Melbourne’s Future: An ever expanding urban hellhole
There are already places in Melbourne that I’d point blank refuse to live in. For the sake of simplicity let’s call it anywhere 10km out from the CBD.
The reason?
Bugger all infrastructure, extremely limited job opportunities (not everyone wants to be a carpenter, plumber or mechanic) and having to live with a bunch of poor people and struggling families.
This is the reality of Melbourne today. And yet instead of working on solving our current urban sprawl problems, Victorian parliament yesterday decided that Melbourne could do with a further expansion of 43,600 hectares.
In light of this carefully thought out and well planned decision I have just one question:
Seriously, are you guys out of your bloody minds?
As it is, living on the fringes of Melbourne means you have to rely on a car and even if you want to use public transport it takes half the day to get anywhere. Then there’s the fact that if you want a decent career you’re looking at spending half your natural life commuting back and forth from the CBD or inner suburbs.
Then there’s the fact that there’s nothing to do entertainment wise except run around bashing Indians or pretending to be in a Sudanese gang and beat randoms up at train stations. Coles shuts at midnight so unless you’re lucky to have a 24hr McDonalds nearby, come the weekend you’re shit out of luck.
A trip into the city isn’t much point either. If you leave on a Saturday night to head out by the time you get anywhere it’s almost Monday morning and time to go home again.
Yet despite this, Victorian parliament has signed off on expansion areas in Melbourne’s far west, north and south east. As if these fringe area’s weren’t hellholey enough to live in, we’re going to start building houses even further out.
The reason for this madness?
Developers argue the decision, and any subsequent residential development, will ease pressure on housing supply and affordability.
So ultimately it comes down to housing affordability. People think houses cost too much? Cool, so we’ll start building McMansions in the middle of nowhere… because that’s where people want to live.
It’s not like this new housing is going to be high density sensible housing either. You can bet it’s going to be full of carefully planned sprawling 19 bedroom houses with 8 home theatre rooms, 3 kitchens, 8 garage car port and 4 swimming pools.
Everytime the government has approved an expansion on Melbourne’s fringes this is exactly what’s happened. Meanwhile housing demand for the rest of Melbourne doesn’t change because people still don’t want to live in barren wasteland suburbs.
The only reason housing is cheap in these new development areas is because they have about as much functionality as dropping two horny quadreplegics on either side of a football field in an effort to study human sexual activity.
There’s a threshold where cheaper housing is outweighed by the massive detrimental effect on the quality of life you accept when moving there. As far as Melbourne goes, we surpassed that threshold years ago… probably around the time Caroline Springs et al. were being advertised ad nauseum on tv.
Speaking of which, anyone care to comment on the state of infrastructure in those areas, now that they’ve been around for a good decade or so. Last I remember there wasn’t any train or tram services out that way being built anytime soon.
Having moved to Taiwan last year I’ve come to appreciate high density housing even more. Families still have 4-5 bedroom houses here with home theatre rooms but the difference is they build up on small blocks of lands. Unless you live in the country, yards are non existent meaning public parks are all the more utilised (when was the last time you saw kids or anyone using the planned parks scatter over the outer suburbs?).
Along with this you of course have your apartments and what not offering diversity in accommodation. Infact the only thing that’s missing here are the barge arse houses we’ve come to expect from housing developments back in Australia.
The trade off? Nobody unwillingly has to live miles away in a backwater far from any form of infrastructure. This is on an island roughly the size of Victoria but with the population of Australia living in it too.
Yet there’s still vast ranges and open areas of scenic ranges to enjoy despite the population concentration.
Ever expanding Melbourne, or any Australian cities borders is simply put a short sighted ridiculously stupid idea. Furthermore it flies in the face of Gillard’s recent withdrawal of support from Rudd’s ‘Big Australia’ vision of half the worlds population living here by 2035.
As much as the baby boomers will tell you it’s not so, the fact of the matter is that it’s building up, and not across that is going to solve our housing problems. Either that or we need to first establish credible outer suburb business districts.
Given that mostly poor people flock to the outer suburbs I doubt this is going to happen anytime soon. In the meantime with the government continuing to expand Melbourne horizontally it’s a fair bet that for the next ten to twenty years or so things are going to remain horribly stuffed.
And here’s the biggest joke of all;
The government says it has an integrated housing and transport plan with housing-growth areas tied to existing or planned transport links.
Sorry, what existing transport links? And as for planning? Well we all know how long that takes or worse still never happens.
As other cities enjoy their world class facilities and infrastructure focusing on a smaller centralised concentrated populations it appears Australia is determined to head in the opposite direction.
Thank Christ I got out of there when I did. As much as I love the place, watching Australia attempt to further develop itself from an outside perspective is utterly painful to watch.
I wonder if proposals like this would get voted in part of the deal was forcing Victoria’s state politicians to move into these new areas and commute into the city on a daily basis? Somehow I think not.
Related posts that might interest you:


July 30th, 2010 at 6:03 am Harry(Quote)
I live in Perth in what could be called the outer suburbs (20 kms from Perth CBD). However one thing seems to be vastly different here compared to Melbourne (I’m Victorian). We have three CBD’s, Perth, Fremantle and Rockingham, All of these are cities in their own right, but there are houses occupying every bit of land in between, my house is one km from Fremantle. I must admit though it is the far reaching suburbs and Rockingham that seem to house the poor and of course Bogans.
The Perth CBD is for business only really and is pretty much dead at night. Freo and Northbridge are the places to go.
July 30th, 2010 at 9:11 am lemmiwinks(Quote)
Check this: The End of Suburbia. It’s a bit melodramatic perhaps (Kunstler is a bit of a nutcase but he’s good entertainment value), but if you really want to open your eyes to the reality of where we’re heading (in the next 50 years), watch Arithmetic, Population and Energy. It’s just maths, simple long division and an explanation of the exponential function, no greenie agenda. I don’t like maths, but even I could follow it
Watch the whole 8 parts, it’s less than 1 hour and well worth the effort.
July 30th, 2010 at 2:50 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
@Harry
Yeah this is something that needs to be sorely addressed in Melbourne and Sydney (particularly Melbourne). Here in Taiwan they’ve got standalone cities everywhere that run on their own and act as business hubs. Additionally they’ve then got 3 large cities (Taipei, Taichung and Khaoshiung) which act as major CBD districts but are also self contained with residential housing integrated in them.
Admittedly Taiwan’s population is the whole of Australia living in the size of Victoria but still, planning wise it’s much better then a single CBD setup.
Until we fix this as long as the population keeps growing we’re just going to continue to have problems, and expanding horizontally isn’t going to fix anything. It’s not like the CBD is getting any bigger.
@lemmiwinks
Thanks for those, I’ll add them to my to-watch list.
July 30th, 2010 at 7:42 pm AK(Quote)
I’ve actually come to enjoy the horizontal sprawl of Australian cities. I admit it’s tough walking anywhere, and you need some sort of vehicle sooner or later because bus routes simply don’t cover everything, but then again I’m in Adelaide so maybe we’re a bit more backwaterish with the Metro bus service compared to you folks in Victoria.
Anyway, the reason I enjoy horizontal sprawl, is simply because I used to live in Cairo. Cairo is a city with approximately 25 million people living in it while being the size of Sydney, give or take. Expansion there is consistantly vertical, so you have towers upon towers everywhere, with everything from residential apartments to shopping centres to businesses.
All that seems alright so far, but then you’re faced with the problems it creates. When population is condensed to 15 thousand people per square kilometre, as opposed to 2 thousand people for Sydney, shit happens.
No matter how much infrastructure you throw at such a high condensation of people, it’s not enough. If every 2 people have a car between them, that’s 7500 cars trying to drive out of the same area every morning, and come back and park in the same area at night, provided they even have parking spaces available.
The rich areas get all the attention, because well, you’re stuffing 15 thousand influential rich people in the same area, of course they’ll squeak much louder than the poorer areas, and normally get the grease.
The biggest problem with that sort of condensation is that it creates slums. Certain areas in Cairo makes Melbourne’s wastelands seem like the happiest place on Earth.
To put it quite simply, I could name several large sized neighbourhoods where policemen can’t even enter them, much less bring law and order to them, and while I imagine certain places in all cities might be bad, can’t be as bad as that. Oh, as a final note, please keep in mind that policemen in Cairo carry machine guns, not capsicum spray and a battery operated taser
July 30th, 2010 at 9:22 pm smithee(Quote)
Population is always the problem. Our current economic model depends on constant increase – more housing, more developments, more shoppers. That’s where the pressure on government is coming from.
Unfortunately the housing industry in Australia is the classic “too big to fail” phenomena – no government can afford to burst the housing bubble or upset the construction industry.
One day it’ll have to change. I just fear the how and then when…
July 31st, 2010 at 12:48 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Kind of sounds like we’re heading down the path of Cairo crime wise without any of the benefits. Culturally by and large I believe Australians can adapt to an increase in housing density.
Melbourne and Sydney are a long way of reaching 20+ million status yet look at the bloody size of the cities!
First step is crushing the a ‘house and land package’ is the great Aussie dream mentality.
Incedentally police in Taiwan carry what look like m16 machine guns when doing simple things like roadside breathtesting. It’s hardly an indication of the crime level given Taiwan’s is quite low (walking around here is perfectly safe regardless of where you live). I think it’s more of a deterrent than anything.
July 31st, 2010 at 2:42 am Caffeinated SentryGnome(Quote)
well we are building on all our good farming land, so no food in the future. it seems our leaders are morons. and the ones that do good have it come back and bite them.
if the population is to get denser we will need to use buses and even subways because the roads will become too congested for even the buses. but it seems most people are ether ‘too good’ for public transport or the public transport is too unreliable.
then there is the water issue, there is not enough. but recycled water is unsanitary. on the plus side if we build up and have no gardens we wont have to water them.
our current health care system wont cope with more people.
for some reason we seem to treat new inventions as worthless gimmicks. like the recent ceramic fuel cell that had to go to Germany to get any recognition.
lastly youth, crime and education. Kevin Rudd did a great thing for education trying to get every student access to a computer and the start of the NBN. but it seems some people are trying to pocket there share. and everything is costing more than it should. students dont care about there education anymore, well at least very few do. crime is on the increase but just putting more police in the area like they have in my area isn’t gonna stop crime. its gonna take a whole new mind set.
July 31st, 2010 at 9:38 am hagane(Quote)
The “reason” behind this expansion and how it’s a “transport oriented development” is that the Victorian Government is pushing for the Regional Rail Link for the Western expansion.
Ironically, it seems quite easy to think that VLINE services that corridor very frequently.
Also, Northern Expansion is to be served by… *drum rolls*, SOUTH MORANG.
Forgetting that it’s also only one station out beyond the existing line with several suburbs already developing behind it.
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:05 am lemmiwinks(Quote)
AK, I’ll quote Prof Al Bartlett, who quotes an interview with Isaac Asimov:
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:21 am Anon(Quote)
Seriously, people need to stop wining about their commutes. I am in uni with class of lazy hipsters who dont travel more than 10-15 minutes to school and complain all the time. Trains aren’t too bad either (35-45 minute ride to the city) So I don’t see why people complain
Seriously, try riding your bike from ringwood (20-25. When we’ll see who has the longer commute.
The biggest diffrence between them and Me is that I enjoy mine, and they are likley to hate theirs.
Oz, this isn’t Asia as much as we wish it was people will take things for granted and we can’t get our shit together. This is the nature of “white” australia.
Oh oz, you just be hatin’
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:36 am Caffeinated SentryGnome(Quote)
isn’t more the point that if there is more people in the city there will be longer traveling time if they dont make there transport systems better.
i too enjoy my day commute. but if it was through a city i’d probably hate it.
August 3rd, 2010 at 3:10 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
@hagane
Is the regional rail link going to link the outer fringes or actually have provide an additional route to the useful areas of Melbourne?
If the regional rail link serves only to link the outer fringes, that’s hardly going to inspire people to move there. What kind of incentive is being able to travel from one frustratingly isolated suburb to another with ease?
August 3rd, 2010 at 3:26 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
This was one of my pet hates at a previous job. I swear every morning the conversation would be
‘oh man the traffic just keeps getting worse and worse. Took x hours to get here this morning!’
‘I know it’s bloody ridiculous. I live in (some suburb I’ve never even heard of) and the roads are chaos!’
‘Oh that’s a nice suburb. My sister in law was thinking of buying a house there next year. It’s so peaceful and quiet.’
‘Yes it’s a wonderful place to live. She should really consider it. We just moved in last year and are absolutely loving the country lifestyle!’
Some Taiwanese aren’t much better. One of my first experience with Taiwan commuter culture was the guy that told me he even used his scooter to go down to the local 7-11.
The local 7-11 being roughly 50m down the road.
When I asked him why he said because walking was too slow.
August 3rd, 2010 at 2:29 pm AK(Quote)
Lemmiwinks, I couldn’t agree more. Egypt has had a few incidents where hundreds and thousands of people died in one go, and my family and I used to joke that no one would even know they went missing if it wasn’t for the smoke and the screaming. I know it sounds cruel, but what’s even worse was the government response to the incidents.
330 people die in a train that caught fire, government couldn’t find a culprit and wrote it off, gave approximately 200-500 USD in compensation to the families affected and moved on. A ferry sinks, killing approximately 3000 people, government prosecutes the owner for failure to safely operate the ferry and keep it maintained, guy gets off scot free. There is no value for human life in countries that are too poor to care, a definition that will quickly apply to all countries.
The world cannot handle the 12 billion people we’re estimated to have by 2050. The sooner humans realise they are to this planet what the bubonic plague is to us and begin to limit their expansion for fear of killing their one and only host, the sooner we can get things under control.
August 5th, 2010 at 5:58 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Just wanted to say I got around to watching ‘The End of Suburbia’ and it was painful to watch. The similarities between where Australia’s suburban sprawl is headed and the problems facing America’s pre-existing sprawl (on a much larger scale) were obvious.
Yet our politicians seem oblivious to the fact and appear to have consulted nobody but the building industry on consultation of whether or not any of this sprawl is sustainable.
America did the sprawl on the back of a resource and economy boom. Australia is continuing to implement it on the back of a flourish resource export industry that will one day be in decline.
What then?
August 10th, 2010 at
[...] infrequently by the wider press, with primary journo-nodes (journodes) in the Earthbound cities of Melbourne and [...]
August 15th, 2010 at 1:30 am Kaka(Quote)
Hello all
I read an article somewhere (I’m sorry, I cannot remember which magazine for the life of me), in which the writer postulates that it is economic development that is the contributing factor in decreasing fertility rates and population sizes. He/she used developed countries (North America, Europe and the Far East) as examples.
Food for thought, because this implies that if we concentrate on global economic development, global population growth should follow that of today’s developed countries.
Of course, we’re talking about urban planning here, so talk of unsustainable populations is a different matter (related but different).
August 15th, 2010 at 7:45 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
This one’s a bit hit and miss. Here in Taiwan you’ve got a crazy national work ethic and consequently the lowest birth rate in the world.
Then a couple of hundred km away you have China which has a similar worth ethic and the world’s largest population.
I think it’s all very well for the developed world to have controlled populations but the real problem is poor people living in crap countries and breeding themselves silly. They then all want a piece of the good life pie and that slice gets smaller for the rest of us.
I suppose it then becomes a question of if we understand the relationship between population size and quality of life, do we sacrifice it for people who don’t know any better and/or simply don’t care.
Unsustainable population will quickly outdo even the best of urban planning as urban planning simply can’t keep up with out of control birthrates.
August 17th, 2010 at 12:52 am Caffeinated SentryGnome(Quote)
this is horrible, but….
what if aids wasn’t killing everyone in the poorer countries? would it be just starvation? perhaps something else? would they be worse off with out it?
not a nice thing to think about.
its hard to stop people having babies when you are considered rich if you have many children in that culture. doesn’t matter if they are all starving.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:35 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
I think starvation works independently to AIDS. If AIDS wasn’t wiping people out then it’s not like starvation is going to pick up the slack and make the death quota or anything.
People will still starve in poor countries but the number is independent to the number of people dying of AIDS.
I don’t think it’s so much as being seen as rich as it is hoping againt hope one of your kids becomes a doctor and provides for the entire family. How many overseas students from India and what not send most of the money they make back home?
More kids = more chances of one of them making a decent income overseas or locally and providing a pension for the parents.