Consolidate or Spread?: What urban form should Melbourne develop in the future?
Urban consolidation is the process of increasing housing stock and population density in controlled urban areas by limiting sprawl, often by the implementation of multi-family housing (McCrea & Walters, 2012). Urban sprawl, comparatively, is the decentralisation of the urban center, allowing for continued outward spread from the metropolitan area into suburban developments (McCrea & Walters). The present study will investigate the positive and negative impacts of both the consolidation and spread models whilst contextually considering the application of urban consolidation in Melbourne and the complexity of implementation in the area of Templestowe.
The consolidated city model conjures the concept of “economies of scale”, whereby as the population size of the city escalates the proportionate need for infrastructure and amenity costs are reduced. It has been suggested that a city double the size can use approximately 15% less infrastructure than two cities with a divided population (Glaeser, 2011). Conclusively, larger cities make more efficient use of infrastructure, reducing the cost and carbon outlay produced through embodied and in-use energy, and subsequently reducing the ecological footprint of the region (Vella & Morad, 2011). Currently, cities occupy just 1.5% of the total Earth surface, aiding in the protection of valuable agricultural land needed to sustain food security for population growth, biodiversity and ecosystem conservation (McCrea & Walters, 2012). Cities, moreover, offer solutions for the post-WWII car-centric society, with Newman (2006); Newman (2010) suggesting densification can lead to a reduction in half of residential car reliance, with households saving upwards of 20% income, in turn reducing GHG emissions and oil-reliance. According to Newman and Kenworthy (2012), sustainable urbanisation promotes walking, cycling and an acceptability of public transport methods, due to an increase of proximity between home, work life and amenities. Additionally, Glaeser (2011) argues that densification of population can ironically lead to creative partnerships facilitated through forced interaction, potentially manifesting solutions to global problems such as global warming.
Conversely, however, while the compact city may catalyse future answers to environmental complexities, currently, Walsh et al. (2005) argues that heightened density has led to drastic degradation of the morphology and ecological importance of urban streams including loss to riparian vegetation, reduction in nutrient uptake and alterations to species richness. Accordingly to Walsh et al. (2005) and Searle (2004) alike, increased imperviousness in urbanised locales can lead to heightened pressure on stormwater infrastructure, creating runoff overflows and increased water pollution from sewer leakage, as well as alterations to the biological composition and ecosystem processes of urban streams. Comparing the areas of inner city Southbank and suburban Templestowe in the region of Melbourne, findings reveal that the proportion of impervious surfaces to land area is 30% to 90% respectively (FindLotSize.com, 2014). Conclusions drawn from this data would suggest inner city urbanisation would face drastically higher implications to local infrastructure systems.
Moreover, evidence suggests an intimidate relationship between city built form and altered local climatic conditions including humidity, precipitation, temperature and wind patterns (Jankovic & Hebbert, 2012). Oke (1997) states reserved latent heat in centralised building stock and the urban canopy, creates an urban heat island responsible for temperature variances up to 10°C in comparison to the hinterland equivalent. Kennedy, Cuddihy, and Engel-Yan (2007) continue to suggest that such temperature variables can indirectly influence a higher need for conditioned air to elevate heat stress symptoms, in turn increasing electricity consumption and consequently contaminant emissions.
Despite evidence suggesting consolidation of urban form can mitigate against multi-scaled environmental degradation, Yates (2001) demonstrates that Australian occupants are still in preference of detached suburban dwellings. In the late 1990’s, urban sprawl in Melbourne accounted for growth upward of two and a half times the urban equivalent. Yates (2001) suggests that contrary to national data, urban consolidation has yet to prove affordability of households. In effect, densification and the regenerative characteristics of urbanisation limit low income housing and can raise rents due to higher construction costs (McCrea & Walters, 2012). In addition, urban spread has also gained interest by rejection of the “high-rise” building, which successively limits exposure to daylight sky creating a need for artificial lighting, causing negative mental health impacts as well as visual compromise (Zhang et al., 2012). Holden and Norland (2005) offer a continuation of this argument by suggesting that urban spread increases livability through access to private and public green space, inclusive communities and less congestion.
Contrary to Yates (2001) arguments, Goetz (2013) offers a holistic approach to household costs including the considerable transport costs linked to urban sprawl, especially for car-based residents as well as greater water consumption and associated costs for maintenance of private green spaces. Sprawling development and increased distance from central conveniences limits accessibility by major public transport services, creating a reactionary push toward car ownership and dependence, with new residential developments in Melbourne 36 kilometers from the CBD (Crawford, 2011). Newman and Kenworthy (2012); Goetz (2013) substantiate that lower density developments are mostly car dependent, increasing the extent of carbon emissions from fossil fuel reliance. Whilst the average Australian in the past half century has benefitted from the livability of a doubling in house size (Crawford, 2011), the embodied energy in order to create such building stock has been neglected, increasing gradually over the past few decades. ABS community data highlights the average size of a dwelling almost quadruples between inner city Southbank and the Templestowe area (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013a); (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013b). Furthermore, Holden and Norland (2005) propose a relationship between house size and in-use energy, concluding that detached dwellings use approximately 50% more energy than multifamily housing.
McCrea and Walters (2012) offers an alterative to the relationship between urban sprawl and livability, suggesting that such a model can lead to isolation of community members such as the elderly, constricting their mobility and accessibility to the confinements of local amenities. This is further supported by Newman (2006) who reasons over half the population of Australia is unable to drive due to age, disability and income.
Australian growth, and many could argue global growth, has operated in the past half decade independent from considerations of the ecological carrying capacity of the Earth (Vella & Morad, 2011). Presently, Melbourne metropolis houses 4.3 million people over a span of 10,000 kilometers. Plan Melbourne, a strategic and visionary outline, for the growth of Melbourne, suggests that this population is set to grow to approximately 7.7 million by the year 2051 (Victoria, 2014). To maintain current average density of 430 people per square kilometer and a 60% suburban preference, Melbourne urban land area would need to increase nearly 80% in order to accommodate projected growth. Whilst it has been elucidated that a model of spread can offer greater livability with larger plot sizes, access to private green space, and increased health, such a model posses threats to environmental sustainability, creating larger ecological and social costs from infrastructure, transport, and the loss of agricultural land. It is therefore recommended that Melbourne restrain endless urban sprawl, better defines the urban growth boundary and consolidates growth within the main metropolitan area (MMA) (Whitzman, 2013).
Beattie and Haarhoff (2014) indicate that to achieve urban consolidation, such as in the area of Templestowe, with a current population around 17,000 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013b) and located North-East of Melbourne MMA be developed into a higher density, mixed-use, activity center area. To concentrate the density of this area it is recommended that redevelopment be encouraged to replace low-density detached dwellings with higher density multi-family, multi-level construction. Representing concepts by Jacobs (2002), it is suggested heritage buildings are preserved in order to inject aesthetic and social diversity, increase building stock variety and to avoid the standardization of the urban landscape. In the greater MMA of Melbourne a process of infill and compact development will aid in population growth, preventing urban sprawl. It is envisaged that transport in the area of Templestowe will increase in permeability, creating a walkable or cyclable neighbourhood for residents, with access to central Melbourne by highly improved public transit systems, eliminating car-dependence. Such recommendations align with Plan Melbourne’s proposal for 20-minute pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods. Whitzman (2013); McCrea and Walters (2012) suggest however, that such methods will not be successful without State Governments matching infrastructure commitments to service increasing populations in order to alleviate congestion and aid in intra-city mobility. Downs (2005) expands on this idea by suggesting that increased transit systems to promote ridership alone is not sufficient, and a complete transport redesign is necessary to avoid the consequences outlined by McCrea and Walters (2012).
Yates (2001) argument surrounding resistance of the Australian occupant to adopt multi-storey housing concepts is substantiated further by Downs (2005), who demonstrates that residential home owners will be reluctant to permit high density housing in fear of decreasing market values. Downs (2005) further illustrates that the implementation of increasing density in existing neighbourhoods, such as Templestowe in the present study, is ‘very unlikely.’ In order to support future population growth whilst maintaining sustainable development it is therefore suggested that implementation must be facilitated at a State Government level, as public participation at Local Government scale may inhibit consolidation planning being pursued into action.
Research into the implementation of consolidation elucidates that this model is not without pitfalls. Walsh et al. (2005) demonstrations that restorations efforts towards the health of urban streams can be successful given adequate retrofitting of stormwater management systems coupled with community education to induce behavioural changes to water resource management. To counteract the findings by Searle (2004) and improve perviousness within urban communities, a solution inspired by Le Corbusier (Hall, 2000), is the addition of green-pockets of open space surrounding higher density built form to relieve pressure on water management systems. Additionally, to combat positive feedback in association with energy use and urban warming (Kennedy et al., 2007), it is recommended that Plan Melbourne’s proposal to concentrate efforts on Dandenong’s Cogeneration Precinct Energy Project is prioritised in order to produce low-carbon electricity and thermal heating and cooling.
It is lastly recommended that government policies be configured to offer tax incentives for investment into new green-building technologies as well as subsidies for urbanites to better manage sustainable resource usage (Newman, 2010). It is believed that this coupled with claims made by Glaeser (2011) that densification generates creative partnerships and answers to global issues, will produce a forward-thinking, solutions-based urban Melbourne community.
The present study provides some interesting insights into future Melbourne planning but is not immune to limitations. Whilst the planning options of consolidation and spread have been examined, Holden and Norland (2005) offer an alternative solution by the means of decentralised concentration, and could be an area for consideration in the context of Melbourne. Whilst Plan Melbourne offers correlating solutions to the projected population growth as this study does, it is important, as Downs (2005) suggests, to put into development such theories prior to increased population influx.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013a). National Regional Profile: Southbank (Statistical Area Level 2) - Population/People (cat. no. 206041126) from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@nrp.nsf/Previousproducts/206041126Population/People12007-2011?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=206041126&issue=2007-2011&num=&view=
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013b). National Regional Profile: Templestowe (Statistical Area Level 2) - Population/People (cat. no. 207021159). from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@nrp.nsf/Previousproducts/207021159Population/People12007-2011?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=207021159&issue=2007-2011&num=&view=
Beattie, L., & Haarhoff, E. (2014). Delivering quality urban consolidation on the urban fringe: A case study of University Hill, Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, 7(4), 329-342.
Crawford, R. (2011, 30 May). Inner city housing more energy efficient than 7 star suburban homes: study. The Melbourne Newsroom. Retrieved from http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/n-533
Downs, A. (2005). Smart Growth: Why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), 367-378.
FindLotSize.com. (2014). Map Measurement of area around templestowe. Retrieved 18/10/2014, 2014, from http://findlotsize.com/?place=templestowe&submit=Go&r=e
Glaeser, E. (2011). Engines of Innovation. Scientific American, 305(3), 50-55.
Goetz, A. (2013). Suburban Sprawl or Urban Centres: Tensions and Contradictions of Smart Growth Approaches in Denver, Colorado. Urban Studies, 50(11), 2178-2195. doi: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/by/year
Hall, P. (2000). The centenary of modern planning (Chapter 2): E&FN Spon.
Holden, E., & Norland, I. (2005). Three challenges for the compact city as a sustainable urban form: Household consumption of energy and transport in eight residential areas in the greater Oslo Region. Urban Studies, 42(12), 2145-2166. doi: 10.1080/00420980500332064
Jacobs, J. (2002). The death and life of great American cities / Jane Jacobs: New York : Random House, 2002.
Jankovic, V., & Hebbert, M. (2012). Hidden climate change - urban meteorology and the scales of real weather. Climatic Change(1), 23.
Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J., & Engel-Yan, J. (2007). The Changing Metabolism of Cities. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(2), 43-59.
McCrea, R., & Walters, P. (2012). Impacts of Urban Consolidation on Urban Liveability: Comparing an Inner and Outer Suburb in Brisbane, Australia. Housing, Theory & Society, 29(2), 190-206. doi: 10.1080/14036096.2011.641261
Newman, P. (2006). The environmental impact of cities. ENVIRONMENT AND URBANIZATION, 18(2), 275-295.
Newman, P. (2010). Sustainable Cities of the Future: the Behavior Change Driver. Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 11(1), 7-10.
Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (2012). Urban Sustainability and Automobile Dependence in an Australian Context (pp. 227). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Oke, T. R. (1997). Urban climates and global environmental change (Chapter 21). London: Routledge.
Searle, G. (2004). The limits to urban consolidation. Australian Planner, 41(1), 42-48. doi: 10.1080/07293682.2004.9982332
Vella, A., & Morad, M. (2011). Taming the metropolis: Revisiting the prospect of achieving compact sustainable cities. Local Economy (Sage Publications, Ltd.), 26(1), 52.
Victoria, T. S. o. (2014). Plan melbourne - Metropolitan Planning Strategy. 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne, Victoria 3000: Victorian Government Retrieved from http://issuu.com/planmelbourne/docs/plan_melbourne_-_may_2014.
Walsh, C. J., Roy, A. H., Feminella, J. W., Cottingham, P. D., Groffman, P. M., & Morgan, R. P. (2005). The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Bethological Society, 24(3), 706-723.
Whitzman, C. (2013, 26 October). How to make Melbourne even more marvellous. The Age, p. 3. Retrieved from https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgov&AN=edsgcl.346877047&site=eds-live&scope=site
Yates, J. (2001). The rhetoric and reality of housing choice: The role of urban consolidation. Urban Policy & Research, 19(4), 491.
Zhang, J., Heng, C. K., Malone-Lee, L. C., Hii, D. J. C., Janssen, P., Leung, K. S., & Tan, B. K. (2012). Evaluating environmental implications of density: A comparative case study on the relationship between density, urban block typology and sky exposure. AUTOMATION IN CONSTRUCTION, 22, 90-101. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.011