Density and Connectedness | Marina Pizzotti by Marina Pizzotti

DENSITY AND

CONNECTEDNESS

Investigating how to increase density while improving environmental and social quality

MARINA PIZZOTTI

June 2020 Thesis by Marina Pizzotti Supervision by Raymond Green

University of Melbourne Melbourne School of Design Master of Landscape Architecture

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I dedicate this work to my dearest grandma, Fofucha, the sweetest and sassiest human there ever was.

To my parents, Newton and Filomena, whose unconditional support and encouragement empowered me to be independent. To all women, powerful or not, independent or not, for a world that is also ours. To the Indigenous people of Australia and Brazil, and all indigenous people who have had their land taken. To my baby dog Guadu, who helped me survive and stay joyful during this thesis and the pandemic.

I would also like to thank everyone that directly or indirectly helped me put together this work over the last six months, including: To Ray Green, whose supervision made the work feel lighter. To Connie, thank you for your delightful friendship and our shared professional passions, I lack words to thank you enough. To Carla and Max, for being my local family. Thanks for your daily support, and fun, therapeutic conversations to get us by. To the GLAS team, for the learning and continuous laughter that defines us. A particular thanks to Mark Gillingham for being such a supportive boss. To Suhas, for your always generous presence, which together with Connie became a lovely Rhizoscape, which will continue to spread its rhizomes. To Helen Wilding, for lending me your extraordinary watercolours from Brunswick Street and for the lovely chats. To Glen McCallum, for making yourself always available to answer all my questions about Fitzroy Gasworks. To Pepe, for your precise input about the knowledge economy, just in time. To Claire Miller, for such valuable feedback on my writing. To Michael Roper, for the trip to Berlin that showed me another way of living. To Max Holleran, for the insights about YIMBY and NIMBY. To Martin Brennan, for a supportive conversation when I had to change my methods due to the pandemic. To Jyoti Rao, for the class about property and economy, which showed how deep the issues are. To Bi Trindade, for waiting awake on the other side of the world to keep me company during many lunchtimes. To Gabriel Pietraroia, for the life-lasting friendship and your efforts to reach out to me, even when I disappear. To KB, for always reminding me of the light at the end of the tunnel. To all my Brazilian friends and culture, who made me who I am. To Australia, for receiving me so kindly.

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

I. INTRODUCTION

• •

Introduction Project Narrative

II. CONTEXT • • • • • • • •

Scenario Suburban Sprawl and the Environment Suburban Sprawl and the Community Density and Knowledge Economy ‘Australian Dream’ Housing Affordability Crisis Alternative Housing Models Precedent Investigation

III. STRATEGY • • • •

Simplifying Wicked Problems Design Methodology Planning Criteria Case Study: Fitzroy Gasworks

IV. PROCESS • • • • • •

Site Analysis Masterplan Review Questioning the Brief Design Approach Design Development Draft Design Proposition

V. OUTCOME • •

118

Design Proposition Final Considerations

VI. REFERENCE LIST • •

Bibliography List of Figures

142

ABSTRACT 8

In an era of ecological collapse, Australia, which has one of the world’s highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita (Climate Transparency 2018), needs to transition to an environmentally sustainable economy. The ‘Australian Dream’ of detached homeownership set the foundations of the country’s urban structure, suburban sprawl (Richardson 1995). Detached or semi-detached housing comprises 86% of Australia’s current housing stock, compared with just 16% of current building approvals for multidwelling structures of four or more storeys (UDIA 2018). In Victoria, the residential sector is responsible for almost 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions (SVDELWP 2019). Suburban Sprawl is energy inefficient, 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 (Calthorpe 2017). It also has severe negative social and cultural impacts and affects cities’ economic vitality, no longer being a feasible way to build cities. This project is a case study investigation into how medium-density landscape-oriented urban developments can provide environmental, social and economic benefits, and how design plays a crucial role in assisting in the transition from Suburban Sprawl into a more sustainable city. Fitzroy Gasworks’ urban design framework evolution is analysed, and a proposal is made to illustrate the best outcome, balancing social, environmental and economic spheres.

This work investigates the negative impacts of Suburban Sprawl and explores how Melbourne can double its population without duplicating its footprint. It investigates the most suitable areas for densification and examines global and local precedents to generate the design of a particular case study, Fitzroy Gasworks urban renewal. It analyses the project’s publicised documents and establishes evaluation criteria based on a top-down (Development Plan Overlay 16), a bottomup (Protect Fitzroy North Resolutions) and a sustainability rating (Green Star Rating System) approach. Based on the new criteria, it proposes an alternative design that illustrates how a landscape-oriented urban development provides the best outcome balancing social, environmental and economic spheres. It also aims to highlight how design plays a crucial role in assisting in the transition from Suburban Sprawl into a more sustainable city. Australia’s high greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are deeply related to its growth pattern and physical structure, as the typical Suburban Sprawl characterises its major cities. The ‘Australian Dream’ of detached homeownership set the foundations of the country’s urban structure (Richardson 1995). Detached or semi-detached housing comprises 86% of Australia’s current housing stock, compared with just 16% of current building approvals for multi-dwelling structures of four or more storeys (UDIA 2018). Suburban Sprawl is energy inefficient, 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 (Calthorpe 2017). Since the late 1970s, different urban growth scenarios have been investigated as an alternative to Sprawl. The Smart Growth model is based on principles like mixed-use land uses with distributed employment clusters, walkable neighbourhoods with a variety of transportation choices and a range of housing opportunities, strengthening of existing and new community lifestyles and preservation of open space and farmland. In comparison to the Smart Growth model, Suburban Sprawl produces 330% more GHGs (Calthorpe 2017). In Victoria, 30% of the total GHGs are related to the residential sector (SVDELWP 2019). While on one hand, Suburban Sprawl is destructive for the environment, it also has severe negative social and cultural impacts and affects cities’ economic vitality (Calthorpe 2017). Sprawl enhances social isolation, affecting our sense of community and connectedness.

Suburban Sprawl is the land of the private garden and creates sterile public environments. Long daily commutes for work and leisure waste a significant number of hours that could be better spent on social and cultural exchanges, affecting peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s well-being and mental health. In growing multi-cultural cities such as Melbourne, people with no local family depend on co-operative relationships to thrive, and sprawl does not have space for that. In terms of economy, denser settlements can reduce 50% of annual household costs and government investments in public infrastructure and health care (Calthorpe 2017). Residential tasksâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; distribution and development of collaborative relationships between neighbours also capitalise the householdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s income. Homelessness in Melbourne has increased by 17% in the past two years, with a direct cause being booming housing price (Roberts 2020). The increase in homelessness not only points to the inaccessibility of housing stock but also a growing divergence in social classes. With the housing affordability crisis reaching its peak, alternatives need to be investigated. 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. Growing inwards preserves farmlands, natural reserves and reduces investments in transport and service infrastructure, reducing habitat loss, water run-off and damage of waterways. Multi-dwelling structures can reduce up to 50% of water and energy usage (NSWDP 2006), resulting in a reduction of 56% the GHGs, in comparison to single dwelling structures (COAG 2018). Car dependency affects human physical and mental health, destabilises ecological systems and generates significant annual expenses. The concentration of employment in residential areas, through mixed-use land-uses, allows for more walkable and car-free networks. Within this scenario, this project aims to investigate which Melbourne areas would be most suitable for densification and to develop an in-depth design process for a key site. The main objective of this design process is to demonstrate how a medium-density landscapeoriented urban development provides the best outcome balancing social, environmental and economic spheres. It also aims to highlight how design plays a crucial role in assisting in the transition from Suburban Sprawl into a more sustainable city.

The Design Methodology employed for this project was based on eight points: 1.

Establish criteria to find the most suitable areas for densification

2. Develop a data-driven planning process 3. Choose a key prototype site 4. Do a site analysis 5. Review its urban design framework 6. Establish a critical position 7. Develop design iterations 8. Detail key locations

Suitable locations for densification were investigated based on three criteria: infrastructure supply, land use, and demographics. Through a data-driven planning process, the criteria were overlapped, reaching a three-phase framework for densification areas. As culture was identified as a substantial impediment for densification, these three implementation phases were generated through a ranking based on high-rise residents profile. Among all appropriate areas highlighted in Phase One, one site with the potential to become a role model higherdensity urban development was chosen: Fitzroy Gasworks. This site is an urban renewal of a former Gasworks led by Development Victoria, that is intended to develop 1100 dwellings with 20% of affordable housing, a senior secondary school, a sports centre and integrated with community infrastructure (DV 2019).

BRUNS

NAPIER

STREE

WICK S TREE

EDINBURGH GARDENS

PA NS EE

SMITH

GEORG

E STRE E

STREE

SENIOR SCHOOL FOR 650 STUDENTS

T R I A N G L E PA R K

H E R I TAG E BUILDING

SITE BO UND F I T Z R OY SWIMMING POOL

ALEXAN

A RY

D R A PA RADE

S M I T H R E S E RV E O F F I C E WO R K S

GASOMETER HOTEL

This project involved a site analysis, investigating its historical and current situation. The site is a former brownfield and is going through an extensive soil remediation process, which creates an almost blank canvas for the design intervention. As a 4Ha publicly-owned 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. The Fitzroy Gasworks has social and cultural significance and also has environmental potential, providing many opportunities for a successful prototype with social, ecological and economic benefits.

The development’s timeline was reviewed, investigating various documents. 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 (which did not occur yet due to the pandemic) and construction works to begin in 2021 (DV 2019). Local and global parameters for densification were investigated, with several precedents of cities with high quality of life showing much higher densities than Melbourne’s typical 12 dwellings/hectare, but less than the 367 dwellings/hectare proposed by Development Victoria. A thorough analysis of the Development Plan Overlay that enabled the site’s rezoning (DPO16), parallel to the community group (Protect Fitzroy North) resolutions was made. The Green Star Rating System criteria for communities and performance was examined and overlapped with all previously mentioned points, which culminated in the development of the Design Criteria. The Design Criteria established the parameters to evaluate the Design Approach presented in this report, which aims to develop a landscape-oriented urban development. The major points are:

•

Integrated water system

•

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 the main gathering space at its core

•

Heritage plaza

•

Active frontages to main streets, with mixed-use precinct

•

Car flow directed underground and pedestrian/cyclist priority on the ground level

•

High tree canopy

•

Vegetation in abundance

Taking into consideration all points identified in the Design Approach, a series of massing studies was sketched. For the initial design stage, it was crucial to investigate the maximum building envelope without affecting the quality of open space while allocating communal outdoor space to all housing. 3D modelling and sun studies were used for that investigation and produced three distinct design iterations. The third iteration had the best performance in allocating the maximum amount of housing without negatively affecting the open spaces, public or private, within the precinct. This iteration was selected for the next design stage, the detail design. This stage involved the development of a site plan, detailing three specific areas: the central spine with a wetland system (for its ecological improvement), a communal residential outdoor space (fostering the cultural transition from the private garden to the shared garden) and a heritage plaza (highlighting the mixed-use character of the precinct and new economic possibilities. When all the points from the Design Approach were developed in the design, a walk through the 3D model was performed. This result was presented in the final video submitted for this projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s completion.

PROJECT NARRATIVE

CONTEXT

PROSPECTS

PAST

PRESENT

FUTURE

AUSTRALIAN DREAM

CLIMATE CHANGE

SUBURBAN SPRAWL

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS

WHY

HISTORIC

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 30% OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

SOCIAL INSTABILITY

ECOLOGICAL COLAPSE

WHERE WE ARE HEADING

LANDSCAPEORIENTED URBAN DEVELOPMENTS

THAT

DENSIFICATION

FOCUS ON ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL ENHANCEMENT

SOCIAL

ECONOMIC

BALANCE

WITH

ALTERNATIVE

THROUGH

ISSUE

SUSTAINABILITY

ENVIRONMENTAL

SCENARIO This work is framed by the analytical perspective of a built environment designer in the context of a climate emergency set in Melbourne, Australia. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns us that to avoid catastrophe, human societies have 11 years to wholly transform the way we use energy and land, making changes on a scale for which “there is no documented historic precedent” (UN 2019). Australia has seen its land go through increasing ecological instabilities which is set to progress with an extraction economy (a resource-based economy, dependent on harvesting or extracting natural resources for sale or trade), continuous population growth and negative land management strategies (Hinton 2018). The ‘Australian Dream’ of detached homeownership set the foundations of the country’s urban structure, suburban sprawl (Richardson 1995).

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

2020

million

70 %

2050

8.5 million

? 10.000 km ²

17.000 km ²

ISSUE Fig. 1, 2: Melbourne Urban Growth and Conservation Areas. 22

The Victorian government forecasts a 70% population increase in Melbourne in the next 30 years (SVDELWP 2019). With a current total area of 10000km2, the city would need to reach 17000km2 in order to allocate its traditional housing structures. Figure 2 shows Melbourneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current fringe conditions. The city, which has been expanding its Urban Growth Boundary successively, borders Green Wedges, Conservation and Rural Conservations Areas. These areas contain a mix of agriculture and low-density activities, national parks, other parks, reserves, and closed protected water catchments. In order for Melbourne to continue growing horizontally, food production areas need to become housing.

MELBOURNEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S URBAN AND CONSERVATION AREAS

Urban Growth Boundary (2016) Melbourne Suburbs Boundaries Conservation Areas Green Wedges Rural Conservation Areas Public Parks and Reserves Industrial Areas Metropolitan Melbourne Region

Although each city has a specific development history, underpinned by cultural, political and economic factors, it is 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. This is due to their vast availability of land and expansion over periods when automobiles already existed (Richardson 1995), allowing the city boundaries to extend. Melbourne, with a population of 5 million in 2020, has a population density of 500 people/km2. Although the densest city in Australia (“How is density changing in Australian cities?” 2020) - 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. 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:

15000

1400

LONDON

WASHINGTON

2400

PEOPLE/KM

PARIS

NEW YORK

POPULATION DENSITY

21000

10200 12000 MIAMI

9800 MEXICO CITY

<1k

16600

1-10k

BOGOTA

11300

10-20k

LIMA

7100

20-30k >40k 24

6300 Fig. 3: Population Density (people/ km2) in different cities around the world.

SANTIAGO

SAO PAULO

6800 COPENHAGEN

3800

8500 MOSCOW

6000

BERLIN

BEIJING

2400 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

3800/km2, Copenhagen: 6800/km2). Latin-American big cities are also densely populated ranging from 6300 people/km2 (Santiago) to 16600 people/km2 (Bogota). The United States presents a variety of 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 an ideal population density number for a specific city 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 comprise a series of natural parks, besides having extremely different structures between the CBD and its suburbs. All of those factors are suppressed when a single population density number is used to define a much more complex system. Nevertheless, these numbers will be a reference for further evaluation. Within this scenario, Australian cities stand out with very low population densities.

With only 0.33% of the world’s population, Australia is responsible for 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) - 5% if you consider exports (Climate Transparency 2018). China, with 19% of the population, is responsible for 26% of GHG and the United States, with its 4.25% of world’s population emits 15% of GHG (Climate Transparency 2018). The ratios of tonnes of emission per capita 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 per capita than the Chinese.

% OF WORLD POPULATION AND GHGS Chart Title

Chart Title

4.25 0.33

15 1

AUSTRALIA USA CHINA OTHER

Fig. 4. Percentage of world population and greenhouse gas emissions for Australia, USA and China.

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 ranking, next to countries like Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, with their oil-based economies. Australia’s high emissions are closely related to its growth pattern and physical structure, characterised by suburban Sprawl. Figure X shows the breakdown of GHG emissions in Victoria per sector and how they relate to the residential area.

‘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.

Fig. 5. Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population density and greenhouse gas emissions per capita. Fig. 6. Greenfield development in outer Melbourne.

20.6% 50% TRANSPORT

per capita world

pop.density world

226

E MISS

VICTORIA GHGS BREAKDOWN AND THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR

16.4% 43% DIRECT COMBUSTION

total

50.9% 22% ELETRICITY GENERATION

30% CO2 Fig. 7. Victorian greenhouse gas emissions per sector. 27

SUBURBAN SPRAWL AND THE ENVIRONMENT In Victoria, 30% of GHG emissions are related to the residential sector, which is the most significant amount emitted by one sector (Fig. 9). Suburban Sprawl is energy inefficient, 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 (Davidson 1993). On the other hand, the Smart Growth model is a model of urban growth based in principles like mixed-use land uses with distributed employment clusters, walkable neighbourhoods with a variety of transportation choices and a range of housing opportunities, community-oriented lifestyle and preservation of open space and farmland. In comparison to the Smart Growth model, Suburban Sprawl produces 330% more GHG emissions (Calthorpe 2017). Peter Calthorpe (2017), a North American urban planner, analysed both Suburban Sprawl and Smart Growth, in his research about Californiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future urban development. The data (fig. 8) shows a 69% reduction in land consumed, a 70% reduction in 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.

Fig. 8. Suburban sprawl v smart growth scenarios in California.

precedent

SMART GROWTH

SPRAWL

(Peter Calthorpe, 2017)

5800

LAND CONSUMED

270

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

28000

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

16000

$1.3bi

HEALTH CARE (Respiratory)

-$1.5bi

21000 28

CALIFORNIA

(STATE SPENDING) ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD COSTS (AUTO FUEL & OWNERSHIP + HOME ENERGY AND WATER)

1800

10000

VICTORIA SCOPE 1 + 2 EMISSIONS BY SECTOR

30%

OF TOTAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES MANUFACTURING AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING TRANSPORT, POSTAL AND WAREHOUSING MINING CONSTRUCTION Fig. 9. Victorian Scope 1+2 GHGs by sector.

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Mt CO 2e Scope 1 (direct)

Scope 2 (indirect)

ENERGY EFFICIENCY Fig. 10. Energy usage in single and multi-dwelling housing structures.

SINGLE DWELLING

-38%

mJ/year

MULTI-DWELLING

SUBURBAN SPRAWL AND THE COMMUNITY While on one hand, Suburban Sprawl is destructive for the environment, it also has severe negative social and cultural impacts, especially on a growing metropolis. As the city expands and people live further and further apart, it becomes increasingly hard to achieve community-oriented neighbourhoods. Sprawl enhances social isolation, affecting our sense of community and connectedness (Calthorpe 2017). Suburban Sprawl is the land of the private garden and creates sterile public environments. Long daily commutes for work and leisure waste a significant number of hours that could be better spent on social and cultural exchanges, affecting people’s well-being and mental health (Gwilliam 1998). Furthermore, Melbourne has a multi-cultural character with more than 50% of its residents from a different cultural background and over 50% born overseas (ABS 2018). This means that many households have no local family. In this scenario, many citizens depend on the support from their neighbours and local communities to thrive, and sprawl does not support that. In terms of economy, denser settlements can reduce 50% of annual household costs and of government investments in public infrastructure and health care (Calthorpe 2017). Residential tasks’ distribution and development of collaborative relationships between neighbours also capitalise household’s income. Homelessness in Melbourne has increased by 17% in the past two years, which not only points to the inaccessibility of housing stock but also a growing divergence in social classes. With the housing affordability crisis reaching its peak, alternatives need to be investigated.

“Because so much depends on how we shape our cities: not just environmental impacts, but our social well-being, our economic vitality, our sense of community and connectedness.” (Calthorpe 2017)

SOCIAL ISOLATION

One option for overcoming this complex challenge is to increase community-oriented living arrangements, which provides numerous benefits, including physical and mental health improvements. Growing inwards preserves farmlands, natural reserves and reduce investments in transport and service infrastructure, reducing habitat loss, water runoff and damage of waterways. Multi-dwelling structures can reduce up to 50% of water and energy usage (NSWDP 2006), resulting in a reduction of 56% GHGs, in comparison to single dwelling structures (COAG 2018). The car dependency affects human physical and mental health, destabilises ecological systems and generates large annual expenses. The concentration of employment in residential areas, through mixed-use land-uses, allows for more walkable and car-free networks. The creation of communal spaces allows for a more inclusive and democratic city because they support residents to collaborate and distribute household costs and tasks (Holtzman 2011). With more time and money, people have more opportunities 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 one person households - sharing brings many advantages, and communal spaces allow for more intergenerational exchange, which fosters mutual empathy and creates more selfless human beings (Alexander 1965).

CONNECTEDNESS

DENSITY AND KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY Jose Antonio Carlos, a Brazilian economist, punctuates the importance of associating design and economy. According to Carlos, the weight of the four primary inputs responsible for the formation of wealth (land, labour, capital and knowledge) have changed through time. Figure X shows their participation in the economy according to the different economic eras. Knowledge, in particular, has three very peculiar characteristics that distinguish it from other economic inputs. The recognition of those is essential for cities that want to extract all their transformative potential (Carlos 2018). 1. The first one refers to immateriality. Unlike other factors, knowledge has no physical dimension. We cannot see it, weigh it, or subject it to any other classic measurement process used for material goods. 2. The second fundamental knowledge trait is that it comes from people. Having ideas, designing new services, seeing opportunities are unique attributes of the human being. 3. The third specific characteristic of knowledge is that it grows with sharing. Unlike any material good, in which the removal of a portion reduces its size and/or value, exchanging ideas and sharing experiences increases the knowledge of the involved parties.

PERCENTUAL PARTICIPATION OF INPUTS IN WEALTH FORMATION ACCORDING TO ECONOMIC ERA AGRICULTURAL ERA

INDUSTRIAL ERA

KNOWLEDGE ERA

KNOWLEDGE LAND

LABOUR

CAPITAL

Fig. 11. Percentual participation of inputs in wealth formation according to economic era.

Through time, knowledge transitioned from a mere supporting role to becoming the protagonist in the wealth creation process (Nonaka 2008). That is why cities are having to reinvent themselves to transform individual tacit knowledge into social innovation. Distinct cities present different economic structures. Harvard Growth Lab’s recently released its Atlas of Economic Complexity, a tool to understand the economic dynamics of countries worldwide. Australia ranks 93 in its economic complexity, close to Senegal and Pakistan (HAEC 2017). Australia’s high GHGs are also deeply related to its economic structure, still highly dependent on the extraction of natural resources. AUSTRALIA’S EXPORT COMPLEXITY IN 2017

Fig. 12. Australia’s export complexity in 2017.

Until the economic framework starts shifting to more innovative and sustainable industries, the country will face a significant challenge into achieving any carbon-neutral goal. This work focuses on design’s contribution to this passage. In opposition to the construction of excessively segregated environments centred on private living arrangements, this work advocates for the creation of spaces that encourage the involvement of people. People congregate in order to work together; work is at the core of social life (Low 2005). Settings that foster exchange of experiences, inclusion and practice of transdisciplinary activities are essential in the pathway towards a sustainable economy. Design is responsible for leading a densification process that connects the creators of knowledge, the people.

‘AUSTRALIAN DREAM’ Figure X shows the comparison of Greater Melbourne’s housing product mix to what Peter Calthorpe (2017) establishes would characterise the Smart Growth scenario. Melbourne shows 84% of its housing mix composed of detached, semi-detached or attached houses, with only 16% of multi-residential houses (UDIA .) . Fig. 13. Smart growth and greater HOUSING PRODUCT MIX

16%

MULTI-RESIDENTIAL

18% 21% 45% GREATER MELBOURNE

Melbourne scenarios for housing product mix.

33%

ATTACHED

14%

SMALL LOT

23%

LARGE LOT

30% SMART GROWTH (Peter Calthorpe*)

While several places in the world have developed distinct forms of residential models with communal open space, Australia has very few precedents and has just recently begun to show different development structures. Some examples will be showcased in the next chapter. New development structures are questioned by a significant portion of the population, familiar with the formula of the freestanding house and the private garden. The foundations of this cultural perception date from the early European settlement periods. Australia’s modern settlement pattern began urban and quickly shifted to suburban, with the Australian Dream (ownership of a detached 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, resulting in massive suburban 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. Melbourne 2030, published in 2002, was the first greater Melbourne planning document that sought to shift the growth behaviours into more consolidated areas, the activity centres (SVDI 2002). The document aims to restrict the city’s 34

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 forecast demographic changes, establishing guidelines that will not 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 does not restrain any extension - since it is flexible – but it created an escalating price in greenfield land, which therefore entailed an affordability crisis that is now seeing its peak (Birrell 2005). In 2008, Melbourne 2030 received an update, Melbourne @ 5 million. With a similar philosophy, the updated version begins to define the central activity districts, establishing 6 CBD-like cores alongside employment corridors (SVDPCD 2008). Subsequent planning documents presented 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, but defines only metropolitan activity centres, not the range of varied and non-simplified 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 follows the same principles from the previous documents and presents the first acknowledgement of the aboriginal custodianship of the land, talking closely about storytelling and heritage, demonstrating the reach of more 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. The first Implementation Plan defines short, medium and long-term timeframes for each objective and a strategy to achieve it (Minister for Planning 2017). In 1986 Bunker highlighted the “paramount concerns requiring urgent measures to bring about change” by stating the environmental costs of Suburban Sprawl including increased GHGs emissions. Thirtyfour years later the city has not altered its values, with mainly planning specialists acknowledging the need 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. Australian suburbs, which “promote mindless conformity, isolation and deprivation” (Richardson, 1995), need a strategic framework that helps to shift the current mindset attached to the Australian’ Dreamscape’ to welcoming alternative living arrangements. 35

HOUSING [AFFORDABILITY] CRISIS As the population grows and housing stock does not supply demand, 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 apartment buyers usually characterising the stage before being able to buy a detached house (UDIA 2019). From Victoriaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2018/2019 total building approvals, 62% are houses, 18.8% semi-detached or townhouses and only around 20% are flats or apartments, of which 15.8% have four or more storeys (UDIA 2019). Infill redevelopments are a significant source of supplying the required housing stock. 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. 14 shows the phenomenon as it is mostly happening around Melbourneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s suburbs. LOW-RISE INFILL WITH NO REGULATION TRADITIONAL DETACHED HOUSE

FIRST STAGE OF PLOT SUBDIVISION

MAXIMUM EXPLOITATION OF PLOT WITH LOW-RISE

Fig. 14. Low-rise infill with no regulation. SOCIAL QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CONSIDERING LOW POPULATION PARAMETERS)

A profit-led real-estate market leads to properties being subdivided and occupied to extract the maximum value for the land, which means the suppression of any outdoor and social area. Although most new developments are low-rise - since it is the cultural default - developers seek permits for medium to high-rise. Even though a necessity to allow Melbourne to grow more sustainably, apartment buildings have not had enough regulations to guarantee a quality outcome. While meeting a need to supply increasing housing demands, especially from low-income social groups, these buildings have historically presented a sterile piece of engineering instead of a group of houses, which does not promote highrise as a good option.

NOW

PRIVATE GREEN

86%

OF HOUSES

81%

of buildings approved in 2018/2019

AFFORDABILITY CRISIS

16%

that have 4+ storey

COMMUNAL

Fig. 15,16. Housing affordability crisis and the Australian Dream.

ALTERNATIVE

The Victorian government recently introduced regulations for apartment design, with the “Better Apartments Design Standards” released in 2017 to “improve the internal design of new apartments and make them more liveable and sustainable” (SVDELWPc 2016) and the new “Better Apartments in Neighbourhoods” coming in 2020 to deliver improved relationships between new apartments and the amenity of existing neighbourhoods (SVDELWPb 2019) . Both planning tools will hopefully ensure an increasing quality in apartment design and its impact in the surroundings. Homelessness in Melbourne has increased by 17% in the past two years, with a direct cause being booming housing price (Roberts 2020). Melbourne currently has a high liveability index, largely due to its safe conditions, a consequence of a relatively equal social structure. The increase in homelessness not only points to the inaccessibility of housing stock but also a growing divergence in social classes. It is also known that there is an overall tendency of the real estate market to favour landlords and developers over the broader public, especially renters. This story has been seen in many places around the world, with increasing economic shortage leading to progressing insecurity and, finally, conflict. Social inequality means that part of the population receives much less income than others. Sometimes the lack of income generates economic insufficiency to survive, and robbery becomes a solution. Fortunately, Melbourne still delivers a distinctively safe lifestyle. That will not be for long if the status quo does not change. BY BUILDING ON THE FRINGE WE ARE BUILDING IN FUTURE POVERTY

2001

2006 0-9 (minimal vulnerability) 10-14 (low vulnerability 15-16 (moderatde vulnerability) 17-18 (high vulnerability) 19-30 (very high vulnerability)

Fig. 17. By Building on the Fringe we Are Building in Future Poverty. Oil and mortgage vulnerability comparison. Source: Griffith University Urban Research Program VAMPIRE index, Dr Jago Dodson and Dr Neil Sipe 2008.

ALTERNATIVE HOUSING MODELS Parallel to the rise in homelessness and the housing affordability crisis, the city has seen an increase in alternative housing models, which offer an opportunity to remedy those issues. New developers such as Nightingale, Assemble and Property Collective aim to provide a more affordable, sustainable and community-oriented housing option. Although an alternative, without government support, these initiatives struggle to deliver competitive solutions in a profit-led market. These new developments - while distinct from each other - have foundations in the community as a core of the housing structure and have been accepted by different demographic groups. While some specific groups are more open to these alternative models, a significant portion of society is still apprehensive of the change they provide. 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 (2019) 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”. 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 Assemble Papers article, the urban design critic Andy Fergus (2018) explains different types of co-operatives and how they operate. These are summarised in the next pages, with an example project illustrating each.

Fig. 18. Redesigning the housing market diagram by Andy Fergus and Alice Oehr.

THE COMMONS/NIGHTINGALE, BRUNSWICK

what

Ethical Market-Based Development effort to achieve ethical housing developments despite a total lack of active government

distinguished by wants how $ Fig. 19,20. The Commons develoment, precursor of Nightingale Housing. Fig. 21. Assemble development in Kesington.

to deliver affordable, environmentally sustainable, community-minded housing Provide different tenure types with more flexibility to renters. 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. (Fergus 2018)

ASSEMBLE, KESINGTON

BIGYARD, BERLIN

what distinguished by wants how $ Fig. 22,23. Bigyard development in Berlin.

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 (Fergus 2018)

BUIKSLOTERHAM, AMSTERDAM

what distinguished by wants how $

Zelfbouw = Self Build designed and procured by individuals within a masterplan of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;zelfbouwersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; designated precincts became dynamic new neighbourhoods high-density, individually comissioned council allocate affordable plots with strict rules around the envelope, materials, environmental perfomance and mix of uses.

(Fergus 2018)

Fig. 24-27. Buiksloterham development in Amsterdam

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

Fig. 28-30. Kalkbreite development in Zurich. (Fergus 2018)

MURUNDAKA, MELBOURNE

what distinguished by

Co-Housing ongoing participation in the building community long after construction is

wants

motivated by desire for radical democracy underpinned by high environmental

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 (Fergus 2018)

Fig. 31-33. Murundaka Co-housing development in Mellbourne.

A housing proposal by Andy Fergus, Katherine Sunderman (associate director of MGS architects) and Alexis Kalagas (urban strategist and writer) was shortlisted in the City of Sydney’s Alternative Housing Ideas Challenge. Their project, the ‘The Third Way’, focused on the financial model and planning context associated with the design, using Zurich as a strong precedent. While in Australia 60-70% of people own their home, Zurich has never gone above 10%. In a talk given in MPavillion, Kalagas (2020) stated that Zurich’s entire system has been built around the need of renters and that 20% of the housing stock is composed of co-operatives. Sunderman declared that 92% of Melbourne’s renters want their own home, but over 50% of the younger 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. The outcome is a society that sees renting as a stage in life until they can purchase a house. Apartments appear in more significant numbers to supply increasing demand, but 70% of them are rented, in comparison to 20% of houses. Apartment buildings reflect a more short-term, affordable opportunity than providing a long-term housing alternative. Speaking at MPavillion about speculations on Melbourne’s future homes, Fiona Andrews (2020) (Senior Lecturer at Deakin University Health Department) states that over 40% of Melbourne’s apartment

dney

ney

Fundamentals of Zurich housing

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

s e

HOUSING TENURE BY UNIT CITY OF ZURICH (2016) 9% Owner Occupier HOUSING TENURE

BY UNIT CITY OF ZURICH (2016)

8% City of Zurich & Non-Pro�its 5% Private Foundations 20% Cooperatives 5% Pension Funds

Distribution of 9% Owner Occupier

ownership within the rental sector

91% Rental

is ed s

PROJECT FINANCING BREAKDOWN, ZURICH

20% Cooperatives

21% Companies

Distribution of 41% Individuals ownership within the rental sector

GATHERING AT HUNZIKER-AREAL, A ZURICH COOPERATIVE

4% Solidarity Fund

8% City of Zurich & Non-Pro�its 5% Private Foundations 5% Pension Funds 21% Companies

6% Member Shares

10% Revolving FundEquity 6% PROJECT Low-Interest Loans 29% FINANCING BREAKDOWN, 15% ZURICH City of Zurich Pension Fund

Commercial Financing

Source: City of Zurich Statistics Yearbook 2017

91% Rental

Equity

41% Individuals SAMPLE BREAKDOWN OF ‘COST RENT’, ZURICH

Low-Interest Loans

65%

29%

65% Bank Mortgage

Source: New Housing in Zurich, Typologies for a Changing Society (2017). Commercial Financing 65%

residents are families with children even though their design does not support the lifestyle of young families. “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 have 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 Andrews’ 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 (2020) 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 ooperative movementand hasexploit the misery and isolation and fear that mortgage stress and housing stress creates for different families.” Roberts criticises the use of atives, popular support, have also benefited the neighbourhood character as a planning tool to disguise people’s ‘Not using and the financial 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. Roberts advocates for a planning scheme that establishes height limits according to the number of amenities around, with Equity 6% 6% Member Shares PROJECT FINANCING mandatory landscape requirements. BREAKDOWN, ZURICH 4% Solidarity Fund Brendan CoatesFund(2020) (Household Finances Program Director 10% Revolving Low-Interest Loans 29% at the Grattan Institute) saysFund that rent increase has been a growing 15% City of Zurich Pension divisor between wealthy and poor, with rising prices transferring wealth from those who do not own property to those who do, with a concurrent increase in inequality.

Commercial Financing

65%

65% Bank Mortgage

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

SAMPLE BREAKDOWN OF ‘COST RENT’, ZURICH

2% Tax 21% Maintenance 40% Depreciation & Accruals 9% Levies 7% Administration 21% Interest on Capital

Source: WBG Kostenstatistik der Zürcher Baugenossenschaften

Fig. 34. The Third Way design proposal for the City of Sydney’s Alternative Housing Ideas Challenge. 53

PRECEDENT INVESTIGATION Murundaka Cohousing is a great local example of the social, economic and ecological benefits provided by medium-density developments. The project was made possible in 2009 with support from the Common Equity Housing Limited (CEHL) and an injection of funds into the social housing sector. It is now a consolidated housing community with 20 households sharing common living, kitchen and garden space. Producing 100% of their electricity needs with solar panels, the community had a 50% reduction in their bills (MCC 2016). Its block analysis provides some interesting insights in terms of spatial configuration and infill. Located in Heidelberg Heights, 15km from the CBD, most houses in the block are still detached, with generally 12 dwellings/Ha. A few plots have started 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 while improving its green space. Unfortunately, initiatives like Murundaka are still rare and require an engaged group of people to investigate alternatives and chase funding. Most market is led by the optimisation of the plots through traditional infill practices and a large housing demand ready to take whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s available. Several precedents of cities with a high quality of life show much higher densities than Melbourne. Research identifies 50 dwelling/hectare as the minimum for sustainable development.

MURUNDAKA CO-HOUSING 5 Fig. 35. Murudaka Cohousing block density analysis.

40 dw/Ha 70 dw/Ha

20 HOUSEHOLDS

1 1

41 dw/Ha

12 dw/Ha

33 dw/Ha

12 dw/Ha

GLOBAL PRECEDENTS

Barcelona, Spain

340

Perugia, Italy

DWELLINGS/ HECTARE

275

Several precedents of cities with high quality of life show much higher densities than Melbourne. Research identifies 50 dwellings/hectare is the minimum to provide affordability and sustainability.

230

Vienna, Austria 56

220

Berlin, Germany

Zurich, Switzerland

250

Copenhagen, Denmark

240

High-density is not a synonym of high-rise

Fig. 36-43 Global precedents for densification.

120

12 dw/ha

Malmo, Sweden

Melbourne, Australia

41% detached houses

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 investigate what might be called the “missing middle”. The “missing middle” is a term that aims to explore the lack of housing typologies between the standard detached house and the high-rise. This competition sought proposals for new housing options for Queensland that meet contemporary community, urban and environmental challenges (QDDHPW 2019). New South Wales government’s ‘Missing Middle Design Competition’ invited professionals to showcase their visions for the future of medium density housing in NSW. Analysis of the winning designs showed alarming uniformity, with just slight formal changes in the facade and composition. Most proposals developed their design following the traditional fence boundary, finding a solution for one plot and replicating it in the entire block. It is clear how even the professional design field is struggling to foresee that a dwelling footprint can go beyond the standard lot edge, working with combined plots for a proposal that comprehends the block as a whole. Even if that characteristic was stated in the brief, it was not challenged by the competitors. At the Future Homes MPavillion talk, the presenter Andrew Mackenzie (2020) discussed the inauguration of a Melbourne-based design competition called ‘Future Homes’, with a $500,000 prize. This announcement highlights the importance of addressing the density issue and reveals one of the design field’s most significant leaders on this issue. Another Melbourne initiative underway is IBA Melbourne, inspired by the European movement Internationale Bauausstellung – or International Building Exhibition (IBA), initiated in the Mid-twentiethcentury in Germany. “IBA Melbourne is proposed as a city-wide, crossinstitutional project that aims to affect the transformation of housing provision in Melbourne through demonstration and engagement. (...) is

91% detached houses

MISSING MIDDLE

INNER MELBOURNE 58

OUTER SUBURBS

intended to impact policy and drive investment in relation to new models of affordable housing development across Victoria” (IBA Melbourne 2020). An initiative of four universities: Melbourne, Monash, RMIT and Swinburne, it involves architectural and planning professions, all levels of government, financial and philanthropic institutions, and industry. The initiative is still under development and there are no in-depth details available for consultation. Despite an unfavourable economic scenario due to the pandemic, these contemporary actions point to positive changes. It feels like the right moment in history to deconstruct some ingrained behaviours and pivot the future’s course.

EXISTING PERSPECTIVE

SINGLE DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE 8

MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE

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 study

access

garden

study

shared access

office or studio

living

parking and workshop

court

bath

patio

car park

car port

court

extended court

future shared zone

garage

studio or master bedroom

bath

flexible car port spaces support mixed-uses

veranda living

master bedroom

bath

living wc

dining wc

kitchen

living dining

bedroom

bath

kitchen

dining wc veranda

LEGEND

void

living

music kitchen room

front gardens for light, ventilation and views

court veranda

garden

living

bath

court

typical suburban home footprint

existing setback used to invigorate green streets with mixeduse twin houses

kitchen

patio

car port

bedroom

cafe or studio

living

kitchen

office wc dining

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

veranda

garden

A C

access

Upper Level Plan

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

Fig. 44. Missing Middle in Melbourne. Fig. 45. Density and Diversity Done Well Design Competition winning boards.

DENSITY AND DIVERSITY DONE WELL DESIGN COMPETITION 59

SIMPLIFYING WICKED PROBLEMS From the context’s analysis to a site specific design proposition, this work establishes two main goals: •

To develop an in-depth design process for a key site, demonstrating how a medium-density landscape-oriented urban development provides the best outcome balancing social, environmental and economic spheres.

•

To highlight how design plays a crucial role in assisting in the transition from Suburban Sprawl to a more sustainable city.

The strategy employed in this project, therefore, is based simultaneously in a traditional design process (from the site analysis to the design development) added to a strong component of design communication and storytelling. In the book Design is Storytelling, Ellen Lupton states storytelling’s capacity of helping products hook the imagination of users and invite actions and behaviours: “What excites me about design, is the potential to transfer information into someone else’s mind” (Lupton 2017). In the previous chapter, it was stated that one of the foundations of the issue (Suburban Sprawl) is cultural, originated with the ‘Australian Dream’ of detached home ownership. In order to help to shift from a Sprawl urban form to a more compact city, the consumer market must initiate a demand for more multi-dwelling housing units. Design plays a significant role in this transition, but it is also highly influenced by economy and policy. Fig. 46. StadsBuiten project by Delva Landscape Architecture for a mixed-use development.

GOOD DESIGN

“What excites me about design is the potential to transfer information into someone else’s mind” Ellen Lupton, 2017

GOOD STORY

In his book Dark Matter and Trojan Horses, Dan Hill advocates strategic design as a tool to enable systemic change. Design can reshape cultures of public decision-making at the individual and institutional levels when it is applied to the primary problems of the 21st-century governance, which he calls the dark matters (Dan Hill 2015). 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” (2015). The climate emergency is an example of a dark matter, a wicked problem formed of multiple different issues. In its complexity, Suburban Sprawl is a physical manifestation of how designers and policy have failed to address problems by not leading towards more sustainable CREATE cultural behaviours. Problems of policy, culture and economy need to be DEMAND addressed to start to resolve the climate emergency. By focusing efforts FOR MULTIon these areas, we can re-establish harmony between society and nature, DWELLING and begin to undo the environmental damage of post-colonial society. HOUSING UNITS CY

TURE

POL

LOW-DENSITY SPRAWL

EC O

NO MY

CBD

CBD DESIGNER

SMART GROWTH

REAL-LIFE SCENARIO

As stated earlier, the Victorian Government has started implementing design standards for apartments and their relationship with the neighbourhood. The policy side is structural in guaranteeing quality and democratic design outcomes (Martin 2012). Government funding to affordable housing programs, such as the co-operatives presented in the precedent study and initiatives like the allocation of a percentage of social housing to certain developments would begin to shift the patterns of an ingrained profit-led real estate market, changing its economic structure. Does this initiative come exclusively from higher-up, or is it a responsibility of the population to demand more? If so, the first step is to create awareness of the possibilities. Design also has an educational role. Walking alongside policy and economic structures is the market’s demand. If multi-dwelling units available are similarly priced to singledwelling units, do not present any special design feature, and do not provide any particular quality of life improvement, the number of approved medium to high-density buildings will not rise. Design plays a crucial role in advocating for better outcomes that display how a quality design provides both social and ecological improvements. To achieve that, the design must be good, and a convincing story must be told.

ENGAGE WITH COMMUNITY AND OTHER DISCIPLINES

ENGAGE WITH POLICY AND ADVOCATE FOR CHANGE

“Design is a CULTURE GENERATOR, by its power of UNCOVERING, SHAPING AND CONVEYING alternate trajectories” Dan Hill, 2015. 64

INVESTIGATE AND PUBLICIZE VIABLE ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES

How, then, can design inform culture? How can a design solution reach far beyond its physical organisation into encouraging new mindsets? Although not simple, the answer relates to design’s educative potential, through its ability to create spaces that enable people to interact, reflect, exchange and question. In a realistic scenario, the designer would also mediate between parties involved in the process. Mostly during community engagement events, designers would have the opportunity to learn about the demands and showcase relevant parts of the proposal, gaining approval from one party that would help take crucial design interventions forward. As an academic exercise, and therefore lack of direct contact between the designer (me) and the public, this proposal seeks to illustrate in the final video content the relevant findings that proves this work’s two main goals. “Achieving preferred (rather than probable) outcomes requires rethinking old habits and pushing past the status quo” (Lupton 2017). To highlight how design plays a crucial role in assisting in the transition from suburban sprawl to a more sustainable city and to achieve an innovative medium-density housing with high environmental standards and social outcomes, this research adopted a strategy that first identified suitable locations for densification, and then investigated a case-study example of higher density urban renewal.

EXCHANGE KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTER BOTTOM-UP INITIATIVES

DEVELOP GREAT DESIGN OUTCOMES

THIS WORK’S SCOPE

CREATE DEMAND FOR MULTIDWELLING HOUSING UNITS

‘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 65

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 prototype site that met the criteria was followed by extensive site analysis and review of its urban design framework, examining all documentation released for

FIND 1

Define 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

the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s redevelopment. The establishment of a critical position and formulation of a specific design approach allowed for the testing of distinct design iterations. Following this, a detailed design of particular locations illustrated the benefits of a landscape-oriented neighbourhood. The following section will outline each of the eight steps.

PROTOTYPE 3

ANALYSE 4 Develop an in-depth SITE

Choose A

PROTOTYPE SITE for

a densification role model

ANALYSIS, accounting for current and historic elements

ITERATE

DETAIL

Design DIFFERENT SCENARIOS and

evaluate through criteria established

Choose a Masterplan and detail KEY LOCATIONS,

targeting the design principle

1 FIND

PLANNING CRITERIA WHERE SHOULD DENSIFICATION HAPPEN? A sustainable Melbourne can be achieved through densification of suitable locations, chosen based on physical and cultural attributes. The physical attributes were infrastructure supply and land use. Demographic data was vital in order to evaluate fitting locations from a cultural lens. Infrastructure supply and land use spatial data were overlaid using GIS. The flowchart on the next page explains the technical approaches involved in this process. Once the maximum extents for densification were set, demographic data was overlaid and the level of suitability established, which created a strategic framework with three implementation phases. The City of Melbourne (2016) is the only Council that released data for its High-Rise Residents profile (Fig. 47). AG E GROUPS

60-69 years 4%

70-79 years 2%

80-89 years 1%

50-59 years 5%

0-9 years 4% 10-19 years 9%

40-49 years 7%

30-39 years 21%

20-29 years 47%

LABOR FORCE S TAT U S Employment status not stated 9%

Employment status not applicable 5%

Employed 46%

EMPLOYED 46% Not in the labour force 33%

Unemployed 7%

VEHICLE OW N E R S H I P

One motor vehicle 30%

Doctoral Degree Level Master Degree 3% Level 18% Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate Level, nfd 0%

Advanced Diploma and Associate Degree Level 4%

BACHELORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S 53%

Bachelor Degree Level 53% One family household: Other family 5% One family household: One parent family 5% One family household: Couple family with children 11%

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

Graduate Diploma Level 3% Graduate Certificate Level 1%

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

GROUP 26%

One family household: Couple family with no children 25%

Group household 26%

Other nonclassifiable household 9%

O C C U PAT I O N Vehicles not stated 13%

Three motor vehicles 1% Two motor vehicles 8%

E D U C AT I O N LEVEL

Diploma Level 8%

20-29 years 47%

Four or more motor vehicles 0%

Certificate III & IV Level 7% Certificate Level, nfd 2%

No motor vehicles 48%

NO VEHICLE 48%

Machinery Operators and Drivers 1% Sales Workers 8%

Labourers 6%

Managers 14%

Clerical and Administrative Workers 11% Community and Personal Service Workers 12% Technicians and Trades Workers 8%

PROFESSIONAL Professionals 38% 38%

This demographics data influenced the development of relevant criteria used for the selection of the areas: Population age and household type: 20-29 years and group households are the primary demographic in existing high-rise residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; profiles, with 30-39 years and childless couples in the second place. Education level and occupation: Employed professionals with bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degrees are the majority within this housing type. 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 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 land use neighbourhoods: With the presence of different typologies from the traditional detached housing enabling more diverse interventions

Fig. 47. City of Melbourne demographics data for high-rise residents profile.

HIGH-RISE RESIDENTS PROFILE

PLANNING S T R AT E G Y

G I S

INFRASTRUCTURE LAND USE

ERASE

FUZZY SMALL

300m+ UNION

FUZZY

MAX.

EUCLIDEAN

H B O UR

OD C

WAT E R A R E A S

RURAL CO N S E RVAT I O N

RASTER TO

Fig. 48. Flowchart developed to explain the planning process using GIS software.

Although these characteristics do not reflect the majority of Melbourne’s current population, they are relevant to guide which locations would be more open for change. Fig. 48 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 overlays and neighbourhood character zones represent areas with stronger cultural significance and, therefore, not targeted as focal points for densification. As they will represent pockets in between bigger densification areas, their interfaces

A R AC T E

WAT E R CO U R S E S

CO N S E RVAT I O N AREAS

FUZZY LARGE

500m+ UNION

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

T R A I N S TO P S

TOO

GREEN WEDGES

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

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

ERASE

HERITAGE OVERLAY

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

INDUSTRIAL ZONE

MOBILITY PAT T E R N

SUITABLE NOT SUITABLE

should be analysed with a closer lens. The capital city zone was also not 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 more detail. 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 Bureau of Statistics - 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.

VEHICLE OWNERSHIP

2 PLAN

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 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 LEFT WING

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE

E X I S TA N C E O F INFRASTRUCTURE

Fig. 49-55. Maps developed in the planning process.

PHASE

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

3 PROTOTYPE

CASE STUDY: FITZROY GASWORKS

Among all suitable areas highlighted in Phase 1, one site with the potential to become a prototype of a role-model higher-density mixeduse 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 undertaken (Enviropacific 2020). The site is located only 2km from the CBD and has multiple characteristics that underpin its successful outcome to serve as a role model.

•

BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT

•

GOVERNMENT OWNED

•

CLOSE TO CBD

•

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

•

AMENITIES AND MIXED USE ZONE

•

CLOSE TO PUBLIC PARKS

Fig. 56. The three gasometers on the former Fitzroy Gasworks.

SITE LOCATION RATIONALE

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Fig. 57-59. Transport Infrastructure, Land Use, Green Network and Community analysis maps. 2k

LAND USE

CBD

tram route bus route train route watercourse G R E E N N E T WO R K a n d CO M M U N I T Y

commercial zone mixed use zone neighbourhood character residential educational parks and reserves activity centre capital city

parks and dense tree canopy health infrastructure education infrastructure commercial stripes

4 ANALYSE

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 at the junction of Fitzroy North, Fitzroy, Collingwood and Clifton Hill (DV 2018). Positioned between Queens Parade to the north and Alexandra Parade to the South, Smith Street to the east and George Street to the west, the site is surrounded by a mixed urban fabric. The north has mostly low-rise residences, with occasional new multi-dwelling units, generally 3 to 4-storeys. The south has a mix of heritage and industrial sites with increasing number of higher-density buildings. A robust neighbourhood character permeates the entire area, associated with a continuously changing atmosphere, given the development pressures taking place. 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 strips- 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. KEY CHARACTERISTICS

•

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)

Fig. 60. Land use and context analysis map.

KEY

EDINBURGH GARDENS

commercial zone mixed use zone neighbourhood character residential educational parks and reserves bus route tram route bike route shared path

STREE

site boundary

NAPIER

E UE

R PA

SMITH

GEORG

T R I A N G L E PA R K

E STRE E

STREE

SENIOR SCHOOL FOR 650 STUDENTS

H E R I TAG E BUILDING

SITE BO U N DA

F I T Z R OY SWIMMING POOL

ALEXAN

D R A PA RADE

S M I T H R E S E RV E

GASOMETER HOTEL O F F I C E WO R K S

HISTORIC CONTEXT Built in 1859, the Fitzroy Gasworks was a key supplier of gas to Melbourne. Once other gas companies consolidated, the site lost its competitiveness due to the distance from the port, closing in 1927 . The site remained in operation as a workshop and gas storage facility until the 1970s, maintaining its relevance to Fitzroy and Collingwood’s working class. Two heritage-listed constructions exist at the site, the Valve House and the J H Porter iron building (removed before the remediation works began), which remained as the City of Yarra Council depot until 2018. A mural painted in 1986 by Melbourne artists Eve Glenn, Megan Evans, and a team of helpers, From Bonbonniere to Barbed Wire (also known as “the Women’s Mural”) was perhaps the largest feminist mural in Melbourne from the second wave feminism (WMDP 2018). The original mural project began with community consultations in 1985 and 1986, when the artists spoke with and photographed women in Northcote over a period of several months. A majestic 50-metres long and 12-metre high piece of local women’s images and landmarks celebrated the cultural diversity of the area. After 30 years, the mural was demolished in October 2019 for the site’s redevelopment. Ranging from a 19th-century working-class space, 20th-century Council depot with a significant illustration of feminism in Melbourne, the site also has potential ecological value. A map from 1872 shows a creek running N-S across Edinburgh Gardens, north of the site, and a water drain running E-W along Alexandra Parade, south of the site, 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 Gardens was placed there. 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 it, which was later covered and became the central garden beds existing today (Melbourne Water 2017). Around the 1970s, these were used as a recreational space, but nowadays they have become an island in the middle of a never-ending traffic flow that connects the city to the Eastern Freeway.

Fig. 61: The Woman’s Mural. Fig. 62. Fitzroy Gasworks in 1969. Fig. 63. Alexandra Parade car flow towards the Eastern Freeway, 2020.

Fig. 64. 1872 Sands &McDougallâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Directory New Plan of Melbourne and suburbs.

Fig. 65. Edinburgh Gardens historical maps showing former creek.

Fig. 66. 1902 Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of works (MMBW) plans.

5 REVIEW 86

MASTERPLAN REVIEW The timeline below presents all relevant reviewed documentation and significant events in the developmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s process. With its first Urban Design Framework released in 2008, Development Victoria opened community engagement in 2017, with another two Masterplans issued to date. The 2017 plan presents a comprehensive urban form. In 2019 another urban design approach was released, with a more general description. The urban renewal project is set for another round of community participation in early 2020 (which did not occur due to the pandemic), and construction works to begin in 2021. The following section will detail the relevant points of these documents.

URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK MGS + JONES & WHITEHEAD

2008 2016

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT - VISION

Fig. 67. Fitzroy Gasworks development timeline.

2016 - 2017

2017 COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP FORMED

MASTER PLAN DESIGN REPORT

2017 nov.2017

DEVELOPMENT VICTORIA

2018 URBAN DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE EVIDENCE

apr.2018

CRAIG CZARNY, HANSEN PARTNERSHIP

INITIAL URBAN DESIGN ASSESSMENT

6 apr.2018

DAVID PRYOR, PLACE DESIGN STUDIO

PROTECT FITZROY NORTH RESOLUTIONS PROTECT FITZROY NORTH INC.

18 apr.2018

TRANSPORT EVIDENCE GTA CONSULTANTS

YSBA ENGAGEMENT AMENDMENT C243 APROVED DPO16 REMEDIATION PHASE 1

24 apr.2018 19 jul.2018 2018 - 2019

2019 REMEDIATION PHASE 2

2019

URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK UPDATE

2019

DEVELOPMENT VICTORIA

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

COLLABORATIVE DESIGN

FORMAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXHIBITION (DID NOT OCCUR DUE TO THE PANDEMIC)

oct 2019

early 2020

NOW DETAILED DESIGN

2020 2020-2021

2021 REMEDIATION COMPLETE

mid 2021

CONSTRUCTION BEGINS

late 2021

In 2008 the City of Yarra commissioned and adopted the Urban Design Framework produced by MGS and Jones & Whitehead for the Gasworks site. The document aligns with the City of Yarra Industrial and Business Land Strategy Review (2012) and recommends the rezoning of the area - and adjacent blocks - from industrial to commercial use (MGS 2008). It establishes guidelines for the height, character and infrastructure to be provided in the frontages with Queens Parade, Alexandra Parade and Smith Street. It also analyses issues and opportunities regarding access and connections within the context and provides recommendations for open spaces and recreation facilities. Finally, it proposes subdividing the four-hectare site into five blocks with a central triangular public space. The document is concerned with height control based on sightlines into the site: “Heights may increase away from street frontages using upper-level setbacks that are not visible from the adjoining street”; or “No overshadowing at mid-winter of the southern footpath of Alexandra Parade” or “Reduce heights rapidly to the east of Smith Street to create a transition to low-rise heritage precinct” (MGS 2008). This perspective aligns with Melbourne’s cultural tradition of reluctance to higher density buildings, with the most meaningful preoccupation being the facades’ outlook from the existing streets, highlighted by the site’s notable neighbourhood character context. Alexandra and Queens Parades present a generous width of 60m, with the dense and tall tree canopy dominating most viewpoints on the surroundings, being the most suitable frontages for higher buildings. Alexandra Parade at the south is especially suitable, where the built form would not impact the large street proportion and structures would not overshadow the interior of the block, with minor overshadow in the adjacent footpath. In that sense, the document fails in providing proper consideration to the impact of the height towards the spaces created inside the development. In November 2017, a Masterplan - Design Report was released by Development Victoria. This document shows a more direct approach to the development’s character “Fitzroy Gasworks will be a whole of government approach to Urban Renewal - delivering an integrated, sustainable and thriving urban village showcasing the revitalisation of a strategic inner-city site for a growing Melbourne” (DV 2017). The proposal seeks to address the 20-minute neighbourhood highlighted in the planning documents by providing a series of amenities that add to the city’s infrastructure. It proposes the positioning of a school and sports courts in the north-west corner and the creation of four mixed-use precincts with an active ground floor.

Its program becomes more defined, with 1,100 apartments, 4,300 m2 of retail, shops & small businesses, childcare, sports courts, vertical secondary school, live/work units, 14% public realm (excluding streets), 8% active open space and 700 car spaces in the basement. In terms of the height specification, it recommends lower heights (6-10 storeys) responding to the residential interface (Queens Parade) and taller built form (6-14 storeys) to the south (DV 2017). Again, it shows a more substantial concern with the existing surroundings than towards the spaces that will structure this new ‘Urban Village’. A shadow study is shown with not much clarity, and it is broadly argued that different areas will have varying degrees of sun and shade. A 3D aerial hand drawing presents the general feeling of the space, which seems cramped and hard to read. In April 2018 a specialist report was conducted by Craig Czarny, from Hansen Partnership, to assess the proposed Amendment C243 to the Yarra Planning Scheme. This aimed to facilitate mixed-use development at the site through the rezoning of the land - from Public Use Zone (PUZ1 and PUZ6) and Commercial 2 Zone (CZ2) to Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and Public Use Zone (PUZ2) - and introduction of a new Development Plan Overlay - Schedule 16 (DPO16) (GTA Consultants 2018). The rezoning was essential in enabling the site to incorporate residences, commerce and the proposed school. Stating the development’s significance to the broader municipality, Czarny (2018) declares that the site is “well separated from sensitive residential land (with heritage designation) and abuts major roadways (20m-60m wide)” (2018). This point is further detailed when affirmed that, by its ‘island’ structure, the site is large enough to establish its own urban character, not disregarding its context, but signifying “an opportunity for a development outcome that is both ‘contextually referenced’ and ‘distinctive’ in its own right” (Czarny 2018). Czarny points out negative shadowing impacts on public (street), communal (courtyard) and private (balcony) spaces in 2017’s Master Plan and suggests further adjustments to building heights or spatial dimensions (2018). The report further specifies a series of recommendations for the Masterplan and the DPO schedule 16, which were taken into consideration for this project’s development. In October 2019 Development Victoria issued the most recent version of the project to date while seeking community feedback. The overarching principles remain similar, with the formal inclusion of affordable housing in the scope (DV 2019). The most significant changes are in the built form and urban design, with a complete restructuring of the buildings’ footprint. However, this latest release does not specify building heights, only suggesting 4-6 storeys along Smith Street. 89

The three published Masterplans presents very distinct approaches to the built form. While most designs were shown on a high-level perspective, an interpretation of their content was made and converted into 2D and 3D formats.

2019

2017

2008

FLOW, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

OPPORTUNITIES

CONSTRAINTS

A spatial analysis was carried out, taking into consideration its built form, major flows and creation of public and communal spaces, highlighting its opportunities and constraints (Fig. 68).

SCHEME

FINDINGS KEY:

buildings

•

public open space

BLOCKS DON’T ALIGN WITH NEW ZONING

•

LACK OF SETBACK FROM HERITAGE

•

CLEAR SENSE OF DIRECTION AND SIGHTLINE

•

POSSIBILITY FOR CREATION OF COMMUNAL SPACES

communal space plaza vehicle access pedestrian access

Fig. 68. Masterplan evolution analysis.

•

CLEAR HIERARCHY OF FLOWS AND DIRECTIONS

•

CREATION OF COMMUNAL SPACES INSIDE NEW BLOCKS

•

CREATION OF PUBLIC PLACES IN BETWEEN BLOCKS

•

OVERSHADOWING IN OUTDOOR SPACES

•

UNCLEAR HIERARCHY OF FLOWS AND DIRECTIONS, UNNECESSARY LANES

•

LOSS OF COMMUNAL SPACES INSIDE NEW BLOCKS

•

PLAZAS ARE FRAGMENTED AND DON’T DIALOGUE WITH REST OF URBAN FABRIC

•

BUILDINGS DON’T SEEM TO USE SPACE EFFICIENTLY, LOOKS TOO DENSE

21 .0 6

2017

2019

220

516

423

DW/HA

3PM

1PM

11AM

9AM

2008

DW/HA

YEAR 2008 2017

2019 IT 01

AREA GROUND TOTAL GROUND TOTAL GROUND TOTAL GROUND

NUMBER OF STOREYS 3

4 16036 64144

2455 7365

4608

6000 30000 7271

2310 13860 1370 8220 6071

2014 16112

6034 60340 7725 77250

990 11880

2148 30072

COMMUNAL PUBLIC AREA 9745 33% 4535 15% ‐ 9761

412 14 118 40 126 42 630

This section intends to analyse each masterplan over four criteria:

761

Ground plan overshadowing during the winter solstice

•

Communal outdoor spaces to residences

•

Scale of public spaces and viewshed

•

Access and connectivity

In order to evaluate each point, the buildings in each Masterplan were modelled, and a sun study for the winter solstice was done, since it characterises the season where the buildings overshadow the most. The schedule below shows the floor area per number of storeys, total area of communal and public space, estimate of the 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 (Secret Agent 2020) - and excluding 20% of the total area for circulation. The dwellings/hectare was a result of this number divided by the 3 hectares site. The analysis of the best time - 1 pm - in the worst day of the year - the winter solstice - highlights the constraints in each proposal. While the UDF from 2008 performs the best distribution of communal and public space (it was assumed that the scheme comprised perimeter blocks), the Masterplan from 2017 shows unsatisfactory sun conditions in its internal courtyards. The proposal from 2019 aims to address that, but only achieves a positive outcome for its primary public spine, with very fragmented remaining outdoor spaces. This latest release appears to meet neither desirable sun conditions to its outdoor spaces nor its building facades. Moreover, it looks to disintegrate the ground level into narrow and underutilised spaces, creating a deficient user experience through the development.

MUNAL PUBLIC SPACE REA

745 3% 535 5% ‐

•

4127 14% 11853 40% 12694 42% 6300

NUMBER OF DWELLINGS

OCCUPANCY

DWELLINGS / HECTARE

44900.8

528

53%

176

139629

105322.8

1239

53%

413

7547.5

115470

86338

1016

50%

339

8975

72781

51044.8

601

60%

200

GROUND AREA

RETAIL AREA

TOTAL FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AREA AREA

16036

8018

64144

15951

7975.5

15095 17950

6 POSITION 94

QUESTIONING THE BRIEF The development has gone through a long process of urban design iterations, specialists reports, community engagement and rezoning, with a considerable amount of requirements and goals being established towards the site. This project’s extensive analysis of the proposed schemes - especially in the 3D modelling process and subsequent schedule creation - highlighted the opportunities and constraints in each. The global precedents previously analysed created parameters for density comparison and were important to reveal that the 367 dwellings/ hectare proposed by Development Victoria were too dense. Fitzroy Gasworks represents a unique place in a very specific context and with particular elements in its program. The senior school for 650 students in its NW corner, the aim to become a role model for sustainable developments, the requirement to provide high amenities and public space to residents, and the broader community make this a nonstandard residential development. Since it aims to achieve such a high number of different uses and there is no suggestion that one skyscraper could host most residences, it is expected that it will not be able to achieve very high levels of population density. Combined with those findings, two documents were taken into deep consideration while defining a new design approach. The Development Plan Overlay 16 is an official document approved by the Planning Minister in July 2018 that allows for the site’s rezoning into an educational and mixed-use zone and establishes high-level guidelines for its development. The DPO16 was included in the Yarra Planning Scheme through the Amendment C243. The community group in dialogue with Development Victoria was ‘Protect Fitzroy North’, and their resolutions were presented in a public hearing held in April 2018, which led to a document called ‘Protect Fitzroy North Resolutions’. In conversation with the ‘Protect Fitzroy North’ President, who is also a

member of the community group formed for the new development, 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. Although much more extensive, the documents were narrowed into six categories: open space, housing, character, infrastructure, performance and transport. Since this work investigates the development from a landscape architecture point of view, these categories were chosen due to their relation with the field and the following design intervention. Overall, both documents state a need to respond to Queens Parade and Alexandra Parade as formal boulevards and retain specific views toward the context and landmarks (YPS 2018, PFN 2018). There is also a clear intention to prioritise active modes of transport at the ground level, allocating car traffic and parking to the underground (especially given that the soil remediation process required 10 metres of excavated soil in many points of the site). Both also declare that the future development must enhance a community-oriented lifestyle with plenty of community infrastructure and a precinct with a sense of identity. They establish different building-height controls but agree in allocating 15-20% to affordable housing. Finally, with distinct percentages of the site designated to open spaces (8%-25%), they concur that the urban renewal must be a model for sustainable innovation. The community groups also brings the Green Star Rating as a tool for measuring its performance. The Green Star Rating System is an internationallyrecognised sustainability rating system launched in 2003 by the Green Building Council of Australia. It provides four tools available for certification of design, construction and operation of buildings, fitouts and communities (GSBC 2016).

OPEN SPACE HOUSING

•

Avoid buildings taller than six storeys;

CHARACTER

•

Respond to Queens Parade and Alexandra • Parade significance as formal boulevards;

Respond to Queens Parade and Alexandra Parade significance as formal boulevards;

•

Address Smith Street to encourage use of • tram and vitality of activity strip;

Development with a sense of ownership and community;

•

Develop a coherent and identifiable precinct;

Must enhance neighbourhood character;

•

Provide community infrastructure to ensure • integration with the adjoining education facility; • Support retail, office and other uses at street level;

PERFORMANCE

•

TRANSPORT

Minimum of 8% as public open space;

•

Create public spaces to improve resident amenity;

•

Activate public realm, without privatising;

Provide a range of dwelling types and provision of up to 20% as afforable housing;

COMMUNITY

INFRASTRUCTURE

DPO16

• •

•

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

•

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;

•

Provide landscaping to reduce visual impact of development; •

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;

•

Provide internal courtyards, communal roof terraces and balconies facing out;

•

Incorporate sustainable design features to • address water management, solar access and innovative energy saving initiatives;

•

Sustainable irrigation treatments;

•

Minimise over shadowing;

•

Retain views to the top third of the Shot Tower from the site;

Provide landscaping to reduce visual impact of development;

•

Environmentally sustainable design strategy: energy, water and waste conservation and management

Protect key viewlines down Hodgkinson & Council streets and from Edinburg Gardens;

•

Create pedestrian and bicycle access;

•

Provide two bicycle spaces per dwelling;

•

Promote clear sightlines and choice of routes;•

•

Site to become a model for innovation with use of sustainable and environmental treatments so that all facilities be a minimum 6 star rated;

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;

on Ale xandr a Para de 5 00m

The Shot Tower is a historical and architectural significant construction dating from 1882.

DPO16

SUMMARY REQUIREMENTS

COMMUNITY

SUMMARY REQUIREMENTS 97

DESIGN APPROACH The integration of top-down (DOP16) and bottom-up (Community) approaches were critical to structure the design intervention. The Green Star Rating criteria for communities and performance was analysed and organised in the three pillars identified as crucial to achieving a landscape-oriented urban development: environmental, social and economic. Each category was also split into empiric perceptions of how much of the scope is subject to design or governance. That division aims to illustrate how design has a more influential role in the outcomes related to the environmental and social spheres - although governance also plays a crucial part - and how much governance is structural in guaranteeing an economically sustainable precinct. In that sense,

•

greenhouse gas strategy

•

materials

•

sustainable mobility

•

ecological value

•

waste management

•

heat island effect

SUBJECT TO DESIGN

SOCIAL •

healthy and active living

•

community development

•

culture, heritage and identity

•

walkable access to amenities

•

community investment

•

affordability

•

employment and economic resilience

•

education and skills development

•

return on investment

•

incentive programs

SUBJECT TO GOVERNANCE

SUBJECT TO DESIGN

ECONOMIC

CRITERIA INFLUENCED BY THE GREEN STAR RATING SYSTEM

integrated water cycle

SUBJECT TO GOVERNANCE

•

SUBJECT TO GOVERNANCE

SUBJECT TO DESIGN

ENVIRONMENTAL

design can undoubtedly facilitate the adoption of a particular economic framework, but will unlikely be able to sustain it alone. Moreover, governance might benefit immensely from a strategic design program, which could help to build a sensitive and resilient business plan for a specific area. This point falls out of this work’s scope. The process elaborated in this thesis will focus more specifically on the environmental and social spheres, with some general identification of key sustainable economic strategies. The points extracted from the Green Star Rating were merged with the points from the DPO16 and community group resolutions and formed the criteria for later analysis of the design outcome, divided into six categories:

DESIGN CRITERIA OPEN SPACE

INFRASTRUCTURE

•

Ecological value

•

Healthy and active living

•

Heat island effect

•

Integrated water cycle

•

Safe social places

•

Waste management

•

Overshadow

•

Community infrastructure

PERFORMANCE

HOUSING • Sustainable buildings

•

Model for innovation

•

20% affordable housing

•

Greenhouse gas strategy

•

Compliance with BADS

•

Materials

•

Sightlines

CHARACTER •

Culture, heritage and identity

•

Community development

•

Relation with the context

TRANSPORT •

Sustainable mobility

•

Walkable access to amenities

INTEGRATED WATER SYSTEM

In order to achieve the best outcome balancing social, environmental and economic spheres, the design approach focused on BUILDING ENVELOPE the conception of a landscape-oriented urban development, considering landscape the physical space where all spheresCOMMUNAL (social, cultural, SPACESpolitical, ecological and economic) collide. The line of thought that guided the BIOPHILIC program’s development started by the primordial need ARCHITECTURE to start reversing the ecological damage Melbourne’s industrial phase created. Although SPINE the two-year-long remediation process aimed CENTRAL to remove all toxicity from the ground (Enviropacific 2020), specialists report that sites with PLAZA previous Gasworks uses cannot be remediatedHERITAGE entirely (Kabay 2010). In order to promote a continuous purification of the soil and groundwater, ACTIVE FRONTAGES phytoremediation processes alongside an integrated water system are crucial to allow for a healthy environment. UNDERGROUND CAR FLOW As mentioned previously, the former creek that could be seen in BICYCLE ROUTES the 1872 map of Edinburgh Gardens was channelled in the early 1900s. Recently it has been brought to the surface through the rain garden that PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS crosses the park and then becomes piped until it reaches Alexandra Parade stormwater underground drain before TREE it is diverted Dights CANOPY into COVER Falls. This project’s first design move is to bring this back to the surface, integrating it into a network of wetlands and swales within the precinct with adequate plant species for phytoremediation processes. This water system is connected to the buildings, with rainwater harvesting and wastewater recycling. The segment of Alexandra Parade’s underground drain that meets the precinct is also opened to the surface, configuring an open-air stormwater swale. The stormwater and wastewater coming out of the development are directed into the water treatment system before diverted into Alexandra Parade. Although this intervention on Alexandra Parade only affects a single block, the idea is to advocate for the complete transformation of this underground drain into a linear park, improving not only ecological processes but enhancing the city’s liveability and its social spaces. In regards to the building’s footprint, the 1100 dwellings proposed by Development Victoria were considered too dense not only in comparison to the surroundings but mainly to global precedents with notable quality of life (refer to page XXX). The amount of quality public and communal outdoor spaces were considered of utmost importance to allow for a distinctive precinct, with overshadowing in the winter being a key criteria for evaluation of buildings’ maximum height. Using the same sun-analysis process to evaluate the proposed Masterplans, the design investigated the maximum building envelope without affecting the quality of its open spaces.

100

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 Paradeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stormwater drain, transformed into a swale. Investigation of maximum building envelope without affecting the quality of open space, using sun-analysis as 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 plots to be divided amongst 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 pedestrianoriented 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

101

In order to assist in a smooth cultural transition from the combined detached house + private garden, the allocation of communal spaces integrated to all housing was considered essential. These spaces may vary in size and components, and it is fundamental that its administration should be managed by residents. It is understood that there is no right formula to what a communal space needs to have and that the best outcome should be the result of a participative project. However, as the design presented in this work aims to illustrate the relationship established between the residential private and communal spaces, and the possible interstitial threshold areas created, it investigated possible design outcomes for these spaces. Although outside of this projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design scope, some points regarding the architectural components are specified, as it is considered they are highly relevant in achieving the desired outcome. As stated in the community group resolutions, all apartments should follow the BADS Standards, and the overall building constructions should employ Biophilic Architecture principles: the incorporation of natural lighting and ventilation, vegetation, integrated water and waste systems, passive energy and other elements for creating a healthier built environment for people. Although not represented in this work, all building area must be divided into different designers for a diverse and inclusive outcome. The public realm must be attractive, safe, integrated with community infrastructure, retail and office spaces. Two main public spaces are proposed: a central square associated with the water system - for educational and sensory stimulus - that is connected N-S through a central spine, and a heritage plaza, that incorporates the heritage Valve House building. In order to blend the block into the city fabric, but also provide the required amenities for its residents, main street frontages should incorporate retail and offices spaces. Each one of these frontages (Queens Parade, Alexandra Parade and Smith and George Street) have different interfaces and scales, and therefore should be thought of in relation to their adjacent contexts at the same time as the relationship they establish with the inner-block.

102

Advocating for active and sustainable modes of transport, the precinct will have a new tram stop at Smith Street, be supplied by a rich network of bicycle and pedestrian routes, and establish its ground level as a car-free space. As the soil remediation process had to dig up to 10m of soil in specific areas, this 3-storey underground space will be allocated to all car traffic, with access to all commercial, residential and educational buildings, and necessary car parking spaces. Access to the underground level is via George Street and Queens Parade. More than supplying the inner block with pedestrian and cyclist-friendly tracks, the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s redevelopment aims to restructure the transport network on the surroundings, reclaiming the street level from the constant car-flow and adding pedestrian crossings in Queens Parade and Alexandra Paradeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s frontages. It also consolidates the currently fragmented bicycle routes W-E in Queens Parade and Alexandra Parade - with the proposition of a central linear park with a bike path (similar to the one on St. Georges Road north of Merri Creek) - and N-S in Smith and George Street, which have exceptionally narrow bike paths nowadays. Finally, the proposition of vegetation in abundance was considered crucial to achieving the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goal. In response to the heat island effect, tree species that are suitable for a changing climate are to be extensively planted, providing a consistent tree canopy cover of at least 40%. All swales and wetlands should incorporate both phytoremediation and other plant species, considering diversity is key in establishing a healthy ecosystem and creation of wildlife habitat. Vegetation is also to be used as a buffer from car-traffic zones and as green fences guaranteeing privacy towards the residential spaces. Communal spaces are encouraged to have greenhouses and community gardens for a yearround planting of edible species.

103

7 ITERATE YEAR 2008 2017 YEAR 2019 IT 01 2008 IT 02 2017 IT 03 2019

104

IT 04 IT 01

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT The first step of design development involved the definition of the building footprint and heights. The parameters taken into consideration were the same as the ones used in the masterplan reviews: •

Ground plan overshadowing during the winter solstice

•

Communal outdoor spaces to residences

•

Scale of public spaces and viewshed

•

Access and connectivity

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. While reviewing the masterplans and global precedents, the use of perimeter block as an urban typology stood out as providing the best spatial resolution between public and private realms, through the use of the buildings to delimit and accommodate the required communal spaces. It also allows for a structured network of streets and a continuous building facade, even if broken into different buildings with different heights. That was the initial premise to create building plots. Higher buildings were initially allocated in the south and east looking to have the minimum overshadowing possible into the outdoor spaces. The first iteration presented an unsatisfactory solar outcome for the communal space adjacent to the Valve Plaza, which was redesigned for the second iteration. The block to the NE was also too low, and one storey was increased for the second iteration. The communal spaces in the SW corner had improved their solar exposure in the winter solstice, but the upper storey obstructed solar access to the NE block. The third iteration provided a cut created in this block in order to allow for the entrance of afternoon sun. The same schedule with the same parameters was created. Overall, the three iterations have a built area of around 58% of the site with densities varying from 200 to 260 dwellings/hectare. The third NUMBER OF STOREYS AREA iteration3was considered as achieving the most desirable result between 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 the parameters and was chosen to be further detailed. GROUND 16036

TOTAL GROUND TOTAL GROUND AREA TOTAL GROUND TOTAL GROUND TOTAL GROUND TOTAL GROUND

64144

2455 7365 3 4608 13824 2455 7365 552 1656 552 4608

4 16036 64144

6000 5 30000 7271 36355 11549 57745 10891 6000 54455 30000 10891 7271

2310 2014 13860 16112 NUMBER OF STOREYS 1370 6 8 8220 6071 36426 5731 2310 2014 34386 13860 16112 5731 1370 34386 8220 2343 6071

6034 60340 7725 10 77250

990 11880

2148 30072

6034 60340 7725 77250

990 11880

2148 30072

COMMUNAL PUBLIC AREA

9745 412 33% 14 4535 118 15% 40 COMMUNAL ‐ 126 PUBLIC AREA 42 9761 630 9745 412 21 33% 14 9866 739 4535 118 33% 25 15% 40 9866 739 ‐ 126 33% 25 42 9866 739 9761 630

ITERATION 03

3PM

1PM

11AM

9AM

ITERATION 02

6 .0 21

ITERATION 01

MUNAL PUBLIC SPACE REA

GROUND AREA

745 4127 16036 3% 14% 535 11853 DW/HA 15951 5% 40% MUNAL GROUND ‐ 12694 PUBLIC SPACE 15095 REA AREA 42% 761 6300 745 4127 17950 16036 21% 3% 14% 866 7399 535 11853 17280 15951 3% 25% 5% 40% 866 7399 ‐ 12694 17174 15095 3% 25% 42% 866 7399 761 6300 13786 17950

250

NUMBER OF DWELLINGS

OCCUPANCY

DWELLINGS / HECTARE

44900.8

528

53%

176

7975.5

139629DW/HA105322.8

1239

DW/HA 53%

413

RETAIL AREA 7547.5

TOTAL FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 115470 86338 AREA AREA

NUMBER OF 1016 DWELLINGS

OCCUPANCY 50%

DWELLINGS / 339 HECTARE

RETAIL AREA 8018

TOTAL FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AREA AREA 64144

327

321

8975 8018

72781 64144

51044.8 44900.8

601 528

60% 53%

200 176

8640 7975.5

92131 139629

66792.8 105322.8

786 1239

58% 53%

262 413

8587 7547.5

90497 115470

65528 86338

771 1016

57% 50%

257 339

6893 8975

70169 72781

50620.8 51044.8

596 601

46% 60%

199 200

105

8 DETAIL

The Landscape Structure plan shows in a diagrammatic way how the development is being structured in this draft proposition. With around 260 dwellings/hectare, the proposal still achieves a very high density without compromising the provision of quality outdoor spaces. The architecture plan was sketched 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 amongst several practices 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 106

PLANTING

LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE E

D RA

PA S N

SMITH ST R

EET

GEORG

E STREE

E U Q

ALEXAND

RA PARAD

107

Alexandra Paradeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 the surface. Towards Queens Parade, a crossing over the wetland allows people to interact with their natural environment. 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.

ALEXANDRA PARADE GEORGE STREET SMITH STREET QUEENS PARADE

108

109

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 residents and the local community.

110

II.

All housing units have access to a residents-only communal. These are 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 shared spaces, where the intention is for the residents to manage the space, organised as a co-operative.

II.

I. II. 111

III.

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.

III.

III. 112

QUEENS PARADE

SMITH STREET ALEXANDRA PARADE

GEORGE STREET

During the development of the project’s 3D model, a few issues regarding the proposal were identified. The most significant problem was the lack of connection between the two main public spaces, the central square and the heritage plaza. While producing the walkthrough model that explained how the spaces are connected, there was an evident difficulty in accessing the Valve House. Although this space is related to the new linear park on Alexandra Parade, especially with the new pedestrian-crossing, it felt separated from the rest of the precinct. Other issues related more to detail than to the block’s general scheme. The pergola attached to the Valve House seemed to have dominated the heritage element, and therefore would be removed. The historic element on the central square’s water feature was too big and needed to be detailed further. The main wetland north to the precinct had a man-made appearance, while it should resemble a more natural setting. Other elements were lacking detail and a more realistic representation, which would be approached later in the project’s development.

113

MID-SEMESTER FEEDBACK SUMMARY The feedback received from the jury was summarised in the schedule below, and a response for each was made.

PANEL COMMENTS Very clear project brief and rationale BACKGROUND RESEARCH

SITE ANALYSIS

Demonstrates how site fits into global context in respect to climate change Very clear analysis of the problem, with urban design-landscape architectural strategies to confront it Analysis of the site scale is well done and communicates pertinent information to guide future design thinking Presentation of excellent and relevant precedents

DESIGN EXPLORATIONS

Very good initial design explorations, showing strong and convincing evidences of good final design outcomes Movie and Book draft are very well presented and graphically sophisticated Issues with English language writing

Ok, th

Overall text and description of the analysis, precedents and proposed design outcomes is extensive and very well-articulated Movie is very professional REPRESENTATIONS

A few readability issues with text overlapping other graphics in the book

Ok, th

Preferably not use hand drawing as itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a sad use of my tech skills

Disagree, it's mean feeling of the spa

Lack of cohesion in movie text and images, talk more directly to images Development of argument of social, environmental and economic approach is weak Suggestion of use of active voice instead of passive OTHER

Title is vague, use title to show the audience what design will look like What is special about my perimeter block proposal in terms of landscape?

114

Agree, fina

Active voice will be

Agree, fina

The design outcome a

RESPONSE

CHANGES MADE (PAGE)

No changes needed

Changes to the design final design were made (Page 102 onwards)

Both were improved for the final

he final version will be proofread.

Entire text

Text was further detailed

Final version was improved

he final version will be corrected.

nt to be a work in progress tool to describe the ace. The final version will use more softwares.

Specific pages through the book Final design version only uses softwares

al version will try to be more consistent

Final movie was improved

al version will try to develop it further

Further explanation of argument is made through the text, especially on pages 67 and 98

e used for video and passive for academic text

al title aimed for a more specific point

and program explanation diagram aims to show that point more clearly

Video language was modified Title In the The Outcome chapter, page 105 onwards

115

21 .0 6

ITERATION 02

ITERATION 03

1PM

11AM

9AM

ITERATION 01

3PM

YEAR 2008 2017 2019 IT 01 IT 02 YEAR IT 03 2008 IT 04 2017 IT 05

116

2019 IT 06 IT 01

AREA

NUMBER OF STOREYS 3

GROUND TOTAL GROUND 2455 TOTAL 7365 GROUND TOTAL GROUND 4608 TOTAL 13824 GROUND DW/HA TOTAL GROUND 552 AREA 3 TOTAL 1656 GROUND 552 TOTAL 1656 GROUND 2455 1050 TOTAL 7365 3150 GROUND 917 TOTAL 2751 GROUND 4608

4 16036 64144

199

4 16036 64144 1993 7972 1993 7972

6000 30000 7271 36355 11549 57745 10891 5 54455 10891 54455 3772 18860 6000 0 30000 0 7271

2310 2014 13860 16112 1370 8220 6071 36426 5731 DW/HA 34386 NUMBER OF STOREYS 5731 6 8 34386 2343 14058 2310 2014 5550 13860 16112 33300 1370 9322 8220 55932 6071

6034 60340 7725 77250

990 11880

182

9745 33% 4535 15% ‐

412 14 2148 118 30072 40 126 42 9761 630 33% 21 9866 739 DW/HA 33% 25 COMMUNAL 9866 739 PUBLIC AREA 14 33% 25 9745 412 9866 739 33% 14 25 2148 4535 118 8442 950 30072 15% 40 28% 32 ‐ 126 8258 950 42 27% 32 9761 630

193

6034 60340 7725 77250

990 11880

COMMUNAL PUBLIC AREA

MUNAL PUBLIC SPACE REA

745 3% 535 5% ‐

4127 14% 11853 40% 12694 42% 761 6300 3% 21% 866 7399 3% 25% MUNAL 866 7399 PUBLIC SPACE REA 3% 25% 866 7399 745 4127 25% 3% 14% 442 9500 535 11853 8% 32% 5% 40% 258 9500 ‐ 12694 7% 32% 42% 761 6300

4 5 6

7 3

7 ITERATE

FINAL ITERATION PROPOSED HEIGTHS

5 6

5 6 6

Iteration four represents the final outcome of the draft proposal, which underwent minor adjustments from iteration three, when the buildings’ plot was further detailed. Two new schemes were modelled, now creating direct access between the two main public spaces. The first attempt was unsuccessful in creating a communal space with sufficient amount of winter sun. Another iteration facing the communal space to the north - rather than the south – achieved a better outcome. This last proposal also stood out for presenting four different block sizes with distinct edge conditions. As an exercise to explore the thresholds and interfaces between public, communal and private, it seemed GROUND TOTAL FLOOR RESIDENTIAL NUMBER OF OCCUPANCY RETAIL AREA appropriate to investigate varying With the taller buildings (10 AREA AREA scenarios. AREA DWELLINGS storeys maximum) only facing the southern edge, the rest of the precinct 64144 44900.8 16036 8018 528 53% should have varying heights (between 3 to 6 storeys) to be defined in a masterplan elaborated block. The numbers highlighted in figure 139629 105322.8 15951 7975.5 for each 1239 53% X illustrate broadly how these heights could vary. The final chapter of this 15095 86338 1016 50% book shows the7547.5 design result.115470

DWELLINGS / HECTARE 176 413 339

17950

8975

72781

51044.8

601

60%

200

17280

8640

92131

66792.8

786

58%

262

GROUND 17174 AREA

RETAIL AREA 8587

NUMBER OF 771 DWELLINGS

OCCUPANCY 57%

DWELLINGS / 257 HECTARE

13786 16036

6893 8018

70169 64144

50620.8 44900.8

596 528

46% 53%

199 176

10372 15951

5186 7975.5

63282 139629

46476.8 105322.8

547 1239

35% 53%

182 413

10239 15095

5119.5 7547.5

66655 115470

49228.4 86338

579 1016

34% 50%

193 339

17950

8975

72781

51044.8

601

60%

200

TOTAL FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 90497 65528 AREA AREA

117

118

119

8 DETAIL

DESIGN PROPOSITION The final design proposal demonstrates how a landscape-oriented urban development provides the best outcome balancing social, environmental and economic spheres. In this chapter, the design will be explained over a walkthrough the site. The entire walkthrough can be visualized in the video found in the link: HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/FL0-VWFBKMO

INTEGRATED WATER SYSTEM BUILDING ENVELOPE COMMUNAL SPACES BIOPHILIC ARCHITECTURE CENTRAL SPINE HERITAGE PLAZA ACTIVE FRONTAGES UNDERGROUND CAR FLOW BICYCLE ROUTES PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS TREE CANOPY COVER

DESIGN APPROACH 120

In this chapterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s last section, the criteria used for evaluation will be analysed in detail, highlighting how each point is developed in the design.

LANDSCAPE-ORIENTED URBAN DEVELOPMENT 121

In a birdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; s-eye-view looking from Queens Parade, we can see how the development is structured. It is important to state that the architecture component was only modelled to illustrate its relationship with the landscape, and do not aim to represent the desired outcome. As mentioned before, its design should be divided amongst different

122

practices in order to achieve a diverse and inclusive outcome. In the landscape structure, the central spine defines the spatial distribution. It is the main circulation, connecting the two existing boulevards, and also the most significant ecological system. Run-off from the surroundings and stormwater from the underground drain are directed into the first

123

pond, after going through a gross trap pollutant located underneath the pedestrian and cyclist W-E pathway. The wetland system is composed of four cleaning pools, separated by pedestrian crossings, with different degrees of vegetation as buffer zone, according to the level of toxicity present in each stage. In case of severe rainfall, overflow is diverted directly into Alexandra Paradeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s swale.

124

Phytoremediation occurs through plant species that perform rhizofiltration processes, cleaning the water by filtering pollution through their root system. A secondary network of swales branches throughout the entire precinct, collecting greywater from the mixed-use precinct and treating it before diverting into the wetland axis. After the fourth pond, the water becomes clean of most toxicity and is exposed in a water feature that defines the main public square.

125

A sloping lawn and rock seatings are encircled by Jacarandas on the southern side â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to not overshadow the space - and cascading water on the other. Trees to the north are deciduous and will not create shade in the winter. The upper side of the water feature creates the visual link of the square to the heritage plaza, the two main public spaces. Native trees and drought-tolerant plants create a robust landscape for a changing climate. Sculptural elements illustrate the connection between the past (pre-colonial), present (post-colonial) and future, the precinctâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s identity. The core of the

126

precinct is to be designed with community consultation, shaping its character from a bottom-up approach. The allocation of a community space in this corner is crucial to safeguard its community management and activism. Heading south, the tall central Eucalyptus provide a transition between the native-style boulevard that exists inside the precinct and Alexandra Paradeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing boulevard of Elm Trees. The water feature becomes a shallow linear pool that diverts water into Alexandra Paradeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s swale.

127

With mostly a residential character and the occasional retail, this boulevard provides public gathering areas for dwellers and local community while providing economic opportunities. Entering one housing unit, we can explore how the proposed communal spaces are structured in the precinct. Illustrated as a composition of a traditional Victorian style with contemporary elements, the architecture here is meant to represent how higher density is not a synonym to high-rise and does not have a specific

look. With different sizes and spatial arrangements, all apartment units have balconies facing in, and all ground floor units have direct access to the communal garden, shared between all residents from that building block. A private transitional space creates a threshold before the shared area. Each resident is entitled to decide how to organise this space, if they will put fences for children and pets, for example, or what degree of visual permeability they want in order to guarantee their privacy. The shared

128

space, however, is managed collectively. In this case, in a participatory design process, residents decided for a multiple-use greenhouse, outdoor food production, firepit area, play area and an orchard. Different components require distinct management levels, and it is up to the residents to decide how this will be structured in community meetings. A loop trail goes around the garden, creating space for walking. Plant species have sensory traits, are edible, bird-attractive and robust for a changing climate. Rainwater is harvested and directed to a retention system installed in the basement, which also re-uses wastewater for irrigation and toilet flushing, reducing water consumption by 50%. A waste management system is also integrated into all vertical circulation. Part of the organic waste is selected and put into a compost and worm farm that generates fertiliser for the planting. The greenhouse is located in the centre of the garden and is an open and creative space. They are used to grow food and indoor plants, as a maker space and also for collective movie projections.

129

The residents of this block also decided to allocate some space for a firepit, with local rocks used as boulders for seating. All balconies have built-in planters, creating more possibilities for a biophilic architecture component. The play space has a softfall rubber ground and wood structures interconnected with ropes and swings, providing a safe play area for different age groups. Parents can take turns in who is monitoring

130

the children, allowing for more alone time while supporting their children to develop autonomy and risk assessment. The play area is directly connected to the common kitchen area, where dwellers can organise meals together or host events. An orchard was planted in the northwest corner, where the communal garden meets the public square. This provides a visual and sound barrier from the outer space while supplying fresh fruits for the residents.

131

Leaving the residential block now heading to the Valve House Plaza we have other illustrations of the interfaces established between the residences and public space. The building to the left shows a mixeduse typology with cafĂŠ in the ground level and housing in the upper levels. The building to the right has two public frontages, one to the pedestrian street and the other to the Plaza. The pedestrian street front has only residences while the Plaza front has co-workings and retail on

132

the ground floor. The timber cladding provides privacy to the residential circulation corridors while allowing light and wind to flow through. The vegetation strip in the middle is part of the swale system that treats runoff water before taking it to the primary water system. As the sun sets, the Valve House Plaza shows its night activation. The heritage building is retrofit into a gallery that hosts a permanent exhibition about the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s historical and temporary exhibitions from different artists. The native Illawarra Flame Tree exhibits its colourful presence as the central element of the space, with the red flowers and green foliage complementing red metal pipes and bricks from the Valve House. Boulder seatings with local rocks defines more gathering spaces, used day and night. The presence of coworking spaces and retail showcases the economic opportunities within the precinct, which can be used as a workspace by residents and the local community. The pattern created with the paving is a wayfinding element that guides people through space and punctuates specific sightlines to the city, the Shot Tower and, at night, an exhibition opening from a New Zealand graffiti artist.

133

The pattern also guides the flow towards Alexandra Paradeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pedestrian crossing, reclaiming the street level from the car flow and reconnecting the block into the city. The residential rooftops are used for electricity generation, food production and create diverse social gathering opportunities.

134

Alexandra Paradeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intervention, here represented in a single block, advocates for the complete transformation of this underground drain into a linear Park, improving not only ecological processes but enhancing the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s liveability and its social spaces. A site that once polluted the air, soil and groundwater can now clean water, provide wildlife habitat and vegetation in abundance, while creating healthy community-oriented spaces and fostering environmentally sustainable economies.

135

This work’s final section comments on the design outcome according to the design criteria established earlier:

OPEN SPACE •

Ecological value The wetland and swale system provide water cleaning before reaching the main watercourses, preventing the pollution of main water systems. They also create wildlife habitat and ecosystem restoration.

•

Heat island effect The final proposal presents 50% tree canopy coverage, which is the ideal amount to offset urban heat island effect (REF?).

•

Safe social places The allocation of mixed-use ground level with activation day and night encourage safe social spaces.

•

Overshadowing The maximum building envelopes were determined to prevent overshadow of open spaces. All communal gardens and main public spaces were tested in the worst scenario - the winter solstice - and showed a satisfactory amount of sunlight.

HOUSING

•

As the detail of the architecture lies outside of this work’s scope, the points highlighted in this section aim to show key considerations in the successful realisation of the proposal.

Sustainable buildings

In this proposal, buildings are represented with a lot of green to show the potential of facades and balconies to receive planting. Green walls system are not considered sustainable approaches (high-maintenance and water/ energy usage), but the use of climbers are. Planter boxes inbuilt in facades and balconies are great to assist in thermic and sound insulation. They can also provide visual enhancement and food production for people and wildlife. Other sustainability points are declared in the BADS Standard.

•

20% affordable housing Stated in Development Victoria program, this point is affirmed here as a structural component of the project’s ethos to fight the housing affordability crisis.

•

136

Compliance with BADS Stated in Protect Fitzroy North community group resolutions, the compliance with both BADS and Better Apartments in Neighbourhoods is considered elementary.

CHARACTER •

Culture, heritage and identity As a direct component of community participation, the proposal does not specify particular cultural approaches in creating the precinct’s identity. Rather, it mentions opportunity in spaces and concepts that could direct possible interventions. The use of the Valve House as a gallery and its Plaza for creative and commercial purposes fosters the creation of a place to develop new identities over existing historic elements, which is culture’s role. A sculptural element in the precinct’s core is suggested, where the visual link of the two main public spaces occurs. Although there is no defining characteristic of this component, it is suggested that it should be developed by an artist chosen by the community over participatory workshops. It is also stated that the character of this element can relate to the site’s pre and post-colonial conditions, or could be in memory of the feminist mural that existed in the site for over 30 years, but these choices should be made by the community.

•

Community development The site fosters community development through different strategies. It allocates community-managed public spaces that can perform as places to organise public meetings and workshops or even be hired for the local community for income generation. All public spaces are meant for community development, through enabling people to interact, reflect, exchange and question. The same occurs in the communal residential spaces, which are key in orienting a new collaborative lifestyle.

•

Relation with the context The proposal seeks to integrate with the context more harmoniously. The first thing that separates the block from the surroundings is the 60m width of Alexandra and Queens Parade’s boulevards. Three pedestrian-crossings are introduced in each Boulevard, prioritising and safeguarding pedestrian and cyclist flow over cars. The activation of main frontages with retail and office spaces also aims to provide the precinct with amenities at the same time as bringing the broader community into the precinct. The average building height is 4-6 storeys with the maximum being 10 storeys in the school’s corner. That range shouldn’t impact the surrounding neighbourhood character. The position of a new tram stop in the precinct also aims to integrate it into the context.

137

INFRASTRUCTURE •

Healthy and active living Is encouraged through the diverse recreational opportunities, either communal or public, and by fostering more active forms of mobility.

•

Integrated water cycle The rainwater harvesting and retention system in the buildings allow for water re-use, which reduces the total water consumption. The wetland and swale system complements those by cleaning water and providing a sensory experience for users before diverting it into the main watercourses.

•

Waste management Also specified in the BADS Standard are waste management and logistics. Buildings are to have vertical waste passages to facilitate waste disposal and communal gardens are to have a compost system.

•

Community infrastructure Is provided throughout the precinct with retail, offices, gallery, public and communal spaces.

PERFORMANCE •

Model for innovation With the implementation of all criteria and compliance with the Green Star Rating System, the development should become a model for innovation.

•

Greenhouse gas strategy All buildings are to have minimal construction impact and be energyefficient, minimising the precinct’s footprint. A management strategy should be implemented in order to evaluate the GHGs development and continuously seek for productivity measures.

•

Materials All materials are to be sought locally, minimising logistics efforts and consequent GHGs. The choice for material should also account for their production method, prioritising sustainable options.

•

Sightlines Notable sightlines towards the city and the Shot Tower are guaranteed from key moments in the public spaces.

138

TRANSPORT â&#x20AC;˘

Sustainable mobility In order to foster active modes of transport, all car parking and flow is directed underground, utilising the 10m of soil extracted from the remediation process. The ground floor is left free for pedestrian and cyclist, allocating specific hierarchies of flow and speed.

â&#x20AC;˘

Walkable access to amenities The walkability to amenities is provided within the precinct and in its connection to the surrounding amenities.

139

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS This work has investigated the negative environmental, social and economic impacts of Suburban Sprawl, and explored how Melbourne can double its population without duplicating its footprint. It explored the cultural history that generated the current urban form of Australian cities and how that same culture continues to act as a barrier to shifting to more sustainable cities. It looked into Melbourneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current housing affordability crisis and how alternative housing models can assist in offering solutions. Through an 8-point design methodology this work has explored the most suitable areas for densification and examined global and local precedents to generate a design case study, Fitzroy Gasworks urban renewal. In order to develop the design the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s publicised documents were analysed and an evaluation criteria was established based on a top-down (Development Plan Overlay 16), bottom-up (Protect Fitzroy North Resolutions) and sustainability rating (Green Star Rating System) approach. Based on this evaluation criteria, an alternative design was proposed to demonstrate how a landscapeoriented urban development provides the best outcome by balancing social, environmental and economic spheres. The proposal also aims to highlight how design plays a crucial role in assisting the transition from Suburban Sprawl into a more sustainable city. The design development process utilised 3D modelling as a technique to evaluate different design iterations, in particular by doing sun-studies in distinct building envelopes. It created an analytical breakdown to compare the total amount of dwellings, communal and

140

public space, as well as estimates of retail and residential area for each iteration. The proposal that performed the best according to the criteria was further developed and presented in detail as the final design proposition. Overall, the final design proposition incorporated all key elements determined by the design criteria and approach. The achievement of a landscape-oriented urban development was created through the balancing of the social, economic and environmental spheres. The environmental sphere was improved through the incorporation of the high tree canopy cover, integrated water network, waste and water management, phytoremediation processes to clean water and soil, and use of locally sourced, sustainable materials. The social sphere benefited from the creation of inclusive, safe and active public and communal spaces. It is also positively impacted by the mixed-use character of the precinct and the non-car-dependency creating opportunities for more active engagement. The economic sphere has been improved by the way the space encourages new sustainable economies and innovation, such as the co-working spaces. As an academic exercise, the final outcome cannot exhibit in detail the complexity of a real-life design. In a real scenario, collaboration with sub-consultants, the community and client is necessary to accomplish precise results that meet the needs of those who will be using the space. Nevertheless, within the premise of developing an in-depth design process and showcasing the role of design in advocating for more sustainable cities, this work is considered successful.

141

142

143

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allom Lovell & Associates (ALA). 2004. Edinburgh Gardens: Brunswick Street, North Fitzroy, Conservation Plan. Prepared for the City of Yarra. http://images.heritage.vic.gov.au/ attachment/31254 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2018. Census of Population and Housing: Reflecting Australia-Stories from the Census. 2016. https://www.abs.gov. au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2071.0 Birrell, Bob; Kevin O’Connor; Virginia Rapson; Ernest Healy. 2005. “Looking back, looking forward: urban policy for metropolitan Melbourne”. In Melbourne 2030: Planning Rhetoric Versus Urban Reality. Melbourne: Monash University ePress. Bunker, Raymond. 1986. “Heroic Measures: Urban Consolidation in Australia”. In Urban Planning in Australia: Critical Readings, edited by J. Brian McLoughlin and Margo Huxley. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Climate Transparency. 2018. Brown to Green: The G20 Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy, Climate Transparency, c/o Humboldt-Viadrina Governance Platform, Berlin, Germany Calthorpe, Peter. 2017. “7 principles for building better cities”, YouTube video, 14:21, August 17. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=IFjD3NMv6Kw&t=580s Carlos, José Antônio; Roberto Agune. 2018. Why can’t govenrments face complex agendas? (Por que os governos não conseguem enfrentar agendas complexas?). São Paulo: Novas Edições Acadêmicas. Alexander, Christopher; Serge Chermayeff. 1965. Community and Privacy: Toward a New Architecture of Humanism. New York: Anchor Books.

144

COAG Energy Council. 2018. Report for Achieving Low Energy Homes. Commonwealth of Australia. Czarny, Craig. 2018. Urban Design & Landscape Evidence: 111-139 Queens Parade & 433 Smith Street, Former Gasworks Site, Fitzroy North. Melbourne: Hansen Partnership. City of Melbourne Open Data. 2016. High Rise Residents Profile https:// data.melbourne.vic.gov.au/People/HighRise-Residents-Profile-2016/a52j-vb2e City of Yarra. 2012. Yarra Business and Industrial Land Strategy. Davison, Graeme. Dec. 1993. “The Past and Future of the Australian Suburb”. Australian Planner. Development Victoria (DV). 2017. Fitzroy Gasworks Master Plan Design Report. Melbourne: Development Victoria. Development Victoria (DV). 2018. Planning Report - Fitzroy North former gasworks site111 Queens Parade & 433 Smith Street, Fitzroy North. https://www. planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0019/116623/Fitzroy-GasworksFEP-1.3-Planning-report.pdf Development Victoria (DV). 2019. Fitzroy Gasworks Collaborative Design Consultation Session”. https:// www.development.vic.gov.au/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0016/62215/Fitzroy_ Gasworks_A1_Landscape_x12_LR_ WEB.pdf Enviropacific. 2020. “Former Fitzroy Gasworks Remediation”. https://enviropacific.com.au/ projects/former-fitzroy-gasworksremediation/#:~:text=The%20 former%20Fitzroy%20Gasworks%20 site,issued%20a%20clean%2Dup%20 notice.

Fergus, Andy. 2018. Assemble Papers. “Redesigning the housing Market”. https://assemblepapers.com. au/2019/02/21/redesigning-thehousing-market/

“How is density changing in Australian cities?”. 2020. https://www. chartingtransport.com/2019/04/21/ how-is-density-changing-in-australiancities-2nd-edition/

Fergus, Andy, Alexis Kalagas and Katherine Sundermann. 2020. “MMEETS - RCA X MPAVILION: ‘What is home’”. https://library.mpavilion. org/mmeets-rca-x-mpavilion-what-ishome-andy-fergus-alexis-kalagas-andkatherine-sundermann/

IBA Melbourne. Accessed April 6. 2020. http://ibamelbourne.com/

Green Star Building Council (GSBC). 2016. Green Star Rating System and tools. https://new.gbca.org.au/ green-star/rating-system/

Low, Nicholas; Brendan Gleeson; Ray Green; Darko Radovic. 2005. Green City: Sustainable Homes, Sustainable Suburbs. Sydney: UNSW Press.

Gwilliam, Michael; Caroline Bourne; Corinne Swain; Anna Prat. 1998. Sustainable Renewal of Suburban Areas. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Lupton, Ellen. 2017. Design is storytelling. New York: Cooper Hewitt.

GTA Consultants. 2018. Transport Evidence: 113-139 Queens Pde & 433 Smith St, Fitzroy Nth, by GTA Consultants. https://s3.ap-southeast-2. amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.vicengage.files/7615/2418/2642/Fitzroy_ Gasworks_Site_-_Final_Transport_ Evidence_Statement.pdf Harvard Atlas of Economic Complexity (HAEC). 2017. Australia Export Complexity. https://atlas.cid. harvard.edu/countries/14/exportcomplexity Hill, Dan. 2015. Dark Matter and Trojan Horses: a strategic Design Vocabulary. Moscow: Strelka Press. Hinton, Stephen. 2018. “Explainer: what is the extractive economy?” https:// medium.com/@stephenjhinton/explainerwhat-is-the-extractive-economy65172f28bd6 Holtzman, Gilo. 2011. “Cohousing in Australia”. Around the House no. 85,June 2011: 20-22.

Kabay, Victor. “The Fate of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Plant-Soil Systems”. Degree of PhD thesis. University of Melbourne, 2010.

Lutz, Manuel. 2019. “Housing Co-Operatives: Lived Solidarity”. Assemble Papers, 14. November 2019 – 22 March 2020, 40-45. Martin, Bella. 2012. Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Beverly: Rockport Publishers. McInerney, Kieran. 2015. “Big City Life: high density pleasure”. Byerahadley Travelling Scholarships Journal Series. Melbourne Water. 2017. Alexandra Parade Main Drain Renewal Project. https://www.melbournewater. com.au/sites/default/files/ Communitybulletin-AlexandraParadeJuly2017.pdf MGS and Jones & Whitehead. 2008. North Fitzroy Gasworks Precinct: Urban Design Framework. Melbourne: City of Yarra. Minister for Planning. 2017. Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. Melbourne: Impact Digital 145

Murundaka Cohousing Community (MCC). 2016. Energy Freedom Project. https://www. murundakacohousing.org.au/ energyfreedom Nevrfokopli, Foteini. 2018. “Communal Urbanism: applications in Densified Urban Environments”. PhD diss. School of Architecture and the built environment, Sweden. Nonaka, Ikujiro, Hirotaka Takeuchi. 2008. The Knowledge-creating Company. Sao Paulo: Elsevier Alta Books. NSW Department of Planning (NSWDP). 2006. BASIX Multi-Dwelling Outcomes 06-09. Sydney: NSW Press. Offenhuber, Dietmar; Katja Schechtner. 2012. Inscribing a Square: Urban Data as Public Space. New York: Springer. Potter, Alison. 2018. “House energy-efficiency ratings: can a house’s energy efficiency be measured accurately?”. https://www.choice.com. au/home-improvement/energy-saving/ reducing-your-carbon-footprint/articles/ house-energy-efficiency-ratings Protect Fitzroy North (PFN). 2018. Community Motions & Resolutions. http://protectfitzroynorth.org/resources/ PFN%20Gasworks%20Resolutions.pdf Pryor, David, 2018. Initial Urban Design Assessment - Former Gasworks Site,111 Queens Parade and 433 Smith Street, Fitzroy North. Melbourne: Place Design Studio. Queensland Government Department of Housing and Public Works (QGDHPW). 2019. Density and Diversity Done Well Competition. https://www. hpw.qld.gov.au/about/initiatives/densitydiversity-competition

146

Richardson, Martin. “Suburban Consolidation: The Future of the Australian Dream?” Degree of Master thesis. University of Tasmania, 1995. Roberts, Amanda, Andrew Mackenzie, Fiona Andrews and Brendan Coates. 2020. “MTALK – FUTURE HOMES: Speculations on Melbourne´s future”. https://library.mpavilion.org/ mtalks-future-homes-speculations-onmelbournes-future/ Ruming, Kristian. 2018. Urban Regeneration in Australia: Policies, Process and Projects of Contemporary Urban Change. London: Routledge. Sarkissian, Wendy; Kevin Taylor; Kate Cullity. 1991. Medium Density Housing Guidelines. Melbourne: Urban Land Authority. Sarkissian, Wendy; Dianna Hurford; Christine Wenman. 2010. Creative Community Planning: Transformative Engagement Methods for Working at the Edge. London: Earthscan. The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (SVDELWP). 2019. Victorian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report 2019. Melbourne: Doculink Port. The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (SVDELWPb). 2019. Better Apartments in Neighbourhoods”. https://s3.ap-southeast-2. amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app. vic-engage.files/6915/6463/0112/ BetterApartmentsInNeighbourhoods_ DiscussionPaper_-_Public_Consultation_ Release_1.8.19.pdf The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (SVDELWPc). 2016. Better Apartments Design Standards. https:// www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0024/9582/BetterApartments-Design-Standards.pdf

The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (SVDELWPd). 2017. Apartment Design Guidelines for Victoria. https:// www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0030/80994/ApartmentDesign-Guidelines-for-Victoria_ August-2017.pdf The State of Victoria Department of Infrastructure (SVDI). 2002. “Outlining the Standards in ResCode”. In Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth. Melbourne: Victorian Government, Department of Infrastructure, State of Victoria. The State of Victoria Department of Planning and Community Development (SVDPCD), State of Victoria. 2008. Melbourne 2030: A planning Update. Melbourne @ 5 million. Melbourne: Victorian Government. The State of Victoria Department of Planning and Development (SVDPD) (Public Affairs Branch). 1995. The Good Design Guide for MediumDensity Housing. Melbourne: Victorian Government. Secret Agent. 2020. “Inner Melbourne’s Smallest and Largest Apartments”. https://www.secretagent. com.au/inner-melbournes-smallestlargest-apartments/ Shoory, Michael. 2016. “The Growth of Apartment Construction in Australia”. Bulletin June Quarter 2016, 19-26. United Nations (UN). 2019. ”Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change”. https:// www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc. htm

Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA). 2018. Residential Development Market-December 2018: Overview for the Victorian Government. Victoria http://www.udiavic.com.au/ getmedia/ad897239-d531-40fb81f7-4536cc20827c/ResidentialDevelopment-Market-Overview-181218final The Urbed Trusted. 2018. “Learning from International examples of affordable housing”. https:// england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0008/1641176/International_ examples_of_affordable_housing_-_ Shelter_URBED_Trust.pdf Victorian Department of Transport (VCT). 2009. Transforming Australian Cities – for a more financially viable and sustainable future. Melbourne: Victorian Government. Waldheim, Charles. 2006. The Landscape Urbanism Reader. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Weller, Richard. 2009. Boomtown 2050: Scenarios for a Rapidly Growing City. Perth: University of Western Australia. Whyte, William. 1980. The social life of small urban spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces. The Woman’s Mural Documentation Project (WMDP). 2018 http://www.the-womens-mural-docproject.com.au/ Yarra Planning Scheme (YPS). 2018. Development Plan DPO16.111 – Queens parade and 433 Smith Street, Fitzroy North (former Fitzroy Gasworks) https://planning-schemes.delwp.vic.gov. au/schemes/yarra/ordinance/43_04s16_ yara.pdf

147

LIST OF FIGURES

•

Chapter break pages (Introduction, Context, Strategy, Process and Outcome): Renders images by the author.

•

Fig. 1-2. Composition by the author adapted from Minister for Planning (2017) and geodatabase extracted from Spatial Vic. Melbourne’s population growth and urban and conservation areas.

•

Fig. 3. Composition by the author made from population and area data retrieved from Google and overlaid into Global Map. Population density (people/km2) in the global scenario.

•

Fig. 4. Graphs made by the author from population and greenhouse gas emissions data retrieved from Google. Percentage of world population and greenhouse gas emissions.

•

148

Abstract page: Aerial Melbourne photo. Source: Unknown (2020), retrieved in May 2020 from https://www.reddit. com/r/melbourne/comments/ggrmbk/ pic_i_took_landing_in_melbourne_ last_week/ with image treatment in Photoshop by the author.

Fig. 5. Diagram made by the author with population density and greenhouse gas emissions data retrieved from Google. Australia population density and GHGs per capita.

greenhouse gas emissions breakdown per sector. •

Fig. 10. Composition made by the author based in data retrieved from NSWDP (2006). Energy efficiency in single and multi-dwelling housing structures.

•

Fig. 11. Composition made by the author based in data retrieved from (1997). Percentual participation of inputs in wealth formation according to the economic eras.

•

Fig. 12. HAEC (2017). Atlas of Economic Complexity, Harvard, retrieved from https://atlas.cid.harvard. edu/countries/14/export-complexity. Australia’s export complexity in 2017.

•

Fig. 13. Composition made by the author based in data retrieved from Calthorpe (2017). Smart growth and greater Melbourne scenarios of housing product mix comparison.

•

Fig. 14. Diagram by the author. Low-rise infill housing with no regulation.

•

Fig. 15. Australian Dream cartoon by Tandberg retrieved from https://br.pinterest.com/ pin/550142910700834632/

•

Fig. 16. Diagram by the author. Housing affordability crisis.

•

Fig. 17. Victorian Department of Transport (2009). By Building on the Fringe we Are Building in Future Poverty. Oil and mortgage vulnerability comparison. Source: Griffith University Urban Research Program VAMPIRE index, Dr Jago Dodson and Dr Neil Sipe 2008.

•

Fig. 18. Fergus (2019). Redesigning the housing market diagram created by Andy Fergus and Alice Oehr for an Assemble Papers article. Retrieved from https://assemblepapers.com. au/2019/02/21/redesigning-thehousing-market/

•

Fig. 6. Photo from Greenfield Development in Outer Melbourne retrieved from https://participate. melbourne.vic.gov.au/future/grassisnt-greener-outer-burbs with image treatment in Photoshop by the author.

•

Fig. 7. Diagram adapted by the author from The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2019). Victoria’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions breakdown and the residential sector.

•

Fig. 8. Composition made by the author based in data retrieved from Calthorpe (2017). Suburban sprawl v smart growth scenarios in California.

•

Fig. 19. The Commons housing development in Melbourne, Australia, retrieved from https://nightingalehousing. org/

•

Fig. 9. Composition made by the author based in data retrieved from SVDELPWPb (2019). Victoria’s

•

Fig. 20. The Commons housing development in Melbourne, Australia, retrieved from https://nightingalehousing. org/

•

Fig. 21. Assemble Kensington housing development in Melbourne, Australia, retrieved from https:// assemblecommunities.com/projects/393macaulay-rd-kensington/

•

Fig. 22-23. Bigyard development in Berlin, Germany, retrieved from https:// www.archdaily.com/793287/bigyardzanderroth-architekten

•

Fig. 24-27. Buiksloterham housing development in Amsterdam, Netherland, retrieved from https://www. metropolismag.com/cities/buiksloterhamamsterdam-grassroots-planning/

•

Fig. 28-30. Kalkbreite housing development in Zurich, Switzerland, retrieved from https://www.archdaily. com/903384/kalkbreite-muller-sigristarchitekten

•

Fig. 31-33. Murundaka Cohousing housing development in Melbourne, Australia, retrieved from https://www. murundakacohousing.org.au/

•

Fig. 34. The Third Way Design Proposal for the City of Sydney’s Alternative Housing Ideas Challenge retrieved from https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/ vision/planning-for-2050/alternativehousing/third-way

•

Fig. 48. Flowchart by the author to explain the planning process using GIS software.

•

Fig. 49-55. Maps by the author used in the Planning Process.

•

Fig. 56. Fitzroy Gasworks site retrieved from https://www. yarracity.vic.gov.au/the-area/ planning-for-yarras-future/yarraplanning-scheme-and-amendments/ recently-approved-amendments/ amendment-c243---433-smith-streetformer-fitzroy-north-gasworks-site

•

Fig. 57-59. Maps by the author. Transport Infrastructure, Land Use and Green Network and Community analysis maps using data retrieved from Spatial Vic.

•

Fig. 60. Map by the author developed based on land-use data retrieved from Spatial Vic and context analysis.

•

Fig. 61. WMDP (2018). The Woman’s Mural photo.

•

Fig. 62. Fitzroy Gasworks in 1969 by Alan Jordan.

•

Fig. 63. Photo by the author. Alexandra Parade car flow towards the Eastern Freeway.

•

Fig. 64. 1872 Sands &McDougall’s New Plan of Melbourne and suburbs. Adapted by the author to highlight the water network.

•

Fig. 35. Diagram by the author over aerial image retrieved from https://www. nearmap.com/au/en

•

Fig. 36-43. Aerial images from global precedents retrieved from Google.

•

Fig. 44. Diagram by the author. Missing Middle in Melbourne.

Fig. 65. ALA 2004. Edinburgh Gardens Historical Maps.

•

Fig. 45. Density and Diversity Done Well Design Competition winning boards retrieved from https://www.hpw.qld.gov. au/about/initiatives/density-diversitycompetition

Fig. 66. 1902 Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of works (MMBW) plans. Several maps were joined to create larger context. Adapted by the author to highlight water network and site.

•

Fig. 46. StadsBuiten project by Delva Landscape Architecture for a mixed-use development retrieved from https:// delva.la/projecten/stadsbuiten/

•

Fig. 67. Fitzroy Gasworks development timeline.

•

Fig. 68. Masterplan evolution analysis.

•

Watercolour drawings used to represent housing facades in the video made by Helen Wilding.

•

All remaining figures and images were produced by the author.

•

Fig. 47 Demographics data for high-rise residents profile for the City of Melbourne retrieved from https://data.melbourne. vic.gov.au/People/High-Rise-ResidentsProfile-2016/a52j-vb2e

149

June 2020 Thesis by Marina Pizzotti Supervision by Raymond Green

150