Fishermans Bend vision becoming clearer: consultation now open

The vision for Australia's largest urban renewal project, Fishermans Bend, is one step closer to being formalised with the release of a paper to be used for community consultation.

In the latest public release of information on the project which is likely to be under construction all the way through to the mid-point of this century, the vision for the individual neighbourhood precincts is clearer.

Overall, the headline figures are roughly the same: the residential population of 80,000 by 2050 remains intact however the number of jobs projected to be in the precinct has been bumped up to 60,000.

In a sign of the times, Fishermans Bend now has its own (soon-to-be-official, no doubt) Twitter account run by government communications representatives: @Fishermans_Bend

All the familiar names are still there: Montague, Sandridge, Lorimer, Wirraway and thanks to the enlargement of the entire urban renewal area not long after the Andrews Government came to power, the 'new employment precinct'.

Quoting from a media release distributed on Friday afternoon, the employment precinct - depicted in the lead image - "will be designed to attract international investment and will become a destination for emerging technologies, specialised labs and education spaces".

Montague will have "taller buildings, taking advantage of transport links, with laneways and renovated older buildings. Buckhurst street will be tree-lined and will become a retail and dining destination"

Sketch of Montague. Image © DELWP

Lorimer precinct "will have lower-scale development and be home to small businesses, with social infrastructure such as childcare centres and libraries, and will connect Fishermans Bend to the city with walking and cycling trails and public transport".

Sketch of Lorimer. Image © DELWP

Sandridge "will have lots of open space and a mix of residential development, office space and commercial uses"

Sketch of Sandridge. Image © DELWP

Wirraway "will be designed for families, with leafy streets and a range of housing types, with good access to the bay and Westgate park".

Sketch of Wirraway. Image © DELWP

A more detailed vision for each neighbourhood precinct is contained within the "vision recast" document on the fishermansbend.vic.gov.au website. Feedback submissions close on the 1st of July.

8 comments

Nicholas Harrison's picture

Looks like the references to the metro rail stations have been removed from the vision recast document.

Without proper infrastructure plans and timings from day 1 the whole plan is just waffle.

Back to top
db2's picture

There should be tram links.

FB is not that far from the CBD & Southbank; lack of heavy rail is not a deal breaker as long as trams run at high enough frequency.

Back to top
Nicholas Harrison's picture

A population of 80,000 and 60,00 jobs. That is similar to the population and employment statistics for the city of Yarra in an area one quarter the size. That kind of density cannot be adequately serviced by trams alone.

Back to top
Aussie Steve's picture

The sooner we get a real tram plan for the entire Melbourne metro area, the better. And although a train line to FB would be great, the tram system can certainly be improved without having to build more bridges over the Yarra River. An inner city tram line along Williamstown Rd and Ingles & Pickles Streets with an interchange at the 109 tram would suffice for the moment.

Back to top
johnproctor's picture

That Nicholas said. Need trains.

Really don't understand why lorimer is Sen. As a low rise precinct? Given yarras edge already has 5 towers + at least two more approved/uc the precedent is set and I don't know what is trying to be protected in a long thin triangle precinct that will have those tall towers on one side and the M1 and Bolte freeways on the others.

I also wonder why the plan doesn't address the elephant in the room more directly which is the 15 to 20 approved towers that may well mean the intended outcome at each precinct is compromised before it starts. How will those now 'oversized' developments be addressed by adjoining development to help them fit in the longer term?

Back to top
pdoff's picture

The 'Recast Vision' builds on rather than replaces the 'Draft Vision 2013' which was certainly quite extensive in its discussion about the Metro 2 link. The Recast Vision does say numerous studies are to be undertaken which includes transport and 'metro rail' at page 4.

With the Employment Precinct now included and the ever present barrier of an 8 lane freeway restricting the whole area from convenient surface access, I don't see how it's possible to create a 'vibrant' precinct without a metro line.

Back to top
Melbman's picture

It certainly makes it a bit more challenging, but a few well integrated taller towers that have already been approved and comparatively lower-rise surrounding those isn't a deal breaker.

The biggest issue is though that many of these blocks have now been purchased with a view to higher development potential, and if they can't do that it will likely just see them sit on that land until they can get their way. They won't want to lose big dollars on that investment if they can help it.

Judging by past precedent, if someone tries hard enough they do end up getting an outcome that better suits their purpose :)

Back to top
Rohan Storey's picture

Gosh this is taking forever, while tower have been or are being approved! Some kind of development contribution find should be established immediately! The CCZ 'floor area uplift' model now proposed will see 'pubpic benefits' like extra public space and affordable apartments provided as in return for greater height. What's needed here though is simply a percentage of profits put towards the school, tram line, library, parks etc. And unless the 'vision' (I havnt read it) goes on to include a firm requirement, like a DDO, for developments to fit the vision eg. that ground floor shops must be provided along Buckhurst Street, then the overall vision will be a created by individual developers.

Lookingupatbuildings

Back to top

Note: Every effort is made to ensure accurate information is provided. If information is out of date, or factually incorrect, please get it touch so we can rectify. Urban accepts no liability and responsibility for any direct or indirect loss or damage which may be suffered by any recipient through relying on anything contained or omitted from our publication and platform. Opinions expressed by writers are that of the writer, and may not reflect that of Urban.