Melbourne's Planning Conundrum: A Tale of Affordability and Resistance
Melbourne, the city of gardens and trams, has long been a beacon of opportunity and affordability in Australia. But a recent study by YIMBY Melbourne has revealed a paradox: while the city boasts the least restrictive planning zones, its inner-eastern suburbs remain stubbornly locked down, defying the very principles of urban development that make the city so desirable.
The Australian Zoning Atlas, a comprehensive database of zoning regulations across the country, paints a stark picture. It shows that 81% of residential land within 20 kilometers of Australia's capital city centers is "highly restricted" with heritage protections, two-storey height caps, and low-density zones. Yet, in Melbourne, only 45% of this land is deemed highly restricted, a figure that O'Brien attributes to the city's affordable housing market.
"If you want to solve the housing shortage, the first thing you have to do is make it legal to build housing," O'Brien asserts. "Cities that are highly restrictive have struggled to cope with the shocks of the past five years, including the pandemic and soaring construction costs. Melbourne, with its more permissive rules, has been more resilient."
The study's findings are particularly striking when compared to other Australian cities. Hobart, Adelaide, and Darwin lead the pack with 97%, 92%, and 88% of residential land under highly restrictive zoning, respectively. Sydney and Brisbane follow with 81% and 86%, while Canberra lags with 74%.
However, the inner-east of Melbourne remains a holdout. The suburbs of Boroondara, Yarra, and Glen Eira are among the most constrained in the city, with at least 75% of their residential land restrictively zoned. This has led to a housing crisis, with high prices and limited supply.
The case of Surrey Hills exemplifies the tension between development and local resistance. A proposal to redevelop the former St Joseph's Home for Boys into a 76-dwelling complex with four-storey buildings has sparked outrage among nearby residents. Rhonda Liu, a local, expresses her concerns: "We’re not an activity center. We’re not on a main road. We need more housing, but it’s just inappropriate."
The project, worth $62 million, has been fast-tracked for approval by the state planning minister, who can override normal limits under the Development Facilitation Program. The developer's commitment to contribute 3% to Victoria's social housing growth fund has made it eligible for this expedited process. However, the loss of heritage and the potential impact on the local community have raised eyebrows.
The Australian Zoning Atlas suggests a potential solution: a national townhouse code allowing three-storey development on any non-heritage residential land. This could create 1.5 million extra homes in Melbourne alone, according to the researchers. O'Brien argues that zoning plays a crucial role and deserves greater scrutiny, challenging the status quo.
"The legacy planners need to reckon with the fact that this is descriptive work," he says. "They should look inward and consider why the system is the way it is and how it might change."
However, not everyone agrees. RMIT Professor of Environment and Planning Michael Buxton warns against tearing up current zoning controls, emphasizing the importance of preserving what makes Melbourne livable. The city's housing crisis is a complex issue, influenced by various factors, including construction costs and supply chain disruptions.
As Melbourne grapples with its planning conundrum, the question remains: how can the city balance the need for affordable housing with the preservation of its unique character and livability? The answer lies in finding a delicate equilibrium between development and resistance, a challenge that requires careful consideration and a nuanced approach.
