The issue of density has received very little attention from our planners and from councillors as a whole. Yet it is crucial to an understanding of what is happening and what is forecast. Remember that Glen Eira is already one of the densest municipalities in the state and it would seem that council is gearing up for even more!
According to Victoria in Future, 2016 Glen Eira’s density (persons per square km) was 3,544 based on 2011 Census figures. If we look at the 2016 Census data this figure has now risen to 3,621 per square km across the entire municipality. What these figures don’t tell us is ‘residential density’ – that is, the number of persons per square km of residentially zoned land. This measure provides a far more realistic reflection of liveability and ‘capacity’ for that matter. It also reveals those areas that are probably under extreme pressure in terms of infrastructure, traffic, etc.
Our figures are based on the State Government’s spatial mapping facility and date from soon after the introduction of the residential zones in August 2013. Since this time there have been plenty of changes to industrial zoned land to either Mixed Use or Commercial. These latter zonings allow residential development as opposed to the former ‘industrial’ zoning. Hence, our figures are in all likelihood an underestimation of what is the current situation.
Our calculation of ‘residentially zoned land’ includes the following – Commercial 1; Mixed Use; Neighbourhood Residential (NRZ); GRZ ; RGZ. Parks, roads, public utilities, etc. have been excluded. We concentrate exclusively on land that is deemed suitable for ‘residential’.
Our analysis reveals several fascinating results that are a major cause for concern.
- Many of our ‘neighbourhood centres’ are the densest in the municipality – some exceeding the so called major activity centres (ie McKinnon, Ormond, Caulfield North, Murrumbeena).
- If this is indeed the case, then it reveals again the disaster of the 2013 zoning where developers exploited the zoning in these smaller centres rather than the major activity centres (apart from Carnegie that is).
- Yet, when work on these neighbourhood centres will be completed is anyone’s guess. In the meantime the zoning remains and that means more development if current trends continue.
- There is absolutely no excuse for council not to address the zoning in these neighbourhood centres – especially if the plan is to increase the potential for more development in the major activity centres.
BENTLEIGH
In 2013 Bentleigh had 4,123,990 square metres of residentially zoned land. Converted to square km, this equals 4.123 square km or 412.39 hectares. The 2016 census tells us that Bentleigh’s current population stands at 16,153. That means that Bentleigh has a residential density of –3,917 per sq.km
The same process has been used for the following neighbourhood centes –
ORMOND
1,793,474 sq.m of residentially zoned land converts to 1.793 SQ.KM. Population is 8417 = 4,694 PERSONS PER SQUARE KM
MCKINNON
1,392, 499 = 13.92 square km – 6064 POPULATION = 4,356 PERSONS PER SQUARE KM
MURRUMBEENA
2,237,382 – 22.27 sq.km – 9926 POPULATION = 4457 PERSONS PER SQUARE KM
CAULFIELD NORTH
3,798,341 = 3.798 SQ.KM = 15269 POPULATION = 4,020 PERSONS PER SQUARE KM
This data flies in the face of council’s past strategic planning. And it should have been obvious 12 months into the new zones. When huge swathes of our neighbourhood centres are zoned for 3 storeys, why wouldn’t developers go for these areas instead of the more expensive and problematic commercial zoning in the major activity centres? Leaving neighbourhood centre planning to the end is not a solution – not whilst more and more development is occurring in these centres.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 27, 2017 at 12:22 PM
I’m assuming that the figures don’t include the latest Ormond/North Road debacle with the rezoning to a development zone and the possibility of another 220 apartments. That would mean about another 400 people crammed into Ormond.
September 27, 2017 at 12:23 PM
Correct. We haven’t included this land in our calculations.Nor have we estimated what might happen to Virginia Estate and the potential for another pdz over 24 hectares.
September 27, 2017 at 3:31 PM
The middle of Glen Eira has been sacrificed to developers. Ormond runs into McKinnon and McKinnon runs into Bentleigh which now just about joins up with east Bentleigh. Up north they’ve got Carnegie going into Murrumbeena and Glen Huntly. Looks like 80% will now be called activity centres and that means more development everywhere.
September 27, 2017 at 3:45 PM
Good point. Planning negligence has allowed this to occur and now with structure plans they plan to expand activity centres.
September 27, 2017 at 6:01 PM
The developer want it all, and our Government are in their pay, and smart enough to give it to mates a piece at the time, in the end they will have it all and Glen Eira will be a unsustainable nightmare of rubbish, congestion, poison air and crime. That’s the future unless the residents get smart and release who’s paying who in the zoo.
September 27, 2017 at 8:09 PM
development
noun UK /dɪˈvel.əp.mənt/ US /dɪˈvel.əp.mənt/
development noun (GROWTH)
B1 [ U ] the process in which someone or something grows or changes and becomes more advanced:
Growth and development
The region suffers from under-/over-development (= having too little/much industry).
a development project (= one to help improve industry)
December 11, 2017 at 12:12 AM
I agree with the Vision- Elsternwick 2013 Section 1.0 But the way this is hoped to be achieved does not make lots of sense to me.
I strongly object to the proposed increase in retail as stated on p13. The area blocked out includes frontage to Stanley street. This covers existing car spaces and a heritage house. It would add to increases traffic ,noise and light intrusion to residential properties on the south side.
Stanley street current openspaces will be lost if multistory carparks are erected . These would have absolutely no heritage value. Current car parking is adequate and works well as these multi access points. If more car parks are thought necessary then THEY SHOULD BE BASEMENT only. The open surface could contribute to community demands for open space. Such car parks could be underground connected to Glenhuntly road. Consider these as an investment in the future.
By have a 2 level car park East and West would give you a increase of 250 car spaces, preference should be for dual access which is possible taking into consideration of the multiple access roads surrounding existing parks.
It should be noted that the existing 30 parking spaces in Carre St should be retained. These should be very time managed and limited. They currently represent a first class resource for visitors to Glenhuntly Road and for local residents to travel north south. My observations are that this intersection works very well at Glenhuntly road ,it is rare to see congestion here . Passage is made easy as the pedestrian lights create traffic patens to allow speedy and convenient interaction. I have talked to many shops in this street and they are not in favor of closure. There is also some single residential dwellings within the proposed closure. If this closure went ahead locals would be competing with Orrong road traffic and haveing to make wide detours to deliver children to school and visit community resources.
The same argument goes to one way desires for Staniland Grove, this is not necessary. It will make access to library difficult. My observations is that both the carpark is not overstressed. The desire for open space can be met by making a basement car park. The notion of relocating this car park to Stanley is simply wrong. To centralize carparks does not increase amenity of any area. Distributed car parks work far better. I have never noticed people car park hunting..
On heritage issues. Elsternwick does have some great properties that add great character to the area,but there is also some shockers built some 90-100 years ago that have simply past their use by date. New houses of good design can be just as acceptable, the “heritage future”.