Urban Systems | Southbank + South Melbourne

Page 1

SOUTHBANK + SOUTH MELBOURNE

BRETT SANDERSON - TREVOR STECKLY - SCOTT BELL - JAY GU


MELBOURNE CBD DOCKLANDS

R YA

RA

ER RIV A ROA D KILD ST

SOUTHBANK

UN BO

RY DA

SOUTH MELBOURNE

T

SS

A RO T R BE L A

D

RA R R E F

KLE

SS

T

ST PIC

ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS

ALBERT PARK CONTEXT

STUDY AREA


SOUTHBANK

SOUTH MELBOURNE

11,303

7,843

population

population

29

37

population

6,610 ppl/km2

11,238

11,303

3,730 ppl/km2

SOUTHBANK

52%

48%

male

female

$983

9,317

SOUTH MELBOURNE

SOUTHBANK

median age

median personal income

48% female

$921

median personal income

4161 dwellings

78%

36%

born overseas

born overseas

SOUTH MELBOURNE

7,843 population

37

$983

48%

52%

male

female

$921

median personal income

density

4161 dwellings

population

7773

dwellings

78%

female

median age

median personal income

born overseas

52%

male

7773

median age

male

48%

dwellings

29

52%

median age

36% born overseas

DEMOGRAPHICS

STUDY AREA


SOUTHBANK HISTORY

Southbank - 1928

Victoria Barracks

Southwharf- 2014

mostly built between the 1860s–1920s

area was part of the first port of Melbourne

the area was the subject of urban renewal in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Southbank skyline and Yarra River Today, the area is also home to several large apartment buildings, along with a hotel and a large shopping center precinct.

SUBURB HISTORY

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT


SOUTH MELBOURNE HISTORY

Canvas Town - 1850’s

St Vincent Gardens - 1878

South Melbourne Town Hall

Victorian Terrace Houses - Finlet St

Europeans in the 1840s and became known as Emerald Hill.

During the late 1870s, South Melbourne became a favoured place of residents for Melbourne's middle class.

In the 1950’s, South Melbourne experienced a decline as Melbourne sprawled outwards.

in the 1980’s South Melbourne experienced one of the cities biggest waves of gentrification, where many of the terrace homes in the area were restored and renovated,

SUBURB HISTORY

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT


100m

1945 FIGURE GROUND

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT


100m

2015 FIGURE GROUND

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT


1945

1

2

3

2015

100m

100m

100m

100m

100m

100m

SUBURB DEVELOPMENT

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT


2000

2015

2000s DEVELOPMENT

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT


5 min walk 10-15 min walk 100m

WALKSHED

WALKSHED ANALYSIS


cafes restaurants bakery/deli bar/pub salon/barber grocery convenience store school library art gallery pharmacy medical clinic/hospital 100m

SERVICES + AMENTITIES

WALKSHED ANALYSIS


0-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 60+ 100m

EMPLOYMENT DENSITY

WALKSHED ANALYSIS


0 < 400 400-800 > 800 100m

EMPLOYMENT DENSITY

WALKSHED ANALYSIS


bike lanes bike rental bus routes bus stops tram stops community & sports centre public installations green space public space 100m

PUBLIC AMENITIES

WALKSHED ANALYSIS


ACTIVITY CENTERS

WALKSHED ANALYSIS


BLOCK + BUILDING ANALYSIS


BLOCK + BUILDING TYPES

BLOCK + BUILDING ANALYSIS


141,608m2 5,568m2

1

65,936m2 5,568m2

2 BLOCK TYPOLOGIES

LOT COVERAGE

25.4

11.8 F.A.R.

BLOCK 1

BLOCK + BUILDING ANALYSIS


536

1,061

0

0

12,156m2

441 /hectare 872 Persons/hectare

BLOCK 1 DWELLING UNITS & POPULATION

BLOCK + BUILDING ANALYSIS


46,031m2 3,130m2

1

1,008m2 1,155m2

2

847m2 919m2

3

14.7

.87

.92

489m2 1185m2

4 BLOCK TYPOLOGIES

LOT COVERAGE

.41 F.A.R.

BLOCK 2

BLOCK + BUILDING ANALYSIS


1,061 503

0 0 0 0 0 0

6,389m2

/hectare 397 787 Persons/hectare

BLOCK 2 DWELLING UNITS & POPULATION

BLOCK + BUILDING ANALYSIS


373m2 X3 373m2

1

322m2 X2 322m2

2

123m2 141m2

3

BLOCK TYPOLOGIES

LOT COVERAGE

3

2

0.87

F.A.R.

BLOCK 3

BLOCK + BUILDING ANALYSIS


1 1

1 1

1 1

1

4 1

1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

1

1 1

2 1

22

2

1

1 4

4

2

1 1 11

1

1

1 1

4 1 1 1

1

1 2 2

4

2

2 2

2

8

2

4 4 4 2

2 2 2

2

4 2 2 2

8

/hectare

2

4 4

18

10,000m2

90

2 2

2 2 2 2

4 4

6

9

2

8

8

2 2 2

2 44

22

10,000m2

191 Persons/hectare

BLOCK 3 DWELLING UNITS & POPULATION

BLOCK + BUILDING ANALYSIS


552m2 X3 864m2

1

204m2 X2 378m2

2

154m2 X2 216m2

3

112m2 200m2

4

420m2 500m2

5 BLOCK TYPOLOGIES

LOT COVERAGE

1.92

1.07

1.42

.56

.84 F.A.R.

BLOCK 4

BLOCK + BUILDING ANALYSIS


4 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1 1

4

4 5

1

1

1

2

1

1

1 1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2.5 2.5

8 2.5 2.5 2.5

1

15

4

4

4 2.5 2.5 4

6

8

2.5 2.5 2.5

2.5

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

/hectare

2.5

2.5 4

2.5 2.5

16

8,250m2

64

2.5

2.5

8,250m2

181 Persons/hectare

BLOCK 4 DWELLING UNITS & POPULATION

BLOCK + BUILDING ANALYSIS


18.6

441

872

397

787

BLOCK 1

BLOCK 2 SOUTHBANK SOUTH MELBOURNE

4.225

BLOCK 3

90 1.95

191 181

64 1.28

BLOCK 4 COVERAGE

BLOCK + BUILDING ANALYSIS

BUILDING HT (storeys)

F.A.R. (average)

DWELLING DENSITY

POPULATION DENSITY


STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


ENTRANCES

WINDOWS

PUBLIC USE SEATING

PRIVATE USE SEATING

PUBLIC AMENITIES

GREENING

BUILDING CANOPY

TREE CANOPY

METRICS

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


BA

H UT SO NK D.

V BL

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


Southbank Blvd

elevation

entrances windows public use seating private use seating public amentities greening building canopy tree canopy

F.A.R.

0%

100%

11.8

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

BUILDING TYPE

1


Southbank Blvd face differentiation

section

sidewalk

threshold quality activity seating sound temperature vegetation density

hourly activity

0%

12am

parking

road

boulevard

road

parking

sidewalk

100%

6am

(pedestrian)

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

12pm

6pm


.

R

FA

E AT

W

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

LL

LN


STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


Waterfall Ln.

elevation

entrances windows public use seating private use seating public amentities greening building canopy tree canopy

0%

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

100%


Waterfall Ln.

section

road

threshold quality activity seating sound temperature vegetation density

hourly activity

sidewalk

0%

12am

100%

6am

(pedestrian)

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

12pm

6pm


ST . IG A H

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


Haig St.

elevation

entrances windows public use seating private use seating public amentities greening building canopy tree canopy

F.A.R.

0%

100%

14.7

.87

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

BUILDING TYPE

2 3


Haig St.

section

sidewalk

threshold quality activity seating sound temperature vegetation density

hourly activity (pedestrian)

0%

parking

road

parking

sidewalk

100%

12am

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

6am

12pm

6pm


CLA D REN T.

ON S

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


Clarendon St.

elevation

entrances windows public use seating private use seating public amentities greening building canopy tree canopy

0%

100%


Clarendon St.

section

sidewalk

threshold quality activity seating sound temperature vegetation density

hourly activity (pedestrian)

0%

12am

tram/ road

parking

sidewalk

100%

6am

12pm

6pm


CLA T

NS

DO

REN

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


Clarendon St.

elevation

entrances windows public use seating private use seating public amentities greening building canopy tree canopy

F.A.R.

0%

100%

2

3

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

BUILDING TYPE

4 5


Clarendon St.

section

sidewalk

threshold quality activity seating sound temperature vegetation density

hourly activity (pedestrian)

0%

parking

tramline / road

parking

sidewalk

100%

12am

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

6am

12pm

6pm


RY ENT

V CO

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

ST.


STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


Coventry St.

elevation

entrances windows public use seating private use seating public amentities greening building canopy tree canopy

0%

100%

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


Coventry` St.

section

sidewalk

threshold quality activity seating sound temperature vegetation density

hourly activity

0%

12am

parking

road

parking

sidewalk

100%

6am

(pedestrian)

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

12pm

6pm


B

CO

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

DEN

ST.


STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


Cobden St.

elevation

entrances windows public use seating private use seating public amentities greening building canopy tree canopy

F.A.R.

0%

100%

1.07

.56

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

BUILDING TYPE

6 7


Cobden St.

section

sidewalk

threshold quality activity seating sound temperature vegetation density

hourly activity (pedestrian)

0%

parking

road

parking

sidewalk

100%

12am

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

6am

12pm

6pm


RAY

MO ST.

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


Moray St.

elevation

entrances windows public use seating private use seating public amentities greening building canopy tree canopy

0%

100%

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS


Moray St.

section

sidewalk

0%

road

median

road

parking

sidewalk

100%

threshold quality activity seating sound temperature vegetation density

hourly activity

parking

12am

6am

(pedestrian)

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

12pm

6pm


SOUTH MELBOURNE

100%

Waterfall Ln

Southbank Blvd Clarendon St

SOUTH MELBOURNE

0%

Haig St

SOUTHBANK

Cobden St

Moray St

Clarendon St

Coventry St

100%

0%

SOUTHBANK

ENTRANCES WINDOWS PUBLIC USE PRIVATE USE PUBLIC SEATING SEATING AMENITIES

STREET + LOT ANALYSIS

GREENING

BUILDING CANOPY

TREE CANOPY


URBAN CHARACTER “There have been many attempts to mix functions in three dimensions, yet all of the urban successes have occurred within a couple of floors of ground level – beyond which it becomes inevitably monofunctional or privatised” -Dovey and Pafka The communities of South Melbourne and Southbank are tied together by proximity and an expectation of significant future growth. However, this is where the similarites end. Serving as a perfect comparitive illustration of the Dovey/ Pafka quote, the two communities display many of the attributes of a “good” and “bad” neighborhood. Where Southbank is dominated by ever taller skyscrapers and increasing population density, left with barren streetscapes and a diminishing public realm, South Melbourne is flourishing with a healthy mix of 1-3 storey buildings , activated sidestreets and occasional laneways, and proprtionally appropriate program mixing. After examining the variance between the two communities a number of conclusions became clear. To improve the quality of Southbank a number of changes are required, namely, a more diverse street frontage, increased public greenspace, more access to local amenities, and most importanly, to provide these elements in proprtion to future growth. Similar management is also required in South Melbourne if it is to maintain it’s characteristic quality. However, a move towards better connecting the two communities could benifit both. With the West Gate Freeway as a primary divider between the two, solutions to bridge this boundary could prove to enlivin both neighbourhoods and promote a more walkable district in general.

CONCLUSION


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.