|Next step, living in the Bay?|
Already struggling under the demands placed upon it by over 4million people, Melbourne's vital infrastructure and public services will be stretched beyond capacity if more people are accommodated further away from the city's centre.
Now I'm all for having more people live in Melbourne, and in Australia in general, but it must be regulated to fit the needs of Australia's developing economy. Given the size of our land, the number of people occupying it and the relative abundance of our natural resources, Australia's economy is operating well below its capabilities. Broadly speaking, many foreigners are amazed at the size of our continent, and the small number of people making use of it. The skill set required for our country to grow into a true world "player" must be actively sought out by government schemes, while encouraging those in the corporate sector to bring foreigners here who will add to the country, economically, socially and culturally.
|A typical Melbourne Traffic jam, rendering the speed limit useless.|
|Melbourne Train System|
A small and unscientific analysis of three cities, Melbourne, London and New York City, sheds light on the long term planning that didn't take place. In terms of population size, New York City holds about .4 million more people than London, with the British capital holding just under 8mil. Melbourne holds under half that, with our population currently hovering around 4 million.
In terms of physical land size, Melbourne, in square kilometres, completely blows New York and London out of the park, with its area totalling 8806sq.km, London in second at 1706.8sq.km and NYC relatively small at 1214.4sq.km.
|Greater London Trains- Underground and Above-ground systems|
Having greater connectivity and no central hub, makes it easier for people who have no need to enter the congested zones, get to their destinations. The ability to get from home to work, or from Frankston to Clayton, without having to catch 1 train and 2 buses, or 2 different trains and a bus etc.
The improvements required for the upgrading of Melbourne's rail network towards a modern, efficient, user friendly system, will require a lot of planning, international consultation, expertise and last but not least, foresight and a vested interest in making Melbourne a better city.
So the main advantage of owning land along with a house, is prestige. But what value do people place on owning land that they do not use? Wouldn't they benefit more from selling their land and obtaining cash for it? would Melbourne as a city, not be better off if people capitalized from the land that they own by developing upwards? If we were to sacrifice our front and back yards, build longer and wider, single story houses, developing second and third stories would generate revenue for land owners, and easily accommodate the predicted population increase