Editorial
What is a city? At core, it is its people. Who or what then builds a city? Is it the visions of the people or blind market forces? Lamentably, in many cases, it is the latter. Melbourne is at a pivotal moment in its history. Will it be vision or vacuum?
Over three days this week, Melbourne was host to a panoply of ideas and visions of what this city might become and what it should become. The Melbourne Assembly, hosted by The Age in partnership with the University of Melbourne, brought together experts in their fields to impart their visions for the city. The Age also sought input from its readers. A common thread running through all voices was passion. It is clear, this city is worth championing.
But it is pertinent to ask: is the sum of its many brilliant parts – its medical and science innovation hubs, its restaurant and cafe culture, its sports venues, crowds and spectacles, its arts festivals – not quite the whole story?
Melbourne is experiencing growing pains. It is the fastest-growing city in the country. For the year 2024-25, it had the largest growth (up by 105,000 people), followed by Sydney (75,200). Its population, which now stands at 5.2 million, is hurtling towards 9 million by 2050. More than 2 million people visit the city each year. The main language spoken in Melbourne is English, but more than 100 languages are spoken, including Arabic, Cantonese, Greek, Hindi, Italian, Mandarin, Punjabi, Turkish and Vietnamese. More than 34 per cent speak a language other than English at home.
Former New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, the keynote speaker, told the assembly audience Melbourne had “all the necessary pieces” to be a great city. “I’ve travelled the whole world. If ever I’ve seen a city that could succeed in the future, it is Melbourne,” he said. “You have the raw material. You don’t have a lot of time to put it together into a vision. You must have that vision, or your dreams will not be realised.”
Constructing that vision, however, requires threading together strands of society into a coherent and harmonic whole; De Blasio touched on elements, such as combating climate change at a local level, and managing the growth of AI and data centres (“All localities should drive an extremely hard bargain on data centres”). He also spoke of the social factors that play a factor in a city’s greatness: income inequality (which if not tackled breeds division), immigration, social housing and homelessness. His insight on the city’s make-up shows that at times it is an outsider who can see what others have become blind to: “This city is amazing. How did it get to be amazing? Was it some small group of people who looked all alike and just stayed together and interbred and made it amazing? No. There’s people from all around the world that contributed, and continue to.”
As we reported, when the former mayor asked the audience if anyone believed there was a clearly articulated, broadly understood strategic vision for Melbourne, barely a hand was raised. This was telling. It was also telling us that something needs to be done, urgently. It goes to the heart of the city’s identity. And it raises the fundamental question of how to implement change without there being so much change that the city loses its identity.
One of the central planks of discussion, and one that has been a large thorn in how Melbourne develops, is the direction of urban planning – that is, sprawl versus density. In recent years, we have seen sentiment run high among some Melburnians over the collision of new building against a suburb’s character, amenity and, yes, its vibe.
Premier Ben Carroll, Opposition Leader Jess Wilson, Melbourne Lord Mayor Nick Reece and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese gave their input in how to address the dilemma. Speaker Professor Carlos Moreno raised an important point for a growing city: the need for connection between the new and the old, that is between a place’s history and where it is moving. “Movement between the historical centre and the suburbs. This is – in my opinion — the most important challenge for the greater Melbourne,” he said.
Critics may dismiss such events as the Melbourne Assembly as mere talkfests, where a lot is said, and then everyone goes home and the discussions fade into the air. But there is strength in the gathering of ideas. From this step must come the will to empower those ideas. To do nothing is to cast adrift the idea of what Melbourne is. Melburnians do not deserve this. It is incumbent on all levels of government, and the corporate world, to embrace what this city means to Melburnians.
At the start of the assembly, Professor Diane Kerr, known as Wurundjeri elder Aunty Di, gave a Welcome to Country, in which she spoke of understanding each other, living in harmony, and thinking of what we are leaving our children. During her speech, her granddaughter went up on to the stage next to her. Kerr commented: “She will be here in 30 years.”
What can we say we are leaving for the children who are growing up in this city? The future starts now.
Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.
