracks Government is trying to have it both ways," he said.

"On the one hand it is telling Melburnians they have the world's most liveable city, while on the other it is pushing this huge expansion in population.

"The two are actually irreconcilable."

A government spokesman said the 2030 plan had been developed because Melburnians had made it clear they did not want urban sprawl to continue.

------------------

Development turns mild wild
John Masanauskas

May 07, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Herald-Sun

FROM Camberwell to Moonee Ponds, normally sedate and polite people are joining a movement that could eventually mean trouble for the Bracks Government.
These unlikely suburban warriors are opposed to Melbourne 2030 -- a plan to fit more than one million extra people into the city over the next 20 years. Under the plan, much of the growth should occur in so-called activity centres, high-rise apartments built around transport and business hubs.

The best known proposal involves Camberwell station, mainly because of high-profile opponents Geoffrey Rush and Barry Humphries.

For members of protest group Planning Backlash, the big issue is that many developers are destroying neighbourhoods by over-developing existing residential sites.

Ann Reid, from Malvern East, said replacing single house blocks with multi-unit and dual occupancy developments was making people angry.

"There's more traffic congestion, a loss of open space, loss of trees and loss of neighbourhood character," she said. "This dogma of growth is destroying the suburbs."

Marion Quartly, from Notting Hill, said residents were concerned two public schools that were closed were being replaced by hundreds of houses.

Monash University demographer Dr Bob Birrell said building approval figures showed the Government's plan to move people into activity centre apartments wasn't working. He said the apartments were too expensive, and more than a third of dwellings now built in Melbourne comprised so-called opportunistic in-fill.

"This is where an existing house is demolished and replaced with several units or a unit is built in the backyard of an existing home. It's fundamentally changing the nature of suburbia, but in-fill is not discussed in Melbourne 2030 at all."

Londoner

May 6th, 2007, 09:34 PM

This is just depressingly like the attitudes in my part of London. Of course the nature of suburbia is changing: it needs to change. People no longer get married in their early 20s, start a family (mum giving up work of course), finish work at 5 prompt leaving plenty of time to tend large gardens etc. I have just bought myself a unit in Victoria Point. When I ultimately get to live there it will offer a me a quality of life I could not find here ... or in many a traditional Melbourne suburb.

Tyson

May 7th, 2007, 04:18 AM

Isn't it up to the councils to approve the smaller multi-story dwellings in the suburbs anyway? Prehaps certain suburbs should have some sort of over development protection or limits on the type of developments but there are many areas in Melbourne that could easily handle higher density.

BleakCity

May 7th, 2007, 08:45 AM

Bit of a beat up really.

I haven't really noticed much of a SOS/NIMBY/Anti-development gathering in Moonee Ponds - probably because the place isn't filled with wannabe Prue and Trudes.

invincible

May 7th, 2007, 11:02 AM

Marion Quartly, from Notting Hill, said residents were concerned two public schools that were closed were being replaced by hundreds of houses.

Notting Hill residents already have the massive 12-storey Menzies Building to look at as well as various medium-rise student accommodation towers around the university.

Moral of the story: The Herald Sun is full of shit anyway. Those who fight to the death to preserve their view of um, the sky immediately above their backyard fence, are surely only a tiny minority.

jarf

May 7th, 2007, 05:00 PM

Bit of a beat up really.

I haven't really noticed much of a SOS/NIMBY/Anti-development gathering in Moonee Ponds - probably because the place isn't filled with wannabe Prue and Trudes.
I'm noticing a bit of a pattern.

Camberwell = eastern suburbs, way development unfriendly
Mitcham = eastern suburbs, development unfriendly

Footscray = western suburbs, way development friendly
Moonee Ponds = (roughly) western suburbs, fairly development friendly

Surely it's completely justified to say people in the eastern suburbs are generally idiot NIMBYs.

Leon...

May 8th, 2007, 01:20 AM

This very uninformed, but have they thought of extending the CBD (in terms of heights and towers) into that area north of the hoddle grid, west of e.g. Lygon, and south of the university that seems to be populated by nondescript, medium density businesses?

It always seemed to me that extending the high-density CBD area even further to the east and north (not just Docklands (W) and Southbank (S)) would be a better option than trying to beef-up the suburbs. Particularly in the north, there's already a grid well innervated by e.g. trams and other forms of PT, as well as less traffic congestion generally. And no, I'm not an Eastern suburbs-dweller.

Qantas743

May 8th, 2007, 02:10 AM

It's a fair point in one of the articles about 1000 people a week moving to Melbourne. I don't think there will be enough water to last if we keep getting this population increase. While it's good, maybe if Bracks had thought of an emergency water plan when he should have done, we'd all be celebrating the large population increase instead of being anxious about it.

auslankan

May 8th, 2007, 02:26 AM

wowsim

May 8th, 2007, 02:27 AM

Qantas743

May 8th, 2007, 03:32 AM

Melbourne ideally would stop at around 4 million but that aint gunna happen so lets hope they get the balance right between the city and burbs.
The water problems will eventually sort themselves out as Brumby said we have plenty of money to do the best water project that is proposed.

I can't see it stopping at 4 million. As was said in another thread, it is estimated that Melb's population will reach around 6 million by 2050.

People have to realise that the city is growing and that high-rise projects are needed and that bigger problems will arise if they are rejected. Besides, 99% of projects are really hot looking anyway, aside from the exception of Neo and Eiffel!

Edward

May 8th, 2007, 06:26 AM

Good point, and if i could choose an apartment to live in it would be certainly one with a BIG view. Like the Eureka Tower and not like some of these scrawny little new CBD appartments. Make use of the space you have. Build up!

tayser

June 12th, 2007, 12:10 AM

Just read in the AFR that Herr Madden has hired a planner from Vancouver to do the first audit of the strategy. Sehr Gut. :banana:

Morjo

June 13th, 2007, 02:24 PM

Instead of trying to make 'activity' centers have more high density housing. Why not create more apartments in the CBD and the surrounding inner suburbs. At least then there will be proper PT to support peoples transport needs, instead of having more people being car dependent.
There seems to be heaps of room in the CBD and it's inner suburbs, Melbourne is lucky in that regard.

invincible

June 13th, 2007, 02:48 PM

Activity centres could do well because most of them have good public transport already (think about the ~15 buses per hour that head to Chadstone from Oakleigh, or places like Dandenong or Glen Waverley which are hubs for the bus network) and already attract people from nearby suburbs for shopping, leisure etc.

But of course there's absolutely nothing wrong with increasing density in inner areas too. It sure beats building out in some distant fringe suburb with no proper road network and where PT is unheard of.

It's certainly different to certain American cities. Over here, the wealthy have the best access to public transport while in various cities in the US it's viewed as something that would only bring undesirables to their area.

Leon...

June 13th, 2007, 04:05 PM

I think they should just raise the height limits in all inner suburbs e.g. Carlton, Fitzroy to 7 stories; those whole suburbs are museum pieces with exorbitant prices keeping out the next wave of migrant culture from the city. Dense, more affordable housing = migrants = culture = liveliness = cosmopolitan Melbourne.

Aussie Steve

June 14th, 2007, 12:31 AM

There are very few areas in the inner city with height limits.

And the inner city is already a hive of activity and a mix of cultures, that is why people love the inner city.

Leon...

June 14th, 2007, 01:41 AM

I think the problem is that the CBD isn't that big and its immediate surrounds are all prohibitively expensive and lacking height for our cosmopolitan multiculturalism to expand with population.

Aussie Steve

June 14th, 2007, 02:29 AM

Our CBD is very big and there is plenty of scope for plenty of development. There is also plenty of space for development in the inner city and at major activity centres such as Moorabbin, South Yarra, Glen Waverley, Ringwood, Footscray, Frankston, Dandenong, Coburg, Sunshine, Broadmeadows, Doncaster etc.

Leon...

June 14th, 2007, 04:42 AM

mic

June 14th, 2007, 05:12 AM

Our CBD is not big! It's teensy; half the size of Central Park. There is an undersupply of space. And I disagree with the major activity centres thing; to me it seems an inefficient, unsustainable, environmentally unfriendly, costly way to increase bland suburban culture at the expense of Melbourne's cosmopolitan, urban character. The most culturally engaged inner Melbourne suburbs are pretty much two stories high uniformly and it irritates me!

Sydney CBD is not much bigger in length and width so not sure what you mean.

For Australia Melbourne has a large CBD stretching from the Bolte Bridge East to Parliament and from Southbank to the CUB site.

On world standards its average, but for Australia thats a large area.

Grollo

June 14th, 2007, 05:53 AM

No CBD is big compared to New York and Tokyo.

tayser

June 14th, 2007, 07:13 AM

& London & Paris.

Leon...

June 14th, 2007, 07:14 AM

Perhaps I meant with respect to our population, I think it should be bigger. Sorry, feel free to shut me down here, I'm just harboring some anti-sprawl sentiment at the moment (I live in the suburbs)

mic

June 14th, 2007, 07:20 AM

Perhaps I meant with respect to our population, I think it should be bigger. Sorry, feel free to shut me down here, I'm just harboring some anti-sprawl sentiment at the moment (I live in the suburbs)

We are talking about size in land area.

What are you speaking about?

tayser

June 14th, 2007, 07:21 AM

story of the last 6 years on this forum for me my friend ;)

The Collector

June 14th, 2007, 10:52 AM

^^And me! :yes:

The Collector

June 14th, 2007, 10:55 AM

There is plenty of room for medium to high density residential development in Southbank, Docklands, South Melbourne, West Melbourne, North Melbourne and Richmond and would take many, many years to fill up!! :)

Leon...

June 15th, 2007, 01:00 AM

I guess the above is that for which I am pining

mic

June 15th, 2007, 02:54 AM

I think the problem of Melbourne feeling smaller than what it should is due to the fact there are no buildings between Elizabeth and Russell streets, which is where most of the people are in the city due to the fact that the majority of retail in located in this area. If that were to change, I'm sure Mebourne will 'feel' much bigger. Standing in Bourke street mall can feel like Rundle mall. In the long run the run down nature of the Swanston Street gap needs addressing. I agree that the buildings of merit should be maintained, and protected, but there are many horrendous buildings such the Mecure (Communist Russia 1960) and many opportunities for gentrification along Swaston street that should not be neglected and should be addressed with sensitive and intergrative developments that Melbourne does so well. In the long run, distance future when all available sites within the CBD and Docklands are occupied I think that we will see and should see development along the street. It is envitable.

tayser

July 18th, 2007, 11:42 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/battling-for-affordable-house-watch-this-space/2007/07/18/1184559867736.html

Battling for affordable house? Watch this space

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/07/18/sw_railyard_wideweb__470x266,0.jpg

The West Melbourne rail yards may be up for commercial and residential development.
Photo: John Woudstra
Cameron Houston and Royce Millar
July 19, 2007

ONE of inner Melbourne's largest vacant sites has been earmarked as the city's newest residential precinct and is expected to be a showcase for the State Government initiatives in "affordable" housing.

The 20-hectare property in West Melbourne is owned by government rail property agency VicTrack, which recently appointed Major Projects Victoria to assess the prime site, less than a kilometre from the CBD. The Major Projects report is due by the end of the year.

VicTrack property director Don Welsh said the land was "incredibly strategic" because of its proximity to the CBD, Docklands and the Port of Melbourne.

"We don't have any preconceived view of what the optimum use of the land will be, but obviously the best interests of Melbourne will need to be taken into account," Mr Welsh said.

Several government sources said that a mixed-use development was under consideration, and was likely to include a large component of "affordable" housing.

"It's going to have commercial space similar to the Docklands, but there will be a much greater emphasis on high-density development, particularly affordable housing," one source said.

Mr Welsh said the site was extremely important, but almost impossible to put a price on.

Government insiders estimate the land alone to be worth between $200 million and $300 million.

The property, occupied by BlueScope Steel under a lease that expires in 2014, is bounded by Footscray Road and Dudley Street and next to Waterfront City at Docklands. It would require extensive decontamination work before development could begin.

Negotiations are under way to find a new home for the steel operation before 2014.

The Government has not decided what percentage of the development will be devoted to social housing, but is under pressure to tackle the problem of declining affordability.

The arrangements under which the site would be developed are not yet known.

In the run-up to this year's federal election, the issue is a major source of tension between state and federal governments.

Federal Treasurer Peter Costello has urged the states to identify and release surplus government land for residential development. He has also pointed to state-imposed growth boundaries and state imposts, including stamp duty and land tax, as key causes of high house costs.

Victorian Planning Minister Justin Madden yesterday described Mr Costello's demand for an audit of government land as a "smokescreen" for his failure to meet his election promise to keep interest rates at record lows.

Mr Madden said Melbourne had a 25-year supply of land, including 80,000 lots of zoned residential land.

A recent report from the Housing Industry Association found that the median price of a vacant residential lot in Melbourne was $155,000, compared with the national average of $253,000.

But while there is no shortage of housing development on Melbourne's periphery, the State Government is under pressure over its failure to achieve higher-density housing development in established suburbs in line with its metropolitan planning strategy, Melbourne 2030.

Last month's census data was an embarrassment for the Government, revealing that more than 60 per cent of Melbourne's population growth in the five years to 2006 had been on the city fringe.

Under its 2030 strategy, the Government wants to reduce greenfield growth to about 30 per cent.

___________

eh high-density could mean great big tenement districts of 5-6 levels jam packed next to each other. But all in all.... bring it?

Aussie Steve

July 19th, 2007, 12:14 AM

Why isn't there affordable housing integrated into the Docklands? Cos the State & Fed Govt don't want to upset any developer, the same will happen here, if this ever gets redeveloped, which I can't see it happening any time soon, considering the vast open spaces still available at the Docklands

dockman

July 19th, 2007, 01:42 AM

Developers will be all over it. All the sites at Docklands are pretty much gone. And if the government is subsidising it, then there's not necessarily any reduction in profit.

The Collector

July 19th, 2007, 02:55 AM

We NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, no one will deny that.
We also know that the vast amount of affordable housing that is built is crap.
Reason for this, is that you need to build it cheaply to make it affordable.

Developers need to make a profit, so the only way for them to build affordable housing is to make it a small token component of the development with the rest subsidizing it.

The only way we will get any decent amount of affordable housing built at this site, that will actually look good and be built well, will be if the State Government subsidized it without the bottom line being the motive.

Chance of that happening…….NIL! :2cents:

CP Doom

July 19th, 2007, 08:19 AM

Yes, bracks has so much conviction that any developer need only say "we are not going to do a cheap housing lot" to make it government policy.

dockman

July 19th, 2007, 09:37 AM

Admittedly, to stop it becoming a slum, almost certainly it would be sorta a half affordable, have normal resi per building. It's entirely possible as long as the government subsidises it, and then it is managed by one of the affordable housing mobs.

Grollo

July 20th, 2007, 04:50 PM

West Melbourne rail yards:
http://web.aanet.com.au/nmharrison/melbourne%20winter/north%20west%20melbourne%20forum.jpg

Drunkill

July 20th, 2007, 05:32 PM

Phoar, nice pano there grollz.

mic

July 21st, 2007, 03:38 AM

I think this space has been crying out for development! Great idea to introduce affordable housing, it will increase density and remove the general industrial wasteland look that has been a drag on the west Melbourne frontage for many decades. By developing this area will create more of a buzz for Docklands as there will be more people passing through the district.

Don't know if the views from Southern Star are going to be great looking west over the port area. :?

Morjo

July 21st, 2007, 08:51 AM

I hope when they mean 'affordable' housing they don't mean something that will end up like the housing commissions in Richmond or Collingwood.

dockman

July 23rd, 2007, 02:12 AM

btw, the bit that Grollo has taken a photo of is not the site. It's the railyards on Footscray Rd, across from Waterfront City.

Grollo

July 23rd, 2007, 04:12 PM

That is a picture of the rail yards on Footscray Road across from waterfront city, except for the rail lines in the foreground that will be retained :-)

dockman

July 24th, 2007, 12:41 AM

See, this is what happens when you don't realise that the picture is a panorama....... :nuts: Apologies.

OzFrog

July 27th, 2007, 10:46 AM

And a broader overview of the current West Melbourne railyards from Rialto today:

http://ozfrog.thehoddlegrid.net/construction/WestMelbourneRailyards20070727.jpg

Muse

August 11th, 2007, 11:35 AM

From The Age - Weds 8 August 2007

Shaping the future of Melbourne

Marc Pallisco

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/Muse11/melsuburbs1.jpg

Battle lines have been drawn in the sand as planners and protest groups debate our sprawling suburbs. Marc Pallisco reports.

The contentious Melbourne 2030 planning controls continue to divide the community. On the one hand, some industry experts warn Melbourne could become another overextended Los Angeles if we don't halt the urban spread. Meanwhile, protest groups in suburb after suburb complain of higher-density living being foisted upon them. They claim their neighbourhoods are in danger of losing their character.

Somewhere in between these factions may be the future Melbourne.

When the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal granted former AFL footballer Fraser Brown approval to build two high-rise apartment towers in the leafy and rather sleepy suburb of Mitcham in 2004, the issue of planning became a major black mark for the State Government - despite it, too, being surprised by the decision.

The Government's Melbourne 2030 policy, which promotes higher-density living around existing roads and public transport, was then five years old. The policy controversially outlines an "urban growth boundary" on the city's outskirts, telling developers they should build up, rather than out, within this demarcation.

At the time, several high-profile planning disputes were under way, with celebrities Barry Humphries and Geoffrey Rush weighing in on the debate. But even the idea of a major shopping centre in Camberwell's Burke Road retail strip seemed less outrageous than two 17-storey and 11-storey apartment buildings in the outer-eastern suburb of Mitcham.

After more than a year, the project was shelved and the site is now for sale - not because of VCAT-led efforts to build the towers, but because developers couldn't make the numbers work.

Builders said they would need to charge more than $300,000 for a two-bedroom apartment, which was more than an established home on a large block in Mitcham at the time.

The Mitcham project raised awareness of the Melbourne 2030 policy, which continues to enrage community lobby groups fearful the character of our suburbs could deteriorate. It has also failed to inspire the developers, who were left virtually no room for profits, after land and construction costs. It brought to the forefront one of planners' biggest problems: containing urban sprawl while preventing inappropriate developments.

Despite the Mitcham high-rise towers, and proposals for apartment complexes in other low-density suburbs, Melbourne 2030 does have its supporters, in particular those in the planning industry. Some warn Melbourne could suffer a sprawling case of "Los Angelism" unless it becomes a more compact city.

Melbourne's metropolitan area already covers more kilometres than most other cities with a similar population. And that's without the extra million people expected to call Melbourne home over the next 25 years.

The Property Council of Australia's Victorian executive director, Jennifer Cunich, says local government should be allowed to develop policy in line with the State Government. But, she says, too often when it comes to putting policy into practice, policy is undermined by neighbourhood-level politics.

"Often, councillors are elected to office on a specific local planning issue which may potentially compromise their objectivity in planning decisions," she says. "The property council believes that planning decisions should be made by expert independent panels set up by local councils. Councils should focus their work on broader planning policy rather than individual cases."

While the theory behind Melbourne 2030 makes sense, the problem is that the public isn't accepting it as a way it wants to live, says Clem Newton-Brown, a former deputy lord mayor and head of the planning group at law firm Home Wilkinson Lowry.

"The other issue is that it doesn't stack up financially for developers except in inner-city areas where land values are high," Mr Newton-Brown says.

"Melbourne 2030 is being used as a cover for all developments that push the envelope. There's anxiety in the inner suburbs because higher-density living is being proposed everywhere, not just near activity centres. Almost every suburb now has its own protest group."

Most planning issues are dealt with by local council staff. Common areas of dispute include when construction works are undesirable (for example, they disrupt views, affect privacy, impact on lifestyle and put pressure on scarce local resources); will put pressure on existing facilities; and, perhaps the most contentious, are not in character with the area.

"Council may object to part of a project, but if you go through the process with them, you can often come up with a resolution," Mr Newton-Brown says. "However, given the appeal rights to VCAT, it could be argued that councils have extremely limited powers because their decisions are subject to appeal.

"I encourage people to get experts involved at the early stage. There's no point getting an architect to design a dream house when a planner can tell before any plans are even drawn that there is no hope of the project being approved for the street."

Mr Newton-Brown says policies covering most municipalities tend to favour urban consolidation and regeneration.

Also, he says, political influences can play a big part in the planning process at council level, although VCAT looks at projects purely at a planning level.

"A lot of people are suspicious about VCAT being a forum where developers are favoured, but this is not true. The community should be confident that when a matter gets to VCAT, it's a fresh hearing heard by independent people who have planning qualifications or related disciplines. It doesn't matter what political lobbying has gone on beforehand."

State vs the People

Government intervention remains one of the hottest issues in planning, with relations between the State Government, lobbyists, councils and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal very rocky at times.

Most of the recent public controversy has stemmed from the approval of high-rise apartment blocks in suburbs such as Mitcham, Ringwood and Mount Waverley.

The state argues that higher-density development in established areas is necessary to house a growing population.

But the residents are not being won over.

The planning document Melbourne 2030 is not the first in which a government has identified activity areas and put money into regenerating them.

The outer south-eastern suburbs of Dandenong and Frankston, for example, underwent development in the 1970s and '80s. But the attempts failed, and left tired office buildings dotting the skyline.

The battle between the Government and councils over planning control intensified in 2005, when Planning Minister Rob Hulls seized power over the controversial Lombard Paper site in Flemington, which had been destroyed by fire.

A month later, Mr Hulls approved a planning permit for a 140-unit apartment block and retail complex.

The Victorian Government said the site was one of state significance and that it would be redeveloped in time for the opening of the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games. It was not.

Whether the approval was sped through because of ALP connections with the developer or because it put too much faith in the private sector to develop the site on time remains a mystery. Regardless, industry analysts agree it left egg on the State Government's face.

Plan ahead, plan on having the best-laid plans . . . that's the plan.

A planning permit is one of several certificates required before extending a property, building a house or developing a unit or apartment project.

Councils recommend applicants research planning policies or guidelines that may apply to a proposed development and engaging a design or planning consultant is recommended for larger projects.

Most councils want three copies of plans, fully dimensioned and drawn to scale, and a copy of the property's title, an application form and a letter explaining the proposal.

The planning process provides anyone with an interest in a proposed development to get involved.

Notice must be given to neighbouring owners and occupiers, and any other person likely to be affected by the plans.

Applications may be advertised.

Members of the community are able to view applications and request a meeting with the applicant to discuss the proposal.

Common reasons cited for objection include noise, impact of privacy, shadows and environmental impacts involving the removal of trees.

Objections must be in writing to council and state exactly how a development affects the individual. It is recommended suggestions are offered as to how an application can be improved.

Muse

September 19th, 2007, 03:06 AM

From today's AFR. BTW Does the title refer to new pollies @ the helm? ;) Anyway, something needs to happen.

Call for new tools to fix 2030 vision

Mark Phillips

Weds 17 Sept 2007

Victorian councils have called for the introduction of new planning tools such as "vertical zoning" and for increased spending on infrastructure, including public transport, to get the state government's Melbourne 2030 strategy back on track.

In a submission to the government's audit of the planning blueprint, the Municipal Association of Victoria has lso recommended higher housing densities in new fringe suburbs, and the introduction of inclusionary zoning to increase the supply of affordable housing.

MAV president Dick Gross - a councillor with the inner bayside City of Port Phillip - said councils remained a supporter of Melbourne 2030, but more tools were needed to implement the policy. These tools could include vertical zoning, and specific "no go", "slow go" and "go go" zones for residential infill.

The MAV has also recommended a higher density of dwellings per hactare in greenfield developments near the urban growth boundary - current densities are typically 10 to 15 per hectare - and a specified range of dwellings to provide housing diversity and affordability.

Councillor Gross said there was a need for a more co-oridinated state government approach; for example, more funding for public transport priorities. Councils also want more clearly defined guidelines for state government intervention in local planning matters - particularly around the use of the Priority Development Panel, which is intended to determine projects of state and regional significance, but which has been used to circumvent council decsion making.

"Overall, we support Melbourne 2030 and we understand the basic thrust, but we want councils' integrity maintained, the state government to have a whole of government appraoch and more tools. They're our three big asks."

The state government has insisted that the audit of Melbourne 2030, five years after the strategy was first released, will not result in it abandoning its basic principles.

Melbourne 2030 aspires to slow urban sprawl, protect green wedge areas on the urban fringe and encourage higher-density development around public transport as the city absorbs one million extra residents.

But in its first five years, it has struggled to achieve its aims and has been dogged by community opposition to high housing densities and commercial development in some established inner-city suburbs, such as the campaign against the development of the Camberwell railway station led by actors Geoffrey Rush and Barry Humphries.

Submissions to the audit close on Monday.

Muse

September 19th, 2007, 03:08 AM

From today's AFR. BTW Does the title refer to new pollies @ the helm? ;) Anyway, something needs to happen.

Call for new tools to fix 2030 vision

Mark Phillips

Weds 17 Sept 2007

Victorian councils have called for the introduction of new planning tools such as "vertical zoning" and for increased spending on infrastructure, including public transport, to get the state government's Melbourne 2030 strategy back on track.

In a submission to the government's audit of the planning blueprint, the Municipal Association of Victoria has also recommended higher housing densities in new fringe suburbs, and the introduction of inclusionary zoning to increase the supply of affordable housing.

MAV president Dick Gross - a councillor with the inner bayside City of Port Phillip - said councils remained a supporter of Melbourne 2030, but more tools were needed to implement the policy. These tools could include vertical zoning, and specific "no go", "slow go" and "go go" zones for residential infill.

The MAV has also recommended a higher density of dwellings per hactare in greenfield developments near the urban growth boundary - current densities are typically 10 to 15 per hectare - and a specified range of dwellings to provide housing diversity and affordability.

Councillor Gross said there was a need for a more co-oridinated state government approach; for example, more funding for public transport priorities. Councils also want more clearly defined guidelines for state government intervention in local planning matters - particularly around the use of the Priority Development Panel, which is intended to determine projects of state and regional significance, but which has been used to circumvent council decsion making.

"Overall, we support Melbourne 2030 and we understand the basic thrust, but we want councils' integrity maintained, the state government to have a whole of government approach and more tools. They're our three big asks."

The state government has insisted that the audit of Melbourne 2030, five years after the strategy was first released, will not result in it abandoning its basic principles.

Melbourne 2030 aspires to slow urban sprawl, protect green wedge areas on the urban fringe and encourage higher-density development around public transport as the city absorbs one million extra residents.

But in its first five years, it has struggled to achieve its aims and has been dogged by community opposition to high housing densities and commercial development in some established inner-city suburbs, such as the campaign against the development of the Camberwell railway station led by actors Geoffrey Rush and Barry Humphries.

Submissions to the audit close on Monday.

Blabbyboy

September 21st, 2007, 07:57 AM

Low cost housing should not be low quality housing. It should either be located in places where land is cheaper, and/or smaller units of housing, and/or higher density housing. The last thing we want is cheaply (and hence poorly) built housing.

NIMBYs DIE!!! Camberwell station is not worth saving - it is not high in heritage value, there are almost identical stations like Hartwell and it is not particularly aesthetically pleasing (particularly given its context, surrounded by a car park on Burke Rd. Redevelopment is an opportunity to provide more commuter parking, modern up-to-date facilities employing new technology, latest design techniques and environmentally sustainable features (eg rainwater collection) and that's all before we consider the commercial and other development opportunities.

gappa

September 21st, 2007, 10:22 AM

NIMBYs DIE!!! Camberwell station is not worth saving - it is not high in heritage value, there are almost identical stations like Hartwell and it is not particularly aesthetically pleasing (particularly given its context, surrounded by a car park on Burke Rd. Redevelopment is an opportunity to provide more commuter parking, modern up-to-date facilities employing new technology, latest design techniques and environmentally sustainable features (eg rainwater collection) and that's all before we consider the commercial and other development opportunities.

The proposed development leaves the current station alone, it only builds over the rail lines and the commuter carpark. Why Barry and co think a carpark is worth saving is beyond me.

Garmatt

September 21st, 2007, 11:37 AM

Why should Barry even have one iota of a say in this development anyway? He's done nothing in recent times but make it clear that he thinks Australia is a cultural backwater.
Quotes like "Melbourne is 12 hours away from somewhere really interesting", or in his interview with the Little Britain lads where he ask "how long are you away from England?"
"6 weeks"
"too long!"

He can f**k off back to England and let people who really care about Melbourne deal with it's future development! He takes the piss out of 1950's Melbourne as being the most boring place on the planet, but campaigns for it to stay in the 1950's. The guys a jerk!

invincible

September 21st, 2007, 08:22 PM

Camberwell Station is just a big void facing Burke Road - the fact that the railway line is well below road level and the station building is set back a fair distance doesn't help.

Brendan

September 23rd, 2007, 04:56 AM

Camberwell Station is just a big void facing Burke Road - the fact that the railway line is well below road level and the station building is set back a fair distance doesn't help.

It does not help the slightest. You are absolutely correct.

Leon...

September 24th, 2007, 01:36 AM

Low cost housing should not be low quality housing. It should either be located in places where land is cheaper, and/or smaller units of housing, and/or higher density housing. The last thing we want is cheaply (and hence poorly) built housing.

I agree. There's no point in the government trying to force down prices in the city artificially: all that means is necessary political control over the art/artists and the distribution of the spaces arbitrarily among applicants. The only answers are less artists or more inner-city/inner-suburban spaces, and the latter means less restrictions not more.

Qantas743

September 24th, 2007, 01:46 AM

AUSTRALIA'S largest property developer wants to build a new suburb the size of Shepparton 30 kilometres to the north of Melbourne that would controversially stretch the city's boundaries.

The $4.5 billion Delfin Lend Lease project, one of the largest single developments in Melbourne's history, is just beyond the State Government's urban growth boundary.

The scheme, known as Lockerbie, would involve turning farmland next to the Hume Highway at Kalkallo into 13,000 lots to house up to 35,000 people. That is more than 50 per cent bigger than Delfin's other large-scale Victorian project at Caroline Springs in Melbourne's west.

Delfin is pitching Lockerbie to the Government as an innovative, green community. As a sweetener, it is offering to pay for public transport infrastructure, including a V/Line railway station and a bus network.

In its lobbying, the company is spruiking Lockerbie's environmental credentials, including measures to reduce drinkable water use by 70 per cent and energy use by more than a third. Delfin is also highlighting the project's economic benefits for the north of Melbourne and its boost to housing supply.

The proposal is a dilemma for the State Government. On the one hand, the offer of a model green suburb with infrastructure paid for will be attractive to frugal Premier John Brumby, who has made improved urban-fringe living a high priority.

On the other, it would require the Government to agree to extend the boundary it introduced to slow urban sprawl as part of its growth strategy, Melbourne 2030.

Planning Minister Justin Madden was non-committal on the likelihood of Lockerbie winning approval.

He stressed that the Government stood by Melbourne 2030 and the growth boundary.

Mr Madden said developers often "speculated" on land outside the boundary and proposed "great" ideas that did not conform with planning guidelines. "We give all those developers who are seeking planning endorsement a hearing, but we rely on policy, we rely on what the community needs," he said.

La Trobe University planning academic Trevor Budge said Lockerbie had "real potential" as a sustainable project, but he was concerned that it was at odds with Melbourne 2030.

He said the proposal was embarrassing for the Government. "The Government has brought this pressure on themselves … if they'd only delivered on providing infrastructure to (existing growth) corridors they wouldn't be fighting off Delfin who say, 'We'll build a train station'," he said.

Delfin Lend Lease chief operating officer Bryce Moore said with 13,000 lots on 1100 hectares, Lockerbie would use less land per house than other big projects.

"We see Lockerbie as a project where we have to address the transport challenges of outer-suburban communities and address the water and energy issues that are raised as problems with outer-suburban development," he said.

Mr Moore said that as a large developer, Delfin had the ability to build up the suburb over time, including the full range of community and commercial facilities.

He said he was hopeful the Government would move the growth boundary.

The Lockerbie proposal comes amid revelations by The Age that Australia's largest developers, including Delfin Lend Lease, were stockpiling land at the same time as concern was growing about dwindling supply and rising prices.

In the past financial year the six largest publicly listed developers acquired more than 38,000 more lots than they sold across Australia.

Alfredo Garofalo, who bought the Kalkallo Hotel five years ago, welcomed the news of the possible new suburb of Lockerbie.

"Right now, this is the last pub from here to Albury. But give it 15 years and we'll be surrounded," he said. "It will be good for business. We do 700 meals a week now. We'll do more then."

With CLAY LUCAS

Expanding Melbourne
■ 34,000 people (bigger than Shepparton)

■ 13,000 homes on 1100 hectares

■ 30 kilometres north of city

■ On Sydney-Melbourne rail line

■ Developer Delfin Lend Lease has an option on the land, but needs State Government approval because it is just outside the urban growth boundary set under 2030