Activity Centres
Its the term the Victoria Government is giving for the hubs / cities within the city of Melbourne. Their logic: its cheaper to centre people and employment around existing infrastructure than it is to continue to expand. Their hope is that people will do the majority of their work and play within their own activity centre. When travel is necessary good transport links will make public transport an attractive option.
So on the face of it it seems logical to invest in such areas, right? The pluses include:
- increased investment focused into those zones
- increased work and leisure options
- gentrification with councils complimenting private sector investment with urban renewal projects (street scaping, etc)
But then I'm thinking
- who wants to live in apartment blocks out in the suburbs (eg Doncaster Hill for those who know it)
- will all these aprtments cause an over supply in those locations, especially in relation to rental yields
- While the location is getting increasingly desirable, will the demand be enough to outstrip the supply (eg Docklands type problem)
- Is it my age/bias showing when I say that I don't need to be within walking distance of a restaurant strip / clubs / shopping centre. I'd rather live in a quiet neighbourhood and access them via a short car trip / train trip.
- Should I treat houses completely differently to apartments. Eg a house walking distance from an activity centre will increase even if apartments languish in over supply.
- Could activity centres in inner areas (eg Preston, Coburg) shine while those further out (eg Dandenong, Ringwood) turn into "affordable housing" areas. These might then get a bad rep due to the crime / social issues than is often concentrated in low socioeconomic areas.
Its the term the Victoria Government is giving for the hubs / cities within the city of Melbourne. Their logic: its cheaper to centre people and employment around existing infrastructure than it is to continue to expand. Their hope is that people will do the majority of their work and play within their own activity centre. When travel is necessary good transport links will make public transport an attractive option.
So on the face of it it seems logical to invest in such areas, right? The pluses include:
- increased investment focused into those zones
- increased work and leisure options
- gentrification with councils complimenting private sector investment with urban renewal projects (street scaping, etc)
But then I'm thinking
- who wants to live in apartment blocks out in the suburbs (eg Doncaster Hill for those who know it)
- will all these aprtments cause an over supply in those locations, especially in relation to rental yields
- While the location is getting increasingly desirable, will the demand be enough to outstrip the supply (eg Docklands type problem)
- Is it my age/bias showing when I say that I don't need to be within walking distance of a restaurant strip / clubs / shopping centre. I'd rather live in a quiet neighbourhood and access them via a short car trip / train trip.
- Should I treat houses completely differently to apartments. Eg a house walking distance from an activity centre will increase even if apartments languish in over supply.
- Could activity centres in inner areas (eg Preston, Coburg) shine while those further out (eg Dandenong, Ringwood) turn into "affordable housing" areas. These might then get a bad rep due to the crime / social issues than is often concentrated in low socioeconomic areas.
