Search

The redevelopment of Melbourne’s docklands—the largest urban development project in Australia—has been the subject of various official narratives in the course of its 20-year realisation so far. Many of these have invoked aspirations—‘visions’ or imaginaries—of sustainability, including, variously, economic, environmental, social and cultural sustainability. Through documentary sources used to establish these narratives, this paper tracks the changes in vision against changes in the local political-economic context and examines their effects on the ground. The paper argues that, while each vision was intended to some degree to rescue the development from the failure of the preceding one, only the most recent phase represents any deviation from neoliberal development-as-usual, and this is more to do with the intensifying criticism of the project’s failure to demonstrate any kind of sustainability than it is the implementation of an articulated aspiration. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Australia has long had a deeply speculative housing property market. Arguably this has been accentuated in recent years as successive governments have privileged private-sector investment in housing property as the key mechanism for delivering housing and a concurrent winding back of direct government support for housing. This has occurred through a period in which urban renewal and flexible planning regulation have become the key focus of urban planning policy to deliver on compact city ambitions in the name of sustainability. There has been a tendency to read many of the higher density housing outcomes as a relatively homogenous component of the housing market. There has been a comparative lack of critical engagement with differentiated spatial, physical and socio-economic outcomes within the higher density housing market. This paper will explore the interactions between flexible design-based planning policies, the local property market and physical outcomes. Different parts of the property development industry produced distinctive social and physical outcomes within the same regulatory space. Each response was infused with similar politics of exclusion and privilege in which capacity to pay regulated both access and standard of housing accessible, opening new socio-economic divisions within Australia’s housing landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]