Many of these ideas may not translate well to a city of Melbourne’s scale today, but the notion of re-thinking how we want to live, of not just accepting the increasingly unworkable status quo, certainly warrants ongoing investigation. For while the CBD certainly did not die, as some grimly predicted during COVID, the ongoing prevalence of remote working and the realisation that we need not necessarily harness ourselves to a gruelling daily commute have permanently changed the landscape. What do we want to do better?
That is why in a special series The Age has been exploring the notion of developing a second CBD, or multiple CBD districts, beyond the single central zone that currently serves as our major hub for commerce, white-collar work and recreation.
Melbourne’s famous liveability is being eroded by the effort required to get around.Credit: Jesse Marlow
As Sophie Aubrey writes, this has actually been on some town planners’ radar for decades. A landmark report issued by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works in 1954 was even then warning of sprawling development and pointed to decentralisation as a solution, suggesting, “Thus, for many people, the wearisome journey into the city centre could be avoided, and some relief afforded to the already overcrowded central area.”
It has subsequently happened — but only to some extent. Landmark precincts like Glen Waverley, Box Hill, Footscray and Clayton are all vibrant hubs in their own right: in the right…
