Melbourne’s Lord Mayor election special- Q+A with Rohan Leppert

Michael Smith – One of the key issues particular to this election campaign is the fate of the Queen Victoria Market. Where do you stand on the process that’s been taken so far, and the re-development plans, as they stand at the moment?

Rohan Leppert – Well, on the renewal plans, which the Greens weren’t the proponents of, but obviously have been part of the council’s deliberations for many years now, we’ve strongly supported some aspects, particularly converting the at-grade car park into a brand new inner-city park for a growing population. Where else are cities around the world building parks of this size right in their heart? Other aspects of the proposal I have been very critical of. The H and I sheds were to be converted into a dining hall, and we prevented that from happening, insured that it would stay fresh fruit and vegetables sales. Our efforts halved the footprint of the proposed underground works, under A to D sheds, which ultimately Heritage Victoria put a kibosh on anyway, and that provides a wonderful opportunity for council to pause work, consult genuinely with traders and the community, and come up with a plan that’s going to serve everyone’s needs as fairly and transparently as possible. And we’ve also stopped any plans for construction near, for example, the aboriginal cemetery, or one of the newly listed heritage buildings behind the Munro site, the Franklin Street rear warehouse, which we’ve managed to secure and save as a total three-dimensional building, which I’m very pleased about.

So it’s a mix of support and opposition over the years, but going forward obviously the renewal’s biggest champion, the previous Lord Mayor, is no longer here, and there are opportunities after the Heritage Victoria decision to pause, regroup, and make sure that any renewal – and renewal is necessary to ensure the long term stability of the market – is supported by the trader community and maintains an affordable, gritty fresh food market for generations to come.

MS – There’s clearly benefits in not wasting the ground level space on a car park, but is a basement car park really necessary for a 21st century market?

RL – Some car parking’s probably going to be necessary for the short term; I’m never enthusiastic about building the car parking anywhere as the city grows at record rates, and we’re expecting greater Melbourne to reach eight million by 2050. People just aren’t going to be able to travel by private vehicle in and around the middle of the city as much as they can now. Exceptions have always been made for traders who need to carry a large amount of goods and people who are differently abled and will need to use those private vehicles. But, whether we like it or not, over the next few decades we are going to see that critical mass shift away from private vehicles to different forms of transport, and all of our data suggests that higher foot fall leads to higher sales, so I have every confidence that the market will succeed in the future, without an expansion of the existing car park capacity.

The contract with the state government requires 720 car parks to be retained and so they will be retained.

MS – So if it was up to you, you would be looking at a reduction?

RL – I think that the renewal would never be supported if there wasn’t a guarantee of at least the maintenance of the same number of car parks. It’s very important to the traders, but again I think there’s a lot more work that needs to be done by everyone in this process to understand that a reduction in car parks doesn’t mean a reduction in customers. And so if it was up to me, maybe it would’ve been different, but it’s not: that’s what the contract requires.

MS – Further exploring this idea of the Melbourne in the future, it was reported earlier this month that Melbourne City Council’s exploring the idea of implementing super blocks. This concept of limiting car traffic to the periphery of these blocks, and giving priority to pedestrian traffic has been very successful in Barcelona. If you were elected as Lord Mayor, was it something that you would like to see implemented? And if so, would you need state government approval to give their approval for the idea?

RL – These were discussion papers released by the city very recently, designed to generate some quick public discussion and they certainly did that which was really positive to see. Less positive was the Premier’s knee-jerk response to suggest that it would never be supported. I think that shutting down these conversations is not healthy, and we do actually need to be talking about how to move the greatest number of people most efficiently within the CBD. That is going to mean prioritising tram movements, widening footpaths, and yes in many areas it’s going to mean that people who don’t need to drive in private vehicles, aren’t driving in private vehicles. There will always be exceptions to that, but I think the only way we can move the number of people that need to be moved around in the middle of Melbourne is to see a reduction in private vehicle traffic. It’s inevitable.

How you facilitate this process is an interesting question. I think you can do it all in one go and start a massive war of words with most of the press, or you can do it by closing certain streets at certain times, one at a time, and do things that way. But if we’re ever going to do this properly we are going to have to change the public conversation, because government and public debate in Victoria at the moment really is dominated by building more and more roads as the solution to congestion, and that’s simply not a solution for the middle of the city. We’ve got just under a million visitors to the CBD every day on average, and that’s going to increase to well above a million in the next couple of terms of council, and the roads are already full obviously, so the dominance of the private vehicle is going to be reduced and the councils’ role in facilitating that to ensure maximum public safety in movement is going to be very important.

MS – It would seem that it is kind of inevitable regardless of leadership to some extent, as the city grows, there’s not much of a choice is there?

RL – In many ways there’s not, but the role of the city is to stay ahead of that curve, and make sure that we are laying out our streets as efficiently as possible, and ensure that public safety is always addressed. So it’s really about pinch points on foot paths at the moment, seeing pedestrians not all fitting on the foot path right next to multi-lane roads in many parts of the city, and that needs to be addressed because this is a public safety issue.

MS – Are you satisfied with how the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel is progressing?

RL – For the most part. I’m not an engineer or major projects manager and so, getting my head around the full multi-billion dollar cost isn’t straightforward. As far as the city’s relationship with the Melbourne Metro rail authority goes, it’s been mostly very positive. I’ve not been thrilled with a few aspects. The change to the plans that will have an impact on Campbell Arcade did take us by surprise, and that’s an important site which is on the Victorian Heritage register. I would’ve loved to have seen far fewer trees impacted along the stunning St Kilda Road Boulevard, and the Western Portal near where I live in Kensington has seen some recent surprises, including much larger transmission lines that weren’t part of any of the planning documentation for public scrutiny.

So, with a project of this size you’re always going to get aspects that are unwanted, and undesirable, all in all though, we’ve got to remember that this is a project that’s going to fundamentally change and improve the way that we move about our city, it will unlock future expansion in the rail network as well, and I think we should be starting to talk about not just Metro 2 but Metro 3 as well, and if we are going to move more people it’s got to be done with heavy rail. So on balance it’s absolutely something that I’m very happy to be supporting, and that we need to roll out as quickly as possible.

MS – Have you seen plans yet for how the former City Square will look once the Metro is completed?

RL – Not yet. There are opportunities there to really involve the public in an exciting design process. City Square hasn’t always been the best place to commune, to hold events, to protest, to just relax in the middle of the city. It’s obviously got a really chequered past, and it’s an open question as to what should be there in the future, and I think a wonderful opportunity for the city and the state to work together and lead an architectural competition or some sort of elaborate public consultation process so that this really does become Melbourne’s premier central city meeting place again.

MS – Speaking of meeting places, you’ve been quite outspoken on the issue of the Apple store at Federation Square, having been the speaker against the proposal in the Open House Melbourne debate. What actions would you like to see council take on this issue?

RL – So in lieu of City Square, Fed Square obviously is Melbourne’s premier civic space, and I was shocked at the process that the state government chose to take in approving the demolition of the Yarra building and the building of the new Apple store, and spoke very strongly against it when that announcement was made just before Christmas. I’m glad that my colleagues in council unanimously supported my motion in February, to call on the state government to go back to the drawing board, and involve the public in a transparent process around the future use of Federation Square. For all the obvious reasons perhaps, the state government doesn’t want to lose too much face, the state government didn’t take heed of that message from council. But they should have because people are angry and this issue isn’t going to go away.

This is a place that Melburnians have grown to love and have strong connections with, and you can’t make a decision that changes the use, purpose and design of a public space into a commercial space overnight, and expect the public to accept it. I expect the outrage to continue, and so it should.

MS – Do you think it’s something that design can fix? Or is it a values question, in that people expect their square to have a cultural and civic use rather than a corporate one?

RL – I think the people who were most upset about the way this decision was made are probably like me, concerned about the conversion of the space to one dominated by commercial purposes. I really don’t think it complies with the civic and cultural charter, and it’s unfortunate that that charter was overlooked, I believe, in this process. So while design can ameliorate some of the more undesirable impacts of the proposal, it’s probably more fundamental than that and there’ll people who won’t be happy with an Apple store at Fed Square at all. I think there are better places for an Apple store, we’ve got plenty of places around the CBD that might be suitable.

“This location at Fed Square may forevermore be tainted because of the way the state government chose to make the decision.”

MS – Recently the State Government’s been talking about making substantial investment around the redevelopment of Docklands Stadium. Potentially this might include providing a more substantial connection between the CBD and Docklands. Do you have a view on what’s been proposed there?

RL – So what’s being proposed so far is just a concept, and I understand that one of the ideas is for sports fields on decking over Wurundjeri Way and things like that. I don’t know how feasible any of that is, it’s certainly going to be incredibly expensive. Obviously we all support better connections between the CBD and Docklands, it is a bit of a challenge at the moment. But one of the best ways to improve visitation and connectivity with the Docklands is to finally get on top of the Harbour Esplanade master plan, which still doesn’t have any funding commitments from the state government. I think that that streetscape, if it’s designed to a really high quality, will be a central focus for Docklands, which will completely change the nature of how people move about in that area. All I really hope for Docklands Stadium, is that redevelopment plans don’t go the same way as Apple, that the state government is committed to transparent and public process, so that the Melburnians can have their say, but it’s still early days.

MS – The Lord Mayor role as leader of the Melbourne City Council is well understood to be responsible for the CBD, However the City of Melbourne also covers various inner city suburbs, such as Parkville. One site which is going to be fundamental to the future of Parkville is the Parkville Youth Detention Centre, which is currently State Government owned.  However the State Government has indicated that they will no longer be needing the site in the medium term. Do you think it’s timely now for the City Of Melbourne to get on board and look at the potential future for that site, and perhaps some master planning or zoning in order establish the best use for that site before it gets sold off to developers for the highest price?

RL – So we wouldn’t be able to propose a planning scheme amendment to rezone the land when it’s 100% state government owned, the Planning Minister just wouldn’t allow us to exhibit the planning scheme amendment. So the role of the council there is to influence, and I agree that on issues like this, even just having a public position is enough to influence that public debate in favour of whatever that position is. So yes, council doesn’t have a structure plan for Parkville, and has decided that that’s not the highest priority which is probably the case, it’s not the area experiencing the highest growth, but there are quite a few interesting things happening down Cade Way and elsewhere.

Council absolutely should be articulating what a good development outcome for that site would be, list the sorts of public services and community infrastructure that are needed in the area, and make sure that any development responds to local public transport options which are not too bad in that area, it’s very close to Tram 58 and Royal Park station.

MS – Finally, what do you think is the most important aspect of the job of being Melbourne’s Lord Mayor?

RL – As well as all of the statutory responsibilities of being a Councillor, I think the Lord Mayor’s most important role is leading good governance and a healthy development culture, in what is an incredibly fast-growing city. That means being a strong advocate and fearless advocate to the state government. It means being outspoken on what constitutes good development in the public interest. And it means exercising clout and power within Town Hall responsibly and transparently.

MS – Thank you for your time

Architecture is for everyone