Home

Book Club
Career/Education
Environment
General
Melbourne
Places
Planning
Tales of the City
Urban Design

Login

Weekly Discussions
Citizen #381277

Weekly Discussion Topic- Melbourne 2030 – Planning Rhetoric versus Urban Reality

In an attempt to stimulate discussion, we will be starting weekly (more or less) discussions on a few planning and land use issues. This week we will be discussing the effects and ideas presented in Melbourne 2030 – Planning Rhetoric versus Urban Reality

Here are some articles to get you going:

Melbourne- Another Hong Kong?

2030 – A Space Fallacy?

2030- Vision for the city is blurred

Melbourne Risks LA Style Sprawl


Of course, take some of these with a grain of salt, the contradictions between the articles are numerous. LA style sprawl as Melbourne begins to look like Hong Kong? Oh please, some one fetch me a blanket so I can hide.

Planning 23rd March, 2005 12:56:19   [#] 

Comments

Oh...
An attempt to stimulate discussion, hey?

Sounds optimistic.
Aaron Hewett  23rd March, 2005 22:27:41  

You could...
...at least link to your own article Aaron!

I'm going away for a few days, so I'll just make a few notes.

The key point here is demographics, Melbourne 2030 has a few demographic assumptions built into it, namely: that there will be another million people in Melboune in 2030; that household sizes will continue to decrease; and that people will be willing to live in medium-to-high density housing.

It is hard to get a firm grip on what the book says from the articles, but they are geographers so it is a demographic critique. Unfortunately journalists and statistics are, to quote Milhouse van Houten, like two positively charged ions.

What I think it is saying though, is something I've said here before, but still not got around to posting properly. Namely, that the trend to inner-city living is the result of international students (in apartments) and an increase in the age that people marry. That the wish to living in the suburbs remains strong, but is happening later in life - early 30s instead of early 20s.

The argument then revolves around the commercial viability of apartments in activity centres in the outer suburbs. What is being put forward is that they won't be viable because the people who live in them - single 20-somethings - are not getting any more numerous.

Aaron, on your article, a lot of what you say depends on the definition of medium and high densities. New suburban lots are smaller, but the densities are nowhere near medium density living - ie. terrace houses.

The big question would appear to be this then: will the current group of inner-suburban 20-somethings want to maintain their cafe-latte medium density lifestyle after they have kids? Is it notable that developers aren't making many four bedroom medium-high density developments?
Russ  24th March, 2005 11:28:02  

I wrote this before Russ' submission, please forgive me interweb gods!
Judging by the comments in today’s Your Say section in The Age, the majority of people not only welcome the recent critique of Melbourne 2030, but also appear to be against any sort of change. This is a disturbing trend, because it indicates that people are happy to maintain their current lifestyle. Of course, that’s not to say that they shouldn’t be enjoying their current lifestyle (on the urban fringe, who wouldn’t want to drive 1hr+ to get into work every day!), but if people aren’t willing to accept the possibility that change may actually make things easier, then we have to ask ourselves ‘what can be done?’

I personally dislike NIMBYists, I’m one (I guess), but I daresay there should be a distinction between urban NIMBYism and rural NIMBYism. I represent the latter because I feel that Melbourne has expanded too far, and with expansion comes a downgrading of social conditions. Look at Pakenham. Urban NIMBYists are another matter altogether, although we share the same feelings – downgrading of our local area. However, no matter what you believe when you buy into the inner city housing market, you have an obligation to understand that the urban fabric will change. Urban NIMBYists who complain that their rather expensive house in Camberwell or Malvern or Kew might depreciate if that ‘terrible development’ goes ahead need to understand that change is constant. I’ll now leave Russ to blow my argument out of the water with sneaky economic analysis.

Tom  24th March, 2005 12:39:13  

I may as well go live in Ballarat...
Maybe it's just because I have many friends with rural backgrounds, but the refrain I hear over and over again from my cafe latte drinking friends is goes something like:

"Well, bugger it, if I'm going to go and live in Caroline Springs I'll move to bloody Ballarat/Bendigo/Geelong/Tallangatta...".

Now, employment prospects and family ties might put a stop to some of those plans, but I suspect it might become true for an increasing number of people faced with living in outer-suburban hellholes.

A second factor to consider is that you don't get a backyard worthy of the name at the new outer-suburban developments anyway. If you don't get a decent size backyard, what's the advantage over a family-size apartment or townhouse?
Rob  24th March, 2005 14:37:04  


Archive

October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003

Recent Comments

Optimal stop spacing and
      Russ, Tony Morton
Mode Choice and Rational
      Russ, Jason Murphy
The Gastronomic Pub Crawl
      Russ, Andrew
Monday Melbourne: CCLIV,
      Andrew
Monday Melbourne: CCXXXII
      Russ, Andrew
Monday Melbourne: CCXXXII
      Russ

Melbourne

Scribbling on Bricks
Melbourne 2030 Portal
Melbourne on Transit
Save Our Suburbs
Sustainable Melbourne
Urban Creature

Cities

SevenSixFive
The Next American City
Andrew Blum
Architecture and Morality
Bright Lights Dim Beauty
       of Chicago

Burb
City Comforts
The City Desk
City States
Cyburbia
Diamond Geezer
Forum for Urban Design
Me, My Life +
       Infrastructure

Progressive Reactionary
Rebuilding Place in the
       Urban Space

Smogr
Urban Cartography
Urban Commons
Urban Planning Research
Where

Design and Development

A Daily Dose of
        Architecture

Artect.net
Beyond Brilliance,
       Beyond Stupidity

Brand Avenue
Bricoleurbanism
CoolTown Studios
City of Sound
Curbed [LA] [SF]
Gabion
The Ground Floor
Ksmgrd
Lebbeus Woods
The Measures Taken
Megablog
New (Sub)Urbanism
Private Sector
       Development Blog

Reason Commentaries
Richard Green Sit Down Man, You're
       a Bloody Tragedy

Tropolism
Urban Planning Blog
Veritas et Venustas
Wow Flutter

Culture and Theory

2 Blowhards
Abstract Dynamics
Aesthetic Grounds
Anne Galloway
Barista
James Howard Kunstler
Junk for Code
Karrie Jacobs
Life Without Buildings
Martin Krieger
Neighbourhoods
Neighbourhoods.org
Place Space
Rodcorp
Rough Theory
The Sesquipedalist
Side Effects
Space and Culture
Strange Harvest

Environments

a456
Blog Like You Give a Damn
The Commons Blog
Environmental and
       Urban Economics

Gristmill
Impact Analysis
Jetson Green
Landscape and Urbanism
Muck and Mystery
Oikos
The Perfect City
Pruned
Web Urbanist
World Changing

Transport

cfsmtb in low
       earth orbit

Live from the Third Rail
metro(spo--ka(n')
Peter Gordon's Blog
Streets Blog
Train Blog
The Transportationist

Non Blogs

Planetizen
Planners Web
Project for Public
       Spaces

New Urbanism
American Planning
       Association

Spacing
Polar inertia
Sustainable
       Communities

Australian Policy
       Online

Cyburbia
Liveable Places
butterpaper
Australian Transport
       Discussion Board

Urban Design Forum
Urban Residue
SkyscraperCity
Environmental News
Metropolitan Transport
       Forum