SMART Dominic_Middle Grounds by RMIT Landscape Architecture

MIDDLE GROUNDS AN INQUIRY INTO LANDSCAPE LED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

ABSTRACT This document will function as a propositional design report showcasing the possibilities of a new, landscape led, and housing model. The design research will function as a background and context to base a conceptual housing development within one of Melbourne’s fastest growing municipalities, Moreland. This document will focus on explaining the landscape lead approach and finally grounding this concept in a propositional design.

As the world’s population grows, there is a constant need for higher density living and more resourceful housing. Cities are continuing to Expand, how we manage this growth will form cities and housing of the future. What does an alternative to higher density infill development look like, and how will this affect people and communities as a whole? Densification of cities is seen as the sustainable growth pattern. This influx of people and required new housing will inevitably compromise existing open space and sustainable city lifestyles. As we grow and move forward, prioritising people and landscape through sustainable development modes will have a lasting impact on how we engage and live within our ever constricting cities. Grounding this project with research undertaken by Monash University’s report, ‘Infill opportunities’, and the growing trend to provide more open space orientated communal living models such as ‘Nightingale’. This speculative proposition seeks to provide a landscape driven, open space and community promoting alternative to higher density, infill development. Undertaking this topic has highlighted the imbalance of open and communal life within infill housing developments. For future redevelopment prioritising open space and a communal lifestyle may bring forward issues, however, it provides many positive outcomes for future life.

Dominic Smart RMIT School of Architecture and Urban Design Master of Landscape Architecture Design Research Project B 2021 Course Coordinators: Alice Lewis,Jen Lynch Tutors: Project A Elise Northover, Jen Lynch Project B Jess Stewart

01.1

CONTENTS - 01 theoretic framework/Design research

03 01.1 research question ____________________________________________________________________ 01.2 introduction _________________________________________________________________________04 08 01.3 theoretical background ______________________________________________________________ 10 01.4 Melbourne’s growth __________________________________________________________________ 16 01.5 middle suburbs _______________________________________________________________________ 18 01.6 Moreland ____________________________________________________________________________

Research Question How can landscape architects influence future housing models? What effects can landscape led housing developments have to preserve open space and promote social sustainability?

- 02 PRECEDENT STUDIES

02.2 Infill Opportunities Design Research report, Monash University, 2011 ____________________ 22 02.1 Big Yard, Zanderroth Architekten, Berlin 2010 __________________________________________24 02.3 Walter St Hadfield____________________________________________________________________25 02.4 Heller St Park & Residences, 6 Degrees Architects, 2011 ________________________________26

- 03 LANDSCAPE LED DEVELOPEMENT

03.1 approach and project aims_________________________________________________________ 28 03.2 Proposed site_______________________________________________________________________ 29 03.3 Designing for the landscape _________________________________________________________34 03.4 Built form___________________________________________________________________________ 46 03.5 Master plans________________________________________________________________________ 52

- 04 DESGIN OUTCOME

04.1 Speculative design____________________________________________________________________ 58

- 05 REFLECTION 05.1 Person and project outcome_________________________________________________________58 - 06 REFERENCES _______________________________________________________________________________ 74

INTRODUCTION Middlegrounds is formed as a response to the current urbanisation and housing growth seen all over the world, more specifically in Australia’s fasted growing city, Melbourne. Australia has always and to some degree still does continue to fantasise about owning the quarter acre block with a large back yard. This ideal is sadly now a notion of the past, rising house prices and population growth have made this a widely unattainable, unsustainable housing model.

01.2

This project, though its design research will look to offer an alternative model to development through the lens of landscape architecture. Looking to promote open space within medium to high density developments, this project seeks engage a new model of housing that focuses on people and the space they inhabit with each other.

Melbourne’s new housing development model has been dominated by private, profit driven models that have resulted in mass suburban sprawl in search of more affordable land for both developer and buyer. On the other hand, ill designed infill projects are posing just as much of a threat as projects seek to maximise their built footprint to attain the greatest yield. These projects, whilst seeming to advertise a better future for Melbournians are to the contrary. The constant spread is leading to even more car dependence and creating ‘suburbs’ lacking in basic amenity. It is widely understood that the current cities can and will need to house the majority of the projected population growth. Consolidation of cities will be and is the most sustainable way in which to grow. So how then do we propose a better outcome for housing within an ever constricting area? “While community attachment to these locations needs to be respected, the middle suburbs also represent our greatest challenge for successful urban transitioning. With variable levels of access to public transport, much of the low density and dispersed fabric is highly car dependent. The ageing of housing stock, building systems and infrastructure are environmentally inefficient and the large, well serviced land parcels represent underutilised assets in terms of both density targets and capital. In short, significant areas of the middle suburbs are in need of physical, technological and environment upgrade as part of our transition to more sustainable cities.” S Murray, Infill Precincts

This document will look to focus on the ‘middle ring’ suburbs. These established zones have the ability and infrastructure to house a large majority of the project population, however it is how we manage and design this development which will shape the way for the future. The constant threat to open space and ecologies is inherent as large scale developments spring out of the ground. It is within these medium to large scale developments that this document will aim to offer an alternative outcome. Landscape architecture can play a strong role in how future housing can be designed. The role of landscape architecture within housing has had much of a singular function to date. Usually confined to adding green space and gardens to support the built form or fill the open space quota. However, if a development was to be led by the landscape, how would that in turn form or orientate the built form? How would this affect the way in which occupants live within a development? We know landscape architecture promotes public lifestyle, sense of place and connection, why then, can’t we bring that to the place we are seeing less and less connection in, the home.

“there is no logic that can be superimposed on the city: people make it, and it is to them, not the buildings, that we must fit our plans.” Jane Jacobs

UN. GOAL 11 SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND COMMUNITIES This project aims to improve the current trajectory of urban growth, focussing on the importance of socio-ecological connection and community through intellegent, site specific design of open space. It identifies accessable,openspace as a catalyst to healthy and a higher life quality and sustainable living.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

01.3

This section follows my initial design research theme of urbanisation. Initially looking at this at a world scale, illustrating the current context of urbanisation nationally and major cities around the world. The research quickly shifts scale to Australia and highlights how this relatively small island nation is projected to grow over the next 30+ years.

Urbanisation is not a new phenomenon, it has been a process in which has shaped communities and cities for millennia. However, for the majority of history humans have lived in low density rural settings. It is today that we are seeing the irreversible effects of global urbanization. Not to say that this is a bad thing, humans thrive in groups and there are many positives to urbanisation that will help the worlds populous into the future. It is how we manage this growth that will shape the world for the next millennia. The rate in which urbanisation is occurring now will see around 70% of the world population living in urbanised areas by 2050. What does that mean? Bigger cities many, many more of them

“In a society becoming steadily more privatized with private homes, cars, computers, offices and shopping centres, the public component of our lives is disappearing. It is more and more important to make the cities more inviting, so we can meet our fellow citizens face to face and experience directly through our senses. Public life in good quality spaces is an important part of democratic life and a full life.” Jan Gehl

Prior to the Covid-19 epidemic Australia was growing at rate of 1.5% per annum. Faster than most of the first world countries. Australia historically, has always been a nation of migrants, this trend will most likely be the case for the foreseeable future. Currently the population of Australia is sitting around 25.7 million and according to The Australian Bureau of Statistics will reach 42.5 million by 2056 and up to 62.2 million by 2101. These numbers may seem hard to imagine but it is something we must come to terms with and design for. Australia’s forecasted population will most likely be absorbed by their main nuclear cities. This will put immense pressure on all aspects of cities being it built or living.

“The future doesn’t just happen, it is shaped by vision and discourse, which then translates into what we build. What we build this century ` make or breathe our country”. Weller, Bolleter 2012

Australia’s growth has wisely been supported by governing bodies as a way to increase the country’s economy and security. ‘Australia’s rapid population growth will have profound implications for our density as a nation, The century ahead stands to be the greatest century of economic growth and nation building in Australian history. I have said it before that I believe in a big Australia. This is good for our national security. Good for our long-term prosperity. Good in enhancing our role in the region of the world. The time to prepare for this big Australia is now’ Kevin Rudd Landscape architecture will not only play an important place in the growth of Australia’s public and private space but also has the opportunity to involve itself in the planning and the methods of how cities grow.

10+

<60%

70-80 %

80-90%

>90%

4.96

7.9

5-10

5.23

1 1. 8. 3

1-5

PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION LIVING IN URBAN AREAS

2.28

5.7

7.6

1.98 4.2

CITY POPULATIONS (MILLIONS)

AUSTRALIA’s MAJOR CITIES CURRENT AND PROJECTED (2056) POPULATIONS

MELBOURNES GROWTH

01.4

Set up in 2002, as part of Plan Melbourne 2030, the urban growth boundary (UGB) was implemented to contain the sprawling conditions of Melbourne suburban growth. Setting up a protection ring for Melbourne’s hinterlands and precious Green Wedges. Even with the limits of development being constrained, we still see the fringe areas as a problem for Melbourne development. It is evident that infrastructure is always slow to follow housing development and it can be seen in some of Melbourne’s greenfield developments. The lack of infrastructure and basic amenity, which is much more accessible in the inner areas of Melbourne are contributing to a socio-spatial rift and increasing dependence on automotive transport. As with most cities around the world, densification goals have been put in place to try and mitigate sprawling conditions to future proof their cities. Plan Melbourne 2017-2050, has a 65% infill to 35% greenfield target from what has been seen from previous planning strategies these infill targets and development strategies are not being met. The Victorian Planning Associations strategic policies, Melbourne 2030 – planning for sustainable growth and Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 have both looked at the future growth of Melbourne and the systems that can be put in place to control and redirect its growth. The same initiatives of confining growth to the urban growth boundary, intensifying defined activity centres and transit orientated development have done little in changing the urban growth of Melbourne.

Melbourne’s Urban Growth Boundary

“…despite more than two decades of densification policy, across Australia’s major cities there are vast suburban regions of low density.” J Dodson 2010

POPULATION 2061

9 000 000+

2041

7 408 000

2021

4 960 000

2001

3 472 000

1981

2 806 000

1961

1 912 000

1941

1 200 000

1921

801 000

1901

478000

1881

268 000

1861

125 000

1841

16 670

Visual representation of Melbourne’s urban growth historically and into the projected future. Section cutting from the city centre to the north and west of Melbourne’s urban growth boundary illustrate the potential urban congestion.

Data for population were gathered and aproximated from multiple sources. Including : https://www.emelbourne.net.au/ , https://www.abs.gov.au/ McCarty, J.W., and C.B. Schedvin (eds), Australian capital cities: historical essays, Sydney University Press, Sydney, 1978, Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme 1954

Historical growth Mapping the development patterns from 2006-2018 shows that over that 12 year period developments have been widely dispersed but the majority is seen in the more established areas to the east of Melbourne. As seen through the urban growth zones, planning has been put in place to try and re-balance the density of residential Melbourne.

To look at developments that objectively have the greatest potential for a landscape focussed development, I found that the developments with more than 10 dwellings have the chance to accommodate large amounts of people but currently, are doing so in a harmful manner to the remaining natural elements within the urban periphery.

high density infill are seen as issues within Melbourne’s housing growth, there is then, a need to consolidate within the ‘missing middle’. Not just looking at the middle suburbs as the change but at the middle scale of housing developments. The medium to high density, 2-4 story units.

When filtering out the smaller developments of under 10 dwellings, the spread of medium to large developments shows that there is a smaller number or projects seen in the ‘middle suburbs’, the 7-25 kilometres zone from the CBD. Larger greenfield projects and

5km

10km

15km

20km

25km

30km

35km

40km

45km

City/Major Activity Centre

Residential Developments

Major Residential Growth Areas

Regional Urban Growth Areas Urban Growth Boundary Arterial Rd/Hwy

Regional Urban Growth Areas 0

20 km

Urban Growth Boundary

20 km

Arterial Rd/Hwy

Current development woes

“The effect is to perpetuate much of the city-building processes of the past 60 years which are proving to be unsustainable in terms of a range of key metrics associated with resource consumption and environmental degradation.” P Newton 2012

SUBURBAN SPRAWL Extending urban footprint into rural and peri-urban areas. Developments are usually large in scale, low density and single dwellings and car dependent. Urban sprawl usually outpaces public infrastructure creating spatial inequity.

BACKROUND INFILL Subdivision of land within established urban context. Developments are usually medium density. Usually maximising buildings footprint, at the detriment to urban forest. Private development, maximising profit.

“opportunities are being lost in current greenfield developments to wind back the unsustainable ecological footprints of Australia’s cities. Melbourne’s footprint is 6.4 ha/person, approximately three times the global average. G. Turner and B. Foran 2008

TRANSIT ORIENTATED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) Subdivision of land within established urban context. Developments are usually medium density. Usually maximising buildings footprint, maximising profit.

Middle suburbs 01.5

Suburb: Latin, suburbium or ‘under the city’ ‘the idea of a single storied, free standing dwelling on a relatively large allotment, in a mainly residential area, with strong local identity and limited governance, located midway between the city centre and rural lands.” Johnson, L.C. 2006

It is known that in most cities, especially Australia’s cities, a large amount of the projected population growth can be consolidated within the middle suburbs. The ‘middle’ suburbs are established areas located 7-25km from city centres. These suburbs largely consist of large plot sizes and existing infrastructure and amenity. The ageing house stock is usually made up of low density, detached housing. As these areas look to increase their population and density, there is a real need to protect the existing open space whether it be in private or public land. As mentioned prior, the modes of infill are currently damaging the future of our city. Larger developments look to build out the built footprint and then as to almost appease the planning policy, add piecemeal public/ communal open space as an afterthought. The effect of encroaching developments whether it be housing, industry or commercial is putting pressure on our limited remaining stock of open land and natural features. As seen in Abbotsford, an inner city within Melbourne, large newly constructed apartment complexes are being built almost to the banks of the Yarra river with little consideration or sensitivity to the site. In saying this, It is not always possible to have a ‘wonderful’ housing/apartment development design with great landscape relationships and open space. Cost of land, location and developer profit play a part in the end.

“It makes environmental sense. More compact cities require up to 40% less transport energy to operate and can save similar amounts of carbon dioxide emissions from urban transport [16]. Medium density housing is typically 25% more energy efficient than detached [17]. There are a range of other environmental benefits that relate to reduced water and material use and waste generation [18] as well as preservation of farmland and green space at the edges of the city [19].” New Greening the greyfields: unlocking the redevelopment potential of the middle suburbs in Australian cities.

MORELAND

01.6

Moreland is large local government area located to the inner north of Melbourne. It stretches from 4 -13.5km from Melbourne CBD. It has a diverse population of around 186 000. Between 2016 and 2036 there is a projected population increase of 78 600 people, equivalent to around 38 000 more dwellings. Moreland City Council is relatively a proactive and progressive council which already has strategies and policy put in place to better the outcomes of medium density and apartment living. The council’s involvement in this development will be essential as in a large development of this size it will involve a number and working with Moreland will help to bring down land cost. Individual dwelling cost as well as well of offering benefits to the wider community. The ageing housing stock within the middle to northern end of Moreland has been steadily developed as Melbourne population grows. With relatively affordable land cost, and little to no heritage overlays, residential development will continue and at this current time we are able to provide better potential outcomes for housing which in turn have a lasting positive outcome for future years.

Projected dwelling growth - 2036

The following section looks in more detail the local government area (LGA) of Moreland. It provides information about this LGA’s demographics and what issues it may face as one of Melbourne’s fasted growing regions This forecasted data will be essential in orientating the development, aiming the project at the people most likely to live in Moreland and what their living requirements will be.

Projected demographic growth - 2036

STATISTICS SOURCED FROM SUPPLYING HOMES IN MORELAND, SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd 2019

LOCATING AN APPROPRIATE SITE Dominated by small ‘backyard developments, 93% of Moreland’s infill of developments are under 10 dwellings. It is now, as we move to higher density, larger scale developments to house the rising population that we must seek better outcomes. The distribution of these larger developments is usually within walking distance of public transport and commercial areas.

Moreland’s Industrial Land Strategy 2015-2030 identified sites that are outlined to be transitioned into residential zoned land. Areas to the south, Brunswick area will be in high demand and it is very unlikely that with a landscape driven project, will be feasible with the current land cost. However, the site highlighted in Fawkner would afford the project a relatively grounded possibility. Its adjacent amenity and large areas of open space along Merry Creek create a great background for a landscape driven, urban development.

This was scaled x 150% from 1:40 000

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS 2006-2018 NUMBER OF CONTRUCTED DWELLINGS 0-10 -

4319 (93%)

11-20 -

138 (3%)

21-30 -

49 (1%)

31-40 -

31 (>1%)

TRANSITION RESIDENTIAL AREAS TRAIN LINE

41-50 - 15 (>1%) 50+

103 (2%)

TRAM LINE BUS ROUTE OFF ROAD BICYCLE TRACK

500

1000 m

DATA SOURCED FROM: DATA. VIC.AU AND MORELAND INDUSTRIAL LAND STRATEGY 2015

2. CASE STUDIES “vehicle access and parking represents a significant loss of amenity that requires reconsideration; enjoyable open space is a crucial component to the success of higher density environments.” INFIL OPPORTUNITES

Infill Opportunities:

02.1

Infill opportunities Design Research Report 2011 Department of Architecture, Monash University This design report looked at the current modes of medium density developments and the negative outcomes of current and past subdivision projects. Modelled within Infill Opportunities is this test of how a development could transition over time with decreased need for individual car transport. Initially a double block medium density development allowing for 1 car park per dwelling with visitor parking the design starts to transition as the reliance on vehicle transport diminishes and other more sustainable modes such a Car sharing systems increase popularity. This clearly shows how a development can be improved with the removal of a large portion of wasted/impervious vehicle access. The potential then for the space to perform for the residential community as a whole can be accomplished.

DWELLING CAR ACCESS/PARKING PRIVATE OPEN SPACE COMMUNAL OPEN SPACE SHARED FACILITY/ELEMENT WALKING FRIENDLY ROUTE MOMENTS/AREAS FOR INTERPERSON INTERACTION

Big Yard BIGyard, Prenzlauer Berg, Berlin Zanderrotharchitekten GMBH Completion: 2010 Area:9100m2 Dwellings:45 Storeys:7 BIGyard is a great example of collective housing. It is a high density development that recognises the need for functioning open space within developments. Although this may not be for everyone, this project revolves around a large central ‘community garden’ in which all residents have access. With a range of spaces and uses the central garden has been a great success in bringing the residents together, forming inter-household relationships and day to day interactions with one another. There are two additional rooftop terraces for communal outdoor entertaining and recreation. Another touch has been to have some rooms that are kept for guests and visitors to the residence.

02.2

Water St, Hadfield

02.3

Wallter Street, Hadfield, Melbourne Peddle Thorp Completion: 2019 AREA: 1387m2 Dwellings: 64 Storeys: 2 Accessible Open space: 575sqm This is a common new medium density development being seen around Melbourne. Backed by private developers and investors, these developments look to maximise their building footprint on each lot whilst maintain the required 25% open space. These builds look to maximise profit by creating large, ‘high end dwellings of three bedrooms or more. Which brings the price out of the range or the majority of Melbournians. The way the space is used is dominated by the dependence on cars. Implementing the council’s policy requirement where each dwelling must be able to park 1 vehicle and space for a visitor’s car. This immediately removes a huge percentage of available land and potential public/ private amenity open space can add. The built form and hard impervious surfaces dominate the site and it leads to unfriendly pedestrian life and restricts people from using the space outside their dwelling, limiting them to within their dwellings.

DWELLING CAR ACCESS/PARKING PRIVATE OPEN SPACE COMMUNAL OPEN SPACE SHARED FACILITY/ELEMENT WALKING FRIENDLY ROUTE MOMENTS/AREAS FOR INTERPERSON INTERACTION

Heller Street Park and Residences

02.4

Heller Street, Brunswick, Melbourne Six Degrees Architects Completion: 2011 Area:4060m2 Dwellings:10 Storeys: 3 This housing project is a great precedent to how brownfield infill development can be conducted. The local council, Moreland under pressure from the community to provide a park over the former tip. The council under financial constraints brought the land to private tender under the premise that a large portion of the land was to function publically. The constructed result offers a landscaped, public park which seeks to remediate the once tip. At the back of the property a medium density build consisting of 10 townhouses which look onto the park. The interesting element of this design is the blurring of public and private space. Topography and planting has been strategically used to differentiate the two rather successfully.

LANDSCAPE LED DEVELOPMENT As a landscape architecture based development, there will be a strong theme of preserve existing natural elements and open space when designing. Too many times we see ill designed constructions being erected in sites where more sensitive outcomes should have been considered. As we develop further into established urban zones, we encroach on our existing natural features. It is here where we have the chance make a stand to protect/restore remaining environmental systems and ecologies. In developments of this size, open space is being regarded as an integral part of design. The premise of my design ethos is to preserve and design for as much open space as possible. This entails an opportunity to which a landscape system can be designed for the betterment of residents within the development and larger periphery.

03.1

03.2

Project spatial aims: - Using the 70% open space to 30% built form as a rule, the sites area of 17460sqm should aim to boast an open space target of 12200sqm. - To provide a medium to high density development a minimum of 50 dwellings per hectare needs to be achieved.

These targets may differ to most usual developments and may be difficult to deliver, however, this design proposal will look at ways to realise it and to illustrate the advantages in promoting landscape.

Open space within housing developments usually corresponds to private open space and communal/public space. In a landscape driven housing model it is here that the positive outcomes can really be achieved. Open space is usually seen secondary to the built form and thus the design outcome reflects it. If a model that is landscape driven is to be successful then a task of minimising the built forms impact on the site is imperative. Implementing a goal of 70% open space to 30% built form is set as a benchmark. In the current climate there has been a loss of community and connection. Even more so since the effects of the Covid-19 epidemic. “Life without community has produced, for many, a lifestyle consisting mainly of home-to-work-and-back-again shuttle.” Odenburg (1997). My methods of design will looks to maximise areas for community life through shared space and spaces for interaction. Creating designs that draw people out of their home with well-considered landscape outcomes.

“To maximize profit margins, projects tend to be completed to minimum construction standards with little or no design consideration, which is not a suitable performance level going into the future.” Infill Opportunities 2011

8 3

SITE CONNECTIONS

STATION

1.9Km

BUS RO

UTE

GOWRIE

FAWKNER STATION1.3Km

ITY

6.7

1.5KM

CITY 1

MELBO

URNE

COBU

RG AC

TIVITY

CENT

RE 5.5

TIV

DATA SOURCED FROM DATA. VIC.AU

Designing for the landscape This next section will run through the methods and techniques used in designing a landscape driven housing development.

03.3

Existing landscape systems: - What existing landscape elements can be harnessed and represented through strategic design intervention?

Vegetation - Understanding site specific ecological classes and how they can be utilised/restored.

Built form - Who is the development for? - Size, scale, orientation Arrangement: - How can the built footprint be implemented to maximise open space? - Using the site analysis and landscape systems researched, how can it guide and provoke the shape the built form? - What landscape outcomes can be generated for both residents and larger community?

Land restoration programs in urban areas are challenged by the legacies of this earlier (post colonisation) land management. Spatial and urban infrastructure confines (such as transmission lines and underground sewers) also provide limitations on revegetation opportunities and design. Understanding the history of our landscape and the vegetation types that existed are useful for guidance in revegetation, however, the reality is a more modified urban landscape with planting and regeneration of landscapes design responding to the particular context, with plants and trees selected based on the role and function that fits best with that location within the urban ecosystem, and their likelihood of healthy growth. (Moreland Nature plan 2020, p.8)

Landing a housing development within a site successfully doesn’t just consist of building structures for housing. The importance of understanding the existing form and potential landscape values that can be attained from a site is pivotal for a sustainable design.

The drainage streams generated from the terrain model within this zone indicate that there is a potential to harness and capture road runoff. There is a sink to the north end of which water naturally drains to.

This site sits on the boundary of the Merri Creek, The majority of the area within the site boundary is relatively flat with a slight slope leading towards the south and banks of the creek.

1:7500

The importance of utilising storm water runoff in this design can play a major part in orchestrating the designs form as well as adding positive sustainable elements in which benefit the local amenity, capture and minimise harmful runoff entering the Merri Creek and benefit the site and design itself. The below diagram, using the natural falls in the topography, illustrates the way in which storm water and road runoff from adjacent streets could be captured through a directed line of swales and wetland areas.

1:2000

Vegetation As with many of the current policies and standards now looking at ways to ‘green’ developments. It is a very important factor to any open space that the landscape and thus the vegetation must be strongly considered. Native and indigenous vegetation must be restored for greater bio diversity. In large sites, whether it has existing vegetation or not, native and indigenous vegetation at different scales must be restored. As this site sits adjacent to the Merri Creek it is crucial to preserve the green belt that is remaining around the creeks edges. As this site is being rezoned to residential, similar to many sites surrounding Melbourne’s existing open space, now, more than ever, it is time to work responsibly and sensitively in the process of designing and developing around these important natural features. The Bababi Djinanang Native Grassland Reserve, located just north of the site is a great example of how these remaining open space reserves can be reconciled and celebrated. The large area of this site affords this design the opportunity to engage with the Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC) of the area. These will be used as a palette in designing the planting plan. This site sits within the Victorian volcanic bioregion and has three EVCs evident within its surroundings: EVC 55_61 Plains Grassy Woodland Open woodland which consists of poorly drained soils on flat to undulating topography at low elevations. The canopy usually consists of sparse Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River red Gum). The understory is composed of sparse shrubs over a grassy covering. Species include: Large Tree 10% Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum Understorey Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle Acacia paradoxa Hedge Wattle Pimelea humilis Common Rice-flower Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath Bossiaea prostrata Creeping Bossiaea Oxalis perennans Grassland Wood-sorrel Gonocarpus tetragynus Common Raspwort Acaena echinata Sheep’s Burr Dichondra repens Kidney-weed Hydrocotyle laxiflora Stinking Pennywort Austrostipa mollis Supple Spear-grass Austrostipa bigeniculata Kneed Spear-grass Themeda triandra Kangaroo Grass Elymus scaber var. scaber Common Wheat-grass Austrodanthonia setacea Bristly Wallaby-grass Austrodanthonia racemosa var. racemosa Stiped Wallaby-grass Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides Weeping Grass

Villarsia reniformis Running Marsh-flower Epilobium billardierianum ssp. cinereum Grey Willow-herb Potamogeton tricarinatus s.l. Floating Pondweed Lilaeopsis polyantha Australian Lilaeopsis Utricularia dichotoma s.l. Fairies’ Aprons Eryngium vesiculosum Prickfoot Neopaxia australasica White Purslane Lobelia pratioides Poison Lobelia Juncus flavidus Gold Rush Deyeuxia quadriseta Reed Bent-grass Amphibromus nervosus Common Swamp Wallaby-grass Poa labillardierei Common Tussock-grass Triglochin procerum s.l. Water Ribbons Glyceria australis Australian Sweet-grass Juncus holoschoenus Joint-leaf Rush Austrodanthonia duttoniana Brown-back Wallaby-grass Eleocharis acuta Common Spike-sedge Eleocharis pusilla

Bababi Djinanang Native Grassland Reserve

EVC 851 Stream bank shrub land A tall shrub land up to 8m tall with a ground layer consisting of sedges, grasses and herbs. Alike EVC_55_61 the canopy cover is sparse. This class occurs along the stream banks or major rivers and creek lines with rocky bank or ground bed. Species include Canopy Cover Tree 10% Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum Understorey Acacia mearnsii Black Wattle Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood Leptospermum lanigerum Woolly Tea-tree Hymenanthera dentata s.l. Tree Violet Bursaria spinosa ssp. spinosa Sweet Bursaria Callistemon sieberi River Bottlebrush Persicaria decipiens Slender Knotweed Epilobium billardierianum Variable Willow-herb Acaena novae-zelandiae Bidgee-widgee Hydrocotyle verticillata Shield Pennywort Oxalis perennans Grassland Wood-sorrel Crassula helmsii Swamp Crassula Dichondra repens Kidney-weed Apium prostratum ssp. prostratum Sea Celery Hydrocotyle verticillata Shield Pennywort Poa labillardierei Common Tussock-grass Lomandra longifolia Spiny-headed Mat-rush Phragmites australis Common Reed Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani River Club-sedge Triglochin procerum s.l. Water Ribbons Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides Weeping Grass Ficinia nodosa Knobby Club-sedge Calystegia sepium Large Bindweed

EVC 125 Plains Grassy Wetland Usually treeless, the understory is dominated by grasses, sedges and herbs and occurs around slow moving wet to wetland areas. Species include: Epilobium billardierianum Variable Willow-herb

1. Image sourced: https://fawkner.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/bababi_ djinanang_native_grassland_img_0074.jpg Author: Unknown

41 1:10000

Exclusion/protection zone. As part of what should be a protection plan for most of the creeks boundary this design puts forward a protection zone which consists of the creek’s bank and then furthering this by offsetting it by 30m. What can be seen throughout the creek corridor is both residential and industrial properties encroaching to almost touch the creeks boundary. This motive ensures protection from current and future developments.

1:2000

This drawing illustrates an early water management and planting scheme. This scheme looks to harness the gradual slope of the site with a constructed water/wetland system as seen before. This water system provides a canvas for to mimic the indigenous vegetation from which planting from EVC 55_61, EVC125 and EVC 851can be aligned.

EVC 55_61 Plains Grassy Woodland

1:2000

EVC 125 Plains Grassy Wetland

EVC 851 Stream Bank Shrubland

Aligning site uses and connections Implementing rough zones to the site to form a base of the design and draw on potential internal and external connections.

AIL

PR O PO SE

O NN

TIO

In setting out to orientate the zones within the site, the notion of a central public space would be a great way to open up and interact with the larger development. A great feature of this site which needs to be accentuated is its proximity to Merri creek and the Merri Creek Trail. The trail is a well-used recreation and transport link for many within the Moreland region and something that must needs to be connected to.

Public use connections Resident inter-connections

Residential dwellings

Public area 1:1000

BUILT FORM

03.4

Using the projected population growth and housing requirements set forward by the Supplying homes in Moreland document, I responded to the 3 highest housing typographies needed. These consist of 1 bedroom (61.71%), 2 bedroom (26.80%) and three bedroom (11.49%). Using these percentages as a guide to then focus my required dwelling sizes on. Gaining valuable knowledge of the standards put in place by the Victorian Government’s, Better Apartment Design Standards (BADS) policy, I learnt the minimum requirements of dwellings sizes and the minimum private open space requirement.

Looking at forms used in other developments that utilise open space I trialled through many different forms and the way in which they could work within the site. As the property is mostly rectangular in shape it is more suited to a linear orientation of building, much like the existing and surrounding properties.

Current minimum apartment size and private open space requirements under the Better Apartment Design Standards 2016

The BADS gave a great foundation in which to base the conceptual dwelling sizes on. As this project does not have direct architectural focus on the built form itself, A 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwelling size requirement was instated to further the design with. Following closely to the BADS dwelling areas the sizes of the dwellings themselves were adjusted and the private open space requirement was increased.

Proposed dwelling size and private open space

BUILT FORM and orientation Winter solstice 21 June

After much design iteration testing, the form that presented to be most successful was stemming from the notion of the public square. A central open/communal space surrounded by dwellings.

Summer solstice 21 December

It was then tested in place where worked with ways with could be replicated through the site. Using a 5x5 meter grid which worked in hand with the dwelling sizes stipulated earlier. I started looking at how private and communal zones could work to start forming the design.

Orientating the built form to provide positive access to dwellings and open space is an important consideration and constraint as well. I wanted to create a design orientated so that all private open space would be facing in a northern direction.

1:2000

Solar noon angles for Melbourne

ino x5 2 ex

50 tice 7 summ er sols

zenith 900

nte

ti ols

A buffer zone to allow for infividual access to dwellings.

Communal open space 1 strorey

2 strorey

Private open space

3 strorey 1:2000

breaking the built form After finding a successful housing form the next step in the process was to bring into the design the water and wetland system previously drawn. In a process of removing and exploding, parts of the built form were then taken out. Further parts were removed to allow for cross site movement and inter connectivity as well as providing visual breaks in the built form.

A 3m wise shared used path was designed to run as a central spine through the development providing an off street communal/public pedestrian friendly link.

1:1000

The designed water management system of directed swales and wetlands is realised through this grading plan.

1:1000

Master plans 03.5

Proposed Vegetation plan Having finalised the water plan, the aforementioned EVCs can then be implemented into the design. EVC 125 Plains Grassy Wetland

EVC 55_61 Plains Grassy Woodland

EVC 851 Stream Bank Shrubland

1:1000

private, communal and Public Finalising the orientation and form of the buildings illustrates the proposed zones for private, pricate, communal and public use.

1:1000

Private open space Communal open space Public open space

Masterplan This is the master plan of the development. Here, all element are assembled to create a landscape orientated housing outcome. Of the 17460sqms only 3800 are taken by built form offering the design a 78% open space to a 22% built foot print. The development is connected via a shared user path running the length of the site which also feeds into the public park area and Merri creek trail connection.

Speculative design A large reason as to why the design if offered so much open space is the removal of infividual car parks and driveways. The idea is to limit the dependancy on car travel. As we move into the future car travel will change with car sharing models and electric vehicles

Smaller scale - Communal COURYARDs Moving to in the design at a smaller scale these plans and sections illustrate the connection the built form has in the landscape. The communal squares/courtyards are places for residents to congregate and use as their own. A mix of hard but mostly softcape surfaces soften the space with more formal decking/dinning space to leading into shared workspaces provide spaces outside of the house for work and other activities

04.1

Private open spaces

Opposed to wall, constructed vegetated mounds provide privacy for dwellings

Small buildings such as workshops and sheds can be built to provide more option/uses for the communal zones The slimmer courtyard areas do not function so much as a gathering zone such as the larger courtyard. These areas can be used for productive garden which is an increasing needed and desired element in developments.

When dwellings are unable to have northward facing private open space roof terraces can be incorporated.

1:250

Sun study This sun study shows the impact of shade over these courtyards in both seasons. It can be seen that the form, height and distance between buildings offers all areas great availability to light.

1:250

Communal COURYARD type 1 The sun This larger study of the shows twothe types impact of courtyards, of shade over they these offer acourtyards design in bothpromotes that seasons. Itcommunity can be seen use, that gathering the form, and height interaction. and distance They between feature larger buildings swaleoffers systems all areas of which great are availability inundatedtonot light. only by the road runoff but also from the dwellings. As can be seen the EVCs planting palette has been used forming a site specific, indigenous planting design,

Communal, multi-use building. Giving residents an optional workspace, seating/ dining area and gathering space.

Vegetated mounds providing privacy to from the communal areas

1:200

Shared workshops/shed

Communal COURYARD type 2 As stated This sun study earlier, shows thethe smaller, impact thinner of shade courtyards over these do not courtyards function in both so much seasons. as a gathering It can be seen space that butthe more form, as height a space and fordistance planting between and productive buildings gardens. offers all areas great availability to light.

Internal shared user path pedestrian link Private open space

Productive gardens

1:200

PUBLIC PARK AND WETLANDS As part of my initial design aspersion, this 3800sqm central public park moves through the wetlands, providing zones of play, water interaction and a large grassed area used for recreation, gatherings and events. It then leads to a multi-use community building in which the wider community has access to use.

Wetlands with viewing/sitting area

Merri Creek Trail connection

1:500

Shared user path pedestrian link

Park and Merri creek trail connection

Play facilities

Lawn area

Community building

1:200

1:500

1:250

STAKEHOLDERS

Reflection

Moreland City Council Victorian Planning Authority Environment Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Sustainabel Fawkner Victorian National Parks Association Friends of Merry Creek Merry Creek Manageent Committee

Looking at this past semester and this design research project it can be said that it might have been a bit of a rocky road to say the least. This project has opened my sights to the ills of past and current development modes within Melbourne whilst showing what the bright possibilities that housing of the future can be. It has hopefully illustrated a journey through my design research to design outcome that could potentially find a place in future housing for not only Melbourne but cities alike. The outcomes have shown that medium and high density development do not need to be packed to the boundaries to achieve their desired density targets. It is, however, a subject that has many contributing factors such as profit margin and built cost.

5.1

Personally there were many ups and downs throughout the last year I would like to thank all the teaching staff involved for their hard work in curating and providing a great feedback and support throughout the last two semesters

References: Dolley, J 2019, Rethinking third places : informal public spaces and community building, Cheltenham, Uk Edward Elgar Publishing. Bolleter, J. and Ramalho, C.E. 2020. Greenspace-oriented development : reconciling urban density and nature in suburban cities. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Buxton, M. 2014, The Expanding Urban Fringe: Impacts on Peri-urban Areas, Melbourne, Australia Forsyth, A 2012, ‘Defining Suburbs’, Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 270–281. Speck, J 2018, Walkable city rules : 101 steps to making better places, Island Press, Washington, Dc. Weller, R & Bolleter, J 2013, Made in Australia : the future of Australian cities, Uwa Publishing, Crawley, Western Australia. Suburbia Reimagined Ageing and Increasing Populations in the Low-Rise City, 2018 Schaik,L., Bertram, N., Murray, S., Rowe, D. and Harry, H. (2018). New York, Ny: Routledge, . Routledge Tsutsumi, J & Wyatt, R 2006, ‘A brief history of metropolitan planning in Melbourne, Australia’, Applied GIS, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 7.1-7.10. Future Cities, Planning for our population, Febuary 2018. Infrastructure Australia 2018 Learning from the Past, A history of infrustructure planning in Melbourne, February 2016. Infrastructure Australia 2018 Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2017. Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme 1954: Report Australia Bureau of Statistics, https://www.abs.gov.au Data.vic.gov.au Moreland Industrial Land Strategy 2015-2030 - Moreland City Council Better Apartment Design Standards, New apartment design standards for Victoria, DELWP 2016 Medium Density Housing Review, Moreland City Council 2018 Moreland Apartment Design Code, Moreland City Council 2015 Infill Opportunities, Design Research Report, Department of Architecture, Monash University 2011 Victoria in Future 2019 - Population Projections 2016 to 2056 , The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2019