11 minute read
Achieving higher densities and delivering increased liveability By Pru Sanderson, Chief Executive Offi cer, VicUrban
By Pru Sanderson, Chief Executive Offi cer VicUrban
Australia’s cities are growing and demographic profi les are changing. Victoria is responding with policies and initiatives aimed at maintaining its leadership in liveability and affordability. Achieving higher The Victorian Government’s centrepiece Melbourne @ 5 Million policy calls for 315,000 new dwellings in established areas and 280,000 in growth areas. As the Victorian Government’s sustainable urban development densities and agency, VicUrban is responding to Melbourne’s housing needs by developing projects in existing and new suburbs that achieve higher average densities. delivering Notwithstanding VicUrban’s activities to deliver these policy targets, achieving the required mix of new housing in both established and growth areas requires new development approaches. There is currently much discussion about how best to optimise the relationship between more effi cient land use and transport services. Among others, two distinctive schools of thought have emerged. One argues that high-density development along transport increased liveability corridors is the best option for accommodating population growth in our existing established suburb areas. Another school of thought is that a number of neighbourhood hubs distributed across our major cities will
VicUrban at Docklands.
major cities will provide nodes of higher density mixed use activity with a far better liveability outcome. This will result in the formation of population clusters that support highly patronised public transport services.
Both models (linear and nodal) have points of merit and are appropriate in certain locations, however VicUrban cautions against city development that assumes proximity to transport is the only amenity benefi t of value. Access to transport is only one of many ingredients that combine to determine a city’s liveability.
As we build our cities to accommodate population growth we must fi nd ways to deliver higher average densities without trading off space, convenience and amenity – the key drivers of liveability.
This requires a comprehensive planning approach. VicUrban’s particular point of interest is how best to achieve higher average densities by creating urban villages offering a variety of housing choices, jobs, services, transport and open space.
Understanding the challenge
The higher average density required under Melbourne @ 5 Million has not yet been widely adopted by private developers. VicUrban has a role to play in demonstrating how key infi ll sites and new suburbs can accommodate more homes, remain in tune with an area’s existing character and offer proximity to jobs, services and transport.
Land use strategies and transport planning must be part of the same conversation; how do we accommodate more people within existing suburbs serviced by existing infrastructure, without compromising our cherished liveability standards?
Some are answering this question by calling for as-of-right medium to highdensity on sites fronting all transport corridors. There are said to be approximately 12,000 such sites along Melbourne’s tramlines and approximately 22,000 such sites along priority bus routes.
This model would provide a very signifi cant number of new dwellings and probably create viable conditions for colocated businesses. Unfortunately, this development model assumes that transport is the most important amenity benefi t, more often than not at the exclusion of other place characteristics that defi ne liveability.
Row after row of medium to highrise apartment towers are doomed to fail because they leave no room for people to meet, interact and enjoy nearby amenities. This one size fi ts all development model would likely result in linear neighborhoods fi lled with new dwellings that become places to sleep rather than places to live.
In our efforts to create more compact, sustainable and affordable cities we need to deliver places where people gather around things that matter; such as local jobs, community facilities, open space and transport.
There are certainly some locations along existing transport corridors that suit medium to high-rise development. These locations are typically characterised by multiple sources of local amenity – of which transport is only one – fostering a diversity of residential tenure.
Diversity of tenure is an important ingredient in the social fabric of our suburbs. A neighbourhood encompassing an interspersed mix of owner-occupiers and tenants is far more desirable than residential pockets exclusively comprising one or the other.
Melbourne’s experience is that apartment-dwelling owner-occupiers are more prevalent in locations offering proximity to open space, as well as transport and other attributes. Conversely, apartments constructed on transport thoroughfares but lacking other nearby amenities are most often the domain of investors.
Denser development in locations combining transport access with other place attributes will encourage more diverse and resilient communities.
For these reasons VicUrban does not support as-of-right medium and highdensity development in a linear model along existing transport corridors. A more holistic approach is needed to deliver both a greater density of dwellings and a greater preparedness of owner-occupiers to live in these dwellings. Diversity of tenure is an important ingredient in the social fabric of our suburbs. A neighbourhood encompassing an interspersed mix of owner-occupiers and tenants is far more desirable than residential pockets exclusively comprising one or the other.
VicUrban at Maribyrnong.
Urban infi ll
VicUrban believes a daisy chain of urban villages well served by transport infrastructure represents the optimal approach to accommodating growth within existing suburbs. These urban villages would centre on high-density nodes, encompassing job-creating retail, commercial and service offerings. The nodes would be surrounded by a loose ring of medium- to high-density townhouses and apartments, followed by more compact traditional homes.
The advantage of the urban village approach – as opposed to the model of linear development along transport corridors – is that it allows existing locations to accommodate more people while remaining responsive to the existing local character. It also leaves room for the spaces and places that will offset the reduction in private open space.
In this way urban infi ll and redevelopment will deliver appropriately mixed densities, rather than the likely destruction of places people value under the linear development model.
Within our existing cities, such as Melbourne, we already have nodes of high-density activity that are typically well serviced by retail, services, amenities and transport. These nodes and immediate surrounds are logical locations for the creation of townhouse and apartment-style living options.
There are some barriers to densifi cation within existing suburbs, not least of which is the inconsistency in standards used by local governments and service authorities when assessing planning permit applications. These confl icting standards often result in permit assessment processes that are time consuming, overly complicated, costly and lead to uncertain outcomes. VicUrban, and no doubt many private developers, would welcome action to create greater consistency in the standards local governments and service authorities use to assess planning
Urban growth
In growth areas we need to emulate the urban villages that have formed in our cities’ inner and middle suburbs. This requires more effi cient use of land by increasing average densities in line with our changing demographics.
Large gardens will still be in the mix for people who want a big backyard, but so too will be an increasing presence of smaller housing types for people whose lifestyles don’t suit or require large private spaces.
For example, it is anticipated that by 2049 only 27 per cent of Melbourne households will be occupied by twoparent families. More than half of future households will be home to only one or two people. Forecast household composition trends suggest we will see an increasing need for more compact and affordable lifestyle options that are well connected to transport, places of employment, public open space and community infrastructure. People are spending more time and creating more carbon pollution travelling from outer suburbs to places of employment. For example, the ratio of jobs to people in Melbourne’s southeast is 2:10 compared to the Melbourne average of 4:10. Greenhouse gas pollution is 35 per cent higher per trip in the outer suburbs than inner Melbourne suburbs.
The solution to these growth area liveability and environmental challenges is to deliver new nodes of high-density mixeduse activity. Increasing the proximity of jobs to homes, combined with accessible public transport, will signifi cantly reduce carbon pollution while increasing liveability in urban growth areas.
The urban village model of growth area development, as opposed to ‘cut and carve’ residential subdivisions, will assist in consolidating commuter demand into key growth locations. This has the potential to improve transport effi ciency as infrastructure and services in growth areas can then be planned to service areas of higher population concentration.
The place-making paradigm
In responding to Australia’s growing population we must strive to create places that stand the test of time. This is the essence of place-making; an emerging discipline that draws together physical, social and economic ingredients to create places in which people will want to live, work, learn and socialise.
At the heart of successful place making is the understanding – to which VicUrban wholeheartedly subscribes - that no single ingredient can create a great place.
Linking transport planning and services with new infi ll and growth area population centres is both logical and commendable. We must however ensure that the practical delivery of this approach does not result in new homes that are connected to transport but barren of other valued place attributes. This is the likely outcome of development approaches that are predicated on the assumption that high-density living along transport corridors is the only answer to fi tting more people into suburbs.
A daisy chain of urban villages linked by transport will build on and create effi cient hubs of jobs, homes and services within denser cities. This is the comprehensive approach we must take as we build our cities to accommodate a growing population.
BY DR MICHAEL SHIRLEY
Failure to address a future of fragile and inadequate urban infrastructure in the midst of global trends of population migration and climate change will impact the lives of billions of people.
To avoid this outcome, an investment of US$40 trillion will be required over the next 20 years(1) to modernise and expand the water, electricity and transportation systems of cities around the world. In Australia, investment for the same purpose exceeds A$700 billion to 2020(2) .
Key to meeting this challenge is to work smarter and sooner.
The strain on our cities is ever present. Massive urban migration is underway with 60% of our global population predicted to be urban dwellers by 2030. In Australia, populations of 7 million by the middle of this century are now predicted for Sydney and Melbourne.
Clearly we must transform our cities, responding to immediate challenges like drought, and building resilience to climate change, while also achieving major improvements in sustainability.
And as “hot spots” of consumption, production and waste generation, cities have an unparalleled potential to increase the energy efficiency and sustainability of our society as a whole.
For Australia, our challenge is particularly complex including restraining urban sprawl, and in turn, responding to increased urban density and delivering essential services such as transport and social infrastructure.
Immediate pressures that demand our attention are: • Maintaining the security of water supply for human consumption and environmental uses. • Integrating significant sources of renewable energy into existing networks. • Improving the energy efficiency of existing building stock. • Improving the effectiveness of urban public transport systems.
Transforming cities into a sustainable condition – to provide the greatest benefit at least cost in the shortest possible time –requires new, fresh thinking.
Changing the game
The central question in relation to the sustainability of cities is – can we adapt our thinking, relationships and behaviours to actually bring about what needs to be achieved? By this we mean: • Building on the collaboration within government and with the private sector and community. • Achieving inter-institutional and jurisdictional collaboration to integrate planning, infrastructure delivery and operations. • Testing and quantifying integrated design alternatives, particularly the macro infrastructure that shapes the form and function of cities. • Developing new ways of pricing, financing, procuring and delivering infrastructure and public services. • Factoring the intrinsic value of the natural environment into these decisions so that core social needs are met in innovative, cost effective and convenient ways. • Streamlining and accelerating consultation and approvals for sustainable infrastructure.
At Sinclair Knight Merz we are uniquely placed to work with government and the private sector in developing and delivering sustainable infrastructure for our cities. We possess a strong reputation across critical disciplines such as transport, water, power and buildings –the key elements that we now need to address together in a truly integrated way.
SKM brings the fresh thinking needed in both advisory and planning assignments, and through innovative design solutions.
Our collective task is significant and we need to start now – time is a nonrenewable resource. Together we can achieve positive and enduring outcomes.
Dr Michael Shirley is General Manager, Buildings & Infrastructure at leading engineering, sciences and project delivery firm Sinclair Knight Merz. DR MICHAEL SHIRLEY
General Manager, Buildings and Infrastructure, SKM
[1] Booz+Co (2007) “Lights! Water! Motion!” (by V. Doshi, G. Schulman and D. Gabaldon), strategy+business, Issue 46, Spring 2007 [2] IPA, ACA, AiG (2008) Submission to Infrastructure Australia Discussion Paper 2: Public Private Partnerships, October 2008, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, Australian Constructors Association, Australian Industry Group.
