Streetfilms

So how long do we have to wait for NYC to become more like Melbourne?

This small part of Melbourne (The CBD) is fantastic (although there are problems creeping in, 24hr binge drinking violent crime etc) it's important to remember that Melbourne is a city of 3.5mil ish people and most of it is rubbish.

Not trying to be the wowser I just think that we need to make the whole city good, because at the moment Melbourne really is a tale of two cities.

I have to agree with both Chris (above) AND the film. I'm from Melbourne and have lived there all my life, and there is a lot to love about the city, but only if you live in a handful of very well-known areas.

Melbourne's CBD is mostly really good, though not uniformly good - some large areas are still very NYC-ish or even LA-ish and alienating, particularly the western side of the city and the APPALLING new docklands development. 

The docklands is just the worst kind of architect-driven, sweeping, modern nonsense with zero sense of intimacy and seemingly designed just to get people to buy expensive apartments there before it was built. Filling an artists' rendering with happy couples pushing prams is easy; actually bringing people to that space is really hard, particularly with a huge stadium on one side, faceless ultra-modern buildings on the other and empty, sweeping grass mounds and sidewalks with a very low density of small business opportunities that are needed to bring a place to life.

The best urban renewal in Melbourne right now (in my opinion) is happening in mid-tier villages, Brunswick, Collingwood and Northcote. These formerly derelict shopping strips have been reclaimed by urban hipsters and turned into thriving communities full of really interesting galleries, cafes, performance spaces etc. We've seen this phenomenon before, about 10 years ago, in Fitzroy - a former unkempt urban wasteland that now has colossal land value thanks to the efforts of thousands of individual urban revivalists who made a conscious effort in the legitimisation and professionalisation of graffiti (resulting in beautiful world-class murals), introduction of innovative businesses, and extending the opening hours of bars and clubs. The influx of young people on the weekends funded a lot of investment in the suburb itself, though now most of the innovation has moved on as land prices shot up.

But the untold story of Melbourne that people don't really hear is the urban sprawl. There are people commuting up to 2 or 3 hours from outer suburbs into Melbourne - lots of them - living in gated communities with no real life to them. Houses without backyards or nearby sporting grounds, very little investment in things for young people to do locally (hence the huge influx of frustrated youngsters into the CBD at night looking for fights), and a culture that values bigger cars over community cooperation. There are serious social problems developing in these communities due to a lack of balance and access to facilities or public transport. 

So what has driven people to the outer suburbs? I think two things.

First, rent and land prices are IN-SANE. Most investment in Australia is in land rather than small businesses (for complicated reasons) which has pushed land and hour prices up by 7 - 17% p/a for decades, way beyond the CPI and increasingly beyond the wallets of young people trying to live out of home for the first time, and particularly young families. So they move way out to the fringe of the city, and therefore that's where the investment is, rather than in renewing these interior urban spaces that really need it.

Secondly, the "Australian Dream" is to have a huge home all to yourself, not a modest apartment in a high-density area. Most people aren't satisfied unless they end up owning a double-story home with a whole floor dedicated to the kids' toys and playthings - not a lifestyle conducive to an efficient, satisfying and tightly integrated urban environment. 

So, sorry for all the negativity, but I did want to provide a kind of sober counterpoint to the excellent video above. Everything they pointed out is true - those urban spaces have been reclaimed. But they are pockets of renewal, rather than overall renewal, and most of Melbourne still has big challenges in terms of equitable access to housing, transport, and activities - more like LA than San Francisco in many ways.

I come back to this film very often. It's just a delightful capture of Melbourne street life. But it also contains a hidden truth if you know where to look . Check the bike traffic. Note firstly that the shots devoted to city cycling are few and short. The camera seems to love the pedestrians and avoid cyclists.

Secondly, note that the cyclists exhibit none of the relaxed smiling style of the pedestrians which might be why they fell to the cutting room floor. .The bike riders who are in the shot, generally have their heads down, are in a hurry, look as stressed as any car driver.

Indeed, they seem to have been somehow denied Melbourne's transformative energy which the film discovers and celebrates. Why this this? Because, whilst being a pedestrian is just as dangerous statistically as being a cyclist, the bikers have, by law, to wear helmets and these unnecessary lids keeps them apart and out of the the good vibe.

If the film was to be remade today, it would be worse. You'd see forlorn stands of virtually unused blue share bikes. The same as in London or Montreal but here, ignored. They are even more penalized by the compulsory helmet law.

The solution is an experimental exemption for these blue bikes. Surely this is possible, given the innovative, change friendly spirit which pervades the film and which is clearly very Melbourne. Mike Rubbo http://situp-cycle.com

I just wanted to comment that the Melbournian model is specific to its climate conditions. This would be really hard to replicate for some cities. West coast North America for example.