Future Melbourne - the hunt for big ideas

[Auxodium]

make Melbourne city council like Brisbanes a large one capable of building large projects and run PT.

[Alphaville]

I'll quote myself to a previous thread on the topic.

Originally Posted by Alphaville

With alot of debate about the extent Australia could be said to be "over-governed" - there is much to be said about the LGA's of Melbourne. While I like the way Australia operates with its three tiers of Government-- I still believe Melbourne should have less and larger LGA's created back when Kennett amalgamated councils in 1994.

I'm really not for or against this idea -- just throwing it out there, and seeing the power the Brisbane LGA is able to wield not just on a state level- but national, it makes me wonder whether Melbourne should follow Brisbane's lead on this one.

Larger population's in an LGA can give that Council more power to step up support for implication of infrastructure -- but in saying that it could be sacrificing the voice of a small community, the voice of individual suburbs could be lost.

Here is a map of Melbourne's current LGA's -- and I have coloured in Council's I think could make practical mergers.




If you are don't know which council is which (in the smaller areas it looks as confusing as a map of former Yugoslavia!) I've grouped them:

CITY OF GREY
Melbourne
Hobson's Bay
Maribyrnong
Moonee Valley
Moreland
Darebin
Banyule
Yarra
Boroondara
Stonnington
Glen Eira
Bayside
Port Phillip

(total population with 2006 figures is about 1.4 million)

CITY OF OLIVE
Wyndham
Melton

CITY OF DARK RED

Brimbank
Hume


CITY OF TEAL
Whittlesea
Nillumbik

CITY OF DARK GREEN
Yarra Ranges (ok this beast shoulden't get any bigger)


CITY OF BROWN
Cardinia
Casey

CITY OF BLUE
Frankston
Mornington Peninsula

CITY OF TAN
Bayside
Greater Dandenong
Knox
Monash

CITY OF NAVY
Manningham
Whitehorse
Maroondah

These latter councils collectivly contain about 2.4 million.

Whadda ya think?

[Londoner]

I'm not sure that 'City of Grey' will win the marketing slogan of the year <g>

When they merged councils together in Melbourne 15 or years ago, did they consider different sizes of grouping?

[auslankan]

Originally Posted by Londoner

I'm not sure that 'City of Grey' will win the marketing slogan of the year <g>

When they merged councils together in Melbourne 15 or years ago, did they consider different sizes of grouping?

I think you will find it was more about population density in the inner Melbourne suburbs.

[Auxodium]

Originally Posted by Alphaville

I'll quote myself to a previous thread on the topic.

i like the idea i think that Perth should do the same.

[BleakCity]

Originally Posted by Alphaville

I'm really not for or against this idea -- just throwing it out there, and seeing the power the Brisbane LGA is able to wield not just on a state level- but national, it makes me wonder whether Melbourne should follow Brisbane's lead on this one.

Do you really want to give that level of power to the fools?

ie. TransApex

[Benjuk]

I may be a tad off topic here, but I'm sure someone can explain this to me... How come so much building work is going on yet there are so many empty towers (I'm thinking particularly down at the legal end of town)?

Surely one way to improve the city would be to concentrate on maximizing the CBD - tidy up all of the buildings and fill them up with tennants.

I'd also improve public transport by creating super-bus lanes running down the middle of all the major city bound freeways, allowing more busses to travel at higher speeds in and out of the city, and taking the strain off the trains... I assume this would be cheaper to do that building extra train lines, stations, buying more rolling stock, etc.

An even more radical idea would be to create a 'CBD 2', and turning one of the out suburbs into a major business centre. I understand that the whole point of the CBD is to have everything in the same place, but I think that a second location, perhaps to the north of the city, nearer Tullamarine, would encourage further growth in that area rather than intensifying the suburbs around the CBD.

[melbournee12]

Originally Posted by Benjuk

I may be a tad off topic here, but I'm sure someone can explain this to me... How come so much building work is going on yet there are so many empty towers (I'm thinking particularly down at the legal end of town)?

Surely one way to improve the city would be to concentrate on maximizing the CBD - tidy up all of the buildings and fill them up with tennants.

Melbourne CBD's vacancy rate is at its lowest since the late 1980's i think i read its at 3.4%? so there is demand for all these towers getting built, also most towers these days like to obtain a significant pre-commitment before they will start construction.

[BleakCity]

Maybe he means buildings like the ex-Telecom 'thing' opposite the Supreme Court?

Originally Posted by Benjuk

I assume this would be cheaper to do that building extra train lines, stations, buying more rolling stock, etc.

No

[invincible]

Originally Posted by Benjuk

An even more radical idea would be to create a 'CBD 2', and turning one of the out suburbs into a major business centre. I understand that the whole point of the CBD is to have everything in the same place, but I think that a second location, perhaps to the north of the city, nearer Tullamarine, would encourage further growth in that area rather than intensifying the suburbs around the CBD.

For some perspective, Dandenong has (had?) the most office space outside of the CBD and its surrounds, and there hasn't been any major development there for the past two decades, except for Dandenong Plaza which is now being killed off by Fountain Gate. Dandenong as a whole isn't doing all that well in past decades. It's not that easy to create new centres.

There is also a lot of space in places like Mulgrave but nothing comes close to the CBD and nowhere else has the "prestige".

Anyway, there will always be some empty space left over, but probably none of it is suitable for the big companies - the ones that have the clout to start or kill projects. There has been a lot of growth recently too - Deloitte has run out of space in QV and is moving out even though that building has only been occupied for about 4 years.

[Tyson]

Creating a "CBD 2" from scratch would be difficult almost to the point of impossible I would imagine. Creating a business park is one thing but to create a something that is actually worthy of being called a CBD is something different entirely.

I can't really imagine how you would begin such a project and what measures you could possibly put in place which would, in effect, direct an otherwise free market into the direction you want it to take.

[cw_g4]

The revitalisation of central Dandenong, is suppose to create a second mini CBD is it not? A 'capital of Melbourne's south east'.

For those who haven't read about it, details of the project are available here: http://www.vicurban.com/cs/Satellite...&site=VicUrban

[tayser]

We've heard of it, Dandenong has its own dedicated thread.

[Leon...]

An article from the NY Times which, I think, has some applicability to Melbourne's situation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/op...prod=permalink

Stranded in Suburbia by Paul Krugman
19/5/08

I have seen the future, and it works.

O.K., I know that these days you’re supposed to see the future in China or India, not in the heart of “old Europe.”

But we’re living in a world in which oil prices keep setting records, in which the idea that global oil production will soon peak is rapidly moving from fringe belief to mainstream assumption. And Europeans who have achieved a high standard of living in spite of very high energy prices — gas in Germany costs more than $8 a gallon — have a lot to teach us about how to deal with that world.

If Europe’s example is any guide, here are the two secrets of coping with expensive oil: own fuel-efficient cars, and don’t drive them too much.

Notice that I said that cars should be fuel-efficient — not that people should do without cars altogether. In Germany, as in the United States, the vast majority of families own cars (although German households are less likely than their U.S. counterparts to be multiple-car owners).

But the average German car uses about a quarter less gas per mile than the average American car. By and large, the Germans don’t drive itsy-bitsy toy cars, but they do drive modest-sized passenger vehicles rather than S.U.V.’s and pickup trucks.

In the near future I expect we’ll see Americans moving down the same path. We’ve already done it once: over the course of the 1970s and 1980s, the average mileage of U.S. passenger vehicles rose about 50 percent, as Americans switched to smaller, lighter cars.

This improvement stalled with the rise of S.U.V.’s during the cheap-gas 1990s. But now that gas costs more than ever before, even after adjusting for inflation, we can expect to see mileage rise again.

Admittedly, the next few years will be rough for families who bought big vehicles when gas was cheap, and now find themselves the owners of white elephants with little trade-in value. But raising fuel efficiency is something we can and will do.

Can we also drive less? Yes — but getting there will be a lot harder.

There have been many news stories in recent weeks about Americans who are changing their behavior in response to expensive gasoline — they’re trying to shop locally, they’re canceling vacations that involve a lot of driving, and they’re switching to public transit.

But none of it amounts to much. For example, some major public transit systems are excited about ridership gains of 5 or 10 percent. But fewer than 5 percent of Americans take public transit to work, so this surge of riders takes only a relative handful of drivers off the road.

Any serious reduction in American driving will require more than this — it will mean changing how and where many of us live.

To see what I’m talking about, consider where I am at the moment: in a pleasant, middle-class neighborhood consisting mainly of four- or five-story apartment buildings, with easy access to public transit and plenty of local shopping.

It’s the kind of neighborhood in which people don’t have to drive a lot, but it’s also a kind of neighborhood that barely exists in America, even in big metropolitan areas. Greater Atlanta has roughly the same population as Greater Berlin — but Berlin is a city of trains, buses and bikes, while Atlanta is a city of cars, cars and cars.

And in the face of rising oil prices, which have left many Americans stranded in suburbia — utterly dependent on their cars, yet having a hard time affording gas — it’s starting to look as if Berlin had the better idea.

Changing the geography of American metropolitan areas will be hard. For one thing, houses last a lot longer than cars. Long after today’s S.U.V.’s have become antique collectors’ items, millions of people will still be living in subdivisions built when gas was $1.50 or less a gallon.

Infrastructure is another problem. Public transit, in particular, faces a chicken-and-egg problem: it’s hard to justify transit systems unless there’s sufficient population density, yet it’s hard to persuade people to live in denser neighborhoods unless they come with the advantage of transit access.

And there are, as always in America, the issues of race and class. Despite the gentrification that has taken place in some inner cities, and the plunge in national crime rates to levels not seen in decades, it will be hard to shake the longstanding American association of higher-density living with poverty and personal danger.

Still, if we’re heading for a prolonged era of scarce, expensive oil, Americans will face increasingly strong incentives to start living like Europeans — maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.

[Benjuk]

Originally Posted by melbournee12

Melbourne CBD's vacancy rate is at its lowest since the late 1980's i think i read its at 3.4%? so there is demand for all these towers getting built, also most towers these days like to obtain a significant pre-commitment before they will start construction.

Cool. I have the strange experience of walking past the large vacant buildings just down from Flagstaff every day, Little Bourke and going past the big new development there... It always baffled me that a new building was 'required' when such large empty ones were right next door... The empty ones are ugly anyway, hope they get flattened shortly and replaced by new ones.

[Wilko]

Good post Leon..., electric cars, although not a real viable alternative for the short to medium term for those who drive long distance out in regional areas or the burbs, if realeased on the market, would people purchase them if initially subsidised by the governement or given tax breaks?

Would electric cars be viable as a second family car where it's only purpose is to drop the kids off at school, go to the local supermarket or gym. Or those who drive 10 - 50km a day around the inner city only and would be happy to have them on charge overnight?

Having researched the oil embargo of the 1970's and the prospect of hitting peak production back in the 80's makes me wonder why western societies have continued their expansion of sprawl and oil reliance 30 years after such a shock without question, today I look back since and think governements and the general public have done sweet F/A. This latest oil shock needs to continue long enough for change to occur.

I shake my head at the Eddington report and agree that European cities were always planned right from the begining. America and to a lesser extent, Australia, Canada etc have been living in a fools paradise.

[A r c h i]

The wiki's up and running:

http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/wiki/view/FMPlan

[Leon...]

I'm pretty much fully in agreement with the following excellent article from The Age:

Living Within Our Means

The Age - Rob Adams
May 26, 2008
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinio...653847040.html

SINCE 2006 — the year the world woke up to climate change — our search has been for big, new solutions for a big problem, billion dollar solutions, often untested. It may seem naive to suggest, but perhaps the solutions already exist and they are not necessarily expensive.

Cities are responsible for more than 70% of the world's emissions — and 80% of Australians live in cities (compared with 50% worldwide). So if we are to tame global warming, we need to make our cities liveable, sustainable and economically viable. As 80% of the infrastructure that will exist in cities by 2030 already exists today, the larger challenge is how to reconfigure our existing infrastructure to achieve a sustainable future.

If I were offered any city in the world to take to zero emissions by 2030 I would choose Barcelona (pictured). At 200 people per hectare Barcelona is one of the world's most dense, mixed-use cities, a place where you can walk locally to service all your needs. It has 40% open space made up of fine streets and public spaces that sustain a vibrant social and cultural life. Its perimeter blocks provide a clear definition between public and private space with inwardly oriented courtyards that allow its citizens to enjoy an inner tranquillity alongside the bustling city streets. Streets are well serviced by public transport. All of this vibrant life is contained within a uniform built-form of seven stories, where every building has equal access to the most abundant renewable energy source, the sun. By simply converting the roofs of Barcelona to solar collectors you go 70% of the way to zero emissions. Given Barcelona is not a bad place to live, this suggests that sustainability is possible and not the "hair shirt" existence many of us may fear.

When characteristics such as density, mixed use, connectivity, high-quality public realm, local character and adaptability come together in a city, as they do in Barcelona, they provide an alchemy of sustainability, social benefit and economic vitality.

So how can this inform Melbourne 2030? With its new residential population, improved public realm and transition from a central business district to a central activities district, the city centre has many of the positive qualities of cities like Barcelona.

The challenge is the sprawling metropolis. How can we reconfigure the suburbs and the fringe, where the cost of petrol and the tyranny of distance are making these areas increasingly difficult, financially, socially and environmentally, for their citizens?

The State Government's 2030 strategy provides a sound base. The principle is that activity centres need to be developed as mini-versions of central Melbourne with higher densities, quality streets, a mixture of uses and good access to public transport. These centres could be connected by a "Linear Barcelona", where all designated transport streets, be they tram or bus, were given as-of-right planning approval to build to six stories and for a depth of about 100 metres from the road. Heritage buildings and public parks would be protected and the roads calmed in favour of public transport, bicycles and pedestrians with limited car access. If the increased value of these properties were partially captured and used to provide affordable housing then this approach would deliver a web of high-density, mixed-use corridors linking activity centres supported by a quality public transport system within easy walking distance of the adjacent suburban areas.

The next challenge would be to position the adjacent suburban areas in a more positive light. These should become the new "green wedges" where increased input tariffs for green energy would make the generating of energy a financially beneficial endeavour, as is the case in Germany. All households would become mini power stations feeding green energy into the grid during the day, while most people are at work, and then drawing it out of a base load at night or from batteries stored within the house. This would maximise the efficiency of the existing power distribution infrastructure and minimise the need for future coal-fired power stations. If you consider that a 50-square-kilometre solar collector is sufficient to service the total energy needs of Australia, surely our suburbs are part of the solution? In addition, streets could be planted with more trees, providing sequestration, and water could be collected and re-used.

Can this scenario happen? If we look at St Kilda Road, or the top end of Swanston Street by the University we notice that for the past decade we have actually seen the emergence of this model, densities have risen and streets have started to be calmed. Until recently the top of Swanston Street was home to low-rise car rental offices and service areas. Ten years ago the height limits were lifted to 30 metres on the condition that new development produced affordable housing with active frontages at street level.

Today the street is transformed with apartment buildings, cafes and restaurants flowing onto the tree-lined street where trams and bicycles take priority. You do not need a huge leap of imagination to expand this approach to the rest of our public transport corridors.

As for our suburbs (the new green wedges), until last week solar power was getting cheaper, having dropped 20% in cost in the past few years; the State Government's input tariff of 60 cents per kilowatt hour is an improvement on the current 17 cents. Unfortunately, the Federal Government's recent changes to solar grants is a backward step but I hope it will be reversed after the release of the Garnaut Report later this year.

We no longer have the luxury of waiting for a "silver bullet" to halt global warming, particularly as the solutions already exist. For example, in the design and construction of the six-star Council House 2 building in Little Collins Street, all the technologies used to reduce its greenhouse gases to a mere 13% already existed. Ironically the most efficient technology was the ability to open the windows for four hours at night in summer to allow the building to cool down naturally, saving 20% of its energy.

Nearly 40 years of urban design has taught me that if you design a good street you design a good city. Surely the time has come to apply a modicum of common sense, learning from past models rather than sitting like frogs in an increasingly warming pot hoping someone will find a clever new way to turn off the gas.

Professor Rob Adams, AM, is director of design and urban environment for the City of Melbourne.

[Future_Melbourne]

Hi all, I just stumbled on to this forum and was surprised to find such a lengthy discussion about the Future Melbourne project! Some really interesting ideas here. I can't help but wish they'd been recorded on the Future Melbourne wiki so they can be officially considered by our team. It would be great to be able to draw upon the calibre of knowledge here to integrate into the plan.

As far as we can tell, Future Melbourne is the first time that a local government has used a wiki to enable anybody to directly participate in a city plan. Our public consultation period finishes this weekend and on Monday only the discussion pages will be open. I hope you all get the change to jump over to http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au to record your views over the weekend before public editing ends.

In the event you'd like to co-ordinate your efforts I've created a Skyscraper City Group page and added a couple of topics I thought you might all be interested in contributing to:
http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/wi...raperCityGroup

You might also like to check out our multimedia centre:
http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/wi...lan/MediaVideo

..and the various other blogs and forums that have picked up on the project (I've added a reference to Skyscraper City):
http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/wi...lan/FMOnTheWeb

Let me know if you have any questions and I hope to see you on the wiki soon!

Dale
Future Melbourne Team
www.futuremelbourne.com.au

[Future_Melbourne]

It might also be useful to check out the "how you can participate" page. It's a good place to start:

http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/wi...CanParticipate

Dale
Future Melbourne Team
www.futuremelbourne.com.au