Overview

This discussion covers the impacts of growth, and managing for that growth in a range of different ways.

Note that there is also significant discussion related to this topic in Priority 1.4. Designed for people, within the first section - Urban planning to deliver quality outcomes.

Growth identified (39/119)

These comments were all very similar and often short in nature. They consistently stated that Melbourne is quickly growing, that the impacts are being felt and that they need to be managed. This was one short statement similar to many.

Managing a growing population and ensuring harmony is maintained

Managing for growth (80/119)

There was significant discussion on management of the city’s growth, in particular the management of sprawl, balancing it with density, and maintaining high quality of life standards for Melburnians. Many saw the answer in providing additional amenities to improve quality of life outcomes for residents and visitors. This was one comment about making the existing city more liveable.

Reduce urban expansion, improve the carrying capacity of what we already have, to provide elbow room for change whilst slower expanding (beneficial) practices are implemented and grow

This was another explanation of what is required, similar to many other comments.

A liveable city to all, even as we grow. I think we need to address the important infrastructure items so that our city remains liveable (if overcrowded public transport was the council's responsibility it would be my top priority)

The following idea received several comments in conversations. The conversation illustrates the complexity of this issue with most of the interplay regarding increasing density to constrain sprawl, and at the same time retaining quality living environments.

Apply density limits to city blocks -- Melbourne City is growing. The CBD has many high density apartments being constructed all over. Many seem to have been approved with little regard for local amenity and infrastructure capacity. I propose that a maximum residential population for each of the CBD blocks be set. These would need to be varied depending on access to nearby amenities and how well infrastructure in the area can cope with increases in residents. Further, should a developer wish to violate the current density limit, they must use their development (or investment) to increase the capacity of local infrastructure. These limits would should be set by an impartial third party qualified to make such judgements on the current state of infrastructure in the city.

This was one of the conversation counter comments.

population AWAY from the city. What you've really proposed is two solutions to two different problems, and they seem to contradict.

This idea outlined the problems envisaged with a quickly growing population, with a large number of people in favour of limiting population growth.

Population stabilisation -- Melbourne is already too big and is growing much to fast. Population pressure is making it less and less livable. Affordable housing is flying out of reach of our children and grandchildren. Traffic congestion is impacting on productivity and quality of life to a degree that is become intolerable. We must slow down and stabilise as quickly as possible.

Some people suggested that populations should be distributed through more, large, urban activity centres outside the heart of the city. Similar suggestions were “to bridge The Rip from the Queenscliff side to the Sorrento side, and therefore ring the bay”, which will open up the opportunity to develop along the coast. Some see that the solution is in apartment living, but others see that quality of life needs to be retained within these environments, through minimum room sizes and close proximity to amenities for residents who don’t have access to their own green space. However, some opposed high-rise living — because of their environmental impacts, such as wind and reduced sunlight — and would prefer a low-rise city.