contrasts in melbourne · contrasts in melbourne | page 2 of 18 characteristic hampton richmond...

Contrasts in Melbourne |

of 18

Contrasts in Melbourne

Introduction:

Urban environments across greater Melbourne differ depending on their location and distance from

the CBD. The aim of this fieldtrip was to investigate the environmental and housing characteristics of

Richmond, a suburb in the inner mixed zone, and Hampton, an intermediate suburb. The collection

of data relevant to the environment and housing of Hampton and Richmond allowed the two

suburbs to be compared and contrasted. Connections could subsequently be drawn between the

characteristics of Richmond and Hampton and their location in relation to Melbourne’s CBD.

Description:

Figure 1: Map of Melbourne depicting the characteristics of Hampton and Richmond


of 18

Characteristic Hampton Richmond

Socio economic background

Hampton’s median weekly household income is $1 652, compared to the Victorian median of $1 216. This suggests that residents of Hampton are, in general, wealthier than the average Victorian resident. Hampton also possesses a low unemployment rate of 4.4% compared to 5.4% across Victoria. This indicates that the suburb of Hampton has a high percentage of residents in the workforce, contributing to a high socio economic status.

Richmond possesses a median weekly household income of $1 730, suggesting its people have a similar degree of wealth to Hampton residents. A low unemployment rate of 4.3% indicates that like Hampton, Richmond has a high percentage of residents enrolled in the workforce. This data shows that residents of Richmond have a similar, if not slightly higher, socio economic status to residents of Hampton.

Demographics Hampton’s population has a median age of 40, compared to the Victorian median of 37. This suggests that the suburb of Hampton has an ageing population. Demographics related to education are predominantly close to the Victorian average, with the exception of those enrolled in non-government schools. 17.4% of those enrolled in an educational institution attend a non-government school, compared to 7.1% across Victoria. This is reflective of the high number of private schools in Bayside. 69.6% of residents are Australian born compared to 68.6% across Victoria, suggesting an average level of cultural diversity in Hampton.

Richmond’s population has a median age of 33, with 31.9% of residents aged between 25 and 34. Of those attending an educational institution, 29.4% are enrolled at a university or tertiary institution compared to 15.2% across Victoria. This suggests that Richmond’s residents are mainly young adults, with few families and elderly residents. A moderately low 60.9% of residents are Australian born, with a high 5.1% born in Vietnam compared to 1.3% across Victoria. This is most likely due to the post war immigration Richmond experienced after the conclusion of World War II. This data suggests that Richmond is more culturally diverse than Hampton.

Housing density

Hampton has a relatively low housing density, with 67.4% of dwellings classified as separate houses. Only 32.3% of residences are classified as medium-high density housing, which is reflective of Hampton’s 15km distance from the CBD. However, Hampton’s housing density is expected to increase in the future due to the need to increase the population capacity of Melbourne’s south-eastern suburbs.

Richmond has a high housing density, with only 28.4% of residences classified as separate houses. 29.7% of dwellings are semi-detached, or medium density housing, and 41.4% of dwellings are flats, units or apartments, or high density housing. This is reflective of Richmond’s 4km distance from the CBD, making it a location in demand due to access to facilities and services. This results in a greater number of high density developments in the area.

Green space Hampton possesses a number of parks and recreational facilities, which provide residents with access to public green space. The suburb’s low housing density also means residents have a larger amount of personal greenspace in the form of backyards, lawns and nature strips.

Richmond, for the most part, lacks both public and personal green space. Expensive land prices result in a lack of parks and outdoor recreational facilities, whilst high density housing provides little space for backyards, lawns and nature strips.

Availability of transport

Access to the CBD via public transport in Hampton is limited to the Sandringham railway line, although buses connect the suburb to other railway lines in the south-eastern suburbs. Roads allow residents of Hampton access to local and regional services by car, comprising the major transport network for the area.

Residents of Richmond have access to inner Melbourne’s public transport network, which is comprised mainly of trains and trams. Richmond railway station is conveniently located for residents, providing access to the CBD and the south-eastern suburbs. Although roads have been built in the area, congestion makes public transport a more efficient option.


of 18

Research question:

How do Melbourne’s suburbs differ with distance from the CBD and orientation?

Hypotheses:

Hampton will have a higher quality environment than Richmond.

Hampton is located approximately 15km south-east of Melbourne’s CBD and is part of the city’s

coastal urban sprawl. Since ‘most suburban areas are made up of single-storey houses with a front

and back garden area’ (Geography Environments pg.159), a greater amount of privately owned

greenspace is available to residents of the suburbs. Hampton’s coastal location also provides

desirable scenery and further open space which can be used for recreation and leisure. This supports

the hypothesis that Hampton will have a higher quality environment than Richmond.

Richmond will have a greater housing density than Hampton.

Richmond is located approximately 4km east of Melbourne’s CBD and is part of the inner mixed

zone. Blocks of land in the IMZ ‘have become prime sites for new apartments and townhouses’, with

‘higher density development on these sites’ ensuring that ‘higher land values are capitalised on’

(Geography Environments pg.155). Figure 1 depicts the change in the percentage of dwellings

classified as flats, units or apartments with distance from the CBD, in Melbourne’s western suburbs.

It shows that suburbs located the least distance from the CBD have a greater percentage of high

density housing compared to suburbs located a greater distance from the CBD. It is therefore

predicted that Richmond, an inner mixed suburb, will have a greater housing density than Hampton.

Figure 2: Transect comparing high density housing in Melbourne's western suburbs to the CBD


of 18

Method:

Topic Method Justification Issues

Housing study . Assessing and recording characteristics of dwellings in side streets of Hampton and Richmond

. Allowed for the comparison of dwelling type, size and density in the two suburbs investigated . Data was collected to support the hypothesis that Richmond would have a greater housing density than Hampton

. Personal opinion

. Limited time

. Housing characteristics were subject to the character of the individual streets studied

Street transect . Approximating lengths and widths of various aspects of side streets in Hampton and Richmond

. The measurements collected allowed a transect to be created, depicting both the environmental and housing characteristics of Richmond and Hampton . This allowed for the collection of data that supported both hypotheses

. Inaccurate method of measuring lengths, widths and heights . Appearance of the street differed greatly depending on the viewpoint taken . Limited time

Environment study

. Observing and recording the overall environmental characteristics of Richmond and Hampton

. The environmental characteristics recorded contributed to a detailed understanding of the suburbs’ environmental profiles . This supported the hypothesis that Hampton would have a better environment than Richmond

. Personal opinion

. Environmental appearance would depend on the time of year . Characteristics of residential streets differed to those of main roads

Data supporting hypotheses:

Figure 3: Environment study assessing Hampton and Richmond

Criteria - Positive Value (H = Hampton, R = Richmond)

Criteria - Negative

1 2 3 4 5

Area is clean H R Rubbish in streets

Abundance of trees H R Little vegetation

Large fences around houses H R Houses visible from street

Wide, well kept streets H R Narrow streets, in need of repair

Bright shopping area, with varied types of shops

H R Empty shops, dirty and dark appearance

Multicultural R H Mono cultural

Provision for open space H R Clustered infrastructure, no open space

Relaxed and affluent people H R Stressed and struggling people

Mainly residential H R Evidence of industry

Quiet H R Noisy

Modern H R Old

Friendly H R Impersonal

Interesting H R Boring

Organised H R Disorganised


of 18

Figure 4: Types of gardens in a side street of Hampton

Figure 5: Types of gardens in a side street of Richmond


of 18

Figure 6: Photograph highlighting Richmond's poor environment

Figure 7: Photograph highlighting Hampton's high quality environment


of 18

Figure 8: Cross section of Hampton and Richmond side streets

6m


of 18

Figure 9: Dwelling types in a side street of Hampton

Figure 10: Dwelling types in a side street of Richmond

types


of 18

Figure 11: Graph comparing the width of dwellings in side streets of Hampton and Richmond

Figure 12: Graph comparing the height of dwelling in side streets of Hampton and Richmond


of 18

Figure 13: Photograph depicting low density housing in a Hampton side street

Figure 14: Photograph depicting high density housing in a Richmond side street


of 18

1. Patterns in graphs and tables:

The data collected to support the hypothesis is presented using a number of methods, consisting of

annotated photographs, comparison tables, graphs, charts and diagrams. The analysis of patterns in

the tables and graphs can assist in the investigation of the differences between Hampton and

Richmond. Figure 3 shows a table depicting the environmental characteristics of Hampton and

Richmond. For 13 of the 14 characteristics displayed in figure 3, Richmond possesses more of the

negative criteria than Hampton. Hampton does not possess a value higher than 3 for any of the 14

characteristics displayed, indicating the suburb satisfies mostly the positive criteria of the

environmental spectrum. Figure 4 and figure 5 depict the type of gardens found in side streets of

Hampton and Richmond respectively. Figure 4 shows that all of the houses observed in Hampton

had gardens, with 68% of these gardens classified as lawn or trees and flowerbeds. Figure 5 shows

that of the houses observed in Richmond, 70% contained no garden whilst the remaining 30%

contained only shrubbery. This suggests that the distribution of gardens in Hampton is heavily

weighted towards lawn or trees and flowerbeds, whereas Richmond possesses a sparse distribution

of gardens altogether.

Figure 9 and figure 10 depict pie charts showing the type of dwellings found in Hampton and

Richmond respectively. Figure 9 shows that the side street studied in Hampton was comprised

entirely of detached houses, with a complete absence of higher density housing types. Figure 10

shows that dwellings in Richmond were predominantly higher density housing types, with an

extremely sparse distribution of detached houses. Figure 11 depicts a graph showing the dwelling

widths observed in Hampton and Richmond. The graph indicates that dwellings in Richmond were of

a smaller width than the dwellings located in Hampton. Figure 12 is a graph showing the height of

dwellings in Richmond compared to those in Hampton. It shows that a high percentage of dwellings

in Hampton were one storey, whereas Richmond possessed a greater percentage of two storey

buildings.

2. General patterns:

The majority of the data portrays Hampton and Richmond as polar opposites, in both environmental

and housing characteristics. Richmond’s environmental characteristics were consistently less

desirable than Hampton’s, due to a lack of green space and personal gardens. Hampton’s

environment is shown to be of a greater quality, with a greater number of gardens and a more

positive appearance than Richmond. The results show that houses in Hampton were wider and of

lower height and density compared to houses in Richmond. Similarly, Richmond is shown to have

possessed houses of a smaller width as well as a greater height and density compared to houses

located in Hampton.

3. Unusual results:

Although the majority of the results correlate well with the characteristics of the two suburbs that

were investigated, some of the information collected was surprising. Figure 8 illustrates cross

sections of side streets in Richmond and Hampton, and shows that the road in Richmond’s street

was 10 metres wide, whereas the road in Hampton’s street was 6 metres wide. Since Richmond’s

infrastructure is densely distributed, it would be expected that roads would be narrower due to a

lack of space. However, the unusually wide road may have been designed to accommodate 45

degree parking, due to a lack of off street parking in the area. It was also expected that Richmond

would possess a high number of multi-storey apartment buildings, due to its high population

density. However, figure 10 and figure 12 show that the majority of dwellings in the street studied

were terraced or semi detached, with 50% of houses comprised of only one storey. The type of


of 18

housing observed may have been subject to the street that was visited, as nearby streets may have

undergone newer development.

4. Links between information:

The information collected can be divided into two groups; environmental characteristics and housing

characteristics. Each group consists of interconnected data, which can be linked to other data to

support the hypotheses. Figure 4 and figure 5 depict garden types in Hampton and Richmond, which

contribute to the environmental characteristics of each suburb outlined in figure 3. Figure 4 and

figure 5 are also supported by figure 8, a cross section including the appearance of gardens and

nature strips in both Hampton and Richmond. The data collected on the differences in the

environment of the two suburbs is further supported by figure 6 and figure 7, which depict

photographs taken during the fieldtrip. These photographs clearly show the aesthetic appearance of

the suburbs, which is greatly affected by their environmental characteristics.

Figure 9, figure 10, figure 11 and figure 12 depict graphs showing the differences in dwelling type,

width and height of housing in Hampton and Richmond. These housing characteristics are also

illustrated in the cross section in figure 8, which contrasts the appearance of houses in both suburbs.

The housing characteristics of the two suburbs are also displayed in figure 13 and figure 14, which

depict the streetscapes of Hampton and Richmond and the unique appearance of their housing. In

reference to both environmental and housing characteristics, the data collected showing Hampton’s

low housing density supports the data illustrating its high quality environment. Since Richmond is

shown to have a greater housing density, its environmental characteristics are inevitably less

desirable than Hampton’s.

Analysis – contrasts between suburbs:

The data collected highlights the unique environmental and housing characteristics of Hampton and

Richmond. Figures 3-8 depict the differing environmental characteristics of the two suburbs, which

comprise their overall environmental profile. Hampton is shown to have a clean, quiet environment

with provision for open space and a large number of personal gardens. This is evidenced in figure 7,

which depicts the high quality environment of a side street in Hampton. Figure 7 supports the data

collected regarding Hampton’s environment, depicting a clean, quiet street containing trees, nature

strips and large gardens. Richmond is shown to have a lack of personal gardens and open space,

making for a bleak streetscape. This statement is supported by figure 6, which illustrates an absence

of vegetation resulting in the dull appearance of a Richmond side street. It was predicted that

Hampton would have a better environment than Richmond, since it is located further from the CBD

and has a low housing density. The results obtained support this hypothesis, proving that Hampton’s

environment is of a significantly higher quality than Richmond’s environment.

Figures 8-14 depict the housing characteristics of Hampton and Richmond, highlighting the

differences in housing density between the two suburbs. Hampton dwellings were found to be

mainly detached, single storey houses of a medium width. This indicates that Hampton’s residential

areas are of a low housing density, with large block sizes and an absence of high density housing

types. This is evidenced by figure 13, which illustrates single storey houses on large blocks, most of

which contain off street parking. Richmond was found to be predominantly comprised of one to two

storey, semi detached or terraced dwellings of a small width. This statement is supported by figure

14, which illustrates one to two storey, medium to high density housing on small blocks in a

Richmond side street. It was predicted that Richmond would have a greater housing density than

Hampton, since it is located closer to the CBD and has a greater population density than Hampton.


of 18

These results support this hypothesis, proving that due to the characteristics of its dwellings,

Richmond has a greater housing density compared to Hampton.

Richmond is classified as a multicultural suburb, with only 60.9% of residents born in Australia

compared to 69.6% in Hampton. 5.1% of residents in Richmond were born in Vietnam, resulting in a

suburb that is greatly influenced by Vietnamese culture. The majority of the food and restaurant

services along Richmond’s Victoria Street are Vietnamese, indicating a clear link between the

cultural mix of the suburb and its retail and lifestyle services. This cultural influence also impacts on

Richmond’s environment, resulting in a thriving retail precinct that attracts visitors to the area. High

density housing in Richmond encourages multiculturalism as smaller dwellings are more affordable

for immigrants. Close proximity to services and the CBD also attracts immigrants to Richmond, since

services and facilities are within easy access.

Hampton is a relatively mono cultural suburb, with 69.6% of its population born in Australia. Without

significant outside cultural influence, Hampton’s shopping precinct has remained relatively

unchanged compared to Richmond’s Vietnamese influenced precinct. This has resulted in Hampton

being a quiet, mainly residential suburb. Since Hampton’s residential areas consist mainly of

detached houses on medium to large blocks, there is a lack of affordable, higher density housing in

the area. This deters multiculturalism, since most immigrants would prefer to live closer to the CBD

in more affordable housing. It can therefore be stated that suburbs located close to the CBD with

availability of high density housing are more multicultural compared to outer suburbs containing low

density housing. Multicultural suburbs are also more likely to have a variety of services, which are

influenced by the diverse culture of residents.

Richmond has the greatest number of services of the two suburbs studied, due to its close proximity

to the CBD and high population density. Residents of Richmond have access to a number of services

along Victoria Street, in addition to adequate public transport which provides access to Melbourne’s

CBD. As a suburb located in the inner mixed zone, Richmond benefits from the abundance of

services available to Melbourne’s inner suburbs. Hampton lacks the services available in Richmond

due to its 15km distance from the CBD and low population density. Limited public transport is

available, with only one railway line extending to the Bayside area. As a more outer suburb than

Richmond, Hampton’s residents do not have easy access to the facilities and services located in the

CBD. However, future development in the area may increase the number of services available to

residents.

Future issues, problems and possible solutions:

Melbourne’s population is expected to increase by over 3 million by 2050, enhancing current issues

across greater Melbourne and creating new problems. As Melbourne’s suburbs become more

popular than its inner mixed zone, population growth rates are expected to soar in the intermediate

and outer suburban areas. This will create unique issues for Richmond and Hampton, and put

pressure on communication systems and activity centres across greater Melbourne. The Bayside and

Yarra City Councils will need to resolve the following issues if Hampton and Richmond are to

continue to thrive in 2050 and beyond.

As residents of Melbourne begin to look to purchase properties further from the CBD, the

population of Melbourne’s suburbs is expected to skyrocket by 2050. This will result in a greater

demand for housing in Hampton to accommodate a greater population density. Since the majority of

Hampton’s residential areas consist of detached houses on large blocks of land, the suburb’s current


of 18

housing type cannot sustain such population growth. To address this issue, the Bayside City Council

will need to develop medium to high density housing throughout Hampton, located near facilities

and services to attract prospective buyers. This will require new, higher density housing

developments to replace existing houses, creating residences to accommodate an increased

population of residents. Although the construction of townhouses and apartments will benefit new

residents, it will require current residents located near facilities such as Hampton railway station to

sell their properties. The development of townhouses and apartments in suburban areas is therefore

controversial, as it warrants the loss of heritage and diminishes the peacefulness of suburbia.

Hampton possesses an ageing population with a median age of 40, meaning the number of elderly

residents is expected to increase in the future. Hampton’s current healthcare facilities, retirement

homes and hospitals are inadequate to accommodate an influx of elderly residents. If Hampton is to

retain its current residents, the council will need to increase the number of healthcare, retirement

and medical facilities in the area well before 2050. This will involve developing new locations for

elderly services throughout Hampton, allowing easy access to these facilities. The development of

these services and facilities will allow Hampton’s ageing population to maintain a good quality of life,

and ensure the suburb is able to support elderly residents in the future.

Located approximately 15km from Melbourne’s CBD, Hampton’s residents are currently heavily

reliant on cars for transportation. As the suburb’s population grows, the Sandringham railway line

and bus links will be unable to service the needs of residents. This will inevitably increase residents’

reliance on cars, resulting in increased congestion and a lack of parking along Hampton Street. Public

transport in the south-eastern suburbs will need to be improved by 2050 to reduce Hampton

residents’ reliance on cars, thus reducing congestion on roads. To achieve this, councils throughout

the south-eastern suburbs will need to cooperate to create an efficient network of public transport.

Tram lines, bus links and bicycle paths must be developed to encourage non-motor vehicle

transportation and allow Hampton residents better access to the CBD and the south-eastern

suburbs. Railway stations will also need to be upgraded to support more frequent trains and

improve the efficiency of Melbourne’s train network. Development has already been planned in the

Hampton Willis Street precinct, where Hampton station and the adjacent bus interchange will be

upgraded. The improvement of Hampton’s public transport will provide people with better access to

Melbourne’s CBD and suburbs, concurrently reducing their reliance on cars.

Hampton beach was once a thriving tourist hotspot, attracting holidaying Melburnians to Bayside

throughout the 1850s. However, the construction of a stone breakwater in the mid 1900s prevented

waves from eroding the cliffs and foreshore that had previously replenished the beach’s sand.

Groynes were subsequently constructed to prevent further loss of sand, however Hampton beach

requires ongoing maintenance to prevent environmental degradation and maintain its status as a

major attraction. Increased population in the area will result in a greater demand for open space and

recreational areas, making Hampton beach a vital attraction in 2050 and beyond. With increased

visitors, the beach may be subject to degradation through litter, pollution and trampling of

vegetation. To address this issue, Bayside City Council will need to monitor the effects of visitors and

natural processes such as longshore drift. This may involve the construction of further groynes to

prevent longshore drift from eroding the beach, and stricter penalties for offences leading to the

degradation of the environment. Although groynes are an eyesore and penalties may seem pedantic,

the maintenance of the beach will ensure that recreational areas are available to residents of

Hampton and surrounding suburbs.


of 18

Due to an increasing number of high density housing developments in Richmond, the area may

experience a loss of heritage buildings in the future. As semi detached and terraced houses are

demolished to make way for townhouses and apartments, older buildings portraying the character

of Richmond’s residential areas may be lost. In order to reduce the future loss of heritage in

Richmond, Yarra City Council must evaluate the location of planned developments to limit the

number of old houses that are demolished. This will require the redevelopment of shopping strips to

include high density housing above shops, eliminating the need to demolish heritage dwellings. By

reducing the number of old houses lost to new housing developments, the council will be able to

maintain Richmond’s aesthetic appearance for the enjoyment of residents in the future.

Despite an increase in high density housing throughout Richmond, the suburb may experience a

significant population decline before 2050. The majority of Richmond’s residents are young adults,

predominantly singles or couples, who study or work in the CBD and inner mixed zone. As these

residents age, young singles will finish studying and young couples will look to become families.

Since Richmond lacks childcare, primary and secondary education and healthcare facilities, couples

looking to start a family will most likely move to suburbs such as Hampton, which have the facilities

and services to provide families with an ideal lifestyle. To maintain Richmond’s population and slow

desertification of the suburb, the council will need to improve childcare, education and healthcare

facilities in the area. This will involve the development of large blocks to make way for schools, day

care centres and medical centres, which may be difficult due to Richmond’s high land values.

However, the development of these services is essential in providing people with the facilities

needed to raise a family in Richmond, encouraging them to remain in the area.

As facilities and services in Melbourne’s suburbs improve in response to increased population

growth rates, Richmond’s multiculturalism may decline by 2050. Higher density housing

developments in suburbs such as Hampton will make living in Melbourne’s suburbs more affordable

for immigrants of low socio economic backgrounds. The improvement of public transport facilities

and services may also encourage people from different cultural backgrounds away from the inner

mixed zone and towards developed suburban areas. This could reduce Richmond’s multicultural

influence, including the Vietnamese culture seen in Victoria Street. To maintain Richmond’s

multicultural status, Yarra City Council could improve Richmond’s environmental characteristics to

make the suburb more aesthetically appealing to prospective residents. Redevelopment of existing

infrastructure to create green space would be required to achieve this goal, which could anger

residents whose properties are demolished. However, the introduction of green space would

increase Richmond’s environmental quality, thus appealing to prospective residents who may have

otherwise purchased properties in Hampton.

Although Richmond’s population is not expected to grow significantly by 2050, the suburb will be

affected by congestion due to traffic flow in and out of Melbourne’s CBD. The predicted increase in

population of Melbourne’s suburbs will result in increased traffic along east-west routes linked to

the CBD. This could cause severe congestion along Victoria Street, Bridge Street, Swan Street and the

north-south Hoddle Street. To reduce congestion north-east of the CBD, the council will need to

create a direct link to the Melbourne’s CBD from the Eastern Freeway, allowing vehicles to bypass

Richmond when traveling to the city. To link the Eastern Freeway to the CBD, existing infrastructure

including housing will need to be removed to allow for a major roadway. This could anger residents

and shop owners, however an underground road link would eliminate the need for redevelopment

of properties. Creating a bypass to the CBD from the Eastern Freeway would allow residents of the

largely populated eastern suburbs direct access to the city, reducing congestion on Richmond’s


of 18

roads. This would reduce local travel times for Richmond’s residents, improving general satisfaction

with the area’s transport network.

Plan Melbourne – Hampton:

Plan Melbourne aims to transform Melbourne into a global city of opportunity and choice by 2050.

Despite having a high quality environment and a low housing density, Hampton must develop to a

greater extent than Richmond in order to meet the goals of the plan by 2050. Plan Melbourne places

an emphasis on protecting Melbourne’s suburbs, by limiting high density developments to certain

locations near infrastructure and services. The plan states that the supply and affordability of high

density housing will be improved in areas expected to experience greater population growth. It aims

to make better use of existing suburban assets by developing underutilised, ideally located areas of

Melbourne. Melbourne’s transport network will be significantly improved, with transport links and

corridors created to connect different areas of greater Melbourne. This will contribute to the

creation of 20 minute neighbourhoods, a concept where all the facilities and services residents

require will be located within 20 minutes of their residence. Altering these factors will allow

Melbourne and its suburbs to become more sustainable by the year 2050. Throughout the process,

Plan Melbourne aims to maintain a positive relationship between governing bodies and members of

the community.

For Hampton to improve its transport links and corridors, thus becoming a sustainable 20 minute

neighbourhood by 2050, Bayside City Council will need to address the area’s public transport.

Hampton station is currently the only public transport link to Melbourne’s CBD, with some bus

routes linking the Sandringham railway line to the Frankston railway line. Tram lines do not extend

to the Bayside area, resulting in limited access to the south-eastern suburbs via public transport. It is

therefore important for the council to extend Melbourne’s tram lines to the Bayside area, thus

creating a vital link between Hampton and the south-eastern suburbs. The council should also go

ahead with the Hampton Willis Street development of upgrading Hampton station and the adjacent

bus interchange. This will increase the capacity of Hampton’s public transport system, therefore

accommodating increased population growth.

In order to increase Hampton’s supply and affordability of housing whilst maintaining its suburban

character, Bayside City Council must focus on the issue of housing development. Hampton’s

residential areas consist predominantly of detached, single storey houses, which contribute to a low

housing density and expensive house prices. The construction of higher density housing such as

townhouses and apartments is important to accommodate an increasing population and meet the

goals of Plan Melbourne. This will increase the availability of affordable, medium to high density

housing in the area, thus increasing Hampton’s level of development. To prevent this development

from compromising Hampton’s suburban lifestyle, housing developments must be limited to areas

located near public transport and facilities, such as the Hampton Willis Street precinct. This will

ensure that Hampton is able to increase its housing density and affordability, whilst maintaining its

appeal as a quiet, beachside suburb.

In achieving the goal of making better use of existing underutilised areas and thus assisting in the

creation of 20 minute neighbourhoods, Bayside City Council must evaluate Hampton’s facilities and

services. Hampton’s facilities and services are scattered throughout the suburb, in a distribution

which supports the suburb’s low housing density. However, increased housing developments near

public transport services such as Hampton station warrant the relocation of facilities to service

residents of these dwellings. By redeveloping land near new housing developments, the council


of 18

could improve its use of Hampton’s existing land nearby public transport, whilst allowing residents

of high density developments to be included in 20 minute neighbourhoods. This could also assist in

encouraging new residents to purchase apartments in high density housing developments.

By addressing Hampton’s public transport, housing development and services, Bayside City Council

will increase the suburb’s chances of reaching the goals set out by Plan Melbourne. The actions

taken to reach these goals will provide dwellings and services to support the increasing population

growth that is expected to occur in Melbourne’s south-eastern suburbs. High density housing

developments located near public transport links and essential services could attract prospective

buyers to the area, thus increasing Hampton’s population in a sustainable manner. It is important for

Hampton to thoroughly plan its development, and cater to its sustainability as a suburb whilst

striving for the goals outlined in Plan Melbourne.

Conclusion and evaluation:

The data collected on the fieldtrip shows that Richmond and Hampton possess unique

environmental and housing characteristics, contributing to differing levels of development.

Richmond has a high level of development, as its residential areas are comprised mainly of high

density housing types. Hampton has a relatively low level of development, as its residential areas are

comprised of predominantly low density housing types on medium to large blocks of land. This

suggests that suburbs further from Melbourne’s CBD are generally of a lower housing density

compared to suburbs closer to the CBD. It is expected that Hampton’s housing density will grow to

meet the demands of an increased population in the south-eastern suburbs. It would be ideal for

Hampton to achieve the goals outlined in Plan Melbourne, as it is essential for the suburb to change

its infrastructure and housing density to cope with an estimated increase of over 3 million people

across Melbourne by 2050. As Melbourne’s population becomes weighted to the suburbs, areas

such as Hampton must embrace higher density housing to make use of existing services, facilities

and activity centres outside of Melbourne’s CBD.

Of the two suburbs studied, I would prefer to live in Hampton due to its desirable environment and

low density housing. Richmond’s small housing blocks offer little green space, and education and

recreation facilities are limited. I believe that Hampton’s facilities, environmental characteristics and

abundance of green space make it one of the most liveable suburbs in Melbourne. The hypothesis

that Hampton’s environment is of a higher quality than Richmond’s proved to be correct, since

Hampton’s environmental characteristics are significantly more desirable than those seen in

Richmond. The hypothesis that Richmond has a greater housing density than Hampton was also

proven to be correct, with Richmond supporting a much higher population density than Hampton.

This indicates that the fieldtrip was successful in affirming the knowledge gained about Melbourne’s

urban environment through the coursework completed in class.

Although the conclusion supports the hypotheses regarding the characteristics of Hampton and

Richmond, some difficulties were experienced when collecting information. It was particularly

difficult to assign categories to the dwellings seen in Richmond, as many were semi detached and

terraced, or appeared to be townhouses and apartments. It was sometimes difficult to distinguish

between dwellings that shared walls, since some townhouses and apartments had side entrances

and no front façade. From a street based vantage point, it was impossible to see the roofing material

of some dwellings, possibly resulting in inaccurate data. Some gardens contained only pot plants,

which did not suit any of the categories listed under the garden study. These problems during the

data collection may have influenced the overall results of the field trip.


of 18

In order to improve the structure of the field trip, the information collected on the day could have

been personalised to allow for the investigation of different characteristics of the suburbs. Spending

more time in the suburbs would have allowed for more thorough data collection, and could be

achieved by only visiting the two suburbs relating to the hypotheses chosen. This would allow for a

greater understanding of the characteristics of the two suburbs being investigated. The street study

could have been completed in multiple streets in each suburb, reducing the impact of the individual

character of many of Melbourne’s side streets on the information obtained. The addition of an outer

suburb such as Frankston, Clayton or Footscray may have allowed for a clearer contrast between

suburbs of greater Melbourne, enabling trends to be observed between the characteristics of an

inner suburb, an intermediate suburb and an outer suburb. It would have been interesting to

compare the information obtained in Richmond and Hampton with the characteristics of

Melbourne’s CBD, in order to better understand the differences between inner city and suburban

environments.

To assist in the collection of more accurate information, better methods of data collection could

have been used on the field trip. Since assigning dwellings and gardens to categories was subjective

to personal opinion, it may have been better for one person to complete the street study for both

sides of the street, rather than having a different person assess each side. To represent a more

accurate cross section of the side streets, widths and heights of houses, nature strips, roads and

fences could have been measured using a tape measure instead of being estimated. This would have

improved the accuracy of the measurements recorded in the cross sections, which were sketched

according to approximated lengths. To ensure the data collected during the street study was

accurate, physical characteristics of the dwellings could have been cross-referenced with images on

google maps. This would have reduced the impact of human errors and missed details in the graphs

based on the street study.

For students to complete the task more successfully, good time management would be essential.

This would ensure that all the required information was collected on the field trip, without the need

to obtain raw data from google maps. It would, however, be wise to cross reference the information

collected with images on google maps to account for any human errors. In order to sketch accurate

cross sections, students would need to use a measuring tape to record the lengths of different

aspects of the side streets. However, it would be important for students to prioritise their time,

spending more time collecting data relevant to the hypotheses and less time obtaining irrelevant

data. This would allow students to utilise the most successful possible method of data collection on

the field trip.

contrasts in melbourne · contrasts in melbourne | page 2 of 18 characteristic hampton richmond...

Documents