How Daniel Andrews’ plan to demolish public housing towers sowed political chaos

Announcing the End of an Era: Melbourne’s Public Housing Towers

Daniel Andrews, the former Premier of Victoria, made a bold and divisive announcement in September 2023 as he prepared to leave office: Melbourne’s iconic public housing towers would be demolished. This decision, part of the Andrews government’s Housing Statement, was billed as “Australia’s biggest-ever urban renewal project.” The plan aimed to build 800,000 new homes across Victoria over a decade, addressing the state’s worsening housing crisis. However, the announcement left the 10,000 residents of the towers in a state of fear and uncertainty, as they were not notified beforehand. For many, including Flemington resident Beza Gizaw, the news sparked confusion and anxiety. “Why are they moving us in the first place? What’s wrong with the building?” Gizaw asked during a heated meeting with government housing officers.

The decision to demolish the towers has been met with criticism from a wide range of stakeholders, including architects, academics, lawyers, and even members of Andrews’ own party. Brian Howe, a former Labor deputy prime minister and housing minister, called the decision “a very bad decision” and “sloppy politics.” Howe argued that Andrews, on his way out of office, saw the valuable land occupied by the towers as an opportunity for redevelopment without proper consultation or planning. The lack of transparency and debate within the Labor government has left many questioning the justification for the demolitions.

A Divisive Decision Within Labor

The Housing Statement, which included the tower redevelopment plan, was handled by a small cabinet subcommittee and rushed through without proper debate. Ministers present in the cabinet meeting have revealed that the demolition plan was not specifically discussed, leaving many in the dark about the details. Some Labor MPs believe the towers should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with only some needing demolition. Others, like a former minister, have described the decision as an “Andrews thought bubble,” suggesting it was a sudden and poorly considered idea.

The controversy has also exposed deeper divisions within Labor about the future of public housing. Federal Labor MPs, particularly those representing inner-Melbourne electorates with significant public housing, have expressed concerns about the impact on their constituents. Josh Burns, whose Macnamara electorate includes several housing estates, has called for greater transparency and consultation with residents. Meanwhile, former Labor leader Bill Shorten has reportedly been a vocal critic of the redevelopment, though he declined to comment publicly.

The Human Cost of Redevelopment

For residents like Beza Gizaw, the towers are more than just buildings—they are homes and communities. Gizaw, a single mother who moved into the Flemington towers after facing personal and financial setbacks, describes her flat as her “haven.” She has built a sense of belonging in the towers, but now faces the prospect of relocation and uncertainty. “I’ve created a sense of belonging here, a sense of community,” she said. “Now there is uncertainty.” Her story reflects the broader human impact of the redevelopment plan, which has left thousands of residents worried about their futures.

The government’s plan to replace the towers with a mix of private, social, and community housing has raised concerns about the future of public housing in Victoria. While the government claims the redevelopment will provide better housing and more affordable options, critics argue that it will lead to the displacement of low-income residents and the privatization of public land. The lack of clear information about the redevelopment, including the fate of the remaining 42 towers, has only added to the anxiety.

The Financial and Ideological Debate

The decision to demolish the towers is contentious for two key reasons: cost and ideology. Critics argue that the financial case for demolition has not been made clear. While the government estimates that maintaining the towers would cost $2.3 billion over 20 years, it has not provided a comparative cost for redevelopment. The only publicly available figure is a $100 million contract for the demolition of the first three towers. Residents and advocates have also raised concerns about the environmental and social costs of demolishing the towers, including the disruption of communities and the potential for increased homelessness.

The ideological debate centers on the future of public housing in Victoria. Housing Minister Harriet Shing has argued that the towers are “past their shelf life” and unsuitable for modern living, citing issues like structural problems and lack of natural light. However, critics point out that many of Melbourne’s older housing stock faces similar challenges and is not being demolished. They argue that retrofitting the towers could be a more cost-effective and equitable solution. The government’s emphasis on partnerships with the private sector has also raised fears about the privatization of public housing and the displacement of low-income residents.

The Rise and Decline of Public Housing in Victoria

The public housing towers were built between 1958 and 1974 as part of a bipartisan effort to provide affordable housing for working families. At the time, they were seen as a symbol of progress and government commitment to housing. However, over the years, public housing fell out of favor as governments embraced neoliberal policies and shifted focus to private housing markets. By the 1990s, public housing was increasingly seen as welfare housing for the most vulnerable, rather than a broader social good.

Today, Victoria has the lowest level of social housing as a proportion of overall housing stock in Australia. Public housing has been neglected, with maintenance deferred and properties left to deteriorate. Critics argue that this has created perverse incentives for governments to justify redevelopment and privatization. The value of the land under the towers has skyrocketed, making it increasingly attractive for private development. RMIT researcher Liam Davies has warned that this approach could lead to the displacement of low-income residents and the loss of well-located public housing.

The Future of Public Housing

The debate over the towers reflects broader questions about the role of public housing in addressing Australia’s housing crisis. Federal Housing Minister Clare O’Neil has acknowledged the decline of public housing and called for renewed investment. However, the Albanese government has not committed to the kind of long-term funding that once supported large-scale public housing projects. In Victoria, the Allan government’s focus on partnerships with the private sector has raised concerns about the future of public housing.

Advocates like Julijana Todorovic of Labor for Housing argue that governments must do more to address the housing crisis, including tax reform, increased funding for public housing, and stronger protections for tenants. “A society that cannot provide housing security to all its citizens is a failed society,” she said. For residents like Beza Gizaw, the outcome of this debate will determine not just the future of the towers but the kind of city Melbourne will become. Will it be a place where everyone has a home, or will it prioritize wealth and privilege over community and equity? The answer remains uncertain.