Sustainable Urban Development: Strategies To Support The Melbourne 2017 - 2050

Sustainable Urban Development: Strategies To Support The Melbourne 2017 - 2050

Koorosh Gharehbaghi (RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia), Bambang Trigunarsyah (RMIT university, Melbourne, Australia), and Addil Balli (RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia)
Copyright: © 2020 |Pages: 14
DOI: 10.4018/IJoSE.2020070104
OnDemand PDF Download:
No Current Special Offers


Due to Melbourne's ongoing growth, there is continuous pressure on its transportation infrastructure. Further, to maintain its position as one of the most livable cities in the world, Melbourne needs to always look at ways to optimize technology and lifestyle while being conscious of its effects on the environment in order to encourage a sustainable development agenda. Such a stance is part of Melbourne's future sustainable urban development strategy including ‘Melbourne 2017-2050.' As a part of such strategy, this article discusses the possibility of underground urban structures (UUS) to further alleviate Melbourne's continuous urban development problems. Four case studies, Lujiazui, Hongqiao, Montreal, and Helsinki, were studied. These four case studies have some comparability with Melbourne's CBD. Particularly, both Montreal and Helsinki have relevance to Melbourne which is appealing. Predominantly, these two cities' main objective of UUS matches that of Melbourne's long-term urban planning goals. Noticeably, improving the livability along with reducing building operational costs are central to Melbourne's 2017-2050 planning and beyond. According to Melbourne 2017-2050, as a sustainable urban development focus, the city's high livability needs to be maintained together with finding alternative ways to reducing building operational costs. This research would thus serve as a springboard to further investigate the UUS for Melbourne city.
Article Preview

1. Introduction

Infrastructure, in generic terms, can be defined as network of assets where the system as a whole is intended to be maintained indefinitely at a specified standard of service by the continuing replacement and refurbishment of its components (Buxton & Scheurer, 2007; Gharehbaghi & Georgy, 2015). On the other hand, general infrastructure and their auxiliaries are subject to on-going wear and tear, which require their constant monitoring (Zhang & Canning, 2011; Ball et al., 2014; Gharehbaghi & Rahmani, 2018; Lecomte, 2019). Monitoring such continuous infrastructure wear and tear is not only an engineering requirement but also a key aspect of sustainable urban development (Sáez et al., 2012; May, 2015; Gharehbaghi & McManus, 2019).

Such infrastructure consists of transportation, water, gas and electricity, waste, transport provision (roads, rail, air) that provide the framework in which a community transacts economic, social and environmental activity (Andres et al., 2016; Centobelli, Cerchione & Esposito, 2017; Calvert & Snelder, 2018). As Gharehbaghi and Raso (2012) argued, “valuable urban planning needs to design systematic alignment between the engineering components, the social and economic situation joined by the environmental factors methodology.” In such light, important infrastructure need to be carefully planned and developed. Moreover, such important infrastructures are key aspects of sustainable urban development (Burton, 2000; Bordagaray et al., 2014; Belanche, Casaló & Orús, 2016). Sustainable urban development can be defined as the on-going advancement with the view of protecting the future generations needs (Zeng et al., 2007; Finn, 2014; Rao et al., 2015; Reggiani & Nijkamp, 2015; Gharehbaghi & Farnes, 2018). Such development consists of protecting green spaces and lowering energy consumption all-awhile investigating innovative ways to improve big city living (Ghosh & Lee, 2012; Gudmundsson et al., 2016; Zhuhadar et al., 2017; Gharehbaghi, McManus & Robson, 2019). Further, Chakraborty, Das, and Pal (2020) also noted that the inclusion of smart cities could improve daily lives thus enhancing the livability.

In 2016, Melbourne was rated the world’s most livable city for a sixth consecutive year (Wright, 2017). To remain at the cutting edge of livability in the modern world, large cities such as Melbourne need to look at staying ahead of other developed nations in terms of technology and sustainability, while maintaining a healthy lifestyle (Mathey et al., 2015). Furthermore, as Melbourne grows, so does the pressure on its major arterial roads, inner-city roads, public transport and other infrastructure. Accordingly, innovative solutions need to be found in dealing with the city’s ever congestion increase - thus the development of the Melbourne 2017-2050 strategy. On the other hand, UUS are increasingly being recognized as the most sustainable method of urban development for large cities once above ground land (Buehler & Pucher, 2011; Kim, 2011). This is particularly advantageous once resources have been exhausted (Kummitha & Crutzen, 2017). Subsequently, UUS could be the innovative development for Melbourne and its growing transportation overcrowding (White and Mathew 2016).

The aim of this paper is therefore to review the concept of UUS for Melbourne city. This is in-line with city’s sustainable urban development particularly the Melbourne 2017-2050 plan. Subsequently, in doing so, a number of case studies will be reviewed. These case studies are from Shanghai, Montreal and Helsinki.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Volume 6: 1 Issue (2023): Forthcoming, Available for Pre-Order
Volume 5: 2 Issues (2022): 1 Released, 1 Forthcoming
Volume 4: 2 Issues (2021)
Volume 3: 2 Issues (2020)
Volume 2: 2 Issues (2019)
Volume 1: 2 Issues (2018)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing