The Victorian Government’s expansion of the Activity Centres Program is a significant moment in the evolution of urban planning in Melbourne. With 23 more activity centres released for Stage 2 consultation, the initiative aims to focus housing development in 50 train and tram zones, enabling greater building heights and residential density in response to the ongoing housing crisis.
Concentrating growth around high-capacity public transport makes sense. It aligns with the core principles of Transit-Oriented Development: compact, walkable, mixed-use neighbourhoods that reduce car dependency and support more sustainable urban living.
But the question isn’t whether density near transport is a good idea. The real question is whether we’re creating Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) or Transport-Oriented Communities (TOCs), i.e. the places where people genuinely want to live.
Density doesn’t create community
TOD, in its traditional form, is fundamentally a planning and zoning strategy. Increase building height and density, support additional housing in mixed-use centres, and leverage infrastructure already in place. Logical, necessary, but not sufficient.
Creating Transport-Oriented Communities requires harder questions to be asked upfront. Where are the parks and open spaces for thousands of new residents? What improvements does the public realm need to foster safety, identity and connection? Is infrastructure delivery sequenced with population growth?
Without clear answers, increased density risks producing dormitory precincts rather than thriving neighbourhoods.
We need to think beyond built form
One of the strongest concerns raised by urban designers, including the Urban Design Forum Australia, is the absence of a comprehensive masterplanning framework. The kind that considers each centre as a holistic place.
Some councils have developed structure plans for these precincts to guide built form and public realm improvements. But not all. And where they do exist, they pre-date the activity centre program and the density it now envisages.
The program does promise a new infrastructure funding system, seeking direct contributions for councils and government to help deliver parks, community services, schools and transport infrastructure. But important questions remain. How will investment be prioritised without a comprehensive masterplan? Will flat-rate contributions affect the viability of the very development the program encourages? Will funding arrive early enough to support incoming residents?
History tells us infrastructure often trails development. When it does, communities feel it: overcrowded schools, limited green space, congested streets, and dangerous pedestrian crossings. Infrastructure must lead, or at least move in tandem – not follow years behind the buildings.
A place-based approach
The activity centre program applies a standardised approach across centres that differ greatly in age, type and role. It facilitates development site-by-site, without a clear sense of how precincts and neighbourhoods are to be planned coherently.
For a future resident, the infrastructure available in a new neighbourhood matters enormously – especially as higher-density living becomes the preferred model for urban growth. Parks serve as the backyards that apartment dwellers lack. Outdoor dining spaces create the conditions for social interaction. Communities take time to form, but there must be a baseline of infrastructure that gives them the chance to. Things like high-quality footpaths, generous shade, and thoughtful landscaping aren’t just nice-to-haves. They’re what make a neighbourhood feel like somewhere worth being.
There are examples around the world where place-based approaches to urban regeneration come first – because once planning controls are locked in and development pipelines accelerate, opportunities for integrated placemaking narrow quickly.
A place-based approach means clear urban design frameworks, public realm strategies embedded in statutory planning, community infrastructure benchmarks, masterplanning of large sites for community benefit, and governance structures to steward long-term outcomes.
Placemaking has long offered a way to improve poorly planned places. With everything we now know, it shouldn’t be an afterthought. It should be foundational.
From TOD to TOC
Melbourne is growing. The housing crisis demands bold action, and density near transport is both logical and responsible.
But to achieve resilient, liveable and equitable neighbourhoods, the ambition must shift from Transit-Oriented Development toward Transport-Oriented Communities.
That means asking not just “How many dwellings can this centre support?” but “What kind of community do we want this place to become?”
Community isn’t an automatic by-product of height and yield. It’s designed, funded, sequenced and sustained.
The success of the Activity Centres Program won’t ultimately be measured by the number of apartments delivered. It’ll be measured by whether future residents can say they live in a community, not just near a train station.
