The reading by Stretton explores the growth of cities, the interests involved in creating them, and the inequalities that arise through the development of high density single city centres within large metropolitan areas, such as Melbourne and Sydney. Stretton’s chapter ‘Interests’ within his book Ideas for Australian Cities was published in 1975 yet it still raises some very valid points and arguments that apply to modern Australian cities today. In doing so, he argues about the effects that size and density can have on our cities, particularly relating to the socio-economic differences that large cities and high densities can create amongst society; Stretton suggests it has become the rich versus the poor within our major cities. No doubt this chapter and book was written to purposely address such problems by challenging common planning views and concepts about having big cities and higher densities. It is therefore addressed to planners and city residents alike in order to achieve a desired form of city growth that can benefit society as a whole. Stretton argues that changes in city growth, within Australian cities, need to be made to avoid the social issues that encumber many large cities and high density areas. Being a product of its time, however, it does not argue about the merits that higher densities bring to cities, such as environmental factors and sustainability.

Stretton begins by stating that growth, to a certain extent, is good for many institutions, shops and industrial centres as bigger numbers mean better services and goods can be provided. If there are enough people, more specialised services and goods can be provided than the normal basic needs. However, above a million people or so, single-centred Australian cities begin to do more harm than good as they “…further unequalize their people in direct proportion to their population and density” (Stretton 1975, p.315). Stretton goes on to argue that most of societies needs can be provided by a city of half a million or so, and that the rich mostly benefit by having larger cities as additional ‘specialisations’ can be supported. Therefore the rich have a vested interest in letting their cities grow as big as possible. Each additional million people over the initial million bring with it more problems, both social and economic, as well as increased congestion and travel times.

Larger cities with their traffic congestion and longer travel times mean that people spend more time commuting to and from work, with less people inclined to travel for social means. Stretton goes on to argue that smaller and more compact cities don’t have this problem; accessibility is much better and travel and social visits are both easier and quicker between different localities. Up to a point a city’s growth multiplies opportunities for new and varied acquaintances. Beyond that point distance and travel times, deteriorating trust between strangers and the severances with each change of address increase alienation. “For many, the biggest cities are the loneliest of all places” (Stretton 1975, p.323); this point, however ironic it may be, affects everyone whether they’re rich or poor.

Single-centred growth, as Stretton explains, accelerates the rate of demolition and replacement in and around the city centre to meet population demands and the need for good accessible land. This higher density and younger building stock means prices and rents are much higher than usual, which tends to push poorer people to the outer suburban perimeter, an issue that has been raised over the last few weeks, especially concerning housing affordability. Higher urban densities have their benefits in efficiency, shorter journeys and improving public transport services for everyone, however the expensive building costs mean that generally only the rich can afford dense inner city living and the benefits that go with this. Either way, rising numbers and larger cities mean that people either lose the city or the common experience of family life on private ground (Stretton 1975, p.317).

Stretton argues that the combination of policies concerning indefinite growth around a single metropolitan centre and of rising density, as advocated by many metropolitan planners, is the fastest cause of such inequality within major cities. This leads to further segregation and the formation of ghetto areas, which are generally left alone by those in power (the rich) as they are seen as ‘incurable’.

Stretton also suggests that Melbourne’s city centre doesn’t properly serve the needs of the entire municipality, as the catchment area is too large. An alternative growth option put forward by Stretton proposes new city centres located to efficiently serve the needs of outer areas, to combat the inequalities of further growth and higher densities. Growth patterns based on smaller cities or many-centred linear cities are Stretton’s ideal.

While Stretton believes that more research into many aspects of big and little cities is needed, he also believes that many Australians are ignorant and unconcerned with leaving their children these single-centred cities of millions of people, filled with social problems and inequality that can only get worse as they grow larger.

Very big cities are growing everywhere and are relatively recent in history, and it is only now that we are discovering and beginning to pay the social and personal costs of their sudden growth in this century. Stretton concludes by stating that fortunately there is still time to do a good deal about changing our cities for the better, but that conclusion was made over thirty years ago.

Questions:

• Are Australian cities such as Melbourne and Sydney becoming too big for their own good?
• Should we have built new city centres for every half million or million users as Stretton suggested? Is this still an option today, for example in Dandenong?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of big cities?
• Are small cities or multi-centred cities the answer to urban growth, as Stretton suggests, or are higher urban densities within our large cities preferable?
• Are we too focused on environmental values, by advocating more compact and higher density cities, than other social and personal values?
• It has been over thirty years since publication. Has Melbourne changed for the better or worse since then?

Reference:

Stretton, H. 1975, “Interests”, Ideas for Australian Cities, Georgian House, Melbourne, ch.11.

10. Services 11th May, 2008 02:05:22   [#] 

Comments

Stretton, H. 1975, "Interests"
I think the new city centres is a very interesting concept that is good in theory, although very difficult in reality. I think sydney might have tried something similar with parramatta with mixed results. I think the point he raises about a large city causing social divisions and resulting in the haves and the have nots although this happens on a much smaller scale in rural cities. Even though it was written 35 years ago it is still very relevant today, I also wonder what made him come up with a million people as the ideal city size?
DM  13th May, 2008 11:08:06  

Stretton, H. 1975, "Interests"
I find it interesting how Stretton uses Adelaide as a comparison to Dandenong and how he explains that Dandenong should attract 1/4 the growth, culture and funding of the Melbourne CBD. The primary aim of many policies currently, as we know, is to make Dandenong a second city but current projections show that there is no chance that it will ever receive 1/4 of these services and growth. This said, Stretton then goes on with the rest of the article and does not address this issue of how we divide the growth into a second (or more) city centre, although this is his main aim in the conclusion. So is dividing up the city the way to go in the future or do we just need better connections between the outer and inner city?
Alistair  13th May, 2008 12:22:17  

Stretton, H. 1975, "Interests"
Will raises a couple of interesting questions following his review of Stretton’s reading, including Are Australian cities such as Melbourne and Sydney becoming too big for their own good? I don’t think I would say that they are getting too big for their own good, what I would say is that they are growing for a reason, because there is demand for housing close to the cities. Although it seems as though growth is a bad thing, I think that it is inevitable and the way were regulate and guide our growth will determine how future generations look at the sprawl of certain cities.
Supply Demand  13th May, 2008 15:27:53  

Stretton, H
I think that Melbourne can accommodate both small cities and higher urban densities. Smaller cities would not only combat urban growth but serve those invisible groups including the elderly, those with disabilities and those of a lower socio-economic status, who are usually not able to access the larger centres. It is usually these groups that do not necessarily need a large city centre but a smaller, functional city that is more suited to their needs. On the other hand, higher densities in the larger cities also curb urban sprawl and serve as the hub for those working in and around that area, including the working visitors.

Stretton’s analysis of larger cites creating a greater divide between the wealthy and poor has much relevance today as it did back then in 1975. As Stretten identifies, a larger city usually benefit’s those nearer to it than those further out which can then lead to exclusions of those groups who are not able to use this larger centre. The theatre complexes case study between Melbourne and Adelaide was a good example of this distinction whereby only those nearer to the complex will ultimately use it. Melbourne hasn’t necessarily become worse rather than large and is dealing with the affects of overpopulation.


Jacquie  13th May, 2008 15:29:05  

Stretton, H. 1975, "Interests"
The great thing about Melbourne and it being the alleged 'World's most livable city' is that it is not like Sydney. When Bracks was pushing for growth earlier in the decade, he was quoted as saying that they want to make Melbourne as big as Sydney (or some such). This got me fired up as the city is not user friendly. Traffic everywhere and inflated house prices were some of the major turn-offs.It ultimately lead me to the field of Planning. I live in Melbourne for a very good reason!
As time went on we realised the growth trends and that Melbourne was set to increase and overtake Sydney in the future. What can we do to stop this from happening? Growth is generally a good thing, it helps the economy and ultimately, the people but at what cost? Increased traffic congestion, inflated house prices - all because of the recent rise in population. This is why there is a clear need to plan for regional cities ie. Ballarat/Geelong but also for these 'city centres' as discussed by Stretton.
Why do we have a central-city focus on planning? I have been told its because of the State Gov't centralising it all, but why not take the stress off the mother and plan for these out of city centres to take up some of the slack? Its a great concept and will allow for greater diversity.
Duelling McClassy  14th May, 2008 00:03:11  

Stretton, H. 1975, "Interests"
Yes, better connections between the inner and outer areas of Melbourne are definitely needed to reduce the impacts of inequality and poor accessibility. However, I believe that there is a possibility of making the City of Casey, or specifically Berwick, a potential hub for outer South/East residents. The City of Casey is growing fast and has over 235,000 residents alone; it makes sense to have a more central hub/city centre in this area, but perhaps not to the extent that Stretton argues. Through my experience of the area Berwick already has the necessary infrastructure to be increasingly developed more efficiently and effectively. It has a University, at least one major TAFE, a major freeway running through it, a busy railway line, a hospital, and a major shopping centre next door in Fountain Gate. There are plans for hotels, convention centres and more retail around Fountain Gate, so maybe this area of Melbourne is heading down the path of an alternative city centre already...
will  19th May, 2008 02:40:47  

Stretton, H. 1975, "Interests"
Yeah, suburban sprawl is bad. You drive around in these areas and all the people are dead on the inside... but no really, who is the government kidding? It is so clear that areas of low density at great distance from services generally suffer from social disparity to varying degrees. A city starts to loose its function ability once it gets to a certain size, things need to be upgraded or replicated. A state library that once serviced 1 million can not service 3 million.

The more compact we build our cities, the more easily they can be designed as to manage growth, movement and resources required and at the most minimum of expenditure. Multiple centers have their positives but also their negatives - though in a city as sprawled as ours, I think somewhere like Glen Waverley would make a good secondary center. oooo we could even build a wall so that if you live on one side you go to Melbourne and if you live on the other you go to Glen Waverley, Yes, I like this. I like walls.

Edward Crossland  27th May, 2008 15:45:36