<html><body>
The Victorian Government has announced the winning bidders in the tender to power Melbourne's tram network by renewable energy.

At the same time, the Victorian Government has announced plans to legislate the Victorian Renewable Energy Target (VRET) ensuring that by 2020, 25% of Victoria's energy will come from renewable sources and the target rises to 40% by 2025.

The winning tenders to power Melbourne's tram network with renewable energy were the Bannerton Solar Park located near Robinvale in the state's north-west and the <a href="http://numurkahsolarfarm.com.au/">Numurkah Solar Farm</a> directly north of Melbourne.

The Bannerton solar farm is expected to provide 100MW and the Numurkah solar farm is expected to produce 38MW for the Yarra Trams network.

The Victorian Government also announced it will commence the first VRET auction of up to 650MW of new solar and wind renewable energy capacity.

<blockquote>
The renewable energy sector will now have the confidence to invest in renewable energy projects and the jobs that are crucial to Victoria’s future.
<cite>Lily D'Ambrosio, Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change</cite>
</blockquote>

State and territory governments are big energy consumers. Think of the schools they own, the state or territory government ultimately pays the electricity bills for them, ditto hospitals, public transport networks and all other state and territory government services.

The reverse auctions are a way for those governments to use their market power to ignite a new wave of electricity generation by offering contracts to buy the output from the new generators.

A good example of this was the ACT government auctions, the first in Australia, which saw the ACT government ultimately sign a deal to buy the electricity output from the <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/plunging-cost-of-renewables-act-wind-auction-goes-at-81-50mwh-98344/">Ararat and Coonooer Bridge wind farms</a> in Victoria.

The South Australian Government just last week <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/solar-thermal-power-plant-announcement-for-port-augusta/8804628">announced</a> it will buy the electricity output from the first SolarReserve project - a solar thermal generator that has on-site energy storage that can be used when the sun is not shinging or at night - to be located just north of Port Augusta.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Premier Andrews and Minister D'Ambrosio sign contracts for Victoria's first big solar farms. Solar trams here we come! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SpringSt?src=hash">#SpringSt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VRET?src=hash">#VRET</a> <a href="https://t.co/WrKmdmyOsy">pic.twitter.com/WrKmdmyOsy</a>
— Leigh Ewbank (@TheRealEwbank) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/TheRealEwbank/status/900127240037347329">August 22, 2017</a>
</blockquote>

Like transport networks, energy generation and transmission networks in Victoria are changing in response to sector-specific particulars, all in the context of very strong population growth in Victoria.

In the energy sector, Victorians are witnessing year on year price rises in the electricity and gas bills and in the electricity sector specifically, consumers who live in detached houses are seeing an increased amount of choice to control their bills through solar panel and battery kits.

For those who live in attached dwellings - which as well know is increasing - the same control over electricity generation and storage is not available to them.

Therefore new grid-connected generation will be key to both increasing price competition as well as help the state meet its emissions reduction targets.

As <a href="/news/its-not-just-melbourne-developing-westward-our-electricity-network-is-too">published in late July</a>, there's plenty planning work underway in Victoria's energy transmission network and AEMO has now embedded a summary of its work into the <a href="http://www.aemo.com.au/aemo/apps/visualisations/map">interactive map</a>. It's worth a look (in the layers/filter options, select 'Victorian Annual Planning Report (WAPR), Network Development and then Current Network Opportunities, click on the green overlay in Western Victoria).

Lead image credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-class_Melbourne_tram">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Winners of tender to power Melbourne's tram network with renewable energy announced

<html><body>
<h2>Comment</h2>

It was looking flakey already but now with the announcement over the weekend that the on-again, off-again rail port shuttles are back on the agenda, the West Gate Tunnel project has gone beyond barely scraping through the sniff test to stinking to high heaven.

The West Gate Tunnel Project was a market-led proposal from Transurban that would see new segmented lanes on the West Gate Freeway from the Western Ring Road interchange leading into a tunnel and then a bridge over the Maribyrnong, culminating in an enormous new road deck above Footscray and an interchange with the Western section of Citylink, Dynon Road and Wurundjeri Way.

The Port Rail shuttles have been in the <a href="https://wongm.com/2015/10/port-rail-project/">public domain</a> for a while now and is based around the concept of three intermodal road-rail freight terminals in key suburban locations. The last mile of containerised freight would shift away from driving, instead heading to one of the three terminals where trains would take containers to the Port, and vice versa.

Compare these headlines.

The first answer in the <a href="http://westgatetunnelproject.vic.gov.au/faqs/">project website's FAQ</a> states "The West Gate Tunnel Project is a city-shaping project that will deliver a vital alternative to the West Gate Bridge, provide quicker and safer journeys, and remove thousands of trucks off residential streets".

The opening line of Sunday's announcement <a href="http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/port-rail-shuttle-to-ease-congestion-and-boost-productivity/">joint Federal and State media release</a> says "The Australian and Victorian Government are investing in projects to take trucks off local roads and connect the Port of Melbourne to major freight hubs using the existing rail network".

Both the fresh announcement and the project claim to do similar things - remove trucks from residential streets / local roads - but one of them simply shifts them to another road, the other removes trucks from the inner-city entirely.  Some might argue they can compliment each other yet another argument is which project would shift the most truck trips away from local roads, therefore, freeing up public money for other projects?

<h2>The bare bones</h2>

Two of the three proposed suburban intermodal hubs are in a very good position, right from the get-go: Altona in the south-west and Somerton in the north are both located adjacent to the interstate standard gauge rail network.  

It's this network that is already entirely segregated from the broad gauge metropolitan network - segregation of freight and passenger services is the holy grail as it would enable the two networks to scale as needed when the freight or passenger carrying task demanded it.

Future capacity constraints on single-track sections of the interstate standard gauge network within Melbourne notwithstanding, it appears the only major works required in order to connect the Port of Melbourne directly to these two sites is building the points and tracks leading from the main lines into the sites - like building a new off-ramp from a freeway.

The <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.8560779,144.7936187,828m/data=!3m1!1e3">Altona site</a> is less than a kilometre from the Princess Freeway/Kororoit Creek Road interchange and the <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.6296151,144.9428745,690m/data=!3m1!1e3">Somerton site</a>'s bare bones are already there, directly fronting the Hume Highway and approximately 3-4km from the Cooper Street and Hume Freeway interchange.

The <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-38.0498954,145.2417085,660m/data=!3m1!1e3">Lyndhurst / Dandenong South site</a> is problematic because the standard gauge network does not cross into Melbourne's east and freight trains would need to mix with metro and v/line services on the two track railway between the Port and Dandenong and the single track, but easily duplicated, railway on the Cranbourne line.

The state government might point to all the rail investment happening in the south-east (the Caulfield-Dandenong level crossing removals, the Metro tunnel project, the new signalling system and new trains) which all good and well, however the pressure to build even more capacity on this corridor through quadruplication - from two tracks to four - is a constantly bubbling under the surface and is not being addressed.

Bringing the La Trobe Valley closer to Melbourne through decreased journey times on V/Line trains with their own express paths through the south-east, decreasing journey times from the outer suburbs by adding permanent express services on the Dandenong corridor, relieving pressure to continually expand the Monash Freeway by an extra lane every 5 years and an increased rail freight task; this pressure is only going to increase and it can only, efficiently, be addressed with an expansion of track.

<h2>Get out of jail free?</h2>

Regardless of the limitations at the south-east intermodal site, both Altona and Somerton sit neatly with what Infrastructure Victoria advises the state government to do: make existing assets work harder.  Building track connections and sidings, duplicating single track sections &amp; upgrading signalling, building a new rail terminal (or set of terminals) at the Port - they're all upgrade tasks, not new-build infrastructure like the West Gate Tunnel.

According to the Department of Treasury and Finance's <a href="http://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/Infrastructure-Delivery/Market-led-proposals/Projects">website</a>, the 'Western Distributor' project as it was originally known is currently at stage four of five in the market-led proposals hierarchy.  

Given the opaque nature of market-led proposals, we the taxpayer don't know if there is any get out of jail free card available to the government and should there be one. The West Gate Tunnel Project's progress should pause while a rigorous study into impacts of the port rail shuttles project is conducted and then compared to the business case of the West Gate Tunnel project.

If Port Rail shuttles reduce truck movements from the west and north for a small but not insignificant amount of public money better than shifting those movements to a multi-billion road tunnel then we ought to know this.

Not surprisingly urban design issues are mounting against the West Gate Tunnel. A ludicrous double-deck Footscray Road section to the expansion Wurudjeri Way, complete with triple-stacked interchange that would dump cars in the inner-city, is straight out of the 1960s suburban transport planning textbook.

This project will lessen the value of redevelopment zones already earmarked.  Remember E-Gate?

The Port of Melbourne where it currently resides is going to be with us for at least another 50 years but that shouldn't force the inner-west and the West Gate Bridge into serving increasing amounts of trucks entering and exiting the port over that time.

Let's do the right thing - what should have been done at an earlier stage of the market-led proposal process for the West Gate Tunnel project - let's pause it while a robust case for the Port Rail shuttles is completed and compared to the West Gate Tunnel business case.
</body></html>

The case for West Gate Tunnel looking wobbly in light of Port Rail shuttle return

<html><body>
In November 2015 there was still a prevailing view that Melbourne only built skyscrapers the inner city and new sprawly suburbs on the fringe, with little 'low-rise high-density'.  During the same month, we published two articles which showed that 46% of all projects on the Apartments.com.au Project Database were residential in 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 level configurations.

<a href="/news/welcome-to-boom-town-melbournes-low-rise-high-density-projects-in-one-long-list">At that time</a>, there were 983 projects and now at the time of writing, there are 1,488 on the project database.  In November 2015, there were 208 projects with floor configurations consisting of 4 or less.  At the time of writing, there are now 441.  

In November 2015, 21% of all projects on the Apartments.com.au project database had 2, 3 or 4 levels; in August 2017 that proportion has grown to 29%.

Interestingly enough, in November 2015, when we combined the data for projects with 2, 3 or 4 as well as 5 or 6 levels we got a result of 453 projects - that is only 12 more projects than what is currently on the project database with 2, 3 or 4 levels.

<h2>November 2015 - 6 levels or less</h2>

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width:100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Project Status</th>
			<th class="rtecenter" scope="col">Number of Projects</th>
			<th class="rtecenter" scope="col">Number of Dwellings</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Planning Assessment</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">99</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">4175</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Approved</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">97</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">3866</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Registration and Sales</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">141</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5116</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Under Construction</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">116</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">4808</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Total</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">453</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">17,965</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
In 20 months we've seen the number of projects in the 4 levels or less category double and revisiting the original article, many of the projects in the long-list have completely transitioned out of the database - as they're no longer a project, they're buildings.

In case you were wondering, I'm maintaining this split in project categories because those that have 4 or less levels will generally be located in the Residential Growth and General Residential Zones.  They are not by any means exclusive to these zones as a far deeper dive into the data will show but it's useful to illustrate that contrary to popular belief we have a sizeable development pipeline in the low-rise high-density space.  And it's clearly grown.

Likewise, I'm using 5 or 6 levels as an equivalence tool for buildings the anti-tower, euro-fetishists like to say we should be building more of - when they attempt to evoke positive emotions in their spiels, Paris or Barcelona are widely referred to and in turn they're generally talking about <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/@41.3927922,2.1611364,3a,60y,51.08h,102.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb04NrlfthGH0E6CUsB_THA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656">Eixample</a> or the arrondissements within or just outside the <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/@48.8527121,2.3377038,3a,75y,302.49h,103.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szPiflX01dUqwmqZNAiAOEg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656">Parisian boulevard périphérique</a>. 

The likelihood of Melbourne razing entire suburbs and replicating anything like the monotonous low-rise high-density that is omnipresent in central and middle rings of European cities is as likely as me winning Powerball - we haven't rezoned entire suburbs, only corridors within them.  

Yet we do have the same scale of development in the pipeline.

We use the term 'levels' to remove the confusion with 'floors'. In Australia, we label the floor with the entry to the building as 'Ground' but when counting a building's floor total, the ground is the first floor - so, for example, a 6 level building has 1 ground floor plus 5 above.

<h2>August 2017 - 6 levels or less</h2>

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width:100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Project Status</th>
			<th scope="col">Number of Projects</th>
			<th scope="col">Number of Dwellings</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Planning Assessment</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">206</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">6799</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Approved</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">200</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">6289</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Registration and Sales</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">182</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">6138</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Under Construction</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">172</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">7194</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>Total</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">760</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">26,420</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
As you can see, the 6 levels or less data has grown in raw numbers and as a proportion of the entire database: 51% of all projects have 6 or less levels versus 46% in November 2015.

The headline grabbers - the very large buildings like the skyscrapers still at various stages of the pipeline in the CBD - tend to hang around on the database for 3-4 years, but as our numbers are starting to illustrate, developers and by extension, the apartment market at the smaller-scale end of the spectrum, is accelerating.

I'll be reviewing these numbers once again next year - logic dictates that low-rise buildings can be approved, marketed and built (regardless of construction method) much faster than larger buildings - and in the context of Melbourne's record population growth, we're likely going to need a lot of rapidly-built new dwellings for the foreseeable future.
</body></html>

Revisiting Melbourne's low-rise high-density project numbers

<html><body>
<h2>Comment</h2>

Council has been agitating for it and on Monday the Minister for Public Transport announced the establishment of 'passionate local representatives to deliver a redevelopment plan for Box Hill station &amp; bus interchange'.

The Minister's <a href="http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/next-steps-underway-in-box-hill-interchange-upgrade/">media release</a> reads as follows:

<blockquote>
Minister for Public Transport Jacinta Allan announced the Box Hill Transit Interchange Steering Committee today, which will work towards a business case for the redevelopment.

The committee will build on the work of the Ministerial Advisory Group, which provided options to the Minister for Public Transport to improve the commercial and transport hub in Melbourne’s east.

The group included local community representatives and was chaired by the Member for Eastern Metropolitan Region Shaun Leane.

The Labor Government has already made a range of upgrades to the interchange since being elected, namely adding the Route 201 bus service – a direct link for students and locals between Box Hill Station and Deakin University.

Other upgrades include improving passenger safety in the bus interchange by adding pedestrian crossings and repainting bays, installing better ramps and additional signage to increase accessibility, fixing the roof and downpipes and expanding the presence of staff and security.

By the end of 2017, works will be completed to replace old lighting with brighter LED lamps, improving safety and visibility for passengers.

The Labor Government will continue further service and infrastructure upgrades at the interchange while a business case is developed.
</blockquote>

Firstly we should <a href="/developments/box-hill-vic-3128">recognise Box Hill</a> interchange for what it is: a good example of how multiple public transport modes can, with the right kind of infrastructure and service frequency, come together to link a rail station with multiple destinations beyond with buses.  Despite the inherent problem in how Box Hill is currently set up.

And that problem is a matter of levels - when it was built, the railway level was sunk below street level with a shopping centre building accounting for the air space above, with  a bus interchange added to the roof of the building.  

It's this transition from Railway to Bus level or vice versa that is the problem - public transport users are unnecessarily forced to enter the shopping centre zone to connect, much like how people were corraled into Melbourne Central shopping centre before getting to the station level when the centre was rebuilt last decade.

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="450" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m0!4v1502172565595!6m8!1m7!1sHJk7o8PEmED6Yl20UTnb5g!2m2!1d-37.81927830373048!2d145.1206515020382!3f323.40256290298277!4f-1.598075453897465!5f1.1924812503605782" style="border:0" width="100%"></iframe>

The ultimate goal of redeveloping the interchange should be to allow for speedier interchange between modes - and naturally boost bus frequencies to capture even more users through the station - as well as keeping an eye on the very long term.

Like all shopping centres, the car dominates at Box Hill - there are multi-level car parks both to the north and south of the rail corridor connected to the centre, which creates a multitude of blank surfaces facing the surround the streets - including the popular Carrington Road strip.

Given the amount of high-density development occurring in Box Hill, is Box Hill Central really going to need that much car parking in future?  Is the land dedicated to multi-level car parking better used for commercial/office space?

Box Hill also has another advantage: the railway level was built with four platforms (only three have tracks running through them) and platform interchange infrastructure is already in place.  

It's quite possible that this fourth unused platform will be needed in future, albeit on a temporary basis, while any reconfiguration of the shopping centre above is underway. This railway-level space could be used for a bus interchange.

Ramps at Pippard Street (entry) and Thurston Street (exit) would need to be built along with extending the existing rail platform out over the unused track space, so that buses have enough room to stop, as well as have a single lane to allow buses to move in and out of temporary bays.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=1dXrZ19NOio4H4gSBwFMZlH7Gc44&amp;hl=en" width="100%"></iframe>

In what could be a multi-year, multi-phase development - depending on the steering committee's eventual advice to the powers that be - temporarily moving the bus interchange to rail level would allow maximum flexibility to redevelop the entire site (if that is palatable) but more importantly ensure minimised distruption between bus and train modes whilst any development is undertaken.

Long-term, however, a more permanent solution will be required to place buses much closer to the station entrances to maximise interchangeability and this is ultimately what the steering committee will explore.  And as for the very long term? Never say never - <a href="/news/revisiting-a-melbourne-orbital-rail-line">Box Hill is a prime candidate</a> for any orbital railway that might come along.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://railgallery.wongm.com/melbourne-stations/E115_4967.jpg">Marcus Wong</a>
</body></html>

What to do with Box Hill interchange?

<html><body>
17,506 people per square kilometre.  Melbourne's CBD is now the most densely populated place in Australia, as the <a href="http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/subscriber.nsf/log?openagent&amp;32180ds0001_2006-16.xls&amp;3218.0&amp;Data%20Cubes&amp;C2B4EE6EFBE0EA91CA25816A00175DDE&amp;0&amp;2016&amp;28.07.2017&amp;Latest">data released by ABS</a> last Friday shows.  From 2006 to June 2016, Melbourne's CBD saw 26,224 new residents move in bringing the total population to 41,473.

And to think this was only up to June 2016 - there's a long way to go yet with all the mega towers still under construction or yet to begin construction.

Carlton gets the silver medal and the eastern section of South Yarra (contained within City of Stonnington) gets bronze.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=600]

With the exception of <a href="/new-apartments/elwood-vic-3184">Elwood</a> and Seddon-Kingsville, all of the top 20 most densely populated areas of Melbourne have significant development pipelines.  From the enormous towers like <a href="/buildings/australia-108-southbank-70-southbank-boulevard-southbank">Australia 108</a> on Southbank to the low and mid-rise hotspots like <a href="/new-apartments/north-melbourne-vic-3051">North Melbourne</a>, all areas would be expected to see significant population and density growth by the time the 2021 census rolls around.

Another interesting tidbit that leapt out at me was that in the top 20 list, with the exception of Southbank, north-of-the-river locales have, on balance, seen higher population growth rates.  

[smartcode_project:default project_id=29660]

Likewise, corridors of density are quite prominent.  From Fitzroy and Collingwood density steps down to Fitzroy North and Brunswick East - it's not hard to see why the E-class trams were rolled out in this region.

From Melbourne CBD, density steps down to North Melbourne and then it further steps down to Flemington and Kensington.  Pity the Craigieburn line commuters because this region is definitely in the firing line.

Although it is outside the top 20, <a href="/new-apartments/moonee-ponds-vic-3039">Moonee Ponds</a> (2016 pop: 15,084; 4.4 square km; 3,463.5 people/sq. km; 15% growth 2006-2016) is seeing significant development under construction with a very sizeable pipeline still to come.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=89720]

The same goes for <a href="/new-apartments/footscray-vic-3011">Footscray</a>.  Again, an outside top 20 (2016 pop: 17,536; 5 square km; 3,530 people/sq. km; 48% growth 2006-2016) has seen large population growth over the previous ten years but given its status of having the same fundamentals as South Yarra - proximity to the city, exceptional public transport links (both existing and future prospects!) as well as a large development pipeline with a lot of large scale projects - it would not be surprising to see Footscray well within the top 20 in 2021.

Even though there are three postcodes and the ABS make them distinct, the Brunswicks - just beyond the parks of the City of Melbourne - are moving on up to the point where in real estate circles people are advised to look at Brunswick if they can't afford Fitzroy/Collingwood - one wonders how long it will be until Coburg becomes to the suburb du jour.

Brunswick West is only just outside the top 20 and it's likely to grow slower than Brunswick and Brunswick East yet it's still growing (15%) and is not far off double the density (4,601 people/sq. km) of your established middle ring suburb like Glen Waverley (2,637 people / sq. km).

[smartcode_project:default project_id=23328]

Other suburban breakaways to keep an eye on will be Box Hill (2991 people / sq. km) and Dandenong.  

The ABS has the area of Dandenong as 61.8 square kilometres, which takes in much of its industrial area to the south thus making its population density data look decidedly rural (530 people / sq. km) however the raw population numbers point to respectable, top 20-like, growth.  

In 2006 the Dandenong SA2 had a population of 23,246 people.  In 2016 it was 32,801 representing a growth rate of 41%.  Here's hoping we might get a 'Dandenong-Industrial'* classification to get a clearer picture of what's going on in the heart of south-east. 

<h2>The Top 20 most densely populated areas of Melbourne</h2>

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width:100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">SA2 Name</th>
			<th scope="col">Population June 2016</th>
			<th scope="col">Area (sq. km)</th>
			<th scope="col">Density</th>
			<th scope="col">Population growth rate 06-16</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Melbourne</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">41,473</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2.4</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">17,506.5</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">172%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Carlton</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">20,575</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1.8</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">11,314.3</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">61%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">South Yarra - East</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">22,677</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2.5</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">9,008.8</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">57%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Fitzroy</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">11,464</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1.4</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">8,319.3</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">24%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Prahran-Windsor</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">21,391</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2.9</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">7,362.5</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">21%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">St Kilda East</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">17,625</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2.4</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">7,302.7</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">11%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Collingwood</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">9,144</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1.3</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">7,216.5</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">58%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">St Kilda</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">28,141</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">3.9</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">7,213.8</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">28%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">North Melbourne</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">22,086</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">3.2</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">6,797.4</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">61%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Flemington</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">10,662</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1.6</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">6,744.7</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">26%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Southbank</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">20,470</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">3.1</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">6,658.4</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">107%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Elwood</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">16,509</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2.6</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">6,166.5</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">14%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Port Melbourne</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">17,370</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2.8</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">6,227.1</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">24%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Seddon-Kingsville</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">9,709</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1.7</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5,778.1</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">17%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Brunswick East</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">11,766</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2.2</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5,427.1</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">50%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Kensington</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">11,526</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2.1</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5,368.4</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">28%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Richmond</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">32,848</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">6.2</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5,287.4</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">27%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Brunswick</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">27,123</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5.1</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5,274.3</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">25%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Fitzroy North</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">13,211</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2.5</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5,273.6</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">14%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Abbotsford</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">8,842</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1.7</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5,080.1</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">95%</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
*Port Melbourne has two distinct entries, one with 'Industrial' affixed to it - the ABS would also be wise to start referring this area as Fishermans Bend.

<a href="http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/subscriber.nsf/log?openagent&amp;32180ds0001_2006-16.xls&amp;3218.0&amp;Data%20Cubes&amp;C2B4EE6EFBE0EA91CA25816A00175DDE&amp;0&amp;2016&amp;28.07.2017&amp;Latest">Get the data (excel)</a>.  For an explainer on what an SA2 is, see the ABS' <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/88F6A0EDEB8879C0CA257801000C64D9">website</a>.   

Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimjanuary/10403956726/in/photolist-gRmZSf-5yDj2j-boJ3SW-8uKSHE-chzMdq-79Svx6-bmRUw-SGde-5GufEi-5GufE6-acd9mY-ebNcEu-8uGHmz-8uGPSv-boJ1M3-8uGKrZ-8oPQRS-8uGL9c-8uKSmo-5GufEr-4SuJso-iV5ky-5GufEt-SGdR-dv7s7m-dv1RVK-jAbx1e-4Sqwrr-8xW2iF-4SqvPc-4TA27v-3f6Lu1-JLhJUP-8uGMbp-dF4pCy-8uGJ9a-8uGKNa-bBCWpR-dTCHYL-dTCHQQ-bBCXLM-dTx5wp-dg2GUh-boJ4cs-beguDi-bGox2e-begtXF-bGow5R-beguXe-begqCR">flickr</a>.
</body></html>

Census 2016: the 20 most densely populated areas of Melbourne

<html><body>
Little by little we're getting closer to the money and shovels-in-the-ground end of the Melbourne Metro Tunnel project with the announcement that the Cross Yarra Partnership is the successful bidder for the Tunnel &amp; Stations availability-based private-public partnership (PPP) contract.

And on Tuesday morning the Victorian Government announced that CPB Contractors and Bombadier will be awarded the Rail Systems Alliance contract to implement a new signalling system across the railway line.

Thanks to a major update to the project's website, the five different works packages <a href="http://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/about-the-project/project-delivery">are now detailed</a> on the site and the announcement over the weekend ticks off two boxes.

The last of the four major works packages - the Rail Infrastructure package which deals with design and build of the infrastructure connecting existing lines to the new tunnel - is now open for expressions of interest.

<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/mt_cbds_pl_01.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Moscow Metro, eat your heart out. Image: MMRA"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="385" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/mt_cbds_pl_01.jpg?itok=XZW4kObT" title="Moscow Metro, eat your heart out. Image: MMRA" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Moscow Metro, eat your heart out. Image: <a href="http://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/about-the-project/stations/cbd-stations">MMRA</a></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
The Tunnels and Stations package will create more than 5,000 jobs, including apprentices, trainees and engineering cadets.

The project will build five new underground stations, each with its own identity. They will include wider platforms, more natural light and sweeping arches, bringing world-class urban design to the heart of Melbourne and its train network.

There will be revitalised open space above ground at all five stations, and additional entrances to reduce crowding on major streets in the CBD, including two entrances at City Square, and at Swanston Street, Flinders Street, Federation Square, Franklin Street and La Trobe Street.

In Parkville, a new entrance will be built on the doorstep of the Royal Melbourne Hospital, giving thousands of people from Melbourne and regional Victoria better access to the Hospital.

Walkways at Flinders Street and Melbourne Central stations will be put underground, allowing passengers to change easily between the Metro Tunnel stations and the City Loop, creating a true, international-style metro network.

Domain station will feature a floating timber canopy and sit below the new tram interchange on St Kilda Road, relieving the pressure on the world’s busiest tram corridor.
<cite>Victorian Government media release</cite>
</blockquote>

<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/mt_dm_pl_01.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Singapore MRT, eat your heart out. Image: MMRA"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="385" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/mt_dm_pl_01.jpg?itok=Vfq53moP" title="Singapore MRT, eat your heart out. Image: MMRA" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Singapore MRT, eat your heart out. Image: <a href="http://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/about-the-project/stations/domain-station">MMRA</a></figcaption></figure>As part of the new signalling system to be implemented, two new control centres will be built in Sunshine and Dandenong, which signifies a departure from centralised control and points to greater segmentation of Melbourne's rail network.

The reference design has been removed from the site and in its place are a <a href="http://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/about-the-project/stations">new set of renders</a> of the stations and an updated <a href="http://metrotunnel.u-c.com.au/iMapV3/index">interactive map</a>.

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" scrolling="no" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9BzRP4PE6ug" width="100%"></iframe>
</body></html>

Metro tunnel gets its tunnel & signaling contractors

<html><body>
Ever since the 2016 census data was released, there's been an explosion of articles written across many different outlets. Some are tackling <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/is-australia-full-39068">quite broad range of topics</a> and others somewhat perplexingly focused on 'liveability', a construct of a foreign economics magazine whose original purpose was to inform managers on good places to live and expand businesses in.

As is always the case, the comment sections are equally as informative and in many cases, across multiple outlets, there are two broad camps emerging: the change movement - changing the status quo by altering the way we live and transport ourselves in our cities and the immigration reduction movement - changing the status quo by altering the amount of people who are allowed to settle in Australia.

Full disclosure - and I dare say many wouldn't be surprised by this - I am firmly in the camp of changing the way we live and transport ourselves in our cities, regardless of the rate of population growth.

In saying that however, it's been fascinating to absorb as much of the pro-immigration reduction movement's broad argument.

In a nutshell, this camp has a loose concept of 'sustainable' population growth that it clings to and more often than not it is solely focused on immigration to Australia, particularly the number of people who are provided visas and the like by the Federal authorities.

As we all know there are three primary components to population growth: natural increase (births minus deaths), net interstate migration and net overseas migration.  There's not a lot a government can really do about natural increase - humans are humans, we procreate.

It's the other two components that authorities can have a somewhat large impact on.  Net overseas migration is the issue du jour of the 'sustainable' population growth group and it's worth looking at the actual numbers.

<a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/MigrationStatistics">Table 3 in this Australian Parliament House report</a> puts the numbers for net overseas migration out there for all to see.

In the past 20 years we've seen over 100k in 1995 with the rate dipping under 100k for the second half of that decade to the numbers being above 100k for the first half of the 2000s then we reach our peak in the years prior to the GFC.  In 2007 we had 277,000, 2008 315,700 (the modern-times peak) and in 2009 246,900.

From 2010 the rate has stayed around the 200k mark and then by 2015 - the last year where the records have been made public, we're back down to 177,100 - or about 55% of the 2008 peak.  <a href="http://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/melbourne-population-growth-blows-doors">Recent statistics have the numbers back up around the 200k mark</a>.

But there is one dramatic difference between the upswing we're seeing in the past 12 months and that of the 2007/2008/2009 peak: net overseas migration is heavily concentrated in Victoria and New South Wales whereas pre and during the GFC, it was far better spread around the entire country.

<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/a3.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Net overseas migration by state - source: Pete Wargent"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="342" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/a3.jpg?itok=fzRM6LUe" title="Net overseas migration by state - source: Pete Wargent" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Net overseas migration by state - source: <a href="http://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/melbourne-population-growth-blows-doors">Pete Wargent</a></figcaption></figure>Western Australia was punching well above its weight right up until 2012 - very much on par with the rates of growth in Victoria -  the same time considered by many as the end of the mining boom.  Queensland is in the same boat.  

The convergence between the states in the 2008-2011 period points attractiveness of migrating to many parts of the country, not just a select few.  Many of the people who did migrate would have been temporary workers who have since left, many would have stayed in the country on the PR or citizenship path.

With the downturn in the West and North, clearly Victoria and New South Wales are now these most attractive places to migrate to.

The added zinger for Victoria specifically in the past 12-24 months has been the added growth through net interstate migration - specifically from WA and QLD into Victoria.

The notion that we might be able to direct migrants into specific areas of the country is an interesting one.  How is the power to direct people to live in a specific region going to be limited?  Does this idea run against ethos of freedom of movement within Australia - one of the many things embodied in our Federation?

At the national level, the data and specifically the chart below illustrates how people from both overseas and interstate are attracted to another region by economic opportunities contained within those regions.  

<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/a2.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Net interstate migration - source: Pete Wargent"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="341" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/a2.jpg?itok=kxxwpcua" title="Net interstate migration - source: Pete Wargent" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Net interstate migration - source: <a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rbIpCD4W0ik/WVG4Mxm7m6I/AAAAAAAAkn0/FGWbMyrA3Isoln6mvuFxFla94cLrh1TUgCLcBGAs/s1600/A2.jpg">Pete Wargent</a></figcaption></figure>Cities are at the apex of human civilisation, they're as inevitable as death and taxes.  What's also inevitable is that different cities take on different forms, and when those cities which have been built to replicate smaller country towns - the garden suburb accessible by a car - reach the point that we're at now, the answer is not to shut the gate and stop people from moving to a city, it's to make changes.

Is Melbourne full?  I suppose if you are unwilling to think about - let alone actually change - the way you live and transport yourself in Melbourne, especially in the dominant form - by car - you might think the city is 'full'.  

Whether a low or high population growth scenario plays out over the next 5, 10, 15 or even 30 years, we are dealing - and will have to for the foreseeable future deal - with the fact that <a href="http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1269291/VISTA-2013-Travel-in-metropolitan-Melbourne.PDF">70+ </a><a href="http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1269291/VISTA-2013-Travel-in-metropolitan-Melbourne.PDF">per cent</a> of us are either forced into or choose to use private vehicles around the city.  

Infrastructure Victoria - the independent authority set up to advise the State Government on all things infrastructure - has advised that we should be doing more with what we have.  And in the transport realm, this should translate directly into new leadership and implementation of changing on how we use existing road space to stop locking new and existing residents into the suburban &amp; exurban hell of being forced to use a car in congested middle and outer suburbs to just get to the local shops, schools or workplace.

It's all very well to have the aspiration to concentrate services and workplaces in areas closer to where people live, but when we formulate land-use policy to concentrate workplace uses in specific areas and don't provide the alternative higher-capacity public transport modes then we're back to square one.

In Victoria, we have a special knack for rapidly changing planning zones that effect development, but there is no obvious, policy target or signal to alter the status quo.

Likewise, we have a state-based renewable energy target that would see our electricity generation shift from one fuel to the other over time, but we don't have any target to reduce dependency on car use in Melbourne or other regional cities over time. This is part-time progressive activism.

In the context of Infrastructure Victoria's advice, our leadership and the next target for progressive change should be in the inner-city, middle ring our outer-fringe: policy settings should only favour road network expansion if it includes both the physical infrastructure and the high-frequency services contained within them (think dedicated bus lanes, tram network extensions).

You might have come across this or other images like it on social media.  It's a message for all - a city can feel less 'full' if we get our transport 'balance' right.

<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/cycling_promo_fund.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Reduce car dependency, gain more space. Source"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="307" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/cycling_promo_fund.jpg?itok=NAPTg0W0" title="Reduce car dependency, gain more space. Source" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Reduce car dependency, gain more space. <a href="http://www.citymetric.com/politics/paralysis-parliament-means-its-time-cities-take-lead-3175">Source</a></figcaption></figure>Lead image credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cafuego/33397836043/in/photolist-STfD6n-RFQbRv-Ri3tfo-Qa3AVG-Wj4Ea7-VQQiEh-VACoHL-VZjHcD-W8oeUb-UXmjcD-VUyFu7-VLzBsk-RL4NdJ-SGdU9s-QXihWu-P9sXMD-U6UFQJ-NPcmFa-UkULRe-PNRxjK-PAhbHb-LyYTb3-KLNg41-PVJSNb-PqmPS8-PcHaUh-P8rAkh-P8rMf3-NU4VZ9-N9zoTf-N2J9aR-MwZ4VG-MvQo1j-LJzrgb-Ma5RS9-LfSrUy-LfSRvG-LfSBcb-Lg3rtT-Lg3aTV-LLxijw-KQpunr-LHQVGa-LEUxKL-Lht2M5-KLYkB8-KLXNbT-K2yYsL-MtkpX2-CxtUiS">flickr</a>.
</body></html>

Is Melbourne full?

<html><body>
The planning controls that deal with the upgrade of the Queen Victoria Market have now been approved by the planning minister.

City of Melbourne will now need to work within a framework that places a mandatory height control of 125 metres on the 'Munro' site which the council bought in 2014 for $74 million.

Planning Minister Richard Wynne said "we’ve given careful consideration to get this amendment right. It’s all about striking a balance between the need for development and rejuvenation and protecting the market’s heritage".

<blockquote>
To protect the character of Queen Victoria Market and enable works to begin, the Labor Government has approved new planning controls.

Strict heritage controls protecting the market will be maintained, as will existing height controls over the market sheds and fresh food halls.

The Government has also applied a new mandatory height control of 125 metres on the nearby Munro site to preserve and protect the market.
<cite>Victorian Government <a href="http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/protecting-melbournes-treasured-queen-victoria-market/">media release</a></cite>
</blockquote>

Background reading from March 2017: <a href="/expert-insights/buying/the-queen-victoria-market-renewal-project-the-case-for">The Queen Victoria Market renewal: the case for</a>.

<h2>42 Moray Street approved</h2>

<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/cam001.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="42 Moray Street, Southbank. Image: David Lock Associates"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="832" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/cam001.jpg?itok=KbODSQiO" title="42 Moray Street, Southbank. Image: David Lock Associates" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>42 Moray Street, Southbank. Image: David Lock Associates</figcaption></figure>David Lock Associates <a href="http://www.dlaaust.com/projects/42-moray-street-gains-ministerial-planning-approval/">has announced</a> that 42 Moray Street has been approved with 51 levels and 280 apartments.

<blockquote>
The building has been designed to act as a landmark, and respond to its prominent location at the gateway to the City of Melbourne through the introduction of a distinct, curvilinear tower form within the existing urban morphology of Southbank.

The building also ‘raises the bar’ within the local existing urban context through exemplary ground floor activation and public realm amenity.

We congratulate all involved in the approval of this project and look forward to seeing construction commence shortly.
<cite>Brodie Blades, David Lock Associates</cite>
</blockquote>

The development's approval will also inject 3000 square metres of employment space in Southbank.

Background reading from August 2016: <a href="/news/c270-on-show-the-case-studies-of-42-moray-street-and-130-little-collins-street">C270 on show: the case studies of 42 Moray Street and 130 Little Collins Street</a>
</body></html>

Queen Victoria Market planning controls amended and 42 Moray Street approved

<html><body>
It's big, it's complex, it has many moving parts and the debate has been raging for a long while now. Escalating energy prices, our commitment to international agreements on emissions reduction and political inaction have all played a part in an at times ugly debate on Australia's energy generation and where it's headed in future.

Regardless of where you do fit inside or outside of the debate, things are changing quite a lot.

Renewable energy technology - and the price of it - has been reducing for a while now so much so that one aspect of renewable energy, solar panels and household battery storage, is now priced sufficiently low that it is directly accessible to many households.

As the bulk of energy consumers live in cities, I find it interesting that participants on the many sides of the debate, appear to overlook the change in how we are developing our cities. That is, no longer is it the case where the overwhelming majority of new residential dwelling stock is a house.

When the debate participants talk about households having a greater ability to take control of their energy needs, they're invariably talking about houses being covered by solar panels and a battery installed.

With apartments, the building footprints (and therefore roofs) might be larger, however the number of electricity users will always be greater. A 5KW system with battery might work for a suburban/rural house, but it's not likely to power much more than common areas of apartment buildings, especially if it's a large one.

While early grid-disconnectors might crow about their new found freedom, for an increasing amount of people, grid disconnection will not be possible. And despite being excited by the transition that's occurring in the energy world, I think there has to be a limit before we run full tilt into equity issues.

There <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/energyaustralia-truth-coal-not-cheap-55748/">are many factors</a> that make up escalating electricity prices - again this is a sector of our economy that has been hamstrung with political and regulatory inaction for near on a decade - however the last thing we need is a precipitous drop in grid connections once panels and batteries get cheaper (and <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-05/price-of-energy-solar-drop/8588324">data tells</a> us it will) which would drive all the interested parties in our electricity networks to squeeze even more revenue out of the end-users. Especially if there are no regulatory changes in the short term.

Nevertheless, there's a lot of planning work being done to augment our existing transmission system which keeps 'the grid' together.

<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/s.e._australia_transmission.png" rel="gallery-all" title="High voltage electrical transmission network in South Eastern Australia. Source: AEMO"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="344" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/s.e._australia_transmission.png?itok=PcYMjVdX" title="High voltage electrical transmission network in South Eastern Australia. Source: AEMO" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>High voltage electrical transmission network in South Eastern Australia. Source: <a href="http://www.aemo.com.au/aemo/apps/visualisations/map">AEMO</a></figcaption></figure>Right now, the heavy lifting in moving electricity from the big generators to Melbourne and elsewhere in Victoria is done through three diverse paths from the Latrobe Valley into eastern Melbourne (Cranbourne, Rowville and South Morang, the two yellow and single bunch of blue lines in the map above).

Yallourn and Loy Yang, the remaining thermal generators in the Latrobe Valley, along with the interconnection with Tasmania via Basslink continue to use this transmission infrastructure now that Hazelwood has closed, yet with the exception of the recently announced feasibility into putting offshore wind into <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/8-billion-offshore-wind-farm-proposed-for-victorian-waters-85089/">Bass Strait</a>, the overwhelming majority of Victoria's new generation will come from renewable resources located to the west of Melbourne.

I encourage you to <a href="https://www.aussierenewables.com.au/directory/template/aussierenew/map.php">look at this page on Aussie Renewables</a>. Like the Apartments.com.au project database, it shows where the projects for new renewable generation are. All except two of the major wind farms, operating or otherwise are located to the west of the city and all the large-scale solar projects are naturally in the North-West.

<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/new_connections_western_vic.png" rel="gallery-all" title="New transmission network connection requests. Source: AEMO"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="400" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/new_connections_western_vic.png?itok=VyxUvtep" title="New transmission network connection requests. Source: AEMO" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>New transmission network connection requests. Source: <a href="http://aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/VAPR/2017/2017-VICTORIAN-ANNUAL-PLANNING-REPORT.pdf">AEMO</a></figcaption></figure>Further reading: the recently released <a href="http://aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/VAPR/2017/2017-VICTORIAN-ANNUAL-PLANNING-REPORT.pdf">Victorian Annual Planning Report</a> published by AEMO.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:500kv-power-lines-australia.jpg">Wikipedia</a>
</body></html>

It's not just Melbourne developing westward, our electricity network is too 

<html><body>
The headlines might be screaming about our 'liveability' being under threat with high levels of population growth in Victoria, but that's just noise. No, Melbourne's population problem is that we have a cabal of industry, politicians and some segments of the media who up until this point have been wedded to the notion that we can continue to 'balance' the infrastructure investment in both freeways and public transport.

It should come as no surprise to regular readers that I think this orthodoxy is deplorable and giving false hope to many residents (and voters) that 'congestion can be fixed'.

The perfect storm of high population growth, congestion caused by a lack of foresight and congestion caused by the myriad of transport network upgrades currently on the go at present are likely to lead to some knee-jerk reactions, but now more than ever it's important to remain focused on attacking car-dependency head-on.

The recently released 2016 census data last week was followed up with an updated forecast of Victoria's population growth to December 2016. The state's population saw 146,600 new residents settle here last year, according to ABS forecasts.

It's a modern-day record, as illustrated by this chart from <a href="http://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/melbourne-population-growth-blows-doors">Pete Wargent's</a> blog on the topic.

<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/state_pop_growth.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="State population growth. Chart source: Pete Wargent"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="342" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/state_pop_growth.jpg?itok=ziGRdfbh" title="State population growth. Chart source: Pete Wargent" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>State population growth. Chart source: <a href="http://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/melbourne-population-growth-blows-doors">Pete Wargent</a></figcaption></figure>This has happened at a time when Victoria and New South Wales are approaching the previous peak of net overseas migration, but at the national level, the numbers are still down on the pre-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) era.

<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/net_overseas_migration.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Net overseas migration. Chart source: Pete Wargent"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="342" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/net_overseas_migration.jpg?itok=54a3m3ud" title="Net overseas migration. Chart source: Pete Wargent" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Net overseas migration. Chart source: <a href="http://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/melbourne-population-growth-blows-doors">Pete Wargent</a></figcaption></figure>Note the significant decline in WA and QLD's net overseas migration against the increases in VIC and NSW.

Up until the GFC, net interstate migration was quite predictable: NSW has always seen a net loss of population from interstate to Queensland. Victoria used to be in the same boat but around the GFC, the paradigm has changed.

<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/net_interstate_migration.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Net interstate migration. Chart source: Pete Wargent"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="341" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/net_interstate_migration.jpg?itok=5IOiTrMz" title="Net interstate migration. Chart source: Pete Wargent" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Net interstate migration. Chart source: <a href="http://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/melbourne-population-growth-blows-doors">Pete Wargent</a></figcaption></figure>One angle that's not made it to the mainstream commentariat yet is one that I'm willing to bet where during the pre-GFC era WA and QLD were sucking up a lot more of the net overseas migration to build all the infrastructure that facilitated the mining boom, we're now seeing VIC and NSW taking in these workers to build all the infrastructure and new housing that's been taking place over the past few years.

This labour mobility is made possible by our federation and the implied freedom of movement across state and territory borders. I'm thinking out loud here, however one wonders if some of the commentators who've stated that authorities might want to look at ways to somehow restrict movements - requiring new visa holding migrants to settle in certain parts of the country - are thinking long-term in this instance.

Do we really want to require people to live and work in a specific region of Australia when their skills are in greater demand in other parts of the country? Likewise, is it <a href="https://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/ip46_ch_5._freedom_of_movement.pdf">'constitutional'</a>?

Moreover, so what if Victoria's economic growth of late has been primarily been fueled by population growth and the construction sector?

Again, it's just a headline but scratching even the thinnest layer off the top of what the 'construction sector' is doing in Victoria, you'll see large-scale projects like level crossing removals which is employing thousands and the benefits of which are both short-term and long-term. The short-term benefit, immediately after a level crossing removal is road traffic congestion relief, the long-term benefit is once a line is entirely (or mostly) grade separated, trains will have the freedom to run more frequently.

New South Wales is in the same boat - enormous amounts of construction activity with building its new metro network - the Sydney metro North West will soon be operational and the second phase City and South West section is about to get underway. But wait's there's more: the NSW government has announced the third large-scale rail building project which will eventually link Sydney's CBD with Parramatta and the new airport way out in the paddocks of outer south west Sydney.

<h2>Radical re-think &amp; leadership required</h2>

This is being written in the context of the ABS census release and subsequent December 2016 population projection updates but to my mind nothing has changed for change advocates. The long-term goal of providing transport alternatives to the car for the entire metro has not changed.

What has changed is how we should do it.

It's been more than 24 months since the Victorian Government announced the Melbourne Metro Tunnel project will go ahead and it's expected the contract to put tunnel boring machines in the ground will be signed later this year.

I use this example to highlight the long lead times to get to the shovels-in-the-ground stage, let alone project completion. The second metro tunnel that has been mooted since the days of the release of the Heavy Rail Network Development plan is part of a larger-scale strategy to fundamentally alter the majority of Melbourne's rail network from CBD/loop centric network to one of 5 cross-town metro lines + 2 loop lines.

Taking a short-term view, the pressure to get started on the second cross-city tunnel just elevated, especially in the context of the growing calls for congestion relief and a greater decentralisation of jobs in clusters outside the city.

Contrary to popular belief, Melbourne does have knowledge-intensive, office-or-laboratory-based, job clusters outside the CBD. The Monash NEC is one such cluster, and the Werribee East 'Australian Education City' is an area that in all likelihood will become one.

And the Victorian Planning Authority is laying the planning groundwork for all of them right now. As is the case with anything to do with land-use planning in Victoria, transport is always an afterthought. We get the announcement that a structure plan is now effective, but just lines or dots on a map pointing to 'potential' transport changes. I will, however, always remain positive (hopeful?) that this does change.

<h2>Not all employment clusters are equal</h2>

The CBD is naturally the best served with high-capacity public transport from all directions. Sunshine has very good rail coverage from the east &amp; north and will eventually have good access from the west when the Melton line is electrified.

La Trobe is an island between two radial train lines. Monash and East Werribee have a rail line on the outskirts of the precincts and Dandenong South is problematic from a public transport perspective.

In the intriguing context of the private proposal to create a BRT service from Donvale via Doncaster and the Eastern Freeway to the city - high frequency, high capacity bus services - I think BRT or mostly-grade separated light rail lines, should now be the focus on these middle and outer suburban clusters.

<blockquote>
Every working day, seven out of 10 Casey residents with jobs travel out of their own municipality to work. The smaller the housing lots, the more the cars. They drive, slowly, mostly westwards into old Melbourne beyond Dandenong, many to jobs in the Monash area.
<cite><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/is-melbourne-building-sprawling-outer-suburbs-destined-to-become-ghettos-20170630-gx1vyh">Are Melbourne's sprawling outer suburbs destined to become ghettos? (Royce Millar and Ben Schneiders, The Age, July 2 2017)</a></cite>
</blockquote>

Focusing on Monash for a moment, these are the public domain facts relating to changes to public transport in the area:

<ul>
<li>The Pakenham and Cranbourne rail lines currently do the heavy lifting of moving people from the suburbs to the city and back again</li>
	<li>The lines are seeing upgrades in terms of level crossing removals and will eventually be re-routed through the metro tunnel creating a giant cross-town to Sunbury</li>
	<li>There's demonstratable capacity being built in right now. The new train fleet is a capacity jump over the current fleet and a medium-long term plan to extend train platforms so even longer trains can operate efficiently on this line.</li>
</ul>
What's needed now is building a proper network to interface with the railway spine (and other radial lines), in some cases clawing back existing road space from general traffic and in other cases expanded arterial roads.

The work to rationalise the rail network in the inner-city is going to attract the most headlines and will cost the most, but we need institutional change when it comes to road planning.

Arterial road investment or expansion is only bad when providing road-based public transport services is not the priority. We should be making it a priority to claw back general traffic road-space and provide dedicated routes for public transport vehicles running direct and high-frequency services.

At the Monash NEC in particular, here we have a blessed simple grid of major arterials - Blackburn, Clayton, Westall, Springvale, Wellington, Ferntree Gully and Centre Roads - all we need to do is challenge the institutional orthodoxy that car is king and provide high frequency, high capacity services along the entire length of these routes.

In doing so, by the very length that these arterials travel across the city, they're all bound to hit multiple rail lines, bringing a proper, all-direction, public transport to the problematic-at-present employment clusters.

<h2>In conclusion</h2>

Let's face it, Melbourne has a well-oiled road building machine and it should be put to better use. Dedicated corridors inside existing arterials is going to be the most rapid way to 'install' public transport both in the physical world but perhaps more importantly install a new way of how residents can go about the daily lives, car-free in the suburban mass that is metro Melbourne.

Maintaining rail improvements at the top of the public transport food chain is critical however we must be realistic; the lead times to get rail to Rowville and Doncaster is long and in the current regime of focusing on existing cost-benefit ratios and business cases, they fall somewhat flat. The choice is to continue advocating for heavy rail (and continually get knocked back) or head down another path and actually enact rapid change.

I don't want to brush over the good arguments both for and against the private Doncaster BRT proposal but in the context of what the census data now tells us, and the inevitable quick fix rhetoric that's likely to be spewed from the mouths of politicians in the coming months, I think we just need run with it. Although specifically with the Doncaster BRT, it shouldn't end at an isolated shopping centre in Donvale, it should link with the PT network in the city and in the suburbs at Nunawading.

Am I being flippant about potential risks (be they financial or don't have the effect of intensifying development along the corridor)? Maybe. However assuming the contract is structured so that the private operator bears an acceptable amount of financial risk, and it's not all put on the state, the experience will inform us how to roll out similar public transport lines elsewhere.

This is because we're going to need to do much more work on road-based public transport to ensure residents have an alternative to driving and so that our employment clusters are successful in growing and can entice people out of their cars en masse. We need to provide good quality alternatives before residents (and voters) will find wholesale road pricing regime change palatable.
</body></html>

Population shock: we now, more than ever, need to radically re-think Melbourne's transport network

Around 400 additional homes could be built at Southwark Grounds on Port Road, lifting total site capacity from 1300 to around 1700 dwellings.

A recently approved code amendment would allow apartment towers of up to 14 storeys in some areas of Renewal SA’s redevelopment of the former West End Brewery.

Renewal SA Acting Chief Executive Shane Wingard said he welcomed the code amendment, with the increase in heights and homes making a positive impact on the supply of high-quality, well-connected housing close to the city.

“By going higher across some parts of Southwark Grounds, we are adding a substantial number of very well-located homes with little impact on project delivery time or planned open space,” Mr Wingard said.

Since the project officially launched in 2025, Mr Wingard said more than 12,000 enquiries had been received about living at Southwark Grounds.

“The very strong early interest we’ve seen since homes were first released in the precinct reinforces our plans to create more housing opportunities,” he said.

The Southwark Grounds code amendment was launched in December last year, with community engagement undertaken over five weeks from January.

It proposed increasing maximum building heights from eight to 14 storeys on the eastern section of Southwark Grounds, and to 12 storeys across the remainder of the site, with minimum building heights ranging from two to four storeys.

The code amendment was implemented through an Early Commencement policy in late January, allowing developers to quickly explore the viability of increased height and housing yield while other planning processes continue.

One of the first developers delivering apartment sites have already finalised redesigns to increase the number of apartments following the code amendment.

Samaras’ development adjacent to the future Colonel Light Park is now planning to deliver 125 apartments across 11 storeys, significantly greater than original plans of around 50 apartments across four storeys.

The developer is also exploring the potential for additional affordable housing outcomes.

Most of the apartments at Southwark Grounds will be delivered within a master-planned precinct on a large parcel of land on the eastern portion of the site, covering around two-thirds of its 8.4 hectares.

Wingard said detailed precinct planning over the coming months may identify further opportunities to increase yield further that could see total apartment numbers at Southwark Grounds, exceed this number.

Affordable homes at Southwark Grounds will also see a net increase, with Renewal SA maintaining its commitment to a minimum of 20 per cent affordable housing across the development.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Civil works have begun across the site, with construction under way on the first new roads surrounding a townhouse precinct in the south‑west corner of Southwark Grounds. This includes Renewal SA’s 17 Founder’s Row homes, which are on track for completion by Christmas.

“We expect to have people living at Southwark Grounds by the end of the year, so delivering roads and public spaces for those residents is among our highest priorities.”

Construction of 40 townhouses off Anderson Street, known as West Village and being delivered by Contour, is forecast to begin in mid‑2026. Kolabb’s Anderson Lane development will follow shortly after, delivering a further 26 townhouses.

Southwark Grounds is a state government‑led urban renewal project now set to deliver around 1,700 homes over the next decade.

Homes will be supported by a supermarket, a range of retail and hospitality offerings anchored by a revitalised Walkerville Brew Tower, a childcare centre, car parking and well‑connected public spaces.

Joel Robinson

400 new homes planned for Adelaide's former West End Brewery site

Brisbane developer&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/cavcorp">Cavcorp</a> has lodged plans for a new mixed-use residential development at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/55-wyandra-street-teneriffe-qld-4005">55 Wyandra Street</a>, Teneriffe, anchored by an 85-metre public laneway designed to reconnect the suburb’s riverfront with the Gasworks precinct.

The buildings, known as Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane, would replace the existing Queensland Cotton head office site with a 15-storey residential tower transitioning to eight storeys toward Helen Street. The project has been designed by Plazibat Architects and lodged as a code assessable development application for 93 apartments across a 3,401 sqm mixed-use site within the Newstead and Teneriffe Waterfront neighbourhood plan.

Central to the scheme is the transformation of an existing service easement into a publicly accessible cross-block connection linking Wyandra and Helen Streets. Cavcorp says the new laneway will act as both a pedestrian shortcut and a landscaped civic space between the Teneriffe Riverwalk, ferry terminal, and Gasworks precinct.

<img alt="First Look: Cavcorp unveils Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane plans for landmark wellness tower in Teneriffe" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="26e7f058-b065-4de8-b13d-a2b8cb64dfcc" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/bldg.png?VersionId=sELS0ZKYi361oYipUa1BIKfe_.DLZoFV" />

“The revised proposal delivers a legacy public-realm cross-block link, permanently secured for community use, transforming an existing private easement into a safe, high-quality pedestrian connection between the Teneriffe heritage riverwalk and the Gasworks–Long Island precinct,” the planning report states.

The laneway will sit beneath a large subtropical loggia integrated into the podium levels of the development. The design incorporates deep landscaping, water gardens, lobby spaces, business lounges, and ground-floor apartments to create what Cavcorp describes as a climate-responsive “urban verandah.”

The tower itself has been designed as a slender form with recessed floorplates and curved translucent corners inspired by contemporary Japanese architecture. The building height aligns with the Commercial Road precinct controls, which permit towers up to 15 storeys within proximity to Longland Street.

<img alt="First Look: Cavcorp unveils Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane plans for landmark wellness tower in Teneriffe" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a8a17d40-43b6-4718-b3fd-67676fcbb485" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/pers%202_1.png?VersionId=i3VwDtp5AmL_8InW7w4qRbDFEpb744Jt" />

The project will comprise a mix of larger-format apartments aimed at owner-occupiers, downsizers, and families. The proposed apartment mix includes 11 loggia apartments across the lower levels, 50 four-bedroom Sky-Terrace apartments from levels three to seven, and 32 Sky-Pool Homes occupying the upper tower levels. The Sky-Pool Homes will feature private thermal plunge pools integrated into oversized balconies.

According to the application, the apartments are intended to reinterpret the scale and character of Teneriffe’s woolstore conversions and Queensland homes within a vertical residential format.

“The sky-pool homes build on Cavcorp’s previous projects and introduce a distinct apartment typology to Teneriffe, informed by both local and international precedent and responding to an identified market demand for enhanced safety, space and amenity,” the planning submission notes.

A major focus of the proposal is its five-level wellness and lifestyle offering, extending from the basement through to the rooftop.

Amenities proposed include a rooftop Swim &amp; Racquet Club with a 25-metre Olympic lap pool and tennis court, coworking spaces and libraries, golf simulators, wine storage, concierge facilities, business lounges, pet wash areas, and rooftop longevity-focused wellness spaces with spas, outdoor fitness zones, and landscaped terraces.

<img alt="First Look: Cavcorp unveils Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane plans for landmark wellness tower in Teneriffe" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="944b352c-49b9-4247-a4c6-5967b4b69fda" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/amenity.png?VersionId=Ed_qKjAtMwFT.5gfl3jiA9QwdWxSMsaX" />

All parking will be concealed within basement levels accessed from Wyandra and Helen Streets. Cavcorp says the deep-basement engineering approach allows the entire ground plane to prioritise landscaping, pedestrian movement, and active frontage rather than vehicle infrastructure.

The development continues Cavcorp’s concentration in Newstead and Teneriffe, where the Brisbane developer has delivered a number of apartment projects including Lucent, Le Bain, and Luminare, as well as the Long Island Wellness Precinct nearby. Several of those projects have received national design and architecture awards, including recognition under Brisbane’s “Buildings that Breathe” program.

Cavcorp unveils wellness-focused Teneriffe House and Teneriffe Lane apartment buildings

Focus Group Investments has lodged plans for a new apartment development at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/64-70-hanover-street-fitzroy-vic-3065">64–70 Hanover Street</a> in Fitzroy, seeking to utilise the Victorian Government’s recently introduced Great Design Fast Track pathway to accelerate approvals for the project.

The proposal is among the latest developments to emerge through the state-led initiative, which was established to fast-track well-designed residential projects in activity centres and transport-connected inner-city locations. The pathway allows qualifying developments that meet elevated design and housing benchmarks to bypass traditional council planning timeframes and instead be assessed directly by the Department of Transport and Planning.

Designed by SJB, the development will comprise a mix of apartments above activated lower levels, with a strong focus on architectural articulation, landscaping, and communal amenity. The design response seeks to balance the industrial character of Richmond’s former warehouse precincts with a more contemporary residential form.

<img alt="First look: Focus Group Investments taps Victoria’s Great Design Fast Track for Richmond apartments" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="abea51cc-d85b-479e-9aef-a589f3b37ca7" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/ground.png?VersionId=e1Kf8EyPWwyiVumtqQ4rM5S4GpOR3CCz" />

Proposed are 63 new dwellings, a wide ranging mix of studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments, and townhouses and duplexes. They will be spread across a part-three, part-eight storey building.

The Planning and Urban Context Report by Tract says the development is of an "exemplary architectural standard" and has been carefully crafted by SJB Architects.

"Dwellings&nbsp;will benefit from excellent access to natural light, cross-ventilation opportunities and extensive communal space," the report noted.

The architectural material highlights the project’s integration of landscaped elements and communal spaces throughout the building. The proposal also incorporates sustainability initiatives aligned with the Victorian Government’s push for higher-performing apartment developments under the fast-track program.

The Great Design Fast Track was unveiled by the Victorian Government in 2024 as part of a broader housing supply strategy aimed at accelerating the delivery of new homes. Projects assessed through the pathway must demonstrate high-quality architecture, sustainability outcomes, and housing diversity while being located close to public transport and existing infrastructure.

<img alt="First look: Focus Group Investments taps Victoria’s Great Design Fast Track for Richmond apartments" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="afdbe834-8dc4-4a77-a943-ba07bc927348" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/site_11.png?VersionId=0J657j.TaChAZfp93wqJYBTqSsnREJx2" />

Focus Group, founder and led by Paul De Lutiis, is increasingly active across Melbourne’s inner suburbs, targeting well-connected urban renewal locations suited to medium and higher-density residential development. The Fitzroy proposal continues that strategy, leveraging the area’s strong transport links, established retail amenity, and proximity to the CBD.

Fitzroy has been one of the most popular spots for developers and buyers in recent years. The likes of PACE Development Group, SMA Projects, Crema Group and Chapter Group, currently selling projects in the suburb.

First look: Focus Group Investments taps Victoria’s Great Design Fast Track for Fitzroy apartments

The Gold Coast Planning Committee has supported the preliminary approval for the Benowa Gardens Urban Village project following an extensive community consultation and assessment process.

The proposal will now proceed to a full council vote on June 2.

The application sought approval for a masterplanned urban village on the existing Benowa Gardens Shopping Centre site, combining new housing, retail, dining, health and lifestyle amenities within a walkable, integrated precinct.&nbsp;

The proposed redevelopment includes around 413 apartments integrated above a revitalised mixed-use centre featuring a full-line supermarket of 4,000 sqm, 6,000 sqm of specialty retail and dining space across around 30 retailers, a 7,000 sqm health and wellness precinct, and roughly 9,630 sqm of office and medical suites.&nbsp;

<img alt="$1b Benowa Gardens Urban Village moves to Full Council following Planning Committee support" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fb36ae47-80bc-45f0-9914-31b0c7b6007d" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/PR26576%20Ashmore%20Road%20C4%201121%20FI.jpg?VersionId=6mRKk2uU4r67TmTt39DKGUlvFRbTVqWa" />

The broader masterplan also includes very significant traffic and transport improvements, wide pedestrian walkways, upgraded pedestrian and cycle connections, and enhanced public areas designed to create a more connected and walkable community environment.&nbsp;

Centre owner Patrick Lu said the milestone reflected months of detailed planning, technical assessment and ongoing communication with local residents, businesses, schools and stakeholders.

“We appreciate the time, consideration and care Council officers and the Planning Committee have given this proposal throughout the assessment process,” Lu said.

“We also sincerely thank the local community for engaging with us, sharing feedback and participating in the consultation process over many months.

<img alt="$1b Benowa Gardens Urban Village moves to Full Council following Planning Committee support" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="32fd1fc3-d0e6-485f-ac57-9916c9bcb818" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/PR26576%20Ashmore%20Road%20C5%201121%20FI_2.jpg?VersionId=fz8qQKDBLQ7MyFRc856Zccfbh9nFwLOe" />

“We understand projects of this scale bring questions and concerns, which is why we have worked hard to listen carefully, provide information transparently and continue refining elements of the proposal where possible.

“Our vision has always been to create a well-designed, community-focused urban village that responds to the changing needs of the Gold Coast, while delivering improved amenity, housing diversity, healthcare access and local lifestyle benefits.

“This proposal is about creating a genuine live-work-play environment where residents can access everyday services, schools, healthcare, dining, shopping and green space within walking distance, while also supporting local jobs and economic activity.”

<img alt="$1b Benowa Gardens Urban Village moves to Full Council following Planning Committee support" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="50dfbd04-590e-4fc6-983b-766880947867" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Dining%20Day%20Time%20-%20High%20Resolution.jpg?VersionId=BP7ZoKJ0DdL_8iRkkC8VVx99moICV6kg" />

Lu said the proposal had evolved significantly through consultation and technical review, particularly around traffic, pedestrian and student safety and neighbourhood connectivity.&nbsp;

Melissa Griffin, Director at Urbis, said the recommendation recognised the strategic importance of delivering more housing and services within established urban areas already supported by infrastructure.

“This proposal represents the type of thoughtful, integrated growth that planning frameworks across South-East Queensland are encouraging,” Ms Griffin said.

“The project seeks to place housing, retail, healthcare and employment opportunities together in a highly accessible location close to schools, transport and existing services.

“Importantly, the process has involved significant technical assessment and community engagement to ensure local issues and feedback were properly considered throughout the planning pathway.”

$1 billion Benowa Gardens Urban Village heads to council vote following Planning Committee support

Surfers Paradise is officially set for its first new residential development with a 45-storey skybridge connecting the two towers.

John Camilleri’s Celestino Developments has been given the green light by the Gold Coast City Council to develop its major beachfront precinct across its huge 4,000 sqm oceanfront site at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/63-79-garfield-terrace-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">63–79 Garfield Terrace</a>, just five months after its <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/qld/first-look-exclusive-billionaire-winx-breeder-s-bold-two-tower-surfers-paradise-play-with-45th-storey-skybridge">submission in late 2025</a>.

The approved scheme will deliver two towers rising 55 and 48 storeys, connected by a skybridge positioned on level 45 that will house a range of resident-only wellness and entertainment spaces.

In its notice of approval, the Gold Coast City Council said the&nbsp;proposed overall built form has been designed to complement the scale, intensity and protect the adjacent amenity and surrounding streets through the use of varied setbacks, site cover and architectural elements.

<img alt="First look exclusive: Billionaire Winx breeder’s bold two-tower Surfers Paradise play with 45th-storey skybridge" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/f_auto,c_limit,w_1440,q_75/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/field/image/Screenshot%202025-12-30%20at%209.53.48%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=ADyPJ_TFbJvSU9wZFOiCBnlPtgF7VWqW" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/dbi">DBI</a>, the development will comprise 275 apartments across the two towers, including a mix of two-, three-, and four-bedroom residences, as well as several penthouses. The apartments will sit above a landscaped podium featuring more than 90 metres of beachfront pool frontage, private resident lawns, lounges, and wellness spaces.

DBI said the design draws heavily from the movement and form of the coastal environment, with curving balcony lines and sculpted façades intended to soften the scale of the towers while maximising ocean outlooks and passive shading outcomes.

“The project occupies a rare, uninterrupted oceanfront site and has been shaped by a design philosophy that merges architectural elegance with environmental responsiveness and a carefully curated lifestyle experience,” DBI said in planning documents submitted to the Gold Coast City Council.

The most distinctive element of the approved project is the skybridge linking the two towers at level 45. The elevated communal space is planned to include executive lounges, formal dining areas, wellness facilities, and panoramic ocean-facing outlooks.

“The skybridge enhances the identity of the development, promotes social interaction, and delivers a lifestyle experience not found elsewhere on the Gold Coast,” DBI said.

At podium level, residents will have access to a suite of resort-style amenities, including resident lounges, private dining rooms, a yoga lawn, gymnasium, plunge pools, and treatment spaces. The beachfront pool has been designed with separate lap, lounge, and children’s areas extending across the width of the site.

The project will also introduce new food and beverage offerings along the Enderley Avenue and Oceanway frontages, contributing additional activation to the beachfront precinct.

Alastair Taylor

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Alastair Taylor

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News