Introduction
The central feature of the mega city plan of Victoria’s capital, Melbourne 2030 outlines a comprehensive network of activity centres which comprises of a range of centres and functions that are linked with a strategic public transport network. This is to prevent the clustering and concentration of all commercial activities in central Melbourne and decentralise these activities to different little central business districts within the neighbourhoods to ensure an even distribution of activities throughout the city. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse the importance and purpose of activity centres in the development of cities and its importance in the planning, management and utilisation of resources in Melbourne
The paper will be written in two parts in order to present a strong and thorough argument on the issue of activity centres. The first part will be a theoretical analysis that will discuss the logic behind the creation of smaller CBDs evenly dispersed throughout a large city. The second part of the essay will critically discuss Melbourne 2030 and its positive impact on the Economic, Social and Environmental development of the city, its people and the world as a whole.
Theoretical Framework
There are several angles from which the concept of Activity Centres Policies can be viewed within classical location theories. In the Isolated State theory of Von Thunen, an average city develops in concentric circles around a core market or a central business district. This showed how traditional markets and traditional communities are organized around a central market and a central point where all the activities are conducted. This is in lieu with the idea of the Activity Centres Policies that have been adopted by the Melbourne government.
Figure 1: The Von Thunen Model of a City State
In the Von Thunen model, the city centre is the core of all activities. And outside the city centre came an area of intensive agricultural activities. From there, a zone of forest resources came up. Afterwards came an area for grain farming, then an area for livestock farming, after which we had a wilderness.
Melbourne, like any other city developed after the British immigration into Australia. The local population was kept away and the city developed according to this basic model of Von Thunen. If this is to be followed, then the city will continue to develop in a manner that will be detrimental. This is because as the population of the city grows and there is no effort to decentralise and take some of the activities of the city outside the city centre, there is going to be a choke up of activities and life in the city centre will be unbearable. There will be crime and other processes that will occur in the city.
Figure 2: The Burgess Locational Theory
A more modern approach to describing how cities develop and grow is presented by Burgess who states that most cities are developed around the central business district or downtown which is shown in figure 2 above at the centre. After the central business district, there is a zone where most factories are built and operate in order to provide goods for the people of the city and outside the city.
Beyond the factory zone is the transitional zone where there are many poor people who often transit to the factory zone to look for unskilled jobs. This is also the point where most criminal activities and the social vices of a city occur. Afterwards, there is a working class zone with apartment houses where families and low-income workers live. Due to the proximity to the central business district or downtown and the factory zone, most of the working class are able to get easy transportation access to get to the city centre to work and also return at a low price and at a quicker pace. Beyond the residential zone, there is a commuter zone where the rich and wealthy live. They often have cars so they are able to drive to city centre to carry out their transactions without stress.
In the absence of using the Activity Centre, policy, Melbourne would have grown at a pace similar to the Von Thunen model or the Burgess Locational Theory. And this will have meant that all activities in the city would be built around a single CBD. This would have created a lot of problems and most of these problems can be solved directly and significantly by the Activity Centres Policy.
First of all, maintaining on single CBD in Melbourne City Centre will create an obvious problem of congestion. This is because people in all parts of the Melbourne metropolis would want to come to the city centre. This will mean there will be pressure on social amenities and things like parking lots and other things would be overused and abused. This will in turn drive up land values unreasonably since demand for lands and property in the city centre will be inelastic and property owners can overcharge. The creation of other little CBDs in other parts of the city will mean that certain activities that can be done in Melbourne City Centre can be conducted in other parts of the city.
Secondly, there is the problem of concentration of industry outside Melbourne City Centre. This is due to the fact that as the population grows, factories and a working enclave will be created outside and around the Melbourne City Centre. This will lead to an overreliance on this area and there will be congestions as well as other health-related risks and issues like pollution which will be because there will be too many of such factories. The creation of multiple CBDs in the Activity Centres Policy will ensure that factories will be spread and this will make it easy to regulate and supervise them and promote even development.
The zone of transition which gives impetus for the urban poor to settle under the Burgess model always leads to a concentration of crime and social vices. If a city relies heavily on a single CBD, the control of criminal activities in such an area is almost always difficult. Hence, the Activity Centres Policy will mean that there will be many transitional zones in Melbourne and this can be monitored proactively at a reasonable budget. The police and other law-enforcement authorities like the tax agencies and immigration control units can easily keep a watch on these areas and monitor activities in a more effective and efficient manner.
Finally, an Activity Centres Policy implies that there will be a mixture of different social and economic classes of people in different parts of Melbourne. This will help to ensure better social intercourse and help to reduce the economic gaps between the different classes of people. It can be observed that in some large countries around the world like India, Brazil, United States of America and China, there are huge gaps between the rich and the poor and this is due to the fact that most activities are concentrated in small sections of cities where elitism grows and thrives. This allows the rich to remain richer and the poor remains poorer. Having multiple CBDs will enable the poor in Australia to get closer to the rich and this can help in national participation and the request for equality and fairness. This could also inspire the poor to learn, work harder and invest to become richer.
Melbourne 2030
The general logic of Melbourne’s Activity Centres Policy shows a major trend towards a logical development of the city. The current Activity Centres Policy of Melbourne goes back to the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme of 1953 which detailed the creation of district Centres and District Business Centres for the development and growth of the city.
The core reasons and motivation for the Activity Centres Policy of Melbourne goes down to some economic, social and environmental benefits that will cause the city to improve in all aspects of its development. This was based on the revival of traditional plans and activities relating to abandoned city development plans that are a reflection of current and existing trends in the economic and social plans of the city within its existing demographics .
Some authorities present the concept of “clustering” as a major motivation for the active centres policy of Melbourne. Clustering will create the social, environmental and economic benefits relevant to each community and promote business in general. This is mainly a factor of social planning and seeks to integrate the main elements and aspects of the society that are relevant to the people.
Economic Benefits
Economically, Melbourne 2030 integrated its Activity Centres as a means of accelerating and ensuring development and economic growth. This is because it promotes the balancing and disciplined approach of creating and retaining markets in the country. This is meant to promote and enhance potentials for the exchange of synergies to allow businesses to grow and also create jobs for people who need them. This will promote businesses and enhance demand and sales.
There is also a greater opportunity for land use and this is meant to prevent limitation and the ability of the nation to improve and promote better utilisation of transportation and resources. This will make it efficient and more appropriate to move labour and relevant resources for the conduct of business. Hence, the Activity Centres Policy allows for the proper and appropriate use and movement of resources and things in the society.
The ACP centres and systems allow for the specialisation of various suburbs of the country to ensure the optimisation of resources.
Environmental Concerns
Melbourne 2030 tends to have a major view of ensuring that resources are utilised in an optimal way and manner. This includes allowing land to be utilised in the best way and manner and also regulate the country in such a way that the separate industrial policies can be fit into the development of the city to promote and enhance health and safety.
The policy restricts out-of-centre development and separation. This is done with a strong emphasis on environmental synergies and existing Australian environmental policies and systems. This is to ensure the progressive and effective integration of environmental policy in an organised way and manner to develop the country evenly. Therefore, the Activity Centres Policy helps and enhances better approaches and methods for controlling environmental matters.
Organising Melbourne according to Activity Centres Policy helps to make it much easier for the monitoring and control of environmental matters in the society. This is because every decentralised ACP point has its own environmental authorities and units. There are Central Activities Districts, Principal Activity Centres, Major Activity Centres, Specialised Activity Centres, Neighbourhood Activity Centres amongst others that have differing standards and levels of environmental authorities and environmental supervision measures. This allows Australia and Victoria State authorities to control and maintain a strong grip on the development of the country to keep a close eye on the environmental practices of people in these Activity Centres. This allows for better planning and responsive measures for environmental controls in relation to a city system that has a centralised CBD system with little or no attempt to create CBD nodes in different parts of the country.
Social Factors
The main social advantage has to do with the ability to distribute resources and to ensure that national processes and products are shared logically and reasonably. This will help all families to get every service and every process that can be available without the stress of having to travel very far for these basic services.
For instance, in the case of schools, children are not supposed to walk for too long to get to school from their homes. The ACP allows each suburb and each unit of the city to have all necessary and vital functions and processes in order to achieve all the needs they have as a family and a social unit. This improves the quality of life of families and helps to build healthier relationships in the city.
The ACP also promotes the equitable distribution of resources for all classes of Australians. This is because it helps to allow all younger and older members of the society to get the best of everything. This includes the ability of all classes of society to get access to everything they need within their own local areas and local communities. There are jobs and other forms of interests in every area. This allows all classes of people to have a reasonably good life within any part of the country they stay.
The network of ACPs also helps to promote synergy and the distribution of competencies throughout the city of Melbourne. This allows people to get opportunities within their local area and invest a lot of effort to achieve the best of everything.
Conclusion
This research identifies that the Activity Centres Policy of Melbourne helps to promote equitable distribution of resources in the city. This promotes effective and efficient utilisation of natural resources in Melbourne and promotes better measures and systems in the community. This has economic benefits by promoting specialisation and synergy in order to help smaller businesses to thrive in local areas since there is a ready market for smaller entities within their own locale. Socially, there is a strong opportunity for the provision of appropriate services for all classes and all groups of people in the society. This includes the provision of family-based services and processes for the promotion of healthier relationships and family units. In terms of environmentalism, ACP allows the society to be developed in a logical manner that allows optimal environmental measures to be taken. This includes the provision of a proportionate service and supervision systems within smaller areas and a smaller scope. Also, the environmental authorities can have a stronger grip over the society and community. It can be identified that the Activity Based Centres Policy allows the city to develop evenly as opposed to other traditional centralised CBD models for city development. ACP reduces congestion, security and optimisation of resources.
Bibliography
Beatley, T. & Newman, P., 2012. Green Urbanism Down Under: Learning from Sustainable Communities in Australia. Melbourne: Island Press.
Chhetri, P., Han, J. H., Chandra, S. & Corcoran, J., 2013. Mapping urban residential density patterns: Compact city model in Melbourne, Australia. City, Culture and Society, 4(2), pp. 77-85.
Gleeson, B. & Randolph, B., 2010. Social Disadvantage and Planning in the Sydney Context. Urban Policy and Research, 20(1), pp. 101-107.
Goodman, R. & Moloney, S., 2004. Activity Centre Planning in Melbourne Revisited. Australian Planner, 41(2), pp. 47-52.
Marceau, D. J. & Benenson, I., 2013. Advanced Geo-Simulation Models. 2nd ed. Nnew York: Bentham Science.
Melosi, M. V., 2012. Effluent America: Cities, Industry, Energy, and the Environment. 3rd ed. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Parker, S., 2014. Urban Theory and the Urban Experience: Encountering the City. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Peter McNabb & Associates Pty Ltd, 2001. Activity Centres Review: A Study of Policy and Centers of Activity in metropolitan Melbourne and Geelong. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Scott, A. J., 2015. Global City-Regions : Trends, Theory, Policy: Trends, Theory, Policy. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd, 2013. The Role of Activvity Centres in Metropolitan Melbourne. Melbourne: SGS Economics and Planning.
Stone, J., 2014. Continuity and Change in Urban Transport Policy: Politics, Institutions and Actors in Melbourne and Vancouver since 1970. Planning Practice and Research, 29(4), pp. 388-404.
Xu, J. & Yeh, A., 2010. Governance and Planning of Mega-City Regions. London: Routledge.
