“Cheaper and less disruptive”: The case for retrofitting Melbourne’s public housing towers

Despite two studies confirming the benefits of retrofitting Melbourne’s public housing towers, the Victorian Government is pressing ahead with its demolition plan following a recent Supreme Court ruling.  

As part of a class action on behalf of 479 public housing households, Inner Melbourne Community Legal sought to obtain cabinet documents that could explain the reasons behind the government’s decision to demolish all 44 towers.

However, at a hearing on February 10, the Supreme Court ruled that the documents were immune from disclosure and couldn’t be used in the class action lawsuit.

The decision comes after a new independent report refuted the Victorian Government’s claim that knocking down and rebuilding the 44 public housing towers is the only option.

The study, conducted by Nigel Bertram, an architect in practice and Professor of Architecture at Monash University, concluded that retrofitting the towers was not only possible but also cheaper.

Bertram’s research found that retrofitting could result in up to 30 per cent savings in capital costs, a significant reduction in embodied carbon emissions, and a considerably shorter construction timeframe.

“We know retaining and reusing existing structures saves energy and other resources, ultimately reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” he told Inner City News.

Across 44 buildings, this could also save around $1.5 billion in construction costs.

The findings reaffirm those of an earlier study by Simon Robinson from OFFICE, a not-for-profit architecture and research firm, which suggested that retrofitting was “cheaper” and “less disruptive”.

Under the OFFICE proposal, the public housing towers would remain in place and be progressively retrofitted, while five mid-rise social housing buildings would be constructed in and around the towers on land currently used for car parking.

Simon Robinson said that, under the proposed demolition and rebuilding approach, residents would be forced to relocate, which he believes has major social and health implications for vulnerable tenants.

“Our study shows that this relocation can be avoided by building new dwellings in and between the towers prior to refurbishment,” Mr Robinson said.

Kerrie Byrne, a public housing tenant and member of the Save Public Housing Collective, struggles to understand how people can have “confidence” in the government’s approach if it refuses to release the assessments that are believed to support the case for demolition.

Currently, there are 10,000 people living across the 44 towers, but after all the sites are rebuilt, the state government has said 30,000 people are expected to be housed. However, it is reported that only 11,000 would be public housing tenants, with the remaining 19,000 residents living in a mixture of social and market housing.

Because of this, according to Ms Byrne, the project cannot be regarded as a “solution” for the 60,000 households languishing on the waiting list, or for the 30,000 homeless Victorians.

“Rather, as these estates all sit on prime inner-city land, it will create a massive windfall for property developers,” she said. “They are the winners, while thousands of tenants forced to relocate have little choice.”

Despite the demolition plans being announced over a year ago, the government has not detailed any costs for rebuilding the public estates. However, it has signed off on a $100 million contract with John Holland to demolish the first five towers in Carlton, Flemington and North Melbourne. •