Meyer Central Corridor: Dual CBDs = Sydney's Manhattan

The previous post examined Bob Meyer's (Cox Architecture) Central Corridor, and identifed it as the "infrastructure giant" of Sydney, having triple the heavy rail/light rail density & a hands-down hero vs zero freight rail/ferry service superiority to the competing Global Economic Corridor (even after construction of NWRL & Second Harbour Crossing).

This post examines the Meyer Corridor population densities, and compares it with other global cities like Hong Kong and New York.  We start by looking at the local government areas (LGA) contained within the Meyer Corridor (the year 2011 data comes from Census, year 2016 & 2031 data are NSW Department of Planning projections):

I've also shown in the second column what the corridor could look like if local governments are merged/grouped along the lines of the Samson report recommendations, but with Holroyd and Botany excluded.  The former was excluded as it's character is low density suburban and is the LGA that least fits into general characteristics of Meyer Corridor, and Botany Bay was excluded due it's domination (area-wise) by Sydney airport which also skews density statistics (and for consistency with comparisons to Manhattan and Hong Kong Island, neither of which have an airport).  Marrickville LGA I merged into Sydney City because of the city-wide importance of Sydney University, the Royal Prince Alfred health precinct and Newtown retail.

It is useful to look into the resulting merged LGAs in more detail:

1. Merged Sydney City: land area of 99km2, population of 569K (year 2016), growing to 699K (year 2031), density of 5700/km2 growing to 7100/km2.
2. Merged Parramatta: land area of 93km2, population of 284K (year 2016), growing to 385K (year 2031), density of 3100/km2 growing to 4100/km2.
3. Merged Inner West: land area of 60km2, population of 272K (year 2016), growing to 331K (year 2031), density of 4500/km2 growing to 5500/km2

A merged Sydney City LGA is clearly within the ranks of a global city.  I believe the 699K projected population to be highly conservative, as it's population has grown by 77K in the five years of 2011-2016, and so I believe 700K will be reached in just 10 years at current growth rates and likely population by 2031 will more likely be closer to 800K.  Manhattan currently has a population 1.6million in a land area of 87km2.  So a merged Sydney LGA in the near future will have approximately half the population of Manhattan in roughly the same land area (99km2 vs 87km2).  Half the density of Manhattan is still a very dense, active and agglomerated global city - by comparison, Hong Kong island has a population slightly smaller than Manhattan in 79km2 (admittedly some of this is mountainous land).

In the "dual CBD" model of the Meyer Corridor, the aspiration would be that Parramatta CBD and Sydney CBD combined would be the equivalent of Manhattan (albeit within a larger land area of ~250km2, or 2~3 times that of Manhattan's 87km2).  It's apparent that Parramatta has some way to go before it can truly claim "dual CBD" status, as it currently has a lower density than even that of the Inner West.  However, it is heading in the right direction in recent years.  In particular, height restrictions on development in Parramatta CBD have been lifted and are now equal to that of Sydney CBD, and a $8billion construction boom is looming, that has over 6000 high rise apartments being planned or under construction.  Nonetheless, 6000 apartments equates to a population of approximately 15000 and this is just a drop in the ocean if Parramatta is to be built up to a density equivalent to Sydney.  To bring Parramatta's density up to the 7100/km2 projected for Sydney, the population within the current Parramatta and Auburn LGA's needs to more than double and grow from 284K to 650K.

It is clear then that despite massive high rise construction within Parramatta CBD, to establish it's credentials as a CBD comparable to Sydney would also require the surrounding suburbs to have intense housing construction.  The natural place for this would be around train stations and in the Parramatta/Camelia/Olympic Park corridor.  The Parramatta road urban renewal and also Urban Activation/Priority Precinct programs addresses these as follows:

• Granville station renewal precinct: 16000 dwellings anticipated by year 2050
• Auburn station renewal precinct: 4000 dwellings anticipated by year 2050
• Carter Street priority precinct: planned population of ~40000 by 2036
• Wentworth Point priority precinct: planned population of ~25000 by 2036
• Homebush precinct: 10000-16000 dwellings, however most of this will be in the Inner West

All up, the above precincts could potentially house an additional population of 120K residents.  This leaves another 150-200K in order for a merged Parramatta LGA to reach a target population of 600-650K.  The other major under-developed precinct that could house a further 150K residents is located within the Camelia/Rosehill/Silverwater industrial precinct, with an alliance of landowners and businesses in the area exploring the possibility for a capacity of 60K.  Nonetheless, for all this development to be attractive and commercially viable, light rail through the Parramatta-Olympic Park corridor is essential.  As seen in Portland prior to 1997, even if housing density was allowed by planning rules, the translation of planned capacity into actual delivery of housing was below 50% in the absence of light rail, but reached 60-90% after construction of light rail into Portland.

At present, the NSW Government is exploring four options relating to the Parramatta light rail route, with the leading two contenders being Carlingford/Epping versus Olympic Park/Strathfield.  The former will not achieve the residential or employment growth targets that Parramatta needs to become a CBD of equal stature to Sydney CBD.  Parramatta LGA should be advocating for a Parramatta-Olympic Park-Strathfield alignment - not the Carlingford alignment they are currently advocating.  So why are they supporting Carlingford over Olympic Park?  Partly because of outdated feasibility studies that looked at a different route to what TfNSW is looking at and that ignored the potential of Olympic part.  But I suspect, also because of local government politics, ie: Auburn is currently a separate LGA to Parramatta LGA, and therefore Parramatta LGA has no interest in catering for Auburn residents and land owners.  If Parramatta is to become a CBD of equal population stature to Sydney CBD, it needs to merge with Auburn council and advocate for a wider group of residents than it currently covers.