<html><body>
Opposition to change in built form or land use often stems from particular anticipated impacts, such as pollution or noise from noxious industry, or overshadowing caused by tall buildings; it also often has a psychological aspect related to emotional attachments to place. In Victoria, there are remarkably broad avenues for objection and appeal, including in comparison to other jurisdictions within Australia.

In most cases where a planning permit is required, any person may lodge a formal objection with the responsible authority (generally the relevant local government, but may also be a state government authority or Minister for Planning), and may appeal the grant of a permit through the <a href="http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/">Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)</a>.

However, certain permit applications are excempt from this notification, objection and appeal process.

One common target for such opposition is higher density housing, particularly where this results in a taller built form. <a href="http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p30678">About 70% of total planning permit applications</a> across Melbourne in 2009-2010 were open to objection and appeal. While 26% of total applications received objections, this rose to 35% of applications to build ten or more dwellings.

Densification is often opposed because it is quite different to what people are used to seeing in low density Australian cities. However, opposition has been found to increase where building design and street interfaces are poor, where there is no precedent for such housing in the local area, or where there is existing anger at political bodies and processes.

To some extent, the quality of design may mitigate impacts on potential objectors; however, it is clear that significant changes to built form, particularly with regards to building height, represent major change that is unacceptable to many on neighbourhood character grounds.

Whether these impacts should be considered broadly acceptable in light of the need to accommodate population growth, particularly in well-serviced areas, is a significant area for debate.

Opposition and objection can increase development costs through delays and costs associated with appeals, such as fees for lawyers or specialists. This can threaten development viability or pass the costs onto consumers. In some instances, formal avenues for objection are removed, such as for development within the CBD and outer suburban greenfield development, as well as <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/programmes-services/social-housing-initiative">social housing that built as part of the Nation Building program from 2008</a>.

However, removing these appeal rights can increase resentment against planning and political processes, which can fuel opposition to other development or stymy public engagement in planning processes. Managing opposition poorly can cause anger and loss of trust, making it difficult for government to work with the community.

In addition, caution should be taken not to lay excessive blame for delays or failures in densification policies on objectors. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08111146.2011.581335">A study that looked at higher density housing development in Brunswick</a> across 2002-2007 found that while 80% of proposed dwellings had been approved, under half of the approved dwellings had at least begun construction by 2009, with higher density projects most likely to stall.

The authors of the study argued developers were making ambit claims in order to increase the value of the land and make capital gains without even having to develop.

So what is the best way to address local opposition to unwanted higher density housing? One answer may be to limit third party appeal rights, given Victoria’s extensive avenues for formal objection and appeal. However, this could lead to negative perceptions of the planning processes and missed opportunities to balance the need for housing supply with participatory planning processes.

Other options include providing more information about development, as there is evidence that this can help reduce anxiety among local residents.

More broadly, project-specific measures to address opposition, such as good siting and design, must be complemented with broader measures such as education on the importance of densification and housing supply, effective public relations campaigns and ensuring that planning legislation is consistent, particularly across the local and state levels.

Effective public debate about why higher density housing is important and what it could look like, as well as what sorts of planning controls could define and encourage high quality outcomes would be helpful to this end.

The question of how to address opposition to higher density housing is a thorny one for decision makers. While there are potential tools for excluding public participation and third party rights, it is clear that the heavy-handed application of these can generate anger and impacts from informal objection, as well as ignoring the potential for improved outcomes from engagement and negotiation.

In the conflict between policies promoting higher density housing, and local opposition to the implementation of these policies, it is apparent that a balanced approach is needed to ensure a consistent, engaging planning system that is able to achieve its aims with buy-in from the communities it transforms.

Alexander Sheko is a researcher at the University of Melbourne, working on the <a href="https://msd.unimelb.edu.au/transforming-housing-affordable-housing-all">Transforming Housing</a> project.

Lead image: <a href="http://charlotteleslie.com/save-our-suburbs/">supplied</a>.
</body></html>

apsheko

Dealing with opposition to density

<html><body>
As Melbourne grows — having doubled in size since the 1970s and being on track to double again to eight million people by 2050 — transport is increasingly becoming a key issue. No longer is this just a debate among politicians, bureaucrats, and engineers, but one for all Melburnians, evident by attention various news media outlets have given to the issue.

Transport can simply be understood as how we get from A to B, but it is more than that. It has complex interrelations with where we live and work, the shape of our cities, and the nature of our neighbourhoods and streets. Unsurprisingly, it is shaping up to be a vote shifter at the upcoming Victorian election in November, having previously been instrumental in Labor’s defeat in the 2010 election.

Since campaigning on a platform of public transport improvements, the Coalition government has made the East West Link their key infrastructure project. Labor has opposed the project, while indicating that it would nevertheless proceed with it if contracts were signed before the election.

Labor has also said that it will build the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel, including a station near Melbourne University, and remove 50 level crossings across the city. The Coalition has instead pledged to build a rail link via the Fishermans Bend urban renewal area.

It’s great that we’re talking about transport, how it affects our daily lives, and what we can do to move towards transport systems for the city we want to live in. However, the danger is that politicians and lobby groups will seek to use it for political gain, rather than delivering what is actually in the best interests of the greatest number of people. Danae Bosler, spokesperson for the Public Transport Not Traffic campaign, describes the transport issue as a “political football”. “It’s concerning that decisions are being made based on a quick victory in November, rather than what is best for Victoria’s future,” she says.

The Coalition’s flagship project, the East West Link, is a historically unprecedented expenditure with no publicly released business case and a questionable approvals process, heavily criticised even by those with no opposition to the project per se.

Meanwhile, Labor’s policy is similarly focused on large-scale projects that will generate ribboncutting opportunities and, importantly, employment.

Level crossings and new rail lines sound like a good thing. But there is little indication from either party that their proposed projects have been decided through a strategic process of having a vision for the city and its transport systems and then finding the most cost-effective strategies for meeting those objectives.

Instead, decisions are heavily influenced by political factors, such as the need to win votes in marginal seats, or keep key lobby groups and donors happy, and then justified in terms of supposed benefits.

When I recently asked a senior Labor politician why such a strategic approach was not being used to demonstrate that good policy, not politics, was driving the party’s decisions, I was simply met with a blank stare.

One key problem is that there is no overarching transportation plan for the State, meaning there is greater potential for decisions to be made for political reasons — such as “pork barrelling”, or spending in key or marginal electoral seats — rather than on a solid policy basis.

For example, both major parties are keen to make promises in the marginal “sandbelt” seats in Melbourne’s south, while public transport-poor outer growth areas cry out for investment. A report by consultancy Essential Economics estimates that $6 billion additional public transport investment is required in these growth areas by 2026 to close the gap between them and established parts of Melbourne.

Public Transport Victoria has released a 20-year development plan for the rail network. However, according to Public Transport Users’ Association spokesperson Cait Jones, “the manner in which [the Government is] picking and choosing from that indicates that they are not committed to an objective network approach”. In addition, there is little integration with other modes of transport or land use planning.

The government’s metropolitan planning strategy for Melbourne, Plan Melbourne, reads like an advertisement for its big-ticket infrastructure projects, with scant detail on implementing more integrated public transport services or better conditions for cycling. It also largely ignores the important role of transport in the city’s ability to achieve environmental sustainability and social equity outcomes.

Transport is a huge election issue. But it’s also an important policy issue with ramifications for Melbourne’s future. Without an independent transport planning body that can make integrated and long-term plans that can survive changes of government, important decisions will continue to be made on the basis of winning votes, rather than the best possible outcome for the State.

Transport will undoubtedly be a huge issue at November’s election, but whether promises made this year will be kept and delivered remains to be seen.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.facebook.com/farragomag">Farrago</a>.

Lead image credit: <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Victoria_Parliament_Melbourne_(Colonnades_%26_Stairs).jpg">wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

Transport promises: delays expected

<html><body>
Unlike <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/lessons-for-fishermans-bend-zurich">Zürich</a>, which has (quite understandably) put all of its sustainable transport eggs in the public transport basket, Munich is quite a bit more of a bike friendly city, with an extensive network of cycling facilities. Of course, a huge number of people get around on the public transport network, which is comprised of the S-Bahn (suburban/commuter rail), U-Bahn (subway/metro), buses and a number of tram routes.

My impression of travelling around Munich on public transport was that its strengths lay in a relatively dense network with good frequencies and decent opportunities for interchange. The system wasn’t perfect, however - especially compared with that in Zürich. One key problem in Munich is that its S-Bahn lines all run through a single tunnel in the inner city, requiring travel into the centre to reach many destinations and creating the potential for incidents to affect a large number of lines (sound familiar, Melbourne?).

The U-Bahn network, though, provided more opportunities for tangential travel, supported by the bus and tram lines. However, a key barrier to such interchange was the inconsistent quality of information and legibility at public transport stops, making such travel difficult for occasional travellers. Some recently redeveloped stations, such as Munchner Freihart (below), however, demonstrated an excellent standard of intermodal interchange.

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0170.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0170.jpg?itok=gS1i87Af"></a>

The role of cycling was much larger in Munich than in Zürich (and of course Melbourne!), with a mode share of almost 15%. Munich has a rather impressive network of cycling infrastructure, much of which is comprised of off-road paths between the footpath and cars (parking or traffic lanes).

The result is not only a high proportion of cyclists but a good diversity of gender, age, fitness, etc. A downside to these paths, however, is that space was taken away from pedestrians - this is a relic of the planning mindset of the 80s, a city planner explained - as well as the fact that these types of facilities are perhaps less suitable for longer distance commuter riders.

Design of places like train stations played quite a large role in the success of both public transport and cycling. A good example of this is Munchner Freihart, which is mentioned above. Some of the S-Bahn stations (e.g. Pasing and Laim) had huge provisions for high quality bicycle storage, as well as including bicycle lanes in station underpasses (below), allowing for through movement and reducing the barrier posed by major rail corridors.

These stations had significant numbers of cyclists and pedestrians moving through or interchanging with a range of public transport.

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0813.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0813.jpg?itok=sLyxDPDW"></a>

I visited Messestadt Riem, a recent redevelopment area discussed in the first article in this series, to observe the relationship between what was intended to be achieved and what actually occurred. The area was intended as a pilot for “car free living” projects but these were largely unsuccessful, despite the timely provision of public transport (the U-Bahn extension servicing the area opened the same year as the first residents moved in).

In contrast to more inner areas, there was a high provision of on-street car parking, and commuter cyclists tended to be a less diverse bunch (i.e. confident men riding quickly on expensive bicycles) - although there was a greater diversity in people using bicycles to interchange with the U-Bahn. One quite positive element was the shared paths in the open space, which were safe, attractive, and utilised by a broad range of people.

Once again, the question is what we can learn from this city for Melbourne. An important point to note is that we can learn from shortcomings as much as successes. For example, the (very useful) 1980s-era off-road cycle paths would not today be created by taking space from pedestrians. Thus, infrastructure in Fishermans Bend should be delivered correctly from the beginning, rather than creating the challenge of retrofitting in the future.

In a similar vein, creating this type of infrastructure and catering for anybody other than the “avid cyclist” group has great potential for increasing cycle mode share by targeting the significant proportion of non-cyclists who are open-minded but cautious. Movement networks (pedestrian and cycling) through open space could also play a major role for these groups; open space and its design must not be neglected in planning for Fishermans Bend.

Munich’s public transport demonstrated the importance of interchange, tangential movement and ease of use; the success of its public transport in various points in the city appeared largely to hinge on these three factors. These user-oriented elements need to be instrumental in the planning of the public transport supply in Fishermans Bend - whether this is the Melbourne Rail Link, a new tram route or bus services. Another useful lesson was the provision of heavy rail to Messestadt Riem (below) from the beginning of residential occupation, which established sustainable transport habits and reduced car ownership.

If the Melbourne Rail Link cannot be provided in time to service Fishermans Bend’s first residents, alternative public transport must be supplied to avoid new residents and workers turning to the car from the beginning. This must actually connect people to where they need to go - something that will require network-wide planning, rather than merely building a new station in isolation.

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0085.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0085.jpg?itok=xcAL-Syg"></a>

Lastly, something to aim for in Melbourne is a cultural change towards a “transportation discussion culture” (as one city planner put it), with public awareness of issues such as limited space, the inefficiency of private car travel and the environmental impacts of transport. It is very difficult to transplant cultural factors such a greater acceptance of bicycles or the need for compact settlement around public transport infrastructure.

Nevertheless, what the government can do in planning for Fishermans Bend is engage in open dialogue about transport system priorities and trade-offs with its constituency (including the Cities of Melbourne and Port Phillip) in order to generate community buy-in and increase the likelihood of successful implementation of sustainable transport ideas.
</body></html>

Lessons for Fishermans Bend: Munich

<html><body>
It’s difficult to explain exactly how (or even if!) Zürich’s transport successes, such as its excellent public transport systems, could be carried over to Melbourne and specific areas such as Fishermans Bend. There’s a number of key differences - such as Zürich’s highly compact urban form and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland">system of direct democracy (through citizen referenda)</a> that have played a large role in its transport network. Zürich is unequivocally a public transport city. There are a number of reasons why public transport is so good there, such as the high supply of services, reliability and almost seamless interchange between services (and modes). Good station design and quality of customer information also play a role in making the services easy and convenient to easy, thereby ensuring high patronage.

For a city of about 380,000 in a metropolitan region of 1.8 million (think Canberra and Perth, respectively), <a href="http://www.zvv.ch/en/routes-and-zones/city-zurich">Zürich has an impressive network of trams, trains and buses</a>, with a very high rate of service kilometres per capita. This is perhaps due to Zürich’s wealth, but also largely thanks to a comprehensive development programme from the 1970s since a referendum rejected the building of a subway and prioritisation of cars on surface roads to focus instead on a high-quality and reliable tram network. Service reliability is also very impressive, due to a high rate of bus lanes, exclusive tram lanes and signal priority for these modes at intersections. The public transport operator, VBZ, has a war-room-like control centre communicating with its vehicles, able to send out “Troubleshooter” squads to deal with problems, re-route services to keep the network running and provide information to passengers.

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0440.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Bus interchange at Winterthur, a city 30km from Zurich"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0440.jpg?itok=3hiFub3k" title="Bus interchange at Winterthur, a city 30km from Zürich"></a>

Importantly, services are networked for maximum efficiency, facilitating convenient interchange by running on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock-face_scheduling">a coordinated timetable based on factors of 60 minute frequencies (i.e. 60, 30, 15, 7.5)</a>, with the S-Bahn trains as a backbone. The result is that, at many points in the network, services arrive within minutes of each other, allowing convenient interchange and travel in all directions. Good station design means trains are integrated with nearby tram or bus stops and bicycle parking (above), and information screens show which connections are possible at the next stop, making this easy, even for occasional travelers or tourists.

On the other hand, Zürich “isn’t much” of a bike city, by its planners’ accounts, no doubt compared to European bike havens, with bicycle mode share at 6%. By comparison, that for the combined municipalities of Melbourne, Yarra, Port Phillip and Stonnington (with a similar area and population to the city of Zürich) is 4.5%, and 2% across greater Melbourne. Zürich’s transport planners and officials attributed this largely to the success of the public transport system - many people who might ride bikes find it more convenient to take the tram. However, <a href="http://pro-velo.ch/en">Dave Dumer of Pro Velo, a cycling advocacy group</a>, told me he believed cycling would play a larger role in the future, as public transport neared capacity and technologies such as e-bikes encouraged more people to cycle (and overcome the Swiss topography). Bikes already play a large role in allowing access to stations, with 15% of all trips being made by combination of public transport and bicycle, and huge amounts of bicycle parking provided at stations (below).

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0149.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Secure bike storage near Zurich Hauptbahnhof (main station), including repair services"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0149.jpg?itok=3hiFub3k" title="Secure bike storage near Zürich Hauptbahnhof (main station), including repair services"></a>

Of course, like in inner Melbourne, walking plays a huge role in the city’s transport needs, there being encouraged by generous provision of pedestrian priority (e.g. many zebra crossings, short traffic light phases favouring pedestrians). Also contributing to a good pedestrian environment were the many 30km/h streets, including shared spaces, which discouraged unnecessary through-traffic and giving pedestrian priority and amenity while not restricting car use completely.

The key question is how to apply good ideas from Zürich to Melbourne, keeping in mind how the cities are different. A good first step is recognising how different modes of transport can play in relation to each other. Compared to Zürich, where public transport is very good, cycling is likely to have a larger role to play in areas like Fishermans Bend. Future articles in this series on Munich and Amsterdam will address this issue further.

Working within the context of a single train station at Montague, a good start would be using the Swiss idea of coordinated timetables, to maximise interchange, particularly with feeder services. Given most of Fishermans Bend will be outside walking distance of this station, such coordination would be vital to reducing the need for local residents and workers to turn to the car and clog up inner city roads. Station design would be very important, and should start with the principle of allowing interchange directly outside the station exit, without the need to cross roads or potentially getting lost. A good example of this from Zürich is Stadelhofen (below), an inner city S-Bahn station which fronts onto a shared space with large amounts of bike parking and a tram interchange. Unfortunately, seamless interchange between public transport services and interface to the street and retail is compromised by our requirement for ticket barriers, but this should be achieved as many as possible in our local context.

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0248.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Platform at Stadelhofen station opening onto tram stop and shared space"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/DSC_0248.jpg?itok=NCJqaHwZ" title="Platform at Stadelhofen station opening onto tram stop and shared space"></a>

Another key principle should be prioritising pedestrian movement and encouraging short trips within the local area for shops and services. Fine-grain retail contributing to a true mixed use environment, along with pedestrian permeability and priority and a limited number of major roads favouring cars, would go towards achieving this goal. What we need in a new, inner-city area is an urban form which makes short trips on foot or bike possible, and using measures such as 30km/h zones or shared spaces to limit unnecessary car traffic while allowing local traffic and deliveries.

That’s all from Zürich (or at least as much as will fit in this space!). Next in this series is what we can learn from <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/lessons-for-fishermans-bend-munich">Munich</a>, a self-proclaimed Radlhauptstadt (bicycle capital city). Auf wiedersehen!
</body></html>

Lessons for Fishermans Bend: Zürich

<html><body>
Fishermans Bend has attracted a lot of interest in recent days, particularly in forums such as Urban.com.au. A recent announcement by the Victorian Government has seen the previous alignment of the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/a-closer-look-at-the-latest-round-of-melbourne-metro-station-designs">Melbourne Rail Link</a> changed in order to bring a train station to the urban renewal area, apparently with construction starting in 2017. But planning for such a huge redevelopment area, particularly with regards to transport, is a mammoth task.

How can its proximity to the CBD and potential to house thousands of people be used to maximum advantage so that it is a suburb of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users, rather than adding more cars onto inner Melbourne's already busy roads? How can transport infrastructure be staged so that it is ready to use as the first residents and workers move in? How can the planning of the area help by reducing the need for residents to travel outside it for their everyday needs, and by making walking and cycling attractive alternatives to the car?

As part of a University of Melbourne research project, I will be travelling over the next weeks to Zurich and Munich. I'll be looking at how urban renewal or redevelopment areas have been planned to get the transport right from the start, and to avoid car dependency as we've seen in too many of Melbourne's growth areas.

This post is the first in a short series on Urban.com.au about how the planning of transport for Fishermans Bend could be informed by ideas from other cities. While the research project above is focusing on Zurich and Munich, I'll also be travelling to Amsterdam and London, and will share my observations and experiences of those cities and how we can learn from them.

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-24%20at%208.13.01%20am.jpg" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-24%20at%208.13.01%20am.jpg?itok=vLPPqhjf"></a>

So what kinds of ideas might we use? My preliminary research has looked at Munich, and a redevelopment of the city's old airport in particular - an area called Messestadt Riem. From what I've gathered so far, Munich seems to have quite a few planning ideas in common with us here in Melbourne (I say here, but I'm writing this from Zurich Airport). The concept of the polycentric city is one we share, but one that appears to have been implemented more successfully in Munich (above). In addition, while Munich has grown outwards over the decades, this has largely been contained along the existing S-Bahn (commuter rail) lines and with green belts separating non-contiguous areas of development, meaning that public transport is more easily able to be delivered to new residential areas.

Messestadt Riem also functions as a decent comparison to Fishermans Bend - they are both around the same size, both close to the central city (Riem is about 7km from the city centre, somewhat further than Fishermans Bend) and both large brownfield redevelopment areas intended to house a large number of residents and jobs. The planning for Messestadt Riem's redevelopment was already underway when the airport that used to occupy it closed in 1992. A private consortium was selected by tender to develop the area, including things like community infrastructure, and an U-Bahn (subway) line was extended to the area in 1999, the same year the first residents moved in.

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-24%20at%208.13.28%20am.png" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-24%20at%208.13.28%20am.png?itok=nyGiX4sl"></a>

About half of the area is green open space, with dwellings (apartment buildings of about five storeys) located in a contained area close to the train line. With two stations servicing the area, no dwelling is more than a 10 minute walk from a station, and there is even a feeder bus which services the area (above). There are a number of factors encouraging cycling and walking, such as 30km/h speed limits in residential areas, and shared paths and bike lanes (below). There are a large number of jobs within the area, as well as schools, childcare, shops and other services, meaning there is less need to travel far for these everyday needs.

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-24%20at%208.13.39%20am.png" rel="gallery-all"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-24%20at%208.13.39%20am.png?itok=ZbEScp4U"></a>

Messestadt Riem seems to be ticking the boxes, and apparently an example we can use to inform the planning of Fishermans Bend so we get important things like transport right from the beginning. But it's difficult to tell exactly how much of a success it is from across the world, and difficult to determine actual outcomes from documents written by governments or developers.

Over the next four weeks, I will be travelling in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/lessons-for-fishermans-bend-zurich">Zürich</a>, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/lessons-for-fishermans-bend-munich">Munich</a>, Amsterdam and London, observing the integrated planning of land use and transport, and trying to figure out how ideas from these cities could be applied to the planning of Fishermans Bend. Stay tuned on Urban.com.au to see what I find!
</body></html>

International lessons for Fishermans Bend

<html><body>
Top image: What a future Melbourne could look like if growth was concentrated in the inner city without middle suburban infill. (Monash Architecture Studio, MADA) – <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/field/image/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-09%20at%204.07.22%20pm.jpg" target="_blank">view larger version</a> (opens in new window)

<a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3222.0main+features82012%20(base)%20to%202101">Melbourne, currently a city of 4.2 million people, is projected to grow to a population between 7.6 and 9.8 million by 2061</a>. There is almost no aspect of the city and its functioning that will not be greatly affected by this change; transport, the environment, the economy and agriculture and all areas that will be impacted, likely in challenging ways. The most basic question, however, that is posed by this massive change ahead of us is where we will house this increase in population.

Plan Melbourne, the state government’s metropolitan planning strategy estimates that, of the million or so new dwellings that will need to be constructed between now and 2050, 20% will be in the central city and surrounds (defined as the municipalities of Melbourne, Port Phillip, Yarra, Stonnington and Maribyrnong), 38% in other established suburbs and 42% in greenfield growth area. This is a change from the distribution envisaged by the strategy’s predecessor, Melbourne 2030, which allocated only 31% of growth in outer growth areas, with a larger proportion of growth to be accommodated in compact “activity centres” across the metropolis.

Unfettered fringe development is highly problematic. <a href="http://www.earthsharing.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Curtin_Sustainability_Paper_0209.pdf">For starters, the cost of providing infrastructure to greenfield sites is $300 million higher per 1000 dwellings than the cost of upgrading infrastructure for the same number of dwellings in existing urban areas</a>. There is also the issue of arable land being used instead for residential uses, increased car dependency and so forth.

So what is the alternative? One is massively building up our CBD and inner city areas, which are close to transport, jobs and services, and where brownfield redevelopment can yield inner-city high-density neighbourhoods. The Victorian Government is enthusiastic about this possibility, envisioning an “expanded central city” including future redevelopment precincts such as Fishermans Bend and E-Gate, as well as urban renewal in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/developments/footscray-vic">Footscray</a> and <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/new-apartments/north-melbourne-vic">North Melbourne</a>.

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-09%20at%203.49.45%20pm.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title=" Plan Melbourne"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="338" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-09%20at%203.49.45%20pm.jpg?itok=ZXQwERj5" title=" Plan Melbourne" width="580"></a>

The expanded Central City. Image: Plan Melbourne

When this concept was announced in 2012, Planning Minister Matthew Guy said: “Many people are concerned about high rise towers dominating quiet suburban streets, so we need to ask if high rise should be primarily concentrated in the inner city to take growth pressure off Melbourne's existing suburbs, while also capitalising on existing infrastructure.”

This sounds reasonable enough. But are these inner growth areas enough to accommodate our population growth and take pressure off infrastructure-poor growth areas?

<a href="http://www.futuremelbournenetwork.org/discussion/jobs-and-housing/">At Future Melbourne Network’s seminar last month on jobs and housing challenges facing Melbourne in the future</a>, Professor Shane Murray, Dean of the Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture at Monash University, presented a provocative image (top) of what a future Melbourne could look like if growth was directed only to the inner and fringe areas, without infill and densification in the city’s middle suburbs. <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/123483/20140224-0713/Proceedings_R.pdf">This was part of a broader speculation into the possibilities and implications of different urban renewal approaches</a>. He also showed how this might lead to increased low-density fringe development and the expansion of our city’s footprint beyond even the latest extension of its growth boundary (below).

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-09%20at%203.41.36%20pm.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title=" Monash Architecture Studio, MADA"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="411" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-09%20at%203.41.36%20pm.jpg?itok=lN_8aqI_" title=" Monash Architecture Studio, MADA" width="580"></a>

How a future Melbourne might sprawl beyond its current growth areas without middle suburban infill. Image: Monash Architecture Studio, MADA

Is this the city we want? I would argue not. Such an expanded-CBD-on-steroids would accommodate a huge number of jobs and residents, but would be a cavern of endless super-tall skyscrapers, windy and sunless. It would also fail to deliver housing choice for those who would prefer not to live in tiny high-rise apartments. While many, especially on this website and related forums (myself included), would relish a taller, more dense Melbourne, I believe fewer would take the extreme possibility depicted above as desirable. Also undesirable would be the continuing sprawl the edges, for reasons discussed above.

Densification and smart accommodation of population growth can be achieved in ways other than this vision of Manhattan or Hong Kong transplanted onto our city. Indeed, greater density would bring benefits such as a smaller environmental footprints and the greater potential for service-rich, walkable areas to live in. At last month’s Future Melbourne Network seminar, Professor Murray argued that Melbourne’s middle suburbia had potential to accommodate a large amount of population growth, in the form of low- to mid-rise infill development. <a href="http://www.soacconference.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Bertram-Structure-S.pdf">This would occur more efficiently - and therefore be more affordable - he said, if it could be organised at a precinct scale, rather than piecemeal as individual landowners decide to redevelop</a>.

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-10%20at%202.32.43%20pm.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title=" Monash Architecture Studio, MADA"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="393" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-10%20at%202.32.43%20pm.jpg?itok=_P1xjm8S" title=" Monash Architecture Studio, MADA" width="580"></a>

An indication of middle suburban infill at a precinct, rather than piecemeal, scale. Image: Monash Architecture Studio, MADA

One potential barrier to this is the new residential zones that are being implemented, especially in the high proportion of land that councils are choosing to zone as “Neighbourhood Residential Zone”, limiting both building height and dwellings per lot. <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/new-residential-zones-what-does-this-mean-for-melbourne">This issue has previously been discussed on this website by Ratio Consultants’ Colleen Peterson</a>.

Opinions are divergent on this topic. Some believe that the higher density possible in non-residential areas such as shopping strips (typically zoned Business - soon to be Commercial) and in Activity Centres mean that the restrictions of the new residential zones won’t preclude accommodation of growth through densification in the existing urban area of the city. However, as Professor Murray states, the middle suburbs have a lot of potential to take on growth without losing their character and amenity. To achieve this - to avoid an even more sprawling city with a super-dense core - will take not only negotiating new zones and residents’ concerns about density but new and innovative ways of approaching infill development to achieve positive outcomes for new and existing residents, suburbs and communities.

Alexander Sheko is a foundation member of the <a href="http://www.futuremelbournenetwork.org" target="_blank">Future Melbourne Network</a> and a student at the University of Melbourne.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not represent the Future Melbourne Network or any other organisation.
</body></html>

Melbourne's Growing Pains and the Middle Suburbs

<html><body>
I was cycling through Preston the other day, riding to the left of a lane shared with cars as the “bicycle lane” was full of parked cars. A motorist in a four-wheel drive overtook me at some speed with less than a foot between us. I came up to his window at the next red light, tapped on it, and asked him whether he was aware that he’d passed me so narrowly.
“Nah, I gave you plenty of room.”
“You should have been in the bike lane.”
“You f***ing cyclists think you have all the rights.”
Although this person didn’t raise his voice at me (nor did I to him) or threaten me – this was not the worst encounter I’ve had while cycling – at no point did he apologise or even concede that it was important to be considerate of other road users and their safety. When I made the point to him that he would not want to be responsible for somebody’s death, he told me “not to be so dramatic”.
Tell that to the families of the 33 cyclists killed across Australia in 2012, the last year for which road fatalities were available from the <a href="http://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx">Australian Government’s Road Deaths Database</a>. While this figure is small compared to the total fatality figure of 1303, the fact that more people travel by car than bike means that cyclists have a higher injury and death rate than motorists and their passengers. <a href="http://www.darebinbug.org.au/images/2010/JACRSV21N3_037.pdf">A 2010 study by researchers from Deakin University and the University of Sydney</a> found that cyclist fatality rates per kilometre between 2002 and 2008 were anywhere from 4.5 to 18.6 times that of car occupants.
We as a society tend to fix these kinds of problems through legislation or physical infrastructure. Councils across Melbourne have been installing more bicycle lanes, including <a href="https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/bike-futures/11522/">physically-separated lanes</a>, such as in Albert Street in East Melbourne and Swanston Street in Carlton. <a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-cyclists-to-get-1m-clearance-on-roads-permission-to-ride-without-helmets-under-proposed-laws/story-fnihsrf2-1226770826919">The Queensland Government is soon to pass legislation requiring motorists to leave a metre gap when passing cyclists</a>, increasing to 1.5m when travelling at 60km/h or more. Do these solutions address the whole problem, however, when it is impractical to install best-practice bicycle infrastructure all over the city or to always enforce road rules?
<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/swanston.GIF" rel="gallery-all" title="Separated bike lane on Swanston Street, Carlton"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/swanston.GIF?itok=0BJ8Lq01" title="Separated bike lane on Swanston Street, Carlton" typeof="Image"></a>
In my opinion, a large part of cyclists’ safety problem is that of some motorists’ attitudes relating to how and where cyclists should ride, and what rights should be afforded to them. The man who narrowly overtook me had no issue doing so presumably because he assumed he posed no threat to my safety and because I shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Had he considered me as a fellow human being foremost (rather than a member of a different “road user type”), acknowledged my right to share a lane with cars where it was impractical to travel in the bicycle lane (<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/arr210/s247">Australian Road Rules Regulation 247</a>) and been cognisant of the hazard that his vehicle posed to my safety, he would have likely been happy to wait an additional five seconds to overtake me safely.
One solution towards this attitude problem could be more education campaigns for motorists in relation to vulnerable groups such as cyclists. These would need to include the rights and responsibilities of various parties, such as the legal position on where and how cyclists may ride, and who gives way to whom in various situations. While some members of any road user group would continue to break the law, correcting misconceptions on road rules would help decrease situations where a motorist’s mistaken outrage at a cyclist sharing the road blinds him or her to compassion and common sense.
Another would be greater awareness that cyclists are not a fundamentally different type of animal life, even when dressed in spandex, but fellow human beings. Too often, we categorise others into rigid out-groups – even when the basis for these groups cease on alighting from our vehicles. Family members have told me that they have begun driving more carefully around cyclists since I began cycling, having greater empathy and awareness of the risks involved. It is my hope the increasing numbers of cyclists will mean that more people will know one and see them as somebody’s family member or friend, rather than an obstacle to getting through the next set of green lights. However, we may need safety campaigns reminding us that people – however they travel – have lives and aspirations that can too easily be extinguished by carelessness or impatience.
In a perfect world, technological and infrastructural solutions would remove the all-too-present element of human error from transportation. Although we continually strive to fix accident blackspots and physically separate vulnerable road users from threats, these solutions alone cannot be the answer. Greater compassion, awareness and patience on our roads would make a world of difference.
Alexander is a member of <a href="https://www.facebook.com/linkmelbsus" target="_blank">Students Linking Melbourne Sustainably</a>.
</body></html>

Alexander Sheko

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News