Topic 11B: A metropolis of the 21st century (Dubai)

Is Dubai the Capital City of the 21^st Century?

By Jack Oxlade

 

Dubai represents the pinnacle in excess, it is an example of architectural and engineering ingenuity, it is a global paradise created in one of the most extreme clients on earth, but will it be remembered as the city of the 21^st Century? The 19^th Century has Paris, a city that was re-invented by Georges-Eugene Haussmann under command from Napoleon and hosted the World Fairs 5 times in a space of 45 years (Library.brown.edu, 2011), while the 20^th Century has Manhattan, and its jungle of skyscrapers, including icons like the Chrysler Building, the Empire State Buildings, and for the duration of the 20^th Century, the World Trade Centres.

Does Dubai fall into the same categories as these great cities? It has “a twenty-four-square-mile archipelago of coral-coloured islands in the shape of – the world”, “chrome forest(s) of skyscrapers (with an) impossible half mile high (skyscraper)”,  “a seven star hotel with an atrium so huge that the Statue of Liberty would fit”, a hotel that is “sixty-six feet below the surface of the sea”  and a “local indoor snow mountain” next door to “the world’s largest mall” (Davis 2015). Buoyed by the belief that peak oil will keep the desert state afloat, and the deep pockets of the global elite will continue fund its endeavours, Dubai has become a developers playground and not only a global icon, but also a global brand.

But will it be the city that in a hundred years we look back on as the iconic city of our time? I certainly hope not. Dubai is a global spectacle, but it hardly a liveable or sustainable city. The population of Dubai is made up of a significant group of Migrant workers, migrant, because they have little hope of ever becoming citizens. Dubai is built on a foundation of this migrant workforce who work for very little in slave like conditions ((Slumdogs and Millionaires, 2011)). A city can’t lay claim to being the pinnacle of the 21^st century if it doesn’t even provide for the people who live in it. Dubai is a destination. A place that will capture the imagination of the world no doubt well into the future, but it will not be the pinnacle of human urbanisation in the 21^st century.

If not Dubai, that what will be the city of the 21^st century? It doesn’t exist yet. The world faces huge obstacles heading into the future, including but not limited to, a population growing at an exponential rate, resources being exhausted, an aging population, a natural  environment that is being decimated, and a globalised world where the gap between the privileged and underprivileged is growing. Dubai doesn’t solve any of these issues. A vision for the Capital of the 21^st century needs to be something that will positively shape the world, and see change not only in the physical environment, but also the social and economic environment.

It may come in the form of an already established city, a Shanghai or a Mumbai, both of which are experiencing astronomical economic growth, and are expected to emerge as true megacities in Asia, Houston or Dallas are contenders in America, with their populations growing at six times the rate of New York and Los Angeles (Kotkin, 2009) or possibly a European city re-invents itself to become a symbol of liveability and sustainability?

As with innovation in any area, no one will know until it happens. It’s what we decide to prioritize in this city of tomorrow that will begin to define it. In order to deal with the issues stated above do we prioritize and integrate technology into every facet of the built form to give us a truly smart city?

  

Figure 1: Concept Drawing of Songdo

Songdo in South Korea is an example of a “smart” urban environment. Windows are double glazed with ventilated double facades, greywater and rain water are collected and tracked in order for use in cooling towers, pneumatic pipes move solid waste, eliminating garbage trucks, busses are powered by fuel cells, buildings will be intelligent enough to guide cars to available parking spots and queue up elevators as people approach, while CISCO has deployed video networking technology and energy management software city wide with the hope that they will be used by more than 20 different services (Woyke, 2009)

 

Figure 2: Sideways moving Elevators

 

Or will the next city be in the air, where skyscraper are connected at the top level, and elevators travel sideways like the proposed magnetically levitated elevators. A city where you never again have to step outside and everything is enclosed around you, creating an artificially connected jungle. (Australian Popular Science, 2015)

 

Figure 3: Concept Drawings of Masdar City

Maybe we need to think about a “no-impact city” like Masdar City in Abu Dhabi where targets for zero waste and zero carbon, while being powered by only renewable energies, which is ironically  being funded by money that is ultimately derived from Abu Dhabi’s rich oil reserves. ((Gupte, 2009))

  

Figure 4: Concept Drawings of City Sand Tower

Or do we need to come up with something so different and extreme that it could only be the product of a science fiction novel, like the 400m+ tall City Sand Tower which boasts 776,996sqm of floor space and is proposed to be built in the Moroccan section of the Sahara. Designed by a French architecture firm the “city” contain offices, residences, shops, conference and sports facilities, a hotel, a restaurant and bar, a museum, and an observatory all served by Solar power and deep geothermal wells for its energy, while rainwater and recycled grey water will be the source of water for the people and plants (MP Report, 2015).

The capital of the 21^st century will be remembered as a city that questions the conventional urban form to become the pinup for the city of the future. Getting lost in Dubai’s glamourous exterior is a dangerous exercise, and replication will only lead to disaster, as the very foundation of that Dubai is built on, oil and cheap foreign labour, is wholly unsustainable.

Reference List:

Australian Popular Science, (2015). Magnetically Levitating Elevators Could Go Up, Down, And Sideways. [online] Available at: http://www.popsci.com.au/tech/magnetically-levitating-elevators-could-go-up-down-and-sideways,398836 [Accessed 22 May 2015].

Gupte, P. (2009). A No-Impact City?. [online] Forbes. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/02/masdar-city-abu-dhabi-opinions-21-century-cities-09-pranay-gupte.html [Accessed 22 May 2015].

Kotkin, J. (2009). World Capitals Of The Future. [online] Forbes. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/02/world-capitals-cities-century-opinions-columnists-21-century-cities-09-global-capitals.html [Accessed 22 May 2015].

Library.brown.edu, (2011). Paris: Capital of the 19th Century. [online] Available at: http://library.brown.edu/cds/paris/worldfairs.html [Accessed 22 May 2015].

MP Report, (2015). SEE NEW PLANS FOR A SELF-SUSTAINING VERTICAL CITY IN THE SAHARA DESERT. [online] Available at: http://www.my-property-report.com/articles/see-new-plans-for-a-self-sustaining-vertical-city-in-the-sahara-desert [Accessed 22 May 2015].

Slumdogs and Millionaires. (2011). [video] United Kingdom: BBC.

Woyke, E. (2009). Very Smart Cities. [online] Forbes. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/03/korea-gale-meixi-technology-21-century-cities-09-songdo.html [Accessed 22 May 2015].

Topic 10B: Animals in the City

The impact of urbanisation on non-human species and the need for eco-centric focus in urban planning

By Elijah Viegas

The nature of human existence within our landscape is undergoing an enormous transformation as we see increasing movement from rural environments into urban spaces and cities. This global trend is fuelled by technological advancements, globalisation, a growing international economy and economic expansion, as well as population growth. A study conducted by the United Nations conducted in 2007 show that over 50% of the population currently resides in urban or city environments, compared with 30% in 1947. This is expected to increase to 60% by 2030 (The Nature Conservancy, 2008). This mass scale migration into new built environments is occurring most rapidly within developing countries, most notably places such as China, India and Brazil, although is certainly not limited to developing countries (Walsh, 2015). As our interconnectedness as a globe grows; it is becoming increasingly evident that urbanization is creating drastic environmental changes in all corners of the world. Cities historically have grown largely through environmental exploitation and destruction of animals and habitats, and urban planning continues without much regard for the environment or consideration of non-human species (Wolch, 1998).

Our understanding of the effects of urbanisation on ecosystems and habitats is also increasing, with scientific development and a growing trend of environmental consciousness. However, even with this expanding knowledge, environmental focus in urban planning still remains in the background, as capital gain, and an egocentric, human focus is still what motivates our drive for urban expansion (Wolch, 1998). Growing waste output, emissions, ecosystem removal, land clearance and the destruction of biodiversity are just a few of the direct results of urbanisation.  We are seeing the destruction of some of our most important habitats and ecosystems as well as the displacement and destruction of animal species (McKinney, M. 2008). The role and importance of animals within our environment is facing a change. Our ability to farm animals on large scale and our desire to exist in urban space rather than rural form is separating us from animals and the natural environment (Wolch, 1998).  

Research conducted has bought alarming information to the surface. Areas in which endemic species are affected most drastically by urbanisation often tend to exist in small, but crucial ecosystems. 8% of vertebrae species have been labelled as endangered globally as a direct result of rapid urban growth in the last decade, with the number set to rise (The Nature Conservancy, 2008). It is predicted for example that in Eastern areas of Asia, the average distance between urban environments will decrease from 43 kilometres in 1995 down to 22 kilometres (McKinney, 2003). While some data has shown an increase in variety of plant species during urban expansion, this is usually directly as a result of human introduction of non-native plants, and in the case of animals, the trend shows urbanisation results in decreased number of animals. 

[Table]

(McKinney, 2008)

The growth of cities results in the shrinking of habitats into smaller spaces, which are too often not large enough to support the ecological systems animals require to live. Data from the UK showed that urbanization has resulted in the extinction of 35% of scarce animal species.

Urban sprawl in the United States has had similar effects, being directly responsible for 279 different species becoming endangered. While the introduction of non-native species may be the leading cause of the endangerment and extinction of up to 300 different species, it is urban development that is often the cause of this introduction (Thompson, K. 1999).

The city of Concepcion in Chile has seen a decrease in land used for agriculture as well as bushland and forest. 1734 hectares of wetlands as well as 1417 hectares of agricultural land and forest have been destroyed between 1975 and 2000 (Paucharda, 2006). In the US more than 5% of land is considered urbanised, which dramatically exceeds the amount of land that falls under conservation areas or national parks (McKinney, 2002).

 

 [Image]

 Figure 2: An example of a species forced to adapt to an urbanised environment (Mountain, M. 2011).

Growing human population in urban space is also increasing our burden on the natural environments that exist on the border of these areas. The separation of our urban space to the natural environment means we are becoming increasingly disconnected with where our resources come from. Urban growth is believed to be one of the top causes of damage to species, and we can see a direct correlation between urban growth and the destruction and extinction of animals (McKinney, 2002). 

Urban growth and expansion is inevitable. As our population grows exponentially, technology advances to allow us to build and expand further into the corners of the world (Walsh, 2015). Our response so far to considering the role animals play within urban spaces in western culture seems like a poor token attempt at recreating spaces for animals or designated man made environments that disrupt the natural processes of our animals create little resolution. 

A zoo environment, while promoting to conserve and protect animals, is in fact a complete contradiction, as it simply removes animals from their natural habitat into an small scale man built environment for their exploitation and for human gain. 

With the technology and knowledge we possess in regards to our understanding of our actions impacts on the environment and its feedback to affect our potential future, combined with an ever-growing environmental consciousness with our growing global interconnectedness, change can happen. It must be noted however that with a lack of both funding and organisation, particularly in developing countries, where urbanisation appears to be having the most drastic impact on ecosystems and the destruction of species, implementing strategies can be extremely difficult (The Nature Conservancy, 2008). 

Information of the impact of urban growth on animals needs to be a primary focus of planners and city builders. Reintroducing animals back into our environments so that we can live in harmony with animals needs to be implemented into models of urban planning. We face a huge challenge to re-evaluate the role of non-humans and their role in society. If an ecocentric focus is not coupled with the way in which we approach urban planning, we will not only experience the loss of our world’s most important natural environments and animals, but also the impact that this will have on our ability to exist within the environment will jeopardise our own existence as humans.

 

References

Atkins, P. (2012). Animal cities. Beastly Urban Histories. ‘The Great Seperation of Animals and Humans in the Modern City. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate.

Gaston, K. (2010). Urban ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McKinney, M. (2002). Urbanization, Biodiversity and conservation. BioScience. 52, pp. 883-890

McKinney, M. (2008). Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosystems, 11(2), pp.161-176.

Mountain, M (2011) http://www.earthintransition.org/2011/06/rise-of-the-uber-raccoon/ (Accessed 5 May 2015) via Google Images

The Nature Conservancy. (2008). Global Impact Of Urbanization Threatening World's Biodiversity And Natural Resources. ScienceDaily.  www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080610182856.htm.(Accessed 3 May 2015)

Paucharda, A. et al (2006). Multiple Effects of Urbanization on the Biodiversity of Developing Countries: The Case of a Fast-Growing Metropolitan Area (Concepción, Chile). Biological Conservation. 127, pp. 272-281

Thompson, K. and Jones, A. (1999). Human Population Density and Prediction of Local Plant Extinction in Britain. Conservation Biology. 13, pp. 185-189.

Walsh, B. (2015). Urban Planet: How Growing Cities Will Wreck the Environment Unless We Build Them Right. Time. http://science.time.com/2012/09/18/urban-planet-how-growing-cities-will-wreck-the-environment-unless-we-build-them-right/ (Accessed 1 May 2015).

Wolch, J. (1998). ‘Zoopolis’ in Wolch and Emel (eds) Animal Geographies London, Verso pp. 119 – 138

Topic 10A: Heritage and Gentrification

Heritage and gentrification: a recent history of Melbourne

By Nathan Macfie

How do you define gentrification and heritage? Before reaching for a dictionary it’s important to note that definitions- dictionary or otherwise- are not neutral. First and foremost, gentrification and heritage are ideas: notions of urban value and are thus subjective. Our perception of “physical and ethical borders” (Licari, 2011) shapes our sense of belonging. Urban ‘value’ is a construct, a product of our relationship with the urban environment. Change can therefore be a threat to our identity, something illuminated in the following description of gentrification in the London borough of Hackney by British author Iain Sinclair.

"I can see the end of Hackney as I know it... A different Hackney, younger, brasher, will emerge and wipe the old one away, and wipe me away…." (Cooke, 2009).

The process of urban change is ongoing, a perpetual contest between self and Other. Heritage is the property of hegemony,  but it waxes and wanes with the tides of history. Perhaps socio-spatial polarization is a better term for gentrification; as it is emblematic of the contest not only over built-form, but spatial and cultural heritage        

Melbourne’s inner-north is a case in point. The decline of the manufacturing industry has seen a growth in apartment blocks and with it a significant increase in young urban professionals. However, far from usurping low-income residents, the new ‘gentrifiers’ are living along-side a significant number of long-term post-war migrants, students and underemployed residents. (ABS, 2013). For some long-term residents there is palpable sense of socio-urban fracture, a loss of familiar faces and places in the “increasing urban anonymity” (Colic-Peisker and Robertson, 2014).

Yet ethnicity and religion play a substantial role in social division too. There is a two-fold and strangely symbiotic process of cultural preservation (self-segregation) and integration: one necessary for the conservation of cultural identity and the other for social cohesion (ABS, 2000; Colic-Peisker and Robertson, 2014). Such feelings of loss are not new. Significant division lay within 18th Century White Australian communities in Melbourne, with virulent outbursts of sectarian conflict occurring among various in 19^th and 20^th Century Melbourne (Cole, 1971; Hogan, 1984).

Today, the omnipotent global socio-economic paradigm is challenging our ability to maintain coherent social narratives, however middle-class residents are not the villains however.  Inner-urban Melbourne has seen a recent surge in residential property development with approximately 20,000 new apartments built in the ten years from 2004. Unofficial government estimates reveal owner-occupancy rates may be as low as ten per cent with many being unoccupied (Shaw, 2014). Generous tax concessions for housing investment “contribute to falling rates of home-ownership” (Daley and Wood, 2015). Wealthy investors are using negative gearing to minimise tax, placing burdens on government expenditure (Daley and Wood, 2015). More than ninety per cent of housing investment loans are for existing, rather than new properties in Australia (Daley et al., 2013) pricing out first-homebuyers and driving them to outer suburbs, where there is less work and greater living expenses (Daley, 2015).

Another result is an increase in temporary residents, with quarterly residential lease turnovers of around ten per cent (Department of Human Services, 2015). Impermanence is the new trend. In the post World War Two era, migration was largely permanent, however circulation is fast becoming the dominant migratory model, locally and worldwide (Hugo, 2004). New inner-city homebuyers are not the principle issue; new the ‘housing bubble’ seems to be driven by absentee investor-owners.

Regulation plays a key role in maintaining heritage, but it seems heritage is all too often confined to the built form and not to the cultures and spaces around them. Rapid inner city high-rise CBD developments may soon overshadow public spaces and cultural landmarks in Melbourne, including Queen Victoria Market and Southbank (Lucas, 2014; Dow, 2015). In Brunswick, some high-rise developments have bypassed council approval and the right of residents to appeal planning decisions has been removed (Cooke, 2010). But while some cultures and landmarks have ‘value’, others don’t.

For marginalised and low-income groups, regulation can have such negative consequences. Street-drinking bans, now in place in all local government jurisdictions in Melbourne, marginalise people without tackling underlying issues. However such restrictions also conflate public alcohol consumption with substance abuse (Pennay, Manton and Savic, 2014). Yet there is socio-urban polarisation in residential as well as public spaces.

Anglicare Australia (2015) recently identified as little as one per cent of Melbourne’s rental properties are accessible for the city’s most vulnerable people.  For indigenous people, culture is devalued or expressed in a neo-liberal language; vis-a-vis William Barak’s campaign against dispossession being celebrated through a high-rise building (Griffiths, 2015; Hansen; 2015). For marginalised populations it is not simply residential but retail ‘gentrification’ which restricts their ability to participate socially (Robertson and Colic-Peisker, 2015). Even some within the middle-classes, have become marginalised “urban refugees” (Howe, Nichols and Davison, 2014) who, unable to stem the tides of change, seek new means of self-expression.

Neolocalism is a socio-urban response to globalisation. From farmers markets to microbreweries and beyond, neolocalism is a conscious communal effort to restore and foster local connections and identities (Aleti, 2013; Schnell, 2013). The motivations of such movements are easy to misconstrue. The  locally-celebrated closure of coffee chain Starbuck’s Lygon Street Store has been called “petty” (Howe, Nichols and Davison 2014),  but such arguments overlook that this response is represents a broader rejection of socio-cultural homogeneity in the heart of important cultural precincts (Frost, Laing and Reeves, 2010; Schnell, 2013). Consumption-cultures are not simply an indication of affluence, but expressions of socio-ethical preferences (Cherrier, 2007). Likewise the Save Live Music (SLAM) movement, which resulted in large protests in Melbourne’s CBD, was a rejection of noise restrictions imposed on live music venues in inner-northern Melbourne as high rise apartments surrounded them (Mathieson, 2012). Such acts attempt to subvert impositions on cultural expression.

The urban environment is a menagerie of socio-political territories inhabited by disparate and fluid groups, and as a consequence recurring cultural struggles arise . (Pennay, Manton and Savic, 2014). Here and abroad, culinary expressions of cultural heritage - far from being superficial- are in fact potent sociopolitical symbols, especially during times of change (Leitch, 2003; Anderson and Benbow, 2014), but these narratives aren’t stable  Today, urban visual and cultural coherence is giving way to an urban mutability, eroding the boundaries between design, culture, commerce, politics, public and private (Dovey, 2005). It is this fluidity which defines heritage and socio-urban polarisation for good or ill.

Questions

1.   Examine the image of the café in Carlton. Is this gentrification in action, or the practice of cultural heritage?

2.   When an apartment goes up next to a music venue or bar, whose rights matter most and what can be done to minimise conflict?

3.   How do you define heritage?

References

ABC News, (2015). Thousands protest in Melbourne over proposed remote community closures. [online] Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-01/thousands-gather-in-melbourne-cbd-to-protest-against-closures/6438948 [Accessed 8 May 2015].

ABS, (2000). Australian Social Trends, 2000. Canberra: The Australian Bureau of Statistics.

ABS, (2013). Census of population and housing, socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, pp.Cat. 2033.0.55.001, 2011.

Anderson, L. and Benbow, H. (2014). Are we 'foodies' or food phobic?. [online] The Sydney Morning Herald. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/are-we-foodies-or-food-phobic-20141120-11pmb6.html [Accessed 14 May 2015].

Aleti, T. (2013). Small brands, big impact: why craft beer is top of the hops. [online] The Conversation. Available at: http://theconversation.com/small-brands-big-impact-why-craft-beer-is-top-of-the-hops-13972 [Accessed 15 Apr. 2015].

Anglicare Australia, (2015). Anglicare Australia Rental Affordability Snapshot. [online] Canberra. Available at: http://www.anglicare.asn.au/site/rental_affordability_snapshot.php [Accessed 6 May 2015].

Armstrong, H. (1994). Sustaining Urban Heritage in Multicultural Cities. In: F. Brown, S. Neary and M. Symes, ed., The Urban Experience: A People-Environment Perspective, 1st ed. London: E & FN Spon, pp.479-486.

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Cherrier, H. (2007). Ethical consumption practices: co-production of self-expression and social recognition. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(5), pp.321-335.

Cole, D. (1971). ‘The crimson thread of kinship’: Ethnic ideas in Australia, 1870–1914∗. Historical Studies, 14(56), pp.511-525.

Colic-Peisker, V. and Robertson, S. (2014). Social change and community cohesion: an ethnographic study of two Melbourne suburbs. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(1), pp.75-91.

Cooke, D. (2010). No appeal right on Brunswick towers. [online] The Age. Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/no-appeal-right-on-brunswick-towers-20100606-xna9.html [Accessed 8 May 2015].

Cooke, R. (2009). Rachel Cooke interviews Iain Sinclair. [online] The Guardian Newspaper. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/feb/08/iain-sinclair-interview [Accessed 23 Apr. 2015].

Daley, J. (2015). Inner city versus outer suburbs: where you live really does determine what you get | John Daley. [online] The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/16/inner-city-v-outer-suburbs-where-you-live-really-does-determine-what-you-get [Accessed 20 Apr. 2015].

Daley, J. and Wood, D. (2015). Negative gearing: time to kill this sacred cow. [online] The Sydney Morning Herald. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/negative-gearing-the-economic-reasons-why-government-must-kill-this-sacred-cow-20150317-1m14s4.html [Accessed 20 Apr. 2015].

Daley, J., McGannon, C., Savage, J. and Hunter, A. (2013). Balancing budgets: tough choices we need – supporting analysis. Sydney NSW: The Grattan Institute.

Department of Human Services, (2015). Rental Reports 2014. [online] Government of Victoria. Available at: http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/about-the-department/documents-and-resources/research,-data-and-statistics/rental-reports-2014 [Accessed 7 May 2015].

Dovey, K. (2005). Fluid city. Sydney, NSW, Australia: University of New South Wales Press.

Dow, A. (2015). Tall towers may overshadow Queen Victoria Market. The Age Newspaper, [online] p.7. Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/forest-of-tall-towers-could-surround-queen-victoria-market-20150506-ggvqqb.html [Accessed 7 May 2015].

Frost, W., Laing, J. and Reeves, K. (2010). Coffee culture, heritage and destination image: Melbourne and the Italian model. In: L. Jolliffe, ed., Coffee Culture, Destinations and Tourism, 1st ed. Channel View Publications, pp.99-110.

Griffiths, E. (2015). Abbott's lifestyle comments 'hopeless' and 'disrespectful'. [online] ABC News. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-11/abbott-defends-indigenous-communities-lifestyle-choice/6300218 [Accessed 8 May 2015].

Hansen, C. (2015). Melbourne's new William Barak building is a cruel juxtaposition. [online] The Conversation. Available at: http://theconversation.com/melbournes-new-william-barak-building-is-a-cruel-juxtaposition-38983 [Accessed 6 May 2015].

Hogan, M. (1984). Whatever Happened to Australian Sectarianism?. Journal of Religious History, 13(1), pp.83-91.

Howe, R., Nichols, D. and Davison, G. (2014). Gentrification and Trendification. In: Trendyville : the battle for Australia's inner cities., 1st ed. Melbourne: Monash University Publishing, pp.159-176.

Leitch, A. (2003). Slow food and the politics of pork fat: Italian food and European identity. Ethnos, 68(4), pp.437-462.

Licari, G. (2011). Anthropology of Urban Space: Identities and Places in the Postmodern City. World Futures, 67(1), pp.47-57.

Lucas, C. (2014). Proposed tower for Collins Street would overshadow south bank of Yarra. [online] The Age. Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/proposed-tower-for-collins-street-would-overshadow-south-bank-of-yarra-20140807-101ihg.html [Accessed 7 May 2015].

Mathieson, C. (2012). Still banging the drum for bands. [online] The Sydney Morning Herald. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/still-banging-the-drum-for-bands-20120216-1t9v5.html [Accessed 20 Apr. 2015].

Pennay, A., Manton, E. and Savic, M. (2014). Geographies of exclusion: Street drinking, gentrification and contests over public space. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25(6), pp.1084-1093.

Robertson, S. and Colic-Peisker, V. (2015). Policy Narratives versus Everyday Geographies: Perceptions of Changing Local Space in Melbourne's Diverse North. City & Community, 14(1), pp.68-86.

Schnell, S. (2013). Deliberate identities: becoming local in America in a global age. Journal of Cultural Geography, 30(1), pp.55-89.

Shaw, K. (2014). Housing blame game here to stay in world of infinite demand. [online] The Conversation. Available at: http://theconversation.com/housing-blame-game-here-to-stay-in-world-of-infinite-demand-24716 [Accessed 20 Apr. 2015].