David Lock Associates

<html><body>
Food for thought today as a follow-up piece to yesterday's article which highlighted <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/an-icon-complete">Icon St Kilda's completion</a>. The apartment tower which now sits atop St Kilda Junction is one of many new apartment projects (both completed and under construction) surrounding the Junction.

As the area grows in popularity, the Junction itself looks to be slipping into obscurity with the dated urban realm anything but inviting. With this in mind, Town Planning and Urban Design firm David Lock Associates instigated a design competition with the aim of reinvigorating St Kilda Junction.

Now complete, the competition dubbed <a href="http://www.dlaaust.com/re-imagine/">Re:imagine the Junction</a> sought innovative design solutions from final year, masters and post graduate planning, urban design and architecture students from Australian Universities.

<blockquote>
This competition is about new inner-urban futures – the Future City set within an historic urban fabric. A future fabric that not only meets 21st Century needs but also heals previous injuries inflicted on Melbourne's inner-urban inheritance.

Around 1970, the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works eviscerated central St Kilda. The heart of St Kilda Junction was ripped out. St Kilda’s High Street shopping spine, stretching south, was hacked away and discarded.

The wound has never healed. St Kilda Junction and old High Street are now hardly more than soulless, community-dividing traffic sewers.

The Re:imagine the Junction competition will aim to re-monumentalise St Kilda Junction, and restore St Kilda Rd South (the former High St) and the Princes Highway as the living backbone of the suburb. Not with a return to the past, but with the imposition of an ambitious future.
<cite>David Lock Associates</cite>
</blockquote>

Readers can <a href="http://www.dlaaust.com/re-imagine/student-entries/category/stage-two/">view the student entries</a> for the recently completed competition.

<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/image25_3.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="A selection of student works taken from the David Lock Associates website"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="330" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image25_3.jpg?itok=cLW9eXKA" title="A selection of student works taken from the David Lock Associates website" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>A selection of student works taken from the David Lock Associates website</figcaption></figure>Although the above designs do not conform to the real world parameters of St Kilda Junction, they do nonetheless provoke thought.

St Kilda Junction is by and large a decrepit area whose freeway-style road grade separation also doubles as a nexus between Melbourne's south east and the inner city. As more and more apartments reach completion within the area, St Kilda Junction and surrounds should in theory see a marked increase in foot traffic.

The Junction in many ways looks to be a smaller version of City Road; increased residential development while the ground plane has been neglected altogether. Both now shape as a prime candidates for new urban design ideas and extensive civil works.

<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/image20_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Can the Junction's street level pizazz match that of its skyline. Image courtesy Melbourneguy"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="404" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image20_1.jpg?itok=FGv_7U6F" title="Can the Junction's street level pizazz match that of its skyline. Image courtesy Melbourneguy" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Can the Junction's street level pizazz match that of its skyline? Image courtesy Melbourneguy</figcaption></figure>
</body></html>

silvermb

Bringing St Kilda Junction back to life?

<html><body>
By 2051 the number of households in greater Melbourne is projected to almost double from 1.59 million in 2011 to 3.11 million. We face a huge challenge to ensure there is sufficient housing to meet the needs of future households. Apartments are an important part of the housing mix.

Since 2009, Melbourne has experienced successive years of record apartment approvals and development. For the first time there are more apartments being built than houses in Melbourne’s growth areas.

With the explosion of apartments in recent years there is concern across the community with the quality of apartments being built in Victoria.

To ensure apartments are being designed to meet needs now and into the future, the Victorian Government released 'Better Apartments - A discussion paper' in May 2015 and asked for feedback on the issues raised in the discussion paper from a wide range of community, industry and other stakeholders.

Below is David Lock Associates response to the issues raised in the discussion paper:

We understand that there is concern about the quality of apartments being developed in Melbourne. However, we also understand that there is a link between amenity and cost — better amenity often (though not always) costs more to construct. This has an adverse effect on affordability and, therefore, the ability for first home-buyers to get into the market. (We note that in Sydney, where the Residential Flat Design Code stipulates minimum standards, units are currently 80 per cent more expensive than those in Melbourne.)

We believe that many people make a deliberate choice to accept a lower standard of one or more aspects of amenity when buying or renting an apartment, either because this is the only way they can afford to enter the market, or as a trade-off for a higher standard of another aspect of amenity, such as location. An obvious example of this is people who choose to live in an apartment in a converted warehouse or office building, without a balcony or car parking space, because it enables them to live in the CBD where they don’t have the financial and time costs of travel to work and entertainment. Another example is studio apartments without a separate bedroom, which provide an affordable first home option. A further example is people who choose a south-facing apartment for its view, despite the lack of solar access.

Among other things, the ability for people to choose from a wide range of housing options enables them to select housing that matches their lifestyle and financial position at different stages of their life. While a studio apartment close to the CBD may not meet someone’s needs for their whole life, it may suit their lifestyle for a period of time and may be the only way they can afford to purchase their first home.

Stipulating minimum standards for internal amenity (beyond those already contained within the National Construction Code) is likely to remove housing options at the affordable end of the market, reducing choice and lessening the proportion of people who can afford to own their own home. We consider that the NCC already precludes unacceptably sub-standard apartments, and do not believe that it is necessary for government to further restrict people’s housing choice by increasing minimum amenity standards.

However, we do believe that there needs to be a consistent standard for apartment building separation, to ensure development does not unreasonably prejudice the potential of neighbouring properties. Our view is that this standard needs to relate to the height of a building (i.e. the taller the building, the greater the separation), and have the discretion to distinguish between the primary orientation of an apartment and the aspect from ‘secondary’ habitable rooms such as bedrooms and non-habitable rooms such as bathrooms. It should also have the discretion to consider the relative widths of neighbouring properties (and, therefore, their relative capacity to contribute to a shared separation), and the likelihood of a neighbouring property being redeveloped (e.g. to recognise the constraints that heritage or strata titling place on development potential).

There is also a legitimate concern that people do not fully understand the amenity standards of the apartments they are considering buying or renting, particularly with off-the-plan apartment sales. In response to this, we suggest that a rating system be developed for apartment amenity and that each apartment for sale or rent be required to have its rating explained to potential purchasers or renters. A standard set of apartment amenity criteria could be developed, so that apartments can be easily compared. For example, the size and access to natural daylight and ventilation of each room (including ceiling height), living room solar access, balcony size and solar access, energy efficiency, noise, outlook, storage, adaptability, universal accessibility, corridor daylight and ventilation, car parking and provision of communal facilities could all be rated “good”, “standard” or “poor”, based on a standard set of objective 2 criteria. At the same time, the location of the apartment in terms of its accessibility to amenities such as public transport and parks could be rated.

A rating system would ensure that potential purchasers and renters can make informed choices about apartments, without restricting the options available to them. It would also ensure that the price of apartments is closely related to their amenity, so that relatively poor apartments provide an affordable housing option.

Mark Sheppard is a Principal at <a href="http://www.dlaaust.com/">David Lock Associates</a>. This article recently appeared on the David Lock Associates website.
</body></html>

Mark Sheppard

Better apartments for the future

<html><body>
Planners and urban designers have mostly sought to increase densities in Australia’s cities. Society’s low-density love affair has brought us unending sprawl, with all its social, environmental and economic ills. Attempts to rein in our metropolises’ spreading girth and create more sustainable, liveable and economically-efficient cities have focused on strategic increases in density to support public transport use and reach viability thresholds for local amenities within walking distance.

Now, courtesy of Leanne Hodyl’s elegantly presented Churchill Fellowship report, we are being asked to consider whether densities have got too high in central Melbourne. After the raging success of the Postcode 3000 program in attracting people to live in the city centre, are we witnessing the creation of an unliveable CBD?

The problems identified in the report include poor internal amenity, poor public realm amenity, unfair constraints on the future development of neighbouring properties (‘inequitable development’) and a lack of commensurate open space and community infrastructure provision. There is no doubt that there are examples of all of these undesirable outcomes (and, of course, many examples of tall buildings that don’t cause them). The question is whether this warrants density controls.

In one of Melbourne’s many efforts to distinguish itself from Sydney, we don’t (in the main) seek to control development density, instead focusing on its form. This is because it is the siting, scale and shape of a building that most influences its amenity and that of the surroundings, rather than the floor area or the number of dwellings or people it accommodates. Insufficient internal and external daylight and sunlight, disrespect of heritage and character, visual bulk and wind are all a result of form, not density.

It is true that designing a building to avoid adverse impacts (typically through boundary setbacks) reduces its density compared with a vertical extrusion of the site to the same height. But the reverse is not necessarily true: reducing density does not automatically reduce the adverse impacts of a building. And the density of an acceptable building on one site may be quite different to the density of an acceptable building on the next, due to differing interfaces. In other words, density controls are a very blunt tool for managing the ill effects of tall buildings.

Density does have impacts independent of form — notably, demands on infrastructure and congestion of transport networks. However, this is largely a question of funding. At face value, there is merit in the notion of a density-based infrastructure contribution scheme. You want more floorspace? You provide or pay for infrastructure upgrades.

To a point, street congestion is merely an influence on character. Busy streets offer a different experience to quiet streets. Not better or worse, just different.

Ultimately, however, we need to ensure people can get around safely and efficiently. We have accepted the principle that roads will be congested at times in big cities, and the only way to provide for growth is to get more people onto alternative modes of transport (including cycling and walking). We are now beginning to see trams and cycle lanes reach critical levels of congestion too. But, like community and utility services infrastructure, this is just a funding problem. Density-based contributions can fund upgrades in public transport and cycle infrastructure.

Of course, there is an absolute limit on the space available within the street network for moving people about. And increased provision for public transport and cyclists may require more space. But we are far from wringing the last unit of movement capacity out of our wide streets. The trend of reallocating space from private cars to tram stops and cycle lanes has a long way to go before we reach their absolute limit.

So, density controls aren’t the answer. How, then, should we control tall buildings to avoid the kinds of problems beginning to afflict the CBD?

Setting the question of infrastructure aside, a leading cause of the other problems is insufficient building separation. Until now, most taller development has occurred on larger lots, separated from other taller buildings by narrower lots or through the ability to provide generous setbacks. However, changes in technology and market preference are now allowing tall buildings on small sites. The potential for such buildings to be constructed ‘cheek by jowl’ with other taller buildings and the inability of small sites to accommodate generous setbacks has been the cause of many of the issues raised in Ms Hodyl’s report.

Since most of the larger sites in the CBD have been developed, and further growth relies on the development of smaller properties, how can the ill-effects of taller buildings be avoided?

The answer is that a more sophisticated but enforceable building separation control is needed. The 24m separation sought by Clause 22.01 quite simply rules out the development of any property less than about 40m wide. This has led to it being ignored (even in situations where the neighbouring property could, in future, be developed, in which case the ‘first come first served’ principle has been adopted) because to do otherwise would stymie growth in the CBD.

A new building separation control should take into account that:

<ul>
<li>Towers on narrow sites may be able to obtain their amenity primarily or wholly from the front and rear, avoiding the need for side setbacks for internal amenity or equitable development reasons.</li>
	<li>Towers on narrow sites have less impact on the public realm due to their narrower profile. Indeed, many of the larger towers in the CBD are the equivalent of three or more narrow towers in footprint.</li>
	<li>The external impacts of a building relate at least partly to its height, so the scale of setback requirements should be linked to height.</li>
	<li>Where neighbouring properties are unlikely to be redeveloped for towers (due, for example, to significant heritage values or strata titling), they can provide the necessary tower separation avoiding the need for a setback from that boundary.</li>
</ul>
We need to address the problems being caused by some taller buildings in the CBD. But, attractive as it might sound for reasons of administrative simplicity, density controls are not the answer. Instead, it lies in more nuanced and, therefore, implementable side and rear setback controls.

Mark Sheppard is a Principal at <a href="http://www.dlaaust.com/">David Lock Associates</a> and author of ‘<a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/7015.htm">Essentials of Urban Design</a>.’ This article recently appeared on the David Lock Associates website.
</body></html>

David Lock Associates

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

David Lock Associates

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News