Building more apartments in some of Melbourne’s most affluent postcodes would desegregate rich suburbs and allow more middle-class people to live in desirable locations, a new analysis by advocates of higher density living suggests.
But prominent planners have criticised the Victorian government’s activity centre scheme, and say it won’t deliver the affordable housing it promises but will instead radically alter Melbourne’s cultural heritage.
The locations of Melbourne’s proposed activity centres by socioeconomic status.
RMIT University Emeritus Professor Michael Buxton last week told an inquiry into new planning rules that the government had held “secretive” consultation into key changes that would allow greater housing density and fewer avenues for community and council objections.
The Allan government has unveiled 60 planned activity centres, which are slated for higher-density living as part of the plan to encourage developers to build hundreds of thousands of new homes.
New data shows that most of the activity centres are slated for wealthy suburbs with very little socioeconomic diversity. However, they also include areas around Dandenong, which are more disadvantaged.
Of the 50 recently announced activity centres, 60 per cent are located in the richest 10 per cent of the state’s local government areas, such as the suburbs of Brighton, Camberwell, Hampton, Hawthorn, Kew Junction, Malvern, Prahran, Glen Huntly and Sandringham.
Camberwell Junction is among the government’s slated activity centres. Credit: Wayne Taylor
More than 90 per cent of the activity centres are within the top 50 per cent of advantaged areas, based on the Australia Bureau of Statistics’ index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage.
Asanka Epa, a Melbourne organiser from pro-housing advocacy group YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard), analysed Victoria’s scheme and found the activity centres are slated for areas that middle-class people had been locked out of, particularly in the inner east.
“By allowing more housing choice, it allows a whole new range of people to get access to these desirable high-amenity areas,” Epa said.
“Giving people who can’t afford a block of land the opportunity to live in these suburbs is a net positive for society.
“Being exclusionary and keeping people out is a really good way to maintain segregation, but it’s not in wider society’s interest.”
Epa’s analysis showed the most socially segregated local government area, the City of Boroondara in the inner east, hosted seven of the proposed activity centres.
Boroondara is among the councils to have slammed the state government’s activity centre plan, and has said it had been sidelined from decision-making processes and feared the changes would forever change the heritage and character of its suburbs.
The Coalition this month established a select committee into three of Labor’s recent planning amendments, some of which help facilitate greater density in the activity areas.
Planning expert Michael Buxton is critical of the state government’s activity centre scheme.Credit: Joe Armao
Opposition planning spokesman Richard Riordan said the high density plans would “degrade the quality of life in our suburbs” and the inquiry would give communities and councils a voice.
Speaking at the inquiry’s public hearing last week, Buxton said the government had developed the planning changes in a “secret process” involving members of the property industry, without proper community consultation.
A submission from Charter 29, a group of planning experts including Buxton, said the planning changes would radically alter vast areas of metropolitan Melbourne, as 917,724 properties were within catchment areas of key activity centres.
“If successful, the amendments could result in the demolition of all Melbourne’s major traditional shopping precincts along with most of Melbourne’s pre-World War II heritage housing,” the group’s submission said.
“Few Western country and city governments would contemplate such a culturally destructive process.
“Many heritage buildings are located in precincts around rail stations and activity centres. A concentration of development in these precincts will demolish much of Melbourne’s distinctive character.”
The submission said the amendments would not achieve more affordable housing, and suggested the high construction costs and high volume of unsold stock would hamper efforts to generate new supply.
“The idea you can just rezone vast areas of land and everything will be sold is a false hope,” Buxton told the hearing.
“You’ve got to look in detail at what you can build where and narrow it down to a fine grain analysis.”
A spokesperson for the state government said it made no apologies for its “bold reforms” to boost housing supply.
“Academics like Michael Buxton who campaign to preserve the status quo should explain to young Victorians, workers and families why they don’t deserve the homes they need,” the spokesperson said.
“The only secret when it comes to housing reform is what [Opposition Leader] Brad Battin stands for – he has no housing plan and a shadow cabinet that are determined to block homes during a housing crisis.”
The spokesperson said all the planning reforms had gone through extensive consultation, and the pilot activity centre plans were updated following two rounds of extensive community consultation last year.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.