Melbourne 2030 and Residential Development of Activity Centres - Essay Example

? Environmental Studies ‘MELBOURNE 2030’ AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AROUND ACTIVITY CENTRES of Professor: Submission Date: ‘MELBOURNE 2030’ AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AROUND ACTIVITY CENTRES Introduction In the current era of regional plan development, Melbourne was the first city in Australia to enter into a new strategic planning process. ‘Melbourne 2030’ is the metropolitan planning policy developed by the state government in 2002, with the objective of steering future development to appropriate locations (Eccles & Bryant 2006, p.2). Subsequent to the adoption of ‘Melbourne 2030’, a succession of comprehensive follow-up plans for development are being implemented. In most suburbs of Melbourne, changes to the built environment have been brought about. “The Melbourne regional plan, like all of the Australian metropolitan plans, puts forth a spatial vision of the future” (Beatley & Newman 2009, p.196), directs future investments, and guides the state and local use of development decisions. The foremost aim is to accommodate significant population growth, anticipating up to a million new residents by 2030. The core concepts of the development plan include an urban growth boundary, the protection of ‘green wedges’, and the guidance of future growth into a set of activity centres located along transit corridors. The key strategy of the plan is to increase residential development around activity centres. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the strategic plans for residential development around activity centres in the policy ‘Melbourne 2030’ for urban developmental projects; and determine their benefits and disadvantages. ‘Melbourne 2030’: Background of the Policy ‘Melbourne 2030’ guides the development of built environment in the city in the form of accommodation for an increase in the population by one million residents between 2000 and 2030. The addition in numbers together with projected changes in household formation is expected to increase the number of households by 600,000 by 2030. ‘Melbourne 2030’ seeks to chart a “fundamentally new direction in Melbourne’s urban development by determining the location of the dwellings needed to accommodate these additional households” (Birrell, O’Connor, Rapson et al 2005, p.1-1). The city’s sense of place and identity is created by the streetscape that existed till now with mostly low slung bungalows, dense tree and shrub canopy and resultant green ambience, together with open spaces for recreation. Over half a century ago, Melbourne’s metropolitan planners considered these features to be the way residents liked it, and that it was futile to try changing the local characteristics. Currently 90 percent of the families live in single family dwellings, with 50 percent of the dwellings owned by occupants. According to Birrell et al (2005, p.1-1), “the Melbourne 2030 template is just the most recent incarnation of a radical shift in metropolitan planning since the 1980s”. This transition intends to reshape the city, changing it from its low density heritage towards a more compressedly packed and merged urban form. Strategic Plan of ‘Melbourne 2030’ ‘Melbourne 2030’ underscored two predominant land use strategies. The first was an urban growth boundary demarcated to protect the city’s green wedges,and rural boundary from urban encroachment by constraining future development within this limit, state Buxton and Goodman (2003, p.205). The second key land-use approach was to “concentrate spatial development within a constellation of 112 activity centres of differing scale and mix distibuted across the city, with several of the centres located on chief public transport nodes” (Dodson 2009, p.5). Future housing is divided into three categories: greenfields development, strategic redevelopment sites, and dispersed urban sites within peripheral suburban areas, together with development to a small extent around small rural townships. They will be 31 percent, 41 percent and 28 percent of housing respectively in the period 2001-2030 (Bunker & Searle 2007, p.619). In demarcating the region’s growth boundary, a sequence of locations for development were identified, largely at the outer margin of the metropolitan area. These greenfield sites lie adjacent to existing urban locales and have sufficient room to allow considerable growth. However, “Melbourne’s regional plan, like others in Australia’s major cities is impressive for the extent to which it aspires to accommodate much of its growth in already urbanised areas, and mostly within activity centres” (Beatley & Newman 2009, p.196). According to ‘Melbourne 2030’, nearly 70 percent of the area’s planned growth is to be implemented in the area’s non-green sites. These are either within allocated urban activity centres or through wide urban and non-urban development, where the latter include sites in townships. ‘Melbourne 2030’ protects the city’s green wedges by defining the boundary for urban growth (Eccles and Bryant 2006, p.50). Melbourne’s Green Wedges are seen in Fig.1. below: Fig.1. Melbourne’s Green Wedges, 2003, and the Urban Growth Boundary (Buxton & Scheurer 2006, p.3) Table 1. Proposed Distribution of New Households Across Metropolitan Melbourne From 2001-2030 (Birrell et al 2005, p.2-3) In Table 1. Above, * the possible feasibility of meeting such a high level of housing demand in Activity Centres and other strategic redevelopment sites has been evaluated based on the development within 400 metres of identified Principal and Major Activity Centres and major redevelopment sites in close proximity to main public transport amenities. Nearly 80 percent of major redevelopment sites are located close to major public transport (Birrell et al 2005, p.2-3). The activity centres seen along with strategic redevelopment sites are planned to accommodate around 41 percent of the city’s extra households. This requires the construction of an additional 254,760 dwellings between 2001 to 2030. It is unclear the number of new dwellings that will be actually located in activity centres, and the extent of housing density required, to achieve that goal. However, “these centres are expected to play a major role in housing the city’s expanding population by 2030” (Birrell et al 2005, p.2-3). Additionally, activity centres are also expected to contribute significantly to the provision of affordable housing in Melbourne (Birrell et al 2005, p.2-3). Developing activity centres is a key planning feature of ‘Melbourne 2030’. The activity centres will be of varying sizes and components, 93 being major ones, and located mostly in the centre and middle areas across the city. They include “Central Activities District, Principal Activity Centres, Major Activity Centres, Specialized Activity Centres, and Neighbourhood Activity Centres” (Beatley & Newman 2009, p.198). Development of Activity Centres: Key Approach of ‘Melbourne 2030’ In 2005, a set of Activity Centre Design Guidelines were prepared for the provision of information to Councils and developers on creating these facilities. “Activity centres are the focal points around which population, infrastructure, and civic and commercial activity will occur” (Beatley & Newman 2009, p.199). The activity centres are designed in such a manner that the different functions are combined in one site, forming a distinct, compact facility, which promotes access to all the activity areas by walking. The Activity Centres are placed in a hierarchy, “with central Melbourne forming a ‘Central Activities District’, followed by 26 Principal Activity Centres, 82 Major Activity Centres and 10 Specialised Activity Centres” (Bunker & Searle 2007, p.631). These facilities of different kinds are used as focal points for the development of medium- and high-density housing. The purpose is to reduce the distance to work , and promote walking to work and other facilities. Improved public transport serving these nodes and corridors will lower air pollution caused by larger numbers of individually owned cars on the road. Both Melbourne and Sydney have fairly prescriptive targets laid down in specific locations for the construction of medium and high-density housing. Developmental proposals employing this strategy have already proved to be controversial, with sharp resident backlash taking place against some of the proposals. Serious problems have been found to underlie this aspect of the ‘Melbourne 2030’ policy (Birrell et al 2005, p.2-1), which are given below. The strategy of developing activities centres is justified in the ‘Melbourne 2030’ policy by claims that it will change the city’s built form in an ecologically sustainable development pattern, it will help increase equitable incomes, ensure that housing choices meet the needs of a changing housing market, offer a sense of local community where it was assumed to be lacking, and to reduce car travel in favour of public transport. The planners have incorporated retail and small office functions in the activity centres, besides high density housing particularly for commuters, local workers and older persons; employment opportunities in the various facilities such as community services, secondary schools, colleges of Technical and Further Education (TAFE), justice and community administration, sport and entertainment facilities, and the provision of low-cost space for cultural activities and creative ventures. The activity centres will also function as transport interchanges, and ensure some space for car parking. Thus, there will be a radical transformation from a typical car-based activity centre into an urban village (Birrell et al 2005, p.2-2). The mechanisms that will help to achieve the change envisioned by the planners of ‘Melbourne 2030’ are not explained. The plan reveals apartments of less than five storeys, intermixed with offices, and a substantial tree-lined plaza between them. Cars are absent, and are apparently located underground, though they are expected to be very few in number in view of the planned public transport access. Although the vision is highly appealing, it involves “extensive public and private investment in the aggregation of land from existing users, the demolition of existing buildings, and the re-creation of a new focus for community life in middle or outer suburbia” (Birrell et al 2005, p.2-2). Weaknesses in the Plan for Development Around Activity Centres Dodson (2009, p.i) argues that the recent resurgence in Australian spatial planning has been replaced by resorting to infrastructure to resolve urban problems in metropolitan regions such as Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Sydney and Brisbane. Spatial planning and the infrastructure of cities have entered a new era of global strategic challenges. However, after initial commendation, the criticisms of ‘Melbourne 2030’ have taken two forms, the first is that the land-use planning components of the plan are inadequately robust to meet the objectives (Goodman & Coote 2007, p.39). Secondly, the increase of urban density and the promotion of activity intensification have been excessive. Besides the land-use components, the ‘Melbourne 2030’ plan was responsible for the weak treatment of urban infrastructure, particularly transport networks (Mees 2003, p.288). Of the twelve technical reports prepared to support the plan, none took infrastructure into consideration. O’Connor (2003, p.211) believes that the lack of infrastructure planning within ‘Melbourne 2030’ emerged as a result of recent market reorientation, corporatisation, and privatisation of water, energy, and transportation networks which placed constraints on planners’ capacities to direct and control the development of these systems. Melbourne’s public transport has been acutely afflicted by problems of urban infrastructure breaking down, reiterate Graham and Marvin (2001, p.113). The policy measures prescribed by ‘Melbourne 2030’ focus on ensuring environmental conservation,”having clean air and water, living without traffic congestion, access to appropriate and affordable housing, living in secure and culturally fulfilling communities, and having a positive sense of place” (Birrell et al 2005, p.1-8). The success or collapse of ‘Melbourne 2030’ depends partly on the feasibility of the activity centre proposal. However, it is not clear whether it is actually possible to retrofit established urban centes, transforming them to represent village ideals which are to form the core of new urbanism. Similarly, converting existing commercial hubs to residences and offices may be difficult to achieve. Constructing affordable housing in “centres where the costs of aggregating land and the costs of building high-rise apartments are inherently high” (Birrell et al 2005, p.1-9). Taking into account the distribution of jobs across the cities, it may not be feasible for those who live in activity centres to be able to work there. Further, adequate investment in the public transport system would be required, to ensure a decline in the level of dependency on cars. ‘Melbourne 2030’ is built on the assumption that high density dwellings located near activity centres are always in demand. However, the greatest change related to the growth of households in Melbourne by the year 2030, will be the increase in the number of older childless households. At the same time, there is no guarantee on the fact that such households will readily give up their peaceful and spacious suburban surroundings in exchange for the cluttered life of apartments in commercial centres. Further, there will be a market for semi-detached houses because several of the next generation of households will be unable to afford the price of detached houses in most of inner and middle suburbia. Such households would not opt for an apartment constructed in an activity centre, instead of a medium density dwelling constructed as infill in a suburban setting. The authors’ ResCode analysis reveals that dispersed infill is not only possible, but also practical and profitable. If the ResCode regulations are not tightened, “infill could transform the present green ambience and uncluttered state of Melbourne’s established suburbia” (Birrell et al 2005, p.1-9). Forster (2006, p.173) argues that the strategies’ consensus view of desirable urban structure, based on containment, consolidation and centres and the complex realities of the evolving urban structures are mismatched. This is especially true of current metropolitan strategies that do not relate to the dispersed, suburbanised nature of most economic activity and employment, and the environmental and social issues that emerge from that. Further, they do not have effective approaches to the emerging issues of housing affordability and new, finer-grained patterns of suburban inequality and disadvantage. Current metropolitan planning strategies “suggest an inflexible, over-neat vision for the future that is at odds with the picture of increasing geographical complexity” (Forster 2006, p.173) in the changing structure of Australia’s major cities. There is an intensive debate regarding the option of continued extension of the suburban borderline; and whether ‘Melbourne 2030’ will curtail the spread of peripheral development. This is an important issue because the Bracks government has reiterated that the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) “will be extended whenever it can be shown that there is less than 15 years land available for residential development within its borders” (Birrell et al 2005, p.1-9). The housing industry on the suburban boundary has to be analysed in detail, to determine whether the frontier’s further extension is possible. The concepts of urban regeneration and social inclusion derive their ideas from the policies supported by the Blair government’s Social Exclusion Unit in Britian, states Lilley (2005, p.59). The purpose of this approach is to eliminate the stigmatisation that prevents residents from employment opportunities and restricts full participation in society. It will successfully dilute the largest concentrations of disadvantage. However, it will result in the disintegration of established communities, reducing the overall stock of public housing and further removing the remaining public housing tenants to the periphery of community life. On the other hand, social inclusion and regeneration programmes do not take the private rental sector into account. Hence, the projects may increase the dependence of low-income households on private rental housing (Gleeson & Randolph 2002, p.102; Randolph & Holloway 2005, p.173) Further, the economic foundations of the policy ‘Melbourne 2030’ have to be taken into consideration. These issues include whether the financial plans can address the dynamics between industrial growth and location in the contemporary urban economy; and whether the achievement of future changes in land use and location of activity by ‘Melbourne 2030’ comply with the trends in locating Melbourne’s major economic activities. If plans for future changes are not in keeping with the trends, then the actions proposed by ‘Melbourne 2030’ should be sufficiently effective to transform the current economic pattern to the future one aimed at by the plan (Birrell et al 2005, p.1-9). Overall, the plan for residential development around activity centres is required to have the power to change the metropolitan area’s structure according to the predetermined approach. For a plan to have effective outcomes, it should incorporate a series of strategies capable of working with the standard land-use zoning approach of metropolitan and local planning. The multicentred approach may be required to include “coordination of government agency action, the use of price mechanisms to change consumer and commercial behaviour, and the application of financial incentives and expenditure planning” (Birrell et al 2005, p.1-10); all these techniques are connected to the spatial framework employed to manage change. Unless these strategies are a part of ‘Melbourne 2030’ it will be unlikely that the plan will achieve its desired outcomes. Conclusion This paper has highlighted the policy ‘Melbourne 2030’ with its strategic plans for residential development around activity centres, and investigated its potential benefits and disadvantages. The main goals are meeting the increased need for dwellings, urban regeneration, ecologically sustainable urban growth, and enhancing community life through building urban villages. The plan envisions the development of single-family dwellings in close proximity to workplaces, shopping areas, and other facilities located closely together in activity centres spread across Melbourne and other Australian cities. These areas will incorporate green spaces to enhance their environmental quality The new Melbourne metropolitan strategic land use plan has developed a framework of policies at increasing Melbourne’s compactness. However, a major weakness of the plan and its implementation is that it ignores the importance of increasing residential density in new outer urban growth areas. Buxton and Scheurer (2006, p.16) support this view, and reiterate that this failure is due to the role of the government as a facilitator for development companies’ strategies. Unless the government implements its objective of improved urban planning by adopting measures to redesign new outer suburbs, the failure will lead to adverse impacts on the environment, economy and social criteria. The other weaknesses are whether established urban centres can be transformed to represent the village ideals of community, the potential lack of demand for expensive new single-family dwellings in central locations where the land costs are high, the practicality of integrating dwellings and workplaces, whether social inclusion can compare with egalitarian urbanism, and the need to invest in a substantial public transport system for travelling from the activity centres. Thus, it is evident that activity centre policy is seriously flawed in its background logic, application and implementation. On the one hand, it is certain that a multicentred approach is required to manage the growth and change of Australian cities. However, it is essential to perceive the difficulty of changing land use patterns adequately to meet the goals of this strategy. Birrell et al (2005, p.2-26) assert that this is due to the limited tools available to the current urban planning system in the country. Further, to reduce environmental pollution caused by increasing numbers of individually owned cars, the activity centres’ strategy is to substitute them with a network of public transport with their nodes located close to activity centres. However, the Metropolitan Development Council has not prepared clear plans related to transportation improvements. Therefore, it is concluded that there are more potential disadvantages than benefits to the activity centres’ strategy of urban regeneration and community development in the ‘Melbourne 2030’ policy. --------------------------------------- Bibliography Beatley, T. & Newman, P., 2009. Green urbanism down under: Learning from sustainable communities in Australia. Washington, DC: Island Press. Birrell, B., O’Connor, K., Rapson, V. and Healy, E., 2005. Melbourne 2030: Planning rhetoric versus urban reality. Australia: Monash University Press. Bunker, R. & Searle, G., 2007. Seeking certainty: Recent planning for Sydney and Melbourne. The Town Planning Review, 78(5): pp.619-642. Buxton, M. & Scheurer, J., 2006. Density and outer urban development in Melbourne. City Structures, 7, pp.1-18. Buxton, M. & Scheurer, J., 2005. The expanding urban frontier: Urban form in Melbourne’s growth corridors. Melbourne, RMIT Publishing. Buxton, M. and Goodman, R., 2003. Protecting Melbourne’s Green Belt. Urban Policy and Research, 21(2): pp.205-209. Department of Infrastructure (Victoria), 2002. Melbourne 2030, Planning for Sustainable Growth. Implementation Plan No.3, Housing, Draft, p.8. Dodson, J., September 2009. The ‘Infrastructure Turn’ in Australian metropolitan spatial planning. Research Paper 25, Urban Research Programme. http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/164869/urp-rp25-dodson-2009.pdf [Accessed 26 February 2012]. Eccles, D. & Bryant, T., 2006. Statutory planning in Victoria. Edition 3. New South Wales: Federation Press. Forster, C., 2006. The challenge of change: Australian cities and urban planning in the new millennium. Geographical Research, 44(2), pp.173-182. Gleeson, B. & Randolph, B., 2002. Social disadvantage and planning in the Sydney context. Urban Policy and Research, 20, pp.101-107. Goodman, R. & Coote, M., 2007. Sustainable urban form and the shopping centre: An Investigation of activity centres in Melbourne’s growth areas. Urban Policy and Research, 25(1), pp.39-61. Graham, S. & Marvin, S., 2001. Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, tech- nological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge. Lilley, D., 2005. Evaluating the ‘community renewal’ response to social exclusion on public housing estates. Australian Planner, 42, pp.59-65. Mees, P., 2003. Paterson’s curse: The attempt to revive metropolitan planning in Melbourne. Urban Policy and Research, 21(3), pp.287-299. O’Connor, K., 2003. Melbourne 2030: A response. Urban Policy and Research, 21(2), pp.211-215. Randolph, B. & Holloway, D., 2005. Social disadvantage, tenure and location: An analysis of Sydney and Melbourne. Urban Policy and Research, 23, pp.173-201. Read More