<html><body>
If you haven't read <a href="https://www.churchilltrust.com.au/media/fellows/Hodyl_L_2014_Social_outcomes_in_hyper-dense_high-rise_residential_environments_1.pdf">Leanne Hodyl's Churchill Trust report</a> into comparing density-based planning policies in New York, Hong Kong, Vancouver, Seoul and Tokyo with that of the planning regime in Melbourne, then I would recommend setting aside an hour over the weekend to do so. Some will be scathing, some will love it.

It's a report which adds to a growing repertoire of commentary which is calling for restraint in the type of development occurring in central Melbourne. As more reports like Hodyl's are published and more urban design professionals, local politicians and engaged citizens debate the future direction of central Melbourne, the better the outcome we eventually get.

The new state government has flagged changes for the Capital City Zone, singling out the City of Melbourne to play a greater role. We haven't seen the detail yet and it wouldn't surprise me if City of Melbourne seek to apply a two-tier regime focusing on density like the one outlined in the Churchill Trust report.

Aside from the city to city comparisons which have been covered ad nauseam in the mainstream media (special mention goes out to Nine Network's awful coverage which appeared to confuse height and density [insert clown horn sound here]; not to mention it featured the mainstream media's anti-skyscraper academic on speed-dial), this section from page 35 cuts to the chase:

<blockquote>
Developing in the central city is important and critical for the prosperity and sustainability of the city, however, this should not be done at the expense of liveability and longer-term prosperity of the city. The social and economic consequences of this pattern of hyper-dense, high-rise development are unknown. This scale of densities is not required to support population growth in the central city as there is sufficient land supply to meet the growth projections. Nor is there a valid argument that these densities are required to ‘put Melbourne on the map’ as a global city. Not having density or enforceable height limit controls has led to significant increases in land value.

As land values rise, developers seek greater financial return to compensate for the cost of the land. This then locks in a cycle of increasing densities as developers speculate on the potential higher yield that they now could realise. These high yield targets add further pressure to increase the number of apartments within a development, and to decrease the size of apartments. This diminishes the provision of basic levels of amenity such as light and air to bedrooms.

High land values also restrict or prohibit the opportunity for government to purchase land for open space or community facilities to support these new residents. This pattern of development is also affecting the diversity of the housing supply. High land values mean that in order for developers to achieve viable returns on a development, different types of housing, eg. mid-rise developments that have lower yields are not an option.
</blockquote>

The conclusion on page 37 furthermore asserts:

<blockquote>
We have highly competent developers and design and planning professionals in Melbourne. It is the lack of effective policies that is letting Melbourne down.

The evidence from these cities is clear. Melbourne would benefit from the introduction of policies that:

<ul>
<li>Establish appropriate density controls in central Melbourne.</li>
	<li>Establish density bonuses to link development to public benefit and incentivise the delivery of new open spaces, affordable housing and other community facilities.</li>
	<li>Establish an enforcable tower separation rule.</li>
	<li>Establish apartment standards.</li>
</ul>
This report also recommends investigating the introduction of two planning streams for large-scale development approvals that developers can choose between – an ‘as-of-right’ approval for meeting these controls (that can provide certainty to developers and the community) or a negotiated outcome (with community review) if the controls are exceeded.
</blockquote>

Each of the four points from the conclusion above warrants individual analysis and debate. The only comment I'd make at this stage with regards to apartment standards: the argument for mandating minimum apartment sizes needs to be more convincing as the comment surrounding this topic has been very much one size fits all.

Anyhow, I like to (try and) think 20 steps ahead at the best of times, and my thoughts soon honed in on the possible ramifications should the City of Melbourne implement a density control and bonus system, in conjunction with being granted more control in the Capital City Zone.

It's been clear to us here at Apartments.com.au that there are growing voices for change and more regulation.

<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/vancouver.png" rel="gallery-all" title="What a Melbourne block would look like with Vancouver-style planning controls. Image from Churchill Trust report"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="733" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/vancouver.png?itok=EUYkvyWJ" title="What a Melbourne block would look like with Vancouver-style planning controls. Image from Churchill Trust report" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>What a Melbourne block would look like with Vancouver-style planning controls. Image from Churchill Trust report</figcaption></figure>My primary fear should a new controlled regime be implemented in the City of Melbourne is that neighbouring municipalities in the middle-ring - Hobsons Bay, Maribyrnong, Moonee Valley, Moreland, Darebin, Boroondarra, Stonnington, Glen Eira and Bayside - won't have the same controls and incentive schemes.

If the goal is to increase the quality of development and temper the land price rush in central Melbourne, then the spread of development with the same levels of density and calibre throughout the metropolitan area should also be prioritised. Forcing density controls on central Melbourne without making changes outside the municipality will just result in downsizing the entire development industry sector.

Of the 589 projects on the Apartments.com.au project database, 153 of them (one quarter) are located in the City of Melbourne and City of Port Phillip Fishermans Bend area. For the City of Melbourne/Fishermans Bend region, we have total apartment data for 91% of all projects and that equates to 41,280 apartments. The grand total of apartments in the database is always in a state of flux (as projects move in and out statuses and we're constantly finding new data), however the latest numbers we have are in the 60,000 to 65,000 range.

I'm not usually someone to bleat on about "jobs for jobs sake" but it's hard to ignore the those numbers. Significant volume reduction in the City of Melbourne will inevitably result in lower economic activity for the State as a whole should no effort be made to increase the attractiveness of heightened densities elsewhere in metropolitan Melbourne.

As Hodyl points out in the report, City of Melbourne is very supportive of development, and it's not about turning the tap off completely or cutting new proposals down at their knees.

But what is the best pathway to ensure the development sector remains buoyant in the advent of a new planning regime? And will surrounding councils help shoulder the growth burden?
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Melbourne hyper-density report: why limit it to the City of Melbourne?

<html><body>
Docklands News recently reported on a proposal by company FCT Flames in conjunction with Avant-Garde de Studio to build a 'giant fountain and flame show'. According to the report the fountain and flame show would attract more than five million people to Docklands annually and generate at least $230 million for Victoria's economy every year.

From the <a href="http://www.docklandsnews.com.au/editions/article/docklands-offered-major-attraction_10532/">Docklands News report</a>:

<blockquote>
The fountain, which could also be transformed into a floating performance and event stage, would be located in Victoria Harbour, at the end of Central Pier.

Choreographed to music, the fountain would be programmed to music during the day and flames, pyrotechnics, video projection and lasers could be added at night for an even more awe-inspiring show.

With each show running for around 15 minutes, the fountain could be programmed to run multiple times per day or just a few nights per week.

It could also be programmed to match particular themes or special events.
</blockquote>

The populist view of Docklands is one of failure, wind-swept streets, and a lack of reasons for people - other than those who live or work there - to visit. My own view is not necessarily for or against the populist viewpoint, but it does involve various feelings which could be best described as moderate disappointment with a dash of faint positive hope for the future.

We've seen many attraction ideas for Docklands over the years with the most recent prior to the fountain and light show being a wave pool and urban beach at the end of Central Pier. To be frank, Melbourne isn't a beach city.

Sure, the metropolitan area wraps around an enormous body of water, but we're not a surfie city. Likewise the way Melbourne positions itself outside the typical koala, kangaroos and life's-a-surf-beach 'brand Australia' is our greatest strength.

The aspect I like the most with this proposal as reported in Docklands News: it's a robust outdoor space which can be adapted as needed and it would be accessible from multiple precincts within Docklands.

Victoria Harbour, the stadium precinct, Central Pier itself, Newquay and Waterfront City would all benefit from increased visitor activity and the impact on retail and hospitality facilities would have a more profound impact than an enclosed beach and wave pool.

The Docklands news report explores the proposal in more detail including looking at potential residential impacts and I recommend reading it. The video below is linked from the report.

Could this be the ticket for Docklands?

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" scrolling="no" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R_5zugCFij4" width="100%"></iframe>

Lead image credit: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dubai_Fountain">The Dubai Fountain, Wikipedia.</a>
</body></html>

A giant fountain in Docklands: could it be the ticket?

<html><body>
Essendon, Moonee Ponds, Brunswick, Coburg, Northcote and Preston: suburbs synonymous with Melbourne's inner North and increasingly at the forefront of Melbourne's accelerating density. Following on from <a href="/news/melbourne-development-numbers-building-size-project-status-january-2015">last week's overarching article</a>, we'll gradually be taking a closer look at Melbourne's development numbers - region by region - and today's focus is on the three local government areas that reside to the immediate north of City of Melbourne/Yarra.

Moonee Valley, Moreland and Darebin between them represent 100 projects or 17% of the total projects being tracked on Apartments.com.au. Eight of Melbourne's 24 tram routes and all four northern train lines pass through the LGA's in focus and according to demographers <a href="http://home.id.com.au/">.id</a>, 26% of <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/moreland/residents">Moreland</a> residents, 24% of <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/moonee-valley/residents">Moonee Valley</a> residents and 21% of <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/darebin/residents">Darebin</a> residents work in either the CBD or the remainder of the City of Melbourne.

With the majority of Melbourne metro's population living in the East and South, for people who may not venture beyond the aforementioned areas, the numbers in the inner north may surprise.

<h2>Moonee Valley</h2>

Low and mid-rise buildings dominate both the number of projects and number of residential units in Moonee Valley with two high-rises limited to Moonee Ponds CBD and <a href="/new-apartments/only-flemington-1-ascot-vale-road-flemington">Only Flemington</a> opposite Flemington Racecourse.

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Building Type</th>
			<th scope="col">Planning Assessment</th>
			<th scope="col">Approved</th>
			<th scope="col">Registration &amp; Sales</th>
			<th scope="col">Under Construction</th>
			<th scope="col">Total</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Low -rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">-</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">-</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5 projects, 135 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2 projects, 111 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">7 projects, 246 units</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Mid-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2 projects, 100 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2 projects, 53 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5 projects, 295 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">6 projects, 607 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">15 projects, 1055 units</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">High-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2 projects, 231 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">-</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1 project, 408 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">-</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">3 projects, 639 units</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Total</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">4 projects, 331 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2 projects, 53 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">11 projects, 838 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">8 projects, 718 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">25 projects, 1940 units</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<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/image35_0.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Collins &amp; Queen on Keilor Road, Niddrie. Image © bpmcorp.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="302" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image35_0.jpg?itok=sgmNZ0VD" title="Collins &amp; Queen on Keilor Road, Niddrie. Image © bpmcorp.com.au" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Collins &amp; Queen on Keilor Road, Niddrie. Image © bpmcorp.com.au</figcaption></figure><h2>Moreland</h2>

Moreland is a hub of activity in the mid-rise building range with a total of 28 projects strewn across postcodes 3055, 3056 and 3057: Brunswick West, Brunswick and Brunswick East respectively.

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Building Type</th>
			<th scope="col">Planning Assessment</th>
			<th scope="col">Approved</th>
			<th scope="col">Registration &amp; Sales</th>
			<th scope="col">Under Construction</th>
			<th scope="col">Total</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Low-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5 projects, 253 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">3 projects, 131 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1 project, 142 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2 projects, no unit data</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">11 projects, 526+ units</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Mid-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">4 projects, 624 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">12 projects, 1481 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">7 projects, 315 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5 projects, 690 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">28 projects , 3110 units</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">High-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">-</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">-</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1 project 232 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">-</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1 project, 232 units</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Total</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">9 projects, 877 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">15 projects, 1612 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">9 projects, 689 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">7 projects, 690+ units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">40 projects, 3868 units</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<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/ar3.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Wilkinson, Brunswick - Image © thewilkinson.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="314" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ar3.jpg?itok=_i-zJIc5" title="The Wilkinson, Brunswick - Image © thewilkinson.com.au" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Wilkinson, Brunswick - Image © thewilkinson.com.au</figcaption></figure><h2>Darebin</h2>

Approximately 40% of all the projects in Darebin that we're tracking on Apartments.com.au are located on the municipality's primary strip: High Street. According to REA Media's median house price data, to buy a house in Northcote would set you back just shy of a million dollars; it's no wonder there's a plethora of apartment projects in the area.

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Building Type</th>
			<th scope="col">Planning Assessment</th>
			<th scope="col">Approved</th>
			<th scope="col">Registration &amp; Sales</th>
			<th scope="col">Under Construction</th>
			<th scope="col">Total</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Low-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">-</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2 projects, 57 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">8 projects, 263 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">3 projects, 108 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">13 projects, 428 units</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Mid-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1 project, 102 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">11 projects, 1256 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5 projects, 660 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">3 projects, 225 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">20 projects, 2243 units</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">High-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1 project, 209 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1 project, 296 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">-</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">-</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2 projects, 505 units</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Total</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2 projects, 311 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">14 projects, 1609 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">13 projects, 923 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">6 projects, 333 units</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">35 projects, 3176 units</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<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/27d959_e875f7fa65c64a82a365ea5c720e2d67.jpg_srz_p_980_614_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Sophia Apartments, Northcote - Image © sophiasapartments.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="360" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/27d959_e875f7fa65c64a82a365ea5c720e2d67.jpg_srz_p_980_614_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.jpg?itok=VKsjZvWW" title="Sophia Apartments, Northcote - Image © sophiasapartments.com.au" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Sophia Apartments, Northcote - Image © sophiasapartments.com.au</figcaption></figure>With Apartments.com.au tracking near on 9,000 apartments ranging from planning assessment to under construction within these three municipalities, it's clear that Melbourne's inner north is an area of choice for apartment buyers and investors at the moment.

We feel that this trend will only intensify given the proximity all three LGA's to Melbourne's heart and the general abundance of land ripe for development along or adjacent to a number of major strips such as Sydney Road, High Street and Keilor Road.
</body></html>

Melbourne development numbers: Moonee Valley, Moreland & Darebin

<html><body>
Now that we have collectively recovered from the Christmas and New Year period and plodded our way back into work, it's time to pay attention! As at the time of publishing, we are tracking a total of 568 residential projects across four different project statuses.

Of the projects where we do have total residential data, there is a total of 58,478 units. Overwhelmingly the most common building type is the mid-rise representing 51% of all projects on the database yet these projects contain 30% of total residential units with high-rises, naturally, dominating the raw unit numbers.

Over the break we've completed a large-scale update of the database and utilising the fresh numbers from the Apartments.com.au Project Database, here's a high level look at the current state of play.

<h2>Definitions</h2>

<h3>Building Types</h3>

<ul>
<li>Low-rise: a building which has up to 5 levels.</li>
	<li>Mid-rise: a building which has between 6 and 12 levels.</li>
	<li>High-rise: a Building which has 13 or more levels.</li>
</ul>
When counting the levels in a building, the ground floor which has an entrance opening onto the footpath is always the first level and the first floor above the ground level is the second level and so on.

<h3>Project Status</h3>

<ul>
<li>Planning Assessment: a developer has lodged a planning application and it is currently being assessed by the Responsible Authority (either the Local Government Area's planning department or the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure).</li>
	<li>Approved: the Responsible Authority has approved the developer's planning application.</li>
	<li>Registration &amp; Sales: the development is actively being marketed and sales agents are taking registrations of interest.</li>
	<li>Under Construction: builders and contractors are on site and the development is heading skyward.</li>
</ul>
Many developers begin pre-sales campaigns for developments during assessment or approval stages - think of the Registration &amp; Sales phase as when a development is being marketed on Apartments.com.au or through other media channels that Apartments.com.au editors and contributors have cited.

<h2>Total number of residential projects, broken down by building type and project status</h2>

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Building Type</th>
			<th scope="col">Planning Assessment</th>
			<th scope="col">Approved</th>
			<th scope="col">Registration &amp; Sales</th>
			<th scope="col">Under Construction</th>
			<th scope="col">Total</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Low-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">17 (53%)</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">23 (83%)</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">51 (37%)</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">33 (60%)</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">124</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Mid-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">56 (63%)</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">84 (77%)</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">78 (50%)</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">75 (80%)</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">293</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">High-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">44 (66%)</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">42 (83%)</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">25 (72%)</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">40 (75%)</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">151</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Total</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">117</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">149</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">154</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">148</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">568</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
The Apartments.com.au Project Database aggregates public domain information from planning applications, marketing material and in more cases than not, directly from a developer, architect or planning consultant. That said, there are some gaps in the data we have and the numbers in brackets in the table above represent the percentage of projects where we have total residential unit data.

<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/zac_outside.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="It's all about the volume, buildings with 12 levels or less make up the bulk of Melbourne's urban development scene - Image from zacapartments.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="370" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/zac_outside.jpg?itok=b5boeWus" title="It's all about the volume, buildings with 12 levels or less make up the bulk of Melbourne's urban development scene - Image from zacapartments.com.au" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>It's all about the volume: buildings with 12 levels or less make up the bulk of Melbourne's urban development scene - Image from zacapartments.com.au</figcaption></figure><h2>Total number of residential units, broken down by building type and project status</h2>

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="line-height: 1.6; width: 100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Building Type</th>
			<th scope="col">Planning Assessment</th>
			<th scope="col">Approved</th>
			<th scope="col">Registration &amp; Sales</th>
			<th scope="col">Under Construction</th>
			<th scope="col">Total</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Low-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">427</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">972</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1036</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">1088</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">3523</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Mid-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">2797</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">6526</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">3519</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">4424</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">17,266</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">High-rise</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">10,884</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">13,146</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">5199</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">8460</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">37,689</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td class="rtecenter">Total</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">14,108</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">20,644</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">9754</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">13,972</td>
			<td class="rtecenter">58,478</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
The data above is compiled from all the projects on the Apartments.com.au Project Database where total residential unit data exists.

<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/image43bdlc.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="High-rises naturally contain highest number of total residential units - 661 Chapel Street, South Yarra - Image © Bird De La Coeur"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="299" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/image43bdlc.jpg?itok=XnmWOM1f" title="High-rises naturally contain highest number of total residential units - 661 Chapel Street, South Yarra - Image © Bird De La Coeur" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>High-rises naturally contain highest number of total residential units - 661 Chapel Street, South Yarra - Image © Bird De La Coeur</figcaption></figure>Based on our records where we do have total residential unit data, the average number of residential units for each of the building types is as follows:

<ul>
<li>Low-rise: 52 units</li>
	<li>Mid-rise: 66 units</li>
	<li>High-rise: 335 units</li>
</ul>
Next time, we'll break down the numbers by suburb.
</body></html>

Melbourne development numbers: Building size & Project Status - January 2015

<html><body>
Melbourne loves its radial train lines. For over a century they have shunted commuters in and out of the centre of the city and even throughout the automobile age they've continued to be the best way to access the centre of the city as well as some peripheral centres based around junctions like Richmond, South Yarra and North Melbourne.

In the <a href="/news/the-outer-circle-documentary-review">Outer Circle documentary</a>, released in December last year, we learned politicians from over a century ago were just as susceptible of making curious decisions as modern day politicians when it comes to large-scale transport infrastructure projects - think East-West Link.

The last remaining operating section of the Outer Circle is the Alamein line. According to a report in 2010 in the <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/metro-says-williamstown-and-alemein-lines-will-be-first-to-close-if-train-system-melst-down/story-e6frf7jo-1225818598652">Herald Sun</a>, the Alamein line only carries 1.5% of all passengers across the metropolitan rail network and in a <a href="http://www.ptua.org.au/2010/09/28/alamein-line-upgrade-call/">media release from PTUA</a> around the same time, the 1.5% figure reported in the Herald Sun translates into 1.8 million boardings per year.

Alamein is a short branch serving a stable population and timetable-roulette over the past 10 years seems to have conspired to relegate the Alamein line to low (if any) growth. Thanks to election promises in 2010, the Ballieu Government commissioned multiple rail line studies early on in its term one of which was the Rowville Rail Line.

Perhaps most annoyingly, the Rowville study's scope was ring-fenced and only encapsulated the North and Wellington road corridors - essentially just creating another branch line from the Dandenong corridor.

One of the findings from the Rowville Rail study was that it required extra capacity on the Dandenong corridor for trains to operate to and from the city and thus the new line would be dependent on Dandenong corridor upgrades and the Melbourne Metro Tunnel project from South Yarra to Kensington.

Rather than create another radial train service, wouldn't it be more prudent to start thinking outside the box by connecting existing lines and start serving major employment, education and high-potential residential growth zones in worthy suburban areas?

Don't all groan at once, but I think there's a legitimate case for another study to look into the impact, costs and benefits of cross-connecting the Alamein line with the Dandenong corridor and the points listed below are meant only as a conversation starter.

Furthermore it would also be interesting to see how a connection and services running between the Alamein and Dandenong corridors might improve the case for the Rowville line given the employment, retail and educational precincts it would connect: Swinburne University, Camberwell, Holmesglen Institute, Chadstone, Oakleigh, Monash University &amp; Mulgrave.

Is it time to give the Alamein line a greater purpose?

<iframe frameborder="0" height="600" scrolling="no" src="https://mapsengine.google.com/map/embed?mid=zZQXWc1VtNDo.kKnKWQL6NjGI" width="100%"></iframe>

The map above serves only as a reference point to begin the conversation. Click the individual components for more detail or click the full screen button in the top right corner of the map to view the detail in another window.

There are many ideas for connecting this region and I'm by no means saying the above is the absolute best, I've merely selected it as it's likely to be the more expensive option (other ideas prevalent right across the web include a tunnel along the old Outer Circle corridor and connecting with East Malvern Station and Chadstone to Oakleigh).

<h2>Phase 1</h2>

The flagship link. A tunnel (red line) from Ashburton running south-east to Holmesglen with a new set of interchange platforms alongside and underneath Warrigal Road to enable connectivity with the Glen Waverley line. The tunnel would then head south-west to run under Chadstone with a new station located on site and then the tunnel would run south-east once more to connect with two new underground platforms at Oakleigh.

Changes to the existing Alamein corridor (green line) would involve grade separations at Riversdale and Prospect Hill Roads resulting in a new station in a trench and interfaced directly with Riversdale road in turn making Willison Station redundant. A new fourth platform at Camberwell to act as a service terminus and a relocated Burwood station in order to better connect the line with the #75 trams and the Toorak Road precinct.

The existing track from Alamein to Ashburton from the south would be removed and re-instated as parkland with station buildings at Alamein, Willison and the old Burwood station re-purposed for community or commercial facilities and a new dedicated high-frequency bus would run between Ashburton and Darling stations through the catchment of the existing Alamein station (grey line).

Upon opening, services would shuttle between Oakleigh and Camberwell on 10 minute or better frequencies.

<h2>Phase 2</h2>

Project area 1: between Camberwell and Burnley there would be a fourth track laid in the existing reservation (orange line) and new platforms at Auburn, Glenferrie and Hawthorn. The map also attempts to depict the associated bridge widening works required between Hawthorn and the Glen Waverley line flyovers at Burnley.

Project area 2: in essence building the recommended route as outlined in the Rowville Rail Line study (light and dark blue lines - map ends in Mulgrave, but the assumption is to build the entire line to Rowville).

Upon opening of the second phase, the Camberwell-Oakleigh shuttle would morph into a much larger rail line running from Rowville direct to Flinders Street via Chadstone and Camberwell and all trains from the existing Ringwood corridor would only stop at Camberwell, Glenferrie and Richmond.

<h2>Some statistics on journeys to work</h2>

Some food for thought: the three main municipalities directly affected by this project are Boroondarra, Stonnington and Monash and the following journeys to work data has been pulled from population and demography consultancy <a href="http://home.id.com.au/">.id's</a> public site.

In 2011 <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/boroondara/workers">Boroondarra</a> had 61,000 employed persons, 31% of which lived in the municipality. 9% of people employed in Boroondarra travel from Glen Eira - Caulfield (1,293 or 2.1%), Stonnington - Malvern (1,363, 2.2%), Monash - South West (694, 1.0%), Monash - Waverley West (1,443, 2.3%), Monash - Waverley East (775, 1.3%).

<a href="http://profile.id.com.au/stonnington/workers">Stonnington</a>, which would gain one new station and an expanded interchange station, had 45,000 employed persons in 2011 and only 23% live in the same municipality. The breakdown of people who travel from outside the municipality is as follows: Glen Eira - Caulfield (2,910 or 6.4%), Monash - South West (1,313, 2.9%), Monash - Waverley West (1,367, 3.0%), Monash - Waverley East (847, 1.9%), Boroondarra - Camberwell South (1,505, 3.3%), Boroondarra - Hawthorn (1,006, 2.2%), Whitehorse - Box Hill (755, 1.7%).

<a href="http://profile.id.com.au/monash/workers">Monash</a> in 2011 had 89,000 employed persons, 23% living in the municipality. Much of workforce who travels to Monash lives to the south and east of the municipality however just under 7% travel from adjacent municipalities located near this project. Broken down that is: Boroondarra - Camberwell North &amp; South (2,237 or 2.5%), Stonnington - Malvern (1,486, 1.7%), Glen Eira - Caulfield (2,392, 2.7%).

Train travel, like car commuters on freeways, enables people to live greater distances from their workplace - and although policy should favour distances being reduced rather than increased - I think patronage forecasts would need to have catchment areas expanded, especially as Chadstone remains a key precinct in the region and attracts shoppers from right across the metropolitan area.

<h2>Future development options and value capture</h2>

This is Apartments.com.au and it just wouldn't be cricket if we didn't at least briefly look at redevelopment potential.

Beginning in Malvern East where Chadstone is located, Stonnington have liberally applied the new Residential Growth Zone to Dandenong Road and have continued to apply it along Warrigal Road from the intersection of Dandenong Road all the way up to Holmesglen Station. The Warrigal Road corridor is also interspersed with the mixed-use Commercial Zone 1 (C1Z) allowing for larger buildings.

The <a href="/buildings/holmes-hill-apartments-70-batesford-road-chadstone">Holmes Hill development at 70 Batesford Road</a> (C1Z), just off Warrigal Road approximately 200m from the existing Holmesglen station is a prime example of what is possible for increasing densities near the new or upgraded stations.

<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/holmes_hill_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Holmes Hill - 70 Batesford Road, Chadstone. Image © holmeshill.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="348" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/holmes_hill_1.jpg?itok=s2l3b_wl" title="Holmes Hill - 70 Batesford Road, Chadstone. Image © holmeshill.com.au" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Holmes Hill - 70 Batesford Road, Chadstone. Image © holmeshill.com.au</figcaption></figure>In terms of areas where the rail corridor and service already exists, the strip along Toorak Road where Burwood station could possibly be re-zoned on the Boroondarra Planning scheme as C1Z. And despite Boroondarra's lack of Residential Growth Zone, they do have a small, but not insignificant amount of land zoned General Residential Zone - Schedule 5 (allows up to 3 levels on site) near enough to the Alamein corridor. Oakleigh is already seeing its CBD fringes being redeveloped thanks to the area zoned as C1Z with a large amount of General Residential zone adjoining it.

I've not read or come across examples on how value capture systems work in their entirety so I would be interested to hear reader's thoughts on how a value capture system could be applied on a local/regional basis to help fund any project that may come to fruition.

<h2>What about the cost?</h2>

Cost of a study: the Rowville Rail Line study cost $2 million, and quite frankly it was money well-spent and a similar amount should be allocated to look at making the Alamein line more relevant in the 21st century.

Cost of the proposal as shown above: Well that's what the study would be for! Nevertheless, here's a not-so-scientific approach at having a stab at the cost.

Taking a broader look around the country, one project that springs to mind - in terms of getting a ballpark cost figure to potentially apply to the phase 1 proposal above - is Sydney's North West Rail Link. The NWRL is a 23 kilometre line, approximately 15km of which will be underground, stretching from Epping out to Sydney's outskirts.

The total cost of the NWRL is $8.3 billion according to its <a href="http://nwrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/The-Project/Project-Overview">website</a> - underground rail, elevated rail, stations and train procurement - or better represented as a $360 million per kilometre figure.

Using the per kilometre figure from the NWRL and applying it to the 5.5km tunnel depicted in the map, that would total a smidge under $2 billion. The 5-6 kilometres of upgrade work along the existing Alamein line - primarily grade separations, upgrades to Camberwell Station and the relocation of Burwood station - would, clearly, cost a lot less on a per kilometre basis than that of the tunnels.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamein_railway_station">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

The Alamein line: time for a new purpose?

<html><body>
The recently released pozible campaign-funded documentary - <a href="http://outercircleline.com.au/">The Outer Circle: Melbourne's forgotten railway</a> - tells the story of a late 19th century rail line that was built at a time when railway mania was rife across the colony of Victoria.

The Outer Circle was initially proposed as a way of connecting the Gippsland rail line, which terminated at present-day Oakleigh in 1872, to Melbourne. In 1878 the Victorian colonial government bought the private railway operator Melbourne &amp; Hobsons Bay United Railway company and decided build the line from Oakleigh to South Yarra as we currently know it.

Despite the new link created between Oakleigh and South Yarra, after a change of government in 1883 construction began on the Outer Cicle line in 1888. The first section and first services began operating between Oakleigh and Camberwell in 1890 with the completion of the line to Fairfield finalised in 1891.

After the economic depression of the early 1890's, the fall from grace for the Outer Circle line began with the first section to close - Riversdale to Fairfield - seeing its last service run just two years after they began.

<figure><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="326" mozallowfullscreen="" src="//player.vimeo.com/video/114303366" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="580"></iframe>

<figcaption><a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://vimeo.com/114303366">Melbourne's Forgotten Railway - The Outer Circle - Trailer</a> from <a href="https://vimeo.com/outercircleline">Outer Circle</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</figcaption></figure>Gunzels will love the documentary for the enormous amount of time and detail put into profiling each type of train which used the various sections of the line during its on and off again see-saw of openings and closures; and the film is an important historical record in the way it documents how Eastern Melbourne developed, which is sure to pique the planning community's interest.

For anyone who has looked at a Melway map of inner Eastern Melbourne, it's quite easy to trace the route of the former Outer Circle line sections and the film makes use of a fantastic array of many historical images and modern-day aerial imagery to give a sense of how the line once operated.

<figure><img alt="" height="498" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/pictures/article-images/outer_circle_wikipedia.png" title="Outer Circle line diagram from Wikipedia" width="487"><figcaption>Outer Circle line diagram from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Circle_railway_line">Wikipedia</a></figcaption></figure>One of the strongest themes across the one hour documentary is an intriguing tale of pre-federation colonial cronyism. In an interesting sign of the times the film documents how colonial government largesse - thanks to the buoyant land boom thinking of the time - saw the Outer Circle Line built to a very high standard with little economic rationale other than serving the pecuniary interests of some politicians who bought up land in 'villages' such as Camberwell then sold the land for an inflated price after the line was opened.

The different sections of the Outer Circle line had better success with the movement of goods throughout the region; wood to Brunswick and later coal to Fairfield were just some of the materials regularly transported to provide energy to homes and industries near the line in the early days. The "Build it and they will come" attitude which often gets talked about in modern times was clearly rife in the late 1800's.

Amongst the many things the viewer will learn, present day Willison station was originally built to serve the needs of golfers and it was assumed in the northern section between Riversdale and Fairfield, that the railway would light a fire cracker under residential sub-division and development through present day Kew. Ultimately economic depression and a rapidly expanding tram network - which was able to provide far more frequent and direct services to the city - put the nail in the coffin for passenger services.

Having dodged the East-West link bullet as shown by the dubious business case documents released this week, one can't help question that had the East-West Link been built and a similar documentary like the Outer Circle been produced a century after the opening of the freeway: would the same themes be present? I'd argue yes.

Melbourne and in particular Eastern Melbourne is a very different place to the orchards, paddocks and villages that characterised the region when the Outer Circle line was built. And given the decades of auto-centric development that has occurred and the need to pare back the monstrous share of trips that cars make it Melbourne, is it worth while studying the impacts of auto-centricity in the east by rebuilding the southern section of the Outer Circle line?

Camberwell is no longer a village, but a retail and employment centre in its own right. The Alamein line merely acts as a shuttle to connect residents in sleepy Ashburton with the centre of the city. The largest shopping centre in Australia has no rail access and new education and research hubs have been built in Holmesglen, Glenferrie and Clayton since the Outer Circle was first proposed.

The Baillieu Government's Rowville Rail line study made reference to public comments about a new Rowville line connecting up with the Alamein line but explicitly stated that this option was excluded from the study's scope. Perhaps a new study looking at the Alamein line and linking the new employment, education and research centres south of the Alamein line's terminus might once and for all provide a decent business case for the Outer Circle line.

You can buy a DVD and Blu-Ray set from <a href="http://outercircleline.com.au/">The Outer Circle's website</a> and you can also watch the documentary by renting it for 24 hours on <a href="https://vimeo.com/ondemand/outercircleline">Vimeo</a>.

Lead image credit: <a href="http://www.evolving.com.au/melbournes-outer-circle-railway-documentary/">Evolving Communications</a>.
</body></html>

The Outer Circle documentary - review

<html><body>
On Monday night, Engineers Australia held their annual <a href="http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/events/transport-year-review">Transport: year in review</a> event at the Park Hyatt which included four panelists in front of a 100+ strong audience. Commentary was broad-based and thoroughly interesting if politics and city building piques your interest.

The panelists included The Age Transport reporter <a href="https://twitter.com/adamlcarey">Adam Carey</a>, Grattan Institute CEO <a href="http://grattan.edu.au/people/bio/john-daley/">John Daley</a>, Member of the Ministerial Advisory Committee for Plan Melbourne Professor <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/business/staff/johnsta">John Stanley</a> and CEO of the Committee for Melbourne <a href="https://twitter.com/committee4melb">Kate Roffey</a>.

Each of the panelists provided a wide range of views starting with Adam Carey giving his perspective on the way Transport policy played out both at the start of the year and during the election campaign.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" lang="en">
On <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ewlink?src=hash">#ewlink</a>: 'nobody in our community can explain why <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ewlink?src=hash">#ewlink</a> is a good project' - John Daley <a href="https://twitter.com/GrattanInst">@GrattanInst</a> <a href="http://t.co/laLl16Ivjr">pic.twitter.com/laLl16Ivjr</a>
— Apartments.com.au (@UrbanMelbourne) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/UrbanMelbourne/status/541856978708873216">December 8, 2014</a>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>John Daley's focus on transparency and governance is best characterised when he lamented "We are in a world where there is no transparency in the way [transport] projects are selected". The audience liked John's quip when he labelled the elephant-in-the-room 'East-West-East link' project as well.

Kate Roffey focused on many issues but one which stuck out was the poignant reminder that in the not too distant future the new government will be dealing with the winding down of the automotive manufacturing sector. Kate Roffey also argued that many of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects such as the Pakenham/Cranbourne corridor project should be prioritised as it predominantly involved private capital and that it will go a long way to offsetting the impending job pain.

John Stanley brought a planning angle to the discussion and painted a picture when he highlighted the contrast in thinking at a State and Provincial level in Victoria and Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
John Stanley - 'I asked Ontario and BC reps what major road projects are underway, they looked at me like I was from a different planet'
— Apartments.com.au (@UrbanMelbourne) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/UrbanMelbourne/status/541861110404501504">December 8, 2014</a>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>Similarly John Stanley opined that Melbourne should slow its growth on the fringe and the heavy lifting for transport projects over the longer term should focus on connecting new residential development in the middle ring, where most of the metropolitan area's jobs are located.

<h2>Q&amp;A Session</h2>

Post presentations, the Q&amp;A session took on a more free-flowing discussion with many of the overarching themes revolving around:

<ul>
<li>Will the new Infrastructure Victoria agency have teeth? To what extent will local government have a role in both Infrastructure Victoria and the Metropolitan Planning Authority?</li>
	<li>Bi-partisan approach to transport policy and prioritisation is resulting in a sense in the community that nothing is being done to attack congestion, with the contrast being made with Sydney where a panelist believed the opposite were true.</li>
	<li>William McDougall, sitting in the audience (who previously presented at our <a href="https://urbanmelbourne.info/transport/2014/02/01/gmug-2013-william-mcdougall-on-future-transport-trends-for-cities">2013 Melbourne Knowledge Week event</a>), queried the panel on whether they believed the current models used to assess the public net worth of a project were adequate.
	<ul>
<li>One answer highlighted by Kate Roffey was the approach that UK cities are taking, in particular the Greater Manchester region. A summary of this approach can be seen in a <a href="http://www.kpmg.com/AU/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/uk-city-deal-economic-growth-productivity.pdf">recent publication</a> by KPMG and the Property Council of Australia.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>The middle ring of Melbourne needs to have far more focus on connectivity, with arterial road expansion in conjunction with accelerated introduction of more smart bus and local bus routes.</li>
	<li>Each panelist was asked to comment on "what should the new government have done or set in motion by January 1 2015". Their responses varied however an ever present theme amongst them: setting real expectations on the transport policies taken to the recent election.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Comment</h2>

Transport policy and projects did play a large role in media coverage during the year and in particular in the lead up to and during the election campaign as Kate Roffey pointed to in her opening remarks. Can voter's minds be further expanded to include land-use and how it affects them on top of the standard kitchen table policy areas of jobs, health and education?

I'd argue in no uncertain terms that the way we house ourselves and the way we transport ourselves - the fundamental way we use the land we inhabit - to and from school, work and leisure (remember: living isn't all about working!) should be the top issue with health and education playing a secondary yet complimentary role.

Transport for so many across Melbourne is about being forced into utilising private vehicles traveling to, from and within auto-centric suburbia which leaves these people at higher risk of vulnerability to external factors such as fuel price spikes. The lazy politicians in both the Liberal/Labor parties and in the road lobbies will bleat on about the need for a "balanced" approach to transport policy and expenditure but this just flies in the face of reality.

Sustainable and public transport use has increased in terms of mode share over recent years but continuing high population growth means that already over-used private transport is still growing and contributing to increasing congestion in the mode of transport that most Melburnians are locked in to. It's a vicious circle.

Perhaps when prosecuting the case for prioritising public transport over private transport investment - especially to the centre-right of the political spectrum as they appear to be struggling just that little bit more than the centre-left - the argument should be framed around some of the core Liberal values of individual choice and competition.

Individuals (and families) for the most part have limited choice in the way they spend their transport dollars and this lack of competition deprives the individual from pursuing the maximum amount of job and lifestyle opportunities compared to those living in competition-rich areas.

Is it not a quasi neo-liberal/conservative philosophy to maintain and ensure the individual (and family unit) has as much access to opportunities as possible for their own life pursuits?

Sitting in worsening traffic, bereft politicians talking of 'balancing transport priorities' and in reality applying expensive band-aid status quo solutions (more commuter Freeways) without attacking the core problem - that there's simply too many people required to use cars in the first place - is unproductive, lazy and likely to further fracture society by locking away opportunities.

Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/lonely-over-christmas-a-snapshot-of-social-isolation-in-the-suburbs-34810">Lonely over Christmas: a snapshot of social isolation in the suburbs</a>.

Lead image courtesy Norman Bear.
</body></html>

Highlights from Engineers Australia transport year in review

<html><body>
Nothing should ever be set in stone.

In the context of Australia's three levels of government, planning or more to the point, the Planning Minister has no direct Federal level equivalent. It's a powerful role in a state context which is (not presently) threatened with being overridden by a Canberra-based superior and therefore I'd argue the role of the Planning Minister is the most powerful state ministerial position after the role of Premier.

Regardless of the context in which the original 25,000 square metre threshold and more broadly the Capital City Zone was conceived, central Melbourne has clearly changed and the city has affirmed its global reputation as a destination for foreign capital.

Like all strategies, checks and balances on power and government are required, therefore there's always scope for review.

My instinct tells me there's room for more regulation and included in that could be the review of the 25,000 square metre threshold which triggers when the Planning Minister becomes the responsible authority for planning applications in the Capital City Zone. My instincts also tell me lower levels of government need oversight from tiers above.

Much of the palava you read about in other media outlets focuses almost exclusively on the City of Melbourne, with the same media outlets paying very little attention to what's happening outside the central core (and they ignore it at their own peril). Each week as I'm preparing our <a href="/news">weekly digest</a> I make a point of utilising projects located outside the central core for the Spotlight section.

20+ volumes later I'd hope our 1100+ newsletter subscribers have as clearer picture as the editors and database maintainers do with regard to what's really going on in Melbourne. All of Melbourne.

If you listen to a range of planning academics and practitioners you will find no-one holds the same <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Weltanschauung">weltanschauung</a>. Skyscrapers or 'European' density are best for Central Melbourne? The answer will generally be: both and everything in between as long as it is designed well.

As the City of Melbourne is the local government area where sharp focus would return should any major changes to the threshold rule be altered (or abolished), it's prudent to look at what they have done, and what they say about proposals which get sent to the Planning Minister.

In late October the Planning Minister released departmental officer reports on planning applications the Minister and DTPLI had reviewed. In the associated <a href="/news/planning-minister-releases-departmental-officer-reports">press release</a>, the Minister stated that City of Melbourne had supported 46 out of the 70 (65%) planning applications which the Minister was responsible for.

Likewise back in early August at IMPA's 'City in Crisis?' forum, the City of Melbourne panelist declared the City of Melbourne generally supports towers, just well-designed towers.

<blockquote>
We get really obsessed with height - we can have great towers and bad towers, we need to shift the discussion more toward the quality of development.
<cite>Leanne Hodyl, <a href="/news/public-forum-city-in-crisis">IMPA's 'City in Crisis?' forum</a></cite>
</blockquote>

Granted past performance and context does not necessarily provide an accurate forecast of future prospects, but I don't think anyone can legitimately argue central Melbourne development would dry up significantly should there be any major changes, with or without a change of government. In fact, is abolishing the threshold a major change given that the powers that be in Council House 2 have supported so many large proposals?

Even if the threshold was doubled to 50,000 square metres, there'd still be a lot of proposals hitting the Planning Minister's desk.

I say yes to a review and yes to tweaks - such as doubling the threshold or abolishing it thus handing full power back to the lower level of government - because I'm not convinced City of Melbourne would make drastic changes which would shut off development entirely as, thankfully, the council is not dominated by any single political worldview.

Lead image courtesy Pixabay.

You can read co-editor Mark Baljak's <a href="/expert-insights/buying/state-ministers-and-the-25-000sqm-threshold-is-it-time-for-a-review">view on the same topic</a>.
</body></html>

25,000sqm threshold: yes it is time to review it

<html><body>
Both major political parties are talking up level crossing removals as part of their transport policy repertoires; the ALP are promising to remove 50 and the Coalition promising 40. At the recent pay-TV only people's forum, Daniel Andrews was pressured on timeframes should the ALP win Government and he announced an eight-year period to complete the 50 crossing removals.

Eight years is an ambitious timeframe in anyone's book and should ALP form government after November 29th, it will be a benchmark that the Government (should they form it) will be judged on.

As for the coalition's promise of 40 level crossing removals either started, funded or planned, Daniel Bowen <a href="http://www.danielbowen.com/2014/09/24/level-crossing-list/">has an interesting write up</a> breaking down the numbers; it appears the Coalition are claiming the 13 road over rail or rail over road bridges created as part of the Regional Rail Link project as true crossing removals (when there was no level crossing to begin with).

Regardless, the ALP and Coalition clearly aim to ramp up further removals throughout the metropolitan area and given promises from one side of politics - to do so many in a relatively short period of time - it's hard to not feel uneasy about the potential for inevitable compromise should the proverbial hit the fan.

The Office of Victorian Government Architect, as part of their Victorian Design Review Panel series, has a relevant two-pager with the title <a href="http://www.ovga.vic.gov.au/images/VDRP_Lessons_Learned_Level_Crossing_Removals.pdf">Level Crossing Removals: Lessons Learned</a>. The strategic issues section is summarised:

<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>A level crossing removal is more than an engineering project which physically separates road and rail.</li>
	<li>View the project as a catalyst for urban renewal.</li>
	<li>Establish a vision for the site that is broader than improving transport efficiency.</li>
	<li>Include the expertise of urban design professionals in the development of the design.</li>
	<li>Develop site-specific urban design guidelines.</li>
	<li>Allow a reference design to be revised and challenged by the project/bidding team.</li>
</ul>
<cite>Office of Victorian Government Architect</cite>
</blockquote>

I recently had the chance to take a wander around one of the most recent examples of grade separation + new station rebuild at Mitcham. All in all it's an impressive new station with all the trimmings you'd expect.

Station Street which intersects with Whitehorse Road now looks (and more importantly feels) connected with the new concourse built above the lowered tracks with an excellent less-than-50m walk to bus stops on both the northern and southern platforms. Slick deep blue tiles, modern ticket office and a healthy smattering of retail space meld the whole precinct together and the station feels truly a part of the existing commercial strip to the north.

<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/mitcham_station_modscape1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="New Mitcham Station with grade separation of Mitcham Road. Image Modscape"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="359" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/mitcham_station_modscape1.jpg?itok=ziYjxK6j" title="New Mitcham Station with grade separation of Mitcham Road. Image Modscape " width="580"></a>

<figcaption>New Mitcham Station with grade separation of Mitcham Road. Image Modscape</figcaption></figure>Perhaps my only two criticisms for the station relate to the surface car parks that are a typical feature of many suburban railway stations. To the left of the picture above, an open-air car park sits wasting away when really the land should be put to more valuable use.

Sure there's always going to be a need for commuter car parking, but in situations like Mitcham it was disappointing that surface car parking still dominates the northern periphery of the station.

Visiting urbanist and former Chief Planner of Vancouver, <a href="http://www.toderianurbanworks.com/">Brent Toderian</a>, last month <a href="http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-breakfast-blog/how-to-make-melbourne-better/20141030-3j6b4">made an extremely valid point</a> when he said Australian cities have an enormous amount of heavy rail infrastructure in place already and our primary failing is getting the land use around stations 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/mitcham_station_modscape2.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Prefabulous, Mitcham Station concourse looking toward Whitehorse Road. Image Modscape"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="359" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/mitcham_station_modscape2.jpg?itok=ZXOo3T-a" title="Modu-fabulous, Mitcham Station concourse looking toward Whitehorse Road. Image Modscape" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Modu-fabulous, Mitcham Station concourse looking toward Whitehorse Road. Image Modscape</figcaption></figure>I guess my fears (and hopes) for Melbourne's grade separation frenzy that we're likely to witness whomever wins Government on Saturday can be summed thus:

We should expect nothing less than the architectural quality of Mitcham for each and every one of the projects which result in a new station rebuild. Plus the Planning and Transport Ministers should work together to ensure that each project doesn't surround each new station with hectares of wasteful surface car parking, regardless of whether a project is in the inner, middle or outer rings of Melbourne.

Modular and prefabricated approach should not only be encouraged but prioritised. If you look at the ALP's aspirations, 50 projects is a lot of work and there's going to be a great deal of commonality between them; a fantastic opportunity to put work in the hands of advanced manufacturers.

Where a station is currently two single platforms, rail engineers, urban designers and the purse string holders should look at rebuilding the new stations with island platforms where possible. Nunawading saw this happen, but Mitcham and Springvale have not had this treatment.

Island platforms make it easier for passengers - no need for passengers unfamiliar with a station's configuration to stop and think which platform they need to go to before heading through the ticketed area (one of many passenger-positive reasons) - and the platforms would have greater passive surveillance from concourses and from outside station boundaries above in the case where a station is lowered like at Mitcham.

And finally, <a href="/news/should-the-mernda-rail-extension-project-result-in-more-intensive-land-uses">let's get land use right</a>. There is plenty of scope for PPP integration at new stations; the Residential Growth Zone should be employed liberally on land adjacent to new stations and car parking should quite literally be out of sight and and out of mind.

Lead image credit: Nunawading Station, Grimshaw via <a href="http://www.e-architect.co.uk/melbourne/nunawading-station">E-Architect.co.uk</a>.

View more Mitcham Station images on <a href="http://modscape.com.au/projects/mitcham-railway-station/">modscape.com.au</a>.
</body></html>

Level crossing removals: let's shake it up a bit

<html><body>
All three major political parties are now committed to extending the South Morang (née Epping) line to Mernda. With commitments from the <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/north/greg-barber-confirms-greens-will-build-mernda-rail-extension/story-fnglenug-1227040171681">Liberals</a>, the <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/north/labor-announces-mernda-rail-extension-if-elected-in-november/story-fnglenug-1227069982293">ALP</a> and the <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/north/greg-barber-confirms-greens-will-build-mernda-rail-extension/story-fnglenug-1227040171681">Greens</a>, focus will now shift to cost and whether or not a re-elected Napthine Government or new incoming Government actually gets on with the job.

While perusing the City of Whittlesea's website in the days after the final commitment was made by the Liberal party, I stumbled upon the <a href="https://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/building-planning-and-transport/planning-and-development/planning-for-the-future/mernda-doreen-plans/~/media/Files/Building%20Planning%20and%20Transport/Future/Mernda%20Town%20Centre%20Development%20Plan.pdf">master plan diagrams for the Mernda Town Centre</a>. Originally approved in 2009 with amendments made in 2012, one map which caught my interest was the indicative land use diagram as shown below.

<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/mernda_town_centre.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Mernda Town Centre Comprehensive Development, page 48."><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="834" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/mernda_town_centre.png?itok=MCLbAqEg" title="Mernda Town Centre Comprehensive Development, page 48." width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Mernda Town Centre Comprehensive Development, page 48.</figcaption></figure>As you can see from the map, high-density housing doesn't feature all that heavily except directly adjacent to the transport interchange, which one would assume is where the new Mernda station will be built. Lower densities dominate the comprehensive development plan with many typically suburban aspects featuring in the document.

But is it right to build infrastructure designed to carry mass amounts of people with a same-same attitude to how the area will be developed over time?

Granted there has been a long-fought community campaign to have the Epping Line extended to South Morang and then even further along the former Whittlesea rail line. The congestion in the area has had noteworthy media coverage, but perhaps that is more a fault of the improper road design and lack of the simplest and cheapest public transport mode (buses) being rolled out over the course of the region's development.

That said, something is happening, however given the rail extension will enter an area with relatively low land prices (as compared to Northcote, Collingwood or Clifton Hill on the same train line) isn't this the perfect opportunity to turn fringe design on its head?

Take St. Germain Village, a new development planned in the City of Casey. This greenfields site is turning suburban design on its head; a diverse range of housing densities (well much more than the strip of high-density marked in the Mernda Town Centre plan) with integrated health, commercial and retail precincts. As we reported on back in October, the <a href="/expert-insights/buying/turning-the-tide-in-the-badlands">tide looks to be turning</a> for suburban design.

St. Germain Village is going all-out with no new rail line being built into the precinct and the Mernda Town Centre plan appears to be quite "business-as-usual". I can't help but feel the wrong message is being sent in this instance.

Should rail line extensions come with increased land use intensity trade-offs?

Lead image credit: <a href="http://www.unipollwatch.org.au/mernda-rail-delay-costs-yan-yean/">unipollwatch.org.au</a>.
</body></html>

Should the Mernda rail extension project result in more intensive land uses?

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sunland-group">Sunland Group</a> has officially lodged plans for its first Gold Coast apartment project since the departure of the Abedian family from the company three years ago, unveiling a new high-rise proposal for a prominent Broadbeach corner site on Old Burleigh Road.

The application was submitted by an entity directed by Tom Jamieson, stepson of longtime Sunland leader Soheil Abedian, and Riaz Rezvanipour, brother-in-law of Sahba Abedian, Soheil’s son.

Sunland acquired the 1,283 sqm site on the corner of Old Burleigh Road and Armrick Avenue for $9.5 million late last year and is now seeking approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/99-101-old-burleigh-road-broadbeach-qld-4218">42-storey tower with 81 apartments</a>.

<img alt="First look: Sunland Group returns to Broadbeach with new Old Burleigh Road tower plans" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fea2946d-90ee-4cfc-babe-2a8ad5db2cb6" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/pers.png?VersionId=BV0fihJw31nDIQ8ozY_h3GbS8mxDyhnm" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/contreras-earl-architecture">Contreras Earl Architecture</a>, the proposed tower at 99-101 Old Burleigh Road would deliver a predominantly larger-format apartment mix aimed at the owner-occupier market. Plans include 17 two-bedroom apartments, 55 three-bedroom apartments, and nine four-bedroom residences across 35 residential levels.

The development also incorporates three basement levels, four podium parking levels, two levels of communal recreation facilities, and rooftop plant and equipment. A total of 189 car spaces are proposed, significantly exceeding the 90 spaces required under the planning scheme.

The architecture adopts a sculpted, curvilinear form, with deep wraparound balconies and integrated landscaping intended to soften the tower’s vertical expression. The planning report states the building’s “slender footprint/form provides a complimentary yet varied built form within the local streetscape” and contributes to “a varied, yet ordered skyline.”

Contreras Earl noted in its Architectural Statement that from the early stages, the project addressed a fundamental challenge: how to accommodate the required residential yield while avoiding the conventional model of a tower sitting on a rigid, fully resolved parking podium.

“The most direct response would have been to consolidate parking into a singular, flat podium and extrude a repetitive tower above,” the statement said. “While efficient, this approach would result in a consolidated built form with limited engagement with the surrounding landscape and public realm.”

Instead, the conventional podium model was “deliberately rejected”. The architects described the base of the building as “a landscaped architectural condition where structure, planting and circulation are integrated”.

“Rather than presenting a continuous built mass, the base of the building is articulated through a series of concrete planter elements that organise the podium into a fragmented system,” the statement said. “This approach reduces the perceived bulk of the lower levels while establishing a more permeable interface with the streetscape and adjacent open space.”

<img alt="Sunland" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="923fad8d-c960-4527-8fbe-975cf1ddf88d" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-25%20at%2010.32.03%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=pngwb0hYOIUpq9vDw6F2EsOiVuHF3DiX" />

&nbsp;

The site sits within the High Density Residential Zone and inside the City of Gold Coast’s unrestricted “HX” building height area, where the planning framework anticipates intensified residential development tied to the expanding light rail corridor. The planning report notes the area is undergoing “transition toward more intense development forms” given its proximity to Broadbeach, Surfers Paradise, and high-frequency public transport infrastructure.

Positioned directly opposite Broadbeach Park and within walking distance of Florida Gardens light rail station, the development would sit among a rapidly evolving stretch of Old Burleigh Road that has become one of the Gold Coast’s most active apartment development corridors.

The application joins a growing pipeline of luxury residential projects reshaping Broadbeach, including nearby developments by 5Point Projects, Polycell, and Graya.

The planning report argues the project contributes toward the Gold Coast’s long-term housing targets under the South East Queensland Regional Plan, which forecasts the need for more than 100,000 additional high-rise dwellings across the city by 2046.

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-4" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-1" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-1" dir="auto">
The Abedian family departed Sunland Group in late 2023, ending a four-decade association with the company, and subsequently established the private development firm Abedian &amp; Co. The group is currently delivering <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/greenmount-residences-cnr-hill-street-and-marine-parade-coolangatta-qld-4225">Greenmount Residences</a> at Rainbow Bay and recently launched <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/18-mary-avenue-14-18-mary-avenue-broadbeach-qld-4218">18 Mary Avenue</a> in Broadbeach.
</section>

Joel Robinson

First look: Sunland Group returns to Broadbeach new apartment market with new Old Burleigh Road tower plans

The Minns Labor Government has established the new Bays West Delivery Authority to lead the development&nbsp;of the Bays West Precinct and Blackwattle Bay Precinct.&nbsp;

The Authority is charged with creating Sydney’s newest precinct, a thriving, connected, sustainable hub with White Bay Power Station as its cultural heart. Its vision is to build on the area’s natural, cultural and industrial history to shape a vibrant new neighbourhood.

The precinct will deliver up to 8,500 well-located homes, including a minimum of 10 per cent affordable and essential worker homes. Combine new housing with public open space, opening public access to the waterfront for the first time in more than 100 years, while retaining important deep-water facilities to support Sydney’s working harbour.

Located just minutes from the Sydney CBD and connected to a world-class metro, ferry, walking and cycling links, the Bays West precinct will rebalance housing growth towards well-serviced inner-city locations and help tackle the state’s housing crisis.

The Bays West Delivery Authority,&nbsp;an agency of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, will report to the NSW Minister for Lands and Property who already has oversight of major precinct renewal projects including at Blackwattle Bay and Barangaroo.

As part of the broader Bays West transformation, the Minns Government recently announced that a proposal from Lendlease to redevelop part of the Bays West Precinct has progressed to Stage 2 of the NSW Government’s unsolicited proposals process.

<img alt="Sydney" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2ed71eb9-d8e8-4fa7-b9d1-de4531dcf2f3" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-25%20at%209.42.31%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=IDryFIbped9SNDg72LEN_EecvhUsOPvp" />

The Minns Labor Government has also confirmed the Bays West precinct will have a new suburb name. This will be the first major suburb built in close proximity to Sydney’s CBD in decades and will encompass the area currently being referred to as Bays West, including Glebe Island and the White Bay Power Station. Served by a new Metro station just five minutes from the CBD, it will become one of the most populous suburbs in the Inner West and one of Sydney’s premier cultural destinations.

An early works program is taking shape, which&nbsp;includes the first stages of an international design competition.&nbsp;

The aim of the Bays West&nbsp;International&nbsp;Design Competition is to&nbsp;ensure design excellence is embedded in the project from the start. The competition will deliver an&nbsp;urban framework that defines the character, ambition and long-term identity of&nbsp;this&nbsp;former industrial precinct as it transitions to a vibrant, inclusive and sustainable residential&nbsp;neighbourhood.

The competition will be led by the Bays West Delivery Authority in partnership with Government Architect NSW.&nbsp;

It will launch with an invitation for a global Expressions of Interest, before moving to an invitation-only stage that will be assessed by a panel that&nbsp;will provide advice to Cabinet who will select a winner.

Premier of NSW, Chris Minns said the establishment of the new Authority is the first step in transforming the Bays West precinct into a vibrant, livable suburb minutes from the Sydney CBD and two stops from Hunter St Station on the Metro West line.

“The Authority will deliver well-located homes close to the heart of the city and integrate the new precinct with Blackwattle Bay and the new Sydney Fish Market.

“This is a generational opportunity to build a new suburb on the city’s edge and open the harbour foreshore to the public for the first time in a century.”&nbsp;

Minister for Lands and Property Steve Kamper said the new Bays West Delivery Authority established by the Minns Government will turbocharge the development of Sydney’s newest suburb.

“The Authority is working at a record pace to deliver an international design competition, planning pathways and a financial model so that this development benefits Sydney with well-designed homes in a central location, close to public transport, jobs, entertainment and essential services.

“If we want Sydney to stay liveable and affordable, we need to be bold about using underutilised government-owned land to deliver homes for the future while making sure essential working harbour functions can be accommodated.”

Bays West Delivery Authority established to "turbocharge" Sydney’s newest suburb

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.

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.

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