Fostering a community-oriented Melbourne

FOSTERING

A COMMUNITY-ORIENTED

D

RA

FT

MELBOURNE

Investigating how to increase density while improving environmental and social quality

MARINA PIZZOTTI

This work is a draft version for the Mid-Semester presentation for the Master of Landscape Architecture Thesis of the University of Melbourne.

Its entire content represents a work in progress and its text has not been reviewed or adequately referenced. It aims to allow the jury to evaluate its progress.

University of Melbourne Melbourne School of Design Master of Landscape Architecture Thesis

Supervisor: Raymond Green Course Coordinator: Sidh Sintusingha Author: Marina Pizzotti | 974925

CONTENT ABSTRACT

6

I. INTRODUCTION

8

II. THE CONTEXT

10

• • • • • • •

Global Scenario The Suburban Sprawl and the Environment The Suburban Sprawl and the Community The ‘Australian Dream’ The housing affordability crisis Alternative housing models Precedent Investigation

III. THE STRATEGY • • • •

Simplifying wicked problems Design Methodology Planning Criteria Case Study: Fitzroy Gasworks

46

IV. THE PROCESS • • • • •

Site Analysis Masterplan Review Questioning the Brief Design Approach Design Development

V. THE OUTCOME •

58

80

Draft Design Proposition

BIBLIOGRAPHY

92

ABSTRACT

In an era of ecological collapse, Australia, that presents one of the highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita, need to transit into a sustainable economy. With the residential sector responsible for almost 30% of the greenhouse gas emissions, the suburban sprawl is no longer an alternative of how to build cities. The present work focuses on a case study to investigate how new government-led developments are structured, and which challenges arise in the creation of housing products that present both social and environmental quality. Fitzroy Gasworks’ urban design evolution is analysed and an attempt to illustrate the best outcome, balancing social, environmental and economic spheres, is made.

INTRODUCTION

This work investigates the negative impact of the suburban sprawl and explores how Melbourne can double its population without duplicating its footprint. It examines a particular case study, Fitzroy Gasworks, and proposes an alternative design to illustrate how a landscape-oriented urban development provides the best outcome balancing social, environmental and economic spheres.

Analysing the global scenario, Australian cities stand out due to very low population density, with its major centres characterizing typical suburban sprawl urban forms. The Australian dream set the foundations for its urban structure, with 86% of its current housing stock composed of detached or semi-detached houses and just 16% of the present building approvals having four or more stories. With the housing affordability crisis seeing its peak, alternatives need to be investigated.

In an era of ecological collapse, a wealthy developed country with such a small population should be leading the carbon-zero footprint campaign, but instead sits 11th in the global emissions per capita ranking. Dissecting Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions, 30% can be linked to the residential sector.

The suburban sprawl has a series of negative environmental and social impacts. One option for overcoming this complex challenge is to increase community-oriented living arrangements, which allows for numerous benefits, including physical and mental health improvements.

Within this scenario, the design methodology employed for this project was based on 8 points: to find the most suitable areas for densification, develop a data-driven planning process, choose a key prototype site, do a site analysis and review its urban design framework, establish a critical position, develop design iterations and detail key locations.

The criteria for the investigation of suitable locations for densification were Infrastructure supply, land use and demographics. Through a data-driven planning process, the criteria were overlapped, reaching a 3-phase framework for densification areas. Among all appropriate areas highlighted in Phase 1, one site with the potential to become a role model higher-density urban development was chosen: Fitzroy Gasworks. This site is an urban renewal of a former Gasworks site led

by Development Victoria.

A site analysis was conducted, investigating its historical and current situation. The site is located only 2km from the CBD and has multiple characteristics that provide a strong foundation for a successful

prototype. A map from 1872 shows a creek running across Edinburgh Gardens and a water drain along Alexandra Parade, being diverted into Dights Falls. Around the 1970s, Alexandra Parade’s nature strips were used as a recreational space, but nowadays they became islands in the middle of a never-ending traffic movement.

The development’s timeline was reviewed, and several documents investigated. With its first Urban Realm Framework released in 2008, two rounds of community engagement in 2017, and another two Masterplans issued to date, the project is set for another round of community participation in early 2020 and construction works to begin in 2021.

A spatial analysis was done over the three released masterplans, taking into consideration the project’s built form, major flows and creation of public and communal spaces, highlighting its opportunities and constraints.

Its buildings were modelled, and a sun study for the winter solstice was done. The number of dwellings/hectare was established for each project, which highlighted the average density proposed by the development. Local and global parameters for densification were investigated, with several precedents of cities with high quality of life show much higher densities than Melbourne. Development Victoria announced the construction of 1100 dwellings on the 3ha site. The Development Plan Overlay established for the site was analysed, alongside the community resolutions and a summary for each was made. The opportunities and constraints from the presented masterplans, the DPO and the community group resolutions culminated in the design approach.

The Design Approach targeted the elaboration of a landscapeoriented urban development. The major points are: a detailed Water Sensitive Urban Design, investigation of the maximum building envelope without affecting the quality of open space, allocation of communal outdoor space to all housing, biophilic Architecture, Central Spine across the block with a main gathering space at its core, a heritage plaza, active frontages to main streets, car flow directed underground and pedestrian/cyclist priority on the ground level, high tree canopy and vegetation in abundance.

Based on the design approach, three new iterations were produced, and a massing and sun study was conducted. The third iteration had the best performance and therefore, was selected for the next design stage, illustrated here in a draft form.

THE CONTEXT

Global Scenario This work begins from the analytical perspective of a built environment designer in the context of a climate emergency, with the background set in Melbourne, Australia. While researching about urban growth and how can Melbourne accommodate a 70% population increase in the next 30 years, some facts about Australian cities stand out.

Although each city has a specific development history, underpinned by cultural, political and economic factors, it’s vital to examine each city’s situation in the global context, as it creates parameters of analysis.

It is widely known that Australian cities present the most extensive and least dense settlements in the world, given their vast availability of land and expansion over periods when automobiles already existed, allowing the city boundaries to extend. Melbourne, with a population of 5 million in 2020, presents a population density of 500 people/ km2. Although the densest city in Australia - followed by Sydney (407 people/km2), Adelaide (400 people/km2), Perth (310 people/km2) and Brisbane (145 people/km2) - Melbourne is among the least densely populated cities in the world.

‘Emissions are first and foremost a problem created by the affluent industrialized nations. The USA and Australia have greenhouse gas emissions averaging 22 and 28 tonnes per head respectively, compared to less than 1 tonne for many developing nations, including China. The sustainable level of emissions has been estimated to be about 3.5 tonnes for every person on planet Earth.’1 1 Lenzen, M., ‘Individual responsibility and climate change’, Environmental Justice Conference, The University of Melbourne, October 1997.

POPULATION GROWTH HOW TO DOUBLE THE POPULATION WITHOUT DOUBLING THE FOOTPRINT?

SOCIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

Figure X presents the population density in some of the world’s big cities. While the densest cities can reach up to 44000 people/km2 (Dhaka), old European centres present an average of 15000 people/km2 (Paris = 21000 people/km2, London = 15000 people/ km2, Berlin = 3800/km2, Copenhagen =6800/km2). Latin-American big centres are also densely populated ranging from 6300 people/km2 (Santiago) to 16600 people/km2 (Bogota). The United States presents distinct density patterns, from the global metropolis of New York with 10200 people/km2 to sprawled cities such as Los Angeles with only 2400 people/ km2.

It would be inaccurate to establish a proper population density outcome since every case is particular to its own parameters. Even the population density number in itself is an approximation, given the different urban fabrics that constitute the cities. Australian urban boundaries usually comprehend a series of natural parks, besides having extremely different structures between the CBD and its suburbs (fig. X). All of those factors are suppressed when a single population density number is used to define a much more complex system.

Nevertheless, these numbers should set some criteria for evaluation. Within this scenario, Australian cities stand out with very low population densities.

15000

1400

LONDON

WASHINGTON

21000

10200

2400

PARIS

NEW YORK

LA

12000 MIAMI

9800 MEXICO CITY

16600 BOGOTA

11300 LIMA

7100 6300 SANTIAGO

SAO PAULO

3800

8500 MOSCOW

BERLIN

6000

2400

BEIJING

ROME

19400

DELHI

CAIRO

44000 4000

MUMBAI

8200 LUANDA

TOKYO

DHAKA

32300

24800

6200

11600

HO CHI MINH

BANGALORE

9600 JAKARTA

500

MELBOURNE

400

SYDNEY

GLOBAL SCENARIO

6800 COPENHAGEN

2

POPULATION DENSITY PEOPLE/KM

With only 0,33% of the world’s population, Australia is responsible for 2% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) - 5% if you consider the exports. China, with 19% of the total population, is responsible for 26% of GHG and the United States, with its 4.25% of world’s population emits 15% of GHG. The ratios for each are Australia 1: 6; China 1: 1.37 and USA 1: 3.52, which shows that the Australian population emits almost 5x more than the Chinese community, per capita.

As a wealthy developed country with such a small population, Australia should be leading the carbon-zero footprint campaign, but instead sits 11th in the global emissions per capita raking, next to countries like Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, with their oil-based economy. Australia’s high emissions are deeply related to its growth pattern and physical structure, as the typical suburban sprawl characterises its major cities. Figure X shows the breakdown of GHG emissions in Victoria per sector and how they related to the residential area.

0.33% of world’s population

CHINA - 19% WORLD POPULATION 26% GHG EMISSIONS USA - 4.25% WORLD POPULATION 15% GHG EMISSIONS AUSTRALIA - 0.33% WORLD POPULATION 5% GHG EMISSIONS

climate crisis

E MIS

S

per capita world

NS

11

pop.density world

o

IO

226

th

554 mi tonne MTCO2-e

63,5% 18,8% 12,7%

Residential 28.2% direct + indirect 31.4 Mt Co2-e 4.9 T CO2-e per capita/2017

91% - energy sector

total CO2 51% eletricity generation

Residential 22%

35% residential|16%fuel 16% direct combustion 21% transport 50% cars 3% fugitives

THE ISSUE

The Suburban Sprawl and the Environment In Victoria, 30% of the GHG emissions are related to the residential sector, which is the most significant amount emitted by one sector. The suburban sprawl is responsible for the destruction of agricultural land, habitat loss, increase in water run-off and damage of waterways, high infrastructure demand and car dependency with long commutes, therefore being energetically inefficient and rising over 330% the amount of greenhouse gas emitted when compared to a Smart Growth.

Peter Calthorpe, an American urban planner, analysed specific criteria in two different scenarios: Suburban Sprawl and Smart Growth, in his research about California’s future urban development. The data (fig.

X) shows a 69% reduction on land consumed, a 70% reduction on greenhouse gas emissions, a 42% reduction in vehicle miles travelled, a $2.8bi saved in health care (related to respiratory diseases) and a 52% reduction in annual household costs for the Smart Growth scenario.

CALIFORNIA precedent

(Peter Calthorpe, 2017)

5800

LAND CONSUMED

270

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

80

28000

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

16000

$1.3bi

HEALTH CARE (Respiratory)

-$1.5bi

21000

ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD COSTS

1800

10000

VICTORIA RESIDENTIAL SECTOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

30%

ENERGY EFFICIENCY XXX

mJ/year

OLD HOUSE

data

XXX

mJ/year

NEW HOUSE

The Suburban Sprawl and the Community

If on the one hand the suburban sprawl is destructive for the environment, it can also present severely negative social and cultural impacts, especially on a growing metropolis. As the city expands and people live further and far apart, it becomes increasingly hard to achieve community-oriented neighbourhoods. The suburban sprawl is the land of the private garden, which can be healthy for the microcosm of the family, but is each time more inaccessible with the lack of space. Furthermore, Melbourne presents a multi-cultural character with more than 50% of its residents from a different background and many with no local family. In this scenario, many citizens depend on the support from their neighbours and local communities to thrive.

In the process of densification, numerous benefits can appear with the creation of communal spaces, rather than the loss of quality in private gardens as we are now seeing (Fig. X). While working in collaboration, tasks are distributed and household costs are drastically reduced, allowing for a more inclusive and democratic city. With more time and money, people have more opportunity for recreational activities, which generates physical and mental health improvements, helping to overcome issues such as loneliness and isolation. The advantages achieved with co-operative relationships extends beyond a single demographic group. From young households, families with children to older houses - especially lone person households - sharing brings many advantages, and communal spaces allow for more intergenerational exchange, which fosters mutual empathy and creates more selfless human beings.

In his book “Boomtown 2050: Scenarios for a Rapidly Growing City”, published in 2009, Richard Weller summarises:

PRIVATE GREEN

“Finally, sprawl is ugly and people only buy into it because they have no other choice” Richard Weller

COMMUNAL GREEN

SUBURBAN SPRAWL INNER MELBOURNE 41% detached houses

OTHER SUBURBS 91% detached houses

?

SMART GROWTH

SUBURBAN SPRAWL

URBAN G

EXPAND

DESTRUCTIVE TO AGRICULTURAL LAND HABITAT LOSS ENERGY INNEFFICIENCY, HIGH INFRASTRUCTURAL COSTS SOCIAL ISOLATION, LACK OF SENSE OF PLACE CAR DEPENDENT LONG COMMUTES NON-POROUS SURFACE INCREASE RUN-OFF AND DAMAGES WATERWAYS

MIND

GROWTH

DSET

SMART GROWTH

DENSIFY TASKS DISTRIBUTION HOUSEHOLD COSTS REDUCED MORE TIME AND MONEY FOR RECREATION PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH IMPROVEMENT OVERCOME LONELINESS AND ISOLATION COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIPS, SMALLER FOOTPRINT

The ‘Australian Dream’ While several places in the world have developed distinct forms of communal residential spaces, Australia has very few precedents and has just recently begun to show different development structures. These are still questioned by a big parcel of the population, used to the formula of the freestanding house and the private garden. The foundations of this cultural perception date from the early settlement periods.

Australia’s modern settlement pattern began urban and quickly shifted to suburban, with the Australian dream (ownership of a house on a “quarter-acre block” in the suburbs) becoming an entrenched cultural tradition (Richardson, 1995). According to Davidson (1993), the suburbs became the “compromise between the necessity of the city and the idealised dream of the country”, in which the possession of a detached house and private garden is a symbol of personal success and security. With high rates of population growth around the 1950s and the widespread use of the automobile alongside the lack of policy on land occupancy, the city vastly expanded its boundaries, configuring a massive urban sprawl. When the authorities began to acknowledge the downfalls of an infinite sprawling urban form, a series of planning documents were issued, attempting to give the growing metropolis a more compact and sustainable shape (Fig.X).

Melbourne 2030, published in 2002, was the first of its kind, trying to shift the growth behaviours into more consolidated areas, the activity centres. The document aims to restrict the city’s spread by densifying specific areas composed of housing, employment, infrastructure and retail, reducing the necessity for long daily commutes. This report has received critique from planning specialists, who state that it presents an incorrect analysis of the forecasted demographic changes, establishing guidelines that won’t be embraced by the population who are still attached to the suburban city model. According to Birrell (2005), the document fails to propose solid policies and strategic plans, focusing on a series of broad generic views. The implementation of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is highly criticised by the fact that it doesn’t restrain any extension - since it is flexible – but it created an escalating price in greenfield land, which therefore entailed an affordability crisis that is seeing its peaks nowadays. In 2008, Melbourne 2030 received an update, Melbourne @ 5 million. The general philosophy remains, but the updated version starts being a bit more specific in what it defines as the central activity districts, establishing 6 CBD-like cores, alongside employment corridors. The

following planning documents present an increasing level of detail in their policy, with the use of maps and diagrams bringing the broad and extensive guidelines to a more tangible and realistic plane. Plan Melbourne 2014 also supports a polycentric city (Fig.2), but defines only metropolitan activity centres, not the range of varied and nonsimplified scales as previously defined. It establishes VICSMART, a policy to simplify approval processes, by declaring low-impact planning permits, and mentions greenhouse gas emissions for the first time. Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 presents the first acknowledgement of the aboriginal custodianship of the land and talks closely about storytelling and heritage, demonstrating the reach of more creative and sensitive planning strategies. It presents possibly one of the most important tools when it comes to urban planning, which is the notion of a framework. With the first Implementation Plan, it defines a short, medium and long-term timeframe for each objective and a strategy to achieve it.

In 1986, Bunker, by stating the environmental costs of suburban sprawl, and increased emission of greenhouse gases, had highlighted the “paramount concerns requiring urgent measures to bring about change”. 34 years later the city hasn’t altered its values, with mainly planning specialists acknowledging its necessity for modification. A metropolis with a high index of liveability and sustainability needs to be polycentric, providing efficient transport corridors along with neighbourhoods that offer service and community infrastructure. The Australian suburbs, which “promote mindless conformity, isolation and deprivation” (Richardson, 1995) need a strategic framework to determine the balance between culture and environment, by establishing a community-nature-oriented lifestyle.

The Australian dream, in which the possession of a detached house and private garden is a symbol of personal success and security, set the foundations for a suburban sprawl urban form and has moulded it’s “Dreamscape”.

The housing affordability crisis As the population grows and the housing stock doesn’t supply the demand, the land and house prices escalate. Greenfield developments sum up to 22000 new lots annually, around 35% of the new housing stock, with only 2% of those being apartment units. Among the new apartment blocks, 50% of the market is dependent on investors, with the few homeowners usually characterizing a stage before being able to buy a house (UDIA, 2019). From Victoria’s 2018/2019 total building approvals, 62% are houses, 18.8% semi-detached or townhouses and only around 20% of flat or apartments, of which 15.8% have four or more stories. Infill redevelopments are a significant source of supplying the required housing stock and, although it can be a great strategy to densify locations that are already provided by infrastructure, without proper regulation it can present an adverse outcome. Fig. X shows the phenomenon as it’s mostly happening around Melbourne’s suburbs. With its profit-led real-estate market, properties are subdivided and occupied to extract the maximum value for the land, which means the suppression of any outdoor and social area. While most of the times these will be 1 - 3 storey constructions, when the permit is granted, developers will seek to build medium-highrise apartment buildings. Although a necessity to allow Melbourne to grow more sustainably, apartment buildings haven’t had enough regulations to guarantee a quality outcome. Although a need to supply increasing housing demands, especially from low-income social groups, these buildings blocks have historically presented a sterile piece of engineering instead of a group of houses, advocating against high-rise.

The Victorian government recently started to create regulations for apartment design, with the “Better Apartments Design Standards” being release in 2017 to “improve the internal design of new apartments and make them more liveable and sustainable” (BADS 2016) and the new “Better Apartments in Neighbourhoods” coming in early 2020 to deliver improved relationships between new apartments and the amenity of existing neighbourhoods. Both planning tools will hopefully ensure an increasing quality in apartment design and its impact in the surroundings.

NOW

PRIVATE GREEN

86%

OF HOUSES

81%

of buildings approved in 2018/2019

X

AFFORDABILITY CRISIS

16%

that have 4+ storey

COMMUNAL GREEN

ALTERNATIVE

Alternative Housing Models Parallel to that, the city has seen an increase in alternative housing models, provided by new developers such as Nightingale, Assemble and Property Collective. These groups aim to provide a more affordable, sustainable and community-oriented housing option for the society. Although an alternative, without government support, these initiatives struggle to deliver competitive solutions in a profit-led market. These new developments - although distinct among each other - have foundations in the community as a core of the housing structure and have had distinct acceptances from the population.

While some specific demographic groups are more open to the ideas shared between those, a big parcel of society is still apprehensive of the change provided by them.

Assemble Papers have been advocating for a change in housing practice by illustrating a series of case studies around the world. In one of these articles, Manuel Lutz highlights the qualities of housing co-operatives, which invert the profit-led market focus for a use-value, by pooling the small resources of many into a non-profit company. He states “In the current crisis of housing affordability, co-operatives show potential to square the circle of affordability and quality, combining low cost with high-quality living”. (Co-Op Diagram) With many successful precedents around the world, mainly in European cities, co-operatives have established a housing alternative with an “inbuilt emphasis on democracy, equality and solidarity within a long-term, stable community” (Lutz 2019). Melbourne-based cases have appeared sparsely in the past fifteen years, becoming each time more consolidated, with its precursor being Murundaka Cohousing.

In another of its papers, the urban design critic Andy Fergus explains different types of co-operatives and how they operate, information summarised in the next pages, with a particular project illustrating each example.

NIGHTINGALE, BRUNSWICK

what distinguished by wants how $

Ethical Market-Based Development effort to achieve ethical housing developments despite a total lack of active government support to deliver affordable, environmentally sustainable, community-minded housing multiple models Assemble: allow residents to lease their home while they save to buy, with fixed prices and freedom to leave.

Nightingale: architects and investors acquire land and intermediary financiers obtain construction finance. Aggregate demand and engages with prospective residents through an extensive waiting list, while controls environmental and design quality.

ASSEMBLE, KESINGTON

BIGYARD, BERLIN

what distinguished by wants how $

Baugruppe = Building Group close working relationship between residents and architects ,residents are the collective financiers of their own building residents come together to make long term decisions about how they live most adventurous award-wining buildings projects are financed through individual mortgages, but require a high 30% deposit, which can exclude lower-income households

BUIKSLOTERHAM, AMSTERDAM

what distinguished by wants how $

Zelfbouw = Self Build designed and procured by individuals within a masterplan of ‘zelfbouwers’ designated precincts became dynamic new neighbourhoods high-density, individually comissioned townhouses council allocate affordable plots with strict rules around the envelope, materials, environmental perfomance and mix of uses.

KALKBREITE, ZURICH

what distinguished by wants

Co-Operative rental offers lower entry costs and the stability and autonomy of home ownership economic viability and social responsibility

how

members are shareholders of the housing company that they produce, use and manage together

$

long-term rental model, funding the construction of projects via low-interest loans with a long payback period

MURUNDAKA, MELBOURNE

what

Co-Housing

distinguished by

ongoing participation in the building community long after construction is finished.

wants

motivated by desire for radical democracy underpinned by high environmental ambitions.

how $

approximately 30 dwellings and low-rise. long-term rental or ownership based, but typically use alternative models of collective finance and sharing ownership, securing the community

MURUNDAKA On a side note, in Murundaka Cohousing’s block analysis we can see how a standard plot of a freestanding house, with generally 12 dwellings/Ha, starts being subdivided into more low-density units, with the suppression of all outdoor area. On the other hand, Murundaka Cohousing manages to increase the density more significantly without impacting its green space.

40 dw/Ha

70 dw/Ha

12 dw/Ha

41 dw/Ha

12 dw/Ha 33 dw/Ha

CO-HOUSING

INFILL WITH NO REGULATION

SOCIAL QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Barcelona, Spain

340 Several precedents of cities with high quality of life show much higher densities than Melbourne. Research identifies

230

Vienna, Austria

Perugia, Italy

275 50 dwellings/hectare is the minimum to provide affordability and sustainability

220

Berlin, Germany

Zurich, Switzerland

Copenhagen, Denmark

250

240

120

12

high-density is not a synonym to high-rise

Malmo, Sweden

Melbourne, Australia

Andy Fergus, Katherine Sundermann - Associate Director at MGS Architects and Alexis Kalagas - urban strategist and writer - were one out of seven shortlisted on the City of Sydney’s competition called Alternative Housing Ideas Challenge. On their proposal, the ‘The Third Way’, the group focused on the financial model and planning context associated with the design, using Zurich as a strong precedent. While in Australia there’s between 60-70% of homeownership, Zurich has never gone above 10%. On a talk given in MPavillion, Alexis stated that Zurich’s entire system has been built around the need of renters and that 20% oh the housing stock is composed of co-operatives.

Katherine declared that 92% of Melbourne’s renters want their own home, but over 50% of the young generation will never have their own home.

As Australia’s housing culture is based on ownership, the rental market has never had specific controls to establish a secure and quality condition for renters, having instead privileged the landlord side. The outcome is a society that sees in renting a stage in life until they can purchase a house. Apartments appear in more significant numbers to supply for the increasing demand, but 70% of them are rented, in comparison to 20% of the houses, showing how apartment buildings denote more a short-term affordable opportunity than provide a long-term housing alternative to people.

On another MPavillion talk about speculations on Melbourne’s future

02

The Third Way: A Cooperative Affordable Rental Model for Sydney How the model works in Zurich Access to public land While the model can remove existing properties from the speculative market, cooperatives in Zurich continue to benefit from ‘right of use’ access to public land for new projects, supported by active municipal housing policies aligned with popular mandates (30 percent of cooperative housing is on city-owned plots). This includes a form of value capture on redeveloped brownfield sites—where the city acquires parcels as a ‘tax’ on rezoning and on-leases them to cooperatives— and in-fill strategies on underutilized land like tram depots and parking lots.

Preferential Financing Zurich cooperatives enjoy access to a range of preferential instruments that reduce overall development costs (and hence rents), assist with ‘startup’ capital and bridging finance, and provide mortgage guarantees that lower equity requirements. These include a federal ‘Revolving Fund’ extending low-interest loans for land acquisition, a ‘Solidarity Fund’ managed by the national cooperative umbrella organization, and low-interest financing from the pension fund of the City of Zurich and a dedicated bond-issuing institution backed by the national government. The municipality also purchases share capital in individual cooperatives.

Tenant Protections The strong protections embedded in cooperative projects reflect the orientation of Zurich’s entire rental sector, which is designed to support long-term tenure. Tenancies are usually open-ended, and can only be broken by landlords on narrowly prescribed grounds. Rents are moderated by ‘second generation’ controls that apply to all units, with the onus on landlords to justify increases due to higher costs or renovations. Cooperatives introduce additional mobility into this system by allowing individuals or families to change apartments without sacrificing the benefits of a length-of-tenure discount.

Broad societal support The legal framework for cooperatives is outlined in the Civil Code and supported

by Federal Housing Office regulations and a constitutional right to housing.

With a 100-year history, the model is a long-established part of the housing system and administrative barriers to entry are relatively low. Meanwhile, broad community awareness and support means cooperatives can access a pool of member capital far in advance of site acquisition and planning approval (and without expectations that membership will necessarily lead to residence in a realized project).

Fundamentals of Zurich housing

Zurich is a renter society. The success of the city’s cooperative movement has been shaped by a combination of community-led initiatives, popular support, and favourable government policy. But cooperatives have also benefited from system-wide approaches to regulating rental housing and the financial infrastructure available to provide low-interest loans.

HOUSING TENURE BY UNIT CITY OF ZURICH (2016)

20% Cooperatives

9% Owner Occupier

8% City of Zurich & Non-Pro�its 5% Private Foundations 5% Pension Funds Distribution of ownership within the rental sector

91% Rental

6%

Low-Interest Loans

29%

4% Solidarity Fund 10% Revolving Fund 15% City of Zurich Pension Fund

21% Companies

41% Individuals

Commercial Financing

65%

65% Bank Mortgage

Source: New Housing in Zurich, Typologies for a Changing Society (2017).

Source: City of Zurich Statistics Yearbook 2017

GATHERING AT HUNZIKER-AREAL, A ZURICH COOPERATIVE

6% Member Shares

Equity

PROJECT FINANCING BREAKDOWN, ZURICH

SAMPLE BREAKDOWN OF ‘COST RENT’, ZURICH

2% Tax 21% Maintenance

Projects like Mehr Als Wohnen and Kalkbreite dispel the myth of cooperatives as a fringe phenomenon and demonstrate the ability to deliver large volumes of exceptional quality, and perpetually affordable housing.

40% Depreciation & Accruals 9% Levies 7% Administration 21% Interest on Capital

Source: WBG Kostenstatistik der Zürcher Baugenossenschaften

homes, Fiona Andrews - Senior Lecturer at the Deakin University Health Department - states that over 40% of Melbourne’s apartment residents are families with children even though the apartment design doesn’t support the lifestyle of families with children. “Everything seems to be done for aesthetics rather than practicalities.”

She quotes an interviewed resident “I just want to be able to go outside for a cup of tea and put my toddler down so he can crawl around. I feel like in the interest of cost-saving they’ve really missed an opportunity to capitalise on the natural environments that surround the building. So, to have a cement slab, and not invest in a communal garden or landscaping or anything that is sympathetic to the surrounding nature seems to be a massively lost opportunity.” In her opinion, the solution to accommodate the growing population without doubling the cities’ footprint is to develop more family-friendly apartments.

In the same talk, Amanda Roberts - urban designer at SJB - says that Australia has an obsession with profiting from property, while in most of the rest of the world that’s not the case. She quotes an influential climate activist: “How dare we think we have the right to own more than one home and exploit the misery and isolation and fear that mortgage stress and housing stress creates for different families.” She criticises the use of the Neighbourhood character as a planning tool to disguise people’s ‘Not in My Backyard’ (NIMBY) attitudes about design and development. In contrast, in areas with no land use overlay, any sort of outcome can be delivered. She advocates for a planning scheme that establishes height limits according to the number of amenities around, with mandatory landscape requirements.

Brendan Coates - Household Finances Program Director at the Grattan Institute - says that rent increase has been growing a divisor between wealthy and poor, with rising prices transferring wealth from those who own property to those who don’t, with a current increase in inequality. With a 17% increase in homelessness in the last two years, Melbourne needs to create more robust policies to keep the safety and liveability that characterises it.

MISSING MIDDLE

MELBOURNE

Precedent Investigation Some design competitions have been launched by Australian state governments trying to address the densification challenge. In 2019 the Queensland government launched the competition “Density and Diversity Done Well’ to explore what might be called “the missing middle” and of proposing new housing options for Queensland that meet contemporary community, urban and environmental challenges.

New South Wales, on its turn, did the ‘Missing Middle Design Competition’, inviting professionals to showcase their visions for the future of medium density housing in NSW. The analysis of the winnings designs shows an alarming repetition of the same pattern, with a slight formal change in the facade and composition. It’s clear how even the professional design field is struggling to foresee that a dwelling footprint can go beyond the standard lot boundary, with most proposals working in between the traditional fences.

On the Future Homes MPavillion talk, the presenter Andrew Mackenzie discuss the inauguration of a Melbourne-based design competition called ‘Future Homes’, with $500.000 prize and honoraria. This announcement highlights the importance and emergency of addressing the density issue and identifies in the design field one of the most significant pillars to take the lead.

DENSITY AND DIVERSITY DONE WELL DESIGN COMPETITION

b a cky

TYPICAL SIZE • A mix of between 1 and 4 bedrooms with an average of 2.2 bedrooms per dwelling • A mix of between 1 and 4 bathrooms with an average of 2 per dwelling

d

ar

TYPE A

ADAPTABLE DESIGN • A mix of alternative configurations to suit the site orientation

BEFORE • •

1. define latent side setback for new dwelling

20 dwellings over 20 lots 50 people living & working on the neighbourhood block

TYPE B

linear lands c ape

TYPICAL SETBACKS • Front boundary 3m • Side boundary 2.25m • Rear boundary 6.5m

2. insert work studio/flat to activate street

BEFORE - EXISTING NEIGHBOURHOOD

SITE COVERAGE • 200m2 building footprint • 118m2 covered external area • 72% open space at ground level

TYPE C Shared Guest Room / Bedsit

TYPICAL DWELLING • 5 dwellings per single lot • 3 levels • Average internal floor area: 93.4 m2 • Minimum: 32 m2 • Maximum: 175 m2

1 Bed 1 Bath: Aged living 2 Bed 2 Bath: Couple no kids

AFTER • •

BE A GOOD NEIGHBOUR OUR DWELLING

4 Bed 4 Bath: Manor style house Communal facilities

nt

yard

3. arrange new dwelling along ‘linear landscape’

3 Bed 2 Bath: Young family

100 dwellings over 20 lots 240 people living & working on the neighbourhood block

fr o

linear landscape house The latent side setback is re purposed as a new dwelling arranged along a linear landscape, an interstitial space between existing and new and forming an open connection to the street

4. add multi-purpose outdoor room to front garden of existing dwelling to connect to street

EXISTING PERSPECTIVE

AFTER - CONNECTED AND ACTIVE NEIGHBOURHOOD

SINGLE DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE 8

9

4

1

2

3

4

4

5

4

10

MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE 7

8

4

6

4

Neighbourhood - 1:500

Legend 1. The single block scenario shows an existing dwelling converted and raised. New garden dwellings are inserted in the backyard, creating 4 residences on one site.

2. The Subject Site, which is explored at 1:150.

3. An adjusted block scenario shows a long house moved to one side of its site to fit an additional garden dwelling.

4. Existing houses can remain untouched without blocking the development pattern.

5. A smaller site, with a brick house, can still accommodate increased density.

LIVE WORK UNITS IN COURTYARD APARTMENT • Courtyard apartment is trying to keep the same quality of life as living in a house by keeping the connection to sky and providing personal roof gardens. it also helps to keep the facade of city green.

• By providing an attached work space to each unit it makes it more affordable by eliminating the rent of an office and travelling expense in growing areas such as Brisbane

SITE PLAN

• The attached space to each unit is a flexible space to use as an small office, any art work shop and can be used as an extra bedroom for growing families.

SC 1/750

• To get the most possible breeze units are shaped with the less possible width and crossed windows are provided to each space to maximise breathing

PA I R ED T W I N H O U S E

6. Two blocks are amalgamated, allowing for a larger courtyard to form in the centre. This larger block encourages an intergenerational community to evolve, with flexible housing for diverse demographics.

7. Amalgamating corner sites allows for side access, and greater street engagement for smaller garden dwellings between existing houses.

8. Joining across the centre of the block creates a linear courtyard, connecting people as they pass by each others’ windows, and creating a new suburb connection.

9. As developments increase, adjacent blocks can begin to share even more. In this instance, this block uses its neighbours pool, while the large workshop space becomes a hub for the wider community.

10.Bringing together three blocks creates the conditions for 10 or more dwellings, sharing facilities and amenity, forming a wonderful shared courtyard, and providing a variety of housing types

vehicle access width reduced to slow traffic bike lane bike lane

paved footpath with garden beds and generous street trees

B

H study

access garden

study

shared access

office or studio

living

parking and workshop

typical suburban home footprint

court

bath

wc

patio

car park

car port

court

extended court

bath future shared zone

garage

veranda

court living

master bedroom

LEGEND

void

G

bath

living wc

dining wc

kitchen

dining wc

garden

E

front gardens for light, ventilation and views

living

wc

living

bedroom bedroom

bedroom

bedroom

DENSITY : An ECONESTING neighbourhood can increase density in a typical block by 3 or more times resulting in an additional 40 or more family/ user groups being housed in the same area as this typical neighbourhood block. At the same time, with small footprint living we can achieve 60- 70 % Open Space and with Planned Developments actually increase the overall tree canopy, creating a more pleasant micro-climate and offsetting the carbon footprint of the new buildings.

DIVERSITY : Econesting is highly sustainable and allows a large diversity of Types to accommodate Downsizers, Fly the Nesters, Home Office workers, Small Families and Inter-generational living - all promoting an active and inclusive Community. ECONESTS can be woven through the fabric of an existing suburb over time minimising large scale disruption and also allowing the option of keeping much of the existing housing stock which can be upgraded to minimum Energy Standards over time.

DONE WELL : With clear and logical Planning Controls the contentious issue of Infill housing could rather be sold as a way of improving the Environmental outcomes of a suburb at the same time as being a way Residents can maximise the value in their own backyard while improving their way of living. The small scale of ECONESTING allows Residents the option of developing for themselves which in turn makes it more economically feasible and promotes development with an Environmental and Social Conscience.

garden garden

blocks divided in half to accommodate paired twin houses

garden

1.5m side setbacks for shared access and private garden

OPEN AND INVITING STREETSCAPES WITH VISUAL CONNECTIONS

long section

Ground Level Plan

A : Strata Triplex or 3 Green Title Micro Lots (180 sqm) B : Ancillary Unit behind Exist house or 180 sqm Micro Lot + 450 sqm Family Lot C :Existing home to be upgraded to minimum energy standards to qualify for added density D : Multiple Unit Econests. 3 Storey provision to corner sites or overlooking POS E : Micro Square - requirement for added density F : Econest as an Addition to exist home G : Public Open Space H : Existing housing stock upgraded over time

BIRDS EYE VIEW OF AN ECONESTING NEIGHBOURHOOD

family home scale and amenity maintained with twin house typology

office wc dining

veranda

garden

bedroom

bath

kitchen kitchen

dining

veranda

flexible car port spaces support mixed-uses

court

veranda

music kitchen room

living

studio or master bedroom

bath

D

existing setback used to invigorate green streets with mixeduse twin houses

kitchen

wc

kitchen

patio

car port

bedroom

cafe or studio

living

kitchen

A C

F

access

Upper Level Plan

1

3

5m

N

Ÿ CLIMATICALLY RESPONSIVE PLACES Ÿ HEALTHY AND SAFE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PLACES Ÿ INTER-GENERATIONAL PLACES Ÿ ENTREPENEURIAL PLACES Ÿ TOTAL ENERGY PLACES

ECONESTING 06

On Dark Matter and Trojan Horses, Dan Hill advocates for strategic design as a tool to enable systemic change through re-shaping cultures of public decision-making at the individual and institutional levels applied to the primary problems of the 21st-century governance - the dark matters (2012). Stating that design has been wasteful in its core proposition, the Executive Director of Future for the Future Cities Catapult pushes for design as a “culture generator”, by its power of “uncovering, shaping and conveying alternate trajectories” (2012).

Moreover, he highlights how the capacity of synthesis - resolving an issue into a course of action - is more relevant than the analysis presentation of data: “To describe the problem is part of the solution”.

POLICY

CULTURE

CHALLENGE

THE STRATEGY

Simplifying wicked problems

ECONOMY

DESIGNER Investigates policy and economy, but targets culture.

Foster the CREATION OF DEMAND for quality medium-rise housing

The climate emergency is an example of a dark matter, underpinned by multiple issues. In its complexity, the Suburban Sprawl characterizes a physical manifestation of how design and policy have failed to address and guide cultural behaviours, by allowing a more robust economic force to lead the market, representative of a capitalist system. With the goal set to re-establish a harmonious relationship between culture and nature - and hopefully starting to work backwards against the environmental damage our post-colonial societies have entailed - three pillars are identified as the significant challenges: policy, culture and economy.

Can appeal for regulations for the creation of quality housing with support of economic alternatives

OUTCOME

HOW

WHICH

Culture is the audience, the one that generally sees things happening and acts more passively than actively. On an individual level, it establishes the norm by setting a specific demand. The demand, on the case, is the freestanding house (the smaller portion of the Suburban Sprawl). The economy is the dominant force of everything, establishing in itself the goal. It will respond to culture, as the product it deliveries supply a specific demand, and it is regulated by policy,

Through the design of an innovative exemplar medium-density housing with high environmental standards and social outcomes

which is the central driver. With a weak regulatory body, the economy will lead the market and supply a low-cost/low-quality product. In a position of higher demand than supply, Culture will accept this product.

In a strategic design approach, the designer recognizes its insufficiency to overcome the Economic force and to create any regulation to control it; it’s out of its scope. It’s in the Cultural field, though, that the designer finds its operating capacity. To achieve a strategy for densification that benefits both the environment and the social aspects, the designer has a role in shaping culture and of creating demand for a new product: a community-nature-oriented neighbourhood.

Moreover, the designer has a role in advocating for more active communities, which can then appeal for the creation of regulations that support this scenario.

“We are not interested in your solution, we are interested in the mindset you bring.” Marco Steinberg - Sistra’s Director of Strategic Design.

How, then, can design inform culture? How can a design solution reach far beyond its physical composition into encouraging new mindsets? The strategy adopted in this research starts from the identification of suitable locations for densification with a posterior investigation of a crucial case-study of a high-density urban renewal development.

‘Home builders cop a lot of flak and are accused of producing housing that is unimaginative, lacks innovation and is of poor design. The reality is that home builders are retailers and provide an affordable product to a consumer.

The biggest challenge is to get consumers to be more daring and challenge the status quo. Consumers, who demand a well designed, adequate, energy efficient and responsive home will ultimately be served this. Our livelihood depends on meeting our clients’ demands.’ Dale Alcock, 2008

Design Methodology The methodology employed in the design process was based on eight points. It started with the determination of specific criteria to find the most suitable areas for densification and by the development of a data-driven planning process. The choice of a key prototype site that fitted in the criteria led to extensive site analysis and review of its

FIND 1

Create criteria to find the most SUITABLE AREAS FOR DENSIFICATION

REVIEW 5 Analyse the current URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK

evolution and its program

PLAN 2

Develop a DATA-

DRIVEN PLANNING PROCESS with GIS and government databases

POSITION 6 Establish a CRITICAL POSITION and develop a new program and criteria for evaluation

urban design framework, examining all documentation accessible released for the site’s redevelopment. The establishment of a critical position and formulation of a specific design approach allowed for the testing of distinct design iterations and posteriorly the detail of significant locations, aiming for the illustration of the benefits of a landscape-oriented-neighbourhood.

PROTOTYPE 3

ANALYSE 4

PROTOTYPE SITE for

SITE ANALYSIS, accounting for current and historic elements

Develop an in-depth

Choose A KEY

a densification role model

ITERATE 7

Design DIFFERENT SCENARIOS and evaluate through criteria established

DETAIL 8

Choose a Masterplan and detail KEY LOCATIONS,

targeting the design principle

1 FIND

Planning Criteria

WHERE SHOULD DENSIFICATION HAPPEN? The spatial decision-making to assist in the establishment of a sustainable Melbourne focused on the densification of convenient locations, considering physical attributions as well as cultural factors.

Some aspects that were taken into consideration when analysing urban growth through a cultural lens were to tackle areas that would be more susceptible to a beneficial change. The City of Melbourne is the only Council that released data for its High-Rise Residents profile (Fig. X). That, among other relevant criteria used for the selection of the areas, were: • Population Age and Household type: 20-29 years and group households are the primary in existing High-Rise residents’ profiles, with 30-39 years and one couple without children in the second place.

• Education Level and Occupation: Employed Professionals with bachelor’s degrees are the majority within this housing type, therefore being the desired population for a new examplar development.

• Mobility patterns and existing transport infrastructure: People without any motor vehicle are the biggest group, highlighting the link these residents have with public transport and bicycle infrastructure.

• Presence of community facilities and social amenities: demonstrating possibilities for a social engagement that extrapolates the backyard

AGE 20‐29 years

LEVEL OF EDUCATION

AGE GROUPS

AGE 20‐29 years

80‐89 years 70‐79 years 60‐69 years 1% 2% 0‐9 years 4% AGE GROUPS 4% 50‐59 years 5% 80‐89 years 70‐79 years 10‐19 years 60‐69 years 1% 2% 9% 0‐9 years 4% 4% 50‐59 years 40‐49 years 5% 10‐19 years 7% 9%

Certificate I & II Level Certificate III & IV Level Doctoral Degree Level 1% LEVEL OF EDUCATION 7% 3% Certificate Level, nfd Certificate III & IV Level 2% 7%

AG E GROUPS

40‐49 years 7%

HIGH RISE RESIDENTS PROFILE

Certificate I & II Level 1%

Doctoral Degree Level Master Degree Level 3% 18%

E D U C AT I O N LEVEL

Certificate Level, nfd Diploma Level 2%

Master Degree Level 18%

8%

Diploma Level 8% Advanced Diploma and Associate Degree Level 4% Advanced Diploma and Associate Degree Level 4%

Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate Level, nfd 0% Graduate Diploma and Graduate Graduate Diploma Level Certificate Level, nfd 3% 0% Graduate Certificate Level Graduate Diploma Level 1% 3% Graduate Certificate Level 1%

30‐39 years 21% 30‐39 years 21%

20-29 years 47%

BACHELOR’S 53%

20‐29 years 47%

20‐29 years 47%

Four or more motor vehicles 0%

LABOR FORCE STATUS Employment status not applicable 5%

LABOR FORCE STATUS

Employment status not stated 9% Employment status not applicable 5% Employment status not stated 9%

VEHICLE OWNERSHIP

Bachelor Degree Level Vehicles not stated53% 13%

Three motor vehicles 1%

LABOR FORCE S TAT U S

Bachelor Degree Level

53% HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

One family household: Other family 5%

Two or more family household

0% HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

One family household: One parent One family household: Other family family Two motor vehicles 5% 5% 8% One family household: One parent family 5% One family household: Couple family with children 11% One family household: Couple family with children 11%

HOUSEHOLD CO M P O S I T I O N

Lone person household Two or more family household 19% 0% Lone person household 19%

No motor vehicles 48%

Employed 46% Employed 46%

Not in the labour force 33% Not in the labour force 33%

Unemployed 7%

EMPLOYED 46%

One motor vehicle 30%

GROUP 26%

Group household 26%

One family household: Couple family with no children 25% One family household: Couple family with no children 25%

Group household 26%

Other non‐classifiable household 9% OCUPATION

VEHICLE OWNERSHIP Unemployed Vehicles not stated 7% 13% Four or more motor vehicles 0% Three motor vehicles 1%

PLANNING S T R AT E G Y

Two motor vehicles 8%

VEHICLE OW N E R S H I P No motor vehicles 48%

One motor vehicle 30%

NO VEHICLE 48%

Machinery Operators and Drivers 1%

Other non‐classifiable household Labourers 9% 6%

Sales Workers 8%

Managers 14%

O CC U PAT I O N

Clerical and Administrative Workers 11%

Community and Personal Service Workers 12%

Technicians and Trades Workers 8%

PROFESSIONAL 38%

Professionals 38%

and could see the advantages in prioritising communal outdoor areas over private ones.

• Political inclination: with less conservative zones being more susceptible and open to change.

• Heterogeneous character neighbourhoods’: with the presence of different typologies from the traditional Victorian style of detached housing, in a context that the neighbourhood character overlay wouldn’t become a strong point for the opposition. (Fig. X) Naturally, these aspects don’t encompass the majority of Melbourne’s current population, and the justification of targeting them is aligned with the establishment of a strategic framework. Since the housing market has proven reluctant to move towards more sustainable forms of living, some strategies need to be employed to assist in a mindset change. The choice for the above-cited demographics creates potentially successful design outcomes. It can, therefore, inaugurate a pilot model for the creation of forward-looking neighbourhoods, distinct from the traditional patterns of urban form in Melbourne.

Once established and functioning, these new urban typologies can foster new market segments, helping to achieve the design objectives set in many of the planning documents (Fig. X).

POLITICAL PREFERENCE

AG E A N D HOUSEHOLD

HETEROGENEOUS C H A R AC T E R

CO M M U N I T Y INFRASTRUCTURE

E D U C AT I O N A N D E M P LOY M E N T

MOBILITY PAT T E R N

FLOWCHART

DISSOLVE

300m + UNION BUFFER

ERASE

MAX. BOUNDARY

FUZZY OVERLAY

HBOU

RURAL CO N S E RVAT I O N

EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE

RECLASSIFY

RASTER TO POLYGON

RH

O OD CH

ACTER

WAT E R A R E A S

CO N S E RVAT I O N AREAS

AR

WAT E R CO U R S E S

C A P I TA L C I T Y NEIGHB. RESIDENTIAL ZO N E

E IG

500m + UNION BUFFER

TOO DENSE

GREEN WEDGES

FUZZY LARGE

T R A I N S TO P S

CO M M E R C I A L ZO N E S H E A LT H A N D CO M M U N I T Y MIXED USE ZO N E S E D U C AT I O N A L ZO N E S P U B L I C S PAC E

FUZZY SMALL

B U S S TO P S T R A M S TO P S

LAND USE

N

ACCESS

HERITAGE OVERLAY

CLIP

Fig. X shows the GIS flowchart used in the process of overlaying all the mentioned criteria to achieve the most suitable areas for densification. Within Melbourne’s urban area, an initial boundary was defined by creating a 500m buffer from all public transport, excluding a 300m buffer from watercourses and water areas. Over the established maximum boundary, GIS ranking overlays were used to identify regions closer to the land uses associated with commercial zones, health and community, mixed-use, educational and public space and distant from green wedges, conservation areas and rural conservation zones. Heritage overlay and neighbourhood character zones were not considered given their cultural significance - alongside the recognition that neighbourhood character zones need to be analysed in a closer lens - and the capital city zone was also not

ERASE

DEMOGRAPHICS POLITICAL PREFERENCE AG E A N D HOUSEHOLD E D U C AT I O N AND E M P LOY M E N T

OPPORTUNITY INDUSTRIAL ZONE

MOBILITY PAT T E R N

SUBURBS NOT SUITABLE SUBURBS SUITABLE

included for its saturation. The classification of these areas as most suitable for densification is, nevertheless, a general view and each nomination of a site would need to be analysed in a closer lens.

In order to identify which areas would be more suitable in the first stage of the strategic framework, the demographic criteria were employed. The maps on the next page show the overlap of the demographic information collected from the Australian Bureaux of Statistic - regarding the specific criteria defined by the high-rise residents profile - with the suburb they are associated with. Their connection with the specified criteria determined the first, second and third stage of the strategic framework.

The methodology employed to illustrate this framework was specially elaborated by the understanding of the cultural sphere as a fundamental element for a quality densification process to occur.

2 PLAN

VEHICLE OWNERSHIP Vehicles not stated 13%

VEHICLE OW N E R S H I P

Four or more motor vehicles 0% Three motor vehicles 1% Two motor vehicles 8%

48%

NO VEHICLE

No motor vehicles 48%

One motor vehicle 30%

OCUPATION Machinery Operators and Drivers 1%

Labourers 6%

Managers 14%

Sales Workers 8%

Clerical and Administrative Workers 11%

Professionals 38%

Community and Personal Service Workers 12%

Technicians and Trades Workers 8%

VEHICLE OWNERSHIP Vehicles not stated 13% Four or more motor vehicles 0% Three motor vehicles 1% Two motor vehicles 8%

AGE 20‐29 years

LEVEL OF EDUCATION

LEVEL OF EDUCATION AGE GROUPS 80‐89 years 70‐79 years Certificate I & II Level Certificate III & IV Level 60‐69 years 1% Doctoral Degree Level 2% 1% 0‐9 years 7% 3% 4% 4% 50‐59 years Certificate Level, nfd 5% 2% 10‐19 years Master Degree Level 9% 18% Diploma Level 40‐49 years 8% 7%

HETEROGENEOUS C H A R AC T E R

No motor vehicles 48%

MOBILITY PAT T E R N

Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate Level, nfd One motor vehicle 0% 30%

Advanced Diploma and Associate Degree Level 4%

Certificate III & IV Level 7%

Certificate I & II Level 1%

Doctoral Degree Level 3%

M O S T VA R I E D DW E L L I N G T Y P E S Certificate Level, nfd 2%

Master Degree Level 18%

Diploma Level 8%

Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate Level, nfd 0%

Advanced Diploma and Associate Degree Level 4%

Graduate Diploma Level 3%

Graduate Diploma Level 3%

Graduate Certificate Level 1%

O CC U PAT I O N

Graduate Certificate Level 1% 30‐39 years 21%

AGE 20‐29 years

PROFESSIONAL

AGE GROUPS

OCUPATION

LABOR FORCE S TAT U S Bachelor Degree Level 53%

20‐29 years 47%

Machinery Operators and Drivers 1%

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION LABOR FORCE STATUS

Two or more family household One family household: Other family 0% Clerical and Administrative Workers 5% Employment status not applicable 11% 5% One family household: One parent Lone person household Employment status not stated family 19% 5%9%

Not in the labour force 33%

46%

One family household: Couple family with no children 25%

E D U C AT I O N LEVEL

Managers 14%

Sales Workers 8%

EMPLOYED

One family household: Couple family with children 11%

Labourers 6%

38%

Community and Personal Service Workers 12%

AG E GROUPS

LEVEL OF EDUCATION Certificate I & II Level 1%

Doctoral Degree Level 3%

Certificate Level, nfd 2%

Master Degree Level 18%

Professionals Advanced Diploma and Associate 38% Degree Level 4%

Technicians and Trades Workers 8%

Group household 26%

20-29 years 30‐39 years 21%

Diploma Level 8%

Employed 46%

53%

60‐69 years 4%

70‐79 years 2%

80‐89 years 1%

HOUSEHOLD CO M P O S I T I O N

0‐9 years 4% 10‐19 years 9%

40‐49 years 7%

BACHELOR’S Certificate III & IV Level 7%

50‐59 years 5%

Bachelor Degree Level 53%

47%

Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate Level, nfd 0%

GROUP HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

One family household: Other family 5%

One family household: Couple family with children 11%

20‐29 years 47%

Graduate Diploma Level 3% Graduate Certificate Level 1%

LABOR FORCE STATUS Employment status not applicable 5%

Two or more family household 0%

One family household: One parent family 5%

Lone person household 19%

26%

One family household: Couple family with no children 25%

Group household 26%

Employment status not stated 9%

Unemployed Other non‐classifiable household 7% 9%

Other non‐classifiable household 9%

Bachelor Degree Level 53%

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION One family household: Other family 5%

Two or more family household 0%

One family household: One parent family 5%

Employed 46%

Lone person household 19%

Not in the labour force 33%

One family household: Couple family with children 11%

Unemployed 7%

Group household 26%

One family household: Couple family with no children 25%

Other non‐classifiable household 9%

AG E A N D HOUSEHOLD

E D U C AT I O N A N D E M P L OY M E N T

POLITICAL PREFERENCE

MAJORITY LABOUR

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE

E X I S TA N C E O F EQUIPMENTS

1

o PHASE

2

o PHASE

3

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

o PHASE

Case Study: Fitzroy Gasworks Among all suitable areas highlighted in Phase 1, one site with the potential to become a prototype of a feature higher-density mixed-use urban development was chosen: Fitzroy Gasworks. Historically, the site was used to supply gas to Melbourne from 1859 to 1927. Gas continued to be stored on the site until the 1970s. An extensive and expensive process of soil remediation, with around 10m of excavation, is currently being held. The site is located only 2km from the CBD and has multiple characteristics that underpin its successful outcome as a role model.

• • • • • •

BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OWNED CLOSE TO CBD TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE AMMENITIES AND MIXED USE ZONE CLOSE TO PUBLIC PARKS

3 PROTOTYPE

SITE LOCATION RATIONALE

2k

m

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

CBD

t ra m ro u t e b u s ro u t e t ra i n ro u t e w a t e rc o u r s e

G R E E N N E T WO R K a n d CO M M U N I T Y

LAND USE c o m m e rc i a l z o n e mixed use zone n e i g h b o u r h o o d c h a ra c t e r re s i d e n t i a l educational p a r k s a n d re s e r v e s a c t i v i t y c e n t re capital city

p a r k s a n d d e n s e t re e c a n o p y h e a l t h i n f ra s t r u c t u re e d u c a t i o n i n f ra s t r u c t u re c o m m e rc i a l s t r i p e s

THE PROCESS

Site Analysis The site is a former Gasworks that is now owned by the State of Victoria, who is advertising it as a new vibrant neighbourhood to be created in the junction of Fitzroy North, Fitzroy, Collingwood and Clifton Hill. Positioned between Queens Parade to the north and Alexandra Parade to the South, Smith Street to the east and George Streer to the west, the site is surrounded by a robust neighbourhood character associated with a continuously changing atmosphere, given the increasing number of redevelopments taking place in the context.

Being a former brownfield site - and in the middle of an expensive process of soil remediation - the block presents almost a blank canvas, allowing for an in-depth exploration of possibilities. As a 4Ha publiclyowned space, it has the potential to achieve more significant outcomes than smaller plots managed by traditional developers. Its proximity to the CBD and availability of transport infrastructure makes it a connected part of the city, not only benefiting from its context but with the scope to supplement it. Close to several commercial stripes- Smith Street, Brunswick Street, Nicholson Street, Johnson Street - besides the remarkable cultural scene existing in Fitzroy, the site feels like an island in a bustling, vibrant neighbourhood. Added to all those factors is the provision of green spaces around it, with Edinburgh Gardens only 300m away and other larger parks (Yarra Bend Park, Carlton Gardens, Princess Park and Royal Park) within a 2km radius.

• URBAN RENEWAL LEAD BY GOVERNMENT • SENIOR SCHOOL FOR 650 STUDENTS ON NW CORNER • MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT • SURROUNDED BY COMMERCE, LARGE BOULEVARDS AND N.C. • FEELS DISCONNECTED FROM URBAN FABRIC • A FEW MEDIUM TO HIGH-DENSITY AROUND, MOSTLY LOW-RISE • HERITAGE ELEMENT TO THE SW (VALVE HOUSE)

4 ANALYSE

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

LAND USE

DE

STREET

EE

RA

3.9 Ha

ALEXAN

SMITH

GEORG

E STRE ET

QU

PA NS

D R A PA RADE

t ra m ro u t e b u s ro u t e bike lane s h a re d l a n e (p e d . + b i k e)

DENSITY

c o m m e rc i a l z o n e mixed use zone n e i g h b o u r h o o d c h a ra c t e r re s i d e n t i a l educational p e r m e a b l e a re a car park

3.9 dw/ Ha

A map from 1872 shows a creek running N-S across Edinburgh Gardens and a water drain running W-E along Alexandra Parade, being diverted into Dights Falls. It can be assumed that this creek was directed into the channel, feeding later Merri Creek and the Yarra River, and possibly the reason why Edinburgh Garden was placed there. Board of works plans from 1902 shows an underground brick culvert across Edinburgh Garden, with the Railway Station going next to it. Alexandra Parade, at that time, had a continuous open-air drain along with it, which was later covered and became the central garden beds existing today. Around the 1970s, these were used as a recreational space, but nowadays they became an island in the middle of a never-ending traffic movement.

WATER STORY

Masterplan Review

5 REVIEW

GTA CONSULTANTS

18 apr.2018 TRANSPORT EVIDENCE

PROTECT FITZROY NORTH INC.

PROTECT FITZROY NORTH RESOLUTIONS

6 apr.2018 INITIAL URBAN DESIGN ASSESSMENT

DAVID PRYOR, PLACE DESIGN STUDIO

CRAIG CZARNY, HANSEN PARTNERSHIP

apr.2018 URBAN DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE EVIDENCE

2018

nov.2017 MASTER PLAN DESIGN REPORT

DEVELOPMENT VICTORIA

2017 COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP FORMED

2017

2016

2016 - 2017 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT - VISION

MGS + JONES & WHITEHEAD

URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK

2008

The timeline presents all relevant reviewed documentation and crucial events in the redevelopment’s process. With its first Urban Realm Framework released in 2008, Development Victoria opened for community engagement in 2017, with another two Masterplans issued until now. One in 2017 in a more detailed form and another in 2019 presents another urban design approach, and in a much more general view. The urban renewal is set for another round of community participation in early 2020 and construction works to begin in 2021.

A spatial analysis was done over the three released masterplans, taking into consideration its built form, major flows and creation of public and communal spaces, highlighting its opportunities and constraints (Fig. X).

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

2020-2021

DETAILED DESIGN

mid 2021 late 2021

REMEDIATION COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS

2021

early 2020

FORMAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXHIBITION

COLLABORATIVE DESIGN

oct 2019

2019

URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK UPDATE DEVELOPMENT VICTORIA

2019

2019

2018 - 2019

19 jul.2018

24 apr.2018

REMEDIATION PHASE 2

REMEDIATION PHASE 1

AMENDMENT C243 APROVED DPO16

YSBA ENGAGEMENT

2020

2008-2019: the evolution of a Masterplan

2008

• FOLLOWS SURROUNDING STREETS • CREATES CENTRAL SQUARE CONNECTED THROUGH MAIN BOULEVARDS • DIVERSE BLOCK SIZES FOR MULTIPLE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES • CLEAR SENSE OF DIRECTION AND VISUAL • POSSIBILITY FOR CREATION OF COMMUNAL SPACES

2017

• NW CORNER AS SCHOOL • BIG OPEN SPACE NORTH FACING • CLEAR HIERARCHY OF FLOWS AND DIRECTIONS • CREATION OF COMMUNAL SPACES INSIDE NEW BLOCKS • CREATION OF PUBLIC PLACES IN BETWEEN BLOCKS • PLAZAS IN KEY LOCATIONS

2019 • NW CORNER AS SCHOOL • BIG OPEN SPACE NORTH FACING • UNCLEAR HIERARCHY OF FLOWS AND DIRECTIONS, UNNECESSARY LANES • LOSS OF COMMUNAL SPACES INSIDE NEW BLOCKS • PEDESTRIAN FOCUSED N-S AXIS • PLAZAS ARE FRAGMENTED AND DONT DIALOGUE WITH REST OF URBAN FABRIC • BUILDINGS DON’T SEEM TO USE SPACE EFFICIENTLY, LOOKS TOO DENSE

FLOW, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS FIG. X: Development Victoria released Masterplans.

KEY:

buildings public open space communal space plaza vehicle access pedestrian access

FIG. X: Analysis diagrams showing opportunities and constraints.

21 .0 6

2017

2019

3pm

1pm

11am

9am

2008

220

516

dwellings/hectare YEAR 2008 2017 2019 IT 01

AREA GROUND TOTAL GROUND TOTAL GROUND TOTAL GROUND

423

dwellings/hectare

dwellings/hectare

NUMBER OF STOREYS 3

4 16036 64144

5

2455 7365

4608

6000 30000 7271

6

2310 13860 1370 8220 6071

8

2014 16112

10

6034 60340 7725 77250

12

990 11880

14

2148 30072

COMMUNAL PUBLIC AREA 9745 32.50% 4535 15.10% ‐ 9761

412 13.8 118 39.5 126 42.3 630

Its buildings were modelled, and a sun study for the winter solstice was done. The schedule shows the amount of area per number of storeys, total of communal and public space, estimation of retail and residential area, with the total number of dwellings each proposal would fit. The number of dwellings/hectare was established for each, which highlighted the average density proposed by the development.

None of the released Masterplans was specific about height or building area; therefore, the modelling and schedule creation was an approximation based on the investigation of the available information. Half of the ground area was considered as retail/office space, and the other half, residential. The number of total dwellings resulted from considering an average of 90sqm per house - which could range from a 60sqm to a 120sqm. The dwellings/hectare was a result of this number divided by the 3 hectares site.

MUNAL PUBLIC SPACE REA

745 50% 535 10% ‐

761

4127 13.85% 11853 39.51% 12694 42.30% 6300

BUILT UP AREA

RETAIL AREA

TOTAL FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AREA AREA

NUMBER OF DWELLINGS

OCCUPANCY

DWELLINGS / HECTARE

16036

8018

64144

56126

660

53%

220

15951

7975.5

139629

131653.5

1549

53%

516

15095

7547.5

115470

107922.5

1270

50%

423

17950

8975

72781

63806

751

60%

250

Questioning the brief Within this long process of urban realm iterations, specialists reports, community engagement and rezoning, a considerable amount of requirements and goals were established towards the site. Two documents were taken into deep thought while defining a new design approach. The Development Plan Overlay 16 was an official document approved in July 2018 that allows for the site’s rezoning into an educational and mixed-use zone and establishes high-levels guidelines for its development. The community group that was dialoguing with Development Victoria was ‘Protect Fitzroy North’, and their resolutions were presented in a public hearing held in April 2018.

In conversation with the Associaton’s President, which is also a member of the community group formed, the resolutions presented seem to have been mostly taken into consideration. A summary of those documents have been made and are illustrated in the following diagrams.

1100 DWELLINGS =

367 DWELLINGS/ HECTARE

URGENT PUBLIC MEETING RE: GASWORKS SITE REDEVELOPMENT

HELP PREVENT THIS PLANNING DISASTER

Disclaimer: Height envelope permitted under the masterplan proposal

Send Development Victoria a message that cannot be ignored.

WHEN: Wednesday, 17 April at 7:30pm WHERE: Fitzroy North Library, 182 St Georges Road

Protect Fitzroy North @ProtectFitzNth

ProtectFitzroyNorth.org

WHEN OUR COMMUNITY STANDS AS ONE, WE ARE MIGHTY.

DPO16

SUMMARY REQUIREMENTS

COMMUNITY

SUMMARY REQUIREMENTS

DPO16

OPEN SPACE

• Minimum of 8% as public open space; • Create public spaces to improve resident amenity; • Activate public realm, without privatising;

COMMUNITY

• Large open spaces with deep soil plantings to 25% of the site;

HOUSING • Provide a range of dwelling types and provision of up to 20% as afforable housing; • Avoid buildings taller than six storeys;

• Minimum of 15% of social housing; • Compliance with Better Apartments Standard and Clause 58; • 3-storey limit in the perimeter and a 8-10 storey in less than 15% of the built site;

CHARACTER • Respond to Queens Parade and Alexandra Parade significance as formal boulevards; • Address Smith Street to encourage use of tram and vitality of activity strip; • Develop a coherent and identifiable precinct;

• Respond to Queens Parade and Alexandra Parade significance as formal boulevards; • Development with a sense of ownership and community; • Must enhance neighbourhood character;

• Provide community infrastructure to ensure integration with the adjoining education facility; • Support retail, office and other uses at street level; • Provide landscaping to reduce visual impact of development; • Provide internal courtyards, supported by communal roof terraces and balconies facing out;

• Enhancement of the community infrastructure in the surrounding areas; • Open space and site infrastructure (water management, green energy, waste management) under a unified system of governance; • The development should be inclusive with: childcare, secondary school, multi sports stadiums, community rooms, playgrounds, community gardens;

INFRASTRUCTURE

PERFORMANCE • Incorporate sustainable design features to address water management, solar access and innovative energy saving initiatives; • Sustainable irrigation treatments; • Minimise over shadowing; • Retain top third of Shot Tower from views from the site; • Environmentally sustainable design strategy: energy, water and waste conservation and management

• Site to become a model for innovation with use of sustainable and environmental treatments so that all facilities be a minimum 6 star rated; • Provide landscaping to reduce visual impact of development; • Protect key viewsheds down Hodgkinson & Council streets and from Edinburg Gardens;

TRANSPORT • Create pedestrian and bicycle access; • Provide two bicycle spaces per dwelling; • Promote clear site lines and choice of routes;

• 2 bicycle parking per apartment and increased number of car parking; • The whole site to be a “car free” zone with main roads underneath the development;

Design Approach LANDSCAPE-ORIENTED URBAN DEVELOPMENT WSUD redirecting underground stormwater pipe and former creek into a group of wetland and swales. Sustainable use of residential water and connection of the system to Alexandra Parade’s stormwater drain, transformed into a swale.

Investigation of maximum building envelope without affecting the quality of open space, using sun-analysis and the main driver.

Allocation of communal spaces integrated to all housing, with appropriate infrastructure and maintenance frameworks Biophilic Architecture incorporating natural lighting and ventilation, vegetation and other elements for creating a more productive and healthy built environment for people.

All building plot to be divided into different designers for a diverse and inclusive outcome.

Central spine crossing the block with the main square located in the centre. Association with water feature for educational and sensory stimulus and community spaces in the ground level of buildings.

Heritage Valve House Plaza connected to Alexandra Parade, reestablishing pedestrian-oriented character, with the relationship of the site to the surroundings.

Alexandra Parade and Smith Street frontages to be activated with retail and office spaces.

All car flow and parking spaces to be directed underground, utilizing the 10m dug in the remediation process.

Vegetation in abundance to provide tree canopy, phytoremediation species, densely planted buffer zones and green fences for privacy.

Bicycle routes connected to the city Pedestrian-crossings softening the freeway character of Queens Parade and Alexandra Parade, making the isolated block a continuity of the city

6 POSITION

The Design Approach targeted the elaboration of a landscapeoriented urban development. The major points are: a detailed Water Sensitive Urban Design, investigation of the maximum building envelope without affecting the quality of open space, allocation of communal outdoor space to all housing, biophilic Architecture, Central Spine across the block with a main gathering space at its core, a heritage plaza, active frontages to main streets, car flow directed underground and pedestrian/cyclist priority on the ground level, high tree canopy and vegetation in abundance.

Each point is illustrated in detail in the diagram above.

21 .0 6

ITERATION 02

ITERATION 03

3pm

1pm

11am

9am

ITERATION 01

YEAR 2008 2017 YEAR 2019 IT 01 2008 IT 02 2017 IT 03 2019 IT 04 IT 01

AREA

NUMBER OF STOREYS 3

GROUND TOTAL GROUND 2455 dwellings/hectare TOTAL 7365 GROUND AREA 3 TOTAL 4608 GROUND 13824 TOTAL GROUND 2455 TOTAL 7365 552 GROUND 1656 TOTAL 552 GROUND 4608

250

4 16036 64144

4 16036 64144

5

6

327

8

2310 2014 dwellings/hectare 13860 16112 6000 NUMBER OF STOREYS 1370 5 6 8 30000 8220 7271 6071 36355 36426 11549 5731 2310 2014 57745 34386 13860 16112 10891 5731 6000 1370 54455 34386 30000 8220 10891 2343 7271 6071

10

6034 60340 7725 10 77250

6034 60340 7725 77250

12

14

COMMUNAL PUBLIC AREA

9745 412 32.50% 13.8 990 dwellings/hectare 2148 4535 118 11880 30072 15.10% 39.5 COMMUNAL ‐ 126 PUBLIC AREA 12 14 42.3 9761 630 9745 412 32.53% 21 32.50% 13.8 9866 739 990 2148 4535 118 33.00% 25 11880 30072 15.10% 39.5 9866 739 ‐ 126 33.00% 25 42.3 9866 739 9761 630

321

Design Develpment A similar massing and sun study was produced for three new iterations, taking into consideration the opportunities and constraints from the presented masterplans and the approach defined in the new program.

MUNAL PUBLIC SPACE REA

BUILT UP AREA

RETAIL AREA

7 ITERATE

745 4127 50% 13.85% 535 11853 10% 39.51% MUNAL ‐ 12694 PUBLIC SPACE REA 42.30% 761 6300 745 4127 53% 21% 50% 13.85% 866 7399 535 11853 00% 25% 10% 39.51% 866 7399 ‐ 12694 00% 25% 42.30% 866 7399 761 6300

TOTAL FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AREA AREA

NUMBER OF DWELLINGS

OCCUPANCY

DWELLINGS / HECTARE

16036

8018

64144

56126

660

53%

220

15951

7975.5

139629

131653.5

1549

53%

516

BUILT UP 15095 AREA

RETAIL AREA 7547.5

NUMBER OF 1270 DWELLINGS

OCCUPANCY 50%

DWELLINGS / 423 HECTARE

17950 16036

8975 8018

72781 64144

63806 56126

751 660

60% 53%

250 220

17280 15951

8640 7975.5

92131 139629

83491 131653.5

982 1549

58% 53%

327 516

17174 15095

8587 7547.5

90497 115470

81910 107922.5

964 1270

57% 50%

321 423

13786 17950

6893 8975

70169 72781

63276 63806

744 751

46% 60%

248 250

TOTAL FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 115470 107922.5 AREA AREA

THE OUTCOME

Design Proposition

The Landscape Structure plan shows in a diagrammatic way how the development is being structured in this draft proposition. With around 300 dwellings/hectare the proposal still achieves a very high density, without, nevertheless, compromising the provision of quality outdoor spaces. The architecture plan was drafted superficially to understand how the apartments could be arranged. In this case, all apartment units have balconies facing in and circulation corridors facing the street, having therefore cross-ventilation and solar access. However, the architecture should be divided into several firms to guarantee a diverse product. As a landscape-oriented proposition, the detail of the building blocks will not be a part of the scope.

BICYCLE FLOW PEDESTRIAN FLOW WATERFLOW SWALE PERIMETER PLANTING RETAIL FRONT PUBLIC GROUND COMMUNAL SPACE WETLAND

8 DETAIL

PLANTING

LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE

Alexandra Parade’s underground drain becomes a swale that cleans stormwater before directing it into the Yarra River system. The main pathway that crosses through the new precinct runs concurrent to a wetland and swale system that receives the piped water from Edinburgh Gardens and brings it to surface. Towards Queens Parade a crossing over the wetland allows people to interact with their natural environment with space allocated for cafÊ seating. The Queens Parade and Smith street fronts are activated through retail and office spaces, drawing the city into the block, but also providing the required access to amenities for its residents.

The access to the main square through Smith Street shows another perspective, with the sloping lawn and bleachers centred around a cascading water feature, providing both ecological and social benefits.

The water feature also incorporates elements of the previous Gasworks site overlapping its natural heritage with its post-colonial history, creating a sense of site identity. Community-dedicated spaces in key locations help foster the creation of collaborative connections between dwellers and local community.

All housing units have access to a communal space, which is equipped with play and leisure areas, greenhouse, tool shed, orchard and walking track. All ground level units have a threshold area delimited by vegetation before it joins the communal space. These transitions guarantee privacy while encouraging people to use the communal spaces, where the intention is for the management to be done by the residents, organized as a co-operative.

Going back towards the Alexandra Parade entrance, the site features a heritage element, the Valve House. Refurbished into a gallery, it is the main entrance to another public space, the Valve Plaza. With co-working spaces and creative industries, this space is activated with views towards Alexandra Parade and the city. A pedestrian crossing to Alexandra Parade reclaims the street level from the car flow, reconnecting the block into the city.

This draft outcome advocates for a unique opportunity for Melbourne to build a more sustainable future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Birrell, B; O’Connor, K; Rapson, V; Healy, E. ‘Looking back, looking forward: urban policy for metropolitan Melbourne’. In: Melbourne 2030: Planning Rhetoric Versus Urban Reality, Monash University ePress, Melbourne, 2005.

Bunker, R. “Heroic Measures: Urban Consolidation in Australia” in McLaughlin, J. B. and Huxley, M., (eds.), Urban Planning in Australia: Critical Readings, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, 1986.

Christopher, A.; Chermayeff, S. “Community and Privacy: Toward a New Architecture of Humanism”, Anchor Books, USA, NY, 1965.

Cotterall, Sara. 2015. “The Rich Get Richer: International Doctoral Candidates and Scholarly Identity.” Innovations In Education & Teaching International 52 (4): 36070.

Davison, G. “The Past and Future of the Australian Suburb”, Australian Planner, Dec. 1993.

Department of Infrastructure, State of Victoria. 2002. “Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth”, Victorian Government, Melbourne.

Department of Infrastructure, State of Victoria. Outlining the Standards in ResCode. www.vic.gov.au/rescode Department of Planning and Community, State of Victoria. 2008. “Melbourne 2030: A planning Update. Melbourne @ 5 million”, Victorian Government, Melbourne.

Department of Planning and Development (Public Affairs Branch). 1995. “The Good Design Guide for Medium-Density Housing”, Government of Victoria.

Fergus, Andy. 2019. “The ‘Third’ Los Angeles.” Assemble Papers, 14 November 2019 – 22 March 2020, p26-p33.

Gwilliam, M.; Bourne, C.; Swain, C; Prat, A. “Sustainable Renewal of Suburban Areas”. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York, UK, 1998.

Hill, Dan. “Dark Matter and Trojan Horses: a strategic Design Vocabulary”, Strelka Press, 2014.

Low, N; Gleeson, B; Green, R; Radovic, D. “Green City: Sustainable Homes, Sustainable Suburbs”, UNSW Press, Australia, 2005.

Lupton, Ellen. “Design is storytelling”. Cooper Hewitt, Ney York, 2017.

Lutz, Manuel. 2019. “Housing Co-Operatives: Lived Solidarity.” Assemble Papers, 14 November 2019 – 22 March 2020, p40-p45.

Martin, Vella. “Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions”, Rockport Publishers, Beverly, MA, 2012.

Offenhuber, D; Schechtner, K. “Inscribing a Square: Urban Data as Public Space”.

Springer, 2012.

Richardson, M. “Suburban Consolidation: The Future of the Australian Dream?”

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Town Planning, University of Tasmania, July, 1995.

Sarkissian, W.; Taylor, K., ULA; Cullity, K. “Medium Density Housing Guidelines”.

Urban Land Authority, Melbourne, 1991.

Sarkissian, W.; Hurford, D.; Wenman, C. “Creative Community Planning: Transformative Engagement Methods for Working at the Edge”, Earthscan, London, 2010.

Waldheim, Charles. “The Landscape Urbanism Reader”, Princeton Architectural Press, 2006.

Weller, Richard. “Boomtown 2050: Scenarios for a Rapidly Growing City”, University of Western Australia, Western Australia, 2009.

Whyte, William. “The social life of small urban spaces”, Project for Public Spaces, New York, 1980.