THE DILEMMA OF URBAN

EMPLOYMENT LAND

An Inquiry into the Viability of Small Urban

Manufacturing in Inner Melbourne

Phase 2 Report

05 March 2018

ii

f

RESPONSIBILITY AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report has been prepared by a team of researchers and professionals from the partner

organisations and the University of Melbourne. The lead authors are Dr. Jennifer Day and Mr. Simon

Carter from the University of Melbourne, and Ms. Virginia Miller from the City of Port Phillip. Mr.

Zheng Chin, Ms. Jane Archer, Ms. Targol Khorram, Mr. Sumkhuu Yadam, Ms. Anna Rowe, Ms. Cherie

Josephson, and Ms. Vivian Tan – former students at Melbourne University – all made significant

contributions, each leading one of the research studies upon which this report draws. Mr. Chin was

the primary author of Chapter 2. Mr. Yiriy Onyshchuk from the City of Melbourne and Mr. Austin

Ley from Planning for Change also made contributions – particularly in the knowledge compiled and

writing about the adaptation of the findings to the local policy context. Mr. Lu Fan and Mr. Justin

Malkiewicz assisted with analysis of existing data sources. Mr. Bryn Davies and Mr. Marcus Spiller

provided some of the foundational ideas for the project.

The Project Management Team consists of:

Jennifer Day, The University of Melbourne

Ray Tiernan, City of Port Phillip

Elissa McElroy, City of Stonnington, IMAP Executive Officer

Maria-Luisa Nardella, Moreland City Council

iii

CONTENTS

ONE-PAGE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... VI

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 11

PART I. OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND......................................................................................... 12

2. PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 12

� 2.1 Phase 2 Objectives .............................................................................................. 12

� 2.2 Phase 2 Activities ................................................................................................ 13 � 2.3 The Policy Reference Group ................................................................................. 14

3. A BRIEF NOTE ABOUT HOW WE UNDERSTAND MAKING ........................................................... 14

� 3.1 Who Counts as a Maker? .................................................................................... 14 � 3.2 The Cultural Economy ......................................................................................... 15

� 3.3 Social Processes within the Cultural Economy ...................................................... 15

PART II. THE STORY IN THE DATA ................................................................................................... 17

4. EXISTING DATA SOURCES ............................................................................................................ 17

� 4.1 Inadequacy of Existing Data ................................................................................ 17 � 4.2 Working definitions............................................................................................. 19 � 4.3 Magnitude and Quantum .................................................................................... 19

� 4.4 Zoning Land Distribution ...................................................................................... 20 � 4.5 Firm Offerings ...................................................................................................... 26 � 4.6 Location in Zones ................................................................................................. 27

5. FINDINGS FROM THE MAKERS.MELBOURNE SURVEY ................................................................. 33

� 5.1 Recruiting and Sampling ...................................................................................... 33

� 5.2 Survey Formats .................................................................................................... 33 � 5.3 Response Rates .................................................................................................... 33 � 5.4 Magnitude and Quantum .................................................................................... 34 � 5.5 Respondents ........................................................................................................ 35

� 5.6 Jobs and Firm Size ................................................................................................ 35 � 5.7 Firm Longevity ..................................................................................................... 36 � 5.8 Firm Offerings ...................................................................................................... 37 � 5.9 The “Other” in a Maker’s Identity ........................................................................ 38

� 5.10 Location and Migration ..................................................................................... 38 � 5.11 Space ................................................................................................................. 43

6. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION .............................................................................................................. 45

� 6.1 Visualisation and Simulation Areas ...................................................................... 45 � 6.2 All Firms Visualisation .......................................................................................... 46

� 6.3 Simulated Distribution ......................................................................................... 46

PART III. THE QUALITATIVE EXPERIENCE OF MAKING IN MELBOURNE .......................................... 48

7. DEFINING MAKING AND MANUFACTURING............................................................................... 48

� 7.1. The issue of definition ......................................................................................... 48 � 7.2 The CLUE Data Provides a Glimpse of What We Do Not Know ............................ 48

8. WHAT MAKES A MAKER? NETWORKING, SERVICE, AND INNOVATION – AND IDENTITY .......... 49

� 8.1 They are “Makers” and “Manufacturers” ............................................................. 50 � 8.2 There is Evidence of A “New” Manufacturing Sector in Melbourne ....................... 50

� 8.3 Melbourne’s Makers Derive Identity from Place ................................................... 51

iv

� 8.4 Makers Distrust Associations ............................................................................... 51 � 8.5 Innovation is Present but Not Pervasive in the Making Scene ............................... 51

9. PEAK BODY CONSULTATION ....................................................................................................... 52 � 9.1 The Peak Bodies are Not Yet Engaged with Makers .............................................. 53

� 9.2 The Peak Bodies Concur that the ANZSICs are Problematic ................................... 53

PART IV. THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................. 54

10. INTERNATIONAL POLICY REVIEW .............................................................................................. 54

� 10.1 Amsterdam ........................................................................................................ 54 � 10.2 Berlin ................................................................................................................. 54 � 10.3 Detroit ............................................................................................................... 55

� 10.4 London .............................................................................................................. 55 � 10.5 Vancouver ......................................................................................................... 56

11. AUSTRALIAN POLICY REVIEW .................................................................................................... 57

� 11.1 Policies Currently Ignore Small Urban Makers .................................................... 57 � 11.2 Metropolitan Melbourne’s Vision for Makers is Limited ..................................... 58

� 11.3 Some Councils Provide Models of Leadership ..................................................... 58 � 11.4 Leadership is Needed from the State and Federal Levels .................................... 59 � 11.5 Policy Makers’ Remaining Questions .................................................................. 60

12. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK .......................................................................................... 60

� 12.1 Future Work ...................................................................................................... 61

13. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 62

APPENDIX A. ANZSIC CODES USED IN ABR AND CLUE DATA ANALYSIS .......................................... 64

APPENDIX B. SIMULATED SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION, REPRESENTED VISUALLY ................................. 69

APPENDIX C. AUSTRALIAN POLICIES REVIEWED ............................................................................. 82

APPENDIX D. PEAK BODIES SURVEY ............................................................................................... 86

v

ONE-PAGE SUMMARY The goal of this study is to deliver policy-relevant findings that can guide the Inner Melbourne Action

Plan (IMAP) councils in making strategic decisions about the use of land with regards industrial,

commercial, and residential purposes. Phase 2 consists of five qualitative studies examining maker

identity, innovation, placemaking, organisation and analysis of primary and secondary data to:

� understand employment

� networking and innovation patterns

� spatial distribution of small making activity in the study area

� review the international evidence about the impacts of public policy relevant for

small urban makers

� work with the Policy Reference Group to apply the evidence compiled and develop

policy recommendations for the IMAP and Moreland areas.

This report is organised into four parts:

Part I. Objectives and Background

Part II. The Story in the Data

Part III. The Qualitative Experience of Making in Melbourne

Part IV. The Policy Environment.

What is an urban maker, and what is an urban manufacturer? Our makers:

� identify as both “makers” and “manufacturers”

� have strong associations with, and derive Identity from, their host communities

� do not appear to take advantage of traditional concerns of location, e.g., labor, supplier, or

customer access

� do not aspire to mass production

� are not strong innovators

� distrust associations but link through informal networks

� do not generally engage in sharing economies

� are not politically organised or networked. Key Quantitative Findings.

� There is a critical mass of small making in Melbourne:

o 20,356 small making firms

o 64,935 jobs

o 83 % employ five or fewer people.

� Maker identity is physical, digital, and service-oriented.

� Makers struggle to classify themselves – instead opting for the “other” classification.

� Space and redevelopment pressures could threaten the making base.

� 10,584 firms may be seriously considering leaving IMAP+Moreland (33,766 jobs)

� 2,646 firms may be seriously considering leaving the Melbourne Metro area (8,441 jobs)

� 1,629 firms may be seriously considering leaving Victoria (5,195 jobs).

� Traditional manufacturing is a small proportion of firms. Most identify first as service firms.

Key Policy Findings.

� Melbourne’s current policy climate lags behind that of peer cities like Berlin, Vancouver and

Amsterdam in its current approach to urban manufacturing. Suitable data for

comprehensive economic analysis appears to be more available in these cities.

� Locally, there is not much evidence that state or federal policies support makers.

� Local governments are taking the lead in supporting makers.

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

The University of Melbourne in partnership with IMAP, Moreland City Council and the Victorian

Planning Authority undertook research titled, “The Dilemma of Urban Employment Land: An Inquiry

into the Viability of Small Urban Manufacturing in Inner Melbourne.”

Our over-arching hypothesis is that small, high-value added, highly-innovative urban manufacturers

in Melbourne can benefit significantly from the agglomeration economies associated with inner-

urban locations and there is value to the urban economy in preserving a place for manufacturing

innovators in the central city and immediate inner suburban areas.

Across the two phases of this study, we have assembled a picture of maker identity and aspiration,

concluding that these firms often have very different aspirations than their scale-manufacturing

counterparts.

We have done this using data from five qualitative studies. We also supplement the data with other

stories from our extended case study of makers in a variety of forums over the past two years –

workshops, informal site visits, participating with makers in Melbourne Knowledge Week and other

events. The composite provides us with some understanding of who Melbourne’s makers are and

what they want.

The challenge is an absence of a robust evidence base to enable local governments to argue for

retention of industrial areas in strategic locations. It is in generating this evidence base that this

project adds value. We take a multi-faceted approach designed to address several dimensions of the

urban employment problem:

1. The land approach (understand how employment land in inner Melbourne is currently being

used)

2. The sector approach (understand the value of central locations for businesses in the

small manufacturing sector)

3. The economic approach (Understand the economic impacts and contributions of small

urban manufacturers (the economic approach)

Phase 1

The Urban Manufacturing Project has delivered the Phase 1 Report, which was been accepted and

endorsed by IMAP at its November 2015 Implementation Committee meeting. The full report is

available at:

http://imap.vic.gov.au/uploads/Meeting%20Agendas/2016%20February/Att%2010_Action%207.2%

20Urban%20Manufacturing_IMAP%2026%20Feb%202016.pdf.

Project Objectives

This report describes the combined outcomes of Phases 1 and 2, with a focus on Phase 2.

vii

Phase 2 objectives:

1. To enumerate the economic impacts of Making Sector (if possible) using ABR data and

proprietary data sets (CLUE, Council data, State Government data, Workcover).

2. To generate a dataset of making firms in the IMAP and Moreland study areas.

3. To use this dataset to understand economic activity, networking and innovation patterns,

and spatial distribution of small making activity in the study area.

4. To develop a qualitative understanding of location, innovation and other sector impacts.

5. To review maker identity, including ANZSIC codes and their appropriateness for small

makers.

6. To review international evidence about the impacts of and policy levers relevant for small

urban makers

7. To work with a Policy Reference Group to apply the evidence compiled and develop policy

recommendations for the IMAP and Moreland areas.

*As we describe in Section 4 of this report, the actions outlined in Objective 1 have been unachievable

because of data-availability problems. The other objectives are achieved or are in-progress, and we

report on these in this report.

Activities

Phase 2 consists of three additional qualitative studies and related quantitative queries generated

from the dataset generated from the project’s makers.melbourne website.

We reviewed international evidence about the impacts of public policy relevant for small urban

makers.

Additionally, we engaged a Policy Reference Group (PRG) to convert our findings into policy actions

that are realistic and implementable in local and state government contexts.

Key Qualitative Findings: What is a Maker?

No clear definition of a maker emerges from our inquiries. It is an evolving sector with variation and

diversity.

The qualitative studies we developed were intended to tell us about the economic features of

Melbourne’s makers – about their patterns of networking, service orientation, and innovation. In

addition, the findings provide us with a sense of the makers’ identity – this is as entwined with the

city as it is with any economic aspiration. Makers are – in identity and function – intertwined with

the city that houses them.

Our research strongly suggests that a “new,” service(ized), high value-added, knowledge-intensive

production sector is emerging in Melbourne that inverts the historic relation between manufacturing

and services.

We further conclude that some makers are driven by more-than-economic concerns and that

understanding them involves going outside of the modes of common thought in urban planning and

economic geography.

viii

Major features of this sector are:

1. Terms like “making” and “manufacturing” are often used interchangeably but there is often

a distinction.

a. “Makers” tend to be small and have minimal aspiration to expand to mass

production.

b. “Manufacturers” tend to aspire to one or both of those features.

2. Very minimal focus by makers on economies of scale or mass production

3. A strong focus on craft skill and teaching those skills to new generations of artisans

4. Difficulty among makers in identifying with a particular sector or ANZSIC code

5. Adding value to made products through high levels of service and educational programming

6. A strong focus on location in urban centres and inner suburbs as a core feature of their firm

identity

7. A possibility that owners would choose firm closure over outward relocation

8. Evidence that central location facilitates customer and supplier relationships but not peer

networking or networked innovation

9. Evidence of firm agglomeration economies and knowledge sharing but stronger evidence

that spatial proximity to other like firms is not used for growth and networking

10. Firms face strong displacement pressures and are concerned about their futures in

Melbourne’s central urban areas

11. The sector lacks leadership and organisation. No leaders have emerged as they have in other

cities with vibrant making communities such as Portland, London, Detroit and Berlin.

We cannot provide a succinct and definitive set of criteria that can conclusively identify makers.

The study results so far do not provide conclusive criteria such as firm size, ANZSIC code or other

features that can be useful in identifying firms and targeting them for future study.

Makers in the study area are more distinguished by the ways in which they engage with their city

and depart from the traditional aspirations of manufacturing.

We also studied the impacts of government initiatives involving makers on their host

communities. A case study of Docklands Spaces, a program that facilitated creative pop-ups in

Melbourne, was undertaken. Interviews with Docklands residents were conducted in order to

determine what impact Docklands Spaces had on local resident’s sense of place. The findings

suggest that place making via creative pop-ups does not always lead to the creation of vibrant

communities or ‘places’. In fact, despite positive intentions, it seems pop-up creative programs

have very limited impact on resident’s sense of place. These findings are significant as they

question the current place making praxis which positions all temporariness as positive.

Key Quantitative Findings: A Critical Mass of Makers

The review of existing data reveals that all researcher-available datasets are inadequate to

understand the economic contributions, spatial arrangement, quantum and other relevant features

of the Urban Manufacturing sectors.

Some conclusions can be drawn from existing data. The report contained herein first presents the

story told by the available secondary data and a survey we conducted on urban manufacturers. The

quantitative findings suggest the following:

There is a critical mass of small making in Melbourne. We estimate that within the study area there

are:

ix

� 20,356 small making firms

� 64,935 associated jobs

� 65 % have 1-2 employees

� 83 % have five or fewer employees

Maker identity is physical, digital, and service-oriented. There is some contention among planners

and scholars about whether service-focused businesses that design virtual images and products

should be included in the making category.

The “other” category is strongly and disproportionately represented among makers, suggesting

difficulty in categorisation of the firm in a manufacturing-focused ANZSIC.

� 14 % of the survey respondents opted for the “other” classification

This concords with our qualitative findings that makers see their businesses as involved in a variety

of virtual and physical making with commensurate support and retail services. A theme that emerges

throughout this work is the strong identity that makers experience and an associated difficulty in

self-classification. This comes through in this data as well as in our qualitative work in Part III.

A majority of firms appearing in the ABR data are located in the various residential zones. Of the

43,670 firms registered across the IMAP+Moreland study area (excluding the port), 22,741 are

located in General Residential or Neighbourhood Residential zones.

Space and redevelopment pressures could threaten the making base.

� 10,584 firms may be seriously considering leaving IMAP+Moreland (33,766 jobs)

� 2,646 firms may be seriously considering leaving the Melbourne Metro area (8,441 jobs)

� 1,629 firms may be seriously considering leaving Victoria (5,195 jobs).

Small firms looking to expand their operations are the kinds of firms that most council planners

would like to keep in their jurisdictions and would like to avoid dislocating jobs with redevelopment

pressures. This suggests that the small maker community is worth considering in policy – particularly

in areas of production space, labour, leasing conditions and rents.

Traditional manufacturing is a small proportion of firms. Most making firms are not manufacturers.

Only four of the top 33 ANZSIC codes are actual manufacturers – that is, listed in the set of

manufacturing ANZSIC codes. Most are service firms, with 8,427 jobs in the Computer System Design

and Related Services category. Moreland council differs from its peer councils in the study in that it

has a strong representation in all four of these traditional manufacturing categories.

Key Policy Findings

The international policy review suggests that Melbourne lags behind peer cities like Berlin,

Vancouver and Amsterdam in its approach to urban manufacturing.

� Suitable data for comprehensive economic analysis appears to be more available in these

cities and publicly funded.

� Cooperation and partnerships with makers are a matter of policy and public support in

Amsterdam and Berlin.

� London is proposing protecting industrial lands through urban policy.

x

� In 1995 Vancouver committed to “retain most of the City’s existing industrial land base for

industry and service businesses.”

These cities, in turn, have lively, thriving and internationally-recognised urban manufacturing

sectors.

The success of these peer cities and the difference in policy climates does raise questions about

whether Melbourne’s land policies are to blame for urban making firms with insecure stakes in their

places of production, unconvincing networking histories, minimal innovation and no apparent

interest in organising. Locally there is not much evidence that state or federal policies support

makers. Local governments are taking the lead in supporting makers by developing local policies.

Future Work

There is still much work to be done to understand the making sectors and their contributions to

local, state, and national economies. Research Streams to consider:

1. Impacts of Makers on Economic Development – What are the broader benefits to the city of a

successful urban manufacturing sector and what future commercial space is required for survival

of these firms?

2. Composition of and Influences on the Making Sectors – what is currently happening in

industrial/commercial-zoned land and what does the sector require to prosper?

3. Leadership, gender, and isolation among makers:

a. why Melbourne’s making community has not generated leadership that can

effectively lobby government, as has emerged in other cities?

b. is making is a gendered activity?

c. Analysis of feelings of isolation experienced by people undertaking home-based

making activities in outer suburban areas

d. the role of local government in supporting makers in outer suburban Melbourne.

11

1. INTRODUCTION

This report provides the final findings of Phase 2 of the Urban Manufacturing project – a study of

small, urban makers in Melbourne’s core suburbs. The University of Melbourne partnered for this

study with the Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP), Moreland City Council, and the Victorian

Planning Authority.

The core goal of this study was and is to deliver policy-relevant findings that can guide the local

councils and state governments in making strategic decisions about the use of employment land in

the IMAP area, with regards to allocating land to industrial, commercial, and residential purposes.

In this three-year study, we have assembled a picture of maker identity and aspiration, concluding

that the “new” manufacturing firms often have very different aspirations than their scale-

manufacturing counterparts. We have done this using data from a series of qualitative studies, a

large-scale data collection, deep engagement with the making community, a comprehensive review

of available data sources, and a comprehensive review of local and international policy.

We then took these findings and submit them to the review and scrutiny of a Policy Reference Group

(PRG), whose task it was to translate our findings to actionable policy recommendations for

Melbourne and Victoria.

Right now, as part of the review and implementation of Plan Melbourne, urban policy is being

formed and implemented in the Melbourne Region that will directly impact the capacity of urban

manufacturers to remain in central locations. The Premier of Victoria, Hon. Daniel Andrews, has

commented on the issue of preserving industrial land in the inner Melbourne region:

I’ve heard people say Victorian manufacturing is disappearing. It’s simply not true.

Victorian manufacturing is a $26 billion industry employing more than 283,000

men and women – making it one of the state's largest suppliers of full-time jobs.

Of course, Victorian manufacturing is going through a transition – moving away

from being a sector dominated by automotive manufacturing towards a more

diverse mix of industries ranging from food to aviation, biotech to construction.

The point is this: Victorian manufacturing is not disappearing, but it is changing

(DEDJTR, 2017, p. 1).

Our research strongly suggests that a “new,” servicised, high value-added, knowledge-intensive

production sector is emerging in Melbourne that challenges the historic relation between

manufacturing and services, the traditional roles of government and urban planning, the authority of

peak bodies, and the applicability of basic tracking tools such as the Australian and New Zealand

Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) system. This suggests that new ways of thinking about

small makers may be both necessary and warranted if we are to support this emerging and vibrant

sector.

Supporting this sector will be the charge of local and state governments and peak bodies who may at

the moment not be equipped for the task. Of eight peak bodies represented in interviews, only two

were aware of the making sector, and only one thinks itself to be equipped to represent a

constituency of maker members. This is despite our estimate of 18,589 small making firms and

59,307 jobs in the Melbourne metropolitan area. Most of these firms are small: 83 percent employ

five or fewer people.

12

PART I. OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND

2. PROJECT BACKGROUND

This section provides a background on both phases of the Urban Manufacturing Project, Phase 1 and

Phase 2. We note repetition with Phase 1 Report where applicable.

2.1 PHASE 2 OBJECTIVES

1. To enumerate the economic impacts of Making Sector (if possible) using ABR data and

proprietary data sets (CLUE, Council data, State Government data, Workcover).

2. To generate a dataset of making firms in the IMAP and Moreland study areas.

3. To use this dataset to understand economic activity, networking and innovation patterns,

and spatial distribution of small making activity in the study area.

4. To develop a qualitative understanding of location, innovation and other sector impacts.

5. To review maker identity, including ANZSIC codes and their appropriateness for small

makers.

6. To review international evidence about the impacts of and policy levers relevant for small

urban makers

7. To work with a Policy Reference Group to apply the evidence compiled and develop policy

recommendations for the IMAP and Moreland areas.

We report on these objectives for the study area shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1. IMAP+Moreland Study Area

13

2.2 PHASE 2 ACTIVITIES

Phase 2 activities included:

1. Six qualitative studies examining maker identity, innovation, and placemaking;

2. Primary data collection and analysis of this data to understand economic activity,

networking and innovation patterns, and spatial distribution of small making activity in the

study area;

3. Review of international evidence about the impacts of and policy levers relevant for small

urban makers;

4. Work with Policy Reference Group to apply the evidence compiled and develop policy

recommendations for the IMAP and Moreland areas.

The qualitative studies undertaken:

Creative clusters in Yarra. Exploring whether small making firms in the Cremorne and Gipps Street

precincts exhibit clustering behaviour.

Finding: that aside from proximity, making firms are not leveraging their location for other

clustering-related benefits.

Understanding Servicisation using a Qualitative Storytelling Approach. Understanding how urban

makers use services to innovate and create identity for their products.

Finding: that service is a significant component of some makers’ business but not all.

Understanding the Networking Characteristics of Innovation in Melbourne’s Boutique Furniture

Sector. Understanding whether small furniture makers in the IMAP area exhibit features of

networked innovation.

Finding: is that they do not.

Assessing the Short-term Placemaking Effects of Makers. Examining whether a concentration of

makers in the Docklands contributed to a sense of place among residents.

Finding: no effect on placemaking was discernible. Docklands residents do not see their community

as a place.

What Makes a Maker? Querying why makers use certain words to describe themselves to reveal

their understanding of “making” versus “manufacturing” and their aspirations.

Conclusion: that the “new” manufacturing firms often have very different aspirations than their

scale-manufacturing counterparts.

Why aren’t makers organised? Querying why makers do not appear to organise, do not attend

business development events nor have recognisable leadership as a group.

Finding: makers participate in informal networks; have common conflicts yet seem to lack a

collective identity. Without a collective identity they will struggle to become organised.

14

2.3 THE POLICY REFERENCE GROUP

A Policy Reference Group (PRG) was established at the beginning of Phase 2 to advise the Steering

Committee on the policy recommendations that are most appropriate given the research findings

and the current governance climate in Melbourne.

The PRG is comprised of experts in strategic and statutory planning, economic development, GIS,

building control and other relevant disciplines from the following organisations:

• City of Melbourne

• City of Port Philip

• City of Stonnington

• City of Yarra

• City of Maribyrnong

• Moreland City Council

• Metropolitan Planning Authority

• Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

3. A BRIEF NOTE ABOUT HOW WE UNDERSTAND MAKING

To understand makers, we attempt to first define the term, “maker,” and to describe how they are

understood as workers and producers. We contend that planning and support for urban makers is

focused on notions of productivity, producing at scale, innovating and other activities that add value

to making. This focus has limited explanatory power for urban makers.

This chapter argues that the maker is a creative worker who participates within the cultural

economy. This concept of makers may give us some tools to understand why we see drivers of

making identity and preference that seem to defy what we know about traditional manufacturing.

3.1 WHO COUNTS AS A MAKER?

Kwon and Lee (2017) argue that makers participate in the makers movement, where they belong to

a larger “cultural trend that focuses on an individual’s ability to be a creator of things using

technology” (p. 1). They argue that makers often work from home and utilise modern production

techniques such as “mills and laser cutters, and 3D printing” (p. 3), and that makers often share

knowledge and learn new skills by participating within a community of makers.

Papavlasopoulou, Giannakos, and Jaccheri (2017) also define makers by their culture, which they

describe as a “philosophy in which individuals or groups of individuals create artifacts that are

recreated and assembled using software and/or physical objects”. They suggest that a key aspect of

being a maker is their ability to create and that one reason for the significant growth within the

maker community is due to the increasing accessibility of “digital fabrication technologies” (p. 57).

Furthermore there is a pedagogical aspect to makers, as their work “democratizes design and

making” (Tanenbaum, Williams, Desjardins, & Tanenbaum, 2013, p. 2603). This new democratic

sharing of knowledge presents new ways of thinking, leading to the development of alternative

governance structures.

This is a relatively narrow definition of the maker leaving many questions. How do we distinguish

between a maker who only use digital fabrication tools compared to one who uses them on occasion

15

preferring instead to use low-tech tools for most of their work? Defining the maker based on

whether they do or do not use technologically advanced tools is problematic, as ‘modern’ is a

normative statement. What one person considers to be modern might not be for another. ‘Modern’

is a subjective concept and an unstable basis on which to form a definition.

Outside this limited body of literature, there is a large body of theoretical research surrounding the

cultural economy in which makers are conceptualised.

Making is at odds with other government initiatives such as support of advanced manufacturing.

This is perhaps the term that comes closest to describing Makers that is also widely used in policy

circles in Victoria. The Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources

(DEDJTR) describes Advanced Manufacturing businesses as having established sustainable global

competitiveness through advanced capabilities and characteristics. These characteristics frequently

feature a combination of :

• anticipating market opportunities and customers’ needs

• competing on value, including through developing and commercialising products and processes

with significant international competitive advantage

• having strong leadership, and investing in a highly-skilled workforce

• being globally-oriented, integrated and connected

• utilising leading manufacturing technologies, techniques and data

• collaborating with business partners across value chains and with leading researchers.

3.2 THE CULTURAL ECONOMY

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union after the Second World War, there was a transition away

from the massive centralised industrial economics towards a new contemporary economic structure,

otherwise known as post-Fordism. (Appadurai, 1990) suggests this new society could no longer be

conceptualised and explained through traditional views of the economy, as its “complex,

overlapping, [and] disjunctive order” escaped any previously understood economic models (p. 296).

One characteristic of this new economic structure was the increasing relevance “of sectors whose

outputs are imbued with significant cultural or symbolic content” (Scott, 2001, p. 11). Also known as

the cultural economy, which describes the convergence of “features [within] contemporary capitalist

society… between the domain of the economic on the one hand and the domain of the cultural on

the other” (Scott 2001, p. 11). Over time the cultural economy has also become synonymous with

“similar terms such as ‘creative economy’, ‘cultural industries’ and ‘creative class’, all of which

describe a space where the ‘cultural’ and ‘economic’ collide” (Gibson and Kong 2005, p. 542).

Gibson and Kong (2005) suggest that one way to interpret this new economy is through the creative

index approach where makers would be classified as belonging to the creative class.

(Peck, 2005) laments that “creative individuals have become the preeminent carriers of economic-

development potential, so the pursuit of economic growth becomes neatly synonymous with the

publicly funded seduction of the Creative Class” (p. 765). Gibson & Kong (2005) suggest that this new

‘implication of work’ has not been thoroughly explored, as modern conceptualisations of these

‘cultural’ workers are bound to normative discourses found within the literature exploring the

cultural economy.

3.3 SOCIAL PROCESSES WITHIN THE CULTURAL ECONOMY

Gill and Pratt (2008) suggest that the rise of the creative industries and cultural work is a result of

16

the “broad changes in contemporary capitalism” which has produced a precarious situation where

“increasing numbers of workers in affluent societies are engaged in insecure, casuali[s]ed or

irregular labour” (p. 2). Therefore, new study of the intersection between labour and life has

emerged. Rising from the oppressive and exploitative tendencies of the capitalist regime, combined

with the precariousness of cultural work, the cultural economy offers the possibility of generating a

new political subjectivity that is unique from that of traditional trade and workers unions.

According to Gill and Pratt (2008), there is a fulfilment experienced by creative workers within the

cultural economy who find their work to be “profoundly satisfying and intensely pleasurable”, and

“speaks of deep attachment, affective bindings, and to the idea of self-expression and self-

actualization through work” (p. 15). This dialogue between work and culture has generated a new

discourse that conceptualises the social, cultural and political experiences of creative workers.

There is a gap in the literature as it does not offer fixed, operational ways to identify makers within

the current economic-geographical paradigm. The literature also does not explain why creative

workers lack a sense of solidarity, even though they share a number of common experiences -- or

why they derive identity from the city that surrounds them as well as the products that they

produce. Given that the political potential of workers within the cultural economy has yet to take

form there is no clearly defined way of understanding the nature of their identity. This is a

contribution of this report.

17

PART II. THE STORY IN THE DATA

This section describes the insights about urban makers that we can glean from analysis of available

secondary datasets – as well as from quantitative data collected as part of the project. We estimate

a potential loss of thousands of firms and making jobs if firms choose to move over redevelopment

and space pressures.

4. EXISTING DATA SOURCES

4.1 INADEQUACY OF EXISTING DATA

In the Phase 1 Report, we identified several data sources that are available for research use. We

conclude that none of these datasets is adequate – by itself or in combination with other datasets –

to understand the economic contributions, spatial arrangement, quantum and other relevant

features of the Urban Manufacturing sectors. The datasets we review are:

• Australia Bureau of Statistics Census (2001. 2006, 2011), including the Journey to Work

(JTW) data

• City of Melbourne Census of Land Use and Employment (CLUE) survey

• Australian Business Register (ABR) data.

Australia Bureau of Statistics Census (2001. 2006, 2011)

The Census of Population and Housing “Census” from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)

provides information on population and is a geographically-comprehensive source of population and

employment profile data. The data is undertaken at a person and household level but reported in

Census geographies. In addition to demographic and household data, journey to work information

can also be derived from the ABS Census. The data profiles the location and occupation of workers

and details the number of jobs by industry. The Census provides us with employment statistics by

location, ANZSIC code (three digit) and occupation in reasonably-large geographies called

Destination Zones (DZ).

The Journey to Work data does not link employer information but matches the employee survey

response with the workplace location. For our project, notable shortfalls with the JTW data include:

� The large geographic area the DZs encompass. In the 2011 Census, for instance, the

Melbourne CBD was a single DZ. These broad geographies do not allow analysis of clustering

and small-area nuance.

� The lack of consistency of DZ with other geographic levels from the Census.

� The lack of consistency in DZ boundaries between each census period.

� It does not provide information on firm size.

Given the above, we can use the Census data to estimate the size of a sector, i.e., how many people

work in certain kinds of industries and in certain kinds of jobs. However, the Census gives us no way

of knowing whether those people work in small, medium or large firms.

18

City of Melbourne Census of Land Use and Employment (CLUE) Survey

The City of Melbourne has prepared the Census of Land Use and Employment (CLUE) survey which

provides comprehensive information about firms (identified within CLUE as ‘Establishments’) within

the City of Melbourne. CLUE is prepared by undertaking a physical inspection of these firms within

the entire City of Melbourne area which is broken into a city block geographic level. The key data

variables of relevance for our project include:

� industry structure and type (ANZSIC code and number of establishments or business

locations).

� floor space type and use (office, retail, industrial, accommodation, entertainment, office

vacancy rates).

� employment type and status (full time, part time, casual, contractor, male and female).

� building information (number of floors, year of construction, gross floor area, lettable area).

� venue and capacity measures (i.e. off street car parking spaces, bicycle and shower facilities,

conference and meeting seats etc.).

CLUE data provides information of firm size in addition to providing many other important indicators

and a firm’s precise location. CLUE has been collected since 1962 and has been regularly collected –

every two years since 2000 (City of Melbourne, 2014). The dataset provides a useful longitudinal

picture of land use and employment in the City of Melbourne. For our project, drawbacks of CLUE

data are:

� The dataset is available only for the City of Melbourne and not for the other IMAP councils.

� The dataset is not set up to track individual firms from CLUE to CLUE.

Australian Business Register data (ABR)

ABR data provides a measurement on all registered businesses, which are required to formally register

for taxation purposes.

Firm characteristics available of relevance for this project include:

• entity name

• business name

• main business address

• additional business location address

• ANZSIC code.

Whilst limited data is released at a firm level, the comparison and understanding that the ABR data

provides at an industry level provides a guide to the number of firm births, firm deaths and net

position. Around 80 percent of the addresses for these firms have been geocoded and these files

were made available for the research team thus providing the actual location of each firm. This

geocoded ABR data is available for all of Australia allowing comparisons of the IMAP area with other

parts of Melbourne.

There are, however, significant limitations that prevent this data from being useful for our study.

ABR data does not provide information that can inform research about firm productivity, growth or

size. This makes it impossible for small makers to be identified from the dataset.

19

In 2014 the ABR purged around two million registered firms from their rolls on the grounds that the

firms did not meet the criteria for engaging in commerce. Many of these were hobbyists. These

purged firms may contain some small makers. We expect our qualitative research to address the

issues of some firms that were dropped from ABR rolls.

4.2 WORKING DEFINITIONS

It was necessary to make some determinations about firm size so that statistics could be reported.

The following categories were developed for data sources where employee numbers were available:

• Very Small: 5 or fewer employees

• Small: 6-20 employees

• Medium: 21-50 employees

• Large: 51 or more employees.

Other variables that could be used to define makers or urban manufacturers include economic

output or floorspace requirements but these data are even more difficult to gather via survey. In

addition to firm size it was necessary for the statistics below to be specific about which industrial

categories were to be included. At this stage, as per the “What makes a maker” section above, we

did not wish to be too prescriptive about what kinds of firms should be included as makers.

For this reason, the results shown below reflect all ANZSIC codes that indicate that a made product

is the central focus of the business. In short, we allowed all of the firms listed under the

“Manufacturing” category in to be included. Additionally, outside of the manufacturing sectors,

there are ANZSIC categories for firms engaged in activities that result in made products. These

largely correspond to print media, film and television products such as printing and publishing,

studio and set design and other similar categories. These additional categories, about 10 ANZSIC

codes, were also included in the statistics generated below. We used four-digit ANZSIC codes

because the categories reflected, e.g. textile product manufacturing or motor vehicle manufacturing

are specific enough to be comprehensible to a general audience and meaningful for analysis but not

too specific that the number of makers engaged in those categories is very few.

Finally, we include a number of retail and warehousing ANZSIC codes. We do this because our

interviews (results shown in Part III) suggest that makers do a variety of tasks, including retail, as a

core part of their business. The full list of ANZSIC codes used appears in Appendix A. In the sections

below, we review the ABR data. We describe “candidate” making firms because it is impossible from

the data we have to discern the size of most of the firms.

The JTW and CLUE data was reviewed in the Phase 1 report.

4.3 MAGNITUDE AND QUANTUM

The ABR data indicate that there are 43,670 businesses in the IMAP+Moreland area that match our

selected ANZSIC codes. We call these, “candidate making businesses.”

Table 4.1 shows the number of these businesses by LGA and illustrates their distribution across the

study area. We note that this sample only includes businesses that have active ABNs.

20

Table 4.1. Number of Candidate Making Businesses in the IMAP+Moreland Study Area

Council Area N %

Melbourne 8,849 20%

Maribyrnong 3,005 7%

Moreland 13,070 30%

Port Phillip 7,000 16%

Stonnington 5,793 13%

Yarra 5,953 14%

Total 43,670 100%

Figure 4.1. Distribution of Candidate Making Businesses as per the ABR Data

We estimate that the IMAP+Moreland study area has around 18,589 small making firms and 59,300

associated jobs.

4.4 ZONING LAND DISTRIBUTION

In this section, we describe the distribution of the jobs data by council and land use zoning type.

Table 4.2 shows the distribution of land area in the IMAP+Moreland area from two data sources:

• LGA data provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for 2016 (Australian Bureau of

Statistics, 2016).

• land use zones for 2016 provided by the Victorian Government, Department of

Environment, Land, Water, and Planning - “PlanZone” data.

We use the GIS projection provided by the ABS in its data packs, the GDA94, EPSG 4283. The

PlanZone data is provided in the same projection.

There is some disagreement in the datasets about land areas. ABS data shows an area of 37.351,300

for the Melbourne LGA - (2). Our computations from the same dataset under the ABS’s projection

yield 46,865,261 - (3). The summed compilations of all land use zones in Melbourne from the

PlanZone data is 40,739,187 – (1).

Melbourne

20%Maribyrnong

7%

Moreland

30%

Port Phillip

16%

Stonnington

13%

Yarra

14%

21

The discrepancies between (1) and (3) are not as significant but there is a large disagreement with

(2).

In order to proceed with spatial comparisons, we needed to decide on a common spatial unit. We

have decided to use those reported in columns (1) and (3). All statistics requiring land areas reported

herein are based on these areas. Where we must decide between columns (1) and (3), we select

column (3) because these areas come from published ABS maps.

Table 4.2. Comparison of PlanZone and ABS Land Areas, Square Metres

(1) (2) (3)

LGA

PlanZone

Summed Area

(sq. m)

ABS Area (sq.

m)

Computed

Area, GDA94

(sq. m)

Notes

Melbourne 40,739,187 37,351,300 46,865,251 (a)

Maribyrnong 39,318,962 31,225,400 39,583,846

Moreland 64,643,724 50,951,900 64,530,836

Port Phillip 29,815,766 20,709,200 26,272,781

Stonnington 32,523,179 25,651,400 32,544,035

Yarra 24,795,383 19,542,500 24,773,779

TOTAL 231,836,200 185,431,700 234,570,529

Data Source Vic PlanZone (ABS, 2016) (ABS, 2016)

Notes:

(a) GDA area for Melbourne LGA excludes Port of Melbourne, which has a land area of 489,982

square metres according to the PlanZone dataset

Figure 4.2 shows the distribution of land by zone type for the IMAP+Moreland study area.

49% of land is zoned for residential use. Industrial zoning accounts for 6% and commercial and

mixed-use zones account for 5% and 2% respectively.

Figure 4.3 shows the distribution of land by General Zoning Class for the IMAP+Moreland study area.

Our analysis is focused on the land available for urban manufacturing and making. In order to

simplify the discussion, we collapse the multiple categories of land use into three General Zoning

Classes:

1. Employment zones - those designed to house employment including special classifications of

mixed use such as the Capital City zone, Docklands zoning, Activity Centre zoning and Mixed

Use zoning.

2. Residential zones - if the primary use is residential including residential growth areas.

3. Other zones (e.g. parks and roads)

22

Figure 4.2. Square Metres of Land by Zone, IMAP+Moreland Study Area

111,967,983

12,172,195

7,640,400

5,633,261

3,199,119

14,019,978

2,741,757

14,334,991

2,489,258

1,523,156

15,648,893

5,195,636

32,408,025

39,840

1,748,828

0 40,000,000 80,000,000 120,000,000

RESIDENTIAL ZONES, INCLUDING GENERAL

& NEIGHBORHOOD, SCHEDULES 1-17 & 1-4

COMMERCIAL ZONES 1 & 2

CAPITAL CITY ZONES - SCHEDULE 1-5

MIXED USE ZONE

ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE - SCHEDULE 1

INDUSTRIAL ZONES 1 & 3

RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONSE - SCHEDULES

1 & 2

ROAD ZONE - CATEGORY 1

DOCKLANDS ZONES - SCHEDULES 1-6

COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ZONES -

SCHEDULES 1-3

PUBLIC USE ZONE

SPECIAL USE ZONES - SCHEDULE 1-4

PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION ZONE

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE - SCHEDULE

1

COMMONWEALTH LAND NOT

CONTROLLED BY PLANNING SCHEME

Square Metres of Zoned Land Area

49%

5%

3%

2%

1%

6%

1%

6%

1%

1%

7%

2%

14%

0%

1%

0% 20% 40%

Percent of Total LGA Land Area

23

Figure 4.3. Zoning in the IMAP+Moreland Study Area, General Zoning Categorie

Figure 4.4 disaggregates the data by council.

Yarra has a higher concentration of commercial zoning (13% versus 3-6% for other councils).

Yarra and Melbourne have higher concentrations of mixed use zoning (5% and 6% versus 0-2%

for the other councils).

Melbourne, Maribyrnong and Moreland have higher concentrations of industrial zoning (6-14

% versus 0-3% for the other councils).

24

Figure 4.4. Distribution of Zoning Types by Council, Number and Percent

0 20,000,000 40,000,000

RESIDENTIAL ZONES, INCLUDING GENERAL

& NEIGHBORHOOD, SCHEDULES 1-17 & 1-4

COMMERCIAL ZONES 1 & 2

CAPITAL CITY ZONES - SCHEDULE 1-5

MIXED USE ZONE

ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE - SCHEDULE 1

INDUSTRIAL ZONES 1 & 3

Square Metres of Zoned Land Area

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Percent of Total LGA Land Area

YARRA

STONNINGTON

PORT PHILLIP

MORELAND

MARIBYRNONG

MELBOURNE

25

Collapsed into the three General Zoning Classes we get a simpler comparison of the five LGAs.

The six councils differ significantly in the proportion of their lands available for employment

from Melbourne’s 39% to Stonnington’s 8%. A summary of the lands contained in each class is

shown in Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5. Percent of Lands in General Zoning Class, IMAP+Moreland Study Area

39%

28%

10%

18%

8%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

MEL

BOU

RNE

MARIB

YRNO

NG

MO

RELAND

PORT

PHILLI

P

STO

NNIN

GTON

YARRA

Pe

rce

nt

of

Lan

d i

n L

GA

All Residen al Zones

All Employment Zones

All Other Zones

26

4.5 FIRM OFFERINGS

Figure 4.6 shows the 33 most-represented ANZSIC codes in the IMAP+Moreland area by

number of firms.

All of these ANZSIC codes have more than 200 firms and together represent 35,321 (81%) of

the area’s firms.

Figure 4.6 shows that only four of these ANZSIC codes are actual manufacturers (***), most

are service firms.

These trends hold across most councils.

Figure 4.6. ANZSIC Codes with More than 200 Firms in the IMAP+Moreland Study Area

8,427

4,625

3,256

2,492

2,156

2,013

1,592

1,397

894

824

746

712

603

527

521

490

477

401

348

338

334

330

321

282

272

253

244

239

207

- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Computer System Design and Related Services

Other Specialised Design Services

Adver sing Services

Engineering Design and Engineering Consul ng

Clothing Retailing

Professional Photographic Services

Mo on Picture and Video Produc on

***CLOTHING MANUFACTURING

Other Store-Based Retailing n.e.c.

Clothing and Footwear Wholesaling

Commission-Based Wholesaling

Scien fic Research Services

Prin ng

Other Specialised Food Retailing

Other Goods Wholesaling n.e.c.

Music and Other Sound Recording Ac vi es

Other Grocery Wholesaling

Electrical, Electronic and Gas Appliance Retailing

Watch and Jewellery Retailing

Other Electrical and Electronic Goods Wholesaling

Furniture Retailing

Computer and Computer Peripheral Retailing

***BAKERY PRODUCT MANUFACTURING

***JEWELLERY AND SILVERWARE MANUFACTURING

Other Hardware Goods Wholesaling

***WOODEN FURNITURE AND UPHOLSTERED SEAT

Liquor Wholesaling

Pharmaceu cal and Toiletry Goods Wholesaling

Sport and Camping Equipment Retailing

Number of Firms

27

Table 4.3 indicates that 55% of firms in our selected ANZSIC codes are service-sector firms and

about 15% each go to manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing.

Table 4.3. ANZSIC Sector Businesses in the IMAP+Moreland Study Area

Council Area N %

Manufacturing 6,766 15.5%

Wholesaling 6,483 14.8%

Retailing 6,421 14.7%

Services 24,005 55.0%

Total 43,675* 100.0%

* Five of these operate in the port area and are known to be larger than

five businesses, so are not included in subsequent computations

4.6 LOCATION IN ZONES

A majority of firms appearing in the ABR data are located in the various residential zones.

Figure 4.7 shows that of the 43,670 firms registered across the IMAP+Moreland study area

(excluding the Port of Melbourne) 22,741 are located in General Residential or Neighbourhood

Residential zones.

Commercial zones account for 5,133 firms and industrial zones 1,630 firms.

28

Figure 4.7. Number of Firms by Zone, IMAP+Moreland Study Area

Figure 4.8 shows the same data disaggregated by council.

All the councils, other than Melbourne, have similar proportions of firms in residential zones.

The relative number of candidate maker firms in commercial, mixed use and industrial zones is

compared with firms located in residential areas. Stonnington council has the largest number

and proportion of firms located in Activity Centre zones.

22,741

7,118

5,133

3,046

1,796

1,630

753

678

399

165

119

53

24

14

1

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

RESIDENTIAL ZONES, INCLUDING GENERAL &

NEIGHBORHOOD, SCHEDULES 1-17 & 1-4

COMMERCIAL ZONES 1 & 2

CAPITAL CITY ZONES - SCHEDULE 1-5

MIXED USE ZONE

ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE - SCHEDULE 1

INDUSTRIAL ZONES 1 & 3

RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONSE - SCHEDULES 1 & 2

ROAD ZONE - CATEGORY 1

DOCKLANDS ZONES - SCHEDULES 1-6

COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ZONES - SCHEDULES 1-3

PUBLIC USE ZONE

SPECIAL USE ZONES - SCHEDULE 1-4

PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION ZONE

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE - SCHEDULE 1

COMMONWEALTH LAND NOT CONTROLLED BY PLANNING

SCHEME

Number of Firms

29

Figure 4.8. Distribution of Candidate Making Firms by Council, Number and Percent

0 5,000 10,000

RESIDENTIAL ZONES,

INCLUDING GENERAL &

NEIGHBORHOOD,

SCHEDULES 1-17 & 1-4

COMMERCIAL ZONES 1 & 2

CAPITAL CITY ZONES -

SCHEDULE 1-5

MIXED USE ZONE

ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE -

SCHEDULE 1

INDUSTRIAL ZONES 1 & 3

Number of Firms

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

RESIDENTIAL ZONES,

INCLUDING GENERAL &

NEIGHBORHOOD,

SCHEDULES 1-17 & 1-4

COMMERCIAL ZONES 1 & 2

CAPITAL CITY ZONES -

SCHEDULE 1-5

MIXED USE ZONE

ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE -

SCHEDULE 1

INDUSTRIAL ZONES 1 & 3

Percent of Firms by Council

YARRA

STONNINGTON

PORT PHILLIP

MORELAND

MARIBYRNONG

MELBOURNE

Looking at candidate making firms per square kilometre of zoned land we can see the highest

concentration occurs in commercial, mixed use, activity centre, and priority development zones

(Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.9. Number of Candidate Making Firms per Zoned Land Area, IMAP+Moreland Study Area

Stonnington has the highest concentration of firms in activity centre zoning.

Port Phillip has the highest concentration in commercial zones (Figure 4.10).

If we conduct an analysis of overall firms per aggregated appropriate land area by council we get a

simpler picture of the concentration of firms.

For the results presented in Figure 4.11 we aggregate the various types of residential, employment

and other zones to provide an overall picture of employment density.

In employment zones, Stonnington achieves the highest employment density for candidate making

firms, with 724.3 per square kilometre. Maribyrnong lags among its partner councils with 83.2.

Moreland has a significant number of firms registered in “other” land uses – particularly road zones

– compared with its peers.

203.1

584.8

671.8

540.7

561.4

116.3

274.6

47.3

160.3

108.3

7.6

10.2

0.7

351.4

0.6

0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0

RESIDENTIAL ZONES, INCLUDING GENERAL &

NEIGHBORHOOD, SCHEDULES 1-17 & 1-4

COMMERCIAL ZONES 1 & 2

CAPITAL CITY ZONES - SCHEDULE 1-5

MIXED USE ZONE

ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE - SCHEDULE 1

INDUSTRIAL ZONES 1 & 3

RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ZONSE - SCHEDULES 1 & 2

ROAD ZONE - CATEGORY 1

DOCKLANDS ZONES - SCHEDULES 1-6

COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ZONES - SCHEDULES 1-3

PUBLIC USE ZONE

SPECIAL USE ZONES - SCHEDULE 1-4

PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION ZONE

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE - SCHEDULE 1

COMMONWEALTH LAND NOT CONTROLLED BY PLANNING

SCHEME

Firms per Square Kilometre of Zoned Land,

Overall

31

Figure 4.10. Candidate Making Firms per Zoned Land Area by Council, Number and Percent

1,096.7

1,008.5

0.0 400.0 800.0 1,200.0

RESIDENTIAL ZONES, INCLUDING

GENERAL & NEIGHBORHOOD,

SCHEDULES 1-17 & 1-4

COMMERCIAL ZONES 1 & 2

CAPITAL CITY ZONES - SCHEDULE

1-5

MIXED USE ZONE

ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE - SCHEDULE

1

INDUSTRIAL ZONES 1 & 3

Firms per Square Kilometre of Zoned Land,

by Council

YARRA

STONNINGTON

PORT PHILLIP

MORELAND

MARIBYRNONG

MELBOURNE

Figure 4.11. Candidate Making Firms per Zoned Land Area by Council, Aggregated Zones

267.6

458.1

3.8

118.0

83.2

4.4

203.3

517.4

48.8

306.7

548.9

2.6

167.0

724.3

3.6

277.9

527.6

1.5

0.0 400.0 800.0

All Residen al Zones

All Employment Zones

All Other Zones

Firms per Square Kilometre of Zoned Land,

by Council

YARRA

STONNINGTON

PORT PHILLIP

MORELAND

MARIBYRNONG

MELBOURNE

5. FINDINGS FROM THE MAKERS.MELBOURNE SURVEY This section reports on the results of two surveys conducted between October 2015 and November

2017 in which 188 makers responded to a short survey hosted on our project site -

makers.melbourne. Of these 188, 106 chose to complete a longer survey on the same site.

Between August and November 2017 we conducted a phone survey through a third-party company,

which generated an additional 114 responses.

5.1 RECRUITING AND SAMPLING

The two surveys were different by virtue of their formats and sampling strategies. We recruited

respondents to the makers.melbourne survey via word of mouth, social media and door knocking.

The phone survey generated responses from a random sample of businesses from lists provided by

our partner councils. These lists included all registered businesses in the council areas. The phone

survey does not include responses from businesses located in the City of Melbourne.

5.2 SURVEY FORMATS

The two surveys are not identical in the content they collected. We present the results of the two

surveys together where it is meaningful and possible to do so and separately where the data

structure does not allow combination.

5.3 RESPONSE RATES

Some response rate data is available. For the makers.melbourne survey the format was opt-in. 188

makers registered on the site and answered some preliminary questions, and of those, 106 opted to

do the longer survey.

Response rate for the phone survey is about 22%. Out of 1,107 firms contacted 615 firms did not

pass a series of screening questions designed to identify currently-operating small urban

manufacturers and makers.

Table 5.1 shows totals of those that did not return phone calls or declined to take the screening

questions. A total of 402 firms declined to respond, which makes the response rate about

114/(402+114) or 22%.

In total, we had a total of 106 surveys completed online, plus 114 surveys completed by phone, for a

total sample size of 220 across the two surveys.

Throughout this section, various sample sizes are reported. Some individual questions had smaller

sample sizes, as some respondents chose not to answer some questions. Some questions allowed

respondents to choose more than one answer, so the total number of responses is larger. These are

explained as necessary.

34

Table 5.1. Phone Survey Response Summary

Response N % Total for

Category

Already Registered on makers.melbourne 2 0.2% 2

Screening Questions

Not a producer or manufacturer 121 10.9%

589

Employs more than 20 people 39 3.5%

Not located in Metro Melbourne 36 3.3%

Not a business 1 0.1%

Business permanently Closed 8 0.7%

Wrong Number 36 3.3%

Phone Disconnected 112 10.1%

No Answer 231 20.9%

Blank 5 0.5%

Nonresponse Reasons

Call Back (probably a refusal) 204 18.4%

402 Refused 104 9.4%

Send Letter / Email 23 2.1%

Refused survey / but interested to register 71 6.4%

Completed Survey 114 10.3% 114

Total Called 1107 100.0% 1107

Response Rate 22.1%

Table 5.2 shows disaggregated response rates by council.

Table 5.2. Response Rates for the Phone Survey

Council Area Total Called Total Passing Screening Responses Response Rate

Maribyrnong 145 61 22 36.1% Moreland 73 27 14 51.9% Port Phillip 294 131 37 28.2% Yarra 361 214 25 11.7% Stonnington 234 83 16 19.3% Total 1107 516 114 22.1%

For some questions with responses reported below respondents were allowed to choose only one

response. For others, they could select as many responses as were appropriate. Thus, the number of

answers reported can vary in the summary statistics given here.

5.4 MAGNITUDE AND QUANTUM

Combining the data we have on response rates and firm size from the two surveys gives us some

sense of how to scale up to our study area.

Of the 599 total jobs represented by the 188 makers.melbourne businesses provides an average of

3.19 jobs per business.

35

Our phone survey did not collect employment data, but we do have a response rate. Of the 1,107

businesses that were called in Moreland, Maribyrnong, Port Phillip, Stonnington, and Yarra, 46.6%

passed the screening questions indicating that they were of the appropriate size (fewer than 20

employees) and make a tangible product. Of those target businesses, 22% responded to the survey.

This suggests that our small urban makers contribute roughly 64,935 jobs to the IMAP+Moreland

study area.

Table 5.3 shows the logic of this computation. According to our ABR lists, there are 43,670

businesses in the ANZSIC codes we identify as relevant to this study. 46.6% of this number is 20,356

total small urban makers in the IMAP+Moreland area. With an average of 3.2 jobs per small maker

firm this computes to an estimate of 64,935 small maker jobs in our study area.

Table 5.3. Jobs Computation

3.2 Average jobs per business (from Section 9.6 below) 46.6% % of businesses that are small urban makers 43,670 Total maker businesses in study area (ABR) 20,356 Total small urban makers in IMAP+Moreland (46.6% x 43,670) 64,935 Estimated total small maker jobs in study area (20,356 x 3.2)

This scaling is problematic because phone survey respondents have different profiles than

makers.melbourne profiles. Phone survey respondents tend to be older businesses that are more

established in their premises, own instead of rent, produce more traditional manufacturing products

and sell them in more traditional ways. The computed response rate is based on a non-stratified

sample which, while of a sufficient size for statistical inference with less than five percent margin of

error (N=1,107), is not composed of responses from the City of Melbourne.

As long as we are willing to accept the variety of kinds of producers that are in this body of 20,000-

plus businesses and the conditions of the sampling, we can use this number to provide a inference of

the size of our small urban maker community in the IMAP+Moreland study area.

5.5 RESPONDENTS

Of 316 total responses (respondents could choose more than one answer), a total of 29% indicated

that they are the founder and/or sole owner of the company. An additional 10% of the responses

indicated that the respondent was a founding partner and 19% of the responses were from

managers.

5.6 JOBS AND FIRM SIZE

Makers employing 20 or fewer employees were invited to participate in the surveys. The phone

survey did not record the number of employees but the makers.melbourne survey asked

respondents to report how many people are employed by their firm1. These makers report

employing 599 people in full-time and casual positions.

Figure 5.1 illustrates the distribution of responses with 74 of the 161 responses (46%) indicating that

only one person is employed there. 65% (114) of the firms have one or two employees and 83%

(134) have five or fewer people employed.

1 We did not ask firms to differentiate between part-time and full-time employees.

36

There is a small increase in the number of first with 8 and 10 people employed, which may suggest a

growth trajectory for small firms as they grow. However, this bump amounts to only 7% of the total

number of firms surveyed.

Figure 5.1. Firm Size, makers.melbourne Survey

5.7 FIRM LONGEVITY

Most of the firms in our samples have been established since 2011. As Figure 5.2 shows, of the 215

responses, 67 percent (145) have been in businesses since 2011 or later. The phone survey,

however, captures a much higher proportion of older firms, with 51 percent (58 of 114) founded

before 2011 compared with 11 percent (11 of 101) of the makers.melbourne firms founded before

2011. This probably reflects the life cycle of the businesses and the age of the founders and

managers.

Another interesting difference between the two surveys is the spike at 2015 for the

makers.melbourne results. Even though a roughly-comparable number of respondents provided

answers for this question (101 for makers.melbourne versus 114 for the phone survey), many more

respondents reported founding their firms in 2015 in the makers.melbourne survey (35 versus 6 in

the phone survey).

The phone survey firms are also older. Table 5.4 shows the median and mean years of

establishment for the overall sample as well as for the two surveys. The median phone survey

respondent’s firms was established four years earlier than the median makers.melbourne survey

respondent’s (2010 versus 2014).

Table 5.4. Comparison of Establishment Year

Survey N Median Year Mean Year* Std Dev of

Year

makers.melbourne Survey 106 2014 2011 9.64

Phone Survey 114 2010 1988 11.45

Total or Pooled Measure 220 2013 1999 135.83

* The difference is statistically significant at the 0.002 level

0 20 40 60 80

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

Number of Firms Responding

Nu

mb

er

of

Em

plo

ye

es

37

Figure 5.2. Year Firm Established – Combined and Disaggregated Responses

5.8 FIRM OFFERINGS

Our survey responses concord with a major conclusion of the analysis of existing secondary data

from the CLUE: that the “other” category is strongly and disproportionately represented among

makers. Of the 293 responses to a query about the product that the firm makes, combined across

the two surveys. 70 makers elected the “other” category, with the next most-frequent category

being Art and Culture, with 30 responses.

This data also suggests that most of our makers are concentrated in a handful of categories. Of the

293 responses, 226 (77 percent) are concentrated in eight categories with ten or more responses.

Information Media is one of these categories. There is some contention among planners and

scholars about whether service-focused businesses that design virtual images and products should

be included in the making category. We allowed respondents to self-identify as makers. Thus, the

representation of these information services in our survey responses suggests that a making identity

exists among at least some small “digital” makers.

In addition to the kinds of products that the makers make, we also sough information on the kinds of

activities that comprise the business they do. Consistent with the inclusion of service-based making

and making that does not result in made goods, our makers report higher incidence of warehousing,

1

2

2

1

1

2

1

2

3

2

1

5

3

3

5

3

4

3

5

4

3

4

4

5

14

17

16

31

41

23

3

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

1957

1967

1974

1975

1976

1977

1980

1983

1987

1989

1994

1996

1997

1999

2000

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Haven't started yet

Number of Responses

Ye

ar

Est

ab

lish

ed

Total of Both Surveys

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

1957

1967

1974

1975

1976

1977

1980

1983

1987

1989

1994

1996

1997

1999

2000

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Haven't started yet

Number of Responses

Phone and makers.melbourne Surveys

Phone Survey

makers.melbourne Survey

38

marketing, and sales than product design. This makes sense: most firms that produce a product also

need to store, market, sell that product.

Phone survey respondents are more likely to engage in warehousing, sales, and training as a

significant part of their workflow. Figure 5.3 shows the overall and relative distributions of the

surveys. The makers.melbourne respondents are more likely to focus on product design and much

less likely to have warehousing as a major part of their business.

Figure 5.3. Types of Activities, Aggregated and Disaggregated

5.9 THE “OTHER” IN A MAKER’S IDENTITY

A strong theme that emerges throughout this work is the strong identity that makers experience and

an associated difficulty that they experience in self-classification. This comes through in this data as

well as in our qualitative work in Part III.

14 percent (27) of the makers.melbourne survey respondents and 38 percent (43) of the phone

survey respondents were not able to classify themselves in one of the proffered categories – instead

opting for the “other” classification.

This high incidence of “other” suggests that some makers may not feel that their products and

services fit into the proffered categories. For instance, a photographer and a theatre production

company opted for “other” rather than selecting the Arts and Culture category, a maker of culinary

knives selected “other” rather than a option for housewares or metal products, and a maker of

biodegradable and recycled plastic products opted not to classify her work in the Plastic Products

category. This further suggests that new ANZSIC categories may be appropriate.

5.10 LOCATION AND MIGRATION

Our phone survey did not capture any firms currently located in the City of Melbourne. Figure 5.4

shows the distribution of responses by current location.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent of Respondents

Phone and makers.melbourne Surveys

Phone Survey

makers.melbourne

Survey

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Product design

Marke ng

Direct to Public Sales

Training

Warehousing/storage

Other

Percent of Respondents

Total of Both Surveys

39

Figure 5.4. Current Firm Location, Phone Survey

Firms responding to the phone survey reported being about equally likely to move or remain

stationary over the next five years. Of the 114 firms responding, 52 percent (59) have not moved

locations in the past five years and 48 percent (54) have either moved within the same council or

between councils. Of these, 37 percent (20) moved within their own council, and 63 percent moved

from one council to another.

All of our firms have current locations in the IMAP+Moreland study area. Of the 54 firms that have

relocated, 76 percent (41) have moved from moved from another IMAP+Moreland location, and 24

percent (13) have moved from outside the IMAP+Moreland study area. Those that moved from

outside the study area came from a variety of places, including one from regional Victoria, one from

the Sydney metropolitan area, and eleven from other suburbs in the Melbourne metropolitan area.

None moved from the IMAP to Moreland or vice versa.

Among the five councils surveyed in the phone survey, there is some variation in the age of firms.

Figure 5.5 shows that Moreland has the youngest firms, with a median establishment date of 2014.

Maribyrnong’s firms are the youngest, with a median establishment date of 2003.

We tested whether there is an association between the longevity of a maker firm and its tendency to

move locations. We categorised firms based on whether they have moved into the study area, have

always been in the study area but had moved within that area, or have been in the IMAP+Moreland

area and never moved. Table 5.5 shows the results, which do not show and evidence of statistical

association.

38 percent of firms across both samples indicated that they may move within the next five years.

This distribution varies across the two surveys.

Figure 5.6 illustrates that 47 percent of online survey respondents indicate that they may move in

the next five years, while only 29 percent of phone survey respondents indicate that they may move.

There is also some variation by council, though we note that the results are not spatially

representative. Figure 5.7 indicates that, of those councils where data were available for the phone

survey, firms in Moreland, Maribyrnong, and Port Phillip express a higher likelihood of moving than

those located in Yarra and Stonnington.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

spo

nse

s

40

Figure 5.5. Current Firm Location and Year of Establishment, Phone Survey

Table 5.5. Comparison of Establishment Year Based on Relocation Status

Relocation Status N Median Year Mean Year* Std Dev of

Year

Moved from Outside IMAP+Moreland 12 2009 2005 9.64

Moved within IMAP+Moreland 41 2012 2007 11.45

Never Moved 61 2010 2003 13.52

Total or Overall Measure 114 2010 2005 12.43

* There is no statistical evidence to suggest that the average year of establishment is different for

firms that have different relocation histories

Figure 5.6. Firms Possibly Planning a Move over the Next Five Years, by Survey

2003

2014

2012

2005

2009

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ye

ar

Fir

m E

sta

bli

she

d (

Re

d L

ine

)

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

spo

nse

s (B

lue

Ba

rs)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

makers.melbourne Survey Phone Survey

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

41

Figure 5.7. Firms Possibly Planning a Move over the Next Five Years, by Council, Phone Survey

Only

(Not spatially representative)

Of the 30 phone survey respondents and 50 makers.melbourne respondents who indicate that they

might relocate in the next five years, all cite expansion space and adequacy of facilities as significant

reasons that they are considering a move. These distributions are summarised in Figure 5.8.

Councils are right to worry that inadequate space is a significant factor in form relocation. Our

results concord with Chapple (2014), who finds that inadequate space for expansion is a significant

factor in firm relocation in the San Francisco Bay Area.

There are some differences across the two surveys, also. Phone survey respondents are more

attuned to the costs of rent and factors related to scaled operations (availability of labor, regulatory

compliance, space) while the makers.melbourne respondents think that they are more impacted by

redevelopment pressures. Figure 8 shows the distribution of responses.

There is agreement across the surveys about where they will resettle if necessary, as shown in Figure

5.9. The vast majority prefer to stay within the inner Melbourne area, followed closely by the

remainder of the Melbourne metropolitan region. However, a collective 13 percent will consider

moving out of the Melbourne area and into regional Victoria, interstate, or overseas. A further 39

percent would move out of the IMAP+Moreland study area.

Of the 599 jobs represented by the 188 makers.melbourne businesses, this represents a loss of 49

jobs from the study area and 62 jobs from the Melbourne metropolitan area.

Applying this same proportion to the estimated 20,356 maker firms and 64,935 jobs in the

IMAP+Moreland study area, this may mean that

� 10,584 firms may be seriously considering leaving the IMAP+Moreland study area,

representing a loss of 33,766 jobs

� 2,646 firms may be seriously considering leaving the Melbourne Metropolitan area,

representing a loss of 8,441 jobs

� 1,629 firms may be seriously considering leaving Victoria, representing a loss of 5,195

jobs.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Marib

yrnong

More

land

Port P

hillip

Yarr

a

Stonnin

gton P

erc

en

t o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

in C

ou

nci

l A

rea

42

We alert the reader that these numbers are based on survey responses only and do not reflect net

firm churn and attrition. That is, these numbers reflect only those existing firms that are signalling a

possible relocation – not, for instance, the new firms that might replace them in the premises that

they leave empty when they depart. These net effects are beyond the scope of this study, but are

important to understanding the overall impacts of small makers on the metropolitan economy.

Figure 5.8. Reasons for Possible Relocation, by Survey

(respondents could select more than one answer)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cost of rent

End of lease or lease

termina on

Inadequate space for

produc on

Poor facili es

Redevelopment

Availability of Labor

Product Failure

Cost of Regulatory

Compliance

Market / Client

Condi ons

Other

Percent of Respondents

Phone Survey

makers.melbourne

Survey

43

Figure 5.9. Planned or Anticipated Resettlement Location

5.11 SPACE

In general, the older firms we surveyed have larger premises. Older firms have either grown into

larger spaces or that younger firms are either unable to acquire larger spaces or do not require

them. Figure 5.10 shows a scatterplot of the relationship between establishment year and pooled

production and office space for the full range of establishment dates, back to 1957, and also zoomed

in to the 2011-2017 period.

Table 5.6 shows the relationship between the survey used and the production space, suggesting that

it is the types of firms captured by the two survey formats that is more important to the kinds of

space they use. Our phone survey respondents operate in a median of 200 square meters, while our

online respondents operate in a median of 35 square meters. The mean values are roughly

commensurate.

Figure 5.11 shows the trends in operating space for the two surveys since 2011. We provide this

analysis to take out the effect of longevity, since more firms in the phone survey were established

earlier, before 2011.

The trends since 2011 are actually upward for both surveys – in contrast to longer-term trends

shown in Figure 5.10. However, the phone survey respondents are showing much larger upward

trends: a slope of 29.4 compared with 8.6 for the online respondents. This suggests that newer

firms across the two samples are acquiring more space now than in previous years, but that phone

survey respondents either require more space or are able to acquire it, or both.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Within inner

Melbourne

Within Melbourne

(remainder)

Regional Victoria

Interstate

Overseas

Percent of Responses

Combined Surveys

Phone Survey

makers.melbourne

Survey

44

Figure 5.10. Relationship between Operating Space and Establishment Year, Combined Surveys

Table 5.6. Comparison of Production Space and Establishment Year Based

Survey N Median Year

Median

Production

Space (sq. m)

Mean

Production

Space (sq. m)

makers.melbourne Survey 106 2014 35.0 111.8

Phone Survey 81 2011 200.0 497.0

Total or Pooled Measure 220 2013 64.0 278.6

* The difference is statistically significant at the 0.002 level

Figure 5.11. Relationship between Operating Space and Establishment Year since 2011

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1957 1967 1977 1987 1997 2007 2017 Squ

are

Me

ters

of

Pro

du

co

n a

nd O

ffic

e S

pa

ce

Year Established

1957-2017

y = -15.872x + 32129

R² = 0.121

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year Established

2011-2017

y = 8.6342x - 17303

R² = 0.00465

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Sq

ua

re M

ete

rs o

f P

rod

uc

on a

nd O

ffic

e S

pa

ce

Year Established

makers.melbourne Survey

y = 29.43x - 59012

R² = 0.01928

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year Established

Phone Survey

45

6. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION

In this section, we provide visualisations of the distribution of candidate making firms as well as a

basic simulation of a possible scenario of the actual distribution of small makers. We note that the

simulations provided here are rough, based on a simple, step-down, proportional method of

projection and the response rates from our telephone survey.

The reader will recall that we used the call records from the telephone survey to estimate the

proportion of firms that fit our criteria for small urban manufacturers. The telephone survey has

more than 1,000 responses (firms screened) across the three councils, which is sufficient for a

roughly 3 percent margin of error in estimating this proportion presuming a random sample.

However, we do not advise further disaggregation across councils because of the small sample sizes

inside each of the council areas. We caution our readers to interpret these visualisations with these

limitations in mind.

6.1 VISUALISATION AND SIMULATION AREAS

We start with the general zoning categories we produced, which assemble three basic types of land

use zoning: residential, employment, and other. Figure 6.1 illustrates these lands by LGA in the

study area.

Figure 6.1. Zoning in the IMAP+Moreland Study Area, General Zoning Categories

46

6.2 ALL FIRMS VISUALISATION

Of much interest to our partners is the distribution and clustering of firms across the different types

of zones and in space. Figure 6.2 shows the location of all firms appearing in the ABR dataset that

match our ANZSIC classifications. These “candidate making firms” are each represented with one

small black dot.

Figure 6.2. Firms and Zoning in the IMAP+Moreland Study Area, General Zoning Categories, All

ABR Firms

6.3 SIMULATED DISTRIBUTION

Based on the estimate from our phone survey, reported in the previous chapter, 42.6 percent of

firms match our criteria for small urban manufacturing. Figure 4.15 reflects one possible simulation

of the spatial distribution of making firms in the IMAP+Moreland study area. To arrive at this spatial

distribution, we randomly sampled 43 percent of the firms appearing in Figure 6.3, across the IMAP

area.

An analysis of small maker clusters, urban manufacturing clusters, and sector-based distribution of

firms is beyond the scope of this study. Because this visualisation and simulation is based only on

candidate firms – not an actual dataset with known firm and firm size – such an analysis would be

premature.

47

Figure 6.3. Zoning in the IMAP+Moreland Study Area, General Zoning Categories, Simulation of 43

Percent of All ABR Firms

Appendix B shows smaller-area images for the simulated distribution of firms, by council.

48

PART III. THE QUALITATIVE EXPERIENCE OF MAKING IN

MELBOURNE

This section describes the series of qualitative studies that we undertook to explore the intangible

and difficult-to-measure components of making.

7. DEFINING MAKING AND MANUFACTURING

Many of our government partners and maker participants have stressed a need for a definition of

what we mean by “maker.” The purpose of this chapter is to describe what our empirical

explorations say about defining makers and distinguishing them from manufacturers.

Definition is a complex issue, which we address in this section. Certainly, for the purposes of

statistical analysis, it was necessary to define key terms like “small” and “manufacturing.” Creating a

precise definition is sometimes necessary; for instance, when using the CLUE data, to establish cut-

offs between small and very small businesses, or to establish which ANZSIC codes to explore.

The exploration of the definition was built into this project. We have known from project

conception that the state of knowledge about what Melbourne’s makers do and who they are, is

limited. We find from the in-depth, qualitative, empirical investigations that there are key features

of small urban makers in Melbourne that do not emerge from reviews of the literature, presented in

this section.

7.1. THE ISSUE OF DEFINITION

Early in this project, the team decided not to settle on definitions too early. This, we hypothesised,

would engender unnecessary false precision. We conclude that this strategy has served the project

well. Delaying definition has allowed us to question established definitions for their appropriateness

in the Melbourne context, and to generate a more-robust profile of Melbourne’s makers.

7.2 THE CLUE DATA PROVIDES A GLIMPSE OF WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW

Unlike the ABR and JTW datasets, it is possible with the CLUE data to isolate small and very small firms.

Figure 7.1 shows the distribution of the ten sectors with the largest representation of small makers in

the City of Melbourne by ANZSIC (3 digit) code. This figure underscores how little we now about small

makers, even when very fine-grained datasets like CLUE are available. At the three-digit level, the vast

majority of very small firms in the making categories are classified simply as “Other.”

49

Figure 7.1. Firms by ANZSIC and Size, CLUE Data, 2012

Source: 2012 Census of Land Use and Employment (CLUE)

8. WHAT MAKES A MAKER? NETWORKING, SERVICE, AND I NNOVATION – AND IDENTITY

This section provides a detailed description of what it means to be a maker in Melbourne. We have

assembled a picture of maker identity and aspiration, concluding that the “new” manufacturing

firms often have very different aspirations than their scale-manufacturing counterparts.

We generated 53 interviews over these studies. We have also talked to dozens of makers,

government officers, activists, and creative since this project began in early 2015 – about what it

means to be a maker in Melbourne.

The makers we studied:

• identify as both “makers” and “manufacturers”

• have strong associations with, and derive Identity from, their host communities

• do not appear to take advantage of traditional concerns of location, e.g., labor, supplier, or

customer access

• do not aspire to mass production

• are not strong innovators

• distrust associations but link through informal networks

• do not generally engage in sharing economies

• are not politically organised or networked.

We do not present a detailed methodological approach for the qualitative studies here, for brevity.

Interested readers should contact the University of Melbourne research team for full study

descriptions.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Other Manufacturing

Printing and Printing Support Services

Clothing and Footwear Manufacturing

Professional and Scientific Equipment…

Bakery Product Manufacturing

Textile Product Manufacturing

Specialised Machinery and Equipment…

Furniture Manufacturing

Polymer Product Manufacturing

Computer and Electronic Equipment…

Firms by firm size (2012)

Small Very Small

50

The research questions we address here are:

1. What does it mean to be a small urban manufacturer is Melbourne?

2. What is the level of servicisation among urban manufacturers in Melbourne?

3. What challenges do service-oriented urban manufacturers face in their current locations?

4. How important is an inner city location for urban manufacturers?

5. Does being servicised create different ways of operation, different needs and different

constraints for inner city presence of small manufacturers in Melbourne?

6. What are the primary motivations behind creative firms choosing to locate where they do?

7. Do the subject sites exhibit the types of interaction generally associated with an industrial

cluster?

8. Why don’t makers organise?

8.1 THEY ARE “MAKERS” AND “MANUFACTURERS”

We have left the query about the language that describes people who make tangible items in the

central city, to the makers themselves – examining the language that our interview respondents

used to describe themselves.

We begin with perhaps the most straightforward distinction – that of firm size. It is difficult to

prescribe what ‘small’ means in practice. Almost all of our makers (all but one) employed fewer

than 10 people. The vast majority were enterprises of five or fewer, and half were sole proprietors.

Small, then, is probably somewhere lower than ten employees. But beyond that kind of arbitrary

cut-off, the question of whether that company is engaged in making is ultimately guided by whether

they identify with the general characteristics of being a maker.

We stress the interchangeable nature of the two terms, “maker” and “manufacturer.” That is, our

interviewees often used both terms to describe themselves – sometimes even in the same sentence.

This suggests a certain yet-undecided identity for Melbourne’s makers – or perhaps an identity that

acknowledges its place between the “old” manufacturing and the “new.”

All of our companies that refer to themselves as “makers” are also small. This is not to say that only

small companies identify as “makers.” Interviewees at our larger companies also used the same

language. Similarly, our makers with aspirations to produce at scale, typically refer to themselves as

“manufacturers,” but again, not always.

There is no one subset of industry classification codes that describe makers: making happens in

many different industries to different extents. This leads us to examine the question of ‘what makes

a maker’ through a more generic lens, focusing on the perspectives of maker behaviour and maker

location preference.

8.2 THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A “NEW” MANUFACTURING SECTOR IN MELBOURNE

Perhaps the strongest finding from our qualitative work is that there is evidence of a shift away from

traditional models of manufacturing in Melbourne, toward “new” conceptions of making.

Drucker (1990) introduced the term "new manufacturing” for the first time. In a more recent study,

Marceau, Cook, Dalton, and Wixted (2002) have used the same term to explain the recent growth in

service industries due to the growth of “new manufacturing” in which manufacturers are

increasingly incorporating services into their offerings to customers. Their study suggests the growth

of a multiplicity of competitive strategies with a service focus, in which:

51

• As an essential part of what has been called ‘new manufacturing’, manufacturers are

increasingly incorporating services into their offerings to customers;

• Service firms are increasingly adding a range of services to products produces by others;

• Project-based firms are linking services and products to services.

The most important overall message from their study is that “manufacturing is clearly not in

decline.” They argue that manufacturing is in a process of transformation to meet the demands of

new markets. If this is true, it is good news for Melbourne, Australia’s most industrial city.

8.3 MELBOURNE’S MAKERS DERIVE IDENTITY FROM PLACE

Our study is centred on six of the core suburbs of Melbourne. It is, then, not surprising that our

makers express a strong attachment and desire to continue their location in the urban core. The link

between neighbourhood reputation and attracting customers was a frequently-occurring topic

among manufacturers.

Urban location is clearly important for maker identity. This identity is derived by a sense of

attachment by makers to the places where they work, and also by their customers’ attachment to

and identity with place.

8.4 MAKERS DISTRUST ASSOCIATIONS

A strong theme in the findings has been that makers we have spoken to have, to date, neither

developed a formal organisational structure for advocacy, nor do they particularly believe that

membership in currently-existing formal organisations are beneficial for them.

Our furniture makers describe the irrelevance of associations in their work.

Some makers initially held memberships of industry organizations, but lapsed after a certain time.

One tofu maker in Richmond, expressed frustration with our project in an early conversation, saying

he’s seen a lot of council-led directory projects tried and abandoned. He also expressed distrust of

the council’s use of Chamber of Commerce fees, which he says he sees very little benefit from.

When makers do join an industry group however, they are typically passive members.

Our Policy Reference Group found that most peak bodies do not have awareness of makers as a

sector – which could also help to explain why makers are not represented in these types of bodies.

8.5 INNOVATION IS PRESENT BUT NOT PERVASIVE IN THE MAKING SCENE

We often think of innovation is an improvement in a product or service, however in practice

innovation takes various forms. It is clear from the interviews that innovation in Melbourne’s making

community is incremental and not entirely aligned with all of the key features that we might

associate with the “new” manufacturing.

We do not find evidence of a highly-networked sector – a key feature of urban manufacturing. We

interrogate those forms of innovation that are most relevant to our makers:

1. Service innovation

2. Process innovation and related adaptations

3. Networked innovation.

52

Service Innovation

The small manufacturers participating in our studies seemed to be more incrementally innovative,

and in most cases, they wouldn’t consider themselves as being innovative. When the makers were

asked about what they strive for in a commission, often they identified custom design as a priority

over technological innovation. It was often after the interview that it became clear to us that they

are innovative in terms of finding solutions to address customers’ needs. Most innovation was

observed in the category of Management and Marketing.

Process Innovation

Innovation is not limited to the products and services that manufacturers provide. In some

cases such as Water Side Metal Art, a blacksmith in Footscray, even the space they have created as

their workshop is innovative and filled with equipment that are custom made for their business.

Innovation also occurs in technique and style.

Networked Innovation

The study of furniture makers queried the particular features of networked innovation. Our analysis

suggests that networked innovation is not strong among Melbourne’s makers. Melbourne makers’

engagements with other parties are predominantly transactional processes. Frequently, wooden

furniture manufacturers cooperated with fabricating firms (to finish a table base or some other steel

pieces, for example) on the basis of the facilities and expertise they don’t have: “If it is beyond my

expertise, I will outsource it, I can send it to metalworker I [trust] who does like fabricating and

welding - things like that.” A metal furniture maker similarly remarks: “I could learn, as I don’t have

the skills to weld. But mainly it is easier and probably cheaper: if I get someone else to do the work,

I don’t have to [maintain a] metal workshop and tools.” It was nevertheless evident that these

outsourcing interactions were relatively rare.

9. PEAK BODY CONSULTATION

We interviewed representatives from eight peak bodies to confirm or refute these conclusions.

Fourteen peak groups contacted, and eight responded to the survey shown in Appendix D.

Responded Did not respond

Design Institute of Australia (DIA) Council of textile & fashion

Australian Design Alliance (ADA) Specialised Textiles Association

Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre

Australian Advanced Manufacturing Council (AAMC) South East Melbourne Manufacturers Alliance Inc

Australian Industry Group (AIG) Australian Furniture Association

Property Council of Australia, Victoria (PCAV)

Manufacturing Skills Australia (MSA)

Australian Manufacturing Technology Institute

Limited (AMTIL)

The survey sought the Peak Groups’ views on:

• the extent to which they are aware of New Urban Manufacturers or Makers

• the organisation they consider would be most appropriate to represent Makers

• any current issues they consider would be relevant to Makers

• whether industrially zoned land in the inner city region should be kept for industrial activities in

general or specifically for Maker activities

53

• whether the pressure from land being rezoned from industrial to residential would force Maker

businesses to close or relocate to outer metropolitan areas.

9.1 THE PEAK BODIES ARE NOT YET ENGAGED WITH MAKERS

Only two of the eight Peak Groups that responded to the survey, the Design Institute of Australia

(DIA) and Australian Design Alliance (ADA), were familiar with the term, “maker,” and more

generally with New Urban Manufacturing. All expressed interest in further involvement in the

Urban Manufacturing project and makers.

Despite not being directly engaged with the making community, some peak groups expressed views

regarding appropriate maker representation. The DIA, the Peak Group for the design sector,

considers that it would be the most appropriate organisation to represent Makers.

Apart from the DIA, none of the other organisations interviewed considered that they were the most

appropriate to represent Makers, primarily because the description provided was considered too

broad. They considered that representation by one group would be too difficult due to the varied

nature of activities within the Maker definition provided.

9.2 THE PEAK BODIES CONCUR THAT THE ANZSICS ARE PROBLEMATIC

VCCI explained that it is often hard to categorise firms into an Australian and New Zealand Standard

Industrial Classification (ANZSIC). An example is the classification Advanced Manufacturing. In one

sense, any manufacturing firm operating today falls into this category because they have had to

update their production methods with new technology to stay in business.

Although this explanation is not specifically directed at our maker community, it does suggest that a

review of ANZSIC codes to include new categories of production could be a worthwhile activity.

54

PART IV. THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the local and international policy environment around making.

We start with a review of relevant international policies, and then we focus in on the local policies in

Australia and Victoria that either constrain or support a maker-supportive environment.

10. INTERNATIONAL POLICY REVIEW

Five exemplar cities were identified for the purpose of this review, each of these cities featuring in

urban manufacturing scholarly literature as having, in one form or another, a vibrant and thriving

urban manufacturing and/or creative scene: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Berlin, Germany;

Detroit, USA; London, UK; and Vancouver, Canada.

The aim of this review is to understand what strategies and policies are in place in each of these

cities to achieve this outcome and identify common threads between these approaches which may

help local policymakers adapt these successful cases in a Melbourne context.

10.1 AMSTERDAM

Amsterdam and Berlin are two cities synonymous with embracing creative and alternative cultures.

More than other cities in the study, both of these cities play host to co-working or shared spaces

which come in various different forms, ranging from grassroots labs to co-working labs, company-

owned labs, university-affiliated labs, and incubators and accelerators (Senate Department for

Economics, 2013).

In support of their start-up culture, Amsterdam have developed a comprehensive support program

StartupAmsterdam that is based around the five elements of:

• “Talent - Make an abundance of start-up and tech talent available

• Clients - Ensure that start-ups have easy access to potential launching customers, corporate

partners and first users

• Content - Create Europe's richest start-up event calendar

• Capital - Ensure that sufficient growth capital is available for promising start-ups

• Environment - Offer a true start-up environment”(I amsterdam, 2016).

Under these five elements sit 15 measures which operationalise the program, with initiatives

including education, promotion, financing, networking and clustering. Small urban manufacturers

could benefit from aspects of this program. Further background, policies and initiatives of

Amsterdam are found in the unabridged policy review report.

10.2 BERLIN

Berlin on the other hand has developed arguably a more holistic approach under their Senate

initiative Projekt Zukunft (Project Future), established some 20 years ago. The project is a

policymaking engine organised under seven categories of industry information, strategy

development, funding and competitions, internationalisation, location marketing,

55

professionalization and recruitment of skilled workers, and networking services (Projekt Zukunft,

2016).

Within each of these categories, policies and initiatives are formulated which are then implemented

directly by the government or by a coordinated public-private partnership of government and

private practice (e.g. Berlin Partner). These initiatives range from developing cross-industry

platforms (e.g. Transfer-Allianz), initiating and enabling networking and exchange events, to the

facilitation of research activities to understand the policy context to enable the government to

make better policy.

The 2008 study Creative Industries in Berlin: Development and Potential (Projekt Zukunft, 2008)

identifies common problems which affect so-called microbusinesses including access to capital,

excessive bureaucracy and red-tape, a lack of resources to grow, and difficulty adapting to rapid

technological change.

A 2010 study, Berlin’s Design Industry: Potential, Strategy, Perspective (German Society for Design

Theory and Research, 2010) yields the Strategy for the Design Industry in Berlin (Projekt Zukunft,

2011) which comprehensively implements the findings of the 2010 study in practice.

A 2014 study, Third Creative Industries Report: Development and Potential (Projekt Zukunft, 2014),

differs from the two studies above in its use of quantitative and spatial analytics. In particular, the

report provides insights into how creatives cluster.

10.3 DETROIT

Turning to Detroit in the United States of America, this is a city which is experiencing a relatively rare

structural decline in population, leaving empty streets and neighbourhoods in its wake. The City of

Detroit and its people have engaged in a lengthy planning process which is embodied in Detroit

Future City (Detroit Future City, 2013), a comprehensive urban development blueprint to shape

Detroit going forward.

Urban manufacturing and creative industries play a significant role in this revival, in part on the back

of Detroit’s automotive manufacturing heritage and its need to transform its economy to something

more sustainable. Detroit has identified a typology of five kinds of neighbourhood it would like to

see in future Detroit, one of which is called ‘Live+Make’. Live+Make is a mixed-use typology that

blends low-impact production with other mixed uses including residential (p.260).

Detroit has a focus on the productive use of industrial lands and has developed policy around the

redeployment of disused and underutilised industrial lands, and rezoning of disused and

underutilised residential and commercial lands as industrial, perhaps the opposite policy to what is

happening in many cities around the world. Live+Make neighbourhoods are one device to achieve

this outcome.

There are also other policy levers floated including expanding residential land banking to cover

industrial lands and the introduction of an industrial side-lot program to reshape odd-sized land and

put it to a more productive use.

10.4 LONDON

London in the United Kingdom is a service-based economy which requires industrial uses in support

of that core function. Whereas currently London is releasing disused or underused industrial land,

the London Industrial Land Supply and Economy Study 2015 (AECOM, 2016) anticipates that at some

56

point industrial land will be retained for productive industrial use as a function of aggregate highest-

and-best-use preferences.

One device being discussed is the implementation of protectionist urban planning policy around

preserving industrial land in order to ensure sufficient supply in the future. There remain issues

around rental affordability for inner city industrial users and, where rents are affordable, that

problem flips to affect the security of tenure as landlords look for higher rent, long-term tenants.

The churn of industrial tenants is further exacerbated by landlords who fail to appropriately

maintain their property, encouraging incumbent tenants to vacate to realise this so-called ‘hope

value’. Alongside better understanding price elasticity of demand for industrial land, the apparent

inverse relationship between rent levels and lease durations for industrial tenants is perhaps worthy

of further research too.

Alongside its industrial land supply, London has a large amount of office space which can be

considered suitable for some hybrid industrial activities including some urban manufacturing and

creative industry uses. The London Office Policy Review 2012 (Ramidus Consulting & Roger Tym and

Partners, 2012) introduces so-called ‘hybrid office/industrial activities’ as requiring explicit

consideration from policymakers rather than more generic consideration under an ‘industrial’

umbrella. In their words “industrial spatial policy could therefore be more explicit about the kinds of

activities, rather than simply the type of land use, that it is seeking to protect or release” (p.149).

The study suggests that sites for these hybrid activities have different requirements than standard

industrial sites, these including the need for better amenity for workers and the need for improved

access to public transport commensurate with the different workforce demographic; higher land

rents associated with these more desirable sites however agitate against the financial viability of

these sites for small and microenterprises.

As an alternative to address the issue of higher land rents, the study introduces smart sheds which

essentially yield a more suitable and pleasant, fit-for-purpose building in a less desirable location.

Alternatives to this include co-working or shared spaces like maker labs and incubators, these

spaces generally locating in desirable inner city locations with cheaper rents arising from the shared

nature of these spaces (be that sharing just the space, or equipment, or profits, etc.).

Through The London Plan, the city of London provides us a glimpse of how urban manufacturing and

creative industries feature in a very conventional strategic planning process (Greater London

Authority, 2016). Further background, policies and initiatives of London are found in the unabridged

policy review report.

10.5 VANCOUVER

Vancouver focuses on their planning for the Downtown Eastside (DTES) area of inner Vancouver, an

area which has a rich cultural diversity and a local history of urban manufacturing and creative

industry activities. The City of Vancouver completed a strategic review of this area in their

Downtown Eastside Plan (Vancouver City Council, 2014) (Vancouver City Council, 2014).

The City’s economic vision statement takes explicit account of both social enterprise and local

innovation, providing a baseline from which to examine their plan for the city going forward.

The DTES boasts a growing digital industry sector which encourages younger people to come to live;

that being the case, however, the DTES is estimated to have only around one in every eight workers

choosing to live in the area. In other words, innovative environments foster desirable amenity for

residents whether they choose to work locally or not (this is not a Live+Make neighbourhood).

57

Importantly, DTES also boasts relatively affordable housing and studio space for artists, providing

an environment rich with galleries and other venues.

The DTES Plan endeavours to encourage and actively facilitate local innovation, to avoid displacing

existing industrial uses, to actively consider redeploying underproductive commercial spaces to

alternative (industrial) uses, and to embrace mixed-use development including offices, creative

spaces, educational facilities, retail and social amenities.

These objectives are entirely consistent with the City’s earlier Industrial Lands Policies 1995

(Vancouver City Council, 1995) in their commitment to “retain most of the City’s existing industrial

land base for industry and service businesses.”

In addition to its unequivocal support of initiatives in support of industrial land use, the DTES Plan

includes initiatives like the streamlining of government red-tape for small business, helping to

facilitate industry networks and cluster activities, provide tax relief and explore micro-lending

programs to help small business survive, actively supporting and promoting DTES activities, and

working with other organisations and partners to implement the initiatives in the DTES Plan, policy

initiatives seen in other cities reviewed in this study.

11. AUSTRALIAN POLICY REVIEW

In Australia, Federal, State and Local government policies all refer to the need to increase

employment opportunities within central cities and are looking at new and innovative ways to

achieve this. They all acknowledge the decline in traditional manufacturing industries. They seek to

preserve industrial land for future employment generating activities, not simply for retail and

commercial employment. They are less clear about the type of activities and forms of employment

this might involve.

This section is based on a desktop review of the current strategic and statutory planning policies and

economic development, business and industry support identified in the websites of the capital cities

of Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, Darwin and Canberra and Victorian State Government

(see References in Appendix C) and information provided by members of the Policy Reference

Group.

11.1 POLICIES CURRENTLY IGNORE SMALL URBAN MAKERS

None of the relevant policies examined refers specifically to the terms new urban manufacturers or

makers. This omission is significant because it is this language – maker, urban manufacturer – that

the makers use to identify themselves. This lack of engagement with the sector could be a symptom

or a cause of this disengagement between the language of policy and the language of making.

Further research is necessary to understand this relationship.

There are, however a range of terms appearing in the various policies that are also relevant to

makers. These include terms like entrepreneur, co-working, hubs, digital businesses, startups,

advanced manufacturing, bespoke manufacturing, creative industry, cottage industry, low-impact

industry, light and service industry, and high-tech industry. Table 11.1 shows these terms.

58

Table 11.1. Terms relevant to Makers

Entrepreneurs

Co-working Spaces/Hubs

Digital businesses

Startup Businesses

Advanced Manufacturing

Bespoke Manufacturers (Sydney)

Creative Industry

Cottage Industry (Adelaide)

Low-Impact Industry

Light and Service Industry

High-Tech Industry

11.2 METROPOLITAN MELBOURNE’S VISION FOR MAKERS IS LIMITED

There are limited examples of policy leadership coming from the state level in Victoria. Plan

Melbourne 2017-2050 sets out the Victorian Government’s vision for Melbourne’s growth (DELWP

(2017), Plan Melbourne 2017-2050, Metropolitan Planning Strategy).

The Metropolitan Planning Authority publication, Small Local Enterprise Precincts, sets out a range

of case studies which provide examples of sites with varying formats and sizes including small

boutique offices, compact warehouses, small warehouses, factoryettes/offices and

residential/work/offices

(Metropolitan Planning Authority, (2015) Small Local Enterprise Precincts).

Although these case studies were developed for middle and outer suburbs and town centers, the

principles they illustrate are relevant to the flexible land and space arrangements required to

support innovation between Makers and larger manufacturers.

11.3 SOME COUNCILS PROVIDE MODELS OF LEADERSHIP

Much of the leadership in the space of industrial land preservation appears to be coming from local

governments. A notable example is Moreland’s Industrial Land Strategy (MILS) 2015-2030, which

provides the most comprehensive approach to industrial land policy of all the local Councils in this

study. It assessed the nature of future demand and supply for industrial land within the municipality.

The MILS determined which land should be retained for larger and more intensive industrial

activities and which should be rezoned to mixed uses and for residential purposes. This plan

provides long-term investment certainty for the business community and has the potential to reduce

significant pressure from speculative development to rezone industrial land for residential uses.

Other councils have made more-limited efforts. The City of Yarra is also currently developing a

Spatial Economic and Employment Strategy for the management of its employment lands over the

next 10 – 15 years. This approach could be extended to the other municipalities to provide

consistent evidence base for the central region.

Port Phillip’s overall objective is to ensure availability of land for industry by protecting and planning

existing industrial areas to (where possible) facilitate further industrial development, providing an

adequate supply of industrial land in appropriate locations including sufficient stocks of large sites,

and protecting industrial activity in industrial zones from the encroachment of unplanned

59

commercial, residential and other sensitive uses which would adversely affect industry viability (Port

Phillip Planning Scheme Ordinance p 82).

Maribyrnong annually reviews strategic sites and considers acquisition (as a catalyst for

development). It maintains a registry of development sites and vacant premises and investigates the

need to provide space and services for businesses.

Stonnington has very little industrial land. Its planning scheme objectives for industrial activity focus

on retaining industrial properties for industrial use and development. (The preference is for

innovative, technology intensive uses, that provide local employment opportunities), making more

efficient use of commercial land, including existing shop tops, avoiding residential-only high rise

developments by requiring higher ceiling, heights at ground and first floor levels, to accommodate

commercial uses, and encouraging home occupation and home office uses in residential areas that

will not affect the amenity of the residential area (Stonnington Planning Scheme Ordinance, P 124).

11.4 LEADERSHIP IS NEEDED FROM THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS

A comparison between the international and the local policy reviews suggests that Melbourne’s

current policy climate lags behind that of peer cities like Berlin, Vancouver, and Amsterdam in its

current approach to urban manufacturing, and most councils have been as successful as Moreland at

making plans to preserve industrial lands.

One possibility for achieving this kind of leadership may come in the form of job targets. Sustainable

Sydney 2030, for instance, states that the city will contain at least 465,000 jobs, including 97,000

additional jobs (from the 2006 base), with an increased share in finance, advanced business services,

education, creative and digital industries and tourism sectors. Setting job targets for desired

activities might be effective in ensuring the provision of appropriate employment land in the inner

city region.

Sustainable Sydney also refers to ‘Village economies’ as employment hubs with distinctive

economies and their own specialisation and the need to develop industry clusters or activities. These

clusters underpin city productivity and innovation by encouraging the exchange of ideas through the

interaction of people and businesses. To address these priorities, the City of Sydney aims to use its

property portfolio by balancing financial returns with broader economic and social outcomes. It will

achieve this by making space available in its properties, for social and creative enterprise

(Sustainable Sydney, 2030).

Federal documents have provided much more-general guidance. Currently, there is some federal

and Victorian support for small businesses in general, but none for makers in particular. The Federal

Government’s Smart Cities Plan supports productive, accessible, liveable cities that attract talent,

encourage innovation and create jobs and growth. It incorporates the ‘30-minute city’ concept in

which residents can access employment, schools, shopping, services and recreational facilities within

30 minutes of their homes.

The Smart Cities Plan notes that Plan Melbourne has a more ambitious goal of 20 minute

neighbourhoods. Consequently, by supporting the location of employment opportunities close to

places of residence, both the Smart Cities and Melbourne Plans would appear to support the

location of Makers in inner Melbourne’s highly concentrated residential areas.

Our partners note other specific support that would be welcome from state government to support

makers based on the findings of this report. Specifically, with regard to the observation that some

makers see value having their space as a ‘workshop’ and ‘shop,’ they note that this would require a

60

change the types of uses allowed in the Industrial Zone and a change to the Land Use Definitions in

the Victorian Planning Provisions. These changes fall under the remit of State Government.

11.5 POLICY MAKERS’ REMAINING QUESTIONS

Our consultation with local policy makers suggests that they have lots of questions that remain

unanswered by the research presented here. Given these unanswered, there is still a degree of

skepticism about the nature of new urban makers and the need to make any policy or other changes

to support them that extend beyond what Councils and State government are currently doing.

Some of these questions are:

1. How do the experiences of makers operating in co-working and co-sharing spaces differ

from those that operate independently?

2. What sort of tenure certainty do makers need and should this be available to other “non-

maker” small businesses?

3. According to the study results, makers seem to need or prefer “old spaces” in almost

“derelict” or run-down spaces and locations. Is this part of their identity, a sort of “counter-

culture” brand or is it just that these spaces are cheap or at least more affordable? Would

they be attracted to affordable brand-spanking-new buildings in new, possibly even purpose

designed inner city locations)?

4. There have been attempts for economic development funds directed at new businesses and

incubators in the past but not with great success. There is a real aversion to “picking

winners” as this failed dismally in the 1980s and 1990s in Victoria. The real questions are,

“how are these new makers different?” and “what, if any, form of assistance do they need –

that is different to other new small businesses?”

5. Also, what is different about the new urban manufacturers compared to the businesses in

the 70s & 80s?

12. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Our research strongly suggests that a “new,” servicised, high value-added, knowledge-intensive

production sector is emerging in Melbourne that challenges the historic relation between

manufacturing and services. We soften our findings with a note about our small sample sizes, which

underpin many of the findings.

Perhaps the major challenge for policy makers is to think about makers as they seek to be

considered: as a place-focused group that seeks autonomy, creativity, and freedom – who do not

aspire to mass production, distrust associations but link through informal networks, and who

nevertheless seek to be active contributors to the urban economy and hope that government can

resolve some of the pressures could threaten their existences in the urban setting.

If we cannot achieve a different way of thinking about makers, the evidence suggests, thousands

firms may be seriously considering leaving the study area, the metropolitan area, and the state –

rrepresenting a potential loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

The international policy review suggests that Melbourne’s current policy climate lags behind that of

peer cities like Berlin, Vancouver, and Amsterdam in its current approach to urban manufacturing.

Suitable data for comprehensive economic analysis appears to be more-available in these cities, and

publically-funded.

Cooperation and partnerships with makers are a matter of policy and public support in Amsterdam

and Berlin. London is proposing protecting industrial lands through urban policy, and in 1995,

61

Vancouver committed to “retain most of the City’s existing industrial land base for industry and

service businesses.” These cities, in turn, have lively, thriving, and internationally-recognised urban

manufacturing sectors.

12.1 FUTURE WORK

There is still much work to be done to understand the making sectors and their contributions to

local, state, and national economies. We recommend that the project work continues in three

Research Streams:

Research Stream 1: Impacts of Making Configuration on Economic Development (Land and

Economic perspectives) – What are the broader benefits to the city of a successful urban

manufacturing sector and what future commercial space is required for survival of these firms?

This Research Stream explores the nexus between making and economic development in urban

environments. Despite their prevalence, small urban manufacturers are a poorly understood

phenomenon and risk extinction from development, in particular in many inner city areas of

Australia. The notion of ‘highest and best use’ will be put under the microscope in this study, which

examines the broad economic impacts of the presence of small manufacturers in Australian inner

city environments. This quantitative study is innovative in combining the fields of urban economics,

economics/econometrics and property. This project will measure economic impacts on measures

such as jobs, innovation, and displacement of firms out of Melbourne, Victoria, and Australia. This

research will rely on our proprietary dataset and, if they become available, ABR or expanded CLUE

datasets.

Research Stream 2: Composition of and Influences on the Making Sectors (Land and Sector

perspectives) – what is currently happening in industrial/commercial-zoned land and what does the

sector require to prosper?

This Research Stream explores the nexus between making and creativity in urban environments,

looking specifically at the links between the configuration of the work settings of makers, their

productivity and the success of the sector. A core inquiry will be into what kinds of firms are

classified as “other,” and how they might be better incorporated into the industry classification

system. This stream will also examine the relationships between clustering, location, industry

classification, and making. Another core inquiry will be into whether makers benefit from location in

clusters of like firms or a variety of firms, agglomeration economies.

Research Stream 3: Links between Land, Space, and Growth (Land and Sector perspectives) – Is

land and industrial space constraining makers from scaling up?

This Research Stream explores whether new building codes and industrial space constraints compel

makers to stay or quit their home council area. This program of analysis will provide both evidence

and tools for policymakers in both creative clusters and urban industry.

Research Stream 4: Leadership, gender, and isolation among makers. This research areas

examines making from a political and political economy perspectives. Our ongoing work will address

some of the unknowns, with future projects slated to address:

• why Melbourne’s making community has not generated leadership that can effectively lobby

government, as has emerged in other cities

• whether making is a gendered activity

• feelings of isolation experienced by people undertaking home-based making activities. This

is particularly relevant given how much of the making activity is in residential zones.

62

13. REFERENCES AECOM. (2016). London Industrial Land Supply and Economy Study 2015. London, UK Retrieved from

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/london-plan-technical-and-research-reports.

Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Theory, culture & society, 7(2-3), 295-310.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Data Cubes, Local Government Areas ASGS Ed 2016 Digital Boundaries in ESRI Shapefile Format, 1270.0.55.003 - Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 3 - Non ABS Structures, July 2016 Retrieved 13 January 2018 http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/1270.0.55.003July 2016?OpenDocument

Chapple, K. (2014). The highest and best use? Urban industrial land and job creation. Economic Development Quarterly, 28(4), 300-313.

City of Melbourne (Cartographer). (2014). CLUE small area and block map. Retrieved from https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutMelbourne/Statistics/CityEconomy/Pages/Blockmaps.aspx [20 May 2015]

DEDJTR. (2017). Advancing Victorian Manufacturing, a Blueprint for the Future, Melbourne. Melbourne. Detroit Future City. (2013). Detroit Future City: 2012 Detroit Strategic Framework Plan Retrieved from

https://detroitfuturecity.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DFC_Full_2nd.pdf Drucker, P. F. (1990). The emerging theory of manufacturing. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 94-102. German Society for Design Theory and Research. (2010). Berlin's Design Industry: Potential, Strategy,

Perspective. Retrieved from http://www.berlin.de/projektzukunft/en/downloads/ Gibson, C., & Kong, L. (2005). Cultural economy: a critical review. Progress in human geography, 29(5), 541-

561. Gill, R., & Pratt, A. (2008). In the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work. Theory,

culture & society, 25(7-8), 1-30. Greater London Authority. (2016). The London Plan. Retrieved from http://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-

do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan I amsterdam. (2016). StartupAmsterdam Program. Retrieved from

http://www.iamsterdam.com/en/business/startupamsterdam/we-are-startupamsterdam/startupamsterdam-programme

Kwon, B.-R., & Lee, J. (2017). What makes a maker: the motivation for the maker movement in ICT. Information Technology for Development, 23(2), 318-335.

Marceau, J., Cook, N. T., Dalton, B., & Wixted, B. (2002). Selling solutions: Emerging patterns of product-service linkage in the Australian economy.

Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017). Empirical studies on the Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing, 18, 57-78.

Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the creative class. International journal of urban and regional research, 29(4), 740-770.

Projekt Zukunft. (2008, December). Creative Industries in Berlin: Development and Potential. Retrieved from http://www.berlin.de/projektzukunft/en/downloads/

Projekt Zukunft. (2011). Strategy for the Design Industry in Berlin Berlin's Design Industry: Potential, Strategy, Perspective (pp. 63-70).

Projekt Zukunft. (2014, June). Third Creative Industries Report: Development and Potential. Retrieved from http://www.berlin.de/projektzukunft/uploads/tx_news/KWB13_Inhalt_engl.pdf

Projekt Zukunft. (2016). Projekt Zukunft: The Project. Retrieved from http://www.berlin.de/projektzukunft/en/about-us/the-project

Ramidus Consulting, & Roger Tym and Partners. (2012). London Office Policy Review 2012. London, UK Retrieved from https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/london-plan-technical-and-research-reports.

Scott, A. J. (2001). Capitalism, cities, and the production of symbolic forms. Transactions of the institute of British geographers, 26(1), 11-23.

Senate Department for Economics, Technology and Research,. (2013). Innovation and Creative Labs in Berlin – A Survey. Retrieved from Berlin: http://www.berlin.de/projektzukunft/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/2013_Innovation_and_Creative_Labs_in_Berlin.pdf

Tanenbaum, J. G., Williams, A. M., Desjardins, A., & Tanenbaum, K. (2013). Democratizing technology: pleasure, utility and expressiveness in DIY and maker practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

63

Vancouver City Council. (1995). Industrial Lands Policies. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/docs/eastern-core/industrial-land-policies.pdf

Vancouver City Council. (2014). Downtown Eastside Plan. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/dtesplan

64

APPENDIX A. ANZSIC CODES USED IN ABR AND CLUE DATA ANALYSIS

Table D1. ANZSIC Codes Used

ANZSIC

Code ANZSIC Description

11110 Meat Processing

11120 Poultry Processing

11130 Cured Meat and Smallgoods Manufacturing

11200 Seafood Processing

11310 Milk and Cream Processing

11320 Ice Cream Manufacturing

11330 Cheese and Other Dairy Product Manufacturing

11400 Fruit and Vegetable Processing

11500 Oil and Fat Manufacturing

11610 Grain Mill Product Manufacturing

11620 Cereal, Pasta and Baking Mix Manufacturing

11710 Bread Manufacturing (Factory based)

11720 Cake and Pastry Manufacturing (Factory based)

11730 Biscuit Manufacturing (Factory based)

11740 Bakery Product Manufacturing (Non-factory based)

11810 Sugar Manufacturing

11820 Confectionery Manufacturing

11910 Potato, Corn and Other Crisp Manufacturing

11920 Prepared Animal and Bird Feed Manufacturing

11990 Other Food Product Manufacturing n.e.c.

12110 Soft Drink, Cordial and Syrup Manufacturing

12120 Beer Manufacturing

12130 Spirit Manufacturing

12140 Wine and Other Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing

12200 Cigarette and Tobacco Product Manufacturing

13110 Wool Scouring

13120 Natural Textile Manufacturing

13130 Synthetic Textile Manufacturing

13200 Leather Tanning, Fur Dressing and Leather Product Manufacturing

13310 Textile Floor Covering Manufacturing

13320 Rope, Cordage and Twine Manufacturing

13330 Cut and Sewn Textile Product Manufacturing

13340 Textile Finishing and Other Textile Product Manufacturing

13400 Knitted Product Manufacturing

13510 Clothing Manufacturing

13520 Footwear Manufacturing

14110 Log Sawmilling

14120 Wood Chipping

14130 Timber Resawing and Dressing

14910 Prefabricated Wooden Building Manufacturing

14920 Wooden Structural Fitting and Component Manufacturing

65

14930 Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing

14940 Reconstituted Wood Product Manufacturing

14990 Other Wood Product Manufacturing n.e.c.

15100 Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Manufacturing

15210 Corrugated Paperboard and Paperboard Container Manufacturing

15220 Paper Bag Manufacturing

15230 Paper Stationery Manufacturing

15240 Sanitary Paper Product Manufacturing

15290 Other Converted Paper Product Manufacturing

16110 Printing

16120 Printing Support Services

16200 Reproduction of Recorded Media

17010 Petroleum Refining and Petroleum Fuel Manufacturing

17090 Other Petroleum and Coal Product Manufacturing

18110 Industrial Gas Manufacturing

18120 Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

18130 Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing

18210 Synthetic Resin and Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing

18290 Other Basic Polymer Manufacturing

18310 Fertiliser Manufacturing

18320 Pesticide Manufacturing

18410 Human Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Product Manufacturing

18420 Veterinary Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Product Manufacturing

18510 Cleaning Compound Manufacturing

18520 Cosmetic and Toiletry Preparation Manufacturing

18920 Explosive Manufacturing

18990 Other Basic Chemical Product Manufacturing n.e.c.

19110 Polymer Film and Sheet Packaging Material Manufacturing

19120 Rigid and Semi-Rigid Polymer Product Manufacturing

19130 Polymer Foam Product Manufacturing

19140 Tyre Manufacturing

19150 Adhesive Manufacturing

19160 Paint and Coatings Manufacturing

19190 Other Polymer Product Manufacturing

19200 Natural Rubber Product Manufacturing

20100 Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing

20210 Clay Brick Manufacturing

20290 Other Ceramic Product Manufacturing

20310 Cement and Lime Manufacturing

20320 Plaster Product Manufacturing

20330 Ready-Mixed Concrete Manufacturing

20340 Concrete Product Manufacturing

20900 Other Non-Metallic Mineral Product Manufacturing

21100 Iron Smelting and Steel Manufacturing

21210 Iron and Steel Casting

21220 Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing

66

21310 Alumina Production

21320 Aluminium Smelting

21330 Copper, Silver, Lead and Zinc Smelting and Refining

21390 Other Basic Non-Ferrous Metal Manufacturing

21410 Non-Ferrous Metal Casting

21420 Aluminium Rolling, Drawing, Extruding

21490 Other Basic Non-Ferrous Metal Product Manufacturing

22100 Iron and Steel Forging

22210 Structural Steel Fabricating

22220 Prefabricated Metal Building Manufacturing

22230 Architectural Aluminium Product Manufacturing

22240 Metal Roof and Guttering Manufacturing (except Aluminium)

22290 Other Structural Metal Product Manufacturing

22310 Boiler, Tank and Other Heavy Gauge Metal Container Manufacturing

22390 Other Metal Container Manufacturing

22400

Sheet Metal Product Manufacturing (except Metal Structural and Container

Products)

22910 Spring and Wire Product Manufacturing

22920 Nut, Bolt, Screw and Rivet Manufacturing

22930 Metal Coating and Finishing

22990 Other Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing n.e.c.

23110 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing

23120 Motor Vehicle Body and Trailer Manufacturing

23130 Automotive Electrical Component Manufacturing

23190 Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing

23910 Shipbuilding and Repair Services

23920 Boatbuilding and Repair Services

23930 Railway Rolling Stock Manufacturing and Repair Services

23940 Aircraft Manufacturing and Repair Services

23990 Other Transport Equipment Manufacturing n.e.c.

24110 Photographic, Optical and Ophthalmic Equipment Manufacturing

24120 Medical and Surgical Equipment Manufacturing

24190 Other Professional and Scientific Equipment Manufacturing

24211 Computer and Related Equipment Manufacturing

24219 Business Machine (Electronic) Manufacturing n.e.c.

24220 Communication Equipment Manufacturing

24290 Other Electronic Equipment Manufacturing

24310 Electric Cable and Wire Manufacturing

24320 Electric Lighting Equipment Manufacturing

24390 Other Electrical Equipment Manufacturing

24410 Whiteware Appliance Manufacturing

24490 Other Domestic Appliance Manufacturing

24510 Pump and Compressor Manufacturing

24520 Fixed Space Heating, Cooling and Ventilation Equipment Manufacturing

24610 Agricultural Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing

24620 Mining and Construction Machinery Manufacturing

67

24630 Machine Tool and Parts Manufacturing

24690 Other Specialised Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing

24910 Lifting and Material Handling Equipment Manufacturing

24990 Other Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing n.e.c.

25110 Wooden Furniture and Upholstered Seat Manufacturing

25120 Metal Furniture Manufacturing

25130 Mattress Manufacturing

25190 Other Furniture Manufacturing

25910 Jewellery and Silverware Manufacturing

25920 Toy, Sporting and Recreational Product Manufacturing

25990 Other Manufacturing n.e.c.

33110 Wool Wholesaling

33120 Cereal Grain Wholesaling

33190 Other Agricultural Product Wholesaling

33210 Petroleum Product Wholesaling

33221 Metal Waste and Scrap Wholesaling

33229 Other Metal and Mineral Wholesaling

33230 Industrial and Agricultural Chemical Product Wholesaling

33310 Timber Wholesaling

33320 Plumbing Goods Wholesaling

33390 Other Hardware Goods Wholesaling

34110 Agricultural and Construction Machinery Wholesaling

34190 Other Specialised Industrial Machinery and Equipment Wholesaling

34910 Professional and Scientific Goods Wholesaling

34920 Computer and Computer Peripheral Wholesaling

34930 Telecommunication Goods Wholesaling

34940 Other Electrical and Electronic Goods Wholesaling

34990 Other Machinery and Equipment Wholesaling n.e.c.

35010 Car Wholesaling

35020 Commercial Vehicle Wholesaling

35030 Trailer and Other Motor Vehicle Wholesaling

35040 Motor Vehicle New Parts Wholesaling

35050 Motor Vehicle Dismantling and Used Parts Wholesaling

36010 General Line Grocery Wholesaling

36020 Meat, Poultry and Smallgoods Wholesaling

36030 Dairy Produce Wholesaling

36040 Fish and Seafood Wholesaling

36050 Fruit and Vegetable Wholesaling

36061 Liquor Wholesaling

36062 Tobacco Product Wholesaling

36090 Other Grocery Wholesaling

37110 Textile Product Wholesaling

37120 Clothing and Footwear Wholesaling

37200 Pharmaceutical and Toiletry Goods Wholesaling

37310 Furniture and Floor Covering Wholesaling

37320 Jewellery and Watch Wholesaling

68

37330 Kitchen and Diningware Wholesaling

37340 Toy and Sporting Goods Wholesaling

37350 Book and Magazine Wholesaling

37360 Paper Product Wholesaling

37390 Other Goods Wholesaling n.e.c.

38000 Commission-Based Wholesaling

39120 Motor Cycle Retailing

39219 Motor Vehicle Parts Retailing n.e.c.

41290 Other Specialised Food Retailing

42110 Furniture Retailing

42130 Houseware Retailing

42140 Manchester and Other Textile Goods Retailing

42210 Electrical, Electronic and Gas Appliance Retailing

42220 Computer and Computer Peripheral Retailing

42320 Garden Supplies Retailing

42410 Sport and Camping Equipment Retailing

42430 Toy and Game Retailing

42450 Marine Equipment Retailing

42510 Clothing Retailing

42520 Footwear Retailing

42530 Watch and Jewellery Retailing

42590 Other Personal Accessory Retailing

42712 Cosmetics, Perfumes and Toiletry Goods Retailing (Except Direct Marketing) n.e.c.

42720 Stationery Goods Retailing

42791 Swimming Pool and Spa Retailing

42799 Other Store-Based Retailing n.e.c.

54200 Software Publishing

55110 Motion Picture and Video Production

55210 Music Publishing

55220 Music and Other Sound Recording Activities

69100 Scientific Research Services

69230 Engineering Design and Engineering Consulting Services

69240 Other Specialised Design Services

69250 Scientific Testing and Analysis Services

69400 Advertising Services

69910 Professional Photographic Services

70000 Computer System Design and Related Services

69

APPENDIX B. SIMULATED SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION, REPRES ENTED VISUALLY

Figures B.1 through B.12 show full-ABR and simulated scenarios for each of the six councils in our

study area.

Figure B.1. Firms and Zoning in Melbourne LGA, General Zoning Categories, All ABR Firms

71

Figure B.2. Zoning in Melbourne LGA, General Zoning Categories, Simulation of 43 Percent of All ABR Firms

72

Figure B.3. Firms and Zoning in Maribyrnong LGA, General Zoning Categories, All ABR Firms

73

Figure B.4. Zoning in Maribyrnong LGA, General Zoning Categories, Simulation of 43 Percent of All ABR Firms

74

Figure B.5. Firms and Zoning in Moreland LGA, General Zoning Categories, All ABR Firms

75

Figure B.6. Zoning in Moreland LGA, General Zoning Categories, Simulation of 43 Percent of All ABR Firms

76

Figure B.7. Firms and Zoning in Port Phillip LGA, General Zoning Categories, All ABR Firms

77

Figure B.8. Zoning in Port Phillip LGA, General Zoning Categories, Simulation of 43 Percent of All ABR Firms

78

Figure B.9. Firms and Zoning in Stonnington LGA, General Zoning Categories, All ABR Firms

79

Figure B.10. Zoning in Stonnington LGA, General Zoning Categories, Simulation of 43 Percent of All ABR Firms

80

Figure B.11. Firms and Zoning in Yarra LGA, General Zoning Categories, All ABR Firms

81

Figure B.12. Zoning in Yarra LGA, General Zoning Categories, Simulation of 43 Percent of All ABR Firms

APPENDIX C. AUSTRALIAN POLICIES REVIEWED

Canberra The City Plan, ACT, 2014 www.cityplan.act.gov.au Canberra Business: https://www.act.gov.au/browse/topics/business https://www.act.gov.au/browse/topics/land-building-and-housing/land-and-planning

Canberra Planning Scheme: http://www.planning.act.gov.au/

Adelaide

Development Plan, City of Adelaide, Consolidated June 2017, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Government of South Australia.

https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/planning-and-property/development-plans/greater-metropolitan-adelaide-development-plans/adelaide-city-development-plan

Adelaide Business: https://www.cityofadelaide.com.au/city-business/enterprise-adelaide/

Brisbane

Brisbane Economic Development Plan 2012-2031, Brisbane City Council, July 2015.

https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-building

https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/about-Council/governance-strategy/business-in-brisbane

Brisbane City Plan 2014 and Brisbane Planning Scheme: http://eplan.brisbane.qld.gov.au/

Hobart

Creative Hobart, A Strategic Framework for Hobart City Council’s Cultural Programs, City of Hobart, 2013

Hobart City Council, Economic Development Strategy 2013-2018, Hobart City Council, October 2013

Hobart Business: https://www.hobartcity.com.au/Business/Doing-business-in-Hobart

Hobart Interim Planning Scheme: http://iplan.tas.gov.au/pages/plan/book.aspx?exhibit=hobips

Maribyrnong

Maribyrnong Economic and Industrial Development Strategy Parts 1 & 2 - Economic Development Strategy, AEC Group for Maribyrnong City Council, October 2011

Maribyrnong Planning Scheme Ordinance, Planning Schemes Online, http://planning-schemes.delwp.vic.gov.au/schemes/combined-rdinances/Maribyrnong_PS_Ordinance.pdf

Council Plan 2013-17, Maribyrnong City Council, 2013

Planning and Environment Act 1987, Panel Report, Maribyrnong Planning Scheme Amendment C108, Planning Panels Victoria, 2015

Business Improvement District Grants, Guidelines 2017, Maribyrnong City Council, 2017

Maribyrnong Business: https://www.maribyrnong.vic.gov.au/Business

Melbourne

Melbourne City Marketing Strategy 2013-16, City of Melbourne, 2013

Startup Action Plan 2017-21, City of Melbourne, 2017

Melbourne Planning Scheme Ordinance, Planning Schemes Online http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/combined-ordinances/Melbourne_PS_Ordinance.pdf

Planning Scheme Amendment C162 - Municipal Strategic Statement, Council Report Agenda Item 5.1 Melbourne City Council, August 2012

Council Plan 2013-17, Melbourne City Council, 3013 Future Melbourne 2026, City of Melbourne, July 2016

Industrial Land Supply In The City Of Melbourne, Planning Committee Report, Agenda Item 5.9, October 2009 Division Sustainability and Regulatory Services, City Of Melbourne

83

Planning Evidence by David Barnes, Hanson Partnership, on Behalf of the Melbourne Seafood Centre, Panel Hearing for Melbourne AM C221, West Melbourne Waterfront, November 2016 Moreland Planning Scheme Ordinance, Planning Schemes Online,

Melbourne Business: http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/business/doing-business/Pages/doing-business-in-melbourne.aspx

Moreland

http://planning-schemes.delwp.vic.gov.au/schemes/combined-ordinances/Moreland_PS_Ordinance.pdf

Council Plan 2013–17, Moreland City Council, 2013

Economic Issues, Expert Witness Statement by Tim Nott, Requested by Moreland City Council, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C158, MILS 2015, February 2016

Moreland Industrial Land Strategy, Independent Peer Review, prepared for the City of Moreland, by SGS Economics, September 2015

Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report, Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C158, Moreland Industrial Land Strategy 2015, May 2016

Planning and Environment Act 1987, Moreland Planning Scheme, Amendment C158, Explanatory Report – Approval and Moreland Industrial Land Strategy 2015-2030, Final Version July 2016 available at:

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/planning-building/planning-scheme-amendments/current-amendments/amendment-c158-moreland-industrial-land-strategy/

Moreland Business: http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/business/

Perth

Small Business Grants Program; Business Improvement Grant Guidelines; and, Industry/Sector Development Sponsorship Guidelines, City of Perth, 2017

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, No.132, Western Australian Government Gazette, August 2015

https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/7295.aspx

City of Perth, City Planning Scheme, No.2, Schedule 4, Definitions, August 2015

https://www.perth.wa.gov.au/planning-development/planning-schemes-and-policies/city-planning-scheme-2-cps2

Startup Ecosystem Report, Western Australia 2015-16, produced By Boundlss For Startup WA, July 2016

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjwrfyb7M7XAhWDopQKHbheAsYQFggoMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commerce.wa.gov.au%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fatoms%2Ffiles%2Fwa_startsups2015.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3qaoK4nllsNnU50vbLChJ1

Perth Business: https://www.perth.wa.gov.au/business

Port Phillip

Creative Industries, Economic Benefit Analysis, Final Report, by SGS Economics & Planning for City of Port Phillip 2013

Economic Development Directions Informing an Economic Development Planning Framework for City of Port Phillip, produced by SC Lennon & Associates for the City of Port Phillip, December 2016

Employment and Visitation Forecasts, Draft Report v2 produced by SGS Economics & Planning for City of Port Phillip, April 2017

Port Phillip Planning Scheme Ordinance, Planning Schemes Online http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/combined-ordinances/PortPhillip_PS_Ordinance.pdf

Council Plan, City of Port Phillip 2013-17, 2013

Fishermans Bend Planning and Economic Development Strategy, Prepared by Charter Keck Cramer and Hansen Partnership for the City of Port Phillip, November 2010

City of Port Phillip Submission: Let’s get creative about Victoria’s Future, to Creative Victoria’s Developing Victoria’s first creative industries strategy discussion paper, City of Port Phillip, 2015

Port Phillip Economic Development Strategy 2012-2016, City of Port Phillip 2012

84

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/economic-development-strategy.htm

Port Phillip Business: http://www.portphillipbusiness.com.au/index.htm

Stonnington

Council Plan, 2013-2017, City of Stonnington, 2013

Stonnington Planning Scheme Ordinance, Planning Schemes Online

http://planning-schemes.delwp.vic.gov.au/schemes/combined-ordinances/Stonnington_PS_Ordinance.pdf

Stonnington Business: http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/Business

Sydney

Employment Lands Analysis and Opportunities Study, prepared by HILLPDA for City of Sydney, February 2014

Tech Startups Action Plan, City of Sydney, March 2016

Economic Development Strategy Sydney’s economy: global city, local action, City of Sydney, December 2013

Sustainable Sydney 2030: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/sustainable-sydney-2030

Grants and Sponsorship Policy, City of Sydney

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/223410/Grants-and-sponsorship-policy.pdf

Sydney Business: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/business/business-support

Yarra

Yarra City Council Economic Development Strategy 2015–2020, City of Yarra, 2015

Yarra Spatial Economic and Employment Strategy, Final report, prepared by SGS Economics & Planning for the City of Yarra, January 2017

Yarra Planning Scheme Ordinance, Planning Schemes Online:

http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/combined-ordinances/Yarra_PS_Ordinance.pdf

Council Plan 2013-17 City of Yarra, Second edition, June 2015

Yarra Business and Industrial Land Strategy, Yarra City Council, June 2012

Yarra Business and Industrial Land Strategy, Background Report prepared by SGS Economics & Planning for the Yarra City Council, June 2012

Yarra Business: https://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/services/business-in-yarra

Federal Government

Australian Infrastructure Plan, Priorities and reforms for our nation’s future, Infrastructure Australia Australian Government, February 2016

Industry Growth Centres Initiative, Sector Competitiveness Plans Overview, Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, Australian Government, September 2017

Smart Cities Plan, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Australian Government, 2016

Design Institute of Australia Submission to the Inquiry into Innovation and Creativity: Workforce for the New Economy, November 2016

https://www.design.org.au/designindustry/advocacy

https://www.aph.gov.au/InnovationCreativity

Small business. Big opportunities, VECCI Small Business Taskforce Report, VECCI 2015

State Government

Business Victoria: http://www.business.vic.gov.au/

Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (2017), Advancing Victorian Manufacturing, a Blueprint for the Future, Melbourne.

The Boston Consulting Group for the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources , Melbourne as a Global Cultural Destination (2016) Final Report (Summary)

85

Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (2016) Future Industries Fund Sector Growth Program, Program Guidelines. Melbourne

Creative Victoria, Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (2016) Creative State Victoria's First Creative Industries Strategy 2016–2020

Victorian Manufacturing Future Program: http://www.business.vic.gov.au/support-for-your-business/future-industries/future-industries-manufacturing-program)

Ministerial Advisory, Committee Plan Melbourne 2015 Review 2015

Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning (2017), Plan Melbourne 2017-2050, Metropolitan Planning Strategy.

Metropolitan Planning Authority, (2015) Small Local Enterprise Precincts

University of Melbourne

S. Carter and J.Day (2017) International Policy Review, unpublished internal report for the Policy Reference Group of the Urban Manufacturing Project.

J.Day and V. Miller, (2016) Urban Manufacturing Project, The Dilemma Of Urban Employment Land, prepared for the five Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) Councils and the University of Melbourne, Phase 1 report.

J.Day and S. Carter, (2017) Urban Manufacturing Project, An Inquiry into the Viability of Small Urban Manufacturing in Inner Melbourne, unpublished internal report for the Policy Reference Group of the Urban Manufacturing Project prepared for the five Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) Councils and the University of Melbourne, draft Phase 2 report.

FURTHER STUDY

A German publication that discusses the nature of ‘Good-Neighbourhood Factories’ which use high-end technologies, contain their emissions, meet customer requirements in the best economic and ecological way and play a positive role in the community. Towards the Re-Industrialization of Europe - A Concept for Manufacturing for 2030, Engelbert Westkamper, University of Stuttgart, Germany, Springer, 2014. This publication might be worthwhile following up,

Gibson, C, Grodach, C, Lyons, C, Crosby, A and Brennan-Horley, C (2017) Made in Marrickville:

Enterprise and cluster dynamics at the creative industries-manufacturing interface, Carrington Road precinct. Report, DP170104255-2017/02, Australian Research Council Discovery Project: Urban Cultural Policy and the Changing Dynamics of Cultural Production, QUT, University of Wollongong and Monash University, 2017.

86

APPENDIX D. PEAK BODIES SURVEY

The Urban Manufacturing Project is an initiative of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP)

http://imap.vic.gov.au/

The aim of the project is to determine what actions the inner-city Councils might take to support New Urban

Manufacturers or ‘Makers’.

The project seeks to provide local and state government with evidence to make decisions about land and

policy that affects ‘Makers’ in the inner Melbourne region.

New Urban Manufacturers or ‘Makers’:

• make or design high-value physical or digital

products

• tend to operate in small industrial,

warehousing and incubator spaces or hubs

• range from sole traders, to larger businesses

employing up to 20 people

• fall within, but are not limited to, the

classifications listed on page 3.

Local governments in inner Melbourne are under significant pressure to re-zone industrial land for residential

apartment development.

This has the potential to limit the opportunities for urban manufacturers to develop and grow in the inner city,

forcing them to either close or relocate to the outer suburbs.

The Urban Manufacturing Project is a collaboration between:

• City of Melbourne • City of Yarra

• City of Port Phillip • Maribyrnong City Council

• City of Stonnington • City of Moreland

• Metropolitan Planning Authority

The contacts for this component of the project are:

Project Manager Policy Consultant

Ray Tiernan

Senior Project Officer, Economic Development

City of Port Phillip

T: 9209 6448, E: Ray.Tiernan@portphillip.vic.gov.au

Austin Ley

Principal Consultant

Planning for Change

M: 0412002460, E:

a.ley@planningforchange.com.au

87

IMAP has engaged Austin Ley from Planning for Change to obtain your response to the following:

1.0 To what extent is your organisation aware of New Urban Manufacturers or ‘Makers’, as described above?

� We are not aware of New Urban Manufactures or ‘Makers’.

� We are aware of them but do not offer and specific support to them.

� We are aware of them and provide specific support to them, as follows:

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2.0 Do you consider your organisation is the most appropriate to represent the interests of ‘Makers’?

� Yes.

Please list the three main issues facing ‘Makers’.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

Please list details of any studies your organisation has undertaken of relevance to supporting ‘Makers’.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

� No, ‘Makers’ would be better represented by: (please state the peak group or association).

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

3.0 Does your organisation agree that specific areas of industrially zoned land in the inner-city should be kept

for industrial activities?

� No, the market should determine the future of industrial land in inner city locations.

� Yes, specific areas of inner-city industrially zoned land should be kept for ‘Makers’.

� Yes, specific areas of inner-city industrially zoned land should be kept for all industrial activities, not just

‘Makers’.

Please provide details of any studies of relevance to preserving industrially zoned land in inner-cities.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

4.0 With pressure on inner urban land being used for residential, do you have an indication of whether

businesses would locate to outer metropolitan areas or just cease business?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

88

New Urban Manufacturers or ‘Makers’ are within, but not limited to, the following classifications:

Art and Culture

Installation art or sculpture

Other

Publishing

Paper or paper products

Printing, publishing, screenprinting, or typesetting

Other

Electrical Parts and Materials

Metal products (excluding jewellery)

Plastic products

Motor vehicle parts

Electrical and electronic goods, including computing

products

Other

Science

Pharmaceutical products and toiletries

Scientific or biotechnical

Other

Home, Outdoors, and Hardware

Furniture, floor coverings, or housewares

Hardware, building, and garden supplies

Recreational goods

Chemicals, fertilizers, and cleaning products

Other

Textiles and Fashion

Textiles

Clothing, footwear, and personal accessories

Jewellery

Other

Information Media and Telecommunications

Software publishing

Motion picture and video activities

Sound recording and music publishing

Other

Wood, Glass, and Clay

Wood products (aside from furniture, floor

coverings, or housewares)

Glass and glass products

Ceramic, clay, or concrete products

Other

Personal Services

Personal services

Other

Other

Please specify