Victoria will very soon have a new urban renewal authority (we'll call it URA for now) that will replace VicUrban. Reading through the amendments described in the bill (see here for an excellent analysis), it seems that the main changes in the new authority's functions are:

• To help with renewal alone, rather than new developments (i.e. fix up old places, not plan and make new ones); and
• To help with renewal, but hand over to the private sector for development (though the planning minister can instruct otherwise for specific cases).

The first change is crystal clear — VicUrban currently manages new, greenfield developments in places like Epping and Officer. Those will come to an end and the URA will focus solely on infill areas and brownfields.

The second change is more murky. It is unlikely that the URA would hand over to the private sector for developing public infrastructure like new roads, street-level improvements and public transport links. The URA will still presumably develop or manage these kinds of works. However, it seems as though the URA will have less of a say in when land is sold off and what developers can do with that land.

What does this mean for Dandenong? The announcement makes no mention of Dandenong nor of any of Melbourne's six major activity centres, so we can only infer the implications. The first point above has no impact on Dandenong, given it's clearly a renewal area. The second point, however, suggests a change in the way land is sold for development.

Up till now, VicUrban has planned not just infrastructure, but has also specified the function of the land it owns in Dandenong. Given those pre-ordained functions, it has been releasing tenders in stages for developments that fulfill those functions. For example, late last year VicUrban released a tender for two lots north of George Street (near Cadle Lane), both of which VicUrban intended as mid-rise residential apartment developments. (Contracts for those tenders were scheduled to be finalised by the end of June, but no information has surfaced as to whether there were any successful tenderers.) Similarly, earlier that year, tenders were issued for two developments next to the new Government Services Building. (Only one of those tenders was successfully awarded, to Grocon, though no further news on what might be built has come through).

The changes suggest that the URA will replace the detailed land usage requirements and detailed tender processes with a much simpler sales process once the land becomes ready to be developed. In other words, the URA will acquire land, consolidate it, subdivide it (all of which has already been done for Dandenong), specify zoning and recommended uses and then sell parcels to the highest bidder.

This will certainly accelerate development in Dandenong, which has proceeded extremely slowly thus far (at least, within the central city). Rapid development in the VicUrban acquired areas will provide a major boost to Dandenong in the short term and would almost certainly make projects in older areas of the city more viable. However, it's not clear whether this will produce the highest quality outcomes for the city over the long term. The question is, Does VicUrban's style of micro-management (or, rather, micro-planning) produce better planned communities that last the test of time? Or is the process too idealistic, too ignorant of the communities day-to-day needs (and the market's wishes) to produce urban environments that work well?

If I've correctly assessed the changes in store for Dandenong's urban renewal, then we will find out sooner rather than later.