The Victorian Government should carefully consider options to retrofit some of Melbourne’s aging public housing towers rather than take a blanket approach of demolishing and rebuilding all of the towers, a leading expert says.

During a recent interview, Dr Trivess Moore, Associate Professor at the School of Property, Construction and Project Management at RMIT, spoke with Sourceable about the Victorian Government’s plans to demolish and rebuild 44 aging public housing towers  across Melbourne’s inner suburbs.

During the interview, Moore acknowledged that many of the towers may be reaching the end of their useful lives.

But he questions why the government has made a blanket decision to demolish and rebuild all of the towers as opposed to considering retrofitting some of the buildings.

And he stresses that no publicly available evidence has been provided by the government to demonstrate that retrofitting would not be feasible for any of the towers.

Instead, Moore says that each tower should be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether retrofitting is feasible or a complete rebuild is needed.

“I think there are a couple of different things going on here that we need to be thinking about,” Moore said, asked for his overall view of the demolition and rebuild plan.

“The first is that these towers when they were built in the 1960s and 1970s were probably not built to last much longer than they’ve already been around. And so there is a question about whether they are at the end of their natural life and do they need to be upgraded or do they need to be replaced?

“I think that’s a very pertinent question to be to be asking. We want to make sure that public housing tenants are not living in substandard housing. And we know that standards have shifted for newer housing over time and we know that there is increased awareness of improving things like thermal comfort and reducing energy consumption and these types of things.

“The decision to make a blanket rule, I think, is the one that’s perhaps the most challenging thing that I see here because it is such a large program of work that will need to be undertaken to rebuild all of these towers. And so I think the wider public – as well as advocates for public housing and even sustainability – are rightly asking, well, ‘where is the evidence to support the idea that all the towers need to be knocked down and rebuilt’?

“I think that the challenge is that when you make a blanket rule like that on such a wide range in terms of geographic spread but also in terms of the types of communities and the buildings that are going to be knocked down, then you want to make sure you’re using the best evidence to inform that.

“We also have a state government in Victoria that has quite a lot of debt. And so the question around financial viability is important. And one of the points of argument being put forward from the Victorian Government is the cost to maintain these moving forward is not going to be financially viable.

“But what they haven’t really explored, at least in terms of the public evidence that they’ve been putting forward, is what could the other options be? What would a retrofit option be? We know from some of the examples from around Australia but also particularly from around the world that you can retrofit high-rise buildings and improve the quality, the performance, the amenity and bring them up to a more modern standard and to do this for less than the cost of a rebuild. That’s the information that’s missing from the wider discussion.

“If they had that evidence – and maybe they do have it and they’re not presenting it for whatever reason – then I think that it may then make sense why these buildings need to be knocked down and rebuilt. But we don’t have that evidence, so we can’t independently work through and go, ‘okay, well, why is it this blanket rule’?

“And I think one of the other things is that the timeframe for knocking down and rebuilding these towers (between now and 2051) is actually quite a long timeframe from when they’re going to plan and complete these. So it’s a little bit unclear why they’ve made this blanket announcement that they’re going to knock down rebuild all of them. Why not say ‘we’ll start with three or five or whatever and we’ll evaluate as we go’?

Because it (the prospect of relocation) has created quite a lot of distress and uncertainty particularly for people living in those communities for whom community is particularly important. And so the fear or the concern is that they’re going to be relocated and are they going to move back and all these types of things. I don’t think has been well considered in these announcements.”

(The housing tower at 33 Alfred Street in North Melbourne is one of the first which is set to be knocked down under the Government’s program. Image from Google Streetview)

Australia’s biggest ever urban renewal project

Moore’s comments come as the Victorian Government is undertaking a massive program to demolish and rebuild all of Melbourne’s 44 aging high-rise public housing estates.

Constructed over the decades following World War II from the 1950s through to the 1970s, the towers are concentrated within Melbourne’s inner suburbs.

The program to demolish them was announced by former Premier Daniel Andrews in September 2023.

Upon its announcement, the program was billed as ‘Australia’s biggest ever urban renewal project’.

Under the program, all 44 towers will be demolished and rebuilt between now and 2051.

The towers will be progressively retired and redeveloped according to a program of works that will span over that time period.

Five towers are set to go first. This includes two towers in Flemington, one in North Melbourne and two old red-brick towers in Carlton

A necessary action

When it announced the program, the Government said that many of the towers are near the end of their lives and are no longer fit for modern living.

Many failed to meet basic expectations regarding noise, sustainability, waste/recycling, bedroom area dimensions, room depth, ventilation, private open space, accessibility and minimum amenity standards.

The government also argues that keeping the towers operational would not be feasible.

Simply to maintain the towers in habitable condition and undertake only critical repairs would cost an estimated $2.3 billion or $55 million per tower over the next twenty years, it says.

Even then, towers would fall well short of contemporary building standards or living expectations.

In addition, the government says that the renewal program will increase the stock of housing that is offered on the sites.

Overall, the number of people living across the sites of the 44 towers is expected to triple from around 10,000 to approximately 30,000 as a result of the program.

The rebuilt towers will offer a mix of social, affordable and market housing.

In respect of social housing specifically, the number of dwellings is expected to increase from 6,600 to 7,100 as a result of the renewal.

In a response to questions from Sourceable about retrofitting options, a Victorian Government spokesperson reiterated aforementioned points regarding the current state of the towers and the ongoing cost of maintaining them.

The spokesperson added that building breakdowns across areas such as electrical, plumbing, elevators and sewerage have become common in recent years. This has caused disruption to renters during what can be extended periods of time while maintenance and repairs are undertaken. Such disruption includes not being able to use lifts and having to relocate for long periods.

As for renewing or retrofitting, the spokesperson claimed that this is now longer a viable option in light of the aforementioned cost to simply maintain the towers let alone to bring them to modern standards and living expectations.

Retrofitting would also mean residents would have to ‘live in a construction site for years’ while workers ‘went through each tower floor-by-floor’. Tenants would have to relocate during this time.

By redeveloping the sites, the spokesperson says that the sites will not only meet modern standards and codes but will ensure that appropriate housing options are available for generations to come.

To keep public housing residents in homes which are of significantly lower standard and amenity compared with people in newer social housing would be inequitable, the spokesperson said.

However, the spokesperson did not outline any specific evidence on which the Government was basing its decision to replace all 44 towers rather than considering retrofit options for some towers.

Nor did the spokesperson directly address questions about why a blanket decision was made across all 44 towers.

Mixed and passionate response

In response to concerns about the program, a Parliamentary Inquiry was established last year.

The Inquiry is currently holding public hearings and is expected to report in December.

It received as many as 806 public submissions.

Feedback thus far reveals mixed and highly passionate sentiment.

In its submission to the Inquiry, Catholic founded social services organisation Jesuit Social Services acknowledged ongoing problems with the design and function of the towers and expressed support for the renewal program and its intent.

However, the organisation cautioned that more needed to be done to support affected residents during the redevelopment phase.

On the flip side, Katherine Ceballos, a resident who has lived in Carlton’s public housing estate for decades, described the plan as ‘reckless, arrogant, foolish, undermining and insulting,’ and accused the government of trying to ‘kick out the minorities’ from the gentrified inner city suburbs.

(Towers in the Richmond public housing precint in Elizabeth Street will be replaced under the program)

Advantages and Disadvantages

Asked about retrofitting as opposed to rebuilding, Moore acknowledges that each strategy has its benefits.

Potential advantages of retrofitting include:

• Opportunities to keep existing residential communities intact within existing complexes (except for temporary periods where residents may need to relocate) and to maintain the social bonds which are associated with these communities.
• Opportunities to use the process to improve liveability, affordability, sustainability and create additional floor area – albeit with the likelihood that the standard which is achieved may not be equivalent to that which is possible through a new build.
• Potential cost savings which may be achieved through extending the life of existing assets rather than undertaking a new build now.
• Avoiding the embodied carbon emissions which are associated with constructing entire new buildings.

On the flip side, he acknowledges that a knock down and rebuild offers a ‘blank slate’ and an expanded range of opportunities with fewer constraints.

This, in turn, provides opportunities to deliver:

• Higher quality performance standards. This includes not only areas referred to above but also areas such accessibility through extended elevator provision and modern equipment which can be more difficult to deliver in a retrofit.
• An expanded number and diversity of dwellings on these sites through provision of additional floors and different housing types (studio, 1/2/3 bedrooms etc.).
• More opportunities to deliver amenity within the complex such as schools, gymnasiums, shops, child play areas or rooftop gardens.

Moore says the point about relocating residents is particularly important.

Whilst relocation for some period may be necessary with retrofits, the complete demolition and rebuilding of homes often requires residents to be moved for several years.

This can see residents relocated to entirely different areas which are well away from their social networks, places of education and employment, services and support or their children’s school.

Robust assessments needed

To determine which approach is optimal, Moore says that a robust assessment process should be adopted.

First, it is important to obtain a robust assessment of the main structural elements. This will provide a strong idea about the remaining life of the critical structure along with potential solutions to addressing any ongoing concerns.

This can be used as a starting point to determine whether or not retrofit options are worth considering.

Next it is important to consider opportunities to deliver better performance in terms of thermal comfort, energy and accessibility and savings in embodied carbon.

Finally, it is important to undertake a robust and transparent assessment of the costs and benefits which are associated with either option.

In addition to specific design and building costs, this includes non-building costs such as resident relocation.

Also important are transparent metrics in regard to non-financial matters such as social and environmental sustainability.

Success overseas

Moore says there are several examples of successful retrofits overseas.

These are outlines in a recent paper which he published about options for sustainable renewable in Victoria.

In France, a retrofit of three 1960s social housing buildings containing 530 dwellings at the ‘Cité du Grand Parc’ in Bordeaux delivered greater quality and comfort and improved building performance.

The building retained the existing attributes s while introducing new features such as wintergardens and balconies, bathroom upgrades, and lifts.

Each of the apartments underwent refurbishment in just 12 to 16 days.  Residents were able to remain in their homes whilst work was underway.

With a cost of approximately €50,000 per unit, the renovation proved to be significantly more cost-effective than constructing entirely new buildings.

Meanwhile, at the e Ellebo Garden Room north of Copenhagen, the regeneration of a 1950s public housing estate involving square blocks of 284 dwellings delivered better environmental performance and sustainability ratings as well as greater thermal comfort in both private and communal spaces.

Upgrades included winter gardens and balconies on the garden facing side of the blocks.

The sustainable retrofit model has retained the existing structure and introduced minor interventions for energy efficiency through passive energy strategies and ventilation solutions with heat recovery.

Studio flats have been replaced by a mixed typology of dwellings, including larger flats to encourage family living and generational stability.

(Image (top): Extended balcony and winter garden, Cité du Grand Parc, Bordeaux, France. Lacaton & Vassal. Via Philippe Ruault
Image (below): Exterior post-retrofit, Cité du Grand Parc, Bordeaux, France. Lacaton & Vassal. Via Philippe
Ruault. Images featured on ‘Life Cycle Impacts of Public Housing Renewal in Victoria, published by RMIT University and The University of Melbourne, March 2024)

Show us the evidence

Summing it all up, Moore says that the government should provide transparent evidence that a blanket demolition/rebuild approach is needed.

“For me as a researcher what I want to know is where is the evidence coming for such a major decision and what is the evidence for the alternatives?” Moore said.

“And I just don’t think we’re seeing that and we’re not being provided that information.

“And so when we’re not being provided information, I would tend to think that the reason that we’re not being provided that information could well be because it (blanket demolition and rebuild) doesn’t stack up.

“I think it’s really critical that we have that information given kind of we’re talking about such big change in our public housing space over the next few decades.”

Enjoying Sourceable articles? Subscribe for Free and receive daily updates of all articles which are published on our site

Want to grow your sales, reach more new clients and expand your client base across Australia’s design and construction sector?

Advertise on Sourceable and have your business seen by the thousands of architects, engineers, builders/construction contractors, subcontractors/trade contractors, property developers and building industry suppliers who read our stories across the civil, commercial and residential construction sector