From the Garden State to just a Hanging Basket – Is Melbourne losing the battle to be Green?

Victoria was once considered to be the Garden State in Australia with an exceptional open space system in Melbourne, a system that had development over 150 years based on exceptional vision for a liveable city.? We were once considered the world’s most liveable city but where are we now?

The recent State Government’s budget highlights the tension of a growing city and the struggle to deliver the “right” infrastructure – an area that is hotly contested but has left the State deferring many major projects by years if not decades.

However, green infrastructure hasn’t been seen as important or a priority even though we had a vision of being a Garden State and being the most liveable city in the world – however all the great cities seem to have a very green suburban landscape – think Singapore, approaches London are taking with the National Park City Concept and Paris with the 15 Minute City – they all incorporate the “green”.

However, where is Melbourne, it is well established that:

• the tree canopy cover has been declining and far from the targets set and will probably get worse with densification (not saying density is not a good thing but it is well documented that the present Melbourne dual occupancy approach reduces canopy) (The Age Article).
• the new major infrastructure such as NE Link and the Suburb Rail Loop has reduced the available open space in those areas and potentially at a regional scale (The Age Article).
• creating urban densification at nodes or infill sites that leads to tens of thousands more people living in those areas (such as Docklands, Box Hill and the key nodes on the Suburb Rail Loop) are planned and implemented without adequate key social infrastructure such as schools and open space (The Age Article).?To the point that it becomes too costly to provide the bare minimum open space in those areas.
• the Cities/suburbs that have been developed over the last 80 years will generally have well below the international standards of open space per capita (recently covered in an article in The Age).? Cities such as Stonnington are a great example of this, to the point that they can’t afford to buy the land for adequate open space.? In fact, to just buy the land in Armadale (City of Stonnington) for a 5 hectare park (a small-scale regional park) would cost up to $100m before remediation and development costs and thus the solution for lack of open space isn’t a simple answer and probably not one that a single City can afford.
• the growth suburbs are avoiding securing land for open space or end up securing the land on the urban fringe (generally not accessible to the communities that require it) due to cost pressures and it is easier (cheaper and more profitable) for developers to just pay the Developers Contribution Levy (The Age Article).
• Melbourne’s famous Green Wedges are under constant threat of being used for other outcomes, a threat that probably will never abate (Melbourne University Article).

This conundrum of more important competing demands to create a liveable city, is leaving Melbourne well behind to a point where this City’s resilience’s to withstand the changing climate has probably already been compromised.? The most pressing long term global challenge is undeniably “Climate Change” and this right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment (A key UN Priority) should be the first principle in designing a city.? In the 1929 Plan for Melbourne, this was a key priority for Melbourne, but it is now far from the case.

It is clear that the State Government is struggling to fund even the basics of health and education while planning for a city of over ten million people and thus it has become clear over the last decade that there are no significant funds (and we should be talking billions) for creating a liveable environment.? The facts of reducing canopies across Melbourne over the last 20 years highlight that the environment we live in is less important and will receive less funds.

Cities across the global have all faced this issue of failing to plan, fund and manage for the green and open space needs and have all at different stages had to intervene dramatically, such as:

• New York City – from the creation of Central Park in 1800s to citizen inspired management of key parks such as Central Park in the 1960s to the recent issues of addressing equity
• Paris from Napoleon III’s grand boulevards to the recent 15-minute city focus
• London from the Royal Parks of 1700s to Lee Valley Parklands of the 1950s thru to the London National Park City

All these interventions in those Cities always included three major foundations:

• Vision (the plan or strategy)
• Governance (the approach and leadership)
• Funding (innovative approaches)

Even Melbourne has had those moments of major resetting the approach such as:

• The 1929 Plan
• The Hamer (1970s) Garden State, Green Wedges, the role of Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works and Regional Parklands
• The OpenSpace2000 Program (1990s), an independent parks and waterways agency and independent funding of open space (The Parks Charge)

I do wonder, do we need to revisit the three key foundations of being a Green City:

• Vision (the plan or strategy)
• Governance (management and leadership)
• Funding (innovative approaches)

And redefine them so differently as it is clear that the existing approach in the present funding (budget) environment is sending us (Melbourne) backwards to the point the city may become dysfunctional.?

It is a once in a generation moment with an exceptional challenge that requires new and different models and concepts – a real paradigm shift.

Are the approaches to managing the “green” in cities changing globally and even within Australian Cities.?Clearly the answer is yes:

• Certain cities such as San Francisco and Singapore have for fifty years embraced the significance of the green liveable city – the City in a Garden concept
• London and Paris – National Park City and the 15 Minute City are making significant paradigm shifts
• Adelaide has established an organisation called Green Adelaide with rate-based funding
• Sydney has established the Greater Sydney Parkland Authority – with legislative responsibility to advocate for the blue and green

It has been nearly 30 years since the seismic shift in Melbourne when Parks Victoria was created, an entity that was internationally ground-breaking and became globally respected.? However, that was when Melbourne was smaller and on top of many of the challenges – 2024 is so different and 2050 will be significantly different – is it time to shift dramatically again?

?

Neil McCarthy

Executive Director, Mosaic Insights

Former CEO of World Urban Parks

Disclosure Statement:

• This is an opinion piece regarding the challenges confronting Melbourne as a liveable green city.? It is an informed opinion about the implications of research and challenges for action.