Henry Peters | Melbourne, Australia

Melbourne City: a high density destination. Image: Reinis Traidas

Standing atop the Hollywood Hills in California and peering out across the vast expanses of Los Angeles, the blanket of smog in the atmosphere is so dense the city’s skyscrapers are almost invisible. Cars are a necessity in Los Angeles and if urban sprawl continues unabated in Melbourne, it too could be confronted with the visual effects of a large carbon footprint.

There are many valid reasons to halt urban sprawl and focus on urban consolidation given Melbourne’s burgeoning population. Environmental impact on Carbon emissions, quality of life for those living in Melbourne’s expanding fringes, and our transport system’s inability to facilitate further urban sprawl, are just a few.

Many residents are choosing to object to high-density growth but the ideal of a large backyard will need to eventually give way to urban consolidation. Proposals in Camberwell, Mitcham and Box Hill have been vetoed in past years despite potential for population management, sustainability and traffic reduction. Director of City Design for the City of Melbourne, Rob Adams, believes Camberwell is a prime location for high-density development. “I can’t think of a better place for low-rise high-density development [than Camberwell]”, he said.

Paul Little, from global development group Aurecon Pty Ltd agrees with Adams. “[Camberwell junction] has excellent access to public transport options and has seen significant growth in commercial floor space capable of being used for office purposes.” High-density developments in Camberwell and Mitcham have needed the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to step in and overruled community rejection. Many residents remain unconvinced that high-density living is the best way to combat a growing carbon footprint.

Victorian Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Kate Auty, says that residents often object to high-rise residential and multi-use buildings because they feel excluded in the planning process. “(Residents) are opposed to having something stuffed down through their letterbox that says this is what’s going to happen and they’re not engaged in the discussion”, Auty said. Many don’t feel obligated to address the environmental concerns posed by urban sprawl.

A report issued by the Whitehorse City Council outlines the basis for community rejection of another high-density development. In 2004, Whitehorse rejected the proposal for a 17-level and 11-level pair of residential towers at 1-19 Colombo Street in Mitcham. Locals lodged over 600 objections to the initial project, which was dubbed the ‘Mitcham Monster’. These concerns will need to be reassessed if Melbourne wants to manage the exponential growth of its population without reverting to urban sprawl.

According to the report, one reason for council rejection was the “building is too big and too high”. The report elaborates, “the scale and form of the building is inconsistent with surrounding buildings.” Another point for rejection was “it will increase parking problems for rail users” and “air quality will be further affected by the increased traffic.” The report neglects to realise air quality overall will improve because people would be traveling less distance by car and more by train, while any parking could be avoided by implementation of underground parking or even a multi-level parking building beside the station.

Whitehorse also cited “the over sized building will devalue the surrounding properties.” Federal Labor MP Kelvin Thomson disagrees with the overall Australian consensus that higher property value is good for Melbourne.
“Housing is a necessity like food, water, electricity”, Thomson said. “Why do we cheer when the prices of houses go up?” Higher property value alienates Melbourne’s middle to low income bracket.”

But residential growth in Melbourne’s CBD has been impressive despite community rejection of high-density development in suburban areas. “The population in central Melbourne has increased from 30,000 to 100,000 and they’re all in apartments”, Adams said. Eventually, the ‘not in my back yard’ stance will be ignored.

Despite the trivialities of some reasons for community rejection, some potential problems associated with high-density development need to be avoided. Water conservation, ventilation, energy efficiency and overshadowing of adjacent Primary Schools should all be legitimate concerns for high-density developers.
Early Childhood Teacher at St. Michael’s Grammar School, Emily Poore, said that sunlight in primary schools is crucial to the positive development of young children. “Kids need to be able to run around and the sun definitely has an impact on their intrinsic motivation at school,” Poore said.

But Adams said European cities have proven that high-density buildings are more equipped to manage population growth, sustain the environment and function symbiotically with transport infrastructure.“None of it has to be high-rise. I’m talking about five to six storeys in height. The sort of stuff you might find in European cities like Barcelona”, Adams said.

High-density developments close to existing transport infrastructure are optimal because they reduce the need to use cars and limit traffic. Central Coburg, for instance, is “desirable because it’s close to both the (train) station and the transport corridor”, Adams said.

Despite the viability of more infrastructure in these inner-city activity centres, the government has allowed extension in areas like Cranbourne many kilometres from the CBD and without a developed train network.
Cranbourne residents are too reliant on cars and being pushed away from economic opportunity in the CBD as fuel prices rise.

Professor of Transport Studies at Monash University, Graham Currie, points out that the social implications of further urban sprawl are also profound. “Young people demonstrate higher unemployment and lower educational and social participation in fringe areas”, Currie said. If this is the case then criminality could also be spiked by urban sprawl. Low-income earners are being effectively stranded in areas like Cranbourne. Everyday access to the CBD is coming to them at a greater cost, let alone residence closer to the city.

“By stopping the expansion of the city and concentrating on creating communities in and around the existing fabric, places like Cranbourne maybe in 10 or 15 years time start to get its own urban area and hopefully fed by public transport”, Adams said.

Greater carbon emissions, social and economic alienation of residents on the ever-expanding fringe and pressure on a buckling transport system present a dark future for Melbournians. Identifying areas for high-density consolidation is only the first stage of managing our population. The residents in these areas need to start co-operating and realise that our environment is at stake and not just the view from their backyard.

Henry Peters is a student currently at Monash University in Melbourne.