DOCSLIB.ORG

Urban Village

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Urban Village URBAN V I L L A G E 2 2 - 7 7 s t ubbs st r eet , k ensing ton C O N T E N T S 1| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The Brief 2 1.2 Objectives & Key Ideas 2 2| CLIENT’S BRIEF 2.1 Housing Choices Australia 3 2.2 Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation 4 City of Melbourne Places Victoria 3| CONTEXT 3.1 General overview 5 3.2 Social 6 3.3 Urban 8 3.4 Planning 9 3.5 Opportunities and Challenges 11 4|STRATEGIES FOR THE SITE 12 4.1 Retrofit 13 4.2 Lightweight construction 14 4.3 Community Infrastructure 15 4.4 Village Square 17 4.5 Family Friendly Designs 18 4.6 An Eco City 19 4.7 Integrated Apartments 20 4.8 Internal Amenities 21 5|Future Implementations 22 1| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BRIEF & OBJECTIVES The re-visioning of the Arden-Macauley district has created an oppor- tunity for early intervention to secure long-term, diverse and afford- able housing options in this well-located, inner city area. This design proposal responds to a complex of problems in housing delivery in inner city areas, including the lack of family-friendly, af- fordable housing as well as more typically conceived ‘social housing’, catering to the needs of disabled, disadvantaged or at-risk popula- tions. The key ideas driving the master planning of this site are: - affordable, adaptable, high quality housing - place to play, and commune, for all ages and abilities - eco-responsive, passivehaus design. 2 2| CLIENTS BRIEF HOUSING CHOICES AUSTRALIA The challenge issued by Housing Choices As social and affordable housing Australia in the Getting to Yes Studio delivered by a housing association Design Brief brief is to provide a residential design typically remains under management, solution for 25– 72 Stubbs Street, North consideration should be given not only Melbourne that provides a socially cohe- to immediate financial viability, but also sive insertion into the existing commu- to issues of ongoing maintenance and nity, whilst satisfying the requirements of management. financial viability. The Design Guidelines and Outline In developing new residential dwellings Specifications provided by Housing for this site, a maximum of 30 dwellings Choices (summarised in the table on the were to be set aside for affordable left)required that the site development housing units, to be allocated to tenants deliver a maximum of 30 units of social by Housing Choices Australia. Consid- housing, along with space for on-site eration was to be given to the needs of support services (office, security and people with limited mobility, different hot-desk), car parking (for at least 50% of levels of external support and care, and units), communal facilities, multi-purpose disabilities. Care needed to be taken to spaces, a communal laundry and ground respect the independence of residents floor commercial spaces. with a disability, whilst ensuring their (often complex) needs could be met. While the financial model for delivery Additionally, in line with the broader of these units is unconfirmed, Housing aims of the Getting to Yes collaborative Choices has Commonwealth Government research project, this design solution funding of $5.57 million to deliver social needed to also incorporate housing in the Arden-Macaulay area, family-friendly housing and supportive with funding conditions requiring that community infrastructure. Housing Choices procure private funding equal to 20% of the total project cost to deliver further social housing outcomes for the project (so increasing the total grant amount to $7.4 million). 3 2| CLIENTS BRIEF LORD MAYOR’S CHARITABLE FOUNDATION|PLACES VICTORIA |CITY OF MELBOURNE LORD MAYOR CHARITABLE FOUNDATION The Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation has contributed $360,000 to provide for on-site offices, multi-purpose spaces and commu- nity infrastructure for all residents, but par- ticularly those at risk of homelessness, with mental health conditions or disabilities. PLACES VICTORIA The main intentions of Places Victoria is to address areas with challenges of affordabil- ity, sustainability and liveability through the transformation of the urban form. The main focus in creating new residences is achiev- ing a mixture of house sizes that are in close proximity to quality jobs, community infrastructure, transport and amenities. CITY OF MELBOURNE City of Melbourne’s overall vision for the Arden Macauley is a “Consolidation of a district level community hub that complements the existing commu- nity facilities to be located to the south and that is co-located with a potential school site and open space improvements” 3 4 3| CONTEXT GENERAL OVERVIEW The land uses within Arden-Macaulay generally represent an underutilisation of the area considering its proximity to the CBD and to existing and future transport infrastructure (CoM 2012, p 22). The site is located 1.5km north-west of the CBD, and has multiple public transport and arterial road connections - including CityLink, three train stations, tram and bus routes. While industrial land use zoning has prohibited residential development to date, rezoning to mixed use has the potential to dramatically increase the local population Transition of the area is to occur in two stages, with our site falling well within Stage 1. The area will have a mix of uses to provide a diversity of activities such as residential, commercial, retail, educational, entertainment and cultural activities (CoM 2012, p. 25) “An underutilised area, ripe for renewal” 5 3| CONTEXT SOCIAL CONTEXT Demographic profile North Melbourne has the highest proportion of lone-parent families within the municipality, with the most common household type being a lone person household (ABS 2011). North Melbourne currently has the second largest share of children in the municipality (13%) and 16% of the munici- palities over 60 population. The largest age group in the area are in the 25-34 yr old age group. Fig. 1 Growth of 25-34yr old Fig. 2 Increase of Single parent and population between 2006 and 2011 Couples with children population between 2006 and 2011 Moonee Ponds Creek Surrounding Land Uses The creek is directly accessible from the site however is in a The majority of the built residential stock surrounding the degraded state. The access way is not paved, and the creek site are single storey Victorian terrace houses with newer itself is polluted. Despite this, there are plans underway to apartments blocks located next to and around Kensington rejuvenate this creek area, to increase public access and to Station. create interventions that will both minimize and treat the The site itself is surrounded by industrial and commercial pollution. uses, including several manufacturing and wholesale com- panies as well as the offices of the Australian Wool Test- 5 ing Authority. Nearby are the Flemmington public housing high rises, one of the largest public housing commissions in Fig. 3(top) & 4(bottom) Melbourne. There is a primary school and childcare centre The creek unlandscaped and not user onsite, primarily catering for the needs of the residences. friendly 6 3| CONTEXT SOCIAL CONTEXT Public Amenities and Social Infrastructure The closest park and playground to the site is located in Robertson Street, less than five minutes walk away. The closest grocery and medical facilities are across and up from the Kensington Station, one kilometer west of the site. Fig. 5 Park located on Robertson Street Income 35.7% of individuals earned less then $400/week 27.4% of couples with children earned less then $600/week 28% of North Melbourne residents earning less than $250 a week. Fig. 6 Percentage of individuals and couples with children classified as “low” income earners. Housing Prices Average one bedroom apartment (include studio): $150,000 to $400,000 Average two bedroom apartment: $350,000 to $700,000 Average three bedroom apartment (family): $450,000$ to $750,000 Fig. 7 (top) To Rent: Victorian Terrace Housing dominating Average rent for a 3 bedroom apartment: $600 the area Average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment: $420 Fig. 8 (left) Older houses with new extensions The majority of the built residential stock surrounding the site are single storey Victorian terrace houses with newer apartments blocks located next to and around Kensington Station. 7 3| CONTEXT URBAN CONTEXT 2 The Public Realm The public realm experience is aptly described in the Structure Plan (2012) as being of “poor quality” due to the legacy of industrial uses which has cre- ated large blocks that discourage walk- ing and streets that are fronted by the blank walls of warehouses and sheds. This results in a poor walking environ- ment” (Arden Macaulay Structure Plan). However, this legacy can also be seen in a positive light: it allows for generous allotment sizes that are more readily adapted to medium density develop- ments than is typically the case in sub- urban “greyfields” (AHURI 2012) areas or historical residential streets. Fig. 9 Poor pedestrian environment (Source: A-M Structure Plan, CoM 2012) 8 7 3| CONTEXT PLANNING CONTEXT The site is currently zoned Industrial Zone 1, meaning that ‘accommodation’ uses are pro- hibited. However, Schedule to the Industrial Zone 1 allows for unlimited office uses in this industrial zone. As such, the development currently on site has street frontage and first floor office spaces, with warehousing at the rear. Additionally, the site is currently subject to the following overlays: •an ‘Incorporated plan overlay (IPO):The incorporated plan overlay refers to the Moonee Ponds Creek Concept Plan (IPO 5) which called for certain requirements to be met before a permit is granted, relating to the protection and enhance- ment of the natural features and rem- nant vegetation of the creek. This overlay aims to coordinate development along the Moonee Ponds Creek, its banks and surrounding environment, while preserv- ing the natural features and remnant vegetation, and preventing further dete- rioration of the creek and its environs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor Retail Action Plan
    ROSSLYN-BALLSTON CORRIDOR RETAIL ACTION PLAN Strategies and Recommendations for Retail Attraction and Retention Arlington County, Virginia Adopted by the Arlington County Board on May 19, 2001. Retail Action Plan Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor RETAIL ACTION PLAN Arlington County, Virginia i Retail Action Plan Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor Table of Contents Preface......................................................................... v Executive Summary ....................................................... vii Action Plan ............................................................. vii Introduction.................................................................. 1 Definitions......................................................................... 3 Retail Categories................................................................ 5 County Overview........................................................ 7 Guiding Principles for Retail Strategy Development ........................................... 12 Rosslyn ..................................................................... 19 Courthouse................................................................ 27 Clarendon.................................................................. 33 Virginia Square........................................................... 41 Ballston ..................................................................... 47 Urban Design Principles and Guidelines ........................ 57 General Principles .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Urban Village: a Real Or Imagined Contribution to Sustainable Development?
    The Urban Village: A Real or Imagined Contribution to Sustainable Development? Mike Biddulph, Bridget Franklin and Malcolm Tait Department of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University July 2002 The research upon which this report is based was kindly funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). 1 Background A number of development concepts have emerged which claim that, if achieved, they would deliver more sustainable urban environments. Specifically these concepts seek to transcend typical patterns of development, and instead capture and promote a different vision. Such concepts include the compact city (Jenks et al, 1996), the polycentric city (Frey, 1999), the urban quarter (Krier, 1998), the sustainable urban neighbourhood (Rudlin and Falk, 1999), the urban village (Aldous, 1997), the eco-village (Barton, 1999), and the millennium village (DETR, 2000). Gaining acceptance for these concepts and translating them into practice has, however, proved more difficult, and the only one which has resulted in any significant number of built examples is the urban village. Despite the proliferation of developments under the urban village rubric, little academic research has been conducted into the phenomenon. The main exception is the work of Thompson-Fawcett (1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2000), who has investigated the background and philosophy of both the urban village and of the similar New Urbanism or Traditional Neighbourhood Development (TND) movement in the US. Her empirical work in the UK is limited to two case studies, the location of one of which is also the subject of a less critical paper by McArthur (2000). Both Thompson-Fawcett and commentators on the TND argue that the thinking behind the respective concepts is utopian, nostalgic, and deterministic, as well as based on a flawed premise about contemporary constructions of community (Audirac and Shermyen, 1994, Thompson-Fawcett, 1996, Southworth, 1997).
    [Show full text]
  • Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: a Literature Review
    Transit Cooperative Research Program Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration RESEARCH RESULTS DIGEST October 2002—Number 52 Subject Area: VI Public Transit Responsible Senior Program Officer: Gwen Chisholm Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review This digest summarizes the literature review of TCRP Project H-27, “Transit-Oriented Development: State of the Practice and Future Benefits.” This digest provides definitions of transit-oriented development (TOD) and transit joint development (TJD), describes the institutional issues related to TOD and TJD, and provides examples of the impacts and benefits of TOD and TJD. References and an annotated bibliography are included. This digest was written by Robert Cervero, Christopher Ferrell, and Steven Murphy, from the Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley. CONTENTS IV.2 Supportive Public Policies: Finance and Tax Policies, 46 I INTRODUCTION, 2 IV.3 Supportive Public Policies: Land-Based I.1 Defining Transit-Oriented Development, 5 Initiatives, 54 I.2 Defining Transit Joint Development, 7 IV.4 Supportive Public Policies: Zoning and I.3 Literature Review, 9 Regulations, 57 IV.5 Supportive Public Policies: Complementary II INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, 10 Infrastructure, 61 II.1 The Need for Collaboration, 10 IV.6 Supportive Public Policies: Procedural and II.2 Collaboration and Partnerships, 12 Programmatic Approaches, 61 II.3 Community Outreach, 12 IV.7 Use of Value Capture, 66 II.4 Government Roles, 14
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study: Advancing Social Equity in Arlington, Virginia
    Local Governments, Social Equity, and Sustainable Communities ADVANCING SOCIAL EQUITY GOALS TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY CASE STUDY SERIES ADVANCING SOCIAL EQUITY in Arlington, Virginia ABOUT THIS PROJECT: ADVANCING SOCIAL EQUITY GOALS TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY This research was conducted by ICMA and Arizona State University to identify and describe current activities, lead- ing practices, and achievements of sustainable communities created through a comprehensive, integrated approach supported by inclusive engagement. Based on results of the ICMA Sustainability Survey in 2010, a follow-up survey was sent to 300 local governments whose original responses showed high levels of sustainability activity. Using results from the follow-up survey and primary and secondary research on leading social sustainability practices around the United States, nine communities whose responses indicated high levels of social equity-related activity were selected for case studies. Case study communities include the following:* • Washtenaw County, MI (Pop. 344,791) • Lewiston, ME (Pop. 36,592) and Ann Arbor, MI (Pop. 113,934) • Durham, NC (Pop. 228,330) • Dubuque, IA (Pop. 57,637) • Arlington, VA (Pop. 207,627) • Hayward, CA (Pop. 144,186) • Clark County, WA (425,363) • Manatee County, FL (Pop. 322,833) • Fort Collins, CO (Pop. 143,986) Each case study details findings from individual communities that provide insight into how they have been able to promote social equity and achieve greater social sustainability through their policies, programs, and other activities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uptown Urban Village Technical Assistance Panel for the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida
    Developing Long-Term Strategies for Resiliency in the Face of Climate Change: The Uptown Urban Village Technical Assistance Panel for the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida August 12 and 13, 2014 Fort Lauderdale, Florida Table of Contents Urban Land Institute Southeast Florida/Caribbean District Council ........................................................................................1 Technical Assistance Panels ....................................................................................................................................................1 What Are Technical Assistance Panels (TAPs)? ................................................................................................................1 How Do TAPs Work? ........................................................................................................................................................1 Who Is ULI?......................................................................................................................................................................1 Sponsors and Panel Members ................................................................................................................................................2 Panel Process and Agenda ......................................................................................................................................................4 Panel Process...................................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Fairlington-Shirlington Neighborhood Conservation Plan Table of Contents
    Fairlington-Shirlington Neighborhood Conservation Plan Table of Contents Section Page # Acknowledgements 2 Executive Summary 3 1. INTRODUCTION 4 Plan Update 4 Where we live 4 Our history 5 Who we are 8 o Neighborhood character 9 o Neighborhood participation 9 o Civic association 11 Historic preservation 13 o The past is present in Fairlington 13 o Role of the Fairlington Historical Society 14 2. NEIGHBORHOOD GOALS 15 Protecting the community from the impacts of traffic 15 Supporting cooperation and coordination between 16 Arlington County and the City of Alexandria on issues affecting the quality of life in the FSNC area, such as traffic, transportation, and development Fostering and maintaining our sense of a cohesive, 16 sustainable community Maintaining the community’s reputation as a pedestrian 17 friendly and bike-able neighborhood Maintaining street trees and open spaces and adding to 5 them where possible Maintaining public infrastructure 6 3. SUBJECT AREAS 18 Land use and zoning 18 i o Existing land use 18 o Future land development principles 18 o Existing zoning 19 o Inconsistent uses 19 o Developmental potential 20 o Fairlington residents of Alexandria 21 Street conditions 21 o Summary 21 o Sidewalks, curbs, gutters 22 o Sanitary Sewer 23 o Street lighting 23 Transportation and traffic management 24 o Traffic-always on the minds of FSNC area residents 24 o Close-in convenience 24 o Use of Metro Resources 26 o Streets, intersections, and traffic issues involving 26 cooperation with Alexandria • 4a. Proposed improvements for the intersection of Braddock 26 Road, King Street, and Quakelane (BKQ); access to Bradlee shopping center; and confusion at King and S.Wakefield/ Dearing • 4b.
    [Show full text]
  • RICHARD BRUCH 2013 Resume
    RICHARD BRUCH 2013 resume Richard Bruch Landscape Architect Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, University of Melbourne. Bachelor of Commerce (Econometrics, Economics), Monash University. RICHARD BRUCH 2013 resume Richard Bruch Landscape Architect Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, University of Melbourne. Bachelor of Commerce (Econometrics, Economics), Monash University. Document designed and produced by Richard Bruch, April 2013. PERSONAL STATEMENT My passion in work is partnering with communities and decision makers to develop creative, environmentally responsible & socially equitable cities and places. I am tertiary educated in both landscape architecture and economics, and have extensive experience working as a practitioner in community development and community engagement. Over four semesters from February 2009 until November 2010, whilst completing my studies in landscape architecture at University of Melbourne, I was employed as a subject designer, sessional tutor and guest lecturer in a range of subjects from across the Bachelor of Environments, Master of Landscape Architecture, Master of Architecture and Master of Community Cultural Development. At this time I also established Urban Village Melbourne - a network of young creatives who collaboratively produced participatory public art projects and events, and provided professional services in environmental design and community development to local government clients. Also during this period, I established an ongoing professional and mentoring relationship with Eureka Community Development Services. In late 2010, upon completion of my studies at University of Melbourne, I commenced work with Hansen Partnership as a Graduate Landscape Architect. During 2011, I was approached by a past client at the City of Melbourne, with the offer to undertake contract work as Community Engagement Coordinator for the Swanston Street Redevelopment, and later for the Queen Victoria Market Redevelopment.
    [Show full text]
  • Identify and Elucidating Urban Village Essentials Through Remodeling
    2020 24th International Conference Information Visualisation (IV) Identify and Elucidating Urban Village Essentials Through Remodeling and Visualising a Social Housing Prototype in Guangzhou for Sustainable Residential Development in China Shiran Geng Hing-Wah Chau Se Yan College of Engineering and Science College of Engineering and Science Faculty of Architecture, Building and Victoria University Victoria University Planning Melbourne, Australia Melbourne, Australia The University of Melbourne [email protected] [email protected] Melbourne, Australia theseyan@gmail .com Abstract— There is currently an urban housing or commercial use, but it was quite difficult to do so due to crisis affecting low-income people across China. Due to the regulations on land ownership [1, 2]. I In some cases, the need for high-density public housing, it is becoming farmers were able to form collectives and retain land increasingly common to demolish urban villages in order ownership for developing their own dwellings. to build denser and higher social housing towers for low- Urban villages attract low-income migrants, young income people. However, in addressing the need for new workers and fresh graduates to live. The reason for their housing for low-income people, the social and cultural popularity is not only because of the affordable rents but aspects of urban villages should be duly considered. also because of their convenient locations in the city centre. This paper aims to identify and elucidate the It is also worth looking at the social and cultural aspects of salient features of urban villages based on case studies in urban villages. They are organic, unique, self-supporting Guangzhou and then use these to formulate sustainable and diverse.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle's Vision for Sustainability
    Seattle’s Vision for April, 2012 Sustainability: Implementing an Urban Village Strategy Prepared for Prepared by The Urban and Regional Max Blume in Planning Program in Taubman satisfaction of College at the University of UP734 Michigan, Ann Arbor. Acknowledgements I am grateful for the help I had from friends, family, colleagues and institutions in developing this report. The Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Michigan provided the opportunity to create the report. Thanks especially to David Bieri, Assistant Professor of Urban Planning at the University of Michigan, for his support throughout the entire writing process. I could not have ac- complished this without his valuable input and advice. Also, thanks to Kit McCullough of the University of Michigan whose insights were essential to the formulation of the proposal for this project. Influential actors in Seattle’s world of planning and development gave their time and perspectives to the project. I thank Marshall Foster and Tom Hauger of the Seattle Department of Planning and Development for allowing me to interview them and pro- viding valuable insight into the Roosevelt case study as well as Seattle’s planning culture. Jon Breiner and Ed Hewson took the time to meet with me to discuss the Roosevelt Development Group’s proposed project and the rezoning process, which contributed immensely to the success of this project. Jim O’Halloran, the President of the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association, met with me to provide the viewpoint of the neighborhood and their response to the final rezone. These individuals gave me the information that I required to understand the different stakeholder perspectives in the Roosevelt case study, and I thank each of them for their time and input.
    [Show full text]
  • Shirlington Design Book
    SHIRLINGTON DESIGN BOOK 22 SEPTEMBER 2000 STATEMEN T OF PURPOSE S H R L N G T 0 N 0 E s G J B 0 0 K The Shirlington Design Book is intended to document and communicate the design of the proposed expansion of the Village at Shirlington and supplement the formal Arlington County Phased Development Site Plan (PDSP) Amendment submission. The Shirlington Design Book supercedes the 1982 design gu idelines ofa prior PDSP applicant and applies to new construction on Parcel 3. The Village at Shirlington team: Street Retail, Inc. Developer Cooper Carry, Inc. Architecture & Planning Dewberry & Davis Civil Engineering Walsh. Colucci. Stackhouse, Emrich, & Lubeley. PC Anomey at law Welts & Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering Note: The images on pages 19, 20, 3 l, 33, 34, 35, and 36 are for ittusuative purposes only. They are not imended to represent specific building or srreetscape designs. s H R L N G T 0 N D E s G ~,1 B 0 0 K 9 v ol L s T ' I "" I . Introduction A. Project Description 01 B. Design Principles 02 c. History of the Site 04 D. Existing Conditions 05 11 Site Plans A. Areallocation Plan 06 B. Existing Plan 07 c. Street Level Plan 08 D. Typical Upper Level Plan 09 III. Lund Uses A. Retail 10 B. Cinema II C. Office 12 D. Residential 13 E. Live/Worlc Option 14 F Hotel IS G. Civic 16 H. Parking 17 rv. Public Space A. Public Space 18 B. Librarymeater Piau 19 C. Adjacent Partes and Open Space 21 v.
    [Show full text]
  • Parking Plan Fairhaven Neighborhood and Urban Village October 2011
    Parking Plan FAIRHAVEN NEIGHBORHOOD AND URBAN VILLAGE Prepared for: City of Bellingham October 2011 Prepared by: 11730 118th Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425-821-3665 Fax: 425-825-8434 www.transpogroup.com 11068.00 © 2011 Transpo Group Parking Plan Fairhaven Neighborhood and Urban Village October 2011 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ iii Section 1. Framework ........................................................................................................ 1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1 Relevant Plans ....................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 2 Overview of Transportation System ....................................................................................... 4 Section 2. Existing Parking Conditions ........................................................................... 9 Regulations and Guidelines ................................................................................................... 9 Inventory ................................................................................................................................ 9 Key Findings .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential for Ur~N .. Village Development in Melbourne :"' ~
    The Potential for Ur~n .. Village Development in Melbourne :"' ~., / '"t· "'ENERGY Department of G ERDC VICTORIA ENVIRONMENT Infrastructure ENERGY RESEARCH PROTECTION 711. Gowrn~nl AND DEVELOPMENT rgy Save Money AUTHORITY nf \'11..1un:a CORPORATION 4309 9451 URB:SC copy2 roBMI 1~111ll~IOOl1l1ll~~iii1~11 I VGLS031440 I ) The Potential for Urban Village Development in Melbourne PLANNING & EPA LIBRARY I Environment Protection Authority, Victoria Energy Victoria Deparcmenc of Infrastructure Energy Research and Development Corporation All Melway maps reproduced from Melway Screec Direccory, Edicion 23 and Wall Map ) of Greacer Melbourne with permission. Copyrighc Melway Publishing Pcy Led ISBN 0 7306 9314 7 ,,~ ~------ --~ -- =-- ~-- ~-~-- ) i711.4309 12346672 I · August 1996 , 9451 URB:SC Urban villages project : the I copy 2 potential for urban village development in Melbourne .,I"'-....... , :·:· .. ::::::· ~=~:::::: \~~f· ~;: ~~t ilit Al~ t:~~i ::::::::: ~@~ CONTENTS Page 1 Introduction 1.1 U rb~n Villages 1 1.2 Project Objectives 2 2 Identifying Possible Urban Village Sites 3 2.1 Overall Approach to Identifying Sites 3 ") 2.2 Results 6 3 The Potential of Urban Villages to Accommodate Growth 9 3.1 Methodology 9 4 Alternative Growth Scenarios for Melbourne 16 4.1 Base Data and Assumptions 16 4.2 Urban Village Development Scenarios 16 4.3 Impact of the Scenarios on the Extent of 19 Urban Expansion 4.4 Impact of the Scenarios on Individual Urban Villages 20 5 Conclusions 22 Appendicies 1 List of Potential Urban Village Sites Identified 23
    [Show full text]