An RMIT University-led report has found that upgrading the Barkly Street public housing estate in Brunswick, rather than demolishing it, could deliver significant social, economic and environmental benefits.
The 12-storey tower at 351 Barkly Street was purpose-built in the early 1970s for elderly singles and couples.
The findings come as the Victorian government plans to demolish and redevelop all 44 public housing towers by 2051.
Researchers say the new evidence suggests alternatives should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The study found that demolishing and rebuilding the tower not only carried high environmental costs but risked disrupting established communities.
By contrast, upgrading the tower’s 123 units and adding new homes on the site would deliver improvements sooner for existing residents, help keep communities together and cut emissions by up to 44.5 per cent compared with demolition and rebuild.
The report noted that costs for both approaches were comparable.
Report co-author Professor Karien Dekker from RMIT’s School of Property, Construction and Project Management said the findings challenge the assumption that demolition is the only viable option for renewing public housing.
“Demolition shouldn’t be the default when it comes to renewing public housing,” she said.
“Our findings show refurbishment, with carefully planned new homes added on site, should be properly assessed before decisions are made that force residents to move.”
With 97 per cent of residents in the Barkly Street tower aged over 55, the report warns relocation could cause significant hardship for older people.
Disruptions to support networks and the ability to age in place could lead to heightened stress and health impacts.
Researchers interviewed about 12 residents and 10 experts from Homes Victoria, Housing Choices Australia, Merri-bek City Council and other relevant organisations.
Building on earlier work with OFFICE architects, they prepared and tested alternative redevelopment options that retain and refurbish the existing tower using environmental modelling, construction costings and spatial analysis.
They found that upgrading the tower while adding carefully placed new homes could deliver better outcomes for residents by avoiding the need for large-scale relocation.
Report co-author Dr Ben Milbourne from RMIT’s School of Architecture and Urban Design said he was not aware of similarly detailed, publicly available, site-specific assessments for Victoria’s other public housing estates.
“Our aim was to put practical options on the table, with the numbers and the design work alongside what residents told us they need,” he said.
“This kind of assessment should be the starting point for all public housing sites, before any decisions are locked in.”
Other recommendations included involving residents early and throughout planning and design, measuring the risks of rehousing by adopting staged works, and embedding climate and circular economy goals in decision-making.
Dekker said targeted investment in retrofit and decarbonisation training for trades and contractors could help grow local capacity as the state’s renewal program scales up.
“Retrofit-led renewal can support the workforce by creating local jobs in upgrades and maintenance, building skills in low-carbon refurbishment,” she said.
The researchers have called on the Victorian government to independently test and publicly release site-by-site evidence on renewal options before committing to demolishing the state’s public housing towers.