Barkly Street Public Housing Estate – Future Visions

This report critically examines the future redevelopment of the Barkly Street public housing tower estate in Brunswick, Victoria—situating its analysis within the broader context of public housing renewal across the state. The Victorian Government’s policy stance on public housing, most recently exemplified by former Premier Daniel Andrews’ 2023 announcement of a plan to demolish all 44 high-rise public housing towers as part of ‘Australia’s biggest ever urban renewal project’,1 signals a crossroads in urban policy, with far-reaching implications for residents, communities, government, and the environment. As the need for affordable and sustainable housing intensifies, this research offers evidence-based insights and practical alternatives to wholesale demolition and estate redevelopment. Drawing on community sector and resident engagement, interdisciplinary expertise, and base and alternative case comparisons, along with design and cost modelling, the report demonstrates the possibility of a more equitable, climate-positive, and community-centred approach to the renewal of a public housing tower estate in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.Four central questions drove our research:What are the social, economic, and environmental impacts of various renewal strategies for Barkly Street, aiming to improve amenity and increase residential density on the estate?How do existing residents perceive and prioritise their housing needs in relation to the Victorian government’s renewal plan?How do housing sector actors and industry stakeholders perceive the Victorian government’s renewal plan?Which redevelopment models offer the best balance of affordability, sustainability, and resident well-being? To address these questions, we assembled an interdisciplinary team from Architecture, Engineering, Property, Construction, Economics, and the Social Sciences. Career stages of team members ranged from Higher Degree by Research (PhD) students and Early Career Researchers to senior academics, synthesising a wealth of experience and new perspectives. The project also engaged Master's-level students, providing real-world Work Integrated Learning experiences for students about to enter professional practice. The team leveraged prior collaborations with Merri Outreach Social Services (MOSS), OFFICE, and Merri-bek City Council to ensure that practical sector knowledge and lived experience informed our analysis.The report’s core findings point to both the feasibility and desirability of pursuing alternatives to the government’s demolition-first policy stance.Demolition and Rebuild: While delivering new buildings with modern amenities, this approach incurs high financial and environmental costs, disrupts established communities through lengthy displacement, and risks loss of essential social networks. The embodied energy in the existing towers would be wasted, and the timeline for satisfactory replacement often extends over several years, with uncertain outcomes for returning residents.Retrofit: Upgrading existing structures yields substantial social, economic, and environmental benefits. Refurbishment preserves resident communities, leverages embodied carbon, and improves energy efficiency, resulting in lower operational costs. Evidence shows that well-executed retrofits improve health and wellbeing, with less disruption and lower total costs.Retrofit with Infill: This hybrid approach extends the benefits of retrofit by adding new homes and amenities to the estate, boosting affordable housing supply while maintaining stability and continuity for existing residents. Sensitive infill enables demographic diversification and densification without expanding urban sprawl or undermining neighbourhood character.Life-cycle assessment modelling demonstrates that refurbishment—supported by targeted infill—could achieve reduced carbon emissions, lower material consumption, and faster delivery of upgraded dwellings, as well as increased residential density, compared to wholesale demolition and redevelopment. This approach aligns with residents’ strong preference to remain in place, retain proximity to services and social networks, and participate meaningfully in the design and governance of their homes.