<html><body>
Melbourne needs high quality mixed use employment precincts now more than ever.

Land use zoning in Australia has traditionally been used to separate activities, often based on the idea that residential, commercial and manufacturing activities are inherently incompatible.

In the new economy, this no longer holds true. In fact, it’s the opposite – many of the new economy jobs thrive on mixed-use, diversity and amenity. For a long time we have needed a zone which allows says a genuine mix of land uses to co-locate.

This is what the new Commercial 3 zone is intended to achieve.

Commercial 3 – a zone for creative industries, small manufacturers and startups.

The Commercial 3 zone is essentially a mixed-use employment zone which is intended to facilitate the establishment and growth of creative industries, small manufacturers and startup businesses. It prioritises particular uses that form part of the emerging economy (including new models of industrial, commercial/office and certain other employment-generating uses).

The nature of businesses operating within the emerging economy is much more diverse than in the past, which is why the Commercial 3 Zone provides for a wide diversity as ‘as of right’ uses. This includes arts and craft centres, education centres, home based business, certain types of Industry, manufacturing sales, markets, offices, and research centres.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public//pictures/article-images/younghusband.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Younghusband Woolstore, Kensington - image: supplied"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="414" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files//styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/younghusband.jpg?itok=Fh7pBhO-" title="Younghusband Woolstore, Kensington - image: supplied" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Younghusband Woolstore, Kensington - image: supplied</figcaption></figure>The zone also allows complementary uses (including accommodation, small-scale retailing, places of assembly, and warehouses) that have the potential to contribute to the amenity and economic vibrancy of the locality. Floor area thresholds have been applied to these uses to reflect their role as small-scale activities within a mixed use employment context. Examples include:

<ul>
<li>
	Cafés, restaurants or bars can be established in this zone without the need for a planning permit, so long as they are 150sqm or less in floor area – a planning permit is required for larger premises.
	</li>
	<li>
	Activities like cabinetmaking, bakeries and smallgoods manufacturing can establish without the need for a planning permit, as can other industrial uses subject to satisfying certain buffer requirements.
	</li>
	<li>
	A Place of Assembly can be established in this zone without the need for a planning permit, so long as it is 200sqm or less – a planning permit is required for larger premises.
	</li>
	<li>
	A Shop of up to 200sqm and a warehouse of up to 500sqm can establish, subject to a planning permit being granted.
	</li>
</ul>
Planning permission can also be sought for dwellings and certain other types of residential buildings in the zone. However, the combined gross floor area of such uses must not exceed 35% of the combined gross floor area of all buildings on the lot.

It is possible for the Planning Authority to vary this percentage up or down via a schedule to this zone. However, the dwelling/residential building percentage can only be varied upwards to a maximum of 50%.

The intent of permitting these uses on a conditional basis is to complement economic activity and allow a genuine mix of uses to establish over time, but to also ensure that such uses do not end up displacing industrial, and commercial/office uses from such areas.

Of course, Melbourne’s existing industrial and commercial zones already accommodate many significant and important industries, a number of which depend upon separation from sensitive uses in order to continue their operations. In many instances, the best outcome will be to retain these areas in their existing zone.

In other instances, it will be a judgement call as to whether the ‘reverse amenity’ decision guidelines contained within the Commercial 3 zone are adequate enough to ensure that existing economic activities are not displaced by new sensitive uses. This will be an important factor in deciding whether to apply the Commercial 3 zone to an area or not.

Why do we need a new zone ?

The Australian economy and the way people perform work within it are changing radically. The line between ‘home’, work’ and ‘leisure’ is blurred and both employees and companies alike are seeking maximum flexibility with how work gets done. But our current zones don’t cater well for these changes.

Contemporary employment precincts and even individual developments will need to cater for the diversity and flexibility that businesses and workers are seeking. They need to incorporate a mix of activities such as bars, restaurants, recreational facilities, etc. as well as provide health, childcare, education and other services. In some instances, a precinct will also benefit from the inclusion of some forms of accommodation, to provide live-work opportunities and to create a level of vibrancy needed to support creative industries and associated activities.

The rapid rise of coworking in Melbourne is an obvious response to these changing workplace trends. But there are many other innovative models emerging as well, including lifestyle oriented workspaces, integrated living/working spaces artisan manufacturing spaces and a variety of creative spaces and cultural venue. You can read more about these models in Echelon’s <a href="http://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/unlocking-the-economy">report</a> on Melbourne’s enterprise areas.

All of these models are variants of a broader theme of mixed use and flexible buildings.

Even the scale and nature of manufacturing has begun to change. Today a single person can design produce and sell goods from their home, using digital design, printing, fabrication, and online marketing and sales platforms. There are far fewer reasons to separate where we live, work and play than there was in the past industrial eras.

This is why we need a new zone - to cater for a wide range of uses and to even allow for accommodation as part of the mix but in a way that does not displace employment activities.

Where would the commercial 3 zone apply ?

Melbourne is fortunate to have significant tracts of industrial and commercial zoned located near transport infrastructure in our inner and middle suburbs. These areas typically comprise older style buildings that have for many years offered affordable accommodation for a wide range of commercial and cultural activities, ranging from small scale manufacturing activities through to low-rent office and production spaces.   

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public//pictures/article-images/current_employment_zones.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Current employment zones in inner Melbourne - image: supplied"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="416" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files//styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/current_employment_zones.jpg?itok=bM7GfwmN" title="Current employment zones in inner Melbourne - image: supplied" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Current employment zones in inner Melbourne - image: supplied</figcaption></figure>Far from being economically redundant, these areas are perfect locations for the establishment and growth of new enterprises. So they are a valuable economic resource for our city, complementing the role of the Central City and Activity Centres. We need to nurture economic growth within them.

These areas have good bones that can play an important role in the incubation of creative industries, small batch manufacturing and startup companies.

Most of these areas are currently zoned Industrial, Commercial 2 or Mixed Use. None of these existing zones properly facilitate true mixed-use development. The Commercial 3 zone can be applied to locations that are considered to be well suited to growing new economy jobs – places that have a stock of relatively affordable buildings, are close to public transport, and are close to skilled workers and a large urban market of consumers.

Not every existing industrial or commercial area will be suitable for the Commercial 3 zone. In many instances, the best strategy for retaining or creating low-cost workspace for creative industries might be to simply leave the land in an industrial zone.

Where to next ?

The task ahead is for local Councils to determine whether and where to apply the Commercial 3 to land within their municipality. This decision needs to be informed by an assessment of the ongoing suitability of established industrial and commercial areas for different types of employment purposes, and whether there are locations where the Commercial 3 zone might facilitate growth in creative industries, etc.

Determining whether or not to permit residential use as part of the land use mix in a Commercial 3 zone will be the most challenging part of the equation for Councils to address. It won’t be appropriate to allow housing in every Commercial 3 precinct, but equally, not every employment precincts need to be set aside for single-use purpos­es. Achieving a mix of uses is a large part of what drives the amenity and dynamics that make places attractive for business.

However, residential uses are only intended to be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it will complement the employment and economic development focus of the zone. A thorough analysis of the potential commercial and land use impact of residential use will need to inform the strategic justification for any future proposals.

Melbourne and Victoria need high quality mixed use employment precincts now more than ever. The Commercial 3 zone is an innovative new tool to provide flexibility for a wide range of small scale activities to co-locate with office and light industrial activities.

It is a much-needed and very welcome new tool to help create foster and grow creative industry in this State.

Mark Woodland is a director of <a href="https://www.echelonplanning.com.au">Echelon Planning</a> and provided advice to the Victorian Government on emerging employment trends and the case for creating a new commercial zone to foster growth of creative industries and mixed use precincts. A copy of the report ‘Melbourne’s Enterprise Areas’ (Echelon, 2018) can be downloaded at <a href="https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/unlocking-the-economy">planning.vic.gov.au</a>.

Lead image credit: Live/work development in <a href="http://www.bararchitekten.de/projects/oderberger">Berlin</a>.
</body></html>

markwoodland

Victoria's Commercial 3 – a new zone for mixed use and creative industries

<html><body>
What happens when the Prarie-Dogs abandon their cubicles?

Melbourne is experiencing an industrial revolution. Automation, globalisation and collaboration are profoundly changing the nature of work, including how and where we work. Yet the debate over Melbourne’s future planning barely gives any attention to these changes, or their implications for how our city works.

This article discusses these trends, as well as the positive role that collaborative work spaces are playing in adapting our city’s workforce to rapid change.

<h2>The rapid growth of freelancing</h2>

By 2020, freelancers are expected make up 40 percent of the entire Australian workforce. It’s a global trend - specialisation underpins today’s economy, and the unbundling of business functions and supply chains has created a substantial employment market where increasingly people act as independent contractors.

Today, more and more workers are engaged in flexible work (sometimes by choice, often by circumstance). The ‘portfolio career’ is now common and collaboration with other independent contractors to get things done is the new norm for many skilled workers.

Already, around 30% of Australia’s workforce is engaged in flexible work, including moonlighting, multiple part time and casual roles and independent contracting.

Technology is a driving factor - it is displacing many jobs but it is also making being a self-employed global worker easier than ever. Think of platforms such as 99designs, Freelancer, Uber and Airtasker, where the buyer and sellers of skills and services can interact instantaneously and at low cost. The ‘sharing’ or ‘on-demand’ economy, and ‘peer to peer capitalism’ are the new buzzwords.

So the barriers to trying new ideas and starting new businesses are lower than ever, and technology provides greater flexibility to work when and how you want.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/prentice2.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Prentice Street Studio, Brunswick"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="386" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/prentice2.jpg?itok=r63UJO2b" title="Prentice Street Studio, Brunswick" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Prentice Street Studio, Brunswick</figcaption></figure><h2>New work places for the self-employed</h2>

But I have been wondering for some time, where do all of these freelancers and self-employed people work from, and how do they collaborate with one another? 

Not every freelancer works from home or collaborates online. Many need to be amongst other people for social contact, intellectual stimulation and networking. Many startups and small businesses thrive in clusters on the fringes of the Sydney and Melbourne CBDs. It is becoming obvious why.

Rental costs are only part of the answer, and in fact in many instances they are secondary to factors like flexibility, amenity and culture. Small businesses and freelancers are increasingly seeking out neighbourhods that are accessible, have high amenity, and good IT services. Workers want to be close to home, social and recreational activities, and not spend hours on end stuck on public transport or freeways.

Hubs create attractive social communities – they are places where workers can feel part of a wider community. All work has a social element to it, which is why people will always seek out work spaces which create opportunities to interact with others.

The problem is that in many suburbs there are simply no suitable office accommodation options.

The conventional Melbourne office market doesn’t cater well to the needs of startups and small businesses. Even where it exists, the typical office space is much larger that a sole-trader or small company needs, and the fitouts usually comprise uninspiring partitions and cubicles. Commercial leases are typically long term and inflexible and if refurbishment is required (it usually is) the fitout costs are expensive.

Co-working spaces overcome all of these issues, and they are increasingly becoming the workspace of choice for small businesses and freelancers.

<h2>The rapid rise of co-working</h2>

The co-work model is no longer merely the domain of creative artists and millennial startups. In fact it has become a big real estate deal across the globe.

The world’s largest provider of co-work spaces (WeWork) was founded less than six years ago it is already valued as a $16 billion business. WeWork already has over 54 co-working locations across the U.S. and Europe. It has plans to expand to reach every continent (except Antarctica) by the end of 2017, and WeWork will establish its first site in Melbourne in coming months.

WeWork have clearly worked out that there is a very sizeable gap in how the real estate market caters for small business, right across the globe. Companies like GPT, Regus and Dexus are now following in their footsteps.

But it’s not just the global real estate entrepeneurs who have seen the gap. Australia has recorded the highest growth of co-working spaces in the world (per capita). Knight Frank Research have identified that Melbourne now has more than 170 co-working spaces, and that there has been a 940% rate of growth in such spaces since 2013.

With niches ranging from technology, the arts and even (controversially) single-sex office studios, these shared-workspaces are literally the incubators of new work models for the future economy.

<h2>The Prentice Street Studios</h2>

Echelon Planning has established its own co-work space (<a href="http://www.prenticestudios.com.au/">www.prenticestudios.com.au</a>). We are small but growing consultancy business, and we were seeking a work environment that offered flexibility, high amenity and a strong identity. The conventional office rental market was nothing short of depressing, and so we decided to create our own space.

It’s a refurbished 1970’s warehouse in Brunswick, right near the train station. It’s got lots of light, lots of greenery, NBN, and a fantastic interior designed by Tonya Hinde (now with Billard Leece Partnership). The studio aesthetic is well above the usual ramshackle inner city warehouse vibe, and it so much more charm and personality than the typical ‘prarie-dog cubicle’ experience.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/prentice_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Prentice Street Studio, Brunswick"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="386" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/prentice_1.jpg?itok=tVMPogtl" title="Prentice Street Studio, Brunswick" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Prentice Street Studio, Brunswick</figcaption></figure> 

The conventional wisdom is that there is limited demand for office space in the suburbs. Our experience in the inner-north at least is that there is demand, but there simply hasn’t been a supply of suitable office space to cater for the needs of people seeking workspaces.

The Prentice Street studio is filling a gap in the local office market. In the short few months since the Studio opened its doors, we have fielded a steady stream of inquiries from self-employed and small businesses people looking for a local alternative to the CBD or the home office. There is no shortage of demand but it is highly localised to the demographics of the region, so outside of a CBD setting it’s not such a visible choice for investors seeking a quick return on their investment.

Delivering ‘new ideas for old buildings' is more expensive and complicated than it should be. Our experience has been that it can only be achieved on a very lean business model, and it requires a particular expertise, local knowledge and determination in order to achieve results.

<h2>The city-planning implications of the co-work revolution</h2>

The Grattan Institute wrote in 2013 that the options for creating a more productive Melbourne were to bring jobs closer to people, bring people closer to jobs, or improve transport links between the two. It argued that the best option was to bring people closer to jobs. Whilst I certainly agree that more housing is needed in Melbourne’s established areas, much more could be done to facilitate businesses in established areas.

Greater Melbourne is forecast to have an additional 800,000 jobs in the coming 15 years. So where and how will the floorspace come from to meet these needs? I doubt that it will all be in the CBD, Docklands or Fishermans Bend.

If the vision of 20-minute neighbourhoods is to be realised, then Melbourne needs more work-spaces distributed across our city. The emergence of co-work spaces across inner Melbourne has been an organic response to an unmet demand for new workplace options. Knight Frank estimate that 24 new co-working spaces have opened in the past 12 months alone. These facilities offer a type of workspace that simply didn’t exist in Melbourne’s inner suburbs a few years ago.

Many co-work spaces establish in industrial areas or in older commercial spaces, where the rents are affordable. These locations are usually hotspots for urban renewal and land rezoning. Strong demand for housing typically displaces commercial floorspace in such situations.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/map.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Inner Melbourne has substantial older areas of industrial land which are well suited for employment-generating activities (map source – Echelon Planning)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="417" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/map.jpg?itok=25ZkQJ81" title="Inner Melbourne has substantial older areas of industrial land which are well suited for employment-generating activities (map source – Echelon Planning)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Inner Melbourne has substantial older areas of industrial land which are well suited for employment-generating activities (map source – Echelon Planning)</figcaption></figure> 

This is where planning can play a critical role. The challenge is for the planning system to find the right balance between regulation and facilitation:

<ul>
<li>
	Employment land should be retained where there is a reasonable prospect that it will be renewed to foster business and jobs growth.
	</li>
	<li>
	Not all employment precincts need to be set aside for single-use purposes. Achieving a mix of uses is a large part of what drives the amenity and dynamics that make places attractive for business. Achieving mixed use via vertical zoning can be used to create new commercial floorpsace, but only in locations that can sustain such activities. Such strategies should be used judiciously as there are many locations will not have the level of accessibility or amenity needed to sustain commercial activity.
	</li>
	<li>
	There are many planning and building regulations that act as barriers to the reuse of existing buildings for co-work purposes. These should be reviewed and removed wherever possible.
	</li>
	<li>
	Having an identifiable ‘place for business’ across our suburbs will become increasingly important. This requires urban planning to respond to the finer grained trends happening in the local property market and having a nuanced approach to land zoning, planning policies and regulations.
	</li>
	<li>
	At a local level, local Councils play an important role in bringing local business together via ‘placemaking’ programs and economic development initiatives.
	</li>
</ul>
Co-working is a relatively new business model that is very different to the conventional office market. It is one that deserves to be better understood because it offers a substantial potential to foster the growth of small business in a variety of metropolitan and even regional locations.

Just like Uber is disrupting transport systems, companies like WeWork look set to disrupt the real estate market. The co-work model is not exclusive domain of large development companies. It has its origins within the start-up community, and it is relatively accessible to smaller developers, investors and businesses alike.

The Prentice St Studio just one success story amongst many – it is wonderful workspace that enables like-minded individuals to work in a dynamic, energetic and collaborative environment. I look forward to city planning better embracing and supporting the growth of co-work spaces like ours right across Melbourne in the coming years.

Mark Woodland is a director of <a href="https://www.echelonplanning.com.au/">Echelon Planning</a>.
</body></html>

Retaining and creating spaces for the collaborative work revolution

<html><body>
The Victorian Government has recently released a series of detailed reports to inform the ‘Managing Residential Development’ Advisory Committee submissions process. They raise many important questions not only about the residential zones but the wider issue of ‘who and what are we planning for’ over the coming decade and beyond.

What follows is a summary of some of the more attention grabbing parts of the reports, together with our own observations about the bigger picture issues that the forthcoming Advisory Committee might need to address.

<h2>Urban redevelopment is finally a dominant part of Melbourne's housing supply</h2>

According to the State of Play report:

<ul>
<li>Redevelopment of exiting commercial, mixed use and former industrial areas has accounted for 42% of Melbourne’s housing supply in recent years. This includes major redevelopment sites identified in the Urban Development Program, as well as land within Commercial, Mixed Use, Capital City, Docklands and various Priority Development/Comprehensive Development zones.</li>
	<li>Melbourne’s growth areas have provided around 31% of the annual new housing supply over the past four years. This is a much lower share than in previous periods.</li>
	<li>Residential infill development still provided for around 25% of Melbourne’s overall housing supply over the past four years. This remains a vital part of the housing diversity and affordability equation for our city.</li>
</ul>
After years of debate, urban consolidation is now writ large in Melbourne’s streets and suburbs. It appears set to remain a major part of our city’s future growth for decades to come.

The State of Play reports provide a very useful snapshot of where higher residential development is currently permitted under residential and other zones across Melbourne. Only about 5 percent of land in metropolitan Melbourne is included within zones that support higher density development.

This includes the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ), Capital City Zone, Commercial 1, Activity Centre and Mixed Use zone.

At the other end of the spectrum, of all the zones that allow for residential (including commercial) almost 13 percent of residential land supply in metropolitan Melbourne is included within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ).

There are also some significant differences in how residential land across Melbourne is zoned - notably, 30 percent of land in the eastern metropolitan region is included within the NRZ, compared with 7.4% in Melbourne’s western region. Some will argue that this reflects historic and environmental differences between Melbourne’s east and west, but many others will have a different interpretation.

<h2>What do we know about the early impact of the new residential zones?</h2>

The State of Play report notes that it is too early to track the impacts of the new zones on development trends, because much of the recent development are based on planning approvals that pre-date their implementation. It rather tactfully notes that:

<blockquote>
It is possible that the supply of new medium density dwellings in [Boroondara, Glen Eira and Bayside] will decline in response to the NRZ and while this is unlikely to generate supply impacts of metropolitan significance, at a local level this might add to issues of housing diversity, choice and price…
</blockquote>

The report also notes that whilst the mandatory nature of the new residential zones fundamentally increases certainty over the likely development outcomes, it may also have unintended consequences, for example by limiting the development potential of larger lots and impacting on the pitch of roofs (for example).

<h2>The challenges facing planning for residential growth in Melbourne</h2>

“Alice: Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?

Cheshire Cat: That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.

Alice: I don’t much care where.

Cheshire Cat: Then it doesn’t much matter which way you go.”

What is the overall housing policy that residential zone reform is intended to achieve?

The current State planning policy contains some general directions for facilitating housing growth near services and public transport, and it also requires planning to consider Victorian Government population projections (Victoria in Future). The big question right now is whether or not the zone reforms are expected to contribute towards realising the 70% infill/30% growth area housing distribution target identified in the Plan Melbourne Refresh.

What might a 70/30 housing target mean for realising infill development?

VIF 2015 suggests that Melbourne will need an additional 388,000 new homes in the next decade. Under a 70/30 policy, this equates to almost 272,000 homes being built in established areas.

The latest Urban Development Program (2015) suggests that a staggering 128,000 dwellings will be constructed on major residential redevelopment projects (i.e. those yielding 10 dwellings or more) over the next two years alone (notably, this is almost double what the 2014 UDP estimates for the same period). But even with this level of development, a further 144,000 homes will still need to be built in Melbourne’s established areas between 2016 and 2026.

The Advisory Committee will therefore need to turn its mind to how planning schemes across Melbourne can actively facilitate this scale of change, whilst still addressing heritage, character, environmental and other factors.

Local population forecasts have their limits.

Councils will often argue that their housing strategies are justified because they demonstrate a capacity to meet forecast housing needs. At face value, this seems reasonable. However, what rarely gets discussed is the extent to which municipal forecasts are ‘self-fulfilling’ because of the housing capacity assumptions that they are based on in the first place.

It is refreshing to see this point acknowledged in the Residential Zone State Of Play report:

<blockquote>
At a metropolitan scale, Victoria in Future projections rely on demographic factors such as births, deaths and migration, and the link to household growth to explain expected demand for new dwellings. However, at the municipal and suburban level, the distribution of future population growth is determined by the relationship between strong overall housing demand and knowledge of locations that are expected to add new dwellings.

Population growth is, therefore, projected to be the strongest in locations where the most number of dwellings can be accommodated. These locations include sites such as disused industrial land, and Melbourne’s Central Subregion where development occurs at the greatest densities.
</blockquote>

In other words, municipal-scale population forecasts are heavily influenced by the assumptions made about the capacity for new housing growth at the local level. If it is assumed that an area doesn’t have capacity, then the metropolitan distribution of population growth to that area will be limited by such assumptions.

More analysis of housing capacity is needed to inform housing plans and zone reform.

Whilst Echelon Planning would debate various aspects of the recent ‘Melbourne at 8 million’ report (RMIT, October 2015), I wholeheartedly agree with its authors that more work is required at the metropolitan and local level to understand housing capacity in different parts of our city.

I think that the review of residential development frameworks should be informed by a better understanding of housing capacity in different locations.

The RMIT report provides a useful starting point for such an analysis. There is a clear role for the Victorian Government to lead such a process, and I suspect that much of the data needed to underpin this sort of analysis already exists within State and local government.

We need to look beyond just the residential zones.

Much of Melbourne’s future housing growth will occur in activity centres, commercial mixed use and former industrial areas. Again, it will be critical to understand the capacity of these areas to accommodate future housing growth.

The planning frameworks for these locations should enable higher densities – if the desire to ‘protect the suburbs’ prevails then it will be more important than ever to avoid placing onerous height restrictions on local activity centres and larger infill sites.

Zoning controls should more clearly give effect to policy outcomes.

It is clear that the rollout of the new residential zones has already created a myriad of zones and schedules that threaten to rival the labrynthine zones of the 1980’s ‘pre-VPP’ era.

The general housing types and densities permitted within each zone should be clear, and getting approval for ‘complying’ development should be streamlined. It also seems obvious to say that if land is included in a General Residential Zone then the resulting development should not end up resembling what might be permitted under the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Footnote: Suggested improvements to the Residential Zones.

The Victorian Government has also identified a list of 82 possible improvements to the residential zones. These are well worth reading, and submitters might well wish to make comment about specific suggestions contained within this list.

For further details go to:

<a href="http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/panels-and-committees/current-panels-and-committees/managing-residential-development">http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/panels-and-committees/current-panels-and-committees/managing-residential-development</a>

Submissions on the review close on Monday 29th February.

Mark Woodland is Director at <a href="http://echelonplanning.com.au/">Echelon Planning</a>, a Brunswick-based boutique urban planning consultancy.
</body></html>

Melbourne’s residential development: what’s really going on?

<html><body>
The ‘six pack’ flat and all of its variants have consistently provided an affordable alternative to the detached house in suburban Melbourne for over 80 years. All signs point to contemporary versions of the traditional ‘flat’ playing an essential role in meeting future housing needs.

If Melbourne is to cope with the sort of growth forecast in the coming 20 years, then more people will need to embrace apartment living. Around one-third of our future housing need is expected to be in our suburbs, so for many people, these needs will be best met by low-rise apartments in middle and even outer suburban Melbourne.

Yet the job of getting on with delivering more suburban apartments seems to have been side-stepped in the rush to avoid the sort of suburban backlash that caused political havoc in the mid 2000’s.

Housing supply in Melbourne’s established suburbs will need to move beyond townhouses and a few apartments in shopping centres. We need to find a way to deliver new forms of well-designed low-rise flats for the 21st century.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/sub_flat_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Source: Domain"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="386" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/sub_flat_1.jpg?itok=pUKM3Y5g" title="Source: Domain" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Source: <a href="http://b.domainstatic.com.au/w800-h533-2011776625_2_pi_150315_062818">Domain</a></figcaption></figure><h2>Melbourne’s rich history of flat design</h2>

Melburnians have a largely unheralded history of living in flats. In the pre-war era, flats were the dwelling of choice for wealthy bohemians looking for an alternative to the terrace or suburban bungalow.

The Art-Deco ‘garden flat' with its central courtyard and separate entrances became somewhat of a Melbourne design signature. The pre-war era saw many notable flat complexes constructed, most of which are now prized for their architectural quality and distinctive interiors.

The 1950's and 60’s brought on a flat boom, and the advent of the ubiquitous ‘six pack’ flat. The Uniform Building Regulations and municipal planning controls in the 1950’s led to the creation of the six pack typology which delivered the largest yield from the permitted building envelopes.

Whilst many regard them as ugly ducklings, these flats provided a valuable source of affordable housing in transport and job-rich locations across inner and Middle Melbourne in the post war ‘long boom’.

The common failings of the six pack were less about their interior design than their relationship to adjoining buildings, backyards and streetscapes. They took their amenity from the neighbours gardens and the ground plane was largely dedicated to car access and parking. These narrow corridors of land along boundaries provided basic daylight access and the minimum permissible separation from neighbours.

Despite these stark design shortcomings, walk-ups provided very affordable rental accommodation for migrants, low income families and young adults. In fact they continue to provide an important supply of affordable housing in suburbs that would otherwise be completely out of reach of low and middle income earners.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/sub_flat_2.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Source: REA Media"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="435" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/sub_flat_2.jpg?itok=kGG_4nrI" title="Source: REA Media" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Source: <a href="http://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-vic-eaglemont-118996819">REA Media</a></figcaption></figure><h2>The demise of the Six-Pack</h2>

The collapse in the flat market in the late 1970’s was partly, but not entirely, driven by public backlash and more restrictive planning controls. Economics were also at play, as housing demand by baby boomers weakened, interest rates increased and the price of land in inner Melbourne escalated.

The early 1990’s saw the creation of new residential design codes to facilitate low-rise residential development across Melbourne’s suburbs. These codes re-shaped medium density housing typologies across suburban Melbourne. The walk up flat disappeared and was replaced by one and two storey townhouse developments.

Well-heeled suburbs like Camberwell and Balwyn experienced a rapid growth in townhouses, which then led to the ‘Save Our Suburbs’ backlash has politicised residential development ever since.

Resident opposition to infill development saw many Councils codify neighbourhood character policies in their planning schemes. These policies were viewed sceptically by many as a tool to limit urban consolidation, or a “code for keeping things as they are … the ethos is exclusionary and anti-change.”[1]

The debate over what the term neighbourhood character means in the context of a rapidly growing city continues to this day.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/sub_flat_3.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Source: Homehound"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="435" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/sub_flat_3.jpg?itok=BEFSTCWV" title="Source: Homehound" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Source: <a href="http://photos.homehound.com.au/SL2/24/305591/26476683_09_x.jpg">Homehound</a></figcaption></figure><h2>New suburban flats for the 21st Century</h2>

Low-rise apartments are needed in accessible locations right across suburban Melbourne. They make a great contribution towards housing diversity, affordability and urban consolidation – they can deliver densities of 45-60 dwellings/ha whereas townhouses typically yield circa 30 dwellings/ha.

Applying a paradigm of preserving neighbourhood character everywhere simply won’t deliver the housing outcomes we need. Residential zoning along transport corridors, around shopping centres and train stations needs to actively facilitate contemporary apartment typologies, and it’s time we began to simply accept the fact that these locations will change in character as part of Melbourne’s evolution.

If we are to avoid the public backlash against flats of in the 1960s then a nuanced approach is needed to the design of the modern flat. There are plenty of excellent contemporary examples to be found across Melbourne.

Contemporary suburban flat developments will necessarily be multi-storey buildings. They will be modestly taller than the traditional suburban bungalow, and they will not conform to narrow definitions of ‘existing neighbourhood character'. They will be better designed and better neighbours than their 1970's antecedents.

There is an urgent need to revisit zoning across suburban Melbourne to promote more low-rise apartments in accessible locations, as well as focusing our collective efforts on design issues such as:

<ul>
<li>Promoting lot consolidation to enable better integrated flat designs;</li>
	<li>Promoting quality internal design of apartments rather than the obsessing over the size of apartments;</li>
	<li>Providing shared facilities such as common gardens, laundries, car-share schemes, dining facilities, rooftop decks, etc.;</li>
	<li>Providing less on-site parking in locations well served by other transport options;</li>
	<li>Greater use of basement and semi- basement parking to free up ground space for built form and greenery;</li>
	<li>Promoting the use of durable, low maintenance construction materials;</li>
	<li>Improving the environmental performance of dwellings.</li>
</ul>
I think that Melbourne would be better off if the community at large were more concerned with these design challenges rather than attempting to shoehorn new apartment designs into rigidly defined notions of ‘existing suburban character’.

[1] An expression used by the developer of the award winning St Leonard apartments (St Kilda) at the time of Rescode’s release in 2001.

Mark Woodland is a director of <a href="http://echelonplanning.com.au/">Echelon Planning</a>.
</body></html>

Mark Woodland

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News