As a VFL/AFL footballer, he “boasted neither elegance nor athleticism, but Justin Madden was one of the most supremely effective ruckmen of recent times”. As a minister in the Bracks and Brumby Labor governments, he’s arguably made one of the more successful transitions from sport to politics, notwithstanding the factional hackery of his staff (see here for some of the skullduggery inflicted). Madden is an architect by training, and has made noises in the past about the profilgate environmental footprint of the McMansions springing up in Melbourne’s outer suburbs. But, as Planning Minister, he’s presided over the continual watering-down of Melbourne 2030, a planning strategy that was supposed to contain Melbourne’s sprawl and encourage higher-density housing. This watering down has been heavily criticized, not least by the editorial staff of The Age. So it’s not entirely surprising that he’s bobbed up with an op-ed defending the government’s planning policies. Unfortunately, it displays a talent for evading one’s opponents never displayed by Madden on the footy field:
I totally reject the sort of intellectual superiority of some “planning experts” that would dictate an inflexible planning solution. People deserve choice. If they want to live in tram-track suburbs, good planning gives them the choice to do that. If growing suburbs on the fringe of the city meet their needs, then there must be appropriate supply. Too often the debate is hijacked either by a cultural snobbery against growth suburbs on the city fringe, or a self-serving not-in-my-backyard-ism against development in established areas.
I’m all for an honest and continuing debate about how best to manage Melbourne and Victoria’s growth. But I won’t stand for cultural snobbery and NIMBY-ism being dressed up as public debate.
There is undoubtedly an element of truth to Madden’s critique – there is a considerable element of NIMBYism in the opposition to suburban infill development, and at least some inner-suburbanites like myself do regard the “growth suburbs” as a bit of a cultural desert that we couldn’t imagine living in. But – aside from the question as to whether NIMBYs do in fact deserve some consideration in preserving the way of life they want, just as the outer-suburbanites who want the McMansion and two big cars do – in his cultural swipes Madden ignores the more substantive critiques of the government’s half-hearted approach to urban planning.
Whether he likes it or not, those “growth suburbs” are eating away at more and more land on Melbourne’s western fringes, some of which were previously native grasslands – a not particularly sexy, but important and threatened ecosystem. The surburbs themselves, despite slightly increased urban density compared to the middle-ring suburbs of the 1950s, are too spread-out to support decent public transport. Furthermore, as well as being inherently hard to support with public transport, the developers don’t tend to design them to be cycleable or walkable, so even for relatively short local journeys people pile into the Prado – drop the kids off, pop down to the shops, you name it. Not to mention the environmental costs of heating, cooling, lighting, and to some extent watering the McMansions that result from continuing land releases – ever-improving efficiency standards keep losing to ever-increasing house sizes, despite shrinking family sizes.
If Madden wants to make his case, he might consider actually responding to the more substantial critiques of the government’s policy, rather than an easy slam against inner-suburban yuppies like myself.
The government don’t have a lot of choice in all of this, given the one overwhelming driver, that they think can’t or shouldn’t be stopped, and that’s population growth. The only obvious partial solution is more regional city growth, and often enough they’ve got just as many issues as Melbourne’s west and north. Bendigo for example is losing box-ironbark woodlands at a scary rate.
But it’s frightening that the State of the Environment report released last year focused heavily on grasslands and the government basically totally ignored this.
Footscray is a good counter-example to the inner city elitist nirvana – development is clearly welcome there, with at least six high density projects to my knowledge currently under way.
Madden has at least one very good point. It’s often the same people who are against both development at the urban edges and in-fill development.
As Wilful says, it’s population growth that is driving this. What is the government supposed to – stop people having sex? ban migration to Melbourne? Chinese style one child policy?
Wishing that people adopt Parisien taste for apartment living isn’t going to work either.
I don’t think there’s anywhere near the widespread hatred for high-density living that #2 claims. It’s just that in Australia, they’re usually not as attractive as ‘Parisien’ communities, because they’re not mixed-use developments. You just get taller suburbs around here, with almost the same accessibility, amenity, and environmental problems as their low density precursors. That said, some places approach the ideal of a high-density community, but its frequently a happy accident (apartments next door to a mall and a park, nearby train station) rather than properly integrated planning.
As a result, there aren’t really any people out there proclaiming their love of the high-rise or terrace house the way other people are proclaiming their hate. Apartments aren’t usually dreadful anymore, they’re just kinda meh.
But I love not having to cope with a lawn!
the “growth suburbs” as a bit of a cultural desert that we couldn’t imagine living in
To be fair, plenty of us who do live here imagine ourselves elsewhere. I live on the very edgy-edge of the suburbs, next to aforementioned frumpy grasslands. I do my bit to make them sexier, though.
But without a car, it’s impossible to do anything. It’s already a 40 minute walk to the nearest train station for me. (And not a particularly nice one, since “yell and throw things at the funny-looking chick” is pretty much the only convenient entertainment.) The car park at the station is teeny-tiny, and can’t be extended. If there were bike paths (there are no bike paths), it would still be a 50km ride to the city.
This whole damn place is designed for motorists (who don’t mind driving long distances). That’s not really what anyone needs.
Grumphy @ 3 – I think the environmental design of the high density housing is also very important. For a while I lived in appartment that although was very close to transport, shops and parks it only had south facing windows which meant that in winter it was cold, dark and depressing. I’d never do that again.
Similar issues with housing in the outer suburbs. If developers were forced to subdivide blocks in a way which allowed for good solar design of houses the people in the large houses would not consume nearly as much energy.
People deserve choice.
Yes, people could choose to live in a badly designed housing project on the outskirts like Glenmore Park in Sydney – so badly designed that they can’t get buses in. So the inhabitants are forced to buy cars to get around. But that causes congestion and pollution for other people.
When their decisions affect other people, do people really deserve absolute freedom?
Have we really got to the point where we think the only choices are either sprawling suburbs of McMansions or high-density apartments? What happened to medium-density, cluster housing?
Polyquats: both outer-suburbanites and the Save Our Suburbs seem to conflate medium density and towering apartment blocks as one and the same.
It’s seems very shortsighted. The suburb I live in is undergoing an increase in density. This in itself doesn’t worry me, but the pattern has been to split each block into two long skinny blocks and build the biggest possible house on each one. Given that family sizes are shrinking, public transport here is excellent, and there is access to good community facilities and amenities, it seems to me that it would make more sense to move to cluster and townhouse development. You could get twice the density, with housing mores suited to community needs, a better mix of households, and many other benefits as well. The only people who seem to be able to rent these horrid skinny mansions are groups of international students. Perhaps they are the intended market, but they are otherwise well served with other developments. It’s just a really annoying missed opportunity.
I agree with what you’re saying Rob. To the issue of choice raised by #6, housing is effectively about choice. There are, quite simply, enough detached houses in the middle and outer ring suburbs to sustain the population that wishes to live in them. The rest of the population wants to live in well located housing near work, study, entertainment and with decent access to the city. We’re not getting those houses because it’s politically easier and more cost effective to build new mcmansions on the fringes – for the govt and for developers. The whole snobbery argument is a distraction from this govt’s lack of balls.
My landlord is building a set of those horrid skinny mansions next door to me. I think he’s going to struggle letting them as the international student boom might well be coming to an end with all the violence against the Indian community.
Why does everyone imagine that those who live in the growth suburbs – 1 in 4 Australians, is all depressed, resentful and just hankering for a house in Brunswick, St Kilda, Yarraville or Richmond – half the size of what they have and twice the price?
Polyquats @ 9 – I think the main reason you end up with two skinny houses instead of a higher density townhouse group is that most blocks are not wide enough to accomodate the higher density blocks by themselves. So developers need to find at least two blocks side by side available at roughly the same time. Near where I live some of the wide blocks end up with town houses – the original house and two new ones at the back. But the block has to be pretty wide to accomodate the driveway down the side and the original house has to be position in a way that allows this.
FWIW the skinny houses around here are being bought by families – its a lot cheaper than a house on a full size block but still has some backyard and you get a lot more privacy than in a townhouse development (without the hassle of things like strata corps).
I don’t imagine that at all FXH. Some people love the giant houses of the outer suburbs. That’s part of Madden’s argument. But I imagine the people who live in those growth suburbs would like better services. I don’t know that the Labor government has a great record of supplying them.
FXH: wasn’t implying they are. What is a concern is that they may well be living in a fool’s paradise that could very easily come crashing down on them.
If the Peak Oilers are right and petrol prices are heading back up again. they won’t be able to fill their big cars, they won’t have public transport available as a substitute, and their suburbs are inherently shitty to walk or ride a bike around.
And energy prices are on the way up and will inevitably rise further, so it’s going to cost them more to keep their homes livable.
To top it off, if this does occur, their big cars and big houses will plunge in value because nobody will want to buy them.
Giant houses are a reaction to tiny block sizes. Once block sizes got so small that building the traditional 3 bedroom bungalow didn’t leave you with enough backyard for the kids to kick the footy or play backyard cricket, then of course that space was going to used up by greater indoor living/entertainment areas as family life is brought indoors. As far as cultural deserts go, is there a bigger cultural desert in Melbourne than Docklands, with the added bonus of living stacked 30 high and spending your life listening to your neighbours favourite band and smelling their dinner?
The street I live in is a mix of small and medium-sized blocks. Over the years most of the medium sized blocks have been converted to six packs of flats, which is exactly what they should be in an area so well serviced with public transport and bike paths (if not something higher).
When I moved in there was a medium-sized block across the road for sale with a house half pulled down. I figured it would be turned into another six-pack. Instead we got a Mcmansion. You could fit four families at least in that space, probably six, but instead there is one, with a bunch of cars in the garage.
There is no way the value of that house would be higher than six flats, even allowing for higher building costs. But presumably it is easier to get finance for the single house than the bunch of flats, even if the long term profit would be higher. Result, one family sits in the middle of excellent public transport and a great bike path and drives a lot, when six couples could be living car-free. I don’t know how the planning laws could prevent this, but i am sure they could, but clearly Madden doesn’t have it on his radar as something to consider.
Chris @ 13. In our neighbourhood two available blocks side by side equals four skinny mansions. Townhouse developments are usually very large, requiring land that was previously vacant. I blame the council’s planning laws, but it is probably a reaction to the 6-packs of recent decades. I don’t think we should be stopping 6-packs, we should just be doing them better.
Over the years we’ve seen many old Queenslanders carved into flats. My guess this will start to happen to McMansions too.
Reportedly (not speaking as an expert), the construction unions ruin the economics of anything over a certain size and height. The cost per metre of medium density versus low density is quite uneconomic, pushing the choices for developers towards high density where they can recoup costs, or low density where they don’t have to deal with the unions.
wilful, unions may make some difference, but there is also a qualitative difference in buildings over 3 storeys. Stairwells are cheap, lift shafts are expensive. Sharing the cost of an elevator between 5 or 6 apartments significantly raises their cost, which will push the developers into higher densities.
Planning costs also don’t scale well. Single storey dwellings normally have “as-of-right” approval, give or take heritage considerations. But it will take as long to get approval for, and be almost as subject to complaints, to build a two storey apartment block as a 10 storey one. So again, it is in the interests of the developer to go big (or at least propose big, then negotiate).
“This watering down has been heavily criticized, not least by the editorial staff of The Age.”
Hard life being a lowly paid Age editor and trying to find a house for your family, what with all the traffic running through Kew these days.
“Given that family sizes are shrinking”
Are=Were.
“There are, quite simply, enough detached houses in the middle and outer ring suburbs to sustain the population that wishes to live in them. The rest of the population wants to live in well located housing near work, study, entertainment and with decent access to the city.”
While FXH is correct that there would be some people who simply don’t care about location, I suspect you’d find if you offered many of the people buying into Craigiburn and Caroline Springs a Californian Bungalow in Thornbury for the same price they’d be quite keen. So to re-phrase the above:
“[much of] The rest of the population wants to live in well located housing near work, study, entertainment and with decent access to the city [that is big enough for a couple of kids as well and that can be afforded on a normal income].”
Certainly I’d love to see some of the demand soaked up by higher density, for those who can comfortably live that way. But another issue is the sheer change and upheaval big development projects impose on existing inner city suburbs.
I suggest a key option not parsed much is that of taking back some of the huge tracts of land in the city being used for debatable industrial purposes, and using the greenfields nature of them to build 10 storey apartment blocks. In Melba this includes quite a bit of dock territory in the inner west, Essendon Airport, the vague military base at Yallambie, among others…
feral @ 17 – I think you’d find it hard to make people build higher density housing – just needs to be made easier (with some important environmental caveats). We have a largish (900m2) block which was difficult to get competing against developers who want to subdivide everything in sight. But if you want to build a solar passive house you need some space to ensure that if someone builds a two storey place next door on your north side you don’t lose access to the winter sun.
polyquats @ 18 – I’ve seen a few small boutique townhouse developments around but they probably don’t get the same economies of scale and end up being pretty expensive for what you get. Though I’ve had so many issues with strata corporations (had to sue myself once!) before that I’d go a long way to avoid having to deal with one again.
But if you want to build a solar passive house you need some space to ensure that if someone builds a two storey place next door on your north side you don’t lose access to the winter sun.
We have taht risk at our place, the three houses next door currently have surveyors running all over them, which is a worry. however my wife, wot knows about tehse things, has double checked the building regs, and we’re quite nicely covered apparently, it’s very difficult to destroy someone’s solar amenity due to recent changes to the building code.
wilful @ 23 – I think its pretty dependent on your local council, but at least some of them now mention solar access in their planning regulations. A few years ago, a friend had someone build right to the boundary on their north side and although it is only single story it has cut off a lot of their winter sun. Its more important these days with lots of solar hot water systems going in.
If possible I’d be asking the owners to look at plans – its a lot harder to resolve the issues after building has commenced. It’d be nice if you could register with the local council to get notified when someone makes a planning application on adjacent blocks, even if it is a compliant application. We’re placing the living areas of our house fairly far back into the block along the south side of the property so even if a two storey place goes up next door we’ll be ok.
I live in the inner suburban Melbourne and have had a 3 storey block of flats built on the northern side, ruining my opportunity for solar passive heating, reduced PV power generation but I endorse the increased dwelling density of inner suburbs because the population density improves public transport viability and accessability.
The newly released land on the outer fringes is currently market gardens. In Werribbee South, Ron Walker [chairman Fairfax, Commonwealth Games, Grand Prix, Victoria Racing Club, ???Tatts] is building a marina development on land that previously grew Australia’s ice berg lettuce crop, it used to be irrigated by treated water from the Melbourne sewerage works. I think health regs may have stopped that – but we can and do import green vegies from overseas with no controls over human waste as fertiliser or irrigation. In the south east beyond Cranbourne the farmland currently produces our asparagus crop – it relies on rainfall. When these 2 areas are covered in houses Melbourne will be even more reliant on vegetables grown in the Murray Darling Basin which has been in drought for 15 years and has very low water levels.
Even though Australian consumers are oblivious, this century has been marked by a doubling of prices for agricultural products because of the world food shortage. It is madness to turn market gardens with a good supply of water into houses.
My experience with Rescode 2030 is that the developer has to demonstrate that they aren’t destroying the amenity of an existing owners private space. So they enter your property and photograph your site to prove that its just a utility area. I would put in those north facing windows, private jaccuzi or nude sun deck as well as your solar panels to pre-empt the developers chance to ruin your amenity.