Born to Die
by Laura Szyman
LOCATION: MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA
I would like to suggest an alternative reading of the urban wasteland, or perhaps an addendum to the existing meaning, and put forward that in Melbourne, currently, ruination is the starting point of our newly built peripheral suburbs.
A short series published last year by The
Guardian Australia1,2 unpacked the state of young suburbs, Truganina and Oran Park, as case studies
representative of a wider condition in both Melbourne and Sydney. The prevailing
tone of this series was one of specific exasperation and existential concern in
the face of a suburban condition that, to quote Michael Buxton from the same
series, “‘handed over the future design of outer Melbourne to the development
industry’ and set up ‘vast swathes of Melbourne to fail’”3,4. This state of
failure-upon-arrival is the current focus of my research.
Ruin is to the realm of things as allegory
is to the realm of thought, a mortification of matter that now only alludes to
the ideology it originated in. Ruin, as put forth in Walter Benjamin’s Arcades Project5,
is “the form in which the wish-images of the past century appear as rubble in
the present”6.
These wish-images refer to the dream of the collective when faced with new
technologies and developments, and their rubble appears embedded in the
technologies that follow. For example, in the Melbourne suburban context, a
dominant pile of rubble in our established suburbs is that of the Garden City
movement, with the current peripheral incarnations maintaining tree-lined
boulevards while reducing private backyards down to 2-3 square metres deep. The
rubble of the Garden City becomes a visual allegory in planning submissions
that promise the same lifestyle in a contemporary context that cannot sustain
it.
Mediaeval castles with tumbling
crenelations no longer hold dynasties and banquets and furniture and death, but
they can be used as an allegory for
the romantic dream of the period. In the same way, allegory is the ruined form
of thought, taking Venus, the goddess of love and figure of worship in the
Roman pantheon, but, in literature written under Christianity, making her an
allegory for the notion of love, to be employed only as a symbol in service of
other narratives, the ruined form of herself. The vague terrain is in the matter as it is in the thought.
My hypothesis was this: if we are
constructing suburbs as failure-on-arrival ruins, then there should be
corresponding allegories in the language that defines them.

The strangeness of this condition is how unencumbered greenfield sites are by the general traces of a city. The subject site I address later on, Cloverton, had one train station (Donnybrook station), the Merri Creek along the east and south-east edges, and two highways that form its border and intersect at the south western corner. There is minimal existing matter to negotiate, no suburban fabric to be maintained, no neighbourhood character to uphold. And yet, it is still encumbered by the same expectations we have for the established, desirable suburbs: Hawthorn, Balaclava, Armadale, Malvern. Tree lined streets with houses set back from the perimeter with generous gardens and houses, each their own domain.
Houses on the periphery are sold off the
plan, in the context of aspirational planning documents that depend upon
certain utopian ideas perpetuated from the established suburbs: the garden
city, a man and his castle, the Australian quarter-acre dream. To accompany
these we have train stations, corner stores, schools and parks. The basic
matter of public life dressed up for an advertisement starring the house-and-land
package. A simplified explanation of the business case for these suburbs would
go thusly: by selling the initial run of land for housing, the suburbs would
have enough residents to fund the development and construction of commercial
and public infrastructure.
A density of around 35 dwellings per
hectare (d/ha) is often cited7,8 as necessary to support the urban features and character we both need and
desire: walkable commercial spaces, parks, schools, high quality mass transit,
among others. But the actual matter of the housing stock currently being
constructed does not support this. The density of Truganina, for example, is
less than half that number, at around 16 d/ha1. For comparison,
Tokyo has approximately 110 d/ha, and London has around 60 d/ha. There are of
course issues with this assessment, as it does not take into account the
demographic mix of the area. A suburb with 35 d/ha made up of families with two
or more children would have a different kind of housing than a mix made up of
mostly professional singles. But nonetheless the relationship is clear: with a
great population density a greater mix of things (retail, restaurants,
commercial ventures, neighbours, etc.) in a neighbourhood can exist, which
means that a person in that area can interact with a great number of activities
and people in the same day.
The comparison between the two numbers
above, the ideal 35 and the current 16, is simple but telling: from the very
outset it can be shown that the promises of those aspirational documents will
not come to pass, the economics do not add up, and the planning aims are simply
allegorical devices employed to indicate the kind of lifestyle the developer
would like to sell. A train station in the story of the neighbourhood is the
fulcrum around which a lifestyle can be built, but without the necessary
densities the train station is absent from the matter of the suburb, and thus the
lifestyle sold is ruined from the outset, the aesthetic of the suburb conjuring
an idea of walkable connectivity, but entirely dependent on the car and road.
Beyond the developers own aspirations, the
high-level planning documents (from Plan Melbourne 2017-20509, to the Precinct
Structural Plans10,
to the local design guidelines11)
employ aspirational language in their guidance of development. It’s not just
the train stations and local schools that go unrealised, but other less
tangible ideas: sustainability, choice, community. These are the allegories,
they rely on the colloquial meaning to invoke positive feelings toward the
lifestyle on show, but in their specifics refer to another set of ideas
entirely.

I have surveyed the language employed in planning and aspiration documents that pertain to Cloverton in Melbourne’s North. This site was chosen for the case study as the publicly available information on the development was fairly positive. It will be a 20-minute city, walkable, with shops and schools and a future train station planned, along with a variety of housing stock. At some undefined point in the future it will house around 40,000 people in an area roughly five times the size of the Melbourne CBD12.
But “will
be” is “might be” in this
context, depending on whether the business case shakes out.
I worked through each of the planning
documents, identifying language that could potentially be allegorical. For
example, though “sustainable” and its derivatives are used 78 times in the Plan
Melbourne 2017-2050, it's never made clear exactly what we are sustaining, and why sustainability is beneficial. In
fact, the allegorical form “sustainable” in Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 invokes
the sense of positivity and forward-thinking that is associated with projects
tackling the climate crisis, but in just under 40% of cases it is used instead
with reference to “sustainable communities”, which are another set of ideas
entirely, ideas that relate to prosperity, jobs and services, liveability, economic
growth, and tourism. The actions one takes to bring jobs and services to an
area are not those that one takes to reduce the carbon footprint of a
development, and though they are linked in the way that all complex urban
systems are, this reveals the key instability caused by the use of these
allegorical forms.
So we have a suburban fabric that relies on
businesses cases that are going unfulfilled, leaving the resulting fabric as a
ruin of the vision that sold them, and we have a set of aspirational planning
documents that rely on un-actionable allegorical language that fails to filter
down into the Growth Plans or PSPs.
What I am proposing is an alternative mode of planning these suburbs, one that steps away from the positivistic but ruinous language of the current modes of planning. Stefano Moroni, planning professor at Milan Polytechnic, has proposed a new mode of planning, nomocratic planning, a mode that proposes planning the relationships of an environment, over the current teleocratic mode which instead plans for an idealistic future condition. A nomocratic mode of planning replaces the directional rules (ones that guide a specific direction in planning) with relational rules that are: “impersonal, simple, and stable”13,14.
Impersonal rules are “abstract…and
general…and moreover they must be prevalently negative”, applying generally and
preventing certain undesirable outcomes, rather than alluding to specific
positive outcomes. This provides more room within the scheme to respond to the
issues raised, ie. sustainability isn’t simply a matter of planting more trees,
but the carbon footprint of developments can be addressed differently by
different stakeholders.
Simple rules are “plain and unambiguous”,
rules that are binary which removes the need for ad hoc interpretation (or
misinterpretation). As opposed to the allegorical aspirations which shift in
meaning as you track them through the documents, the simple rules move away
from “technicality, complexity, and indeterminacy”, simplifying the process of
responding to requirements of planning for both government and community.
Stable rules are those that are set
permanently, so the individuals and stakeholder groups can be confident in their
expectations of others, and of the governing bodies. This would enable
longer-term planning and investment, which is crucial for all stakeholders to
project their vision for the area. Compare this with the allegorical forms
which, in their misinterpretation, are less stable. These stable rules, by
their nature, must be abstract and general, dealing with the bread strokes,
rather than the fine details, and must be unambiguous to avoid critical
misinterpretation.
The fun begins here, in defining the relationships
in these terms, because the mechanisms through which we are able to affect the
fabric of the periphery expand out to encompass a much broader field, and it is
a field rich with potential for radical responses. My current investigations
live here, for now, examining how the macro and micro, how the plan for
infrastructure in an area can affect the size of a bathroom. I will consider it
a success if exploring this relational mode can lead to changes in the matter
of architecture.



When we bring these three rules back to the initial idea of this paper, of ruin and allegory, a mechanism for shifting the allegories out of allusion and into action emerges. If we strip “sustainability” of all the ancillary narrative weight placed on it by, for example, Plan Melbourne 2017-2050, and address its core we have a reduction of emissions.
This reduction, applied abstractly and
generally would mean the burden would fall evenly across the suburb. Applied
simply it would become a very simple set of urban design principles: walkable,
with available public transport, and provision for the generation of power
locally through renewable resources. Applied stabley it would be a long-term
plan for the carbon neutrality of the suburb which could be factored into all
forward projections.
It would no longer be an allegory, that
hides its intentions behind positivistic allusion, but a set of actionable
guidelines with potential for radical response.
So, my addendum to the terrain vague is this:
our current planning scheme leaves too much room for these ruined suburbs,
those that are the “city no longer” from the moment of completion. By shifting
the allegorical forms into more literal forms, more general, simple, and
stable, then the terrain vague of the planning scheme can be shaped into a new
form. The rubble of the ruined city is only a problem if it is left on the
ground for us to trip over. Instead, pick it up and use it to build the next
iteration.
CONTRIBUTORS
Laura Szyman↩
REFERENCES
1. Visontay, E. A broken dream: outer Melbourne has
affordable houses but no train or school. The Guardian (2021).
2. Davies, A. ‘Ultimately uninhabitable’: western Sydney’s legacy of planning failure. The Guardian (2021).
3. Michael Buxton, Geoffrey Falk, Jim Holdsworth, Mike Scott, Steve Thorne, Maxine Cooper, Bruce Echberg, Stephen Pelosi. GROWING PAINS: Planning for Better Neighbourhoods, (link↩)
4. Michael Buxton, Geoffrey Falk, Jim Holdsworth, Mike Scott, Steve Thorne, Maxine Cooper, Bruce Echberg, Stephen Pelosi. GROWING PAINS: The Crisis in Growth Area Planning, (link↩)
5. Benjamin, W. The Arcades Project. (Harvard University Press, 1999).
6. Buck-Morss, S. The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project. (MIT Press, 1991).
2. Davies, A. ‘Ultimately uninhabitable’: western Sydney’s legacy of planning failure. The Guardian (2021).
3. Michael Buxton, Geoffrey Falk, Jim Holdsworth, Mike Scott, Steve Thorne, Maxine Cooper, Bruce Echberg, Stephen Pelosi. GROWING PAINS: Planning for Better Neighbourhoods, (link↩)
4. Michael Buxton, Geoffrey Falk, Jim Holdsworth, Mike Scott, Steve Thorne, Maxine Cooper, Bruce Echberg, Stephen Pelosi. GROWING PAINS: The Crisis in Growth Area Planning, (link↩)
5. Benjamin, W. The Arcades Project. (Harvard University Press, 1999).
6. Buck-Morss, S. The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project. (MIT Press, 1991).
7. Boulange, C. et al. Examining associations between urban design
attributes and transport mode choice for walking, cycling, public transport and
private motor vehicle trips. J. Transp. Health 6, 155–166 (2017).
8. Giles-Corti, B., Hooper, P., Foster, S., Koohsari, M.
J. & Francis, J. Low density development: Impacts on physical activity
and associated health outcomes, (link↩)
9. The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. (2017).
10. Donnybrook– Woodstock Precinct Structure Plan, (link↩)
11. Cloverton Lifestyle Guidelines.pdf. (link↩)
12. Stockland. Cloverton Town Centre: THE NEW CENTRE OF MELBOURNE’S NORTHERN GROWTH AREA, (link↩)
13. Moroni, S. Urban density after Jane Jacobs: the crucial role of diversity and emergence. City, Territory and Architecture 3, 1–8 (2016).
14. Alexander, E. R., Mazza, L. & Moroni, S. Planning without plans? Nomocracy or teleocracy for social-spatial ordering. Prog. Plann. 77, 37–87 (2012).
9. The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. (2017).
10. Donnybrook– Woodstock Precinct Structure Plan, (link↩)
11. Cloverton Lifestyle Guidelines.pdf. (link↩)
12. Stockland. Cloverton Town Centre: THE NEW CENTRE OF MELBOURNE’S NORTHERN GROWTH AREA, (link↩)
13. Moroni, S. Urban density after Jane Jacobs: the crucial role of diversity and emergence. City, Territory and Architecture 3, 1–8 (2016).
14. Alexander, E. R., Mazza, L. & Moroni, S. Planning without plans? Nomocracy or teleocracy for social-spatial ordering. Prog. Plann. 77, 37–87 (2012).