Book Club
Tales of the City
Urban Design


Planning and the Labor Party Part 1 – Melbourne 2030
Citizen #381277

Naturally, this is a very amateur assessment so flame away!

As an exercise in fair-handedness, I’ve decided to write a piece on what the Labor Party is doing in regard to Planning in Victoria.

As noted in my previous post, the Victorian Liberals have offered very little in terms of a viable alternative to the current Victorian planning system. Far from creating policy, the Liberals criticise the system that operates under the current Labor Government. This is quite understandable, especially considering the continuous problems that dog the Government’s metropolitan strategy, Melbourne 2030.

The main problem with M2030 is that it is first and foremost (in my opinion) a public relations document, designed to alleviate fears from some sectors in the community. Advocacy groups such as Save Our Suburbs, the Brighton Residents for Urban Protection and the Save the Casey Foothills Association all have certain agendas they wish to push, and M2030 is a response to these concerns.

Secondly, the while within the document the reader will see all the happy smiling faces of residents, colourful graphs and short catchy phrases, there is very little mention of actual funding strategies. The line between solid strategic policy and glossy brochure begins to blur…

Additionally, what should be complementary strategies don’t actually appear to be terribly complementary. Take for example Direction 1: A More Compact City and Direction 8: Better Transport links. The former concerns the much maligned Activity Centre policy while the latter revolves obviously around upgrading Melbourne’s transport infrastructure. For example, let’s assess the following two directions:

Direction 1.3 Locate a substantial proportion of new housing in or close to activity centres and other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.

Direction 8. 1: Upgrade and develop the Principal Public Transport Network and local public transport services to connect activity centres and link Melbourne to the regional cities

Clearly Direction 1.3 is referring to already established activity centres that offer good access to services and transport. Direction 8.1 seeks to upgrade existing public transport links to activity centres. With M2030 the old chicken or egg proverb is a good sort of parallel. If you plan to put housing into a certain area, people will find it hard to see the benefits if there is a lack of transport options. Likewise, public transport operators will be hard pressed to increase services to an area that (currently) has a very small population…but I digress Such directions when put next to each other show that there are sections of M2030 that are quite conservative in nature. For such a ‘revolutionary’ document there are certainly a large number of initiatives that are rather timid.

As the former Planning Minister, Ms Delahunty noted in her address to Parliament 9 October 2002:

The overarching plan is to protect what we love about Melbourne while absorbing up to an extra 1 million people. It is a great place to be. It will be a greener city. It will have better transport links. It will be a more compact city -- a city that brings shops, services and opportunities to your doorstep rather than seeing subdivisions out on the fringes struggling for those services that many others take for granted.

Conflicting aims within aims, M2030 is as leaky as a rusty sieve and will need to be fully assessed should the Labor party retain office come November 2006

Next week Part 2 – The Victorian System

Planning 6th April, 2005 15:29:32   [#] 


So uh...
... for someone from a different continent...what's the quick and dirty summary of what's going on. Is this a project to get people to stay in the city instead of escaping to the suburbs?
WWL  19th April, 2005 16:15:15  

Short answer: yes, sort of. As I understand it (I'm not a planner myself, just friends with a lot of them...), it's a plan to squash a million more people into Melbourne without too much more suburbs (they extend arguably too far out in some directions already), and without completely ruining the city in the process. The plan is to concentrate medium and high-density developments in "activity centres" close to transport hubs.

As Mr Anderson has indicated, it's rather vague on how this is actually to be achieved...
Robert Merkel  21st April, 2005 01:33:00  

On the head
You hid the nail on the head there, Rob. As you can probably guess, trying to cram a lot of people into Melbourne without expanding the boundaries only leaves the option to build upwards. There's a lot of vocal opposition from residents' groups about this. Quite frankly, they give me the shits, but I think I've written about that earlier...

Tom  21st April, 2005 19:54:16  


May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015

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,
Monday Melbourne: CCXXXII
      Russ, Andrew
Monday Melbourne: CCXXXII


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


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

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

Progressive Reactionary
Rebuilding Place in the
       Urban Space

Urban Cartography
Urban Commons
Urban Planning Research

Design and Development

A Daily Dose of

Beyond Brilliance,
       Beyond Stupidity

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

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

Urban Planning Blog
Veritas et Venustas
Wow Flutter

Culture and Theory

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


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

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


cfsmtb in low
       earth orbit

Live from the Third Rail
Peter Gordon's Blog
Streets Blog
Train Blog
The Transportationist

Non Blogs

Planners Web
Project for Public

New Urbanism
American Planning

Polar inertia

Australian Policy

Liveable Places
Australian Transport
       Discussion Board

Urban Design Forum
Urban Residue
Environmental News
Metropolitan Transport