The rate of multi-storey residential development in Dandenong has picked up in recent years. Turn back the clock just 5 years, and you'd be hard pressed to find a building over 2 storeys outside the traditional city envelope. Now, however, there are 3 and 4 storey developments either built or underway in an envelope spanning from the corner of Jones and Dandenong Roads in the north west to Market and King Streets in the east and from New Street in the south to Hutton Street near the station in the south west. Based on permits, recent developments for sale and information made public by Places Victoria, in 5 years time, this envelope of 3+ storey developments may very well stretch to EastLink in the north west, the hospital and Chisholm in the east, the creek in the south and Bennett Street in the south west. (This is ignoring the twin 7 storey proposal on Stud Road near the creek, which doesn't seem anything like a near-term possibility.)
Until recently, little noise had been made about these developments. While objections often made their way to council, they rarely reached the local papers. (Again, ignoring the Stud Road proposal!) At first glance, this is surprising. Similar developments in other suburbs attract all manner of bad coverage (in every sense of that term). A possible explanation may be that Dandenong is a significant migrant town with people only beginning to build their wealth — and new residents may feel that they have much less at stake or be less bothered by change than long established residents.
Recently, however, a proposed development in MacPherson Street did reach the local papers (1, 2 and 3 along with letters to the editor). For context, MacPherson Street sits just outside the traditional city envelope in an area that is as close to well-to-do as Dandenong gets (bounded by Foster Street, Clow Street and the creek). The area is similar to many suburban areas of Melbourne and is — while not extremely leafy — mostly green, quiet and reasonably attractive. Anecdotally, the area seems to have more long established residents than other parts of Dandenong, which goes some way in explaining the vocal objections in this case.
But vocal objections should not determine whether or not a proposal goes ahead. The real question is: Would the MacPherson Street proposal be expected to contribute or detract from the city and its community? This is not a simple thing to decide, of course, but we can get a better idea by considering some of the aspects that affect both current and future residents. So let's take a look at some of these features.
Location. Google Maps tells me it's a 16 minute walk from the proposed development to the centre of Dandenong (which I take to be the corner of Lonsdale and Walker Streets) which is about the same distance as recent 3 storey developments in James Street (18 minutes) and Ann Street (14 minutes). The same trip is 5 minutes by bike. It is a 20 minute walk to the station (7 minutes by bike), which is identical to the James Street and Ann Street developments. While there are many places much closer to the city centre, MacPherson Street is within a good distance to the centre for a 3-4 storey building, especially given the abundant access to even closer amenities, transport and job opportunities. One expects the access to local amenities to get even better as the city grows.
Features of the development. The quality and features of the development will of course have a big impact on the benefit to its future residents, which in turn affects whether we're inclined to accept or reject it. Not having seen the proposal, I will assume here it's no better or worse than any other residential development.
Street activity. The proposal is for 3 storeys of 12 apartments, with basement carparking (presumably with 14 spaces). The impact on pedestrian activity would be minimal and completely in keeping with existing activity, so need not be considered further. Traffic may be more of an issue, but I'd expect the impact to be minimal --- people don't spend their days driving to and from their homes, particularly on workdays. Even allowing for a generous 8 car movements per apartment per day, that would amount to an extra 96 movements per day --- at 10 seconds per movement, about 16 extra minutes worth of time where a car occupies the road (or about 40 seconds out of every hour). It is also unlikely to have much impact on street parking. Visitor parking would be a minimal concern, with about the same impact as multi-unit blocks on the same street. Resident parking might be different --- if apartments had 2 cars each there would be a constant overflow of about 10 cars. I'd expect the overflow to be much lower than this, though, and on a par with whatever overflow is caused by the multi-unit blocks in the same street. So traffic is no concern.
Neighbourhood character is often the primary concern raised about new developments. Neighbourhood character can be divided into two parts — the street's form and the street's function — and the development's fit with both should be considered.
Fit with the street's current function. MacPherson street is a purely residential street. The proposal is located at the far end of the street and is surrounded by mostly single storey houses and units. There are certainly no other 3 or more storey developments. Nonetheless, there are 10 street numbers with 3 or more units on the block, on a street with about 40 street numbers in total (i.e. 25% of the street consists of multi-unit blocks). There are approximately 4-5 units on each of these blocks, meaning there are more units (~45) than houses (~30). Clearly, an apartment block would not be out of step with the current function of the area at all.
Fit with the street's current form. As noted, the dwellings in the street are mostly single storey houses and units. The blocks typically have large setbacks with generous front-yard lawns (and this applies to many of the multi-unit blocks also, though not the newer ones). It seems clear that a development such as this will change the visual character of the street. To be sure, the change would be marginal if this development remains an isolated case, but that seems both unlikely and without point. (If the council intends this to be an isolated development, the value to the city is minimal and it would be better to reject the development.) While one such development would have no noticeable impact on street character, three would and five would completely alter the character of the street. That's not to say the character of the street shouldn't change --- indeed, if the developments are of high quality, I don't believe the character would be changed for the worse. But the character would certainly be different --- and existing and established residents that were attracted to the street given its present (or similar past) character may find themselves in a new world not of their choosing.
Impact on direct neighbours. The above problems hold doubly true for direct neighbours of the development. There are also the unique issues of overshadowing, privacy and immediate bulk. Overshadowing may be a big concern if the design is poor, but it seems that these developments are designed quite well to minimise overshadowing by tapering up to the top level, employing sensible setbacks and designing for the worst case winter solstice sun. (Otherwise, the proposal should be reworked or rejected.) Privacy is not really an issue, given the very restrictive requirements imposed on these developments to avoid privacy problems. In practice, the most significant impact for a neighbour will be bulk. There is no avoiding the dominating nature of these buildings and putting myself in the shoes of the neighbour, I would loathe having a 3 storey development pop up next door to me if it blocked a view I previously enjoyed.
Comparison to other locations. There are many sites in Dandenong that are much better suited to such 3+ storey developments, where the street character would not change a wink. These include blocks that run along the traditional city envelope: Foster Street, McCrae Street, Stud Road, Clow Street, King Street, Cleeland Street, Princes Highway, Hutton Street and Scott Street, as some examples. (Sites within the traditional city envelope ought to go much higher.) Yes, the building bulk on these streets would change, as would street activity --- though extra activity on these streets can only be considered a good thing --- but the essential character would not. Ideally, these are the sites that would be given development preference. They are better suited not just because they are larger streets and arterials, but also because they are closer to the city centre and provide a better opportunity for presenting the city to passers-by. And I'm sure it's no coincidence that there are proposals (or completed developments) of 3 or more storeys on every one of these roads, many more than there are on smaller streets like MacPherson street. (Langhorne Street and especially Pultney Street are large, important streets that should also host such developments given their proximity to both the city and open space --- open space that should be shared much more widely than it currently is.)
Summing up. MacPherson Street is far too close to the city centre to suggest that its character should never change. The best we can say is that it would be better if the changes that will happen to MacPherson Street, happen in the future in perhaps 20 or 30 years time. It would be no loss to the city's wellbeing or growth to remove MacPherson Street from Residential 2 zoning — but we need to be careful not to treat MacPherson Street as a special case just because the area has more vocal residents than the rest of Dandenong. It should only be removed if we believe that 3 storey developments in MacPherson Street would cause more harm to the city and its community than good. Whatever the harms to neighbours (which I grant exist) or other street residents (which I grant exist in a minor form), the potential to engage and provide opportunities to developers in the local property market and more importantly the benefits to the future residents (due to location) and the contributions those future residents can make to the city would seem to easily outweigh any concerns, subject to the development itself being of a good quality.