Figure 20 - Melbourne’s Urban footprint compared to inner city

concentrated on regional and national Employment and Innovation clusters. These innovation clusters are surrounded by medium density residential development and often under-equipped with amenities and services in the areas if middle and outer suburbs. On the other hand, the well-services central city and inner neighbourhoods are unaffordable, thus representing the city’s severe and unfairly distributed deficit of infrastructure and services in which upper and middle classes tend to cluster in inner and middle ring areas while lower income groups are moving to urban fringes in search of lower prices for housing.(Whitzman, 2017) According to Currie et al. (2018) this phenomenon has profound implications on forced car ownership with great impact and intensity felt in low density outer suburban areas. According to the Metropolitan authority, as of 2014, 89% of workers commuted by car (Dunn, 2016)

Figure 20 - Melbourne’s Urban footprint compared to inner city (Source: Boulder, 2016)