“Still liveable?”, The Age, 22/11. This in-depth article looks at the rapid growth of Melbourne – predicted at the current rate to reach 6.4 million in 2050 – and the failure of the State Government to keep up with the infrastructure required to support such numbers. New suburbs are being built on what was once farmland at great distances from the CBD, and the residents there have virtually nothing in the form of access to public transport. The current planning system favors developers at the expense of livability issues, and there is no move to change this. Of course, the basic problem is the relentless population growth the city has been inundated with – and neither State nor Federal Governments appear willing to tackle this issue by reducing the too-high immigration rate, and discouraging the high birth rate – too radical for our growth-based economy to contemplate. One academic quoted in the article does not believe population growth is a problem:
The state government’s 20-minute city proposal is “a complete pipedream”, says Carolyn Whitzman, associate professor in urban planning at Melbourne University. “Whether Melbourne has 4 million or 6 million people, we’re not travelling in a particularly equitable direction,” she says. “I don’t necessarily see population growth as a bad thing, it just has to be managed properly. Currently, we live in a socially divided and environmentally unsustainable city.”
Realistically, population growth is almost never “managed properly” – certainly not by Australian governments – and with most cutting funding such management is even more unlikely.
From a commenter in a related article:
Still more articles agonising about strategies for adapting Melbourne’s moribund infrastructure to cope with future population explosion, all predicated on the unspoken and unchallenged assumption that population growth is inevitable and sacred. None of the learned commentators and politicians dares mention the obvious solution – limiting population growth, which could be done with social pressure on parents to limit family sizes, and governments limiting immigration. Why the collective dread of mentioning this obvious fact?
– boxchester, Melbourne, November 22, 2012, 11:48AM
I feel like starting a Mattew Guy hate page on Facebook or something! The Planning Minister comes across as arrogant and condescending in his statements, such as this opinion piece: “The metropolis our forefathers built will continue to be vibrant and exciting”, H-S, 22/11, a relentlessly optimistic extolling of Melbourne’s continous expansion. (I would like to declare a fatwa on the word vibrant …) He is of the opinion that huge skyscrapers make a city “sophisticated” – “Mr Guy dismissed those who complain about over-development, saying: ‘If Melbourne is too successful, maybe they should move to Adelaide’.” (source) – presumably Adelaide is not yet wrecked as Melbourne? “Taller buildings, he said, were a symbol of a growing nation, a strong economy and can ‘define a city’.” (source) He wrote a rather patronizing opinion piece in today’s Herald-Sun: “The metropolis our forefathers built will continue to be vibrant and exciting” (behind a paywall, reproduced below):
BEING a born and bred Melburnian I know how much the 4.2 million of us care about the way our city looks and feels.
We’re very proud of our home, despite knowing it’s not a glitzy city like Sydney or a big mining town like Perth.
Rather, we’ve built a refined, elegant city that shows off when it wants to, but aims to impress those who live here more than anyone else.
This is probably why Melbourne has been rated the world’s most liveable city for two years in a row.
But maintaining that edge of liveability over the rest of the world is becoming more and more challenging.
Population growth is still strong - more than 60,000 more people become Melburnians every year - and with them come mounting infrastructure, service, environmental and housing pressures.
Melbourne has always been a positive city; we confront issues and we deal with them.
It concerns me that some people are now very willing to write off Melbourne’s ability to manage the challenges of a growing city unless we stop people having children, ban any new central business district skyscrapers and cast a suspicious eye toward any overseas investor looking at our city.
Earlier this year, the State Government commenced a process to write a new metropolitan planning strategy.
This strategic vision will outline a clear, long-term plan for Melbourne, particularly dealing with how we manage growth and confront challenges such as housing affordability, environmental sustainability and our growing infrastructure demands.
Importantly, it will be a positive strategy to guide Melbourne’s liveability in the long term.
Our CBD is changing and in particular it is expanding. Melbourne has to plan to use our central city area as a place to accommodate a greater population where people can walk to work, to the football, to transport or to a restaurant.
Population growth in our central city area also gives the chance for us to create a 24-hour CBD that is more than just bars and clubs, a concept being explored by the new metropolitan planning strategy.
Melbourne’s CBD is big, much bigger than Sydney’s or Brisbane’s, and has terrific sub-precincts within it.
FROM Chinatown to the hidden laneways, to the Paris End and West End, our high-rise buildings have not compromised the CBD’s vibrancy in the past and there should be no reason that with good street-level planning new towers would do so in the future.
Importantly, to ignore the role the CBD, Docklands, Southbank and now Fishermans Bend can play in accommodating inner-urban population, is short-sighted. Every high-rise apartment built in the central city area is one less apartment on inner-suburban streets.
Of course, a greater number of residential towers in the CBD will bring more people, more activity, a greater level of community interaction and, of course, more life. There is no doubt that people make a city and more residents in our CBD have transformed it from a 9-to-5 office precinct to one of Australia’s most active and energetic places.
Furthermore, the recent increase of interest in bigger skyscrapers for the central city gives Melbourne the excellent chance to begin to define our city through built structures.
Well-placed, well-designed skyscrapers can be a beautiful and striking addition to the character of a city.
But Melbourne is more than just the central city area.
The new metropolitan strategy is focusing on our infrastructure challenges; why it is so important to build the east-west tunnel and the Melbourne Metro rail project from Footscray to South Yarra.
It is looking at the future of our ports, a new third airport in the southeast and how Port Phillip Bay could be used for water transport. The strategy is examining a permanent urban growth boundary in certain areas, recognising that Melbourne cannot physically go on forever and the role that regional cities will then play in managing growth at a statewide level.
The city I love is not one that shuns opportunities; it is one that embraces them.
And everyone is encouraged to share their view on our city’s future.
Public consultation is a must to ensure that the vision for our city is one formed from its people.
Our forefathers left behind a city that was well planned and confident.
My aim as Planning Minister is to ensure that the new metropolitan planning vision will facilitate the Melbourne of the 21st century, one that I will be proud to see my children’s generation inherit.
Letters, H-S, 30/10:
Bigger not better
IF Melburnians love their city, then there’s quite a threat of significant change over the next 40 years, driven by unprecedented population growth and economic uncertainty.
What we really appreciate is not how high the buildings can rise, or a transformation to a monster mega-city. Bigger is not necessarily better.
Matthew Guy’s Ministerial Advisory Committee has released a discussion paper featuring ideas about how we can best manage our city’s future.
This discussion paper is about allowing property developers and investors continued access to our CBD and suburbs for their own vested interests.
Our population growth keeps outpacing funding available for essential infrastructure and public facilities. The growth model should be replaced by one of maintenance and improvements for Melbourne, and enhancements of what residents love about it.
– V. Ortega, Heidelberg Heights
24/11:
Guy gets rise out of people
BEVERLEY O’Connor’s criticism of the rampant high-rise development in Melbourne is welcome (“High-risk high-rise”, Nov 21). Planning Minister Matthew Guy loves it, but residents don’t. He is quoted as wanting a Manhattanstyle skyline, but Manhattan is ranked 50th in the world for its standard of living.
Developers rule. Their plans are normally approved. The minister has sole approval authority for any building over 25,000sq m (about 15 floors) and there is no right allowed for anybody to object.
Residential buildings are being crammed in as little as 10m apart, resulting in overshadowing, increased traffic congestion and a lack of sunlight, privacy, open space and resident amenities.
In New Quay in the Docklands, where developers do what they like, seven residential towers are crammed into an area of 400m by 150m, with another two to come.
There is virtually no control over project planning design and layout. Something has to be done.
It seems the only thing that will deter the minister is fear of the ballot box, and he should start to be worried.
– Roger Gardner, Docklands
Edit, 25/11: “Regional cities set to rise and thrive”, The Age. Features Matthew Guy’s views on population growth:
Mr Guy said he supported sustainable population growth, rather than growth at all costs. “The state government’s view is that population growth, the immigration component to it, has been one of our state’s success stories,” he said. “The state has changed inexorably, whether it’s just Melbourne, or suburbs or regional towns. There is a view that we can manage our population better by cutting off all overseas migration. That’s not true and I don’t subscribe to it. Population growth should be seen as a challenge, but not one that we can’t manage.”
So he is essentially an advocate of growth. I hope he does not become Premier (as some reports say he has ambition to).
