Housing

Dec 12, 2016

Is Paris the right housing model for Australian cities?

The argument that Australian cities can significantly increase inner city density by replicating European housing forms is an argument for keeping newcomers out

Alan Davies — Editor of The Urbanist

Alan Davies

Editor of The Urbanist

Heritage Overlay areas in the City of Yarra (source: Review of Heritage Overlay areas 2007)
Heritage Overlay areas in the City of Yarra (source: Review of Heritage Overlay areas 2007)

Writing in the Sunday Age yesterday, planning academic Michael Buxton charged Melbourne’s planning system with being in a mess or, as the Fairfax headline writer so imaginatively put it, the city is on “a high rise to hell”. Professor Buxton’s complaint is about the high rise residential development boom in inner Melbourne. It’s happening he says at the behest of “vested interests”, by which he means “big capital, unions and compliant government”.

He reckons “low quality” towers targeted at a “transient demographic” will result in the “destruction of one of the world’s grand Victorian-era cities”. The towers are “likely to become unliveable and be demolished within a generation, a shocking legacy to short sightedness”. He takes special aim at the proposed 16 storey development in North Fitzroy I discussed a few weeks ago (see Is 16-storeys OK in the inner city?).

There’s so much more in Professor Buxton’s polemic but I’ll restrict myself to the substantive bit; his idea that the alternative to high rise is to create something like the streets of Paris, Manhattan or Barcelona:

Substantial increases in urban density do not require high rise buildings. Many of the world’s densest cities are located in Europe and the Middle East with uniform building heights between 3-7 stories. New Melbourne six-story apartment blocks are achieving dwelling densities almost 20 times those of traditional inner suburbs.

So why don’t we ban towers in Melbourne and restrict all new residential development to six storeys like the beautiful streets of (central) Paris? After all, that part of Paris within the approx. five km radius encircled by the Boulevard Périphérique is very dense and has virtually no residential high rise.

The reality is Melbourne is starting a long way behind the City of Light in the density stakes. Melbourne’s inner city covers much the same area as central Paris i.e. about 90 sq km. It accommodates a resident population of around 320,000, or less than 10% of the metropolitan population. The centre of Paris, in comparison, has 2,240,000 residents; that’s seven times as many within much the same area.

The dominant historical housing stock in central Paris is six storey apartment buildings, but in inner city Melbourne it’s mostly single storey terrace houses with ground-level private open space and direct access to the street from the front door. Almost all of them accommodate a single household and have been extended upwards and at the rear, whereas much of Paris’s inherited housing stock has been extensively subdivided into tiny micro units that make the “shocking” new apartments under construction in Melbourne’s CBD look like penthouses.

Melbourne’s city managers can’t simply bring some modern-day equivalent of Baron Haussman in to bulldoze all those low-rise terraces and replace them with six storey apartment buildings. Even if the thousands of 100 – 150 sq m lots weren’t in separate ownership, huge swathes of inner city housing are protected by heritage overlays. There’s no clean slate; what exists profoudly shapes what can be done.

Save for a few major redevelopment areas like Fishermans Bend, most of what’s available to increase density are scattered non-residential sites, typically “brownfield” properties. But the supply of these is limited; they’re mostly privately owned and have existing income-earning uses. Some have their own heritage constraints and some require extensive decontamination. The development potential of many is limited because they’re small and cheek-by-jowl with existing housing; towers have mostly tended to be in locations – especially the CBD – where there are few existing residents to oppose development or where high-rise is already an established building form.

A practical but critical constraint to low mandatory height limits (the City of Yarra wants a four storey maximum!) is the price the owners paid for sites; in many cases it’s based on historical expectations about development potential.

Paris has a high residential density because there’s 90 sq km of near-continuous six and seven story apartment buildings. It’s helped by there being only a few large parks; a very dense network of streets; and rules that permitted extensive internal subdivision of old apartments into ultra-tiny units. The location of large corporates in La Defense no doubt helps too.

Inner city Melbourne is low-density compared to European cities (these were the early suburbs that provided respite from the “slums” of what’re now the backstreets of the CBD). But the demand for inner city living is very strong, reflecting historian Graeme Davison’s contention that “the most desirable ways of living in Sydney and Melbourne are increasingly dense, urban and cosmopolitan rather than sparse, mono-cultural and suburban”.

There must be sufficient incentive to draw forth the limited stock of non-residential sites suitable for redevelopment for housing. It’s essential to maximise the potential of the relatively small number of large and well-located sites, consistent with good planning practice, so we can afford to preserve all those spatially luxurious one and two storey terraces and town houses. So when a large site becomes available for redevelopment in somewhere like North Fitzroy (see Is 16-storeys OK in the inner city?), it’s essential its latent potential to increase housing supply in accordance with exemplary planning practice is harnessed rather than sterilised by “vested interests” i.e. existing residents.

(Visited 7 times, 1 visits today)

2 comments

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 thoughts on “Is Paris the right housing model for Australian cities?

  1. IkaInk

    You’re bang on here Alan. Melbourne is not Paris, and achieving high-density development through “uniform building heights of 3-7 stories” simply isn’t feasible in the vast majority of Melbourne.

    Buxton’s argument article in The Age was an incoherent mess of contradictions. He rightly identified Fisherman’s Bend as a location where ‘the Paris model’ might have worked (had Matthew Guy not made all the same mistakes of Docklands). Unfortunately for Buxton his rambling argument also demands protection of all our Victorian strip centres, and makes incoherent claims such as “new Melbourne six-story apartment blocks are achieving dwelling densities almost 20 times those of traditional inner suburbs”: how is this measured? The dwelling density of the building, vs. the dwelling density of an entire suburb? Does the density of the apartment building consider the surrounding infrastructure? The ‘individually significant’ double-storey terrace dwelling next door that will be next to impossible to demolish under our current heritage controls?

    How are we meant to achieve uniform 3-7 storey building heights if we also must protect all our main shopping strips and single and double-storey heritage dwellings?

    It’s also worth noting that Buxton has been meeting with Yarra’s Councillor’s and arguing that no high-density development should take place on the strip shopping centres. This was followed a few months ago with the following Council motion:

    STRIP CENTRE HERITAGE PROTECTION

    1. That Council request the Minister for Planning to introduce immediate protection for historic shopping streets through an interim amendment to the City of Yarra planning scheme, to alter the building and works requirements of the Commercial 1 and Activity Centres zones requirements to include:
    (a) a permit to demolish buildings

    (b) for new buildings and works that:

    (i) no building can be constructed within 10 metres of the frontage

    (ii) further than 10 metres from the frontage, no building can exceed 11.5 metres in height

    and that the Minister approve the advertising of a concurrent amendment to apply to these requirements only to buildings constructed prior to 1939.
    http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/News/yarra-city-council-calls-for-action-on-development-issues/

    The above controls, plus the proposed 14m high Mixed Use Zone controls; and the existing 8m mandatory height limits in the NRZ, and 9m limits in the GRZ; mean that City of Yarra would be left with about 6 or 7 sites of any size worth developing where you might be allowed to build residential buildings over 4 stories.

  2. Cameron Bray

    I am pleasantly surprised by the considerate tone that you have taken in relation to the Sunday Age article. I thought it was one of the most evidence-free, disingenuous and poorly-argued screeds on Melbourne urban design The Age has published in a long time (and that is saying a lot!).

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...